Intuition isn't much to go on.

It's a negative fact, as opposed to a positive fact, or one that obtains. — Sam26

So, a negative fact is a state of affairs that never actually exists, and a positive fact is one that actually exists(obtains)?

Intuition isn't much to go on. — Sam26

That all depends upon what it's built upon...

And we're back at ground zero, with the question about how do facts obtain or not....

You're back at ground zero, what is difficult to understand here? It's pretty basic stuff.

Well not quite. Sam is arguing that they obtain by virtue of actually existing.

Sam what do all facts have in common that make them what they are, aside from us just calling them all by the same name?

It's pretty basic stuff. — Sam26

Seemingly yes. Yet, the parable exists insofar as to experienced of not, and individual particular fact can obtain or not in the world.

This reminds me of the arguments you see online about synthetic a priori truths exist or not.

Sam what do all facts have in common that make them what they are, aside from us just calling them all by the same name? — creativesoul

Why do they have to have something in common? Do all games have something in common?

This reminds me of the arguments you see online about synthetic a priori truths exist or not — Posty McPostface

Takes some careful consideration, and an adequate framework...

Sam what do all facts have in common that make them what they are, aside from us just calling them all by the same name?
— creativesoul

Why do they have to have something in common? — Sam26

Because you're calling them all by the same name.

Do all games have something in common?

What difference does that make?

Seemingly yes. Yet, the parable exists insofar as to experienced of not, and individual particular fact can obtain or not in the world. — Posty McPostface

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

Why do they have to have something in common?
— Sam26

Because you're calling them all by the same name.

Do all games have something in common?

What difference does that make? — creativesoul

You don't see the parallel?

Sorry, I don't understand your point. — Sam26

And we're at ground zero.

Take care guys I'm going to bed.

Same here.

It's a little early, so might have to wait until I can rest.

It's 8:17 here in Cali.

It's a fact that this post exists.

How did you obtain this post?

How did you obtain this post? — VagabondSpectre

That's the mystical part! No?

Night Sam...

Night Sam... — creativesoul

Same, just not time yet.

So, where did we leave off?

Why do they have to have something in common?
— Sam26

Because you're calling them all by the same name.

Do all games have something in common?

What difference does that make?
— creativesoul

You don't see the parallel? — Sam26

I wouldn't equate calling states of affairs "fact" with calling whatever we arbitrarily choose to call a "game"... a "game".

All facts are states of affairs on this view. Some are positive. Some are negative. The positive one's exist. The negative ones do not.

What sense does it make to say that there is a state of affairs that does not exist?

That seems to me to be not taking into account the existential dependency of the purported 'state of affairs'. Positive ones do not necessarily require our talking about them. Negative ones exist in only that way.

Seems deeply wrong.

Some states of affairs are not existentially dependent upon our awareness and/or conception of them. Others most certainly are.

Seems to me that the only sensible conclusion is that these so-called 'facts' obtain existence.

What are they prior to existing?

Can these facts be true? How do they do that?

A negative fact(potential;logical possibility;etc) is one that has yet to have occurred and/or taken place(actualized, instantiated). That which has yet to have taken place has not yet taken place. All states of affairs are what has already happened and/or is happening. If nothing has happened, there is no state of affairs. No negative state of affairs has yet happened. Thus, it is not yet a state of affairs...

Why call it one?

The synonyms of the term fact include reality, certainty, actuality, etc. From these, it is clear what we try to mean by fact. Much of my knowledge about the 'first principles of things' is borrowed from metaphysics, after which, I try to align it to logic. I'm not sure whether the study of fact is within the bounds of metaphysics or epistemology, however, I have a strict definition of it:- Fact is that which is; reality; the absolute; the undeniable; the indisputable, etc, etc, you get the drift. From such a definition, it means I do not consider something like a table or a human being as a fact. That is because, there was a time when they did not exist and they can also cease to exist at a future time. For me, to suppose that there is anything beyond a fact is illogical (or blasphemy to sound a bit biblical). So, that component, quality or character of existence which is imperishable and unchangeable, I call fact. What we refer to as 'something' in relation to another 'thing' is, to me, just a configuration or expression of fact. At some point it (fact) expresses a human being, at another, a table. There also comes a time when they (tables, humans and the like) are not expressed. The why and how of it can only be understood by overcoming the relativity of perception, if such is possible.

That the fact that the cat is on the mat obtains just is that there exists the cat and there exists the mat and the cat is positioned on top of the mat.

That the fact that the cup is in the cupboard doesn’t obtain just is that the cup doesn’t exist or the cupboard doesn’t exist or the cup is not positioned within the cupboard.

So are you asking how things come to exist? Are you asking how one thing comes be positioned relative to another?

I wouldn't equate calling states of affairs "fact" with calling whatever we arbitrarily choose to call a "game"... a "game". — creativesoul

You've misunderstood my point.

What is the thing that has yet to have become a fact... beforehand? — creativesoul

A proposition.

I guess there could be and are different systems of definitions about these things, but I suggest these:

1. Things are what are describable and can be referred to.

2. A fact is a state of affairs or a relation among things.

3. A proposition is a thing that is or might be a fact.

4. A proposition has a truth-value of "True" or "False"

5. A proposition has a truth-value of "True" if and only if it is a fact.

6. A statement is an utterance of a proposition.

(But, alternatively, someone could define a proposition to be a statement alleging a fact. I try to avoid that, because it brings people (who make statements and allege) into it, but it avoids the introduction of a proposition as a thing that is or might be a fact.)

7. I suggest that an abstract fact, or consistent system of them, always amounts to a truism, two different wordings of the same state of affairs. The statements of their corresponding propositions are saying the same thing.

I give the example of this abstract fact:

"There is no true and false proposition." Someone called that an unverified axiom, but it means "If a proposition isn't true, then it isn't true." That's a truism, and, as such, doesn't need any proof or verification.

So, consistency is tautological and inevitable.

I suggest that abstract facts always come down to such a truism, without needing reference to anything outside the system of facts being spoken of. That avoids the question of an abstract fact's how or why.

Michael Ossipoff

Some people speak of facts "obtaining" or being true. When someone says that, they're using "fact" to mean "proposition" or an alleged fact.. I prefer to say that a fact is a state of affairs or a relation among things. Then, there's no need to speak of a fact "obtaining", which would be redundant, because there's no such thing as a non-obtaining fact.

Maybe a proposition could be defined as "something that differs from a fact only in that it might or not be one."

...or as "an alleged fact."

Michael Ossipoff

I prefer to say that a fact is a state of affairs or a relation among things. — Michael Ossipoff

I agree. A proposition is a sign that purports to represent a fact. A fact is that which is represented by a true proposition.

By the way, one of the definitions of a fact is, a state-of-affairs which obtains. — Sam26

That's redundant. A supposed "state-of-affairs" that doesn't obtain isn't a state of affairs.

My own wording used to be "An aspect of how things are." But "A state of affairs" is a good definition, as is "A relation among things."

Sometimes, to that latter definition, some people add "...or a set of properties of things". But that's redundant, because properties are things, and a thing's having of a property is a relation among those two things .

There are a whole range of facts from physical facts, metaphysical facts, to logical facts

I suggest that they all--all facts about the describable-realm and anything in it--come down to abstract logical facts, at the basis of all that's describable. That's what my Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism metaphysics consists of.

Because of the tautological inevitability of abstract facts or inter-referring systems of them (...regardless of whether someone wants to say they "exist" or not), there "being" a describable realm, including physical universes like ours, is explained. The describable realm is explained within itself.

And, in case anyone thinks that sounds Atheistic, no, that isn't inconsistent with Theism. Theism doesn't require that the describable realm not be self-explanatory as a complete logical system, any more than it requires that the physical world not follow its own laws.

Michael Ossipoff