Except all facts are presented in language, which is always a social context. Some facts, particularly those presented in the language of Math, are more successful in representing indisputability and resisting slippage into ambiguity. However, they're all presented in language.
— Thanatos Sand
Yes, all statements of what is believed to be a fact is done so in some symbolic language which is inevitably ambiguous for a variety of reasons.
Mathematical symbols, when stated as a definition, are more resistant too change because they are accepted definitions (for now). However, mathematics when used as representational suffers from the v same problems as any symbolic language.
Absolutely, as Godel showed long ago, which is why I said Math was more successful in representing indisputability, but still is vulnerable to the dynamics of language. — Thanatos Sand
[Ontology of the universe as facts is a problem since facts are our views of the material reality of the universe, not the truths of the Universe itself.
— Thanatos Sand
.That's an unsupported belief.
Your statement is a statement of the Physicalist belief that reality is material. ...that the material world is primary, is what's fundamentally real and existent.
Your primary, fundamentally real and existent material world is a big, blatant brute-fact.
There's no need for brute-facts. A metaphysics based on inter-referring hypothetical facts needs no brute-facts or assumptions. ...as I describe in my topic "A Uniquely Parsimonious and Skeptical Metaphysics."
In my other reply to this topic, I told some reasons for that.
Michael Ossipoff
.Nothing you say in your "counter" to my quote above it counters or even effectively addresses what I said at all. I never made a physicalist belief; I just correctly said our facts are our reflections of the material reality of the universe; I never said they weren't part of our reality as well.
.Ontology of the universe as facts is a problem since facts are our views of the material reality of the universe, not the truths of the Universe itself.
— Thanatos Sand
.And the only big, blatant brute-fact is your statement calling my statement one
., as my statements can and have been explained
., and you don't explain or support yours at all.
.And your referring to your outside in-supported topic
.…with the interesting name does not suffice or stand as explanation or support.
That was a bunch of blather that again misrepresented my views and didn't address them at all. And your referring to a "topic" you wrote doesn't constitute presenting the erroneous arguments within that topic, so you still fail to support your argument in any way.
I suggest you tighten up your thoughts and address my arguments in concise paragraph form instead of writing a ramble of semi-coherent sentences, your final doozy being a prime example of that semi-coherence. — Thanatos Sand
Fine, if you're comfortable with an unsupported brute-fact. — Michael Ossipoff
The early Wittgenstein postulated that the world is the totality of facts, not things. — Question
"Fine, if you're comfortable with an unsupported brute-fact". — Michael Ossipoff
That there's no "stuff" isn't any better-supported, haha — Terrapin Station
A primary, fundamentally-existent material reality is a brute-fact. Physicalism and "Naturalism" need to posit that brute-fact. That's what makes it unparsimonious...not the fact that someone assumes that Physicalism is correct.
In other words, Physicalism's unsupported assumption is an assumption within Physicalism, rather than an external assumption about Physicalism, like an assumption that Physicalism is correct.
Skepticism doesn't share that un-parsimony,,,doesn't make an internal unsupported assumption.. — Michael Ossipoff
Here "round" doesn't mean
(x−
x
0
)
2
+(y−
y
0
)
2
+(z−
z
0
)
2
=
r
2
(x−x0)2+(y−y0)2+(z−z0)2=r2
The shape of the Moon is largely a result of gravity and composition and whatever, a spheroid within some margin of variation, round.
It had that shape long before homo sapiens walked the Earth.
I'm not referring to our concepts or words, but the shape of the Moon.
Feel free to chat about the former; meanwhile I'll chat about the Moon. :) — jorndoe
And since the moon isn't a smooth-edged orb, it's not actually "round." — Thanatos Sand
The shape of the Moon is largely a result of gravity and composition and whatever, a spheroid within some margin of variation, round. — jorndoe
All we know is that the moon is quanta which is essentially nothing. — Rich
And since the moon isn't a smooth-edged orb, it's not actually "round."
— Thanatos Sand
The shape of the Moon is largely a result of gravity and composition and whatever, a spheroid within some margin of variation, round.
— jorndoe
Emphasis added.
In this context, the term round is how we already characterize the Moon, along with whatever other things.
It's not a definition of the Moon's shape (we don't define things into existence), it's observation.
In case I'd written "the Earth is flat", I'd be wrong. Not so with "the Moon is round".
It's not observation. It's imposition of a human concept onto an object that never had that concept as an essential attribute. And, as I mentioned before, the moon isn't even actually round, as it's not a smooth-edged orb. Your ignoring that fact doesn't change it. — Thanatos Sand
All we know is that the moon is quanta which is essentially nothing. Anything you observe in your life is necessarily the result of the interaction between you, the observer, and the observed quanta. This is absolutely fundamental without any wiggle room. — Rich
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.