A fact is a state of affairs, an aspect of the way things are. — Michael Ossipoff
But if any of the above-stated definitions are wrong, in the sense of being strongly-contradicted by standard philosophical usage, then of course I’ll use the standard definitions instead. — Michael Ossipoff
"A fact is a state of affairs, an aspect of the way things are." — Michael Ossipoff
There is a big problem with this definition. "The way things are", refers to a moment of time at the present. But time is passing, and things are changing. So there is really no such thing as "the way things are", because this would require a stoppage of time, and that would create an unreal situation. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your definition of "fact" is not only wrong in the sense that it is inconsistent with the standard definitions, that I gave in my last post, but it is also wrong in the sense that it describes something which appears to be physically impossible,
"Sure there were, before there were humans on the Earth. There were facts, but there were no utterances made about facts, because there were no animals with speech". — Michael Ossipoff
— Metaphysician Undercover
A "fact" is a thing known to have occurred
, and this implies a knower.
What makes you think that there was a knower before there was animals with speech?
A proposition is a statement. There is no such thing as a proposition which is not a statement.
Again, you could truly say that, for any proposition, there's a potential statement. I don't deny that.
I agree that, for any fact, there's a potential statement of that fact. But I'm talking about facts instead of statements. — Michael Ossipoff
Sorry, but a proposition is an actual statement, not a potential statement
, and a fact is an actual thing known, not a potential thing known.
You are using words in an unacceptable way, and that's why I disagree with your metaphysics.
The physical world consists of facts, and I agree that, for every fact, there's a potential utterance about that fact.
But the facts are what the world consists of. — Michael Ossipoff
As far as I know, there are two principle ways that "fact" is used. One is to refer to a thing known, and this requires a knower. The other is to refer to a truth, and a truth is something which is true. True means to correspond with reality. If you are using "fact" to refer to something which corresponds with reality, rather than to refer to something which is known to have occurred, then how is this not a statement?
The abstract fact that If the additive associative axiom is true, then 2+2=4 (by an obvious definition of 1, 2, 3 & 4 in terms of the multiplicative identity and addition), is a timeless abstract if-then fact. — Michael Ossipoff
The idea of an "abstract if-then fact" is redundant.
??? :D
Well yes, you could say that, because all abstract facts are timeless.
But you were the one who wanted to say that "is" and "are" can only refer to the present.
— Janus
'2+2=4' is true by definition; there is no "if-then" about it.
In general, a proved and correct mathematical theorem is an if-then fact whose "if " premise includes (but isn't necessarily limited to) a set of mathematical axioms (algebraic or geometric). — Michael Ossipoff
The point is that within a system it is redundant to specify "if the axioms are true, then..." . The system. and any truth within it, does not exist without the axioms which are simply taken to be self-evident and fundamental. — Janus
The alternatives of truth and falsity cannot be applied to the axioms.
If you want to say that something could be true or false, then you must be able to give an account of what difference that would make in either case.
You want to say that the axioms of mathematics could be either true or false, so you need to give an account of what differences we would find in either case.
Or, put it another way, you need to give an account of how we might be able to discover that the axioms of mathematics are true or false. I don't believe you will be able to give any such accounts; and if I am right, and you can't give any such accounts, your claim that the axioms of mathematics could be either true or false is an empty one. — Janus
The fact that axioms might be limited in their applicability does not speak to their truth or falsity, but to their relationship with context. — Janus
You are just playing with words and clutching at straws. The challenge for you is to show how an axiom could be false in a context where it is applicable. — Janus
The salient point is, that it makes no sense to say that something is true in some context, if it could not be, even in principle, false in that context.
You are just playing with words and clutching at straws. The challenge for you is to show how an axiom could be false in a context where it is applicable. — Janus
Abstract facts are timelessly true. — Michael Ossipoff
Your confusion is linguistic. — Michael Ossipoff
How could it be false, even in principle, in a context in which it is true? — Michael Ossipoff
A proposition is a statement. There is no such thing as a proposition which is not a statement.
[...]
Sorry, but a proposition is an actual statement, not a potential statement, and a fact is an actual thing known, not a potential thing known. You are using words in an unacceptable way, and that's why I disagree with your metaphysics. — Metaphysician Undercover
A statement usually means that which is said when a sentence is uttered or inscribed. Not all sentences makestatements, for instance imperative or interrogative sentences, or sentences uttered in,
say, reciting a play. A proposition is the hardest to define, but can be taken to mean
that which is common to a set of synonymous declarative sentences. Propositions,
even the false ones, are usually taken to exist timelessly and independently of
anything that expresses them, and even independently of whether they are ever
expressed.
— Michael OssipoffAbstract facts are timelessly true.
.I don't agree with this principle. That's Platonic Realism and I do not agree with it.
.Abstract facts are timelessly true.
.I believe in an ever changing world where human beings have free will, and if there is anything which is outside of time (timeless), it is not abstract facts.
.Your confusion is linguistic. — Michael Ossipoff
.That's right. You and I use the same words in completely different ways
., so I haven't the capacity to really comprehend what you are saying.
.I understand enough to get a gist of what you are saying, and I disagree with it.
.How could it be false, even in principle, in a context in which it is true? — Michael Ossipoff
."If that is so, then why the need to state a conditional as you did earlier.
.
…if the "additive associative axiom" could not be false even in principle.
.The fact is that you want to make 2+2=4 seem to be a "timeless if-then abstract fact" rather than merely a timeless abstract fact
.…, because the former fudge enables you to develop your whole purportedly "non-speculative" metaphysics.
.This shows clearly the way in which your thinking is based on a superfluous conditional.
That’s why I say that it would be animal-chauvinist to say that the only abstract facts that are valid are the ones that are in someone’s experience. That would only be so if you define validity as “experienced by someone”. That would be distinctly un-objective, It would also be something made true only by a special definition that says that it’s true. — Michael Ossipoff
at least comprehend that your meaning for “is” and “are” contradicts a meaning for them that is routine and standard in mathematics and logic. — Michael Ossipoff
…and I’ve been answering your disagreements.
.
Whether they’ve been adequately answered isn’t for you, me, or any advocate of a position on the matter, to judge. It’s for outside observers of the discussion to judge. — Michael Ossipoff
The point is that these inevitable abstracts are absolutely, timelessly, true for anyone anywhere. … — Michael Ossipoff
None of this addresses my central criticism of your position, which is that "if-then" conditionals are relevant only to the future; and that the notion of "if-then abstract facts" is incoherent. — Janus
Bulk is not a substitute for quality of response.
Timeless if-then facts are routinely spoken of in logic and mathematics. — Michael Ossipoff
"Timeless if-then facts are routinely spoken of in logic and mathematics". — Michael Ossipoff
They are propositions, not facts. — Janus
If there is an "if' then it is a proposition; there can be no "if" about a fact.
Incorrect. When proven, they're established as facts. — Michael Ossipoff
Incorrect. When proven, they're established as facts. — Michael Ossipoff
When proven they are no longer "if-then". — Janus
You are just playing with words as usual, as I see it. "Pouring from the empty into the void".
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.