The Half-life of Facts.

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I was putting up a parody of YOUR religion that reality does not exist, and therefore that if a clock keeps on existing during the night, it's because some strange magic is at work.

I have not said that. It is your willful misconception.

Quote:

So you think, my parody was pretty accurate and your religion is akin to any other religion, huh?...

Actually I think you prove my point with this silliness. You are resisting an alternative description of reality on the basis of your own beliefs. You cannot prove that "objective reality" exists because it is defined as something outside of our awareness. What do you think about when you say "reality"? Is reality the world you experience? Or is reality the experience itself?
The latter is the less assuming answer, and the perspective that will allow you to make sense of this alternative description, should you feel inclined to.

If anything you just did a parody of yourself.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

You don't get to have your own definitions of words, which is what you are doing here, in order to beg the question of what facts are.

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines fact as:

: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information

Something can actually exist or happen whether or not we know it. The rest of your post is an exercise in defining reality in the same way, which is to say, in a way which the begs the question by defining it suitably to your thesis.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

The event itself might still happen

Think about that. What constitutes an event ? Who defines the event window ?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Can you truly not see that if it were proven for an absolute fact that there is no objective REALITY...that would be the objective REALITY.

I can see that if it were proven for an absolute fact that REALITY is the EXPERIENCE of world, not WORLD itself... you would be left drooling with your mind blown once and for all. The fact is it could be either, and we would be clueless. If we define reality as the experience rather than the contents of the experience, we are making fewer assumptions.

Quote:

The fact that we have no evidence of the objective REALITY...or that (your supposed) "all our knowledge and truths so not point to any such objective reality"...only talks about our abilities to understand, comprehend, and have considerations about the REALITY.

Yes! What else can we possibly talk about and not be speculating wildly??

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I have an experience of being alive as a creature within a world.
This, as far as I know, is the only way anyone can experience reality.
So I ask if reality is the experience or the world experience presents to us. This question is unanwerable, though we can speculate.
But such speculations belong in the category of unfounded assertions. They may have functionality and impact on our lives, but that does not make them facts. Again, god is a good example.

1 Reply

@fresco,

We do. The ones experiencing.
We could dance forever saying that well, the processes that were perceived by us as the relevant events would occur even if we weren't there to observe it. But we would only be jumping between different conceptual levels of our experienced reality.

Perhaps that is a better way to say it: Experienced reality does not prove the existence of reality outside of experience.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

So I ask if reality is the experience or the world experience presents to us. This question is unanwerable, though we can speculate.
But such speculations belong in the category of unfounded assertions. They may have functionality and impact on our lives, but that does not make them facts. Again, god is a good example.

That doesn't answer the question. I asked you what is this "reality" of which you speak. In response, you give me some attributes of reality (i.e. it's speculative, albeit functional). But selected attributes aren't essence. After all, if I asked you what a bird was, you wouldn't say "it has feathers and a beak."

And it's not enough to say that the question is "unanswerable." If it is truly unanswerable, then that's equivalent of saying that you don't know. And if that's the case, then your distinction between "facts" that describe reality and "facts" that don't (such as the existence of god) is purely arbitrary. It is, as has been pointed out before in this thread, nothing more than an esthetic choice.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Experience. The only reality I can refer to is the one I experience.
And I can't be sure if the experience is delivered to me, or if I am an active part in forming it. Everything seems to indicate the latter.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Experience. The only reality I can refer to is the one I experience.
And I can't be sure if the experience is delivered to me, or if I am an active part in forming it. Everything seems to indicate the latter.

What do you mean by "everything?"

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Everything I experience.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

And it's not enough to say that the question is "unanswerable." If it is truly unanswerable, then that's equivalent of saying that you don't know.

Where do you get that equivalence from ? "Unanswerable" could be equivalent to "meaningless". For example there is no answer to the question "Does the universe double its size every second ?"(because the hypothetical ruler would also double its size). Similarly, there is no answer to the question "would the world exist without observers" because observers are essential to the defining and re-defining what constitutes "the world". And that is the essence of the half-life argument about facticity.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Everything I experience.

But you just said that you can't be sure of anything based on your experience, so your experience can't provide any reliable evidence of what your experience is. You're trying to lift yourself up by your own imaginary bootstraps.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Where do you get that equivalence from ? "Unanswerable" could be equivalent to "meaningless".

Not so. A meaningless question is answerable. The answer is: "that's meaningless."

fresco wrote:

For example there is no answer to the question "Does the universe double its size every second ?"(because the hypothetical ruler would also double its size).

I don't see why the ruler would double in size every time the universe doubled in size. If I double the area of my house, that doesn't mean that I also double the length of my yardsticks. Furthermore, that's not a meaningless question if the universe is finite, and I see no reason why you'd claim that it isn't. But then what you're really trying to do is pose a paradox, and you can only do that if you accept the law of non-contradiction, which you don't.

fresco wrote:

Similarly, there is no answer to the question "would the world exist without observers" because observers are essential to the defining and re-defining what constitutes "the world". And that is the essence of the half-life argument about facticity.

If observers are essential to defining what constitutes "the world," then I don't see why your question would be unanswerable. Indeed, you've provided the answer yourself.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

The only comments I have is that I took the "doubling" example from an elementary Philosophy of Science textbook as illustrative of meaningless question in the sense that is operationally vacuous. (the key word you seem you have missed is "universe")
The second example is clearly the non-duality argument which axiomatically renders the idea of independent existence vacuous.
"Unanswerable" in both is a euphemism for saying "you have not given this sufficient thought" rather than "nobody knows".

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

NB "defining" is the first level of measurement (the nominal) thereby linking the two examples.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

You are resisting an alternative description of reality on the basis of your own beliefs.

We are all entitled to our opinion, aren't we? You are resisting a version of reality that assumes mind-independence, and I resist a version that assumes mind-dependency. I don't see how I am being more religious than you are.

Quote:

The latter is the less assuming answer

The idea that objects depend on our conscience to exist is "less-assuming"??? Really? I would think that your theory assumes quite a lot.

It assumes that human beings are essentially different from animals (because of course, it's only us human being who create the universe, for some obscure anthropocentric reason... Cats and rats can't do it, no no no. LOL).

It assumes that our conscience somehow creates the universe, and therefore that we are like God, but does not explain how it works in practice. What is the cause-to-effect mechanism through which our conscience imposes itself on reality? If two people disagree on what the universe should look like (as often happens), who does the universe chose to follow??? Can the universe "split", and present one version for you and one for me so as to make sure nobody is disappointed?

It assumes that there was no universe before man, and hence that humankind comes out of nowhere.

More generally, it assumes that objects disappear from the universe and re-appear just to give us the illusion of permanence... Maybe you disappear when I stop talking to you, but for your sake I hope not.

'My' theory (that of billions of people, really) assumes none of the above. It just assumes that objects don't vanish into thin air when you stop looking at them. That is a conclusion which most children arrive at at the age of 3 or so, when they play hide and seek. Based on trial and error, they come to the conclusion that "just because I can't see daddy now doesn't mean he is not somewhere, out there, behind a curtain or furniture." They learn to make the distinction between awareness and existence.

And your view cannot account for why my clock wakes me up in the morning, although I am sound asleep and unconscious of its existence by then...

Face it, we have MASSIVE evidence that the world exist independently of our desires and awareness of it. That's the evidence provided by our senses. Haven't you set up a clock to be waken up in the morning, ever? What were you thinking? That the clock is designed to re-appear by itself at a given hour to wake you up???

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

No. I said that I can't be sure that anything I experience has any meaning outside that experience.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Data is just information. Fact is current information. Like versions of software. Last year maybe it was v 2.0. This year it might be 3.0. It's the same software, doing pretty much the same thing it's done all along, but because of the changes in hardware etc v 2.0 won't work anymore.

To my mind, facts are just data and what you describes looks like a progressively evolving theory. But the mention of software vs hardware is interesting. In essence, naive irrealists believe that there is no hardware, just software. Sounds like something a naive spreadsheet or word processor would say, before being shut down by a very real finger pressing on a very real button... :-)

Anyway, if "what works" means what you say it means, I'm all for it. It's called empiricism, or caring to collect and explain facts.

Quote:

Hypothetically speaking, lets say a theory was proposed about some issue. The theory lets us successfully predict and more accurately describe this issue, but at the same time it is so counter intuitive to us that it seems full of paradoxes.

Quantic mechanic comes to mind, but it is not really paradoxal or illogical, just counter-intuitive which is not the same thing. There is no internal contradictions in QM that I am aware of.

By definition, a self-contradicting theory cannot predict things very accurately because it predicts one thing and its contrary, at least on some issues...

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

The only comments I have is that I took the "doubling" example from an elementary Philosophy of Science textbook as illustrative of meaningless question in the sense that is operationally vacuous. (the key word you seem you have missed is "universe")

No, I didn't miss the word "universe." As I explained, the question isn't meaningless if you assume that the universe is finite. Now, your elementary philosophy of science textbook probably didn't assume that the universe is finite, but then I'd wager that your elementary philosophy of science textbook also didn't assume that reality is discursive. I imagine this is yet another example of your pick-and-choose method of citing sources. I'm just wondering why you haven't quoted Einstein yet. Are you simply waiting for the right time?

fresco wrote:

The second example is clearly the non-duality argument which axiomatically renders the idea of independent existence vacuous.

If independent existence is a vacuous concept axiomatically, then, like I said before, the question is not unanswerable. You've supplied the answer, albeit by a definitional dodge.

fresco wrote:

"Unanswerable" in both is a euphemism for saying "you have not given this sufficient thought" rather than "nobody knows".

No, "unanswerable" means "cannot be answered." I see no reason why I should accept your idiosyncratically euphemistic definition.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

No. I said that I can't be sure that anything I experience has any meaning outside that experience.

I know. You want to be a Cartesian brain-in-a-vat. That's fine, I don't have any problem with that. But you have to accept the limitations that your brain-in-a-vatness places on you - like, for instance, not having a basis for making fact-like statements that purport to be valid for anyone else.

1 Reply

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know