Is morality objective or subjective?

[bahman]

Human consciousness, human decisions are part of all existence. But what makes you think that they have this special status, where it's them bringing about change? Why wouldn't there be change without human consciousness too?

A conscious mind is needed for any change. I am not saying that human consciousness is the only one.

So you just want it to be true, but have no argument.

I have an argument for that: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if there is a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

[Atla]

A conscious mind is needed for any change. I am not saying that human consciousness is the only one.

So you just want it to be true, but have no argument.

I have an argument for that: Consider a change in a system, X to Y. X has to vanishes to leave room for Y if there is a change. There is however nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot cause Y. Therefore, there is a mind that experiences X and causes Y then.

We already covered that. So you're a physicist who can't imagine time as a dimension, or as a direction in higher dimensions?

[Terrapin Station]

Can you not ignore specifying where a claim that hydrogen atoms have a charge is supposed to be in the pdf you linked to?

[bahman]

Can you not ignore specifying where a claim that hydrogen atoms have a charge is supposed to be in the pdf you linked to?

There is a formula for wave function for electrons in that pdf file. The charge distribution and the wave function are related. Perhaps you can look at the figures in this site.

[Terrapin Station]

Can you not ignore specifying where a claim that hydrogen atoms have a charge is supposed to be in the pdf you linked to?

There is a formula for wave function for electrons in that pdf file.

Electrons are not hydrogen atoms, are they?

[bahman]

Can you not ignore specifying where a claim that hydrogen atoms have a charge is supposed to be in the pdf you linked to?

There is a formula for wave function for electrons in that pdf file.

Electrons are not hydrogen atoms, are they?

And you have a proton which you can treat which that also has a charge distribution but for the sake of discussion, it is considered to be at the origin and point-like. That is a good approximation because the size of the proton is very very small.

[Terrapin Station]

There is a formula for wave function for electrons in that pdf file.

Electrons are not hydrogen atoms, are they?

And you have a proton which you can treat which that also has a charge distribution but for the sake of discussion, it is considered to be at the origin and point-like. That is a good approximation because the size of the proton is very very small.

Again, the task is to provide a source for the claim that hydrogen atoms have a charge. You've not done that yet. "A proton that 'you can treat'" isn't a hydrogen atom. You're being intellectually dishonest in a manner that's not going to bode well for future interaction.

[bahman]

Electrons are not hydrogen atoms, are they?

And you have a proton which you can treat which that also has a charge distribution but for the sake of discussion, it is considered to be at the origin and point-like. That is a good approximation because the size of the proton is very very small.

Again, the task is to provide a source for the claim that hydrogen atoms have a charge. You've not done that yet. "A proton that 'you can treat'" isn't a hydrogen atom. You're being intellectually dishonest in a manner that's not going to bode well for future interaction.

Isn't a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton?

[Terrapin Station]

And you have a proton which you can treat which that also has a charge distribution but for the sake of discussion, it is considered to be at the origin and point-like. That is a good approximation because the size of the proton is very very small.

Again, the task is to provide a source for the claim that hydrogen atoms have a charge. You've not done that yet. "A proton that 'you can treat'" isn't a hydrogen atom. You're being intellectually dishonest in a manner that's not going to bode well for future interaction.

Isn't a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton?

Yes, which is different than either in isolation. That's the whole point.

[bahman]

Again, the task is to provide a source for the claim that hydrogen atoms have a charge. You've not done that yet. "A proton that 'you can treat'" isn't a hydrogen atom. You're being intellectually dishonest in a manner that's not going to bode well for future interaction.

Isn't a hydrogen atom an electron and a proton?

Yes, which is different than either in isolation. That's the whole point.

The point is that the electron is not located at a point. It has a charge distribution. So you see a charge depending on how far you are from an atom. It is very small though at a large distance but it is not zero.

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. Facts of reality - all-there-is are justified by its respective FSK.
2. FSKs are constructed by humans.
3. Therefore facts cannot be independent of the FSK and humans.

That's just the old conflation of how we know something with what we know.

As I had stated, I am not expecting to learn anything new from you, but,
I believe you are ignorant of the very contentious issue that had existed since the beginning of Western Philosophy and even of Eastern Philosophy, i.e.
Philosophical Realism versus Philosophical Anti-Realism.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
  [Philosophically] Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views (.... ...) which question the certainty of anything beyond one's own mind.

I have brought this up many times to the extent I have raised a specific thread on it.

see:
All Philosophies Reduced to [Philosophical] Realism vs Idealism [Philosophical Anti-Realism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

There are many stances of Philosophical Anti-Realism, mine is Empirical Realism-Transcendental Idealism - Kantian.

In Empirical Realism, 'what we know' is co-entangled with the cognition [human processes] of what-is-known.

According to Philosophical Realism which is extrapolated from common sense is not tenable and realistic.
Philosophical Realism ashamedly jumped to claim their position represent reality and is realistic, but on the contrary, it is not; what philosophical realism claimed as really real is illusory.

Facts do not hinge on justifications. Facts are ontic. Justifications are epistemic. The only facts that require epistemology are facts about what particular people know, how they know it/how they justify it, etc. And the only facts that require talking about minds are facts about psychologies/psychological phenomena. The two are a very, very small subset of facts.

Note the general definition of what is a fact.

• A fact is an occurrence in the real world.[1]
  The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability—that is whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
  Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

As above, verifying the fact is justification.
So how come you insist "Facts do not hinge on justifications".

That you insist "Facts are ontic" is because you are adopting the Philosophical Realists' position which is not tenable nor realistic.
Your idea and definition of fact is inherited from the traditions of Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, the logical positivists and early-Ludwig Wittgenstein which has been trashed as not tenable nor realistic.

I have opened up threads to discuss the issues in more detail.

What is a Fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486
You can counter my views therein.

Prove to me ontic facts exist in themselves, i.e. absolutely independent of the human conditions?

Moral/ethical facts are only in the vein of "So and so has a disposition that m is morally permissible." "M is morally permissible" isn't a fact (unless it's clear from the context that it simply amounts to saying something like, "In conventional Christianity, m is morally permissible." Then that's a fact, if it's correct, about the conventional instantiation of Christianity. It would in no way imply that m is morally permissible, or even that it's a fact or true that m is morally permissible for Christians. The only fact would be that statistically and historically, a significant number of Christians feel (or have felt) that m is morally permissible.

The above views are also adopted from the traditions of Hume, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, the logical positivists, early-Ludwig Wittgenstein, Ayer, etc.

My claim of moral fact is not of theistic religions [Abrahamic, etc.] nor of Platonic Universals.

I have also opened a thread to discuss this moral fact issue in detail,

There are Moral Facts
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29777
What are claimed as moral facts must be verified like scientific facts.

and note also,
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
i.e. moral dispositions, feelings, judgments are not Morality per se.

At presenting you are merely making noises.
What are the sources & references and philosophical traditions for the claims re fact that you have been claiming.
Are you aware of their limitation and alternative views from other philosophers.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm obviously a realist.

Among other issues, idealists, who seem literally stuck in an infantile stage of development/understanding, conflate how we know something with what we know. What we know isn't the same thing as how we know it.

And talk about ignorance, you're ignorant that empirical claims are not provable. (Re "prove to me ontic facts exist in themselves . . . ")

It would be nice if you could attempt to support a claim contra an objection rather than copy-pasting from a script and starting two or three more logorrheic threads, but I've realized by this point that there's no way that's going to happen. You're an example of the telemarketer personality that's common on boards like this (objections are met with essentially canned/prescripted replies that are repetitively slogan-oriented; it's also similar to religious proselytizing).

Edit: I thought you said you were starting new threads. Instead you're directing me to old threads. That's worse. You're pawning me off to old telemarketing script as if that's going to address the stuff I'm bringing up that you don't want to think about/that you won't really address.

[Terrapin Station]

The point is that the electron is not located at a point. It has a charge distribution. So you see a charge depending on how far you are from an atom. It is very small though at a large distance but it is not zero.

You claim to have a background in physics, but I don't know how you could even have a high school or a 101 level class in your background while being so ignorant about basic physics knowledge . . . unless you're just trolling, which would be the more charitable option.

How about you finally tell me where you believe the pdf you linked to before makes the claim that a hydrogen atom has a charge? Quote the specific passage.

[bahman]

The point is that the electron is not located at a point. It has a charge distribution. So you see a charge depending on how far you are from an atom. It is very small though at a large distance but it is not zero.

You claim to have a background in physics, but I don't know how you could even have a high school or a 101 level class in your background while being so ignorant about basic physics knowledge . . . unless you're just trolling, which would be the more charitable option.

Off-topic.

How about you finally tell me where you believe the pdf you linked to before makes the claim that a hydrogen atom has a charge? Quote the specific passage.

Look at the site. This figure is what you are looking for..

[Terrapin Station]

The point is that the electron is not located at a point. It has a charge distribution. So you see a charge depending on how far you are from an atom. It is very small though at a large distance but it is not zero.

You claim to have a background in physics, but I don't know how you could even have a high school or a 101 level class in your background while being so ignorant about basic physics knowledge . . . unless you're just trolling, which would be the more charitable option.

Off-topic.

How about you finally tell me where you believe the pdf you linked to before makes the claim that a hydrogen atom has a charge? Quote the specific passage.

Look at the site. This figure is what you are looking for..

Is "within the thin shell of space lying between spheres of radius r and r + Dr" a hydrogen atom or is it "within the thin shell of space lying between spheres of radius r and r + Dr" of a hydrogen atom?