The problems of philosophy are deep problems. They've been argued about for millenia. I appreciate that you're actually trying to engage with them, but you're making it difficult. You're starting from an attitude of common-sense realism - there's no point disputing that, because it is self-evident. Then you're saying 'so why shouldn't I simply maintain that view?' It's very close to a chip on the shoulder, ameliorated by the fact that I think you have a genuine interest in the question, almost in spite of yourself.

I referred to Kant, because my view is that in terms of the subject of philosophy, Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' is the key book of the age. Yes, it's difficult, contentious, and the cause of many arguments, but it's a hard problem, and Kant's analysis of it is pivotal - even now, even after all the subsequent discoveries (and contrary to what a lot of people here think).

The article I linked to makes a point about 'the role of the observer' in physics. Now I bring that up for a very specific reason. Common-sense realism would generally like to leave the whole issue of the role of the observer out of the picture. As far as common-sense realism is concerned, the world simply is the way it is, whether anyone's there or not. But 20th century physics encountered problems which throws that whole assumption into question. That was the 'observer problem' or 'the measurement problem', which is still an open question.

Now I don't want to steer the thread in that direction, either, other than to observe that it is a very profound issue which has baffled very many great minds. At the very least, I think an attitude of bafflement, rather than complacency, is a better place to be, for a philosopher. I think we ought not to have the sense that the world isn't a mystery (sorry for the double negative). The philosopher's task is to 'wonder at what most think ordinary'. Not 'to wonder why anyone would do that'. — Wayfarer

I am both willing and interested to go over this, in our own words, in a step-by-step manner. But you say so much and go too fast for me.

Here's what I suggest. Pick a relatively simple starting point. Share a few thoughts, but nothing too lengthy or complex. Ask a question, or maybe two, but not too many all at once. Then we see how we get on.

Maybe for once, try something new, something a little different. Maybe try out the style of myself, or Terrapin Station, or Banno, instead of your usual style. Short and sweet, step-by-step.

That works....interpret the meaning of it. You said you could conceive an unconceivable object. I’ve been wondering ever since how I would do that. It might be so simple I just looked right over the top of it....dunno. — Mww

Okay. First of all, I can see why the statement might appear on the surface to be contradictory: conceived-unconceived. But I don't think that it actually is a contradiction if interpreted properly.

I'm saying that I can conceive of a hypothetical scenario whereby there exists an unconceived object. That scenario is not this scenario (where I exist, and I'm talking to you, and thinking about stuff, and so on) nor any other scenario. What's outside of the hypothetical scenario is not applicable. I'm not in it. No one is. If no one exists, then no one can conceive of the object. And there you have it. There's your unconceived object. Demonstrably we can think about this. We're thinking about it now. What's the problem?

The confusion in thinking that there's a contradiction seems to stem from some odd way of thinking about it where you're thinking about me and what I'm doing, instead of the hypothetical scenario. It's like looking at the finger instead of the moon.

OK. You’re just saying there is a condition where there are possible objects yet unthought. If that’s right, then I can say, sure, there’s millions of things I haven’t thought yet. And right now, this minute, every damn one of them is immersed in a hypothetical scenario. Still, again, if that’s right, I can’t call any of those things a rock, for to formally name an object presupposes its conception.

Finger/moon.....funny. I know for a fact my finger isn’t green cheese.

Per part one: Everything in any universe exists independent of humanity or even a mind to create or appreciate it.

Per part two: "Rock" as a sound or any other way delineated or detected is information attempting to be transmitted. The sound or word has meaning and existence as long as their is a least one conscious being left to understand it.

Oh dear. We fundamentally disagree on so much. — S

I'm way ahead of you. I knew this from your nonsensical op. But it sure took a lot of insistence on my part, repeating over and over again that your op is nonsensical, before you came to respect this fact. What were you thinking, that you could convert me to seeing things your way? I never thought I'd convert you. It's obvious that people like you are just so wrapped up in your nonsense, that you completely reject reason.

Here's why the op is nonsensical S. The human being has a very particular temporal perspective. We don't see events which are a picosecond in length, and we don't see events which are a billion years long. We live at this particular time and we only see things within a very limited temporal perspective. If human beings are removed, then the human temporal perspective is removed. But your op talks as if you could remove human beings, yet maintain the human temporal perspective. Don't you think that's nonsense? What would maintain the human temporal perspective when there is no human beings?

OK. You’re just saying there is a condition where there are possible objects yet unthought. If that’s right, then I can say, sure, there’s millions of things I haven’t thought yet. And right now, this minute, every damn one of them is immersed in a hypothetical scenario. — Mww

Okay. But it's also true that there were unconceived objects before beings like us even existed. That's not a hypothetical scenario.

Still, again, if that’s right, I can’t call any of those things a rock, for to formally name an object presupposes its conception. — Mww

Under your model it might do. Under mine it doesn't. That's why my model is superior.

Finger/moon.....funny. I know for a fact my finger isn’t green cheese. — Mww

Are you sure? How do you know that it isn't green cheese when you're not looking?

Per part two: "Rock" as a sound or any other way delineated or detected is information attempting to be transmitted. The sound or word has meaning and existence as long as their is a least one conscious being left to understand it. — Aadee

What are you referring to as the meaning, then? The information? But that's already there. What do you mean by "transmission"? Whether there's a person there to "receive" or interpret it is a matter relating to understanding, yes? So we could say that it has meaning, but the meaning is not understood. Why shouldn't we talk about it in this way?

I'm way ahead of you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Indeed you are, if "ahead of" means "behind", which it may well do in your topsy turvy world.

Here's why the op is nonsensical S. The human being has a very particular temporal perspective. We don't see events which are a picosecond in length, and we don't see events which are a billion years long. We live at this particular time and we only see things within a very limited temporal perspective. If human beings are removed, then the human temporal perspective is removed. But your op talks as if you could remove human beings, yet maintain the human temporal perspective. Don't you think that's nonsense? What would maintain the human temporal perspective when there is no human beings? — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course it's not nonsense on its own terms. It's only so as a consequence of you begging the question once again. You simply assume your own understanding instead of mine. You're stuck in your own little world. I've tried to help you out of it, but you seem truly stuck. Ask yourself, for example, whether I accept that hours passing is a temporal perspective to begin with. Do I accept that premise: yes or no? If no, then the logical consequences of accepting it along with my other premises simply does not apply to my position. That would be a non-identical position, even if you successfully refute it. Do you understand that?

Given that begging the question is fallacious, what else have you got? Ah, that's right, just assert that it's nonsense without argument, which is also a fallacy, or revert back to begging the question again. Repeat to infinity, or until I stop trying to get through to you.

Can you not see how inappropriate it is to ask me questions like, "What would maintain the human temporal perspective when there is no human beings?"? It's inappropriate because that doesn't follow from my position. If you throw in one or more of your own premises that I don't accept, then it is not my argument. Doing that is to commit a fallacy of irrelevance. Do you understand that? Are you able to stop yourself from doing this? Or are you stuck? I think that it would help for you to think real hard about what premises you're assuming when you criticise my argument. Think real hard about whether I accept them, or whether they're your own premises which I never accepted to begin with.

THE INFORMATION (VIEWER) UNIVERSE


Each/any 4 dimensional universe is self defining and self contained. Rather like a constantly progressing simulation has been noted. All the information about the universe and its process are available to any consciousness that has the ability to detect, identify and use it.

Life, all life's, primary purpose is to identify, use, and transmit this information. Transmission methods are not required to be conscious, for example...DNA.

Ever increasing complexity in life forms in order to better manage information is the result. If allowed to develop- consciousness of some type will always emerge. There does not seem to be a limit on what kind of consciousness that can emerge, only that it is more effective than not conscious or purely reactive. Even the stimuli response in its most basic form is simply a way to detect information available in the universe and use it.

In order to use information it has to be detected/identified. To become knowledge it must recorded and moved through time.

To be transmitted, the receiving consciousness' must understand the form of transmission.
As long there is at least one consciousness left that understands or could understand what the word/sound or whatever contains as information about the universe then the identifier exists as a self contained portion of information.
Perhaps an example to demonstrate would be from the digital world. All the information is available in bit form. Bytes and any other groupings of bit information still contain or can be identified to contain this original bit information.

At least from my point of view. :)

Of course it's not nonsense on its own terms. It's only so as a consequence of you begging the question once again. — S

I'm just trying to understand which of my premises you disagree with, and why you think it's a matter of begging the question. Then we might be able to discuss our differences on that particular issue. Is it my premise that the human temporal perspective is very specific, and unique to the human being, or is it my premise that "an hour" is a measurement of time dependent on the human temporal perspective, or both? And, please give me some indication of the fault or faults you see in the premise or premises which you disagree with.

You haven't yet told me exactly what it is that you disagree with, and what it is that I am claiming which you think is "begging the question".

Because it leads to rocks which suddenly cease to exist the very nanosecond that we all would. Because it can't plausibly explain the world, because it can't explain the world before and after we existed. Did rocks and everything else like them just suddenly spring into existence the very nanosecond that we did?

Do you find that convincing? Or, like me, do you find it way more convincing that that there's something wrong with the premises which lead us here? — S

I see idealism has a lot to explain and it's similar to the situation where a person tells one lie and has to invent many other lies to make the first lie believable. In the end the story is just one big lie.

However, to be fair, I'd be careful with absurdity because it's, with the exception of a logical contradiction, subjective and so may vary with people. The topic we're discussing itself is an open question. It seems reasonable, therefore, to be agnostic about it while of course choosing one that one likes/prefers.

I call your superior model and raise you a superior theory.

I know, because I’ve tasted my thumb. In the interest of science, I assure you. Which doesn’t tell me jack about the moon, I agree.

I'm just trying to understand which of my premises you disagree with, and why you think it's a matter of begging the question. Then we might be able to discuss our differences on that particular issue. Is it my premise that the human temporal perspective is very specific, and unique to the human being, or is it my premise that "an hour" is a measurement of time dependent on the human temporal perspective, or both? And, please give me some indication of the fault or faults you see in the premise or premises which you disagree with.

You haven't yet told me exactly what it is that you disagree with, and what it is that I am claiming which you think is "begging the question". — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I've already made that very clear, if we assume a usual context, but that this is an unusual context, because it seems to me that, with you, I have to put way more effort into making things clear than I do with others. I think that it's more the case that your "clarity receptors" are the problem here, like a windshield in need of a good wipe.

At least this latest reply from you strikes me as a sign of progress compared to what has preceded it.

Anyway, moving on, I certainly do reject your premise that "an hour" is a measurement of time dependent on the human temporal perspective. Our disagreement here isn't just a matter of logic, it's a matter of semantics. You use some of your key terms in a manner different to how I use those same terms. For example, what you've called a judgement, I would call a fact. And what you've called a measurement also seems to imply, by definition, a subject. So if that's the case, then obviously I can't reasonably adhere to that definition, either. Please tell me you find this as obvious as I do. If you do, then that would at least be a step towards fully understanding the problem with what you've been doing.

I told you ages ago that I wouldn't even speak in the ways that you do, but in different ways. Do you remember ages ago when I mentioned units of measurement? An hour is a unit of measurement. I wouldn't even say that an hour is a measurement. You seem to overlook important details like this. Or it just comes across as sophism, where it looks like you're deliberately trying to exploit ambiguity or beg the question by including your conclusion in the definition of your terms. These are examples of the kind of things which I think that you've been assuming as part of your attempted refutation, and given what I've just explained (and what I have in fact been trying to explain for a long time now), that's why I think that you've been begging the question in your criticism. You have a burden to first argue in support of these things before moving on to my argument, but instead, I think that you've just been assuming them, and then jumping ahead to my argument. I think that you need to stop, slow down, and reverse your tracks back to where this problem is stemming from. Ideally, I think that you should have done that a long, long time ago instead of charging full steam ahead.

Very interesting discussion! I personally think that idealism is the most viable philosophical view, since it seems to be supported by the findings of quantum physics (although most physicists refuse to admit this inconvenient fact). I just started a new discussion on this topic, under the title "Idealistic interpretation of quantum mechanics".

Do you remember ages ago when I mentioned units of measurement? An hour is a unit of measurement. — S

Yes I remember this. Then you went on to talk about rules, and Terrapin explained that rules are human conventions. So I thought you dismissed this line of thought. These are two different ways of using "hour". I interpreted "an hour" in your thought experiment as something measured, that's what you were insisting, "an hour" in relation to passing time, is something objective.' Now you claim to have used "an hour" as a unit of measurement. This means it is a standard, a convention for the act of measuring. After all the people die, how does "an hour", as a standard for measuring, relate to physical existence? It's just as nonsensical this way, as it is the other way.

Are you familiar with relativity theory. The meaning of "an hour" relative to physical existence is dependent on one's frame of reference. As a unit of measurement, "an hour" must be within the context of a frame of reference to have any meaning.

Yes I remember this. Then you went on to talk about rules, and Terrapin explained that rules are human conventions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then I would have explained why I consider that to be an irrelevant point. Can you think of why I might consider that point to be irrelevant? Or do I have to explain it?

So I thought you dismissed this line of thought. These are two different ways of using "hour". I interpreted "an hour" in your thought experiment as something measured, that's what you were insisting, "an hour" in relation to passing time, is something objective.' Now you claim to have used "an hour" as a unit of measurement. This means it is a standard, a convention for the act of measuring. After all the people die, how does "an hour", as a standard for measuring, relate to physical existence? It's just as nonsensical this way, as it is the other way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why on earth would you assume that I interpret stuff like that in a manner implying subjective dependency? This is the very problem.

I don't do that. I call an hour a unit of measurement, because that's what it is, and I don't interpret stuff like that in your manner which would obviously lead me to contradiction. That's obvious, surely. I mean, come on. Really?

If it's a standard, I claim that it's an objective standard. And that's perfectly consistent with my position, and with my usage of language.

And don't even think about misinterpreting "standard" as a judgement or anything of that sort. Ask if you're not sure of something, don't just assume, or at least try to apply the very minimum requirements of being charitable in your assumptions. Don't assume that I'm a bloody idiot whose saying something which is an obvious contradiction, like that something which requires a subject doesn't require a subject.

With all due respect, I think you have a lot to learn about logic, and you should be grateful for the effort I'm putting in and my patience.

Are you familiar with relativity theory. The meaning of "an hour" relative to physical existence is dependent on one's frame of reference. As a unit of measurement, "an hour" must be within the context of a frame of reference to have any meaning. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I'm familiar to an extent. I suspect, however, that you're going to misapply the science in this context. Now, where does it say in relativity theory that the frame of reference must be a subject?

Then I would have explained why I consider that to be an irrelevant point. Can you think of why I might consider that point to be irrelevant? Or do I have to explain it? — S

You keep insisting that it's irrelevant, but your thought experiment references "an hour" after all human beings have died. So it's very relevant. We need to know how "an hour" fits into this scenario of no living human beings.

Why on earth would you assume that I interpret stuff like that in a manner implying subjective dependency? This is the very problem.

I don't do that. I call an hour a unit of measurement, because that's what it is, and I don't interpret stuff like that in your manner which would obviously lead me to contradiction. That's obvious, surely. I mean, come on. Really?

If it's a standard, I claim that it's an objective standard. And that's perfectly consistent with my position, and with my usage of language.

And don't even think about misinterpreting "standard" as a judgement or anything of that sort. Ask if you're not sure of something, don't just assume, or at least try to apply the very minimum requirements of being charitable in your assumptions. Don't assume that I'm a bloody idiot whose saying something which is an obvious contradiction, like that something which requires a subject doesn't require a subject.

With all due respect, I think you have a lot to learn about logic, and you should be grateful for the effort I'm putting in and my patience. — S

How does "a standard" which is used in the practise of measurement figure into your scenario of no living human beings? Your thought experiment scenario describes the existence of a standard, "an hour" after all humans are dead. How is that standard meaningful if there are no humans to use it in the act of measuring.

You keep insisting that it's irrelevant, but your thought experiment references "an hour" after all human beings have died. So it's very relevant. We need to know how "an hour" fits into this scenario of no living human beings. — Metaphysician Undercover

You didn't answer my question. I guess this means that you couldn't figure it out, and that I must explain it to you.

The reason I consider the point that rules are human conventions to be irrelevant is because it is of no logical relevance to my argument. I have accepted that humans set language rules. This misses the point, because I argue that there's no justified reason for believing that the rules would cease to apply. They are a human convention only in some sense along the lines that humans come up with them.

This is where you send us around in circles by saying something in reply which begs the question, such as, "But of course they wouldn't apply, because no one would be there to interpret the meaning!", and maybe ask me a stupid question like, "Who would determine what it means?".

What do you want to know about my position regarding how an hour could pass that I haven't already said? Why should I repeat myself over and over again at your request? Why didn't you pay sufficient attention the first, second, and third time that I've explained it?

How is "a standard" which is used in the practise of measurement figure into your scenario of no living human beings? Your thought experiment scenario describes the existence of a standard, "an hour" after all humans are dead. How is that standard meaningful if there are no humans to use it in the act of measuring. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's currently used, obviously, because there exist people to use it. Would there exist people in the thought experiment? No. So would it be used? No. Would it apply? Yes. Why wouldn't it? Cue the never ending circle of you begging the question again without realising the error in what you're doing.

Would there be linguistic meaning? Yes. Would the meaning be understood? No, there wouldn't be anyone there to understand the meaning. Would the meaning be meaningful to anyone? No, there wouldn't be anyone there to find the meaning meaningful. Why would it be otherwise? Cue the never ending circle of you begging the question again without realising the error in what you're doing.

Notice how you exploit the ambiguity in your terms, and intentionally word what you say in a way which begs the question, just like a sophist would do. Are you a sophist? You certainly seem to act like one.

The reason I consider the point that rules are human conventions to be irrelevant is because it is of no logical relevance to my argument. I have accepted that humans set language rules. This misses the point, because I argue that there's no justified reason for believing that the rules would cease to apply. They are a human convention only in some sense along the lines that humans come up with them. — S

That's where you go into nonsense. People apply standards of measurement in their acts of measurement. The rules do not apply themselves. So "an hour", as a standard of measurement cannot apply itself, and measure an hour, after all the people are dead.

If you think that this is a matter of "begging", then I can show you endless numbers of cases where human beings apply standards of measurement in the act of measuring. Can you show me one case where a standard of measurement applies itself in an act of measurement? If not, then I suggest you drop the charge of "begging the question", and accept as reality that "an hour after all the people died" is meaningless nonsense.

What do you want to know about my position regarding how an hour could pass that I haven't already said? Why should I repeat myself over and over again at your request? Why didn't you pay sufficient attention the first, second, and third time that I've explained it? — S

I want you to explain how a standard of measurement applies without someone applying it. To me, that's quite obviously nonsensical.

So would it be used? No. Would it apply? Yes. — S

This is contradictory. To apply a rule is to use a rule. But if you mean by "it would apply", that the particular rule is applicable, or relevant, then we need someone to actually apply the rule, after all the people are dead, to measure the hour period, or else we simply have an applicable rule with no one to apply it.

Would there be linguistic meaning? Yes. Would the meaning be understood? No, there wouldn't be anyone there to understand the meaning. Would the meaning be meaningful to anyone? No, there wouldn't be anyone there to find the meaning meaningful. Why would it be otherwise? Cue the never ending circle of you begging the question again without realising the error in what you're doing. — S

Now you appear to be catching on. After all the people are dead, there is still a standard of measurement, "an hour". "An hour" has meaning as a standard of measurement, and even after all people are dead, it has meaning. But with all the people dead there is no one to understand that meaning, or to apply the standard of measurement. Now, let's ask the question, "would there be a specific rock 'an hour' after all people are dead?"

Do you agree that this specific rock would exist at some times after all the people are dead, and at other times after all the people are dead, it would not exist? So, after all the people are dead, if it is to be either true or false that the specific rock exists "an hour" after all the people are dead, then some one must interpret, "an hour", and measure "an hour" after all the people are dead. Therefore it is a nonsensical question, because the rock exists at sometimes and other times it does not exist, and there is no one to interpret "an hour", and to measure "an hour", to see how this relates to the existence of the rock. The rock may or may not exist "an hour" after all the people are dead, and it is meaningless nonsense to ask such a question. To presuppose that the question may be answered is to presuppose something impossible, something contradictory, that "an hour" can be interpreted and measured when there is no one to interpret and measure.

People apply standards of measurement in their acts of measurement. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, they do, and that's obviously irrelevant, but you fail to see that. It's probably obvious to those who aren't wearing blinkers, and aren't unreasonable. Before you ask why it's irrelevant, first ask yourself: are there people in the scenario?

You're missing the point for about the millionth time now. The question is not whether people apply standards, which they do, but whether the standards would apply, which they would. People apply standards for a purpose, like finding out the length of a wall. That's completely irrelevant with regards to what I'm talking about. If the length of the wall is two metres, then the length of the wall is two metres. You said earlier that a tautology is the strongest form of argument, so there you have it. Whether anyone has measured the wall to find out that it's two metres in length is completely irrelevant. Once again, this is your fundamental idealist error of confusing epistemology and metaphysics. What you are stuck talking about are requirements for knowledge, not requirements for what's the case, and you consistently fail to realise this.

If you can't even pick up something as simple as that, then why should I continue?

The rules do not apply themselves. So "an hour", as a standard of measurement cannot apply itself, and measure an hour, after all the people are dead. — Metaphysician Undercover

I am tired of this sophism. Your wording is wrong. We don't ask whether plants grow themselves in nature. They simply grow in nature. And the rules would likewise simply apply, not apply themselves. You're suggesting the requirement of a subject in your wording, and that's not proper philosophy, that's sophism, and it's inherently unreasonable. I've exposed it for what it is. I'm not going to keep doing that with no end in sight.

The hour doesn't need to be measured for it to pass. You don't need to be constantly staring at a clock like a complete moron for an hour to have passed. No one does. We don't even need to exist. If we were to die now, not only hours, but years would pass. Hundreds of years. What? You think that God is there with a stopwatch or something? I hate to break it to you, but that's a load of baloney.

I am curious what influences you to produce this sort of sophism. Do you get it from a book? The internet? Or do you create it yourself?

I want you to explain how a standard of measurement applies without someone applying it. To me, that's quite obviously nonsensical. — Metaphysician Undercover

I've done so already. An argument from repetition is an informal fallacy. It's not reasonable to ask me to do something I've already done, let alone done multiple times. If it's a tactic of yours to get me to give up through nausea, then that's immoral, and it is what a sophist would do.

Not understanding is one thing, but when I've already given you an explanation, then you should go back to that explanation before expecting me to simply repeat it just because you want me to. And I shall now leave you to think on that.

In conclusion, idealists of the sort that Metaphysician Undercover is are extremely unreasonable, or at least he makes an extremely unreasonable case for his sort of idealism against my sort of realism. Other sorts of idealism might be more reasonable, and other idealists might do a better job of it. However, my sort of realism has easily outperformed the competition in this discussion, as I have demonstrated throughout.

If the length of the wall is two metres, then the length of the wall is two metres. — S

Correct, but "length" is a measurement, and a thing only has a measurement if it's been measured. To say that it has a measurement without having been measured is contradictory.

Whether anyone has measured the wall to find out that it's two metres in length is completely irrelevant. — S

Oh no, here you go again. The wall's "length" of "two metres" is what we say about it, what we've determined it to be through measurement, two metres. Don't you see that it would be nonsensical to say that the wall is two metres if it hasn't been measured to be two metres? The wall is two metres if the wall is two metres, correct and tautological. But the wall is only two metres if it's been measured to be two metres, because "two metres" is a measurement.

We've been through this already, a thing only has a measurement if it's been measured. The wall is two metres if it's been measured to be two metres. To say "the wall is two metres" when it hasn't been measured to be two metres is meaningless nonsense. In what instance would you ever state that a thing has measurement X, when it has not been measured to actually be X? Your statements clearly are nonsensical. After everyone is dead, there is no one to measure "an hour". That a standard of measurement "would apply", if there were someone to apply it, does not mean that a standard of measurement has been applied, and an hour has been measured.

The hour doesn't need to be measured for it to pass. — S

We've been through this too. Time passes. An hour is a measured period of time. It's nonsense to say that an hour has passed without somehow measuring an hour to have passed. When I explained this to you, you started claiming that you used "an hour" in a different way, to refer to a standard, a "unit of measurement" rather than a measured period of time. Now you appear to be attempting to create ambiguity, saying that the "hour" is the thing passed, not the standard of measurement by which the period of time is measured. Equivocation is a fallacy.

Don't you see that it would be nonsensical to say that the wall is two metres if it hasn't been measured to be two metres? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not nonsensical in the context in which I'm saying it, which is not the usual context. In saying it in the usual context, it wouldn't make sense for me to say that, because it would suggest that I had knowledge of its length, when I hadn't measured it to find out that knowledge. In my context, on the other hand, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm not suggesting anything about knowledge that I've acquired through measuring. I'm just saying that it would necessarily be of a certain length - for example, that it would be two metres in length. I'm not suggesting that I actually know the wall to be that specific length, just that it would have a specific length, and that that specific length could be two metres. It could be an unknown truth.

You must learn to stop misinterpreting what's being said!

So you’re a realist. I’m sorry, does it hurt? They got remedies for that these days, ya know. (Grin)

So what kind of realist are you? Scientific realist? Metaphysical realist?

Describe the world in your own words.

So you’re a realist. I’m sorry, does it hurt? They got remedies for that these days, ya know. — Mww

It hurts each time someone repeatedly fails to grasp a perfectly reasonable argument that I've made in support of realism, but I'm thinking that maybe I like the pain. Either that or I'm a perfectly reasonable fool.

So what kind of realist are you? Scientific realist? Metaphysical realist? — Mww

I'm not sure what you'd call my sort of realism, and I don't particularly care. Metaphysical realism? Does it matter what we call it? We could just call it my kind of realism.

Describe the world in your own words. — Mww

There's a whole bunch of stuff: rocks, planets, trees, people, computers, electrons, space. There's also stuff like judgements, feelings, thoughts, concepts, numbers, and language, which seem of a different category. But whatever there is, all of it, that's the world. And if you removed some of the stuff, like people, judgements, feelings, and thoughts, then all that's left: that would be the world. There would still be planets, for example. There's no good reason to believe that they'd suddenly cease to exist along with people, judgements, thoughts, and feelings.

”However I don’t know what you mean by “There is…” “— Michael Ossipoff
.
Yes you do, and it's self-explanatory.

.
Translation:
.
“I can’t define it.”
.

”A metaphysical or ontological question or statement is meaningless if it uses one or more terms that aren’t metaphysically or ontologically defined.”— Michael Ossipoff
.
Poppycock. You know the meaning of "there" and you know the meaning of "is" and you know the meaning of "there is", as in "there is a rock".

.
Nonsense.
.
It’s common-knowledge that English has word-combinations whose meaning isn’t given by the meanings of their parts.
.
1. You point to a cabinet whose contents are unknown, and say “Is a rock there?”
.
2. Or you say “Is there the rock that I referred to, after everyone dies?”. (“Exists that rock?”)
.
Those are two entirely different kinds of question, and “There is…” is being used entirely differently, with a different meaning. (..an unknown or absent meaning, in #2)
.
As you meant it when you asked if there still is that rock after everyone has died, “There is” means “Exists”.
.
“Exists that rock, after everyone has died?” accurately translates your question.
.
It’s a matter of whether or not you can define “Exist”.
.
Saying that there is a certain thing, in its own context, is a truism. And it doesn’t say anything about its objective existence or reality.

(And what meaning it has isn't shared by the "There is" in your question.)
.
For instance an inter-referring system of abstract facts are inter-related (…as a truism, just by the facts themselves and their being about eachother). And that’s so, without reference to any outside reality or frame-of-reference, and without any claim of objective existence or real-ness for that system, whatever that would mean.
.
There is this physical world, in its own context, and in the context of your life.
.
That use of “There is” is different from your use of it in your question. You’re asking about some supposed objective existence, and you can’t define it.
.

Are you seriously going to pretend otherwise?

.
No.
.
I don’t agree that I’m “pretending”. But yes, I’m saying that it isn’t self-explanatory.
.

Obviously, if you know the meaning, then there is a meaning there, otherwise you couldn't know it.

.
Did I say that I know the meaning?
.
But neither do you.
.
Philosophy gets into so much muddle and befuddlement, when we say things whose meaning we don’t know.
.

What you're doing amounts to a performative contradiction and is therefore self-defeating. We start from the fact that you understand what I'm saying…

.
We start from the fact that I don’t know what you mean, and neither do you.
.
…unless you can tell me what you mean by “Exist”. …for something to “exist”, objectively (without limiting that existence to a particular context).
.
Michael Ossipoff
.
8 Su

Translation:

“I can’t define it.” — Michael Ossipoff

I went over this. Your reply is nonresponsive and doesn't progress the discussion. Whether I can or can't, defining it isn't necessary if we understand the meaning, which we do. Saying otherwise is a performative contradiction. Thus, your claim has been refuted.

You know what a game is, even if you can't successfully define it. Are you familiar with Wittgenstein at all?

1. You point to a cabinet whose contents are unknown, and say “Is a rock there?” — Michael Ossipoff

And you're going to pretend that you don't understand what is being asked there?

2. Or you say “Is there the rock that I referred to, after everyone dies?”. (“Exists that rock?”) — Michael Ossipoff

And you're going to pretend that you don't understand what is being asked there?

Those are two entirely different kinds of question, and “There is…” is being used entirely differently, with a different meaning. (..an unknown or absent meaning, in #2) — Michael Ossipoff

The part about existence is no different in either. They're just two different scenarios, two different contexts, and you understand what's being asked in both cases, so there shouldn't be a problem. If there is, then it's of your own making.

As you meant it when you asked if there still is that rock after everyone has died, “There is” means “Exists”.
.
“Exists that rock, after everyone has died?” accurately translates your question.
.
It’s a matter of whether or not you can define “Exist”. — Michael Ossipoff

It doesn't make a difference if you use "is" or "exists", as they have the same meaning per my usage here.

And nope, it's just a matter of whether what I'm saying is understandable, but it is, so we can move on from that.

OK, try this thought experiment. You and I are walking in the woods, and we come across a rock.
You say "that rock has a measurement".
I say, "no it doesn't have a measurement because it hasn't been measured.
You insist, "yes it must have a measurement, regardless of whether or not it has been measured".
So I cite for you the conventional definitions of "measurement", all of which require an act of measuring. And I explain to you that what you are insisting on is nonsense.
Then you say "I am not using 'measurement' in the 'usual context', and in my context, it does make sense".
But your context is the purpose of supporting a metaphysical position.

So you give "measurement" a very special meaning, within a special context, which is the purpose of supporting your metaphysical position, which turns out to be untenable without that special meaning of "measurement". The only thing which supports your metaphysical position is assuming that very special meaning of "measurement", and the only reason to assume that special meaning is to support your metaphysical position. Who is the one being unreasonable?