certainty does it exist

Cliché n taking a "dump" on the thread aside...if it doesn't then there is certainty of it ! But of course we are uncertain on that regard to...

If your a 100 % certain of that .you are then neutral arnt you.

If your a 100 % certain of that .you are then neutral arnt you.certainty = neutrality.

cicerone imposter brings up a valid point. Peer observers that report on events unknown to their peer interlocuters can not merely be disavowed on the basis that their observations are previously unknown by the receiver. What other apparatus is available to one to learn outside of one's own streaming context? Surely, the alternative is solipsism.

Room could be made for the "other" observer to doubt the original observer's report, but that doubt can only be satisfied by the original observer's ability to provide the only "true" philosophical warrant: enough detail to persuade.

If the "event" "occurred" in such a specifically social context, like a goddam pro baseball game, with a multitude of observer reports acting as context, then mightn't that slow the interlocutor's sense of doubt and warrant some consideration?

Mightn't the prospective agreement about what constitutes an event require, rather than their agreement about their observations, the common agreement to regard each the other as observers?



...big word, "existence". What i think you mean is, that you had no prior knowledge of the "event", or the experience to put it in its context. And, of course, it won't be "your event". But it may be an event -- one that belongs to many, all too many observers.



You raise an interesting point, vis-a-vis observation and media presentations, but it's a poor argument to raise between common observers. Do you think that cicerone imposter is a video camera?

There are two key issues in my argument.

1. The concept of "caring" (Heidegger) or "personal relevance" is an essential aspect of what a non-dualist would call "existence". This is not a solipsistic position given that "caring" is a process involving socially acquired language. Such "caring" is a shorthand reference to the fact that "perception" is predominantly active rather than passive.(At the risk of boring you I would cite Maturana's interesting adage that all we call "observation" involves "verbal reporting")

2. A philosophy forum such as this, is an artificial context with respect to normal verbal transactions. I am making claims here about the normal situational usage of the word "certainty". I am not making epistemological or ontological generalizations (except perhaps to follow Rorty in his iconoclastic stance with respect to such claims on the part of philosophers). Thus I argue that no non-baseball follower would ever question the "certainty" of an assertion made by baseball fans about their common interest. That point is a significant aspect of the meaning of the word "certainty" (Wittgenstein "meaning is use")

In short the answer to the question "does certainty exist" is yes in contextual situations which encompass observers in agreement about common focal events. And that is all we can say .

I think know what your saying .certainty can only be observed in terms of relativity in local observations.but does certainty exist as nonlocality in its own right without relativness.certainty can be observed.

No. Certainty is not "observed". It is a word used with respect to agreement.

Not with respect to a relativistic view of "existence"...no thing exists in its own right.

Ok but surely for something to be nonlocal it has to have existance in its own right.or existes as nonlocality of its self.

For nonlocality to exist does it nonlocality have to be a certainty existing as a fact.

No. You need to read up on non-duality. You are using "existence" axiomatically in terms of "naive realism" in which "things" are thought to have existence independent of "observers."
In non-dualistic terms an observer is co-extensive with what he observes. Observer and observed are two inextricable sides of the same coin. "Non-locality" is merely one word used to describe a state of affairs in which "consciousness" imagines itself or some "thing" it conceives, to have no specific location in what it calls "physical space".

NB. From other thread, "facts" are constructions. (facere to make)

But nonlocality between entangle particals does exist independent of locality. Being as it where every where or omni present to the event. Are you saying that consciousness is part and parcel of the event.

Yes. All "events" necessitate a conscious observer. Events deemed (in normal parlance) to have taken place prior to "the existence" of observers , are in essence still defined by current observers.

Fresco is this your own theory. Or is it general knowledge. Its explains the detector effect on the wave function?

Do you dare to doubt the Gospel of Fresco himself...in Frescoism?

C'mon!

Obviously it is divinely revealed truth.

Me, a video camera? LOL
When people deny the existence of an event without being there or learning about it through the media, it proves their environment is non-existent. They deny their existence of 'personal observation' which has no value to anyone else.

Do they also deny that the Giants won the first game of the world series yesterday?

They need to be more observant of their environment. Denying that the game didn't exist is tantamount to ignoring one's environment.

Its not a theory. I am following a deconstructive practice with respect to pseudo-philosophical language which assumes that language is representational of an independent "reality", (or "facts" or "events").

Rather than solipsism, I call that sloppyism.

No one lives in a vacuum.

Ok fresco. I believe what your saying is for the most part correct. And the reason I say that is that the action event of the universe only realy exists in one moment like a projection.the projection changes in energy status across time and space. But the cause of the projection remains a certainty it does not move. Yeah your dead right in what you say I reckon. The observer cant be more than the projected moment so the passed only happened like a used film reel.where as the projected moment is action.

Beware the word "correct". What I say here tends to resonate with those acquainted with non-dualism or aspects of post-modernism. And as one writer put it, such resonance tends to be "visceral" rather than "logical" in that traditional truth values (correct/incorrect) have been transcended. The central point is that when touching on "the observation of observation" (aka "second order cybernetics") the role of language (or the act of languaging ) tends to be seen as one involved in social cohesion rather than description of "an external world". Thus words like "event" tend to imply nodes in a web of social intercourse rather than "physical happenings".