Perhaps. If possible, cite an example of an thing, event or fact the 'inconsistency' of which is not an artifact of a 'description' (i.e. what Spinoza referred to as an "inadequate idea" (E2P36d) centuries before Meinong opened his "Zoo" (esp. merely "subsistent objects") or Witty called bullshit endeavored "to shew the fly the way out of the fly-bottle" (PI)). :chin:

This assumes there are facts, which itself assumes a rational (comprehensible) world. That doesn’t have to be the case. Why assume that these “facts” are absolute, universal, and static?

I don't assume that facts are "absolute, universal, and static".

But there are facts. Such as that this post is a reply to your post, which was in turn a reply to a previous post. Or that this sentence ends in a full stop.

a fact cannot be false. — Banno

What are facts, though? — bongo fury

Ah, solving that question
Brings the priest and the doctor
In their long coats
Running over the fields

Perhaps. If possible, cite an example of an thing, event or fact the 'inconsistency' of which is not an artifact of a 'description' (i.e. what Spinoza referred to as an "inadequate idea" (E2P36d) centuries before Meinong opened his "Zoo" (esp. merely "subsistent objects") or Witty called bullshit endeavored "to shew the fly the way out of the fly-bottle" (PI)). :chin: — 180 Proof

You ask the impossible for any example I cite could be "explained away" - an accusation made against Daniel Dennett in re his claim that consciousness is an illusion - as borne of an "inadequate idea" (Spinoza).

By the way, the burden of proof, I'm sorry to say, rests on your able shoulders for it is you [and @Banno] who has made the claim that, "ALL inconsistencies are due to inadequate descriptive frameworks." I, on the other hand, am open-minded about the whole issue and am willing to countenance the possibility that reality could very well be able to conjure up, for our entertainment and to our exasperation, inconsistencies every now and then, here and there.

Do you recall participating in the thread A cage went in search of a bird? Inconsistency is our problem, not the universe's, right?

Do you recall participating in the thread A cage went in search of a bird?. Inconsistency is our problem, not the universe's, right? — TheMadFool

Right! My point exactly. To wit:

Inconsistency, dear Fool, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are describers.

Right! My point exactly. To wit:
Inconsistency, dear Fool, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are describers. — 180 Proof

So that means the universe can be inconsistent in ways that don't have anything to do with our descriptions even though our descriptions, due to inherent limitations, spawn their own variety of inconsistencies.

'Things, events & facts' (i.e. the universe) cannot be inconsistent. You haven't cited an example, of course, because, as I wrote,

All that we "encounter" is, first and foremost, the "inconsistencies" of our inadequate descriptions. — 180 Proof

But that's begging the question isn't it? You haven't proven that all inconsistencies are due to "inadequate descriptions". All you've done is asserted that to be so without argument. I'm calling you out on that. Need I say more?

All I can say at this point is if you really believe what you're saying that we're in disagreement shouldn't bother you at all; after all, that we contradict each other is, at the end of the day, a description issue and all that the two of us and Banno need is the "right" description to realize that there really is nothing to argue about. If you agree then I don't see why we should squabble over anything.

Another issue has to do with how any given inconsistency will be resolved by an "adequate" description. Take for instance the inconsistency involving atheism and theism (one of your favorite topics going by your comment history). How would an "adequate" description resolve this particular inconsistency? Would it side with theism, would it side with atheism, would it reject both, accept both? How exactly would finding the "appropriate" description make this and all other inconsistencies...go away?

What are facts, though? — bongo fury

Facts are solidified opinions.
Facts weaken under extreme heat and pressure.
Truth is elastic.

-- "The Physics of Epistemology", taken from "Murphy's Laws, Book 3", 1973.

What are facts, though? — bongo fury

I attended several trials. As an outside observer.

The presiding judge at one jury trial gave directives to the jury; the directives included something like this (quote is not verbatin): "You will be hearing opinions and claims. Opinions and claims become fact when you accept them as being true."

This struck me hugely.

You stand up at church during mass at points in the RC churches.
At trials, you stand up when the Judge appears or stands up or leaves.

You shut your clapper at mass. As an observer.
You shut your clapper at the trial as an observer.

You don't sass back to the judge, even when given permission to speak.
You say a few words at the mass if you are part of the congregation, but definitely don't sass back.

And what really struck me: the wafer and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ via accepting it;
The claim becomes fact via accepting it.

The RC faith does not stand up to logic and reason.
Trials, if they include this transmogrification, also don't.

Trials are patterned for their rituals after the Church rituals. Not for the pattern of the rituals only; also for the pattern of incomprehensible processes.

I don't assume that facts are "absolute, universal, and static". — Banno

So the truth value of facts can change, but the fact that the fact is a fact doesn’t?

But there are facts. Such as that this post is a reply to your post, which was in turn a reply to a previous post. Or that this sentence ends in a full stop. — Banno

But suppose I delete my post, or a mod edits yours and deletes the punctuation. Then the fact is no longer true, which in my mind means that it isn’t a fact.

I guess it would depend on both where those who doubted less than you ended up and where those who doubted more than you did as well. I'm sure there's a sweet spot, highly related to your time and place of dwelling, as well as other factors including what is at stake.

For example, are we doubting a philosophical notion or scientific law? If you believe something that turns out to be untrue, your not going to suddenly lose all sense of logic and the universe probably won't begin to unravel either. :grin:

Are we doubting whether to trust a person you only somewhat know with a small loan? If he dips and you never see him again, or just mismanages it and is simply unable to pay you back, that could have a notable impact on your life.

Are we doubting whether or not to use the raw chicken you were thawing but forgot about til half a day later? If spoiled, it could make you ill.

The dynamic I see is "better safe than sorry" vs. (I'm sure there's a more apt saying but it's one I found to be relatable) "scared money don't make money" or maybe "woe is the man who endlessly pondered the meaning of a life he forgot to live" .. which implies sometimes to get a reward you have to take risks .. or else everybody would do so and said reward would no longer be a reward but a given.

↪180 Proof But that's begging the question isn't it? You haven't proven that all inconsistencies are due to "inadequate descriptions". — TheMadFool

Strawman. In fact, you're the one guilty of what you accuse me of here. :shade:

I have asked you to counter my claim which I assert in the absence of evidence, as far as I know, to the contrary:

↪TheMadFool If possible, cite an example of an thing, event or fact the 'inconsistency' of which is N O T an artifact of a 'description' ... — 180 Proof

:chin:

All you've done is asserted that to be so without argument. I'm calling you out on that. Need I say more? — TheMadFool

Yeah, explain what it even means for you to "assert without argument" that the universe itself, outside our descriptions, is in any way "inconsistent". That's nonsense, but I'll consider any intelligible explain (or, as requested above, a consistent, factual, example as evidence counter to my claim).

But suppose I delete my post, or a mod edits yours and deletes the punctuation. Then the fact is no longer true, which in my mind means that it isn’t a fact. — Pinprick

All this show is an over exuberance for continuity. The world changes, facts change, which statements are true changes. If that bothers you, add a few indexicals.

↪180 Proof But that's begging the question isn't it? You haven't proven that all inconsistencies are due to "inadequate descriptions".
— TheMadFool
Strawman. In fact, you're the one guilty of what you accuse me of here. :shade:

I have asked you to counter my claim which I assert in the absence of evidence, as far as I know, to the contrary:
↪TheMadFool If possible, cite an example of an thing, event or fact the 'inconsistency' of which is N O T an artifact of a 'description' ...
— 180 Proof
:chin:

All you've done is asserted that to be so without argument. I'm calling you out on that. Need I say more?
— TheMadFool
Yeah, explain what it even means for you to "assert without argument" that the universe itself, outside our descriptions, is in any way "inconsistent". That's nonsense, but I'll consider any intelligible explain (or, as requested above, a consistent, factual, example as evidence counter to my claim) — 180 Proof

My experience informs me that I should defer to your better judgment but my gut instinct tells me I should, at the very least, raise an objection to your claims.

You're right that I haven't provided you with a counterexample to the claim that "ALL inconsistencies are description issues" and that, I believe, is what you refer to as "...the absence of evidence...". My reply is, and I'm sure you must've anticipated it, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Now let's get down to the brass tacks and explore what "ALL inconsistencies are description issues" means for a particular [example of] inconsistency. My choice of inconsistency is the theism-atheism duo. [If you prefer another inconsistency (wave-particle duality of light or something else) let's discuss that.] Anyway, since this, as per you, is only an apparent inconsistency, a frustrating byproduct of, in Spinozist terms, an "inadequate idea" it follows that we can resolve this apparent inconsistency by discovering an "adequate idea" which once found will make this [apparent] inconsistency go away. What is this "adequate idea" and what will the mutually inconsistent pair of theism-atheism look like after we succeed in describing them with the aforesaid "adequate idea"?

Your thoughts...

My choice of inconsistency is the theism-atheism duo. — TheMadFool

Descriptions. Ok, my point precisely. Those are not, however, inconsistent things events or facts to which descriptions might refer. Also, only 'theism' is inconsistent; atheism is consistent in negating it; and the relation of them is bivalent (or incommensurable), not "inconsistent". I think, Fool, you've lost the plot. :smirk:

The world changes, facts change, which statements are true changes. If that bothers you, add a few indexicals. — Banno

It doesn’t bother me, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. You said “facts can’t be false,” but here you agree that they can change. If a fact changes so that it is no longer true, doesn’t that mean it’s false?

Also, keep in mind I’m only trying to establish that all statements, beliefs, explanations, observations, etc. can rationally be subject to doubt. All of these have the possibility of being incorrect, or becoming incorrect (perhaps this is the background of certainty you alluded to earlier “I’m certain all beliefs, etc. can be false.”?), and therefore have grounds for being doubted.

If a fact changes so that it is no longer true, doesn’t that mean it’s false? — Pinprick

Well, yes: it means it is no longer a fact.

It's a fact that it is afternoon here. Soon it will be evening. It will no longer be a fact that it is afternoon, but it will be a fact that it is evening.

Perhaps you expected something more profound.

I’m only trying to establish that all statements, beliefs, explanations, observations, etc. can rationally be subject to doubt. — Pinprick

...and I'm happily pointing out that this is not quite right. The Bishop example is a neat case in point, and there are plenty of others. Maths provides ample.

Problems such as you describe arise when one finds an answer to a philosophical question before one looks around. So one decides that facts must be immutable, forever true; then gets a surprise to find that it ain't so.

Descriptions. Ok, my point precisely. Those are not, however, inconsistent things events or facts to which descriptions might refer. Also, only 'theism' is inconsistent; atheism is consistent in negating it; and the relation of them is bivalent (or incommensurable), not "inconsistent". I think, Fool, you've lost the plot. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Your contention is that reality isn't inconsistent and inconsistency, if observed, is only "apparent" in that it occurs at the level of and is because of defective descriptions.

My brief investigation on the matter suggests that there are two strains of consistency/inconsistency relationships:

Type 1. Consistency/inconsistency of a model/theory/description with respect to reality. This kind of consistency/inconsistency is based on empricial observation and, it appears, is scientific in nature. In this we construct a model/theory/description, test it against observation, and if model/theory/description is consistent with observation, we retain the model/theory/description as "innocent until proven guilty"; if, on the other hand, observation and a model/theory/description are inconsistent, adjustments are made to the latter and if that doesn't work you know what happens.


Type 2. Consistency/inconsistency among models/theories/descriptions. This variety of consistency/inconsistecy needs no introduction and I'll merely cite some examples: the theism-atheism inconsistency, the physicalism-no life after death consistency.


At this juncture I'd like to call to the witness stand, since I couldn't make any headway with theism-atheism, the double-slit experiment which demonstrates that light behaves as both a particle and a wave. Before I proceed further, I'd like you to take note of the fact that being both a wave AND a particle is an inconsistency.

In accordance with type 1 consistency/inconsistency, the type that's apposite for the matter at hand - whether reality itself is consistent/inconsistent - we discover that with the double-slit experiment, light is a wave and light is a particle and not forgetting this is science, a field in which we're constantly reminded that reality is judge, jury, and executioner and that models/theories/descriptions must fit reality and not the other way round, we have to conclude, for reality has spoken, through the double-slit experiment, that it can be inconsistent with itself.

The wave-particle duality of light is not a description issue for reality, empirical observation, calls the shots in science and as far as we can tell, light behaves inconsistently. Reality, on occasion, can be inconsistent.

If you think about it we necessarily must doubt everything we regard as ‘knowledge’. If we literally had no ounce of doubt about some given ‘object’ then we wouldn’t be able to recognise it.

Everything we experience is due to our inclination to predict what happens next. What we experience is built upon what just happened a moment ago. Doubting our so-called ‘experience of reality’ is precisely what experience is.

In the day-to-day world there are many ‘items’ we just accept. Accepting something doesn’t mean we stop doubting it.

In short ... What cannot be doubted cannot be experienced. The ‘degree’ of ‘doubt’ seems like a misplaced sentiment to me. That said, I may question somethings more than others. Outside of that ‘certainty’ only has meaning within a set set of predefined circumstances. In terms of basic arithmetic 1+1=2 is a ‘certainty’ ... in experienced reality (applied to ‘reality’) I have plenty of room to doubt the use of its application. Ubiquitous ‘certainty’ would be something literally ‘Beyond Doubt’ and therefore outside of experience (aka nonexistent for all intents and purposes!).

What cannot be doubted cannot be experienced. — I like sushi

You cut your finger.

You experience the pain.

Can you doubt the pain?

Then what cannot be doubted can be experienced.

@180 Proof

The long and short of it is that reality sends us mixed signals i.e. it's consistent with mutually inconsistent descriptions which, to my reckoning, is a trail of crumbs that lead back to reality's doorstep. Reality is inconsistent as the fact that mutually inconsistent hypotheses (descriptions) may account for the same raw data we gather from observation attests to.

By the way can you cite some sources I can refer to? Thanks in advance.

I said that experience is what it is because it is open to doubt. Why ask a question when I’ve presented the answer?

I view ‘experience’ as necessitating ‘doubt’. Feelings are all quite dubious. My position is one that questions the semantic validity of the terms in use. Anything can be questioned

can you question that you are in pain?

... the double-slit experiment which demonstrates that light behaves as both a particle and a wave. Before I proceed further, I'd like you to take note of the fact that being both a wave AND a particle is an inconsistency. — TheMadFool

:lol: The photon's 'wave-particle complementarity' is no more of "an inconsistency" than is a coin with opposing faces because it's not "a wave" & "a particle", or "heads" & "tails", simultaneously. Photons are recognizable as such because, like anything else, they behave consistently.

The long and short of it is that reality sends us mixed signals i.e. it's consistent with mutually inconsistent descriptions ... — TheMadFool

... because we ask "mutually inconsistent" questions of reality such as when cartographers ask different questions of the same territory which result in – they answer by producing – (1) a road map, (2) a topological (elevation) map, (3) a geological map, (4) a hydrological map, etc ... The territory is consistent with different maps because they are maps of different – complementary – aspects of the territory and are not complete maps (since the only complete map of the territory is the territory itself ... just as the only complete description of a photon is the photon itself).

:lol: The photon's 'wave-particle complementarity' is no more of "an inconsistency" than is a coin with opposing faces because it's not "a wave" & "a particle", or "heads" & "tails", simultaneously. Photons are recognizable as such because, like anything else, they behave consistently — 180 Proof

:rofl: :chin:

You don't seen an inconsistency in light being a particle AND a wave? That it is both doesn't strike you as in the slightest bit odd? You're ignoring the fact that something can't be a particle and then, at another time, a wave. If it's a particle it stays a particle and if it's a wave it remains a wave. That light is a particle and not a wave or vice versa at different times (i.e. not simulataneously) doesn't, I'm sorry to say, help your case.

You don't seen an inconsistency in light being a particle AND a wave — TheMadFool

I thought light was a wave not a particle.

This is not aimed at you Mad Fool but I am always fascinated how many qualified theoretical physicists there are on this forum poised and ready to disprove science.

You know what a parallax is, right? The visual object seen differently does not indicate that the object is inconsistent. Maps are not the territory, Fool; stop conflating descriptions with what they describe by assuming the descriptions are complete when they cannot be. :yawn:

You know what a parallax is, right? The visual object seen differently does not indicate that the object is inconsistent. Maps are not the territory, Fool; stop conflating descriptions with what they describe by assuming the descriptions are complete when they cannot be. — 180 Proof

You didn't reply to my second post about how reality is open to, squares with, multiple mutually inconsistent interprerations. Democritus, the laughing philosopher and Heraclitus, the weeping philosopher. Ring any bells?

That two models, each inconsistent with the other, are both, at the same time, perfectly compatible, with reality seems to point to a reality that plays both sides. Isn't that why we're in the mess we're in?