The argument is over what kind of mathematical relation defines a logical dichotomy - a dichotomy being a relation that is mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive.

MU wants to treat is as simple negation. A and not-A. The presence of some thing, and then its absence or its erasure. But that is question-begging as it doesn't go to any mutuality that could form the two poles of being, nor to the way the two poles then demonstrably exhaust all other possibilities. — apokrisis

Wow, I see you really don't read my posts.

But there are also those who think they understand metaphysics, who, from my inexpert opinion, really don't. It's like the thousands of people who line up for talent shows who think they can sing or play piano — Wayfarer

One thing that there's too much of in these discussions of metaphysics is vague criticism, unspecified disagreement, expression of emotional feelings about what others say, instead of specific objections that you can answer for and justify.

But, sure, there's much metaphysical confusion here. Some think that it's completely indeterminate and speculative. Maybe that notion comes from Western academic philosophers, who use the supposed indeterminacy, relativism, speculativeness, to the hilt, to ensure that their debates, discussions, issues will go on forever, ensuring that there will always be something to publish, in keeping with "Publish or Perish".

On the contrary, metaphysics isn't a vague, speculative, relativist subject. Definite uncontroversial statements can be made. Definitions need to be well-specified and consistently-used. Statements need to be supported.

Yes, metaphysical "debate" here is interminable and without progress. It resembles the Democrat convention, in its seriousness and objectiveness.

In proposing my metaphysics, I made a point of only saying things that no one would disagree with.

Though a lot of people here have made angry-noises about my metaphysical proposal, no one has expressed disagreement with a statement in that proposal.

Michael Ossipoff

Thanks!

I have come to the view that I am at odds with most of the contributors here, because in my view philosophy has a spiritual or religious aspect which is generally excluded in secular philosophies. When I say 'spiritual or religious', I definitely don't mean uncritical belief in religion. The problem is that much of Greek philosophy became intertwined with religion over the course of history. Then in the Enlightenment rejection of religion and metaphysics, a lot of what was fundamental to that spiritual - or really 'sapiential' dimension- was also rejected. The baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

There are a few scholars who understand this, notably Pierre Hadot who has written extensively on 'philosophy as a way of life', and the sense in which philosophy used to be a spiritual practice. And of course it is kept alive in neo-Thomism, but at the price of being Catholic, which I'm not. For most people, philosophy is now either about language, or about science. 'Sapience', or 'the wisdom of sophia' is completely unknown to modern Western culture. Philosophy is nowadays about rationalising the normal condition, not about transcending it. There a palpable hostility towards talk of the transcendent here.

So, that is all by way of saying, I am taking an extended break from Philosophy Forum. I am going to concentrate on Buddhism in 2018. I am considering enrolling in some online courses on metaphysics and if I do, then I might come back to discuss some of the contents. Happy New Year to everyone here and bye for now.

Ahhh...New Year resolutions...we'll see... >:)

Then in the Enlightenment rejection of religion and metaphysics, a lot of what was fundamental to that spiritual - or really 'sapiential' dimension- was also rejected. The baby was thrown out with the bathwater. — Wayfarer

Yes, this is a problem isn't it? There is wholesale rejection of religion, and along with that, a rejection of the spirituality and metaphysics which supported the religion.

On the contrary, metaphysics isn't a vague, speculative, relativist subject. Definite uncontroversial statements can be made. Definitions need to be well-specified and consistently-used. Statements need to be supported. — Michael Ossipoff

I think the problem is that metaphysics is a very specific field of study, which like any other field of study requires proper training. The trend today is to have people with little or no training in metaphysics venturing into metaphysical speculations, so many of these speculations, though they may appeal to the whims of the public, have very little real metaphysical value. This appears to coincide with the phenomenon of mathematicians and physicists who can't make sense of the reality of quantum mechanics, seeking metaphysical principles in an undisciplined way.

Ahhh...New Year resolutions...we'll see... — Janus

Wayfarer says stuff like:

I am taking an extended break from Philosophy Forum.... — Wayfarer

all the time

But there are also those who think they understand metaphysics, who, from my inexpert opinion, really don't. It's like the thousands of people who line up for talent shows who think they can sing or play piano — Wayfarer

sounds like an offense though untargeted. Do you think any where else especially forums there aren't pros and cons?

I certainly believe in a transcendent world, if that's what you want to call it. I haven't had much hostility directed at me.

Don't you mean you believe in an afterlife? The question is whether you want to call that afterlife transcendent, i.e. supernatural, and what you would mean by that, and what you might think it would entail; or whether you want to call it a part of nature we do not, or even cannot, fully understand.

Don't you mean you believe in an afterlife? The question is whether you want to call that afterlife transcendent, i.e. supernatural, and what you would mean by that, and what you might think it would entail; or whether you want to call it a part of nature we do not, or even cannot, fully understand. — Janus

Yes, I do believe that we survive bodily existence, and yes I do believe in an afterlife; which is what I mean by transcendent. Some of what I believe is spelled out in this thread...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body#Item_225

What do you think of the following claim?

“Metaphysical disquiet.—It seems to me that a metaphysical system is nothing if not the act by which a disquiet is defined and succeeds partially—as well as mysteriously—if not abolishing, at least in transposing or transmitting, itself into an expression of self that, so far from paralyzing the superior life of the spirit, on the contrary, strengthens and maintains.”
Gabriel Marcel, Metaphysical Journal — Mitchell

I generally agree with that claim. Of course (?) the disquiet can return and the system is then discarded or adjusted. It also seems possible that a strengthening at one time point can be related to a weakening at another time point. The idea that was meat can become poison (and the reverse).

Compare the quoted passage with Dewey:

"We only think when we are confronted with a problem" — sime

Great quote, even if it is an exaggeration. Sometimes (in my experience) there is a relaxed state of mind (emotionally neutral or vaguely positive) in which thoughts and imaginings pass in a quiet stream. Perhaps problems force a direction on this stream. The threat or promise holds thinking to the calculation of interactive possibilities in a particular context.

Marcel probably needs bouts of metaphysical disquiet to de-paralyze his superior spirit. — Bitter Crank

Well said. There are things one writes when one is in a certain mode/mood. Who hasn't looked back on recent optimism or pessimism (or complacency or angst) and been embarrassed or disgusted? Writing and other recordings are good for this kind of self-knowledge. Who was I when I said that? Who did I think I was? Was he right or am I? Or neither of us?

The trend today is to have people with little or no training in metaphysics venturing into metaphysical speculations — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, most metaphysicses seem speculative, or to need assumptions.

The metaphysics that I've been proposing isn't speculative, and neither makes nor needs any assumptions, and doesn't post any brute-fact.

And it doesn't say anything that anyone would disagree with. Though several people have expressed vague grumbling disapproval, no one has named any statement in that metaphysical proposal that they disagree with.

Michael Ossipoff

no one has named any statement in that metaphysical proposal — Michael Ossipoff

I can't even "name any statement in that metaphysical proposal" that I could either agree or disagree with. :-}

How about you present a 'keystone' statement and I will tell you whether I agree or disagree, and why?

"No one ne has named any statement in that metaphysical proposal" — Michael Ossipoff


I can't even "name any statement in that metaphysical proposal" that I could either agree or disagree with. :-} — Janus

Fine. Then feel free to "name any specific statement in that metaphysical proposal" that you don't agree with. That should be easy, since you've just said that you don't agree with any of them.

How about you present a 'keystone' statement and I will tell you whether I agree or disagree, and why?

First, how about you present a definition of " 'keystone' statement". I searched the Internet for a definition, and didn't find one.

Michael Ossipoff

You need to try harder. First read more carefully; I didn't say I disagree with all the statements on your "system", I said I cannot find any that I could either agree or disagree with.

Second, use you imagination; "keystone" is a metaphor. A key stone is one without which an arch will collapse.

Yes, most metaphysicses seem speculative, or to need assumptions.

The metaphysics that I've been proposing isn't speculative, and neither makes nor needs any assumptions, and doesn't post any brute-fact.

And it doesn't say anything that anyone would disagree with. Though several people have expressed vague grumbling disapproval, no one has named any statement in that metaphysical proposal that they disagree with. — Michael Ossipoff

Actually, I think that all metaphysics is by definition speculative, so I don't know what you're talking about here. I haven't seen your proposal, but judging by what you say about it (it isn't speculative, has no assumptions, and no brute facts), I assume it's a little bit of nothing.

You need to try harder. First read more carefully; I didn't say I disagree with all the statements on your "system", I said I cannot find any that I could either agree or disagree with — Janus

Yes, you said that you cannot find any statement in that metaphysics-proposal hat you could agree with.

Yes, and that's why I said you should feel free to specify one that you don't agree with.

Then I said, "That shouldn't be hard, because you said that you don't agree with any of the statements in my metaphysical proposal."

You also said that the statement of my metaphysics has unfounded assumptions. I invited you to feel free to specify one.

You also said that it has statements that I didn't support (but which need support). I invited you to specify one..

Second, use you imagination; "keystone" is a metaphor. A key stone is one without which an arch will collapse.

I'd expect that an arch wouldn't support anything if you removed any one of its stones.

The function of the keystone at the top of the arch, is to direct downward force longitudinally along the arch's row of stones.

You're asking me which particular statement, if falsified or brought into question, would discredit my proposal. Any of them, I'd say. Falsify one of them, or bring one of them into question.

Michael Ossipoff

You're asking me which particular statement, if falsified or brought into question, would discredit my proposal. Any of them, I'd say. Falsify one of them, or bring one of them into question. — Michael Ossipoff

Out of curiosity, what metaphysical proposal? There doesn't seem to be one in this thread from you. So a link would be helpful.

Actually, I think that all metaphysics is by definition speculative, so I don't know what you're talking about here. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm talking, here, about the fact that you can't name a speculative statement in my metaphysical proposal.

And please note that I didn't say that the objectively, "concretely", fundamentally existent physical world that Materialists believe in doesn't exist. Such a statement isn't in my metaphysics.

All I said about that was that I can't prove that the objectively, "concretely", fundamentally existent physical world that Materialists believe in doesn't superflously exist, as a brute-fact, unverifiable and unfalsifiable, alongside, and duplicating the evens and relations of, the inevitable logical system that my metaphysics describes.

So I'm not speculating about whether that Materialist world exists or not. I'm merely saying, about it, what I said in the paragraph before this one.

Yes, you think that all metaphysics is speculative, Stating what you think, and telling specifying which statement in my metaphsycal proposal is speculative, aren't quite the same thing.

I haven't seen your proposal

Yes you have. I've posted a long version of it in these discussions with you. You acknowledged how long it was. Remember?

, but judging by what you say about it (it isn't speculative, has no assumptions, and no brute facts), I assume it's a little bit of nothing.

...because you believe that a metaphysics that's "something" must be speculative, or have assumptions, or have brute-facts? :D

In other words, your pre-judged, faith-based belief that a metaphysics must be nothing, or speculative, or have assumptions, or have brute-facts.leads you to a firm conclusion, even though you admit that you can't specify a speculative statement, or an assumption, or a brute fact in my metaphysical proposal.

...or is "nothing".

Well, the statement that there's inevitably a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, that comprises a story whose events and relations are those of your experience,

...and that there's therefore no need to ask why there's something instead of nothing...

...and my statement that, if the objectively, "concretely", fundamentally existent physical world that Materialists believe in exists, then it superflouslys exist, as a brute-fact, unverifiable and unfalsifiable, alongside, and duplicating the evens and relations of, the inevitable logical system that my metaphysics describes--

You're saying that all that's nothing?.

It's a statement of what metaphysically is, and what it metaphysically consists of. That's all that a metaphysics needs to specify

Michael Ossipoff

All I said about that was that I can't prove that the objectively, "concretely", fundamentally existent physical world that Materialists believe in doesn't superflously exist, as a brute-fact, unverifiable and unfalsifiable, alongside, and duplicating the evens and relations of, the inevitable logical system that my metaphysics describes. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't see how this is a metaphysical statement. You have stated that you are incapable of proving something.

Yes you have. I've posted a long version of it in these discussions with you. You acknowledged how long it was. Remember? — Michael Ossipoff

Oh now I remember, I couldn't make sense of your metaphysical proposal.

Well, the statement that there's inevitably a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, that comprises a story whose events and relations are those of your experience, — Michael Ossipoff

This is a speculative assumption. And I disagree with it.

I'll find it elsewhere and paste into a posting to this thread.

Michael Ossipoff

"All I said about that was that I can't prove that the objectively, "concretely", fundamentally existent physical world that Materialists believe in doesn't superflously exist, as a brute-fact, unverifiable and unfalsifiable, alongside, and duplicating the evens and relations of, the inevitable logical system that my metaphysics describes". — Michael Ossipoff


I don't see how this is a metaphysical statement. You have stated that you are incapable of proving something. — Metaphysician Undercover

It was part of a metaphysical proposal. ...in the sense that it's a clarification about something that the proposal doesn't say.

It's a statement that my proposal doesn't say anything about whether or not the objectively, "concretely", fundamentally existent physical world that Materialists believe in might superfluously exist, as a brute-fact, unverifiable and unfalsifiable, alongside, and duplicating the evens and relations of, the inevitable logical system that my metaphysics describes.

"Yes you have. I've posted a long version of it in these discussions with you. You acknowledged how long it was. Remember?" — Michael Ossipoff


Oh now I remember, I couldn't make sense of your metaphysical proposal.

Then feel free to specify which statement, term, word or phrase you didn't understand the meaning of. If you do, I'll clarify what I meant. What more should I offer?

Well, the statement that "there's inevitably a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, that comprises a story whose events and relations are those of your experience, — Michael Ossipoff


This is a speculative assumption. And I disagree with it.

On what grounds do you disagree with it and claim that it's speculative?

As I've pointed out, anything that can be said about this physical world can be said as an if-then fact.

"There's a traffic-roundabout at the intersection of 34th & Vine."

"If you go to 34th & Vine, then you'll encounter a traffic-roundabout."

The world can be described in conditional grammar. We're used to declarative, indicative, grammar, and of course it's convenient, but we're unjustifiably believing our grammar.

Additionally, a statement, a hypothetical maybe-fact, about the physical world is also a hypothetical comprising either the "if " premise or the "then" conclusion of an if-then fact. ...or both, with respect to different if-then facts. ...in other words, a part of one or more if-then facts.

As I've mentioned, a set of hypothetical physical quantity values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a "physical law"), are parts of the "if " premise of an if-then fact.

...except that one of those physical quantity values can be taken as the "then" conclusion of that if-then fact.

Michael Ossipoff

On what grounds do you disagree with it and claim that it's speculative?

As I've pointed out, anything that can be said about this physical world can be said as an if-then fact. — Michael Ossipoff

You've described the world as consisting of statements of fact (if-then facts). I don't think that the world consists of statements. I think that a statement is a representation of how people perceive the world, and there is a lot more to the world than what we perceive.

You've described the world as consisting of statements of fact (if-then facts). — Metaphysician Undercover

No. I didn't describe the world as statements of if-then facts.

I described the world as if-then facts.

An if-then fact's "if " premise and its "then" conclusion are hypothetical propositions which may or may not be facts.

What I said about statements was that any fact about our world can be stated as an if-then fact.

I didn't say that every fact about our world is a statement. A statement is an utterance about a fact, and I never said that the world consists of utterances.

Michael Ossipoff

On doing metaphysics...

All discourse consists entirely in/of statements of thought and belief. Doing metaphysics consists entirely of discourse. Doing metaphysics consists entirely in/of making statements of thought and belief. Thought and belief consists entirely of an agent's drawing mental correlations between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or itself; it's own 'state of mind'(when applicable). Statements of thought and belief set out and/or report upon the aforementioned correlations. Doing metaphysics consists entirely in/of an agent's drawing and subsequently setting out and/or reporting upon mental correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or itself;it's own state of mind(when applicable).

The question "What am I?" is existentially contingent upon language use. An adequate metaphysical framework can properly account for all thought and belief. Not all thought and belief is existentially contingent upon language use. An adequate metaphysical framework must be able to properly take account of thought and belief, especially that which is not existentially contingent upon language use.

The crucial distinction between thought and belief and thinking about thought and belief comes to the forefront here...

Doing metaphysics is a metacognitive endeavor. That is, doing metaphysics is existentially contingent upon thinking about thought and belief. Thinking about thought and belief is existentially contingent upon pre-existing thought and belief and the ability to isolate it. Isolating thought and belief is existentially contingent upon identifying it. Identifying and isolating thought and belief is existentially contingent upon language use. Thus, thinking about thought and belief is existentially contingent upon pre-existing thought and belief and language use. Doing metaphysics is existentially contingent upon the same.

However, not all thought and belief is existentially contingent upon language use. Humans consist, in part at least, in and/or of thought and belief about the world and/or ourselves. Some of that thought and belief existed prior to language use. Failing to draw and maintain the crucial distinction between thought and belief and thinking about thought and belief will guarantee an emaciated worldview... metaphysical frameworks notwithstanding.

Out of curiosity, what metaphysical proposal? There doesn't seem to be one in this thread from you. So a link would be helpful. — apokrisis

Sorry, it was in other threads that I posted it. Here, below, I've pasted an account of it that I recently posted in a different thread, to answer a question. I've quoted the question, but not the name of the person who asked the question:

This question was asked:

When I was born, how did 'nature' conjure up my perspective into this body? Why and how did it decide that my perspective is the right one? These were questions that I asked myself since I was 9 years old. Why am I me? Why am I not my brother? How did 'I' happen to be?

Anyway, this is the thought I never had the chance to discuss with anyone. I tried raising it with my friends but none of them had any good answers. Would really like to gain some insight from someone who has delved very deep into this subject matter

My reply:

Sometimes a seemingly difficult question like that is just the result of metaphysical assumptions that aren't valid. For example, the metaphysics of Materialism has been hammered into us from elementary-school on.

Materialism has several aliases. A currently fashionable one is "Naturalism". Also, the word "Nominalism" is often, currently fashionably, used to refer to what is really another way of wording Materialism.

Sometimes, answering questions such as the ones that you expressed, requires a completely different metaphysics.

I'll answer that in terms of the inevitable and uncontroversial metaphysics that I've been proposing here.

I've posted the whole proposition at so many discussions in these forums, that I shouldn't repeat it all here.

But, to just summarize:

All that you know about the physical world is from your experience, in fact all of it is your experience. That's all there is, for you.

There are abstract if-then facts. There couldn't have not been abstract if-then facts. And, just as inevitably, there are complex inter-referring systems of inevitable abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals.

In fact, there are infinitely-many such complex logical systems.

In fact, there's one whose events and relations are those that you encounter in your experience,

There's no reason to believe that your life-experience is other than that, or that the world you live in is other than the hypothetical setting for that hypothetical life-experience possibility-story consisting of a complex system of inevitable abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals.

That complex system of inter-referring inevitable abstract logical facts about hypotheticals is your life-experience possibility-story,

Let me re-quote your question:

When I was born, how did 'nature' conjure up my perspective into this body? — Susu


Your perspective is prior to this life. Your perspective consists of your inclinations, predispositions, etc.

Those are attributes of the protagonist of one of the infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories.

So, why are you in a life? Because you, someone with your perspective, is the protagonist of one of the infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories.

Being in a life is part of the your nature, as the possessor of your perspective, the protagonist of a life-experience possibility-story.

So it's no surprise that you're in a life. That's why this life started.

Why and how did it decide that my perspective is the right one?

Your perspective is what it started from. ...your perspective and the life-experience possibility-story whose protagonist has that perspective.

So there's really no question of why it's the right perspective for you. It is you, and it's the reason why this life started.

Michael Ossipoff

All that you know about the physical world is from your experience, in fact all of it is your experience. That's all there is, for you. — Michael Ossipoff

Seems standard...

There are abstract if-then facts. There couldn't have not been abstract if-then facts. And, just as inevitably, there are complex inter-referring systems of inevitable abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals.

In fact, there are infinitely-many such complex logical systems. — Michael Ossipoff

...but then no idea what this could mean.

Is this saying that an assumption of intelligibility - as in the laws of thought - are a precondition to cognition, or something Kantian like that?

"There are abstract if-then facts. There couldn't have not been abstract if-then facts. And, just as inevitably, there are complex inter-referring systems of inevitable abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals.

In fact, there are infinitely-many such complex logical systems." — Michael Ossipoff


...but then no idea what this could mean.

Is this saying that an assumption of intelligibility - as in the laws of thought - are a precondition to cognition — apokrisis

No, I didn't mean anything other than what I said.

I don't think anyone denies that there are abstract facts. Even if you say that they're inextricably bound up with us experiencers, you don't say that there aren't abstract facts. So that seems a completely uncontroversial statement.

But likewise there are abstract facts that refer to eachother, and there are complex systems of them. Since you don't deny that there are abstract facts, you aren't likely to deny that there are complex systems of inter-referring abstract facts.

For example, there's a complex system of hypothetical physical quantity-values, and hypothetical relations (physical laws) among them, For any particular such hypothetical relation, a hypothetical proposition, and the set of hypothetical quantity-values that it relates, that hypothetical proposition and those hypothetical quantity values are parts of the "if " premise of an abstract if-then fact.

Obviously there's an intricate and complex system of such physical laws and quantities, and if-then facts about them.

I'm saying that there's one such complex system of abstract if-thens that has the events and relations of your experience. And that there's no reason to believe that the world of your experience consists of other than that.

Of course facts about this physical system are what physicists find when they investigate and examine the physical world. It enters your experience when they report it and you read it. But also, in various ways, in your direct physical experience.

But, in general, any fact about our physical world implies and corresponds to an if-then fact. If you examine some particular thing, then you'll find a certain thing about it.

What your life-experience possibility-story requires is self-consistency, non-contradiction, because it's a story consisting of facts. Mutually contradictory propositions can't all be facts.

Michael Ossipoff


.

What I said about statements was that any fact about our world can be stated as an if-then fact.

I didn't say that every fact about our world is a statement. A statement is an utterance about a fact, and I never said that the world consists of utterances. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't see how there could be a fact without a statement as to what that fact is. What is an "if-then fact" without the "if" and the "then". It doesn't make sense that there could be an if-then fact without the "if-then", and these are utterances. Since I conceive of a statement of the fact as necessary for the existence of any fact, then what you say, to me, necessarily implies that the world consists of utterances.

I don't see how there could be a fact without a statement as to what that fact is. — Metaphysician Undercover

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.

Sure, you can say that, for any fact, there's a potential statement of that fact. I don't deny that.

What is an "if-then fact" without the "if" and the "then".

Nothing, of course. It wouldn't be an if-then fact.

It doesn't make sense that there could be an if-then fact without the "if-then"

Agreed. An if-then fact relates two hypothetical propositions The if-then fact is a fact that one hypothetical proposition is true if the other is. An if-then statement must have those two parts, consisting of those two hypothetical propositions.

, and these are utterances.

No, they're just propositions. Of course any proposition is something that there could be a statement about, if there's someone to make that statement, and if s/he chooses to make it.

Again, you could truly say that, for any proposition, there's a potential statement. I don't deny that.

Since I conceive of a statement of the fact as necessary for the existence of any fact

I agree that, for any fact, there's a potential statement of that fact. But I'm talking about facts instead of statements.

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

A statement is an utterance about a fact.

, then what you say, to me, necessarily implies that the world consists of utterances.

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

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

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?

No, they're just propositions. — Michael Ossipoff

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?