Thanks for further showing that "round" is just a linguistic concept dependent on other equally non-materially based linguistic concepts as itself. So, use whatever words you want when you chat about the moon. All you'll be doing is using words, not accurately describing the moon itself. — Thanatos Sand

Well I'm not trying to be exhaustively accurate with error-free certainty, just chatting about the Moon.
If you'd written "the Moon is a regular tetrahedron", then you might need new glasses or a new encyclopedia or something. :)
As mentioned, I'm not chatting about English, but about the Moon.
Not about the word "Moon" either, but about the Moon.

As an aside, I just noticed the Wikipedia page has a list of characteristics, mean/equatorial/polar radius, flattening, circumference, surface area, volume, ...
I guess you could register and fix the page?

Well I'm not trying to be exhaustively accurate with error-free certainty, just chatting about the Moon.
If you'd written "the Moon is a regular tetrahedron", then you might need new glasses or a new encyclopedia or something. :)
As mentioned, I'm not chatting about English, but about the Moon.
Not about the word "Moon" either, but about the Moon.

As an aside, I just noticed the Wikipedia page has a list of characteristics, mean/equatorial/polar radius, flattening, circumference, surface area, volume, ...
I guess you could register and fix the page? — jorndoe

All you have done is describe the moon after observation.

Now, describe it before observation.

All you have done is describe the moon after observation.

Now, describe it before observation. — Rich

Huh?
Maybe I should ask you to describe my colleague.
If you're conflating ontology and epistemology, then you'll conclude there's no such colleague.
And maybe there isn't for all you know.

Maybe I should ask you to describe my colleague.
If you're conflating ontology and epistemology, then you'll conclude there's no such colleague.
And maybe there isn't for all you know. — jorndoe

Ask me, since it will illustrate the issue.

What you are doing is showing that everything that is known is by observation and observations will disagree for a number of reasons.

Now, if you you can illustrate what the moon would look like without observation, i.e. the attributes of a quantum field without observation, then it would certainly help to support your point of view, remembering of course that any observation affects the moon's quantum field.

Thanks for further showing that "round" is just a linguistic concept dependent on other equally non-materially based linguistic concepts as itself. So, use whatever words you want when you chat about the moon. All you'll be doing is using words, not accurately describing the moon itself. — Thanatos Sand

Are you claiming that language is only ever about language? Or about concepts? :o
That doesn't seem right.

"Atomic facts" as such were specifically rejected in Wittgenstein II.

Thanks for further showing that "round" is just a linguistic concept dependent on other equally non-materially based linguistic concepts as itself. So, use whatever words you want when you chat about the moon. All you'll be doing is using words, not accurately describing the moon itself.
— Thanatos Sand

Well I'm not trying to be exhaustively accurate with error-free certainty, just chatting about the Moon.
If you'd written "the Moon is a regular tetrahedron", then you might need new glasses or a new encyclopedia or something. :)
As mentioned, I'm not chatting about English, but about the Moon.
Not about the word "Moon" either, but about the Moon.

As an aside, I just noticed the Wikipedia page has a list of characteristics, mean/equatorial/polar radius, flattening, circumference, surface area, volume, ...
I guess you could register and fix the page?

Thanks for confirming everything I said in the post to which you responded.

Seems you are agreeing with me.

See if we agree on this. There are some facts that cannot be represented away.

If the keys are locked in the car, they will be locked in the car regardless of how you present or represent them.

Seems you are agreeing with me.

Possibly. Since you've done many posts I haven't seen, and you didn't list which one with which I agreed.

The post to which I replied was the one linked in the reply.

I sure don't see it. Feel free to repost which post of yours with which I supposedly agreed.

Click on your name.

<===Click here.

It's how threads work.

See if we agree on this. There are some facts that cannot be represented away.

If the keys are locked in the car, they will be locked in the car regardless of how you present or represent them.

No, they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state. And they won't even be actually "locked in the car" within those structures and confines, as that phrase will not accurately represent the time they are locked in the car, nor will it represent how much they are actually locked in the car.

It's how threads work. — Banno

They don't all work that way, and I'm new to this forum. But I checked back and, no, I don't agree with you.

If the keys are locked in the car, they will be locked in the car regardless of how you present or represent them. — Banno

You've already presented (or represented) the situation as "the keys are locked in the car" when you said "if the keys are locked in the car". So the question would be how could you present (or represent) this situation in another way. And, I'm sure it could be done with another language. So we should conclude that "the keys are locked in the car" is not the fact, but your presentation (representation) of the fact, even if the keys are locked in the car. The keys are locked in the car is not fact, even if the keys are locked in the car.

No, — Thanatos Sand

they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state. — Thanatos Sand

I'd like to try to understand what you are claiming here.

they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state. — Thanatos Sand

Do you mean that there may be a language, other than English, in which the keys are not locked in the car?

I'd like to try to understand what you are claiming here.

they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state.
— Thanatos Sand

Do you mean that there may be a language, other than English, in which the keys are not locked in the car?

This was my whole, and very clear quote. If you took that from it, you didn't read it very well:

No, they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state. And they won't even be actually "locked in the car" within those structures and confines, as that phrase will not accurately represent the time they are locked in the car, nor will it represent how much they are actually locked in the car.

All I did was look at one side of the conjunction. Here's the other side:

And they won't even be actually "locked in the car" within those structures and confines, as that phrase will not accurately represent the time they are locked in the car, nor will it represent how much they are actually locked in the car.

It would be simple to add a time - "the keys are locked in the car now". I'm not at all sure what it would mean to add degrees of locked-ness....

This was my whole, and very clear quote. If you took that from it, you didn't read it very well:

No, they will only be "locked in the car" within the structures and confines of the English language; that will not be their actual physical state. And they won't even be actually "locked in the car" within those structures and confines, as that phrase will not accurately represent the time they are locked in the car, nor will it represent how much they are actually locked in the car. — Thanatos Sand

Agreed. It it's not a fact, it is a personal judgement which of course could be incorrect.

To analyze the problem one must not be too quick to jump to a conclusion before uttering the statement, but instead has to analyze all possibilities that could make the statement a judgement call rather than a fact.

Glad that you brought up modalities. Not that it explains what a fact is, but rather enhances its ontological footprint.

All I did was look at one side of the conjunction. Here's the other side:
And they won't even be actually "locked in the car" within those structures and confines, as that phrase will not accurately represent the time they are locked in the car, nor will it represent how much they are actually locked in the car.

It would be simple to add a time - "the keys are locked in the car now". I'm not at all sure what it would mean to add degrees of locked-ness....

And you failed to address or represent what that side of the conjunction said. And thanks for supporting and confirming what I said about the inadequacy of your posited phrase, since the word "now" would not sufficiently represent the time they are locked either. As you well know, or should know, "now" can denote that very second or any length of time the speaker saw as "now" when he uttered or wrote the phrase.

What we have here is a failure to engage.

If you lock your keys in the car, don't ask for my help.

But suppose you examine the situation and make the personal judgement that the keys are indeed locked in the car?

Yes, and the failure to engage is yours. I won't even bother to help your critical "thinking" and language "skills."

And as with the other thread, I won't bother to read or respond to any more of your posts.

That's fine. I've made judgements such as this. It's a belief I might have and it may even be practical to say is locked, but as with all such observations, the situation is fluid and any number of different events may change my mind about the situation.

Sounds eminently sensible. So would you continue by working from the supposition that the keys are locked in the car, perhaps seeking another way to unlock the car? Of course.

That is, you would act as if, that the keys are locked in the car were indeed a fact.

Any number of enumerable events may transpire that may further confirm my judgement or convince me otherwise. As with all beliefs, the situation always remains fluid. One can operate under these conditions, and that is what people do. They form judgements and then take actions or events transpire that confirm it deny.