The Half-life of Facts.

@Frank Apisa,

...I certainly would agree peoples perception or lack of it in this thread would change the outcome, the reality, of the posts around ! Laughing

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Well, it's either that or you have officially lost your marbles.

Let's try one more time...

"Absolute reality", as it is defined by Merriam-Webster, is an assumption. Do you agree?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Cyracuz...LOOK AT THE DEFINITION.

It comports with my position and is essentially antithetical to yours.

Yep. I've been at this point with Cyracuz, too. Good luck, Frank.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

That is because the definition is made from that position.
A position which, for the purposes of discussing the subject matter of this thread, is questionable.
Were we standing on a hilltop together, discussing some object we were perceiving, I would not argue against that position. But we are not. We are in a philosophy forum discussing the very nature of this phenomenon we call REALITY.

Ranting that "whatever is absolutely is" demonstrates nothing but unwillingness to participate in the discussion. It is as childish as turning on the stereo when the other kids are jamming because you are the only kid in the room who never learned to play an instrument.

There is no factual basis for "absolute reality". The current definition of 'reality' does not reflect that. It does not reflect the true limits of this knowledge. It serves well enough for that hilltop and any other situation we find ourselves in, but in this context the definition is problematic, because it leads to questions it doesn't answer.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Just returning to the word "fact" for the moment, I think we might all agree that the only "fact" which does not seem to change is the certainty of our own death. I suggest that all adherents to a concept of "reality" beyond the usage of the word in the functioning of our daily transactions, are optimistically attempting to negate the void we associate with death. I do not mean "fear of death" although that is significant for many and explains the palliative function of religion..I mean that "the void" is psychologically distasteful and we are driven to extrapolate on "something more than life and death".

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Well, it's either that or you have officially lost your marbles.

Let's try one more time...

"Absolute reality", as it is defined by Merriam-Webster, is an assumption. Do you agree?

Cyracuz…you asserted that I claim “to know that it is ‘unaffected by the perception or knowledge of any finite being’. “

I responded: “Please cite where I said that so I can look at it in context. (Hint about that: I never said it!)”

Now you are saying:

“Well, it's either that or you have officially lost your marbles. “

Cyracuz…I have not lost my marbles.

Cite the place where I said that I know it is ‘unaffected by the perception or knowledge of any finite being’.”

I am saying you cannot do that.

Let’s see if you can…or if you cannot, if you can one time man up enough to acknowledge that you were wrong in this assertion.

Then you can go back to questioning my sanity.

Okay?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Cyracuz...LOOK AT THE DEFINITION.

It comports with my position and is essentially antithetical to yours.

Yep. I've been at this point with Cyracuz, too. Good luck, Frank.

I've seen you do it several times, Thomas...but as you suggested, it doesn't see to penetrate.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

"Absolute reality", as it is defined by Merriam-Webster, is an assumption. Do you agree?

Answer the question if you want our discussion to continue.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
"Absolute reality", as it is defined by Merriam-Webster, is an assumption. Do you agree?

Answer the question if you want our discussion to continue.

Deal with my prior request first...or acknowledge that you do not have the stomach to man up, Cyracuz.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

There is nothing you can throw at me...

Here is the issue:

I submit that "absolute reality", such as it is defined, is an assumption.

You start your ramble about "whatever is, absolutely is". It seems to be the only routing you have, but it does not reflect the meaning of "absolute reality".

I'm not going to dig up the specific posts, but the two single points you have been hammering for as long as I can remember are 1) there is an absolute reality, and 2) I nor anyone else can know what the true nature of realty is.

You can keep on politicking, but it would be in your interest to clear this up.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

There is nothing you can throw at me...

Here is the issue:

I submit that "absolute reality", such as it is defined, is an assumption.

You start your ramble about "whatever is, absolutely is". It seems to be the only routing you have, but it does not reflect the meaning of "absolute reality".

I'm not going to dig up the specific posts, but the two single points you have been hammering for as long as I can remember are 1) there is an absolute reality, and 2) I nor anyone else can know what the true nature of realty is.

You can keep on politicking, but it would be in your interest to clear this up.

Are you acknowledging that the supposed quote from me was NEVER made by me?

C'mon...you can do it.

Then we can get to what “you submit.”

(By the way...you'd better re-work that penultimate paragraph of yours in this last post...or I am going to have a ball with it. That is one of the problems with you, Cyracuz, you keep paraphrasing...and you are terrible at doing so.)

1 Reply

@fresco,

An interesting proposition. But it seems to me that attempting to negate the void we associate with death can sum up the motivation behind pretty much everything we do.
I do agree though that the justifications for "absolute reality" are similar to those for "afterlife" and "god".

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Are you acknowledging that the supposed quote from me was NEVER made by me?

I never said it was a quote. I said it is what you are communicating.

You say there is an absolute reality. You have said this about nine million times.

Then you say that you don't know what reality is. You have said this about eleven million times.

So you contradict yourself, because saying that there is an absolute reality (reality unaffected by the perception and knowledge of any finite being) asserts something about reality that you also claim to not know.

So yea, kind of seems like you have lost your marbles.
You could have said that you assume or believe there is an absolute reality. But those are no the words you have been using.
You have used IS and MUST NECESSARILY BE.

The issue, of course, is that you are using the term "absolute reality" in a completely different way than how it is actually defined.

Quote:

By the way...you'd better re-work that penultimate paragraph of yours in this last post...or I am going to have a ball with it

Knock yourself out. The only thing I would rework would be the misspelling of "routine". It's not supposed to say "routing".

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Are you acknowledging that the supposed quote from me was NEVER made by me?

I never said it was a quote. I said it is what you are communicating.

You say there is an absolute reality. You have said this about nine million times.

Then you say that you don't know what reality is. You have said this about eleven million times.

So you contradict yourself, because saying that there is an absolute reality (reality unaffected by the perception and knowledge of any finite being) asserts something about reality that you also claim to not know.

So yea, kind of seems like you have lost your marbles.
You could have said that you assume or believe there is an absolute reality. But those are no the words you have been using.
You have used IS and MUST NECESSARILY BE.

The issue, of course, is that you are using the term "absolute reality" in a completely different way than how it is actually defined.

Quote:
By the way...you'd better re-work that penultimate paragraph of yours in this last post...or I am going to have a ball with it

Knock yourself out. The only thing I would rework would be the misspelling of "routine". It's not supposed to say "routing".

Are you finally acknowledging that I never said those words? Why don’t you have the guts and ethical sense to finally say this without all the nonsense meant to preserve your “I was not wrong” stance.

In any case at no point have I ever claimed that I know it is unaffected by the perceptions or knowledge of any finite being.

For one thing, I don’t think I have ever used the term “finite being”…

…and for the second more important reason, I do not even agree with the substance of what the comment says. There is no way I know it is unaffected by the perceptions or knowledge of humans.

You are absolutely rock-headed with regard to this…but let’s see if I can get through.

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I CANNOT SAY THAT IT IS UNAFFECTED BY THE PERCEPTIONS OR KNOWLEDGE OF HUMANS…because I simply do not know that.

If it is…(and I have said this many times)…then that IS THE REALITY. Whatever actually IS…IS. That is a necessity...a truism...a tautology. Whatever actually IS...IS.

Jesus H. Christ, Cyracuz…if you need a remedial course in comprehension, take it before engaging in these discussions, because your glaring lack of comprehension does nothing to move these matters forward.

I acknowledge (and have on several occasions) that REALITY MAY BE affected by the perceptions or knowledge of humans (that is one of the possibilities)…but if it is, then the perceptions and knowledge of humans does not impact on (what would be) the fact that perceptions and knowledge of humans does impact, because that would be what IS.

You guys are arguing that IT MUST BE THAT WAY AND CANNOT BE ANY OTHER WAY. It is an absurd argument...and it is a self-defeating argument, because if humans impact on REALITY…that IS the REALITY.

And in that penultimate paragraph…you claim that I have been hammering that “I nor anyone else can know what the true nature of realty is.”

Okay…show me once…ANYWHERE…where I have said that I “cannot” know…or where I have said that “nor anyone else” “CANNOT know” what the true nature of reality is.

You simply do not know how to validly and reasonably paraphrase, Cyracuz…and when you couple this with your apparent inability to comprehend the written word…it causes confusion that detracts from the essentials of a discussion.

Quote me…like I quote you…and deal with what I actually say rather than what you wish I had said.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

You say there is an absolute reality. You have said this about nine million times.

Then you say that you don't know what reality is. You have said this about eleven million times.

So you contradict yourself, because saying that there is an absolute reality (reality unaffected by the perception and knowledge of any finite being) asserts something about reality that you also claim to not know.

Why is that a contradiction? Didn't Kant say the same thing?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Here's a quote from earlier

Quote:

I am arguing that an “absolute or ultimate REALITY” is a must. There is no way it can logically be avoided.

And here is the definition of "absolute reality" again:

Quote:

: ultimate reality as it is in itself unaffected by the perception or knowledge of any finite being

...

And as for what we are arguing, I believe you are the only one who has uttered words to the effect of " arguing that IT MUST BE THAT WAY AND CANNOT BE ANY OTHER WAY." Again I can refer you to that quote:

Quote:

I am arguing that an “absolute or ultimate REALITY” is a must. There is no way it can logically be avoided

How is that for paraphrasing?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I do not know if Kant was operating with the definitions that have been supplied in this thread.
Such as it is defined, it does not qualify as fact. I don't know if Kant was operating with the same idea of fact as we are today either.
I have also wondered about how it would have influenced Kant's thinking had he been active a hundred years later. What would he have come up with if he had had concepts like wave-function duality to organize his thoughts by? We can only speculate.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I do not know if Kant was operating with the definitions that have been supplied in this thread.

Whose definitions are you talking about?

Cyracuz wrote:

Such as it is defined, it does not qualify as fact. I don't know if Kant was operating with the same idea of fact as we are today either.

Why does that matter?

Cyracuz wrote:

I have also wondered about how it would have influenced Kant's thinking had he been active a hundred years later. What would he have come up with if he had had concepts like wave-function duality to organize his thoughts by? We can only speculate.

Right. Which is why it's pointless to speculate.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Whose definitions are you talking about?

I believe Set called it a reliable source for the English language. There is a link to it in my last post to Frank. It is the one we have been using ever since the definitions game was started.

Quote:

Why does that matter?

Which part? That absolute reality isn't fact, or whatever Kant meant by the word 'fact'?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Whose definitions are you talking about?

I believe Set called it a reliable source for the English language. There is a link to it in my last post to Frank. It is the one we have been using ever since the definitions game was started.

I'm confident Kant didn't rely on Webster's definition of "fact," but then I don't see why that matters. You accused Frank of being inconsistent because he said that there was a reality but that he couldn't be certain what that reality was. That, however, is essentially what Kant said about the noumenal world. Does that mean you think Kant was being inconsistent too? Or is it possible you think Kant could be consistent if only he used a different definition of "fact?"

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Why does that matter?

Which part? That absolute reality isn't fact, or whatever Kant meant by the word 'fact'?

The part where you insist on Kant and Frank using the same terminology.

1 Reply

The Half-life of Facts.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know