Yes, "purports" (in a definition of "proposition) is a better word than "alleged", because it doen't require talking about an action of a speaker.

Michael Ossipoff

Are you asking how one thing comes be positioned relative to another? — Michael

Yes, I suppose you can phrase it so.

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. — Michael Ossipoff

The Principle of Bipolarity would contradict this conclusion.

A fact is that which is represented by a true proposition. — aletheist

What about a false proposition? Is that possible for a fact to represent a false proposition?

"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". — Michael Ossipoff


The Principle of Bipolarity would contradict this conclusion. — Posty McPostface

But it's tautologically-invevitable that if a proposition is true it's not untrue.

Consistency is tautologically-inevitable.

That consistency is the only rule governing a person's life-experience story, because it's inevitable.

That, the consistency-requirement, is why logic enters a person's experience-story, as a complex system of inter-referring abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things.

"A fact is that which is represented by a true proposition." — aletheist

What about a false proposition? Is that possible for a fact to represent a false proposition? — Posty McPostface

No. By its definition, a false proposition isn't a fact, and doesn't correspond to one.

A false proposition is still a thing that purports to be a fact. It's still a thing that differs from a fact only by the fact that it might or not be a fact. (...or whichever definition one prefers).

...but its truth-value is "False" because it isn't a fact.

Michael Ossipoff

So, facts are immune to the Principle of Bipolarity?

What about a false proposition? Is that possible for a fact to represent a false proposition? — Posty McPostface

This is backwards; a fact does not represent anything. A true proposition represents a fact; a false proposition purports to represent a fact, but does not really do so.

A false proposition is still a thing that purports to be a fact. — Michael Ossipoff

No, a proposition is a sign that purports to represent a fact.

This is backwards; a fact does not represent anything. — aletheist

A fact represents a state of affairs, no?

So, facts are immune to the Principle of Bipolarity? — Posty McPostface

I'd say yes, but I'd better look up the Principle of Bipolarity.

Michael Ossipoff

A false proposition is still a thing that purports to be a fact. — Michael Ossipoff

No, a proposition is a sign that purports to represent a fact. — aletheist

Alright, but isn't a sign a thing?

I define things as what are describable and can be referred to.

Michael Ossipoff

Look no further than here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4290/principle-of-bipolarity

A fact represents a state of affairs, no? — Posty McPostface

No, a fact is a real state of affairs, which a true proposition represents.

Alright, but isn't a sign a thing? I define things are what are describable and can be referred to. — Michael Ossipoff

By that definition, I suppose so. I was mostly emphasizing that a proposition purports to represent a fact, rather than to be a fact.

No, a fact is a real state of affairs, which a true proposition represents. — aletheist

What's a "real state of affairs'?

What's a "real state of affairs'? — Posty McPostface

The real is that which is as it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it. Consider these three propositions.

• Shakespeare wrote a play called "Hamlet."
• Hamlet was the prince of Denmark within that play.
• Hamlet was actually the prince of Denmark.

The first two are true, and thus represent facts. The third one is false, and thus does not represent a fact, even though it purports to do so.

The real is that which is as it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it. — aletheist

So facts are mind-independent? I thought they were mind-dependent...

The present Kind of France is bald, is a fact that doesn't correspond to reality. What can you say about that>?

So facts are mind-independent? I thought they were mind-dependent... — Posty McPostface

Facts are independent of any individual mind or finite collection of minds. This does not entail that they are independent of mind in general. If an infinite community were to carry out infinite inquiry, facts are what would be represented in all propositions constituting their consensus beliefs - i.e., the absolute truth.

The present King of France is bald, is a fact that doesn't correspond to reality. What can you say about that? — Posty McPostface

It is not a fact, it is a proposition; and it is not a true proposition, since it does not refer to a real object - there is no present King of France - so it does not even represent a fact. It merely purports to represent a fact, as all propositions do.

The present King of France is bald, is a fact that doesn't correspond to reality. What can you say about that>? — Posty McPostface

If the king of France has hair, then "The king of France is bald" isn't a fact.

Here's what I could find about the Principle of Bipolarity:

As it is usually understood, the principle of bipolarity is that every proposition must be capable of being true and capable of being false, which rules out propositions that are necessarily true or necessarily false.

I don't understand that. If a proposition differs from a fact only by the fact that it might or might not be one, or if a proposition is what purports to be a fact, then there's nothing about that that says that a proposition can't be definitely true or definitely false. ...might definitely be a fact or definitely not be a fact.

Propositions are understood to have a truth-value of True or False. Maybe a proposition's truth-value could be unknown, or maybe it could be known.

For example, here's a definitely false proposition:

"There is a true and false proposition" is false proposition. It's truth-value is definitely "False".

So I don't know how it could be said that a proposition can't have a definite truth-value.

Just because some propositions' truth-values aren't known doesn't mean that no proposition can have a definite truth-value.

By the way, I've noticed that someone at an Internet discussion somewhere defines a proposition as a statement, and a fact as what makes a proposition true.

Maybe that fits too, but I like defining "proposition" in terms of "fact". ...but that might just be my bias or prejudice, due to my definition being the first one that occurred to me.



Sure, I guess it would make sense, too, to say that a proposition is a what tells of a purported fact.

That just wasn't the first definition that occurred to me.

Michael Ossipoff

It is not a fact, it is a proposition; and it is not a true proposition, since it does not refer to a real object - there is no present King of France - so it does not even represent a fact. It merely purports to represent a fact, as all propositions do. — aletheist

Hence, what do facts represent?

I don't understand that. If a proposition differs from a fact only by the fact that it might or might not be one, or if a proposition is what purports to be a fact, then there's nothing about that that says that a proposition can't be definitely true or definitely false. ...might definitely be a fact or definitely not be a fact. — Michael Ossipoff

So, facts are independent of the Principle of Bipolarity? I don't know.

Hence, what do facts represent? — Posty McPostface

I do not understand this question. Facts are not signs that represent something else; as we established previously, they are real states of affairs. Propositions purport to represent facts, and true propositions really do represent facts.

So, facts are independent of the Principle of Bipolarity? — Posty McPostface

The Principle of Bipolarity has to do with propositions, not facts.

I do not understand this question. Facts are not signs that represent something else; as we established previously, they are real states of affairs. — aletheist

Again, you use 'real' here again. Why is that?

Facts represent things in the world. What's this "representation" thing doing here in language?

Again, you use 'real' here again. Why is that? — Posty McPostface

A state of affairs that is not real is not a fact. If I were to have a dream in which I was flying like Superman, it would be a fact that I had the dream, but not that I was flying like Superman.

Facts represent things in the world. — Posty McPostface

No, facts are real states of affairs in the world and do not represent anything else. Propositions purport to represent facts. True propositions really do represent facts. Other kinds of signs represent other aspects of the world, including qualities, things, and habits.

What's this "representation" thing doing here in language? — Posty McPostface

I do not understand this question. Language itself is a system of signs, a means of representation.

If I were to have a dream in which I was flying like Superman, it would be a fact that I had the dream, but not that I was flying like Superman. — aletheist

Not true, In the dream, you were flying like superman...

True propositions really do represent facts. — aletheist

Really do? True propositions really do represent the actual state of affairs? Is that more succinct?

Language itself is a system of signs, a means of representation. — aletheist

Representation of what, then?

Not true, In the dream, you were flying like superman... — Posty McPostface

Yes, it would be a fact that I was flying like Superman in the dream, but not that I was actually flying like Superman.

True propositions really do represent the actual state of affairs? Is that more succinct? — Posty McPostface

True propositions really do represent real states of affairs. Reality is not limited to the actual; there are also possible and necessary states of affairs that are as they are regardless of what anyone thinks about them, even if they never actually come about. For example, this is a true proposition: If I were to drop a stone while standing on the earth, it would fall to the ground.

Representation of what, then? — Posty McPostface

Whatever you like - states of affairs, qualities, things, habits, etc.

Yes, it would be a fact that I was flying like Superman in the dream, but not that I was actually flying like Superman. — aletheist

What do you mean by "actually" here?

For example, this is a true proposition: If I were to drop a stone while standing on the earth, it would fall to the ground. — aletheist

So, what happens to the Principle of Bipolarity? It would not be true that you were to drop a stone while standing on Earth? Therefore, the Principle of Bipolarity is nonsense?

Whatever you like - states of affairs, qualities, things, habits, etc. — aletheist

States of affairs sounds right. So, what I said was true?

What do you mean by "actually" here? — Posty McPostface

Actuality is existence, which is the reaction of things upon one another. If I were to jump off the roof and start flying like Superman, that would be actually flying like Superman. Dreaming about flying like Superman, or imagining that I am flying like Superman, is not actually flying like Superman.

So, what happens to the Principle of Bipolarity? — Posty McPostface

I am not familiar enough with it to say for sure. Why should we rule out propositions that are necessarily true or necessarily false? What kind of necessity is relevant? Does this alleged principle only exclude analytic propositions, such as "all bachelors are unmarried" (necessarily true) and "some bachelors are married" (necessarily false)? My example is not in that category.

States of affairs sounds right. So, what I said was true? — Posty McPostface

To which specific statement are you referring? Obviously we use language to express propositions, which represent states of affairs.

Dreaming about flying like Superman, or imagining that I am flying like Superman, is not actually flying like Superman. — aletheist

However, Superman is an actuality here.

Does this alleged principle only exclude analytic propositions, such as "all bachelors are unmarried" (necessarily true) and "some bachelors are married" (necessarily false)? — aletheist

Yes, it excludes only analytic propositions.

So, in your example, Superman is not analytic, yet, we talk about him as a synthetic a priori sense. So, is he a synthetic a priori conception of the human mind, only? I mean, he could exist in a possible world, no? Therefore has he become analytic>?

Thoughts?

Obviously we use language to express propositions, which represent states of affairs. — aletheist

So, how is it so obvious that a proposition represents states of affairs?

How do facts obtain? — Posty McPostface

It's done very much the same way they make chocolate chip cookies last forever with baked on enamel and high explosives. There's a secret ingredient.

There's a secret ingredient. — frank

The chocolate chip cooky is teleologically purposed or instantiated to be eaten. It's purpose as bomb material or other such things is denied and is therefore nonsense.

Sorry chocolate cookie!

I think you're overlooking the addition of concrete to the batter which not only increases their ballistic attributes but it makes them more likely to float!