What exactly do you mean by "existentially dependent"? Following Peirce (again), I would say that propositions - and all signs, for that matter - exist only when embodied in what he called "replicas," which include but are not limited to their expressions in various languages. The same proposition (or other sign) can (and usually does) exist in multiple replicas, which can be in different languages and even other kinds of sign systems. For example, a properly functioning weathervane is a replica of the proposition, "The wind is blowing from that direction."

"replicas," — aletheist

What's that?

A replica is an actual embodiment of a sign, such that it can be interpreted as such within a particular system of signs. The same word can appear many times on a page or screen, and each of these is a replica of that word. The version of this post that I typed and submitted on my computer is one replica of it; what you are reading now is another.

A replica is an actual embodiment of a sign, such that it can be interpreted as such within a particular system of signs. The same word can appear many times on a page or screen, and each of these is a replica of that word. The version of this post that I typed and submitted on my computer is one replica of it; what you are reading now is another. — aletheist

You lost me. And how does this affect the obtaining of facts?

What exactly do you mean by "existentially dependent"? — aletheist

All propositions are language.

...a proposition represents a purported state of affairs or a purported relation among things. A true proposition represents a real state of affairs or a real relation among things. — aletheist

How do "facts" come into the picture here? Are facts states of affairs on your view?

A proposition represents a purported fact or a purported relation among things. A true proposition represents a real fact or a real relation among things.

So...

Propositions represent one of two things. Facts and/or relations. True propositions represent real facts and/or real relations. What do false propositions represent?

Facts obtain if they're real?

Propositions represent one of two things. Facts and/or relations. True propositions represent real facts and real relations. What do false propositions represent? — creativesoul

Indeed. The question on my end is how do facts obtain their status of facthood.

The question on my end is how do facts obtain their status of facthood. — Posty McPostface

That's one that I've found imperative to understanding this framework as well.

That's one that I've found imperative to understanding this framework as well. — creativesoul

So, can we say that facts are representations of states of affairs, and then delve more deeply and state that facts are logical relations between objects in logical space?

So, can we say that facts are representations of states of affairs, and then delve more deeply and state that facts are logical relations between objects in logical space?

We could if we abandon the meaning of "fact" as states of affairs.

We could if we abandon the meaning of "fact" as states of affairs. — creativesoul

I think that is pertinent to advancing this discussion about what facts are. Facts are states of affairs in logical space.

Logical space?

What's that?

Facts are states of affairs on my view, but I've yet to have found this notion of "obtaining" to prove worthy of use...

Logical space?

What's that? — creativesoul

See:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-Wittgenstein-s-Logical-Space#

Logical space has lost its meaning nowadays, so it has inherited a new meaning called "state space".

I think that is pertinent to advancing this discussion about what facts are. — Posty McPostface

This discussion is about one particular framework, or so I thought it was...

This discussion is about one particular framework, or so I thought it was... — creativesoul

You can try and do that; but, Wittgenstein already did most of the work for you. Just sayin.

So, "logical space" refers to all logical possibility(that which has yet to have happened, and/or may never happen but could if the world were different than it is).

I'm a fan of Witt, and I'm a vehement opponent as well.

So, "logical space" refers to all logical possibility. — creativesoul

Yes.

I'm a fan of Witt, and I'm a vehement opponent as well. — creativesoul

What do you mean by that?

I mean, Witt was wrong about stuff too.

So facts are representative of all logical possibility?

That can't be right.

I mean, Witt was wrong about stuff too. — creativesoul

Like what? His Tractatus is partially right; but wrong on some parts like the picture theory of meaning. If you lived in a two-dimensional world, then everything would be right with the Tractatus.

So facts are representative of all logical possibility?

That can't be right. — creativesoul

How so?

Facts cannot be false.

I mean, Witt was wrong about stuff too.
— creativesoul

Like what? — Posty McPostface

His conception of belief. It's an aside. Not relevant to this fact talk.

It's an aside. Not relevant to this fact talk. — creativesoul

Oh, OK. Start another thread then. I'd been keenly interested in it.

Facts cannot be false. — creativesoul

True. I agree that facts cannot be false. But, in logical space with possible worlds, they can be wrong in another possible world.

It gets frustrating to introduce possible worlds, but they are true also.

I'm not so interested as to begin a thread. I may join one already in progress...

I'm not so interested as to begin a thread. I may join one already in progress... — creativesoul

There's the Ongoing Tractatus thread I created. Let me know if you want to post in it.

I agree that facts cannot be false. But, in logical space with possible worlds, they can be wrong in another possible world.

It gets frustrating to introduce possible worlds, but they are true also. — Posty McPostface

The actual was once the possible.

Would you concur or object?