Nothing is the annihilation of the positive/negative. It is when two waves of equal amplitude are out of phase by 180 degrees. What happened to the positive and negative is a very interesting question to pursue.

Yes all possibilities aside, I am interested in understanding how physicalism fails in providing an accurate reflection of death. Does the fact that we don't understand consciousness grant us reason to infer beyond annihilation at death? — intrapersona

This is a very specific line of inquiry which is more siritual in nature.

That consciousness is not understood does not necessarily infer anything beyond death, however it leaves open the possibility that the life/birth cycle may be more than what physicalism admits to. How much more? Well, it is simply a lifelong quest. Jung, late in his life, said he doesn't think there is more after death, he knows there is more. I am not there yet, though I do find hints and clues that Memory (consciousness) persists and does not vanish.

Yes, of course one can always make everything that is non-material into material, and everything that is purely subjective, personal, and unmeasurable into emergent and call it materialism (that is precisely what Hindus do, i.e. everything is Hindu), but at some point it is worth considering the possibility that not all things are material, and indeed there may be immaterial and material. Such a new line of inquiry can be quite exciting and illuminating. No reason to get stuck along one path especially when other paths are begging to be traveled.

Based upon my own studies, there is plenty of room in all theories for either determinism (i.e. yes, everything is determined we just don't how) or free wiil/choice (i.e., I feel like I am making choices all the time). Given that either model is just a belief based upon some inner drive to believe such (there is no way to falsify either view), then I take the position that it is unnecessarily constraining to eliminate either alternative. As of now, it appears to me that there is far more evidence that I am makes choices than I am not, I'll just follow this line of inquiry until I reach a dead end. So far I haven't. On the contrary, the path of a creative consciousness that is constantly evolving is quite refreshing and invigorating.

In the western world majority of people I meet think materialism is intuitively true, probably because the absence of self-awareness during sleep seems to confirm to them that self-awareness is synonymous with their big ol lump of flesh called the brain.

But how is materialism incomplete in explaining this to be true, why is there room for other theories? Is it only because "we can never know anything for certain" or is there actually some room for probable alternatives here? — intrapersona

It may be that the majority of people that you meet may be materialists, but it does appear that most people are quite religious believing in a spiritual, non-material God. Of course, that is not here nor there, since majority beliefs are inconsequential when attempting to understand the nature of the universe.

Insofar as materialism is concerned, it is rather incomplete since there does not appear to be any evidence anywhere to support such a conclusion, unless one proposes that invisible forces of nature, quanta, light, and dark matter, time, emotions, ideas, qualia, etc. are material. Of course, one can propose such a notion but then materialism simply becomes the philosophical equivalent of Hinduism, in that everything is simply welcomed ugnder the umbrella of Hinduism or materialism as you would have it. It's a way of keeping ideas alive.

As a conceptual device.

I would say that holography is a science of its own which creates three dimensional photographs with the use of light waves. Using this model, one can extend this representation into a theory of how the universe might work. Whether it's A quantum interpretation or holographic perspective, ultimately both are referring to the same thing - wave interference and entanglement. The holographic view presents a more concrete picture of what may be happening.

I would say that weather prediction is very representative of most sciences. Physics is more precise, but still quite malleable and full of uncertainty. Why? Because that is the nature of the beast. If facts do exist, they are full of the underlying uncertainty of the universe. This thread underscores and highlights this uncertainty created fundamentally by the mind.

There is always something to discuss, but everyone has their own belief system that is unlikely to change to any great degree. Discussion is more of a presentation of views which people learn from in small gradations. From this discussion on this thread I have learned the very diverse ideas that people hold to be facts and how few examples there are of such facts.

What you are referring to as scientific facts, I am calling observations that can be used to predict the behavior in non-living matter to a certain level of tolerance. In other words, approximations. Weather prediction is one example. Your definition of facts are very malleable and there is lots of wiggle room. Which is fine. It is a fact that tomorrow I will wake up at about 8:00am - maybe. Science in action.

As for Trump, he is simply doing what every other President has done before him, you simply don't like his version but others do. People to like politicians who repeat their own beliefs. It is a matter of taste, nothing more.

Having a choice does not declare an outcome. I might choose to try to cross a street but another free willer may choose to strike me with an auto before I have completed my goal. Hence we have choice, in a Bergsonian sense, in that we create virtual action in our minds prior to acting upon them. Outcomes are always up to the confluences of all of the choices as they are put into action.

In regards to quantum interpretations, I believe the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation is the only one that is casual though Bohm stated that his equations clearly leave open the possibility of choice, hence the probabilistic aspect of Quantum theory. As for myself, I use holographic theory, not quantum theory as a launching point for my views.

Now we have an example of something which I know to be true, i.e. I don't go to doctors or hospitals (a fact?) vs. what you don't believe. Would you believe me if I presented evidence? Is the evidence believable? Why isn't my word enough to turn this idea into a fact. And that is the way life works. I have my beliefs (maybe I just forgot every time I visited a doctor), or maybe your belief system doesn't allow you to accept my statement.

This is exactly the way beliefs evolve. Maybe if I said I go to n the doctors every week, (something that doesn't happen) you would accept that as a fact. Life can be odd in that way.? Con artists work on this principle.

There is actually a huge population that share my beliefs, you are simply not aware of this because they are a minority in the U.S. However, the U.S spends twice as much per capita on medicine of any developed nation and has the absolutely worse life expectancy. In fact, life expectancy in the U.S. , apparently went down for the first time in decades last year.

But I do not rely on these observations to make my decisions. It is based upon a life time of observation and learning. I credit my excellent health, compared to others that I know, to the manner I practice health. I avoid doctors like the plague.

But my beliefs are not in question. I freely admit that they are my own, though shared in part my many. The question is about facts. Possibly you can describe to me you idea of a fact and how science or medicine provides any? I don't see any, unless as I said earlier, facts are allowed to be mutable.

My approach to question led me to formulate ideas that dovetails that of Bergson, Bohm, Robbins and even Da Vinci. That is, there is a Elan Vitale (vital force) that is embedded in a holographic universe with memory that persists and at times coalesces into forms into physical substances.

Louis Kahn, a famous architect, spoke about light decaying into matter to create forms and shadow. While Da Vinci spike directly about this Bohm was less direct though his theory revolve around a holographic Implicate and Explicate Universe in which is embedded consciousness. Stephen Robbins had a series of videos on YouTube where he sets forth his interpretation of these theories.

Actually I don't. I generally take care of myself. But medicine is a great example of conflicting modalities, techniques, approaches, theories, etc. Medicine practiced in Europe is nothing like what is practiced in the U.S. Both physicians and patients often hold diverging beliefs and it is not uncommon for physicians to prescribe remedies that are thought to have no positive effects (e.g. children's cough medicine) or will kill patients in large numbers (e.g. opiods). It is for this reason I avoid common medical practices as do many of the people I know. They simply do not believe in the efficacy of standard medical practices as you might.

As I said in a prior post, science is probably one of the worse examples of facts that one might want to use as an example.

And this is where your belief and my belief diverges. I have never found anything in science that is anything more than observation that are almost always subject to dispute and change. Science is satisfied with approximations, with tolerance levels, that can be used for some practical purpose or to solve some question. Not only are scientific ideas only approximations, but frequently on conflict and often simply unmeasurable and unseen.

Science is good for manipulating material objects. By no means are they factual unless facts are mutable in time.

Yes, what you are describing is shared beliefs based upon observations of some sort. You observe, the other person observes, you both share observations and/or beliefs, and so it goes. At some point, it may begin to instantiate itself as a fact in a given population but always subject to revisions and change, particularly so everything that is shared or declared as a fact had already passed. Future observations may serve to continue to confirm the belief as a fact or it may begin to revert back to some belief held by a smaller population.

As I view it, it is all a continuum.

I believe that for the most part, I am learning something all the time. Every experience, every event enters into me and I learn from it. It is this from the moment I am born.

I do not feel like a pawn. In actuality, I feel like someone who is learning and exploring. When I observe babies growing into children growing into adults, this is what I also observe. So I make this the starting point for my philosophical thought. Rather than a pawn, I feel like someone who is learning to pawn structures in a game of chess.

In my analysis of the way things are, I have found that what we have is not necessarily relativism but rather a constant interaction between the personal (call it the holographic reference wave) and the holographic universe of events. Viewing concrete reality in this way provides a deeper understanding of the ways of the universe and a line inquiry well worth pursuing.

What we call facts are nothing more than a memory of some beliefs (it has all passed and therefore subject to have changed) which has been reinforced by a population with similar memories or beliefs (or other the of information such as a photograph), all of which is subject to re-examination and change. It is concrete and real - it is our memory - but it is also constantly changing because all of it is some passed event in memory.

It should be noted that no branch of science provides facts. Science provides measurements (observations) and predictions, that are approximations of some past or potential future event, that fall within necessary tolerances for some practical application. These predictions and formulas are reinforced by experiments but are subject to change when they fail in some application. Hence even science is subject to change based upon the same agreement or lack of agreement between observers in the scientific population.

Logic does lose its preeminence in this philosophical approach while the psychology of the mind and a new understanding of the way a holographically universe may operate rises.

I don't know what the fact is? That the student used a device to weigh something?

Presumably true, but I can tell you in my class students cheated and didn't use a device.

What you are referring to are not facts but rather are observations and utterances which can always be subject to question. If that is all that facts are then I'll just reiterate that facts are just shared beliefs within a given population. If you believe that measurements are facts and there are others who believe that, then you would all agree that they are facts. I would disagree.

Since I was in a measurement class in high school, I can tell you that we had high precision devices, all of which had tolerance levels, and students would always get different results. Measurements of type are subject to differences due to time, place, measurement device, and observer. Measurements are one of the worse examples of facts.

The cat is on the mat is most certainly not a fact. It is just an observation that has since passed and there is a very distinct possibility that that observation is no longer valid.

So if a stone weighs x amount.
A person can dispute this as a fact and claim that it actually weighs y amount?

Because facts are just what you have been taught or happen to believe? — m-theory

Yes, a "weight of an object" can be disputed in so many different ways that it is one of the easiest ways to refute it is an example of a fact.

Language, as an excitement of the human, personal spirit, is very revealing in many dimensions. It not only reveals new revelations that we wish to share with others, it also can be used as a self-revealing aspect of ourselves, much as handwriting might.

In the first instance there is ambiguity because of many factors that go into the general belief system called statistics and the formation of the belief system called the unemployment rate.

In the second instance, the instance of the World Cup, the is much more uniformity in the belief system but there is essentially no difference in how it is formed. It is a matter of intensifying a belief in a population. A variation of this theme would be, Jim Thorpe won the gold medal for the decathlon in the 1912 Olympics. There is more of a controversy around this statement within the population. Facts change as beliefs change.

How are beliefs formed and how do they metamorphose into facts is a very relevant philosophical question and to penetrate this question requires study of psychological memory, group psychology, and very importantly holographic physics, because it is in the latter area of study to we confront very directly the flow of events that create memory and the subsequent formation of beliefs and then facts. It is a continuum

There is not. The U.S. government itself has various unemployment figures all concocted in their own way and subject to scrutiny and disagreement. Is a part-time, temporary job a job? Are they equivalent to jobs in the 1960s? So what we have is a general sense of employment being worse or better based upon personal experiences. But we do not have facts.

Female philosophers tend to operate in a different domain, e.g. fiction writing where the philosophy of the mind is often penetrated and revealed. Doris Lessimg is one of my favorites. Virginia Wolfe was interesting, albeit quite boring for me. Camus would be the make counterpart.

Something is true if someone believes it to be true - subject to constant change.

In school we are taught certain beliefs are true and so arises a general agreement in a population that something is a fact. But this fact may not hold the status of fact in a different population.

Liberals have their share of facts and conservatives have their share of facts. Everyone assigning different weights to different beliefs. It is entirely relevant to the field of philosophy to understand how facts are created in the individual mind. The psychology of the is a very important aspect of philosophy along with the understanding of holographic physics. Together they provide a clear picture of formation and intensity of beliefs or memories.

Sure there are facts and false facts. These are words and phrases that are assigned to different beliefs in order to elevate the beliefs to something more weighty than a belief. But at the end they are all the same. In school, they teach "facts". That is how facts are formed. In newspapers they report "facts". Government creates "facts" for schools to teach and newspapers to report.

Facts are in the mind of the beholder based upon what they believe to be facts. People form impressions of facts. You may believe a fact is a state of being. That is a belief. An impression in your mind.

Just the facts please. Unfortunately, there are no such things. It is literally a figment of ones imagination. The desire to place weight into a belief. Such "facts" are most often used by political parties, such as unemployment was 4.8% under Obama. An excellent example of a false fact.

— Rich

An oxymoron. — Banno

Not to the journalists. Contradiction to the reader. Everyone is just giving the facts. They just happen to contradict for reasons already explained.

A lie occurs when someone knows what is true, and yet makes a statement that is contrary to that truth. If one denies the distinction between belief and truth, then a lie must be were someone believes one thing but says another. — Banno

Someone simply has a belief about something at the current time and states it or doesn't, as they wish. This belief changes as the memory of that belief changes because there is nothing concrete. Just a memory that is always being influenced and always changing. Facts today, fine tomorrow.

One must always be vigalent for liars posing as fact givers. That is why we have journalists all providing the public with contradictory facts. I guess the trained professionals have the last word on the delivery of facts.

So you say based upon your own perceptions and understanding of what it means to be on a mat. Someone else from a different angle may say differently. Hence, the court case where all kinds of evidence, some falsified, are introduced. It's only simple in the conceptual, but once it becomes concrete, the concept cannot be implemented. Hence only viable in an abstract discussion.

If it is not a belief then one must claim that they have the ability to state a fact without imbuing the statement without any personal subjectivity. It may be possible for someone with infallibility who can totally remove all subjectivity from their utterances. I believe some feel that the Pope has such abilities.

If facts are the case regardless of beliefs then they are inaccessible, and therefore becomes a general concept with no concrete examples.

I am not convinced that simply because someone is sure about something, e.g. where the cat is, is enough to make it a fact. Being positive about something appears to be just a very strong belief. These kind of facts or beliefs are constantly being contested in courts of law.

The arithmetic symbolic representation is something that is learned as a child and is merely a convention.

The actual imprinting of this concept as something meaningful in someone's memory has been an ongoing area of investigation. It was a very important part of Bergson's intensive study as well as Piaget who studied under Bergson. I don't think there is any concenus of how this concept comes into being. The old nurture vs. nature debate I imagine. Part psychology, part metaphysics. It is a subject that I am just beginning to study. It is by no means a closed subject.

Then it is pretty much what I described originally. A belief which a certain population agrees upon as being a fact. The population can be one, two, or more. Problems arise when two populations disagree upon what was thought to be facts. The attribute "fact" is just assigned to this belief to give it more weight. Rather than say: "I believe" it is said "It is a fact", followed, of course, but the discussion where the are disagreements. Every discipline had facts that are in constant dispute. It fills libraries.