PH's What is Fact is Illusory

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587
1. FSK-ed Facts
2. Mind-independent Facts which grounded on illusions.
PH's version of fact is that of 2. thus illusory
.........................................................................................


PH insists what I claimed as objective moral facts are nonsense.
There are Objective Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35002

My Caveat:
Moral statements [descriptive and prescriptive of moral-ought] related to opinions and beliefs of individual[s] and unorganized groups are not moral facts.

PH claims his definition of what are facts [see below] are the only real facts.
However I argue, PH's version of 'what is fact' cannot be real, PH's fact is merely an illusion, speculation, opinions and ASSUMPTIONS.

Here is PH definition of what is fact.

".................
To repeat, there are three separate things [re What is Facts]:
1. features of reality that are or were the case;
2. what we believe and know about them; and
3. what we say about them.

To simplify:
facts /
knowledge /
description.

In this methodological taxonomy, features of reality (facts or states of affairs) have nothing to do with what we know and say.

Elsewhere I noted PH had stated facts [re 1] are independent of any individual[s] or collective opinions, beliefs or judgments.
This imply facts as features-of-reality exist as things-in-themselves [sg. thing-in-itself] without any relations to individual[s], a community /collective of people or the human conditions.

For example, it is a fact the moon exists regardless of whether there are human or not.
1. Fact as features of reality that are or were the case"
PH's stance of what is fact as "1. features of reality that are or were the case" and independent of the human condition, is very problematic and there are many arguments why it is not tenable nor possible to be real.

1. Kant argued convincingly a thing-in-itself is impossible to exists as real, thus it is an illusion, nevertheless a useful illusion for various purposes.

2. QM has refuted facts and reality as independent from the human conditions.
The thesis of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, had proven that an independent objective reality is not possible to be real.
The implication of that thesis is;
The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans are "Looking" at It
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39510
which refutes PH's - what is fact which implies;
"the fact that the moon exists regardless of humans existence or relation to the human conditions"

3. Model Dependent Realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism
" claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything."
which mean what the model is modelling, i.e. the supposed PH's fact is meaningless.

Therefore, PH's version of 'what is fact' cannot be real, PH's fact is merely an illusion, speculation, opinions and ASSUMPTIONS.

2. what we believe and know about them;
How sure is PH and gang that "what we believe and know about them" represent the fact which is independent of the human conditions?
To know [humanly] the facts precisely is an impossible task and there is no way one can confirm it. In this case, there is the gap between knowing-reality [epistemology] and the reality-that-known [ontology].

I presumed PH will rely on the best, most credible and reliable method to know that-independent-fact which is the scientific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
There is no denial that the scientific FSK generate its own scientific facts which is objective.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/

So how sure is PH that what are scientific facts represent the supposed fact-in-itself as a feature of reality and is independent of human conditions.
I believe PH will have confidence scientific facts do are of close approximation of his "independent facts" which definitely imply Correspondence or Mirroring even PH deny he is doing the mirroring.

In this case we have two types of facts, i.e.;
1. PH's fact as feature of reality independent of the human conditions.
2. Scientific facts which are conditioned to the FSK conditioned by human conditions.

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

What I conclude here is;
PH do not know his version of fact directly because his facts in independent of him, what he knows of are merely whatever are pulsing from his brain.
These pulsations of from the brain are concluded as scientific facts conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

The pulsations in relation to reality, i.e. scientific facts in this case are the real whole complex of things emerging from reality [all there is] with the human conditions.
Scientific facts are not mere inferences nor description.

It is something like Weltanschauung but in term of realization of reality;
A worldview or world-view or Weltanschauung is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge, culture, and point of view.

As such there are two aspect to what is a fact, in this case a scientific fact;
1. the culminating emergence of the fact with the scientific FSK..
2. the conclusions that can be described about 1.

3. what we say about them.
What PH say about are the consolidations of the scientific facts, not his supposed facts because they do not exist as real.
PH's version of 'what is fact' cannot be real, PH's fact is merely an illusion, speculation, opinions and ASSUMPTIONS.

[Iwannaplato]

Stop making new threads for the same damn topic

[Veritas Aequitas]

I believe what is difficult to grasp for most is;
1. the culminating emergence of the fact with the scientific FSK.

Let's start from the beginning from the Big Bang.
[this is not conclusive, there is something more critical to it which I will highlight later].
The Big Bang started off with an 'explosion' of fundamental particles and the expansion.

So what is fundamentally real has to be these fundamental particles [or waves].

With the expansion within reality, the fundamental particles gather together with different densities to form things, i.e. electrons, protons, atoms, protons, molecules, objects, things, etc.

Then 4+ billions years ago, the first living things were formed via the expanding forces of the original Big Bang, and their cognitive sense of reality would be relative to their inherent feature and form.
Thus what is reality to them is conditioned upon their Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality [FSR].

Thereafter the expansion forces drove evolution through a tree of life within the next 4 billion years to the present human beings.

The point is each living thing or species will be conditioned by their respective FSK.
For example a virus, bat or sonar bat with their specific FSK cannot cognize the same reality as humans with the human FSK.

So, who the f give us the divine rights to insist the reality we cognize at present is the absolute objective reality, whereas the reality perceive by non-humans are inferior.

As such, whatever the reality or fact it has to be relative or conditioned to the specific FSK, as for human reality it is conditioned to the human FSK.
However the conditional human FSK has many sub-FSKs of which the scientific FSK with its scientific fact is the most credible and reliable.

Another point is whatever is a human condition is also conditioned upon the first living things that human evolved from.

As such there is no such thing as a fact that is a fact-in-itself that is independent to the human conditions or the conditions of all other living things.

What about the moon?
The moon was in the process of being a moon 4+ billions years ago, there was no pre-existing moon during the first living things and at such, what is the moon is somehow condition upon their FSK so, the human FSK as well.

What about things that 'exists' before there were living things?

As I had stated, there is something critical with the Big Bang which supposed happened 13.7 billion year ago.
The point is the conception of the Big Bang is a matter of hindsight which is conditioned upon the science-physics FSK.
As such the science-physics FSK precede the Big Bang as a condition.

So, whatever which way, there is no way there exists a reality or fact as a feature of reality that is independent of the human conditions via the human FSK.

PH's version of 'what is fact' as absolutely independent of the human conditions cannot be real, PH's fact is merely an illusion, speculation, opinions and ASSUMPTIONS.

[Iwannaplato]

protest in-thread spamming out of irritation that VA starts so many damn thread on the exact same topic which is now edited down to a less rude length.

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH, you have not countered the OP yet.

[Harbal]

Here is PH definition of what is fact.

I'll give you a fact: You have been persistently stalking Peter Holmes for some considerable time, and it has to stop. Is that clear? leave Peter Holmes alone!

[Sculptor]

Facts are true.
Facts are selective, and when taken together tend to build fantasy castles of ideologies.

Such fact based castles of the imagination are can be more robust than other fantasties, as they are bolstered with things that are themselves true, but they are still fantastic.
Being more robust they are the most dangerous.

[Iwannaplato]

PH, you have not countered the OP yet.

The links and arguments in the OP are in many threads, must he chase you through every cut and paste.
Is that why you start so many thread on THE EXACT SAME TOPIC so that you can view some of them as unrefuted?

[Skepdick]

Is that why you start so many thread on THE EXACT SAME TOPIC so that you can view some of them as unrefuted?

If you are going to tolerate plurality - what sort of standards of refutation/intolerance are you appealing to?

[Peter Holmes]

As I had stated, there is something critical with the Big Bang which supposed happened 13.7 billion year ago.
The point is the conception of the Big Bang is a matter of hindsight which is conditioned upon the science-physics FSK.
As such the science-physics FSK precede the Big Bang as a condition.

And here, in a nutshell, is VA's fallacy: no cosmology'physics = no big bang.

What cobblers.

[Skepdick]

And here, in a nutshell, is VA's fallacy: no cosmology'physics = no big bang.

What cobblers.

That's not a fallacy. That's a fact.

No inductive reasoning/extrapolation from evidence = no Big Bang.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had stated, there is something critical with the Big Bang which supposed happened 13.7 billion year ago.
The point is the conception of the Big Bang is a matter of hindsight which is conditioned upon the science-physics FSK.
As such the science-physics FSK precede the Big Bang as a condition.

And here, in a nutshell, is VA's fallacy: no cosmology'physics = no big bang.
What cobblers.

Still waiting for you to show you 'what is fact' is something real rather that your woo woo mystical fact, a feature of reality that just-is, being-so or that is the case.

To me,
all facts are conditioned upon a human-based FSK.
the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billions years ago is a fact that is conditioned upon the science-physics-cosmological FSK.
If there is no science-physics-cosmological FSK, there is no fact the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billions years ago.

Whatever else has the authority to assert "the Big Bang occurred 13.7 billions years ago" other than the human-based science-physics-cosmological FSK??
Your father, mother, you??

There is no absolute objectivity nor absolute human independent objective reality.
What is objectivity is subject to the degrees of credibility and reliability of the specific FSK.
The human-based science-physics-cosmological FSK is not a credible and reliable as the the human-based science-physics-chemistry FSK in claiming 'oxygen exists' as real.

[Iwannaplato]

What is objectivity is subject to the degrees of credibility and reliability of the specific FSK.
The human-based science-physics-cosmological FSK is not a credible and reliable as the the human-based science-physics-chemistry FSK in claiming 'oxygen exists' as real.

What FSK determined this was the case?

What FSK does VA use to determine if he is accurately communicating, accurately concluding and accurately understanding objections to his conclusions?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Elsewhere, VA makes the following argument from an analogy between human digestion and morality:

'But within all the above, there is a one-size-fit-all, i.e. all the above variations and complexity are reducible to:
-one generic digestive system with
-one purpose to extract essential nutrients for
-one purpose to support human life.

It is the same for morality as a human function:
the complex set of subjective moral variations with different "convention among people" in terms of culture, traditions, customs, etc., are reducible to a "one-size-fit-all"
-one generic moral system
-one purpose to general moral principles for moral actions for
-one purpose to support human life.

That it is one, generic and universal means it is objective [intersubjective].
The question is what is this undeniable generic moral system?
This is where one will have to research and contemplate.'

There is so much that's wrong about this that it's hard to know where to start. But the terms one, generic, universal and purpose seem prominent, so perhaps they're the way in. Two thoughts.

1 The choice of a goal - such as 'to support human life' - is subjective, as is the claim that it's morally right to support human life. So calling these choices 'one, generic and universal' does nothing to establish their objectivity. A belief that's generic and universal remains a belief, which is subjective.

2 What we call objectivity is very precisely and explicitly NOT intersubjective. And that's the whole point of objectivity - of what we call facts. The DESCRIPTION of facts is intersubjective, in the sense that it depends on agreement on the use of signs in context. But a fact acknowledged and described by no one is still a fact. That's what makes it a fact. So subjectivity - inter or not - is irrelevant.

Your 'objectivity' is based on your "what is fact".
Your 'what is fact' as per OP is delusional i.e. grounded on an illusion.
Thus you don't have any credibility for your illusory facts and objectivity.

PH "The DESCRIPTION of facts is intersubjective .."

Your statement above is nonsense, because your unqualified 'facts' above are illusory and delusional, see OP.

Mine is;
The DESCRIPTION of FSR-ed facts is intersubjective, i.e. conditioned upon a descriptive [linguistic] human-based FSK of varying degrees of objectivity.
FSR = Framework and System of the Realization of reality and facts.
The FSR-ed facts emerged and are realized within a human-based FSK and it is only thereafter perceived, known and described within a linguistic FSK.

As long a fact is conditioned within a human-based FSR-FSK_ed, it is Objective.
It is considered objective because by definition it is independent of a subject's opinion, beliefs or judgments.
Because it is human-based, i.e. conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects, it is intersubjective.

The point is you are relying on some very simple minded thinking without taking into account the nuances and finer details into consideration.

[promethean75]

"There is no absolute objectivity nor absolute human independent objective reality. What is objectivity is subject to the degrees of credibility and reliability of the specific FSK."

So it was an intersubjective truth (fact) that the earth was the center of the solar system before copernicus came around, or was it just an intersubjective belief based on an inaccurate FSK about the nature of objective reality?