PH's Fact is like a Cake??

[Veritas Aequitas]

PH relies on is 'what is fact' to deny Morality is Objective.
I am trying to nail what exactly is PH's 'what is fact'.
Is PH's 'what is fact' something like a 'cake'??

PH, please confirm the above.

Imagine a cake.
• The cake is more than just the sum of its parts (flour, sugar, eggs, etc.).
• There's something extra that makes it a cake and not just a pile of ingredients.

Now, replace the cake with a fact [compositional].
• A fact is more than just the things involved in it (people, objects, actions, etc.).
• There's something extra that makes it a fact and not just a collection of things.
• Facts are made of parts.
• The Unity Problem is figuring out what makes these parts a fact, not just a random collection.

That "something extra" is the unity problem.
Betti Ariana is asking: What makes a group of things a fact?
Why isn't it just a random collection?
What holds it together as a single, meaningful thing?
Essentially, it's about understanding what makes a whole greater than the sum of its parts when we're talking about facts.
This is a complex philosophical question, and Ariana explores different possible answers in her book.

...
Betti criticizes the way philosophers often approach the concept of facts [compositional].
She argues that many philosophers assume facts exist without providing solid evidence.
Instead, she suggests a more careful approach where we consider the roles things play in our understanding of the world, rather than focusing on abstract entities like facts.
Ultimately, Betti concludes that there's no compelling reason to believe in facts.
While language might use words like "fact," this doesn't necessarily mean there's a corresponding thing in the world.
Her recommendation is to focus on how things relate and interact in the world, rather than on abstract entities like facts.

Betti's conclusion in her book 'Against Facts' is there are no fact if it is analogous to that of a cake because there is an inherent Unity Problem which is unresolvable.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Flannel Jesus]

PH, facts are like farts.

Please, PH, please confirm the above.

AI says this:

Facts are like farts: unavoidable, sometimes unwelcome, but undeniably real. Just as farts emerge despite our best efforts to suppress them, facts surface regardless of attempts to hide or distort them. Both can cause discomfort, exposing inconvenient truths or disrupting comfortable ignorance. Farts clear the air, much like facts dispel misconceptions, even if momentarily causing unease. Additionally, both require acknowledgement; ignoring them doesn't negate their existence. Humorously or seriously, they remind us of our shared human experience and the importance of honesty. Ultimately, embracing facts, like accepting farts, leads to a more authentic, transparent, and grounded existence.

[Flannel Jesus]

Notes:

[Flannel Jesus]

Notes:

[Flannel Jesus]

Notes:

[Peter Holmes]

PH, facts are like farts.

Please, PH, please confirm the above.

AI says this:

Facts are like farts: unavoidable, sometimes unwelcome, but undeniably real. Just as farts emerge despite our best efforts to suppress them, facts surface regardless of attempts to hide or distort them. Both can cause discomfort, exposing inconvenient truths or disrupting comfortable ignorance. Farts clear the air, much like facts dispel misconceptions, even if momentarily causing unease. Additionally, both require acknowledgement; ignoring them doesn't negate their existence. Humorously or seriously, they remind us of our shared human experience and the importance of honesty. Ultimately, embracing facts, like accepting farts, leads to a more authentic, transparent, and grounded existence.

Confirmed. (My wife wants me to up the effort to suppress them.)

[Flannel Jesus]

Confirmed. (My wife wants me to up the effort to suppress them.)

I had to promise my girl not to fart at the dinner table. I've actually done pretty well in that regard, but it was a challenge

[Peter Holmes]

I find it hard to believe that 'the Unity problem' is a thing. It's a bit like can you step in the same river twice? Or can the arrow reach the target, or even leave the bow? What counts as 'the same as' and 'different from'? What is a thing's identity?

All these confusions come from mistaking what we say about things for the way things are - then noticing that things don't categorise, name and describe themselves. Shock conclusion: there are no categories - no identities - no 'unities' - no facts - in reality.

It's a kindergarten error.

[Peter Holmes]

Confirmed. (My wife wants me to up the effort to suppress them.)

I had to promise my girl not to fart at the dinner table. I've actually done pretty well in that regard, but it was a challenge

Superego v id.

[Peter Holmes]

A circle is the infinitely curved (therefore non-existent) locus of dimensionless (therefore non-existent) geometrical points equidistant, along infinitely straight (therefore non-existent) lines, from a dimensionless (therefore non-existent) geometrical point with a non-existent location.

So how can we talk about the circle - the Unity that is a circle?

Perhaps it's a Form, or a noumenon in the realm of the intelligible, a thing-in-itself, to which phenomenal circles can aspire, but of which they are imperfect shadows in the cave.

[Iwannaplato]

I can say with certainty that if I say I like cake it is not an opinion; it's a fact.

I hope that solves everyone's problems.

Farts on the other hand is dualist talk.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I find it hard to believe that 'the Unity problem' is a thing. It's a bit like can you step in the same river twice? Or can the arrow reach the target, or even leave the bow? What counts as 'the same as' and 'different from'? What is a thing's identity?

All these confusions come from mistaking what we say about things for the way things are - then noticing that things don't categorise, name and describe themselves. Shock conclusion: there are no categories - no identities - no 'unities' - no facts - in reality.

It's a kindergarten error.

You got it wrong.
The 'Unity Problem' is any 'problem' i.e. a thing in the loosest sense, 'not a physical thing'.

I am trying to understand more clearly what you mean by 'what is fact' beside it being independent of one's opinion, beliefs and subject; and that a fact is a feature of reality that is the case, state of affairs or just-is.

Does you fact fit in with this description:
• A fact [propositional] is more than just the things involved in it (people, objects, actions, etc.).
• There's something extra that makes it a fact and not just a collection of things.
• Facts are made of parts.

If you agree with the above, them you have a unity problem, i.e.
"The Unity Problem is figuring out what makes these parts a fact, not just a random collection."

[Veritas Aequitas]

A circle is the infinitely curved (therefore non-existent) locus of dimensionless (therefore non-existent) geometrical points equidistant, along infinitely straight (therefore non-existent) lines, from a dimensionless (therefore non-existent) geometrical point with a non-existent location.

So how can we talk about the circle - the Unity that is a circle?

Perhaps it's a Form, or a noumenon in the realm of the intelligible, a thing-in-itself, to which phenomenal circles can aspire, but of which they are imperfect shadows in the cave.

That is why you faced the above dilemma if you ignore the FSERC approach.

Whatever is a circle is whatever the mathematics-geometry FSERC said so which as rated is as credible and objective as the scientific FSERC.

Based on inputs from the mathematical FSERC, the scientific FSERC can justify a circular-thing is circular or a circle.

However, whether a circle is perfect or not it is with reference to the mathematical FSERC, so is the absolute perfect circle [ the general equation for a circle is ( x - h )^2 + ( y - k )^2 = r^2, where ( h, k ) is the center and r is the radius] which is a noumenon.

One can describe a circle within other [non-mathematical or scientific] FSERC, but its credibility and objectivity will be lower, e.g. in the common sense FSER or in the artist-FSERC.

It is the same with what is a fact, there is no fact-in-itself; whatever is a fact must be contingent upon a specific human-based FSERC.