When we assume that facts exist, we are implicitly committing ourselves to a form of nominalism as opposed to viewing things as mutually dependent and holistic. When we assert the ontology of the universe as facts and not things, we seem to be saying that objects are nominalist, but, as opposed to what? — Question
Facts are observer-dependent as long as we are a society of observers. — Thanatos Sand
Are all of these facts observer dependant? — Question
I have a hard time seeing these facts about the world as observer-independent, as one would naturally assume. — Question
The world does not consist of individuals - cats , mats, and so on; but of cats on mats.
Facts, unlike individuals, have predicate content. — Banno
So one might say that the proposition that grass is green is made true by the fact that grass is green. But then what is the difference between the fact that grass is green and the green grass? Are they the same thing? If so, and if the latter is a thing, then facts are things. Are they different? If so, can we deduce the observer-independence of the fact from the observer-independence of the thing (assuming, for the sake of argument, that green grass is observer-independent)? To answer the latter we must first determine how the fact that grass is green differs from the green grass. — Michael
So one might say that the proposition that grass is green is made true by the fact that grass is green. But then what is the difference between the fact that grass is green and the green grass? Are they the same thing? If so, and if the latter is a thing, then facts are things. Are they different? If so, can we deduce the observer-independence of the fact from the observer-independence of the thing (assuming, for the sake of argument, that green grass is observer-independent)? To answer the latter we must first determine how the fact that grass is green differs from the green grass. — Michael
The fact is not the thing, like I said. The fact is about the thing. It's like a picture. — Sapientia
Then how do we show that the fact is observer-independent? — Michael
I have a hard time seeing these facts about the world as observer-independent, as one would naturally assume. After all, if nobody is around to hear a tree fall, it still falls regardless of our observation of it falling or not. — Question
When we assume that facts exist, we are implicitly committing ourselves to a form of nominalism as opposed to viewing things as mutually dependent and holistic. — Question
When we assert the ontology of the universe as facts and not things, we seem to be saying that objects are nominalist, — Question
Are all of these facts observer dependant? Because otherwise, everything would consist of thing's and not facts if it weren't. — Question
One can show that a fact is observer-independent by drawing attention to the absence of evidence of this kind of dependence where you'd expect it to be. — Sapientia
I don't know what to make of this. I certainly don't think we can talk about expected evidence until we have a clear understanding of what a fact is. I know what green grass is – by deferring to biology/chemistry/physics – and I'll grant that the fact that grass is green is something else – by deferring to your reasoning above – but without a more positive account of the ontology of facts, how can we claim that there's an absence of expected evidence?
What evidence would you expect? It can't be empirical evidence, as empirical evidence is evidence of things.
And as a side question, are you promoting a Platonic approach to facts? Facts are intangible but observer-independent entities? — Michael
So one might say that the proposition that grass is green is made true by the fact that grass is green. But then what is the difference between the fact that grass is green and the green grass? Are they the same thing? If so, and if the latter is a thing, then facts are things. Are they different? If so, can we deduce the observer-independence of the fact from the observer-independence of the thing (assuming, for the sake of argument, that green grass is observer-independent)? To answer the latter we must first determine how the fact that grass is green differs from the green grass. — Michael
What's wrong with what Wittgenstein said? Let's go with that. Facts are what make propositions true, or false. — Sapientia
What's wrong with what Wittgenstein said? Let's go with that. Facts are what make propositions true, or false. — Sapientia
I don't think that that's Platonic
Facts are like pictures, remember? Are you telling me you can't see the picture?
That the grass is green can be observed. — Sapientia
I might say that the green grass makes the proposition "the grass is green" true. — Michael
You're saying that the facts are not the physical things that they're about, but that they're observer-independent. So you're saying that there exists observer-independent non-physical things. That sounds like Platonism. — Michael
This is a bad analogy, as pictures are physical things. You're saying that facts aren't physical things. Or are you saying that facts are physical things, but just not identical to the physical things that they're about? So I could, in principle, hold green grass is one hand and the fact that grass is green in the other? — Michael
But that's just a lack of grammatical clarity. It isn't proper to say "green grass", therefore the grass is green. It's proper to say that the grass is green because there is green grass, i.e. that the grass is green is what makes the proposition true. And that's what I've been saying. That the grass is green is a fact. — Sapientia
Plato went beyond independence. Plato posited a separate realm that only special people can access. That's not what I'm doing. Facts are ordinary and accessible. They can often be observed, but they don't depend on it.
What do you mean by that? There are facts which have been discovered through physics, relate to physics, are about physics. Those are physical facts. I don't see the need to categorise facts as physical in any other way, nor as ideal. They are what they are.
Why does grammar matter? — Michael
How are they observed? I know how things are observed; they direct light towards my eyes. But how are facts observed? — Michael
Physics discovers things. A particular arrangement of matter is detected and measured by a machine. Are you saying that, as well as detecting and measuring these physical things, they're also detecting and measuring facts? How do the facts that they detect and measure differ from the things that they detect and measure? — Michael
Grammar matters important demonstrated is sentence by. — Sapientia
Can you see that the grass is green? Yes or no?
So the fact that that there is an upper limit to the efficiency of conversion of heat to work in a heat engine was not discovered through physics? Odd. I thought that it was discovered by the French scientist Sadi Carnot in 1824.
. I said that scientific measurements are measurements of observer-independent things. — Michael
That seems to me like you didn't write what you wanted to write there. If you believe that if nobody is around to hear a tree fall, it still falls regardless of our observation, then it wouldn't be the case that you have a hard time seeing facts as observer-independent. So I'm not sure what you're saying there. — Terrapin Station
This makes absolutely no logical sense to me. Why couldn't one believe that universal, mutually dependent and holistic facts exist? I have no idea what you're thinking there implicationally. — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.