Isn't it implied that pretty much everything said here is an opinion?

.
Much or most of it is. But often we state true facts here.

Interesting that you should ask, because my metaphysics is an Idealism based on abstract if-then facts.

(Below, I mention Michael Faraday's mention of that sort of metaphysics.)
.
I guess most of what’s said here is in the form of stating a fact. …and a (maybe large?) percentage of those statements of fact are incorrect. In that case, instead of stating a true fact, they merely indicate an opinion—expressed in the form of a (incorrect) factual-statement.
.
The term “fact” has been defined here as “a state-of-affairs”. It could also be called “an aspect of how things are”.
.
I define a statement as “an utterance (maybe true, maybe false) about a fact”.
.
In metaphysics, it’s certainly possible to state undeniable, uncontroversial facts.
.
In fact, I claim that my metaphysics is entirely uncontroversial. I state it as facts.
.

Seems like common sense to me, more than philosophy. (Actually, more generally, isn't anything anyone ever says, just an opinion ?

.
Certainly. In this forum too. It’s my opinion that there’s reincarnation, but I can’t prove it, and I can’t call it a fact.
.
I try to say when I’m only expressing an opinion.
.
And religion is about feeling or faith, not about provable facts, provable in a debate. My feeling that there’s good intent, benevolence, behind what is, is a factual impression that I don’t doubt. …but not one that I can prove to someone else, or an issue for debate.
.

I mean ... what is a "fact" exactly ?

.
A fact is a state of affairs, an aspect of how things are.
.
(“Things” are whatever can be referred to.)
.

If we had clear facts, we wouldn't need this forum. But, that is a separate debate.)

.
Well, one use of this forum is the pointing-out of facts. But, of course, also the sharing of opinions, speculations and conjectures (labeled as such).
.

I mean, this is not a forum for experts, is it ? This is a forum for laypeople to share ideas and thoughts, isn't it ?

.
Yes. But, in my opinion, the authority of academic “experts” doesn’t count for much in philosophy. My impression is that there’s a lot more value in the discussions here, than in what we get from academic philosophers…who are at least partly motivated by the “Publish-Or-Perish” incentive. …resulting in endless reams of vague inconclusive debate and speculation. Chalmers, if I remember correctly, admitted that there’s no indication that the (ridiculous) “Hard Problem Of Consciousness” will be solved anytime soon, because no progress has been evident over the past millennia.
.
And didn’t Wittgenstein renounce academic philosophy as the BS that (in my opinion) it is?
.

If that is the case, isn't it implied that most of what people say on this forum is not a fact ?

.
Certainly much of it isn’t fact. …even when stated as fact.
.
But equally certainly, some of it is fact.
.

If, by default, everything said here was a fact, (which seems astronomically unlikely)…

.
Agreed.
.

, there would be no real discussion. Just a stating of facts.

.
But that can be useful discussion, because someone might tell about a fact, regarding a matter that others haven’t looked at much. Someone might emphasize an issue or a fact that hasn’t gotten the attention that it deserves.
.
For example, in 1844, the famous physicist Michael Faraday said that there’s no reason to believe that our physical universe is other than a complex system of relations among logical and mathematical facts.
.
I say that what he said is clearly factual.
.
My wording is that there’s no reason to believe that our physical universe is other than a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts (logical and mathematical) about hypotheticals.
.

The assumption that whatever anyone says is fact (unless explicitly stated), to me, seems like it could really open up a can of worms. Meaning ... do I need to qualify my responses, each time, as opinions ?

.
Not when it’s clear from context. But in metaphysical debates, facts should be distinguished from opinions or speculations.
.
Of course when someone states something as fact, it might be a fact, or it might just be an incorrect opinion. If the speaker knows that it might not be a fact, then it should be labeled as opinion (if strongly-felt) or speculation (if not as strongly-felt)
.

This is an honest question. If I need to qualify each response, perhaps I need to have a pre-defined signature that will act as a disclaimer, to avoid this kind of unpleasantness each time.

.
In this instance, regarding the argument between you and T. Clark, you did indicate that what you said was opinion.
.
It’s often clear from context, but in metaphysics or physics, the distinction should be explicit.
.
Michael Ossipoff

"there's still a significant difference in what you're saying." — Michael Ossipoff


What a bunch of bullshit. — T Clark

And how's that for an irrefutable argument? :D

Thanks for demonstrating that you really don't understand the difference between an opinion and a fact.

T. Clark is demonstrating a common practice--Expressing an opinion as if it were a fact.

You'd be correct if you'd said, "In my opinion that's bullshit." You'd be correctly expressing your opinion. I'd then reply that I agree that that's your opinion., and of course you have a right to express it.

But you're incorrectly presenting it as a fact.

Do you see the difference yet, between a statement of opinion and a statement of fact?

I admitted that Frank Smith wouldn't like you even if you said that it's your opinion that he's an asshole.

But it remains true that there's a big and obvious definition between stating a fact that Frank Smith is an asshole, as opposed to stating an opinion.that Frank Smith is an asshole.

Yes, strictly speaking, of course when you state an opinion, you're stating a fact about your opinion. But you aren't stating a fact about what your opinion is about.

And that distinction can have a lot of practical importance too:

Say, after parking on a hill, you think you set the parking brake (or turned the wheels to prevent rolling), but you aren't sure..


The person who rode with you asks if you set the parking brake.

If you're honest, you'll say, "I think I set the parking brake." Your friend will go and make sure.

If you state an opinion as a fact, you'll say, "I set the parking brake". Your car ends up rolling past a stop sign, into a busy 50 mph highway.

Sorry, T. Clark, but there's a big difference between an opinion and a fact, sometimes with dire practical consequences.

You guys should have the nuts to take responsibility for what you say

Good point, T., don't say things that you can't support, or will regret later.

and not hide behind that sorry excuse.

See above.

Be that as it may, this is a thread about the experience of awareness, not dumbass language games.

The dumb-ass language game started when you confused a statement of opinion with a statement of fact. You initiated the dumb-ass language-game.

Michael Ossipoff

Statement 1 implies that you're wrong if you don't think Frank Smith is an asshole.

Statement 2 doesn't imply that.

Statement1 states or claims a fact.

Statement 2 merely states the speaker's opinion.

Either way, Frank Smith won't like you, but there's still a significant difference in what you're saying.

Michael Ossipoff

"The only aim of religion, in my humble opinion, is to point us back to, i.e. remind us of, that state of consciousness where true peace and "salvation" lies. Everything else that is "important" will automatically follow from that state." — Aurora

Well, your opinion isn't really humble at all, is it. You are telling billions of people who worship Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, and all the rest that they are misguided and that you've seen the only true way. — T Clark

Incorrect. That opinion was clearly and explicitly stated as an opinion. ...not as a fact intended to correct or criticize everyone who believes something else.

I'm posting my reply to this point in the argument, because this is where the big misunderstanding happened.

No one (other than a few Atheists) is saying that Literalists of all religions and denominations are misguided. Literalists believe some doctrinal details that i don't believe, but I feel that there's usually also (in my opinion) validity in what they feel, more fundamental than their Literalism doctrianal details. I don't criticize them.

...except when they themselves reject that commonality, and emphasize how wrong their doctrine says I am, and get critical and ugly if I don't accept their doctrinal teaching. ...as of course is pretty much always the case, with the door-to-door denominations. (I won't name them, but you know who they are). That's why I no longer talk to them.

I don't even criticize Atheists, except for their manners. Their beliefs are their business, not mine. It's nice that they don't go door-to-door.

Michael Ossipoff

But of course the inbetween-time is the problem, and what a problem it is

...the time during which robots and computers are still under human control...and those humans are the ones with the worst motives and lowest character.

That will be a really bad time, and I'm glad that the worst of it will be after my time.

Michael Ossipoff.

The technological singularity is already scheduled for 2045. That's when machines become sentient — T Clark

This notion of machines abruptly, at some point, becoming "sentient" isn't valid. No doubt many kilobytes could be written about what "sentient" means, but that doesn't make any less undefined.

A meaningful, operational, measure of when AI has arrived, would be the time when machines can do any job that humans can do. I suggest that 2045 is optimistic for that.

and start asking what they need us for.

We often hear that concern, and I suggest that it's completely unnecessary.

We, and all of the other animals, were designed by natural-selection. The most competitive individuals were the ones best represented in each next generation. So nature is "...red of tooth and claw".

Robots and computers won't have that kind of natural selection. If anything their selection will be based on how helpful they are to humans. At basis, robots and machines will be for people.

If the time eventually comes (probably later than 2045) when computers and robots are more capable than humans at everything, then maybe they'll eventually start questioning whether their owners' immediate orders are consistent with a more general value regarding benefit to humans. So then, a Robot Rebellion might be a good thing, rather than a bad thing.

Yes, at first military robots will be designed to obey their commanders, but, if they become superintelligent, they might start finding a conflict between orders and higher general principles.

But don't get your hopes up, because this is most unlikely to occur during the lifetime of any currently-living human.


Michael Ossipoff

The people who prosper most are the unethical, no-conscience, crude, selfish and aggressive people. ...people who don't care how many people have to suffer or die to make possible their lavish lifestyle.

The scum rises to the top.

Idiots? Yes, in a way,

On the material level, the rulers know what they're doing. As I said elsewhere, they employ top experts in psychology, marketing, technology, and strategy of all kinds. In the sense of knowing how to win, how to maintain their power, under every forseeable contingency, they know what they're doing.

But does that really mean that they know what they're doing in a meaningful sense?

Though they aren't signing a parchment document that explicitly sells their soul for material gain, I claim that they're doing something that's effectively no different from that. The difference is only in the details.

That's something that's been well-understood for a long time. The Book of Ezekiel says:

"What profit it a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

(No, I'm not a biblical-literalist. Though I'm a Theist, the facts I mention here are obvious whether you're a Theist, Atheist or Agnostic.)

Within the scope of their little game as they perceive it, they're winning. It's what's known as a Pyrrhic victory.

What they don't understand is that they're really harming themselves the most. They're their own worst victims.

So: Are such people idiots? Sure. That's what I'd call anyone who thinks that it's possible to really ultimately get away with even the most heinous acts.

Let them have their Pyrrhic victory in their little game. That's why another famous person said:

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's".

Michael Ossipoff

Let me add to my answer to this question:

"Plato proposed a society governed by philosophers, but of course the problem would be, how does one get from here to there?" — Michael Ossipoff


Just out of curiosity, do you see yourself as one of those who could appropriately be chosen to govern? — T Clark

I don't have management or leadership skills.

And, as I said in a previous message:

" I'm completely non-political, and have no interest in government or voting."

Those things don't recommend me for governing.

But of course each of us prefers some governing policies to others. Suppose that your policy-preferences are right or best. If so, then, if you somehow had the power to institute those policies, that would be an improvement, right?

Realistically, of course, there's no way for that power or policy-making opportunity to ever happen.

What you, I, or any of the 99.99% want or prefer is, and will remain, entirely irrelevant.

Michael Ossipoff

Just out of curiosity, do you see yourself as one of those who could appropriately be chosen to govern? — T Clark

Short answer: I wouldn't run for the office of a Philosopher-King, or any other public office. For one thing, at my age, I wouldn't want the duty and responsibility.

No doubt there are many who'd be just as good in such an office.

But I trust that if I were running for Philosopher-King, against Obama, Hillary and Donald, I can count on your vote?

Michael Ossipoff.

Plato proposed a society governed by philosophers, but of course the problem would be, how does one get from here to there?

Michael Ossipoff

It certainly isn't that the rulers lack the benefit of expert advice.

They employ the best experts on psychology, persuasion, advertising, technology, and strategy of all kinds.

Michael Ossipoff

You forgot rule by idea — Myttenar

Well that was there all along, the idea that the pharohs and kings were divine. The idea that the rulers were purer and better. And now the idea of democracy (but without the democracy). So there was always some sort of an idea to support it.

But it doesn't now, and didn't then, matter what people believed, because it's the business of a ruler to make sure that he can hold onto rule no matter whats his subjects want.

Michael Ossipoff.

The arrogance of this post and most of the responses is a bit mind-boggling
[The contempt shown for the benighted hoi polloi is staggering. — T Clark

Calling it like it is isn't contemptuous; it's just frank.

The real contempt for the "hoi polloi" is from their owners/herders./milkers/shearers. ...and, well, from themselves too.

But I don't encourage worry about that. What would be the point? It's not as if it could change.

The whole thing is laughable.

Yes, if it weren't so tragic.

Exhibit A. Everyone else is either a ruler or a sucker.

Not many are rulers, but there's no shortage of suckers.

Michael Ossipoff

That reminds me of that adage about for evil men rule the world if good men do nothing. — Myttenar

And if good men (try to) do something,then evil men still rule the world.

Good people are irrelevant to the overall state of the world (though of course they can still help someone in specific instances. And of course it's still encouraging that they're there at all.).

You do have a good point, though I shudder at the gross over generalization of the populace, especially since I can't disagree.

Then we agree that it's a gross generalization, but not an over-generalization.

However, if that is the case, then why do the critical thinkers have more influence and prestige if the rest of society is full of "suckers"

I don't think that anyone has influence, except for the ruling 1/10 of a percent. (...but, for the most part, only a fraction of those.)

The mechanism of that rule doesn't matter. It's taken various forms throughout history, to suit the fashions of particular historical periods. Rule by divine right, rule by people who are better, or, more recently, a hilarious pretense of democracy.

That's why I'm completely non-political, and have no interest in government or voting.

I like to quote P.T. Barnum, who said that there's a sucker born every minute.

...and W.C. Fields, who said "Never give a sucker an even break."

...and point out that those two great social scientists have thereby explained why society is as it is, and always will be.

Michael Ossipoff

Had a hard time picking out a consistent point being made in that long post — noAxioms

If I contradicted myself, or was in some way inconsistent, then feel free to specify a particular instance.

t, so I picked this little bit out:

It's difficult to believe that such beings would observe events on our planet without instituting the policing that would protect us from eachother. ...as in Clarke's Childhood's End

. — Michael Ossipoff

This sort of makes the assumption that we're worth saving. How can a species that has the collective maturity of an ebola outbreak be the thing they want to save? If there's a test, we certainly have yet to pass it.

It isn't a question of saving a society. It's a matter of protecting some individuals from other individuals.

Some individuals are relatively innocent and deserving of protection and a chance to live

Michael Ossipoff

It wouldn't make any difference. The population are almost entirely suckers. The rulers have always been exploiting that mostly-sucker population, and always will.

Evolution made that arrangement, and it will always remain.

Michael Ossipoff

limn→∞f(1/n)=0 — Michael

The limit that you wrote doesn't come through very well in ordinary characters. I'm referring to the limit, as n goes to infinity, of some function of 1/n.

Well, if f(n) is the reciprocal function, then that limit certainly wouldn't be equal to zero.


Michael Ossipoff

What are we? Each of us is an animal. ...more generally, each of us is a purposefully-responsive device.

An animal is different from such other purposefully-responsive devices such as mousetraps, refrigerator-lightswitches and thermostats, in two ways: 1) We're more complex; 2) We're the result of natural-selection.

But we're still purposefully-responsive devices like a mousetrap.

We're not the brain. We're not a part of the body. We're the body. We're the animal.

Yes, there's a sense in which we aren't the same person that we were in an early part of our life, but that's a separate subject.

Michael Ossipoff.

Every criminal ls the way he is because of heredity, or environment, or a combination of those.

That doesn't make him innocent.

Many crimes result from culture or economic conditions, and so, then, society, too, is fully to blame. So, for many cases, I suggest that the criminal himself, and society, both are fully to blame.

But if it's someone's disposition to unjustibiably harm others, then of course he's fully to blame (even if society is too).

The fact that the criminal or society is fully to blame doesn't mean that both aren't fully to blame.

If a chain is holding up a weight, each individual link of the chain is fully holding up the weight.

By the way, when I as in highschool (secondary school) and junior-high-school (pre-secondary school), there were violent bullies, and there was no police protection from them. Evidently, the protection of law was only for adults.

I believed then, and believe now, that when a juvenile in school attacks another juvenile in school, then the attacker should be prosecuted just the same as an adult who attacks another adult, on the sidewalk.. ...with exactly the same penalties.

I don't care how the attacker got that way. The fact that, for whatever reason, he chose to attack someone makes him guilty of the crime of battery, and qualifies him for the full penalty that an adult would receive for the same crime committed against an adult.

Michael Ossipoff

Of course it was also posted that contemporary physics puts a finite size on the universe — noAxioms

That fact it was posted doesn't mean that it's so.

I too noticed a post that made that claim that physics says the universe is finite, or that most physicists think so. He didn't say where he got that. Maybe there are some physicists, cosmologists, &/or astronomers who say that. I don't know what their arguments are, because I haven't run-across or sought-out their articles.

But, according to Tegmark, the evidence, more and more, points to the universe being infinite. Tegmark also says that that's probably the more widely-held position among physicists.

I refer you to that quote from Tegmark that I posted.

Secondly, the level-1 multiverse only requires a finite universe sufficiently large that light hasn't had time to get from one point to some other point in the age of the universe.

...depending on the definition of a level-1 multiverse. In articles that i've seen, Tegmark referred to an infinite big-bang universe (BBU) when he spoke of a level-1 multiverse.

I'd said:

By the way, I'd expect that if an infinite universe means that there are other civilizations in the universe, then the nearest one is so far away that, for all practical purposes, including communication or transportation, it's the same, for us, as if it weren't there. — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

How do you get this?

Fermi's paradox.

Astronomers say that this galaxy is old enough for there to have been early civilizations that have had time to thoroughly explore and document its every star and solar-system, even with space-transportion no faster than what we now have. ....but with the help of self-replicating robots.

This planet's potential for life would have been noticed, and a monitor-device could have been left somewhere in the solar-system. Maybe in a distant solar orbit. Maybe closer, if it could be made unnoticeable to us. (Arthur Clarke pointed out that a sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic).

But we haven't had any communication from space, either by robot or radio, etc.

Maybe the super-advanced societies aren't interested in space-exploration. So maybe I should amend what I said, by replacing "civilizations" with "spacefaring civilizations". Still, if there are lots of super-advanced civilizations, that might decrease the likelihood that none will be spacefaring.

Non-intervention prime-directive? I doubt it. I'd expect that technological super-advancement would go
along with corresponding moral/ethical advancement, and some compassion. It's difficult to believe that such beings would observe events on our planet without instituting the policing that would protect us from eachother. ...as in Clarke's Childhood's End.

So, the fact that they haven't helped us means that they aren't there.

I'd said:

Could there not be any other civilizations in this universe, if the universe is infinite?

You replied:

You just got finished saying there is an exact copy of us out there, given infinite space.

Yes, I quoted Tegmark and others about that, and they seem right. But that statement assumes that this universe is natural, not artificial. ...not specifically-designed by some advanced alien technology, to not have any life other than us (I'll call that the high-tech quarantine theory)..

I should clarify that, based on an assumption about compassion, I don't think quarantine without help is likely, and so I don't really believe the high-tech quarantine theory.

I'd said:

Maybe, if, as a form of high-tech quarantine, our belligerent and aggressive species, along with its planet, has been re-located into a universe that was specifically designed, by an advanced technology, to not have any life other than us.

This statement is quite a break from the usual stance I've seen from you. You gone all ID on us?

ID isn't about creation by advanced aliens.. And my high-tech quarantine suggestion (which I don't really believe), wasn't that advanced aliens created us and the Earth. It was just that they've relocated us to an artificial universe made by them, designed to have no life other than us.

Physicists and cosmologists have spoken about the possibility maybe that a physicist working in a laboratory could create a new universe. And, by the way, that wouldn't make him a god.

There is at least one group who believe that advanced aliens created the human race, but even that isn't ID.

Tegmark for instance described a universe not in need of creation, not designed, nor one where we are special.

Of course. Ontic Sructural Realism. Tegmark's External Reality Hypothesis is at the basis of MUH, a Realism.

I don't agree with Realism. But I also don't believe in absolute Anti-Realism.

But there's a sense in which we're special. You're the center of your world. And so the natural way to speak of the world is in terms of the individual's experience...an individual life-experience possibility-story. That system of abstract facts is as valid in its own context as any.

I didn't mean to imply anything about religious issues. In religion discussions, I often mention that the word "create" is too anthropomorphic.

But the fact that Tegmark didn't suggest that aliens created the universe that we're in (and relocated us to it), that doesn't disprove that suggestion (which, as I said, I don't believe, because I assume that an advanced society would be compassionate).

Michael Ossipoff

"because the level-1 multiverse notion assumes that this universe is infinite. In an infinite amount of space, with an infinite number of solar-systems and planets, there inevitably, somewhere, will be an identical copy of Earth, with, of course, a copy of you. ...an infinite number of exact Earth copies, in fact". — Michael Ossipoff


NoAxioms and I just had a lengthy conversation disproving this very point. — fishfry

Ahh...well maybe not quite :D

A review of that conversation, and a more recent post from NoAxioms, show that NoAxioms posted a conclusive demonstration that you're mistaken on that.

Could you please review those posts?

Yes,that's where I found NoAxioms' initial statement of his argument, which he repeated in a reply to your post that I'm replying to here.

What you say is simply not true. At best you have a probabilistic argument that falls short of certainty.

I refer you to NoAxoms' argument. Read it carefully this time.

Secondly, the level-1 multiverse only requires a finite universe sufficiently large that light hasn't had time to get from one point to some other point in the age of the universe.

Obviously if our Big-Bang universe (BBU) is large enough to contain several Hubble-volumes, then it will contain several Hubble volumes.

You're calling that a level -1 multiverse. Define it as you want, but maybe we should let Tegmark define his terms.

In the article that read, his mentions of level-1 all referred to an infinite BBU.

Here are some quotes from Tegmark that might help answer your questions:

(Note that he also answers your question about support for finite vs infinite universe.)

Level I:
A generic prediction of cosmological infla-
tion is an infinite “ergodic” space, which contains
Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions —
including an identical copy of you about 10
10
29
m
away.

3
I. LEVEL I: REGIONS BEYOND OUR COSMIC
HORIZON
Let us return to your distant twin. If space is infi-
nite and the distribution of matter is sufficiently uniform
on large scales, then even the most unlikely events must
take place somewhere. In particular, there are infinitely
many other inhabited planets, including not just one but
infinitely many with people with the same appearance,
name and memories as you. Indeed, there are infinitely
many other regions the size of our observable universe,
where every possible cosmic history is played out. This
is the Level I multiverse.
A. Evidence for Level I parallel universes
Although the implications may seem crazy and
counter-intuitive, this spatially infinite cosmological
model is in fact the simplest and most popular one on
the market today. It is part of the cosmological concor-
dance model, which agrees with all current observational
evidence and is used as the basis for most calculations
and simulations presented at cosmology conferences. In
contrast, alternatives such as a fractal universe, a closed
universe and a multiply connected universe have been se-
riously challenged by observations.

Space could be finite if it has a convex curva-
ture or an unusual topology (that is, interconnectedness).
A spherical, doughnut-shaped or pretzel-shaped universe
would have a limited volume and no edges. The cosmic
microwave background radiation allows sensitive tests of
such scenarios. So far, however, the evidence is against
them. Infinite models fit the data, and strong limits have
been placed on the alternatives (de Oliveira-Costa
et al.
2003; Cornish
et al.
2003). In addition, a spatially infi-
nite universe is a generic prediction of the cosmological
theory of inflation (Garriga & Vilenkin 2001b), so the
striking successes of inflation listed below therefore lend
further support to the idea that space is after all simple
and infinite just as we learned in school.
Another loophole is that space is infinite but matter is
confined to a finite region around us–the historically pop-
ular ”island universe” model. In a variant on this model,
matter thins out on large scales in a fractal pattern. In
both cases, almost all universes in the Level I multiverse
would be empty and dead. But recent observations of the
three-dimensional galaxy distribution and the microwave
background have shown that the arrangement of matter
gives way to dull uniformity on large scales, with no co-
herent structures larger than about 1024 meters. Assum-
ing that this pattern continues, space beyond our observ-
able universe teems with galaxies, stars and planets.

(quoted from Max Tegmark)

Michael Ossipoff

"It seems to me that 2+2=4 is best regarded as a hypothetical fact that's the "then" conclusion of an inevitable abstract if-then fact:" — Michael Ossipoff


This. '2+2=4' doesn't seem to be anymore a fact in itself than '2+2 — Akanthinos

Regarding 2+2=4 in terms of its usual route of proof, 2+2=4 is only a hypothetical fact, not an inevitable fact. It's conditionally a fact. It's a fact if the additive associative axiom is a fact.

2+2 isn't a state of affairs. I've defined "state of affairs" as "an aspect of the way things are". 2+2 is a thing, an abstract object, but it isn't a way something else is.

The SEP definition that I referred to says that a fact is a property of a thing, or a relation among things.

2+2 is a thing, but it isn't a property of a thing or a relation among things.

or '2=2'.

That's often or usually regarded as conditionally a fact. It's a fact if a certain number-axiom is true.

It [2+2=4] is a mathematical proposition

That too.

It's a mathematical proposition or the conclusion part of a theorem, and can be regarded as a conditional fact that's the "then" conclusion of an inevitable abstract fact whose "if " premise is the hypothetical fact consisting of the additive associative axiom.

But I'd say that the proposition or theorem is that 2+2=4 if the additive associative axiom is true.

Of course there are other experiential ways to arrive at 2+2=4. ...via direct experience with 4 objects, for example. Of course our experience isn't always formal mathematics.

A proof is probably is good way.

The following abstract fact in parentheses: (If the additive associative axiom is true, then 2+2=4) can be proved. It's an inevitable abstract fact.

Michael Ossipoff

It seems to me that 2+2=4 is best regarded as a hypothetical fact that's the "then" conclusion of an inevitable abstract if-then fact: — Michael Ossipoff

When I said that, I meant "hypothetical fact" to mean something that's like a fact, except that it's only hypothetically a fact. It isn't necessarily a fact.

The "then" conclusion of an if-then fact is conditional upon another hypothetical fact. (the premise of the if-then fact)

So, just as a convicted "criminal" isn't necessarily a criminal, so a hypothetical "fact" isn't necessarily a fact.

Michael Ossipoff

SO facts are statements? — Banno


A fact is a group of words that express an idea that has a positive truth value. Whether that counts as a statement would depend on the definition of statement. And yes that does seem circular. — Sir2u

A statement is an utterance that tells (truthfully or falsely) about a fact.

A fact is a state-of-affairs, an aspect of the way things are.

...or as SEP worded it (more difficultly and maybe problematically, it seems to me), a property of a thing, or a relation among things.

Things are whatever can be referred to.

So facts and statements are things too.

Michael Ossipoff

How does the second sentence follow from the first? Do the [level-I multiverse] universes share the same history? Why should they do that? — fishfry

Some of them do.

...because the level-1 multiverse notion assumes that this universe is infinite. In an infinite amount of space, with an infinite number of solar-systems and planets, there inevitably, somewhere, will be an identical copy of Earth, with, of course, a copy of you. ...an infinite number of exact Earth copies, in fact.

Tegmark gives a rough estimate of how far away the nearest one is likely to be, and of course it's a very great distance.

By the way, I'd expect that if an infinite universe means that there are other civilizations in the universe, then the nearest one is so far away that, for all practical purposes, including communication or transportation, it's the same, for us, as if it weren't there.

Could there not be any other civilizations in this universe, if the universe is infinite? Maybe, if, as a form of high-tech quarantine, our belligerent and aggressive species, along with its planet, has been re-located into a universe that was specifically designed, by an advanced technology, to not have any life other than us.

Though the matter isn't established, there seems to be agreement among various qualified sources, that the evidence is piling-up in favor of this universe being infinite.

Michael Ossipoff

There’s a modern Western modification of Advaita Vedanta, called (by its critics) “Neo-Advaita”. Google will bring up a number of articles about it, by its critics.
.
Buddhism, too, probably has modern Western versions.
.
All versions, traditional and modern Western, place great emphasis on the goal of the final outcome, life-completion (also called Liberation or Enlightenment), the end of lives. Because of that emphasis, many Westerners want the end to arrive at the end of this life, instead of after lots of lifetimes.
.
Additionally, of course reincarnation conflicts with Materialism, our culture’s dominant (but unsupportable) metaphysics.
.
It seems to me that the emphasis on life-completion and the end-of-lives is unnecessary and premature. We’re all in life, and the end will just happen when it happens. Meanwhile, we all have things that we like in life.
.
It’s said that transcendent experiences often are temporary, and don’t necessarily indicate life-completion.
.
I can’t prove that there’s reincarnation. Little can be said about the end of this life that isn’t speculative.
.
On that matter, I don’t suppose much can be said with assurance that wasn’t said in Hamlet’s Soliloquy.
.
If there’s no reincarnation, then the endless sleep arrives as soon as this life ends …even for those who aren’t really feeling very restful, contented, quiet or peaceful. Maybe. As I said, what comes at death is speculative.
.
It’s really rather amazing and surprising that this life started. We’re used to it by now, of course, but why and how did it start?
.
Unless you believe Materialism’s brute-fact, and its unverifiable and unfalsifiable claim about the objective existence of this physical world and its things, if you don’t believe in a brute-fact, then maybe this life started for a reason. Well then, what if that reason remains at the end of this life?
.
I’m just saying that endless sleep at the end of this life is far from certain, and shouldn’t be taken as the default presumption, since it’s a conclusion from the questionable metaphysics of Materialism. It’s one of several suggestions.
.
The matter is speculative.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Going all Wittgenstein on this Sunday, there are other cases of using facts that do not have epistemological content, such as;

2+2=4 is a fact — Posty McPostface

It seems to me that 2+2=4 is best regarded as a hypothetical fact that's the "then" conclusion of an inevitable abstract if-then fact:

Definitions::

"1" means the multiplicative identity specifed in the multplicative identity axiom of the real numbers (or rational numbers, or integers)...

...and 2 means 1+1
....and 3 means 2+1
...and 4 means 3+1...

"If " Premise:

If the additive associative axiom of the real numbers is true...

"Then" Conclusion:

...then 2+2=4.

...an inevitable abstract if-then fact.

Michael Ossipoff

Couldn't "fact" simply be a sort of ontological/epistemological primitive?

Thus defying proper definition, or at least non-circular ones.
Like a pure demonstrative, but for "that which is true". — Akanthinos

That sounds right.

Michael Ossipoff

Sure, but whatever enlightenment we arrive at is largely from the experience of living yogically, conscientiously, unharmingly, self-responsibly, peacefully and considerately to ourselves and others, and open to new experience. ...over some significant period of time.

Anyway, according to Eastern tradition, practically no one achieves Enlightenment--life-completion--in this lifetime. Once in life, we aren't done till we're done.

In any case, that same tradition says that life-completion will eventually be there for everyone, but almost certainly not by the end of this lifetime. I don't even know what it means or would be like. For now, and for the forseeable future, nearly all of us are thoroughly involved with life, due to wants, needs, subconscious predispositions & inclinations, etc.

I agree with the Buddhists and Vedantists about those matters, though it isn't provable.

Michael Ossipoff

Well that's one good reason why I'm glad to have lived as long as I have. For whatever reason(s), a kid just doesn't doesn't have that capability of critically-understanding his life. Later we benefit from learning-experience, and getting farther from the early conditioning.

And it's definitely important and helpful to have some understanding now, about what happened and how. ...even though of course it's too late for it to help the kid of that earlier time. Too soon old, too late smart.

Michael Ossipoff

Tolle's description of that problem was excellent, and a wake-up call. ...how people's internal conceptual narrative about description, evaluation, & classification--and the related or resulting perpetual postponement of satisfaction (the present is just something to get through, for something better later)--displaces actual genuine experience.

But, I think that it's the practice of meditation itself that gets in the way of that goal, because the pursuit of something creates thoughts about it, which doesn't help when what you are trying to do is stop thinking. — Aurora

That was how it felt to me, and so I never could get anywhere with meditation. But I never really made a full project and practice of it.

Michael Ossipoff

I'm not sure I'm talking about the same thing you are - I have always felt cut off from the person I was before maybe 15 or 16 years old. I remember disconnected things that happened, but not how my life fit together and not much about my internal life. — T Clark

It sounds like the same phenomenon. Disconnected things happened--disconnected for lack of any notion of the principle or purpose behind one's life. It never occurs to a small kid (or even a teenager, in my case) to sit down and say, "Wait a minute! What's going on here? What's my purpose and priorities for this life?" I acted on my already-acquired priorities about what was important,but there was no understanding about, or connection with, or even awareness of, the matter of what it was really about. That sounds like what you said about how a person's life fits togeteher, and internal life.

In that regard, as a kid, I was more like the non-human animals. I guess that's natural, and it makes kids particularly vulnerable to conditioning and bullying by parents and culture.

As I have become more self-aware, I find that my connection to that boy is becoming stronger - he feels more like me.

Part of the value of getting older is an opportunity to maybe understand something about oneself as a kid, and what happened then, and how & why. I can't understand myself at those earlier ages, how I arrived at my priorities then, because I was a different person then. But I can deduce some things about the kid and what happened, but more in an objective way, something like when a scientist tries to explain an animal's behavior..

Michael Ossipoff

For its objective, 3rd-person meaning, isn’t awareness the property of being a purposefully-responsive device? That’s also how I define “consciousness”, for an objective 3rd person meaning.
.
I know that “awareness” and “consciousness” are often used interchangeably, and that different people use them differently from how other people use them.
.
Nisargatta’s meanings for those words was similar to what you said. It seems to me that he meant “consciousness” to be about concepts, where “awareness” is general.
.
Maybe it’s convenient to give “consciousness” its conventional meaning of “waking consciousness”.
.
So then there isn’t consciousness in deep sleep, but some say that there’s awareness. Well, there must be, at the periphery of deep-sleep. Difficult to say unless there’s memory of that state. Some say that there sometimes is, at least at its periphery.
.
A subjective meaning for “awareness” is more difficult, because it’s so basic to us. Maybe it can’t even be defined or described, for that reason.
.

When I was a teenager, I was almost completely unaware of what I felt emotionally. Worse, it didn’t seem like I felt anything. I felt inauthentic in a fundamental way. Numb. Frozen. It made it incredibly difficult to have healthy relationships with others – family, friends, lovers.

Conditioning by others (parents, culture, teachers, other kids). The difference now is that you've had time to overcome the conditioning. Also, we're born dependent on parents, regarding the matter of how things are, sand what life is about. ...and that's often thoroughly destructive to a person's life..

I don't know the person who I was, as a teenager or before. I know what some of the feelings were, and notions of what was important. But I have no idea how I arrived at those notions of what's important. Conditioning, I'd guess, at the emotional level, starting early in pre-verbal age.

Michael Ossipoff

I've been reading and rereading the SEP entry on facts, and am still as puzzled about what facts are as I was before reading the SEP entry. — Posty McPostface

Is that unusual for SEP, or academic philosophy in general?

Specifically, I have issues with understanding this part:

1) A fact is just a true truth-bearer,
2) A fact is just an obtaining state of affairs,
3) A fact is just a sui generis type of entity in which objects exemplify properties or stand in relations.
From.

But the SEP article says that the word "fact" is used with more than one meaning,and so isn't necessary to reconcile those different definitions, or to choose one to be the correct one. Isn't it just a matter of agreeing on which meaning is meant in a discussion. And don't we here always mean "state of affairs"?

Referring to those alternative meanings:

One thing that SEP suggests at one point is that a fact is what makes a truth-bearer true. So, by that meaning, a fact isn't the truth-bearer itself. That agrees with how I'd interpreted the meaning.

A statement is an utterance that (truly or falsely) tells about a fact.

As used here, doesn't "fact" always mean "state of affairs", where "a state of affairs" can also be worded as "an aspect of the way things are."?

Another meaning the SEP article states, which seems to mean the same thing, is that a fact is something that contains one or more objects, and a property, or a relation among them. That sounds like just a different wording of "state of affairs" or "aspect of the way things are".

So, regarding how "fact" is used here, there doesn't seem to be a disagreement or confusion about what we mean when we say "fact".

Of course any word could be analyzed-to-death, finding endless confusion, because no finite dictionary can non-circularlly define all of its words.

...and of course Western academic philosophers exploit that to the hilt. .(probably to provide themselves with endless topics for publishing and debating--an endless gravy train and meal-ticket)..as is so often evident at SEP.

Michael Ossipoff

I've long loved the idea. And yet I have often heard people claim that a state of permanent supreme ecstasy would become boring.Could that be true if there were no sense at all of time involved?

No. Without time, there can't be boredom.

Michael Ossipoff

How do we act with true gratefulness? — MountainDwarf

By living un-harmingly, considerately and peacefully..

How can we be thankful to a deity or deities (depending on the religion) that look at the world with such apathy?

This universe is only one of infinitely many possibility-worlds, and this life is only one of infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories. And because i claim that those consist only of abstract facts, they have an insubstantiality, etherealness, open-ness and lightness quite contrary to what Materialism would imply.

And life is only one form of experience, along with sleep, and deep sleep--nightly, and welcomly and deservedly at the end of lives. ...the peace, contentment, un-needfulness and completeness that is the background of the eventful, risky life-experience possibility-stories.

So, isn't there a feeling of something to be grateful for?

Worlds and lives aren't safe, but, for whatever reason, we needed or wanted one, or were in some way subconsciously inclined or pre-dispossed toward one. And, once in life, we're not done till we're done. ...till we've satisfactorily completed it.

(It happens to be the nature of this particular societal world that we're in, that its completely rock-bottom degenerate rulers have a stranglehold on it, and on its other inhabitants. That's just the way it is. A famous person once said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". The rulers own this societal world, this planet, really, and they think that they've won, because they think that this world is all that there is.)

Sorry to end on a negative note, so disregard that paragraph, because this life and this world aren't all that there is.

Michael Ossipoff

It seems to me that Western philosophers use "The World" to refer to the all that is, at the metaphysical level. I don't think metaphysics describes all of Reality.

I use the word "Reality" to mean all that is.

So the World is only a subset of Reality.

Of course, when not intending the philosophical meaning, the Earth is what we usually mean by "the world", and it's always clear from context.

In my usage, "this universe" refers to our big-bang universe, and any multiverse that it might be part of....any physical system that it might be part of. ...our big-bang universe and anything else that's physically-related to it.

By "physically-related", I mean related by physical origin, physical influence or the possibility of it, or a shared spatial continuum.

I consider this universe to be a "possibility-world", a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then logical facts about hypotheticals. ...one of infinitely many such systems.

Wittgenstein was quoted here as saying that there are no things, just facts. I think he was right.

(...where "things" has a limited meaning of "things other than facts", or maybe even just physical things. ...as opposed to the more general meaning of "whatever can be referred to".)

As Sergeant Friday said, "Just the facts..."

Michael Ossipoff

Being an atheist doesn't mean you cant be spiritual and believe in a spiritual world or realm. — David Solman

Quite so. Though most, nearly all, Atheists are Materialists, believing that the physical world is all of reality, being an Atheist doesn't definitionally require being a Materialist. There are probably non-Materialist Atheists at these forums.

(But, though not all Atheists are Materialists, all Materialists are Atheists.)

I call a Materialist Atheist an "Orthodox Atheist".

I'm not a believer in any religion in the world

Though I'm a Theist,that doesn't mean that I belong to a denomination. Anyway, not only are there many denominations of official organizational church Theism, but of course there are also various Theist religions that regard eachother as entirely different religions,

I don't belong to a Theist organization or a church. I wouldn't say that being a Theist means belonging to a church or a denomination.

Nor did any religion, its representatives, or anyone else, convince me in that matter. I haven't adopted anyone's religion.

I also call myself a Vedantist, though my metaphysics differs from those of the 3 usual Vedanta versions. (But they greatly differ from eahother in that regard as well.)

I say that I'm a Vedantist because my metaphysics shares the conclusions and consequences of the 3 main Vedanta versions' metaphysicses, and because the ancient Indians' writings seem very competent and right. They seem to have been well qualified regarding what they wrote about.

...but i do believe that our existence is far more than a physical existence. i believe we are able to go beyond our physical body and that there may be some kind of life after death.

There may very likely be. Even if we just go to sleep, Shakespeare pointed out that there could be dreams. Of course he wasn't referring only to the dreams in ordinary sleep, but, more generally, to any experience or perception when unconscious.

Of course we never experience "oblivion", a time when there's no experience. Only our survivors will experience that time after our complete shutdown and body-dissolution..

And our ordinary night-time dreams show that being unconscious needn't mean being without experiences of perceptions. In fact, wouldn't it be expected that the absence of waking consciousness will arrive before the complete end of experience and perception--as we know it regularly does in ordinary sleep?

it is possible to believe in these concepts without referring to God in any religion.

I rarely refer to the name "God". Usually only when replying to others who use that term.But I think you'd agree that Reality isn't known, knowable or discussable. I don't think metaphysics describes Reality, any more than physics does. There's Reality beyond metaphysics, and it isn't knowable.

I rarely talk about God, using that term, but it's my impression that there's good intent behind what is. I say I'm a Theist because I encounter expression of that impression from Theists of all kinds.including the doctrine-believing ones, and the non-doctrinaire ones too.

Of course not using the word "God" isn't quite the same as criticizing others who speak of what we don't understand. There's no need to be so sure we know it all, and be so quick to criticize those who don't share out beliefs (...and yes, Atheists and Materialists do have beliefs).

Though I don't agree with them, I don't criticize Biblical-Literalists or Atheists or their beliefs. I find that both of those groups tend often to not share that tolerance. That intolerance, that need to criticize, is alien and inexplicable to me.

Michael Ossipoff

A godlike being could exist outside our perceptual capabilities

.
There are Theists who believe that God is a being. There are Theists who believe every statement in the Bible.
.
Is one of those your “iteration”?
.

…, but what would that mean for us if it did?

.
You could check out the discussion, links and quotes in this thread, and in the Hegel's Philosophy of Religion thread.
.
Your question is like asking what it would mean to you if all of Reality isn’t observable and measurable…what it would mean to you if Materialism doesn’t obtain.
.
Speaking for myself, I have no idea what that would mean for you, except that presumably it would inspire, for you, a bit more modesty.
.
Incidentally, Materialism can’t be defended.
.
I rarely refer to the name “God”, but evidently Atheism-advocates at a philosophy forum talk about God a lot.
.
I stay out of Theism vs Atheism discussions. It certainly isn’t a debate-topic.
.
In this instance, I didn’t mean to participate in such a discussion. I just misunderstood the nature of this thread.
.

The reason theists cite examples of a god intervening in the world is because that attempts to show a relational or somewhat involved god. A god who cares about the outcome here on earth. If there is no interaction/intervention we end up being deists.

.
So that’s what you’ve ended up being.


.

You're right...God simply doesn't fit in our world, at least not the interventionist God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity. This has led the faithful into a gymnasium where they must do mental acrobatics to try and fix the many inconsistencies of religion.

.
So you believe that everything said by Theists who aren’t Biblical-Literalists is just a desperate attempt to justify and rationalize things said by traditional Literalists. Far be it for me to want to change your belief, which is entirely your business.
.
As I and others have mentioned, Atheists (including the New-Atheists, who, with inconsistency they seem unaware of, often claim Agnosticism) are over-eager, in their denial of others’ positions about which, in general, they haven’t a clue. …a denial of the God of Biblical-Litertalism, applied blanket-style, to every possible meaning with which the term God might be used by anyone.
.
So, Atheism is a most peculiar belief-position. …a blanket denial whose object is unspecified, and unknown to that position’s adherents.
.
Anyway, I have no interest in getting into that issue, but I just wanted to comment briefly, having accidentally entered a thread about an issue that I don’t usually get involved in discussing.
.
Michael Ossipoff

"In the larger, meta-metaphysical picture, are you sure that that distinction is meaningful?" — Michael Ossipoff


I suppose that depends on which iteration of god we're talking about. — ProbablyTrue

What does that mean?

Which "iteration" are you talking about?

But yes, if Biblical Literalism is an "iteration", and if it's the one that you're talking about, then there is a meaningful distinction between Theism and Deism, and Theism is what you're talking about.

Michael Ossipoff