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>? — Posty McPostface

There seem to be two senses of 'fact'. Statements are referred to as 'facts'; this is the sense in which the encyclopedia is understood to be a compendium of facts. States of affairs are also understood to be facts; so-called ostensive facts. However, states of affairs cannot be exactly the same things as facts, since we can have imaginary or possible states of affairs, but it seems wrong to speak of "imaginary facts".

So "the present king of France is bald" presents an imagined or possible state of affairs; but it seems wrong to say that it is a fact. It would be a fact if the state of affairs it represents were actual.

False propositions... ...represent unreal states of affairs or unreal relations among things. — aletheist

Since unreal states of affair and relations do not exist, there is nothing to represent.

Hamlet sets out a plethora of unreal states of affairs. There are true propositions about Hamlet.

Something is definitely wrong with this account...

However, states of affairs cannot be exactly the same things as facts, since we can have imaginary or possible states of affairs, but it seems wrong to speak of "imaginary facts". — Janus

What reason is there to posit imaginary states of affairs or possible ones?

What do they have in common with actual states of affairs that make them count as states of affairs?

Imaginary or possible states of affairs are counterfactual. Hillary Clinton could have been the president, for example.

To be clear, I'm not at all arguing or objecting to the use of hypotheticals. I'm asking what good reason there is to call them "states of affairs" when they are clearly not?

I've always been interested in this notion of states of affairs and how they obtain. Thus, I'm piddling around here...

I'm asking what good reason there is to call them "states of affairs" when they are clearly not? — creativesoul

Hypotheticals are clearly not, or at least may be not, actual states of affairs; they are imagined states of affairs. You do seem to be piddling...in the puddle...stirring up what has already been settled...and muddying the waters...as usual...

What good reason is there to call hypotheticals imagined states of affairs?

What do all states of affairs have in common that make them what they are?

You do seem to be piddling... — Janus

That's all I ever do aside from systems analysis and creation...

What good reason is there to call hypotheticals imagined states of affairs? — creativesoul

Hypotheticals are not necessarily imaginary states of affairs; they may turn out to be actual. The utility of the distinction between actual and imaginary states of affairs seems obvious.

To make distinctions, provided there are real differences between the things being distinguished, leads to clarity and nuanced thinking.

That's all I ever do aside from systems analysis and creation... — creativesoul

So, what's you point?

What do all states of affairs have in common that make them what they are? — creativesoul

That they are concatenations of real or imaginary events, processes, things or relations.

Hypotheticals are not necessarily imaginary states of affairs; they may turn out to be actual. The utility of the distinction between actual and imaginary states of affairs seems obvious.

To make distinctions, provided there are real differences between the things being distinguished, leads to clarity and nuanced thinking. — Janus

That they are concatenations of real or imaginary events, processes, things or relations. — Janus

Meh.

Muddle.

States of affairs are what has already happened and/or is currently happening. That which may or may not happen has not happened.

There's a useful distinction in this context.

States of affairs are what has already happened and/or is currently happening. That which may or may not happen has not yet happened.

There's a useful distinction in this context. — creativesoul

So what? This neither contradicts nor even relates to anything I have said, as usual... :roll:

Events take place. They have happened. Imaginary hypotheticals have not. They are not events. Calling them such neglects this.

So, the imaginary events described in a work of fiction are not events in your view? What would you rather call them; and what would be the advantage to your alternative terminology (if you have one)? If you think there is an unclarity lurking in the distinction between imaginary and real events, then tell us what it is.

If A represents B, then B must exist prior to A otherwise there's nothing to represent. — creativesoul

What do words like "unicorn" and "phoenix" represent? If your statement is correct, how are we able to talk about things and events that are in the future - i.e., that do not (yet) exist, and may never actually exist?

Hamlet sets out a plethora of unreal states of affairs. There are true propositions about Hamlet. — creativesoul

There are true propositions about Hamlet (the play) because Hamlet (the play) exists. There are propositions about Hamlet (the character) - such as "Hamlet was the prince of Denmark" - that are true only within the universe of discourse established by the play. Shakespeare really imagined and wrote about Hamlet as the prince of Denmark; but Hamlet was not really the prince of Denmark.

So, the imaginary events described in a work of fiction are not events in your view? — Janus

What you are calling "imaginary events" have not happened. Events happen.

Why must something happen in order to count as an event? If events rely on happening in order to qualify as events, then are past events no longer events since they are no longer happening? Your proposed elimination of usages of the term 'event' to refer to imaginary or possible happenings seems pointless, since the distinction between actual and potential, possible or imaginary events is perfectly well understood by most everyone (apart from you apparently).

If A represents B, then B must exist prior to A otherwise there's nothing to represent.
— creativesoul
What do words like "unicorn" and "phoenix" represent? — aletheist

Complex thought and belief.

If your statement is correct, how are we able to talk about things and events that are in the future - i.e., that do not (yet) exist, and may never actually exist? — aletheist

Talk about the future represents our thought and belief about what has not happened.

Why must something happen in order to count as an event? — Janus

There is a distinction between actual and possible. That which is actual has happened. That which is possible has not.

If events rely on happening in order to qualify as events, then are past events no longer events since they are no longer happening? — Janus

Past events happened.

Your proposed elimination of usages of the term 'event' to refer to imaginary or possible happenings seems pointless, since the distinction between actual and potential, possible or imaginary events is perfectly well understood by most everyone (apart from you apparently). — Janus

Disagreement is not misunderstanding.

There is a difference between things that have happened and things that have not.

Past events happened. — creativesoul

Yes, and future events will happen, possible events might happen and imagined events are imagined as happening. So what?

Disagreement is not misunderstanding.

There is a difference between things that have happened and things that have not. — creativesoul

You don't appear to be understanding the distinctions between events which happen, are happening, will happen or might happen and events which are merely imagined to happen, to be happening, to be going to happen or to be likely to happen.

You say that there is a difference between things that have happened and things which have not; and you seem to be implying (or more than merely implying; asserting although you have given no argument) that the former qualify as events and the latter do not; rather than employing the much more sensible distinction (as is almost universally done) between events (rather than calling them "things") that happen and those that do not. All you are really arguing about is the definition of a word; and your definition is contrary to common usage without any cogent reason for being so.

Yes, and future events will happen, possible events might happen and imagined events are imagined as happening. So what? — Janus

They have not happened. They are not events. They are imaginings.

You don't appear to be understanding the distinctions between events which happen, are happening, will happen or might happen and events which are merely imagined to happen, to be happening, to be going to happen or to be likely to happen. — Janus

I understand just fine. You're calling things that have not happened "events". I'm not. You're calling imaginings "events". That is to conflate that which has happened with that which has not, to put it mildly... There are all sorts of other issues that haven't been mentioned yet. I'm being nice.

Piddling.

So what? The purpose of the conditional "actual" is to make that distinction. There are imagined events and there are actual events; they both involve concatenations of things, people, processes and/ or relations. If you want to coin a different term to designate imagined events; what term are you proposing; and what would be the advantage of doing away with the actual vs imaginary/possible/ potential distinction?

Deleted

Actual and possible...

The one consists of what has happened. The other consists of thought and belief.

Remove our language. What's left of the possible? Nothing.

The two are not the same. Why call them both by the same name?

There are imagined events and there are actual events; they both involve concatenations of things, people, processes and/ or relations. — Janus

All meaningful language use satisfies this criterion.

Yes, as you said you are "piddling"...piddling is indeed the word, and I will waste no further time with your sophistical pedantry and self-aggrandizement. You wonder why I don't take you seriously sometimes! It's not to do with me disliking your style as you previously suggested, it's to do with a lack of cogent content.