The world is not a mere collection of things, but also consists in their relations to, and interactions with, one another. Those relations and interactions are states of affairs, which according to Wittgenstein, are synonymous with facts.

So, I don't read the statement as saying that the world is the totality of facts as opposed to things, but as asserting the inclusion of the relations and interactions along with the things. I think it also points to the fact that things are themselves concatenations of relations and interactions, and are only in a merely formal sense, identities that are transcendent of relations and interactions.. — Janus

Yes, the early Wittgenstein defined objects as the substance of the world.

Are you asking how they could have missed the Popperian insight that scientific theories are never verified, but are merely falsified, or something else? — Janus

Yes, that's what I'm asking. And hence why Wittgenstein rejected the logical positivists with his version of the falsifiable principle implicit in the Principle of Bivalence.

Thoughts?

In my mind, it significantly changes how I view Wittgenstein.

As I said, a lot of positivism is tacit - it’s not defended as a formal philosophy but is implicit.

It’s worth recalling who invented the term ‘positivism’ and why - it was Auguste Comte, who founded sociology. Positivism was a form of historicism, i.e. culture evolved through progressive stages, beginning with animism, then monotheism, metaphysics, and then culminating in the emergence into the sunlit uplands of science. And though they don’t use the terminology, it is clearly visible in nearly all the writings of the scientific atheism of Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker, and others of that ilk. In that sense, positivism remains one of the predominant influences on scientific-secular thinking. — Wayfarer

Thanks for educating on the current landscape of scientific thought.

Logical positivism was one of the things Popper was responding to. The Vienna Circle were mainly active between the wars, and A J. Ayer published Language, Truth and Logic in 1936. And positivism in the broad sense of ‘a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism’ is still highly influential even if only tacit much of the time. — Wayfarer

My impression was that logical positivism died with the Vienna Circle dismantlement. Do you know any sources for current logical positivists? I know of neo-Fregelians, two dimensionalists, and Kripe?

Or tie itself in knots. — Sir2u

:lol:

I would say it is an attempt to come to terms with modern physics; substance dissolves under the microscope into fields, probabilities, relations. Things are made of atoms, but atoms are not things. Process and relation are the new 'substances', and so 'atomism' becomes a theory of human understanding (logic) rather than a claim about the world. — unenlightened

I heard the next big thing in science is string theory. So, it might strings all the way down.

Like Banno's red mug(or was it a cup). It had a definite size, shape, color but not position. He sometimes left in the kitchen sometimes on the porch. Because it had those characteristics it was Banno's red cup, but the characteristics themselves do not make the mug. There has to be an object to describe. — Sir2u

Not according to the coordinate space between Banno and the cup. Or even panpsychism,

Any takers?

Polidinamics simultaneity technology — Carlos Vitor

Care to expand?

My initial thought is that these two lines of thought are so disparate in history that it's hard to compare them. Hume is something of an deacon of the enlightenment (quiet follower who took many enlightenment principles to their rational end), and stoicism is an ancient doctrine we've gleaned through fragments that happen to be left over, and influenced by the ancient Greek milieu concern with invulnerability. Even the words like "control" and "passions" seem to differ to me, because the philosophy of mind and ethics of their day differed. — Moliere

Well, yes, they are different philosophies of the mind; but, that doesn't negative they're importance at least.

Aren't the criteria multifarious? It seems so to me. We can divide knowledge, roughly, into know-that and know-how -- but it is a rough division when we come to experience knowledge, I think. We can know-how to act in a play, we can know-that when acting we do this that and the other. We can know-that elements behave in a certain way under certain conditions, and we can know-how to demonstrate said knowledge. — Moliere

Experiential knowledge is prone to such analysis. It' more about how to do deal with ethical sentiments.

It seems to me that the criteria of knowledge are highly specific to not just area of study but even time and place. Acting in a Shakespearean play when Shakespeare was alive would be different from acting in a Shakespearean play today. Doing chemistry in the time of Lavoisier differs from doing chemistry now. It all depends on our social arrangements, in a way, which are highly specific. Lavoisier could prove atoms existed through a fairly basic electrochemical reaction, and that mattered to the time because of the conflict between materialism and religion. Nowadays? You are kind of appealing to different groups. We are divided due to our experiences. — Moliere

The gist of the sentiments is ethical ones.

Well, yes, We do use knowledge about assessing the true and falsity of determinating knowledge. I was wondering about what criteria we use in determining knowledge.

Shameless bump.

I largely agree. I think solipsism comes to mind.

How does this relate to what is quoted? There is tendency to 'answer' the wrong question, where the words of the question are reinterpreted so that the answer is no longer life-relevant. Profound questions are debased to opportunities to demonstrate cleverness. An industry of gossip about gossip about gossip is born. Meanwhile the real questions continued to be suffered and tentatively answered by words and deeds by everyone, most of whom never found the gossip industry relevant in the first place. And then some of us have a love/hate relationship with this gossip. We pan for gold in a muddy creek, having cataloged many shapes of pyrite, and therefore aware of how little gold there is in the torrent of gossip. — macrosoft

Yes, this is framing the question about how to do ambiguity, vagueness, and other misinterpretations occur. If logical tules would work strictly on human behavior, then what en be said then?

It is this cognitive dissonance that I am suspicious of. Is it a mood or an evaluation on life? Why is that evaluation bad or wrong? Perhaps it is accurate. — schopenhauer1

I think it's an accurate evaluation. People tend to like life more than dying. It's just an inherent biological defense mechanism to prefer life over death. Given normal circumstances.

I'm not saying there can't be real science behind LENR but if you can't explain it then there's nothing to talk about. And if after 30 years you still don't understand the science, maybe you should start making an effort. I'm a lawyer for fuck's sake and I can get around chemistry and physics to some extent. — Benkei

Understood. But, I can't be your straw man. I understand physics in a conceptual manner. Transmutation of elements has been demonstrated and found to occur in LENR reactions. I don't know what else I can throw at you to convince you that this isn't all a scam, lie, and so on by Rossi. All that it is real and coming to the market soon. I am interested in how big companies will react. The US Navy has studied this LENR phenomenon and likely will try and implement it into ships and submarines. Time will tell.

Nope. After 30 years of discussions in order to convince someone, you need a working demonstrator that produces excess heat independently tested by scientific community worldwide, not another CF paper never accepted by GAS. I can't be a physicist and explain to you all the details of LENR. It's new after all. I hope we can save this discussion, and when Rossi or whoever delivers on their promise, then you'll be convinced. Russia is going to accept LENR as real science soon, so there's that sliver of hope for the field of LENR.

I'll fine some papers that you're interested in. Gimme a day or two.

Anyway, time for me to sleep.

This might help also.

The biggest problem appears to be reproducibility - Mizuno hasn't managed that either. — Benkei

Mizuno has produced a working device... I'm not following you here since I am aware of the fact that Mizuno has a working device that produces more thermal energy than the input power.

This is the best I can do for you. Try and forget Rossi for a moment when reading these papers...

The actual was once the possible. — creativesoul

Yes.

Would you concur or object? — creativesoul

I would agree with that sentiment.

It's sickening, really.

I can't even follow this shit.

I'm not so interested as to begin a thread. I may join one already in progress... — creativesoul

There's the Ongoing Tractatus thread I created. Let me know if you want to post in it.

Facts cannot be false. — creativesoul

True. I agree that facts cannot be false. But, in logical space with possible worlds, they can be wrong in another possible world.

It gets frustrating to introduce possible worlds, but they are true also.

It's an aside. Not relevant to this fact talk. — creativesoul

Oh, OK. Start another thread then. I'd been keenly interested in it.

So facts are representative of all logical possibility?

That can't be right. — creativesoul

How so?

I mean, Witt was wrong about stuff too. — creativesoul

Like what? His Tractatus is partially right; but wrong on some parts like the picture theory of meaning. If you lived in a two-dimensional world, then everything would be right with the Tractatus.

So, "logical space" refers to all logical possibility. — creativesoul

Yes.

I'm a fan of Witt, and I'm a vehement opponent as well. — creativesoul

What do you mean by that?

This discussion is about one particular framework, or so I thought it was... — creativesoul

You can try and do that; but, Wittgenstein already did most of the work for you. Just sayin.

Logical space?

What's that? — creativesoul

See:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Wittgenstein-s-Logical-Space#

Logical space has lost its meaning nowadays, so it has inherited a new meaning called "state space".

We could if we abandon the meaning of "fact" as states of affairs. — creativesoul

I think that is pertinent to advancing this discussion about what facts are. Facts are states of affairs in logical space.

That's one that I've found imperative to understanding this framework as well. — creativesoul

So, can we say that facts are representations of states of affairs, and then delve more deeply and state that facts are logical relations between objects in logical space?

Propositions represent one of two things. Facts and/or relations. True propositions represent real facts and real relations. What do false propositions represent? — creativesoul

Indeed. The question on my end is how do facts obtain their status of facthood.

Eh, I was trying thinking of a weird scenario with set and setting and how that might influence subsequent experiences with a drug. How the memory interacts with the drug... I'm just in the weeds here though with its relevance to nostalgia. It's all horribly complex in the end anyway. — Nils Loc

I feel you. I just don't understand why you think heroin would solve anything. You seem to have devised a scale of pleasure that is defined by the drugs behavioral effects on an individual. That seems prone to misjudgment and such matters.

Not sure have any direction to go with nostalgia but it is an interesting subject, especially with regards to human fantasy and fiction, even political ideals and national identities (forces behind the "American Dream" and it's good old days). — Nils Loc

True, nostalgia is an interesting subject and I hope others can chime in. I want to know what purpose does nostalgia serve. Any ideal or thoughts about that?

A replica is an actual embodiment of a sign, such that it can be interpreted as such within a particular system of signs. The same word can appear many times on a page or screen, and each of these is a replica of that word. The version of this post that I typed and submitted on my computer is one replica of it; what you are reading now is another. — aletheist

You lost me. And how does this affect the obtaining of facts?

Nah, you sound disinterested and hurried. — Nils Loc

Me interacting with you through this forum, and since old PF we also had chats, then that's not true.

Hurried? I guess that's true. I like to advance the progress of a discussion to its logical end. That's me just being me.

Most humans have troubled minds, ceaseless desires, unending thoughts. — Nils Loc

I meant troubled in the sense that the post was well yeah, nihilistic and based on some warped conception of pleasure or happiness derived from heroin. Heroin wouldn't do anything since the memory of the loss persists. This is where drugs like cannabis and MDMA can help heal from such a loss. Cannabis affects memories and is being researched as a tool to help with post-traumatic-memories. MDMA helps a person open up and talk about their issues with a professional.

Again, all of this has to be done in controlled settings. Is control an issue here?

I wonder about dark scenarios though, killing someone's partner or child in front of them and then giving them heroine. Does the initial experience determine whether they develop an addiction, or have an influence on the likelihood of addiction... Maybe the pain relief during such horror would be welcome. — Nils Loc

Whoa. Dude, that's disturbing. You sound like a troubled mind. Just being upfront and honest here.

But that's the point.. — schopenhauer1

The point should be directed or focused on dealing with it effectively, and only paid professionals can help with that. The only element missing in all this is that the stipulative definition of depression is so large and comprehensive that nobody really knows how to deal with it. It's a form of realism that is self-serving and justifying. You have to reach a cognitive dissonance that these feelings are unwarranted by your situation in life. Once you reach that cognitive dissonance, you can escape from the depression.

Just some ramblings on my part.