Philosophy Now Forum

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 5:21 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 12:17 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 6:56 am
WTF, I have already defined 'what is real' here;

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.

If you don't agree that scientific facts are real facts as I had claimed, then you define 'what are real facts' to you?

What is a scientific fact?

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.

A "working definition of a fact" is off topic from the OP.

As such, here are:
what is a fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:14 pm That correct - the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking at it! How can it?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:03 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:14 pm That correct - the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking at it! How can it?

Where's the energy come from to make my bathroom 8 times a day?

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 7:19 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:03 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:14 pm That correct - the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking at it! How can it?

Where's the energy come from to make my bathroom 8 times a day?

Non sequitur mon ami!

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:09 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 5:21 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sun Feb 19, 2023 12:17 pm
If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.


What is a scientific fact?

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.

A "working definition of a fact" is off topic from the OP.

As such, here are:
what is a fact?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29486

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

If it were so easy and straightforward, why not just say?
Rather, you chose to divert and avoid the issue, by these constant self referral links to other threads which lead to other threads.
Here's a fact: you don't even have a working definition of a fact.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:14 pm That correct - the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking at it! How can it?

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 7:38 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 7:19 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 2:03 pm Where's the energy come from to make my bathroom 8 times a day?

Non sequitur mon ami!

Well, my bathroom goes out of existence when I leave it. I took an average of pee, poop, showering, toothbrushing and so on. Figure my bathroom's getting brought into existence at least 8 times. I mean, think about how much work it would take for you to build a bathroom. Where's that energy coming from?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 3:33 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:14 pm That correct - the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking at it! How can it?

Note sure if you meant to say you agree with the OP or not?

Here is a clue, i.e. pointing toward the OP but not exactly.

Are you familiar with the 3D-Mask Illusion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs



Reflect on this;
You see only 3-D convex Mask when the mask is fully rotated 365 degrees; but you know full well that as a matter of fact, there is the convex and concave side of the mask.
So, there is a 3D-Mask ONLY when you set your eyes [cognitive functions] upon the hollow-side of the mask.
No matter how hard you [and all normal human beings] try, you will always cognize an emerging 3-D convex shape face when even you know it is actually concave [sunk-in].
In this case you are experiencing an illusion.

Similarly it is the same with the moon; you cognized [which is more complex than 'look'] a "moon" only when you direct your eyes and cognitive functions in whatever-that-thing in the sky.

In one perspective, we may explain that the moon that is cognized is an illusion, what is real is merely a cluster of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy.

But "clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are still human cognition [not direct], what is more real is must be things beyond quark particles or waves, or energy.
As such clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are relatively illusions.

Whatever is a thing, there is always something beyond it and leading to an infinite regress as postulated by humans.

In the above perspective,
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"
Note 'look' in '...' imply it is a more complex process than ordinary looking.

A link related to the above,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35493

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:50 am Give me a good reason why the moon should exist while we're not looking at it?

There are ways things can go wrong with energy other than just not being able to show where it comes from in me humble opinion.

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:19 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:50 am Give me a good reason why the moon should exist while we're not looking at it?

Well, parsimony. 1) Ontological simplicity 1 - I seem to persist through time. Why would it be different with other things? Objects winking in and out of existence, but subjects not doing this. Complicated. Parsimony leads to accepting the simpler ontological model unless there is a good reason not to do this. 2) Ontological simplicity 2 - Everyone I know keeps finding things where they last were - with the non-mobile things. The model - things continue to exist when not being experienced fits our experience well. The model that they are winkinig in and out is more complicated. We don't experience this. It doesn't explain something we experience. Parsimony - the simpler model works, unless we get strong evidence there is some more complicated process. 3) Practicality - Object Permanence - https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-ob ... ce-2795405
works really well. It is also a natural PIagetian stage. What's a good reason to give this model up?

There are ways things can go wrong with energy other than just not being able to show where it comes from in me humble opinion.

For example. I didn't really understand this.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:54 am

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:19 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:50 am Give me a good reason why the moon should exist while we're not looking at it?

Well, parsimony. 1) Ontological simplicity 1 - I seem to persist through time. Why would it be different with other things? Objects winking in and out of existence, but subjects not doing this. Complicated. Parsimony leads to accepting the simpler ontological model unless there is a good reason not to do this. 2) Ontological simplicity 2 - Everyone I know keeps finding things where they last were - with the non-mobile things. The model - things continue to exist when not being experienced fits our experience well. The model that they are winkinig in and out is more complicated. We don't experience this. It doesn't explain something we experience. Parsimony - the simpler model works, unless we get strong evidence there is some more complicated process. 3) Practicality - Object Permanence - https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-ob ... ce-2795405
works really well. It is also a natural PIagetian stage. What's a good reason to give this model up?

There are ways things can go wrong with energy other than just not being able to show where it comes from in me humble opinion.

For example. I didn't really understand this.

One must examine the criteria for existence.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 3:33 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Mon Feb 20, 2023 1:14 pm That correct - the moon doesn't exist when no one's looking at it! How can it?

Note sure if you meant to say you agree with the OP or not?

Here is a clue, i.e. pointing toward the OP but not exactly.

Are you familiar with the 3D-Mask Illusion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs



Reflect on this;
You see only 3-D convex Mask when the mask is fully rotated 365 degrees; but you know full well that as a matter of fact, there is the convex and concave side of the mask.
So, there is a 3D-Mask ONLY when you set your eyes [cognitive functions] upon the hollow-side of the mask.
No matter how hard you [and all normal human beings] try, you will always cognize an emerging 3-D convex shape face when even you know it is actually concave [sunk-in].
In this case you are experiencing an illusion.

Similarly it is the same with the moon; you cognized [which is more complex than 'look'] a "moon" only when you direct your eyes and cognitive functions in whatever-that-thing in the sky.

In one perspective, we may explain that the moon that is cognized is an illusion, what is real is merely a cluster of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy.

But "clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are still human cognition [not direct], what is more real is must be things beyond quark particles or waves, or energy.
As such clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are relatively illusions.

Whatever is a thing, there is always something beyond it and leading to an infinite regress as postulated by humans.

In the above perspective,
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"
Note 'look' in '...' imply it is a more complex process than ordinary looking.

A link related to the above,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35493

How very fascinating. The 3D mask illusion is most apropos. How do we know elephants exist and dragons don't?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:54 am Existence is not a predicate.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:54 am As such one cannot claim "X exists" by itself without the explicit or implicit predicate.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 7:54 am

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 5:55 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 21, 2023 3:33 am
Note sure if you meant to say you agree with the OP or not?

Here is a clue, i.e. pointing toward the OP but not exactly.

Are you familiar with the 3D-Mask Illusion?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlKlpx50Avs



Reflect on this;
You see only 3-D convex Mask when the mask is fully rotated 365 degrees; but you know full well that as a matter of fact, there is the convex and concave side of the mask.
So, there is a 3D-Mask ONLY when you set your eyes [cognitive functions] upon the hollow-side of the mask.
No matter how hard you [and all normal human beings] try, you will always cognize an emerging 3-D convex shape face when even you know it is actually concave [sunk-in].
In this case you are experiencing an illusion.

Similarly it is the same with the moon; you cognized [which is more complex than 'look'] a "moon" only when you direct your eyes and cognitive functions in whatever-that-thing in the sky.

In one perspective, we may explain that the moon that is cognized is an illusion, what is real is merely a cluster of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy.

But "clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are still human cognition [not direct], what is more real is must be things beyond quark particles or waves, or energy.
As such clusters of atoms, quark particles or waves, or energy" are relatively illusions.

Whatever is a thing, there is always something beyond it and leading to an infinite regress as postulated by humans.

In the above perspective,
"The Moon Does Not Exist If No Humans 'Look' at It"
Note 'look' in '...' imply it is a more complex process than ordinary looking.

A link related to the above,
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=35493

How very fascinating. The 3D mask illusion is most apropos. How do we know elephants exist and dragons don't?

Existence is not a predicate.
As such one cannot claim "X exists" by itself without the explicit or implicit predicate.
As such whatever exists & is real must be predicated or conditioned upon a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] or Reality[FSR].
As such whatever exists is scientific real is conditioned upon the scientific FSK.

At present the scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable thus the most realistic and objective on a conditional basis [not absolutely]; the scientific FSK is the standard to evaluate the objectivity of all other FSKs.

As such, when one claims 'elephants exist' we must establish the claim is based on what FSK. If that is claim upon the science-biology-FSK then we can a high confidence level that it is true. see,
Why the Scientific FSK is the Most Credible and Reliable
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=39585

If someone claim dragons exist, we have to establish what FSK is he relying upon. If it is a Harry Potter FSK, we know it is fiction and dragons don't exists as real in the scientific basis.
If someone insists dragons exist as real, then they have to subject their existence of dragons via the scientific FSK to achieve credibility and reliability for their claims.