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
Again, if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to witness it, it still falls. — Question
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. — Michael
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. — Michael
You just supported its existence by writing on it and successfully communicating on it to me. Thanks
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.
Then explain why there is the metaphysically-primary, fundamentally existent material reality that you (or at least some people) believe in. — Michael Ossipoff
It's also physical reality since "it falls" doesn't come close to fully representing the action that occurs. — Thanatos Sand
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?
Is the argument here that unless a statement fully represents the action that occurs, it is not true? — Banno
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. — Banno
Unfortunately it doesnt' apply to me or to any of my posts. — Thanatos Sand
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.
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
Would that we could avoid "...isms"; it's not clear what sort of nominalism Q. meant.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
First one has to ask whether a fact had to be represented in some way. — Rich
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
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.