Actually, I did in my first post, and you just confirmed I was right by showing that another English phrase ("it has fallen") could represent the action, meaning "it fell" doesn't succeed in fully representing it. And there are thousands more such phrases in English that could partially represent the action but fail to fully represent it as my first post and your last posts have just shown. — Thanatos Sand

Well, if your purpose here is to prove that you're 'right', then you're in the wrong forum.

You have no ground to say that 'it fell' doesn't succeed in fully representing the fact that the tree has fallen. Besides, what does it even mean to say that something has been 'fully represented'? As if there were some measure or standard one could apply to the fact that it fell. No true Scotsman fallacy?

I mean, even if we assume that every object is a sort of noumena, then again nothing can be really said that would fully encapsulate the properties and characteristics of an object in discussion.

Again, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to witness it, it still falls. — Question

As @Cavacava pointed out, this is just a trivial deduction, and doesn't address the issue at hand. The question is whether or not the antecedent can obtain ("a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to witness it"), not whether or not the antecedent entails the consequent.

The question is whether or not the antecedent can obtain ("a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to witness it"), not whether or not the antecedent entails the consequent. — Michael

Can you expand on that? I don't think I entirely see your position.

Can you expand on that? I don't think I entirely see your position. — Question

The question is "can a tree fall in a forest without witnesses?", not "if a tree falls in a forest without witnesses, does it fall?" The latter is just a logical matter, not a factual matter. Compare with "can pigs fly?" and "if a pig is flying, is it a pig?"

Terrapin:

Or, if it would be more helpful, I'll put it this way:

First, let me abbreviate "our lives, the physical world, or the observations and experimental-results of physicists" as "the physical observations".

Skepticism doesn't depend on the nonexistence of "stuff" or the falsity of Physicalism to explain the physical observations.

There could be "stuff", and Physicalism could be true, and consistent with the physical observations.

So the nonexistence of stuff isn't needed to explain the physical observations, and therefore, Skepticism doesn't need or use it to explain the physical observations. That's why Skepticism doesn't mention "stuff" at all.

Likewise, Skepticism doesn't need an assumption about the nonexistence of a stawberry-jam core in the center of the planet Jupiter, to explain the physical observations. That's why Skepticism doesn't mention that either.

But Physicalism's explanation of the physical observations posits a brute-fact: An independently-existent, fundamentally-existent, metaphysically-primary physical world. ...Often expressed as the brute-fact that reality consists of the physical world.

Michael Ossipoff

The question is "can a tree fall in a forest without witnesses?", not "if a tree falls in a forest without witnesses, does it fall?" The latter is just a logical matter, not a factual matter. — Michael

I tend to think that there can be no facts without deduction of some sort. This is independent of proper names and direct referants/rigid designators.

So, if you ask me, any observer-independent claim is a form of deduction based on facts about the world, in this case, the tree falling.

So, if you ask me, any observer-independent claim is a form of deduction based on facts about the world, in this case, the tree falling. — Question

But the claim is that the fact that the tree fell is a fact that depends on there being a witness. So the antecedent in your statement ("if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to witness it") can never obtain. That this antecedent entails the consequent is irrelevant.

But the claim is that the fact that the tree fell is a fact that depends on there being a witness. So the antecedent in your statement ("if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to witness it") can never obtain. That this antecedent entails the consequent is irrelevant. — Michael

Ok, I understand. Thanks for clarifying.

Thanatos:

You said:

You just supported its existence by writing on it and successfully communicating on it to me. Thanks

1. So, if someone says that there are purple unicorns in Cleveland, Ohio, and I ask them for verification of that claim, then the fact that I thereby "wrote on it" and "successfully communicated about it", i have thereby supported the claim that there are purple unicorns in Cleveland Ohio? :D

2. Thanatos has shown himself to be long on assertions and short on justification of them. In this instance, he isn't being very clear with us about what he's trying to say.

Shall I guess what he means? Alight, I'll guess that he's saying that the mere fact that I request that explanation proves that there's a physical world--because if there weren't a physical world, than there wouldn't be any people to have that conversation.

2a) I never said that there isn't a physical world. In fact, I've repeatedly said that it's reasonable to agree that the physical world is "actual", because it's real in the context of our llives. Metaphysicses disagree on the origin and behind-the-scenes nature of the physical world.

2b). I didn't ask you to verify anything. I asked you toexplain why there is an independently-existing, fundamentally-existent, metaphysically-primary physical world. ...or why reality consists of this physical world.

So:

Is it that we're confused about the difference between "explain" and "verify",

...or is it that we're trying to evade, in order to avoid admitting that we can't explain why there's an independtly-existing, fundamentally-existent, metaphysically-primary physical world, or why reality consists of a this physical world?

Michael Ossipoff

Thanatos:

You said:

You just supported its existence by writing on it and successfully communicating on it to me. Thanks

1. So, if someone says that there are purple unicorns in Cleveland, Ohio, and I ask them for verification of that claim, then the fact that I thereby "wrote on it" and "successfully communicated about it", i have thereby supported the claim that there are purple unicorns in Cleveland Ohio? :D]

The fact you even ask this is very sad. We were discussing material reality, not unicorns. So, you're writing on material reality that was conveyed to me in material reality supported the existence of material reality. So, your sad "unicorn" parallel is irrelevant and fails.

2. Thanatos has shown himself to be long on assertions and short on justification of them. In this instance, he isn't being very clear with us about what he's trying to say.

No, the one who has shown himself to be long on assertions and short on justification of them has clearly been you, and you prove it with this unjustified assertion of yours above.

The rest of your post is rambling, barely coherent nonsense that doesnt' address anything I said. I did see you erroneously accuse me of not explaining what I explained many posts ago. So, your thinking is lagging along with your reading.

Tighten those up and maybe we can have a discussion.

P.S. This is the definition of explain: "make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas:" So, when I pointed out your commitment to material reality by depending on it to send your post, I was revealing relevant facts or ideas about it. You need to work on your vocabulary as well.

Wolfram|Apha: Fact

Then explain why there is the metaphysically-primary, fundamentally existent material reality that you (or at least some people) believe in. — Michael Ossipoff

What would an explanation look like in this case? More words.

I could throw spit balls at you until you agree that there are indeed spitballs.

Would that help?

Nevertheless, it is correct, no?

It's also physical reality since "it falls" doesn't come close to fully representing the action that occurs. — Thanatos Sand

Is the argument here that unless a statement fully represents the action that occurs, it is not true?

It's also physical reality since "it falls" doesn't come close to fully representing the action that occurs.
— Thanatos Sand

Is the argument here that unless a statement fully represents the action that occurs, it is not true?

My argument in my statement was concise and clear.

Is the argument here that unless a statement fully represents the action that occurs, it is not true? — Banno

...because if it is, then surely it is misguided. It is true that the kettle is boiling; we don't need to list the physical states of each particle in the kettle and associated system to correctly make that assertion.

There's a knot that philosophers sometimes get tangled in. They set themselves the task of explaining the stuff around them. They notice that both the thing being explained and the explanation or justification is presented in a language.

Through thinking about this, they reach the conclusion that all there is, is language.

Hence, they adopt some form or other of idealism.

Is the argument here that unless a statement fully represents the action that occurs, it is not true?
— Banno

...because if it is, then surely it is misguided. It is true that the kettle is boiling; we don't need to list the physical states of each particle in the kettle and associated system to correctly make that assertion.

You're just arguing against yourself here since you're not addressing anything I said.

There's a knot that philosophers sometimes get tangled in. They set themselves the task of explaining the stuff around them. They notice that both the thing being explained and the explanation or justification is presented in a language.

Through thinking about this, they reach the conclusion that all there is, is language.

Hence, they adopt some form or other of idealism. — Banno

That's a fascinating tale. Unfortunately it doesnt' apply to me or to any of my posts.

Sure

If the keys are locked in the car, they will be locked in the car regardless of how you present or represent them.

So, I would think that there is something more going on here than just language. If, regardless of how the fact is represented, it remains true, than there is something more to the fact than just representation.

Unfortunately it doesnt' apply to me or to any of my posts. — Thanatos Sand

Indeed, if it does not you might explain how it does not.

But it seems instead that you expect us to take your writing as "concise and clear", and hence you seek to avoid placing it under any analytic scrutiny.

Should we be scribing your comments in stone? Are you here to discuss, or just to prescribe?

Do you think that something is in us, language, the world or maybe in the relationship between these?

Meaning is use.

A consequence of that view is that meaning is embedded in what we do.

It is tempting to say that language is both in us and in the world; but even that juxtaposes "us" and "the world" in an erroneous fashion. We are not separate from the world.

Hence, it would be a grievous error to suppose that all there is, is language. It would also be wrong to suppose that all there is, is things.

Unfortunately it doesnt' apply to me or to any of my posts.
— Thanatos Sand

Indeed, if it does not you might explain how it does not.

But it seems instead that you expect us to take your writing as "concise and clear", and hence you seek to avoid placing it under any analytic scrutiny.

I'm sorry, if you feel your tale applies to my posts, it is your responsibility to show how, not mine to pre-emptively show it does not. You have yet to do so.

And my correct statement that my argument in my previous statement was concise and clear does not prevent you from placing it under any analytic scrutiny. You have yet to do so; feel free to knock yourself out.

You would do both if you actually wish to discuss and not just prescribe...:)

I wasn't directly addressing you. I just dropped in a comment that came to mind after reading your post.

So, I would think that there is something more going on here than just language. If, regardless of how the fact is represented, it remains true, than there is something more to the fact than just representation. — Banno

A reasonable hypothesis.

First one has to ask whether a fact had to be represented in some way. Possibly not. Maybe a fact
Is limited to one's own thoughts. This would lead to one branch of analysis.

If facts only exist as representations, the key question to ask is how to freeze reality, so that the fact is remains a fact despite any changes in the ongoing movement of reality.

I have reasons to believe whatever form a so-called fact may take, it cannot be declared such without accepting that information is incomplete and this the fact is subject to change depending upon a given observer's perspective.

From the OP:

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

Would that we could avoid "...isms"; it's not clear what sort of nominalism Q. meant.

I don't think that Q's conclusion follows. As I mentioned before, Wittgenstein is setting out that the primary metaphysical consideration is not things, but predications to things. Now predicates include relations between things. It's not obvious that this is a rejection of holism.

Indeed it is arguable that the conclusion of the Tractatus is holistic.

First one has to ask whether a fact had to be represented in some way. — Rich

Excuse me for breaking this reply into seperate bits.

I have no objection to there being unrepresented facts. All that would mean is that there are things we do not know, and that seems obvious.

But don't ask for proof.

If facts only exist as representations, the key question to ask is how to freeze reality, so that the fact is remains a fact despite any changes in the ongoing movement of reality. — Rich

So facts do not exist only as representations. Hence it is not necessary to "freeze the world".

But I'm puzzled that freezing the world would be considered an issue. What more would be involved than adding indexicals? "The kettle was boiling at 11:15pm on my stove".