Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[psyreporter]

"try to discover facts" could be denoted as a search for truth.

If one conflates facts and truth-value. I do not.

That statement hints at a belief in uniformitarianism, a dogma.

On what basis do you consider facts to be otherwise than a truth value? And whatever argument you pose, how would it be possible to claim that that argument by itself is not a truth value?

Would a set be applicable to time?

Someone could think about time in terms of (something to do with) sets, sure. Isn't that obvious (that someone could think about time that way)?

Then the question would remain: would a set be applicable as a ground for claims about the nature of time, e.g. as a ground for your claim that time must have had a beginning?

[Terrapin Station]

That statement hints at a belief in uniformitarianism, a dogma.

On what basis do you consider facts to be otherwise than a truth value? And whatever argument you pose, how would it be possible to claim that that argument by itself is not a truth value?

Truth-value is a property of propositions. Propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences. Truth-value only obtains via making a judgment about the relation of a proposition (again, the meaning of a declarative sentence) to something else (such as a fact).

Facts are states of affairs--ways that things happen to be, or (dynamic) arrangements of things in the world.

Facts obtain whether people exist or not. Propositions do NOT obtain whether people exist or not. So properties of propositions can't obtain whether people exist or not.

Before you ask about anything, "Is this true?" Just remind yourself that truth is a judgment about the relation of a proposition to something else, like a fact. So the answer to "is this true" amounts to answering whether whoever we're asking makes a particular judgment about the relation of a proposition to other things. If they judge that the proposition has the right relation to whatever they're comparing it to, then it's true to them. That's all that truth is.

That's very different than what facts are.

Then the question would remain: would a set be applicable as a ground for claims about the nature of time, e.g. as a ground for your claim that time must have had a beginning?

Again, that's not a claim I made.Why I've had to explain this to you literally about 25 times but you can't learn it is something that maybe a psychologist or neuroscientist could figure out.

[psyreporter]

Facts are states of affairs--ways that things happen to be, or (dynamic) arrangements of things in the world.

Facts obtain whether people exist or not. Propositions do NOT obtain whether people exist or not. So properties of propositions can't obtain whether people exist or not.

That must be a belief, how else could you know if only people are there to testify?

In uniformitarianism people believe that what is defined as a fact using the scientific method remains the same in time.

Again, that's not a claim I made.Why I've had to explain this to you literally about 25 times but you can't learn it is something that maybe a psychologist or neuroscientist could figure out.

You specifically argued the following:

Now, if there's an infinite amount of time prior to the creation of the Earth, how does the time of the creation of the Earth arrive. For it to arrive time has to pass through an infinity of durations, right? (Again, this is going by you saying that time is duration and that time as duration occurs independently of us.) Can time pass through an infinity of durations to get to a particular later time? How?

You don't seem to understand my comments to creation. The whole point is that if there's an infinite amount of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.

Your argument concerns the impossibility of ‘traversing the infinite’ by which is implied that time must have had a beginning, and you are using a set as ground for your argument.

[Terrapin Station]

That must be a belief, how else could you know if only people are there to testify?

Focusing on an epistemic perspective, everything everyone says (every proposition, at least) reflects a belief. So what is the utility of pointing that out? It's like saying, "That's a sentence." What of it?

In uniformitarianism people believe that what is defined as a fact using the scientific method remains the same in time.

That must be some alternate usage of "uniformitarianism," because that has nothing to do with the standard sense of that term.

I'm also not sure how it's relevant to anything here. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

You specifically argued the following

Whereupon you quote something that has (a) a conditional statement and (b) a bunch of questions. Yet you're calling that an "argument." Ohhhhkay.

At any rate, as I explained many times to you, I'm not arguing one way or the other. Just pointing out that both options are counterintuitive.

[psyreporter]

Focusing on an epistemic perspective, everything everyone says (every proposition, at least) reflects a belief. So what is the utility of pointing that out? It's like saying, "That's a sentence." What of it?

You mentioned "Facts obtain whether people exist or not. Propositions do NOT obtain whether people exist or not."

What could make a fact otherwise than truth if it is not a belief? I intended to indicate that merely a belief in uniformitarianism is at the basis of the idea that facts are outside of the scope of other propositions. It is merely the scientific method (a philosophy) that provides a qualitative differentiator, which is recognizable, but remains questionable.

That must be some alternate usage of "uniformitarianism," because that has nothing to do with the standard sense of that term.

I'm also not sure how it's relevant to anything here. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

I have assumed that the qualitative differentiator of a fact is that it is determined using the scientific method. In that case it is at question on what basis one could argue that a fact is intrinsically different from truth, the reason being that a belief in uniformitarianism may be considered invalid.

In uniformitarianism people believe that what is determined as a fact will remain the same in time.

Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity or the Uniformitarian Principle, is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

There is evidence that the Laws of Physics (Nature) can change in time. While within the short life span of a human facts are useful, it may not be correct to consider facts intrinsically different from truths obtained by other philosophical methods. In a span of 10,000 years, it may already look different.

What would be the result when people consider facts to remain the same in time? As it appears, it could result in potentially disastrous flaws in human evolution, an example being the synthetic biology "revolution" in which life is considered meaningless and in which the result of the scientific method (facts) is used as a guiding principle.

My position is that it is not possible to stand above life as being life and that one can only serve life. It is why I believe that it is invalid to consider facts intrinsically otherwise than truths obtained by other philosophical methods, disregarding the utilitarian value that can be created by doing so.

The tenor of my argument: it is important to look further and to discover new philosophical methods beyond the scientific method.

You specifically argued the following

Whereupon you quote something that has (a) a conditional statement and (b) a bunch of questions. Yet you're calling that an "argument." Ohhhhkay.

At any rate, as I explained many times to you, I'm not arguing one way or the other. Just pointing out that both options are counterintuitive.

My argument has been that it is invalid to extrapolate mathematical (potential) infinite to make claims about reality.

Finitude is not something of substance. Finitude as a concept originates from pattern recognition. A pattern is the foundation of the concept finitude by the "begin" that is introduced by the observer. Finitude requires activity of an observer before it can be considered.

Therefor my question has been: on what basis do you believe that it is a valid idea to perceive time from a totality perspective?

The reason for the question is: the observer may be erroneously factored out while the observer is the origin ("begin") of finitude and thus it cannot be argued that something that originates from the activity of an observer is a defining principle for the causality of aspects of reality, e.g. of time.

[Terrapin Station]

One thing at a time until you figure some of this out, because I'm repeating stuff:

What could make a fact otherwise than truth if it is not a belief?

What makes a fact other than truth is that the terms refer to different things. Facts do not require the existence of people. Truth does. Because truth is a property of propositions.

[Sculptor1]

Nowhere and Everywhere are the same thing... attributes of the same event, adding up to the same amount. Infinitely unaccesible and pointless, we can surmize by way of physics and mathematics.
That's my view, but I admit to being unsure. Please advise. My logic also applies to "Something", as I am in the midst of researching a paper on space-time and our conscious consideration of being, within the Block Universe model.
From that model, if time is static and space does not exist, how we conceptualize the passing of time is merely conjured in our own minds. Nowhere and Everywhere become obsolete, the only true appreciation is that of our present moment, NOW... In other words, somewhere!

It's funny what philosophy can do to an undisciplined mind. Terms that we all learn as children and that for decades have no problem with suddenly become the subject of confusion in those that have had a little experience of philosophy but have failed to see it through to any sort of stable rational position.
Nowhere is not the came and everywhere - and neither is somewhere.
We have different terms to indicate different ideas.

[Terrapin Station]

Nowhere and Everywhere are the same thing... attributes of the same event, adding up to the same amount. Infinitely unaccesible and pointless, we can surmize by way of physics and mathematics.
That's my view, but I admit to being unsure. Please advise. My logic also applies to "Something", as I am in the midst of researching a paper on space-time and our conscious consideration of being, within the Block Universe model.
From that model, if time is static and space does not exist, how we conceptualize the passing of time is merely conjured in our own minds. Nowhere and Everywhere become obsolete, the only true appreciation is that of our present moment, NOW... In other words, somewhere!

It's funny what philosophy can do to an undisciplined mind. Terms that we all learn as children and that for decades have no problem with suddenly become the subject of confusion in those that have had a little experience of philosophy but have failed to see it through to any sort of stable rational position.
Nowhere is not the came and everywhere - and neither is somewhere.
We have different terms to indicate different ideas.

Rather than an "undisciplined mind," it tends to come across to me as "educated dumb"--folks who are able to read (or listen) and retain some information, but who are at heart pretty dim, where no amount of simply reading and remembering are able to overcome the hurdle of a profound mental handicap.

[Sculptor1]

It's funny what philosophy can do to an undisciplined mind. Terms that we all learn as children and that for decades have no problem with suddenly become the subject of confusion in those that have had a little experience of philosophy but have failed to see it through to any sort of stable rational position.
Nowhere is not the came and everywhere - and neither is somewhere.
We have different terms to indicate different ideas.

Rather than an "undisciplined mind," it tends to come across to me as "educated dumb"--folks who are able to read (or listen) and retain some information, but who are at heart pretty dim, where no amount of simply reading and remembering are able to overcome the hurdle of a profound mental handicap.

Whatever is the cause there is far too much of it on this and similar forums.

[psyreporter]

One thing at a time until you figure some of this out, because I'm repeating stuff:

What could make a fact otherwise than truth if it is not a belief?

What makes a fact other than truth is that the terms refer to different things. Facts do not require the existence of people. Truth does. Because truth is a property of propositions.

Is it correct that the qualitative differentiator of a fact compared with truth is that it is the result of the scientific method?

I noticed that your favorite philosopher is Bertrand Russel. He considered facts to be part of "reality". As mentioned earlier, reality requires a perspective which requires truth conditions. If one would consider that the laws of nature remain the same in time, then that by itself is a truth condition with would extrapolate to the nature of a "fact" by which it will have lost a distinctive differentiating nature, reducing it to a truth on the same level as that of truths defined by other philosophical methods.

Do you believe that the laws of nature remain the same in time? If not, what would be the implications for facts in time?

[Terrapin Station]

Is it correct that the qualitative differentiator of a fact compared with truth is that it is the result of the scientific method?

No. Again, facts are states of affairs. Ways that things are, independent of any persons. (Well, mostly independent of persons--when we include persons, there are also facts about them.)

I noticed that your favorite philosopher is Bertrand Russel. He considered facts to be part of "reality". As mentioned earlier, reality requires a perspective which requires truth conditions.

Not so, since reality would obtain even if no persons did. Truth would not, since truth is a property of propositions, and propositions are the meanings of declarative statements. We only have meanings if we have persons.

I said all this earlier. I don't know if it's just going in one ear and out the other or what.

If one would consider that the laws of nature remain the same in time,

This isn't anything about "laws of nature."

For example. Imagine there are no persons. Now, imagine that there's a particular rock on top of a particular mountain. That's a fact, despite there being no persons--it's an arrangement of things in the world, a state of affairs. That rock on top of that mountain is not a law of nature.

[Terrapin Station]

Rather than an "undisciplined mind," it tends to come across to me as "educated dumb"--folks who are able to read (or listen) and retain some information, but who are at heart pretty dim, where no amount of simply reading and remembering are able to overcome the hurdle of a profound mental handicap.

Whatever is the cause there is far too much of it on this and similar forums.

Yeah, it's frustrating. I often feel like I'm trying to communicate with people in a mental asylum.

[Terrapin Station]

By the way, the reason that Russell and Quine are a couple of my favorite phliosophers is not because I agree with them all or even most of the time. I'm certainly not a member of their cult or anything like that.

Rather, I like their approach to doing philosophy, I think they're both good communicators--they both wrote well, and Russell also did so often with a sense of humor.

[psyreporter]

No. Again, facts are states of affairs. Ways that things are, independent of any persons. (Well, mostly independent of persons--when we include persons, there are also facts about them.)

For a state of affair to be named, it requires the formulation of a perspective which implies the requirement of truth conditions.

One can argue that certain truth conditions are of such significant value for the human perspective on reality (within the scope of its short time span) that what it defines is to be assumed to have a certain distinctive quality from other truths, but when looking intrinsically, it may be wrong to perceive facts as intrinsically different from other truths. My logic shows that a conviction that facts are intrinsically different from truths could result in disastrous flaws in human progress/evolution.

You can argue that "a particular rock is on the mountain" is a fact, but in order to formulate the perspective on the basis of which such a state of affairs can be defined, it requires truth conditions. This is not different than for example stating "Atheism is a religion".

The underlying problem may be a belief in uniformitarianism, a dogma. The following quote provides an example:

“If we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same results.”

The cited argument can only be considered correct when one would assume that the laws of physics (Nature) remains the same in time, while there is mounting evidence that that is not the case. It implies that facts may not be different from truth after all, despite that in the short time span of humans they provided an utilitarian value.

The tenor of my argument: it is important to maintain openness for further inquiry and prevent dogmatically accepting anything as something that does not change in time. A perspective derived from a certain philosophical inquiry (i.e. to distinguish facts from truths) is qualitatively different only by the value that one places on that philosophical method in relation to itself. In the end, it is merely a belief in a philosophical method that would provide a qualitative differentiator.

[Terrapin Station]

For a state of affair to be named . . .

Nothing about the vast majority of states of affairs hinges on being named. Again, states of affairs would obtain whether there was anyone around to do any naming or not.

it requires the formulation of a perspective which implies the requirement of truth conditions.

Names aren't true or false, they're just sounds/text strings we associate with something else.