[BaalChatzaf]

Whence comes this phrase "facts of reality". The facts ARE reality. Facts are what is. Why this redundant phrase. There are no other facts than reality.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Bill P]

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 08:37 AM, said:

Whence comes this phrase "facts of reality". The facts ARE reality. Facts are what is. Why this redundant phrase. There are no other facts than reality.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would recommend reading the two-part article "The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made" from The Ayn Rand Letter, March 12, 1973 and March 26, 1973. The article is also available on page 31 and following of Philosophy: Who Needs It.

Bill P

[BaalChatzaf]

Bill P, on Feb 22 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 08:37 AM, said:

Whence comes this phrase "facts of reality". The facts ARE reality. Facts are what is. Why this redundant phrase. There are no other facts than reality.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would recommend reading the two-part article "The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made" from The Ayn Rand Letter, March 12, 1973 and March 26, 1973. The article is also available on page 31 and following of Philosophy: Who Needs It.

Bill P

A state of the world brought about by an action of sentient beings is no less real than a state of the world brought about by a natural non sentient process. A fact is what is regardless of how it came to be.

Example: I blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. It is down. A meteor strikes the Brookly Bridge. It is down. In either case it is down. That would be a fact in either of the above scenarios..

The distinction between the man made and the natural is unessential. What is, is regardless of how it came to be.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Bill P]

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

Bill P, on Feb 22 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 08:37 AM, said:

Whence comes this phrase "facts of reality". The facts ARE reality. Facts are what is. Why this redundant phrase. There are no other facts than reality.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would recommend reading the two-part article "The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made" from The Ayn Rand Letter, March 12, 1973 and March 26, 1973. The article is also available on page 31 and following of Philosophy: Who Needs It.

Bill P

A state of the world brought about by an action of sentient beings is no less real than a state of the world brought about by a natural non sentient process. A fact is what is regardless of how it came to be.

Example: I blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. It is down. A meteor strikes the Brookly Bridge. It is down. In either case it is down. That would be a fact in either of the above scenarios..

The distinction between the man made and the natural is unessential. What is, is regardless of how it came to be.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I recommend (re)reading the essay. As you know (but perhaps some other readers do not), the title of that essay is alliterative and catching, but does not exactly capture the distinction Rand is making in the essay.

Bill P

[general semanticist]

From the above mentioned essay;

Rand said:

All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.

It sounds like Rand would not have thought much of Quantum Mechanics where the effects of the observer on the observed are taken into consideration.

This post has been edited by general semanticist: 22 February 2009 - 08:02 PM

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Facts of the fantasy has no meaning?

Art has a lot of facts that are not reality. Backstory in fiction, just for starters...

Michael

[Bill P]

Bill P, on Feb 23 2009, 09:20 AM, said:

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

Bill P, on Feb 22 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 08:37 AM, said:

Whence comes this phrase "facts of reality". The facts ARE reality. Facts are what is. Why this redundant phrase. There are no other facts than reality.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would recommend reading the two-part article "The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made" from The Ayn Rand Letter, March 12, 1973 and March 26, 1973. The article is also available on page 31 and following of Philosophy: Who Needs It.

Bill P

A state of the world brought about by an action of sentient beings is no less real than a state of the world brought about by a natural non sentient process. A fact is what is regardless of how it came to be.

Example: I blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. It is down. A meteor strikes the Brookly Bridge. It is down. In either case it is down. That would be a fact in either of the above scenarios..

The distinction between the man made and the natural is unessential. What is, is regardless of how it came to be.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I recommend (re)reading the essay. As you know (but perhaps some other readers do not), the title of that essay is alliterative and catching, but does not exactly capture the distinction Rand is making in the essay.

Bill P

Illustration of my point: The following is in the essay, and fully addresses Bob's comment:

But nothing is exempt from the law of identity. A man-made product did not have to exist, but, once made, it does exist. A man's actions did not have to be performed, but, once performed, they are facts of reality. The same is true of a man's character: he did not have to make the choices he made, but, once he has formed his character, it is a fact, and it is his personal identity. (Man's volition gives him great, but not unlimited, latitude to change his character; if he does, the change becomes a fact.)

Clear?

Recall: It is good to read something before criticizing it...

Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

Bill P; I agree the article is worth reading and rereading.

[BaalChatzaf]

Bill P, on Feb 22 2009, 10:16 PM, said:

Bill P, on Feb 23 2009, 09:20 AM, said:

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

Bill P, on Feb 22 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 08:37 AM, said:

Whence comes this phrase "facts of reality". The facts ARE reality. Facts are what is. Why this redundant phrase. There are no other facts than reality.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would recommend reading the two-part article "The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made" from The Ayn Rand Letter, March 12, 1973 and March 26, 1973. The article is also available on page 31 and following of Philosophy: Who Needs It.

Bill P

A state of the world brought about by an action of sentient beings is no less real than a state of the world brought about by a natural non sentient process. A fact is what is regardless of how it came to be.

Example: I blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. It is down. A meteor strikes the Brookly Bridge. It is down. In either case it is down. That would be a fact in either of the above scenarios..

The distinction between the man made and the natural is unessential. What is, is regardless of how it came to be.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I recommend (re)reading the essay. As you know (but perhaps some other readers do not), the title of that essay is alliterative and catching, but does not exactly capture the distinction Rand is making in the essay.

Bill P

Illustration of my point: The following is in the essay, and fully addresses Bob's comment:

But nothing is exempt from the law of identity. A man-made product did not have to exist, but, once made, it does exist. A man's actions did not have to be performed, but, once performed, they are facts of reality. The same is true of a man's character: he did not have to make the choices he made, but, once he has formed his character, it is a fact, and it is his personal identity. (Man's volition gives him great, but not unlimited, latitude to change his character; if he does, the change becomes a fact.)

Clear?

Recall: It is good to read something before criticizing it...

Bill P

A natural thing did not have to exist either. We learn from quantum theory there are infinite sets of possible states, none of which are certain and no one of which had to exist but one of which did come to be. No natural facts are no less contingent than so called man-made facts. In fact, man-made facts are just as natural as "natural" facts since man is a material entity which emerged by purely natural process. Man-doings are just another kind of natuiral doings. Everything that man does is bound by the same physical laws as what came out of the Big Bang. In fact we are the congealed product of material spewed out of dying starts. We are star dust, just as natural as hydrogen and helium.

Our cosmos is just as contingent as any so called-man made thing. What man does is bound by physical law. And even the laws that bind this emergent cosmos are contingent. The cosmos in which "ordinary" matter slightly outweighed anti-matter need not have happened.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Bill P]

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 08:16 PM, said:

Bill P, on Feb 22 2009, 10:16 PM, said:

Bill P, on Feb 23 2009, 09:20 AM, said:

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 09:17 AM, said:

Bill P, on Feb 22 2009, 07:48 PM, said:

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 08:37 AM, said:

Whence comes this phrase "facts of reality". The facts ARE reality. Facts are what is. Why this redundant phrase. There are no other facts than reality.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would recommend reading the two-part article "The Metaphysical versus the Man-Made" from The Ayn Rand Letter, March 12, 1973 and March 26, 1973. The article is also available on page 31 and following of Philosophy: Who Needs It.

Bill P

A state of the world brought about by an action of sentient beings is no less real than a state of the world brought about by a natural non sentient process. A fact is what is regardless of how it came to be.

Example: I blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. It is down. A meteor strikes the Brookly Bridge. It is down. In either case it is down. That would be a fact in either of the above scenarios..

The distinction between the man made and the natural is unessential. What is, is regardless of how it came to be.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I recommend (re)reading the essay. As you know (but perhaps some other readers do not), the title of that essay is alliterative and catching, but does not exactly capture the distinction Rand is making in the essay.

Bill P

Illustration of my point: The following is in the essay, and fully addresses Bob's comment:

But nothing is exempt from the law of identity. A man-made product did not have to exist, but, once made, it does exist. A man's actions did not have to be performed, but, once performed, they are facts of reality. The same is true of a man's character: he did not have to make the choices he made, but, once he has formed his character, it is a fact, and it is his personal identity. (Man's volition gives him great, but not unlimited, latitude to change his character; if he does, the change becomes a fact.)

Clear?

Recall: It is good to read something before criticizing it...

Bill P

A natural thing did not have to exist either. We learn from quantum theory there are infinite sets of possible states, none of which are certain and no one of which had to exist but one of which did come to be. No natural facts are no less contingent than so called man-made facts. In fact, man-made facts are just as natural as "natural" facts since man is a material entity which emerged by purely natural process. Man-doings are just another kind of natuiral doings. Everything that man does is bound by the same physical laws as what came out of the Big Bang. In fact we are the congealed product of material spewed out of dying starts. We are star dust, just as natural as hydrogen and helium.

Our cosmos is just as contingent as any so called-man made thing. What man does is bound by physical law. And even the laws that bind this emergent cosmos are contingent. The cosmos in which "ordinary" matter slightly outweighed anti-matter need not have happened.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob -

I urge you - - - first read what I quoted, and then the entire essay. You are verbally jousting with a straw man wholly of your own construction. Unless you find great joy in such Don Quixote exercises, I recommend reading the text you say you are disagreeing with - to find out what it says. Your comments (and the fact that you seem to believe you are coming up with arguments against that text) make it clear that either you have not read the text or, having read it, you failed to understand it.

Bill P

[Stephen Boydstun]

Bob,

1. Don’t we need the idea of the facts of reality as an obverse for the truths of reality?
2. Aren’t there lesser constituents of the real than the facts? Aren’t items of reality less than facts of reality?
3. Don’t we need the idea of the facts of reality as a contrast to the counterfactuals of reality, where the latter have various degrees of constraint by the facts of reality?

Couple of good books related to those issues:
The Facts of Causation by D. H. Mellor
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0415197562...008#reader-link
Facing Facts by Stephen Neale
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0199247153...00I#reader-link

There are degrees of contingency, even for natural inanimate structures, and further degrees for living things. http://www.objectivi...umber4.html#183
Contrast with the view of Harry Binswanger. http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDi...1723_2.shtml#46

[Merlin Jetton]

Thanks for the references, Stephen.

Abstracts, including one for each chapter, of Facing Facts can be seen here.

[BaalChatzaf]

Bill P, on Feb 23 2009, 07:33 AM, said:

Bob -

I urge you - - - first read what I quoted, and then the entire essay. You are verbally jousting with a straw man wholly of your own construction. Unless you find great joy in such Don Quixote exercises, I recommend reading the text you say you are disagreeing with - to find out what it says. Your comments (and the fact that you seem to believe you are coming up with arguments against that text) make it clear that either you have not read the text or, having read it, you failed to understand it.

Bill P

I have read it. I understand it. I disagree with the conclusion. The argument is less than overwhelming. The facts (of reality) happen to be what they are. It just so happens. Our arrangement of the facts into causal chains is something that we do because our brains happen to operate the way the do. It so happens. Logical necessity is a human invention. It just so happens. Facts are what they are, it just so happens.

Think of man as nature's way of making water go uphill, it just so happens.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This post has been edited by BaalChatzaf: 23 February 2009 - 10:20 AM

[Brant Gaede]

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 05:16 AM, said:

[A natural thing did not have to exist either. We learn from quantum theory there are infinite sets of possible states, none of which are certain and no one of which had to exist but one of which did come to be. No natural facts are no less contingent than so called man-made facts. In fact, man-made facts are just as natural as "natural" facts since man is a material entity which emerged by purely natural process. Man-doings are just another kind of natuiral doings. Everything that man does is bound by the same physical laws as what came out of the Big Bang. In fact we are the congealed product of material spewed out of dying starts. We are star dust, just as natural as hydrogen and helium.

Our cosmos is just as contingent as any so called-man made thing. What man does is bound by physical law. And even the laws that bind this emergent cosmos are contingent. The cosmos in which "ordinary" matter slightly outweighed anti-matter need not have happened.

Boy, you have turned your science into a philosophy and discovered many wondrous things without the necessity of actual investigations and concomitant data. I am not questioning Quantum Physics, just you using it as a soapbox to pontificate to the ignorant about everything when you know considerably less than that, as do we all.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Brant Gaede, on Feb 23 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 05:16 AM, said:

[A natural thing did not have to exist either. We learn from quantum theory there are infinite sets of possible states, none of which are certain and no one of which had to exist but one of which did come to be. No natural facts are no less contingent than so called man-made facts. In fact, man-made facts are just as natural as "natural" facts since man is a material entity which emerged by purely natural process. Man-doings are just another kind of natuiral doings. Everything that man does is bound by the same physical laws as what came out of the Big Bang. In fact we are the congealed product of material spewed out of dying starts. We are star dust, just as natural as hydrogen and helium.

Our cosmos is just as contingent as any so called-man made thing. What man does is bound by physical law. And even the laws that bind this emergent cosmos are contingent. The cosmos in which "ordinary" matter slightly outweighed anti-matter need not have happened.

Boy, you have turned your science into a philosophy and discovered many wondrous things without the necessity of actual investigations and concomitant data. I am not questioning Quantum Physics, just you using it as a soapbox to pontificate to the ignorant about everything when you know considerably less than that, as do we all.

--Brant

I am pointing out that things exist in nature because it so happens they do exist in nature. It so happens. I see little necessity and lots of contigency in nature. Our species, for example, was not fore ordained in the Big Bang. It so happens that an asteroid fell on Earth 65 million years agon and through a series of accidents (probably mediated by cosmic rays) the genetic mutations that produced our species came about, it so happens.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Bob, I like your last post. Especially about necessity and contingency in nature. But not agreeing or disagreeing. I'm ignorant on this.

--Brant

[Will]

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

Bill P, on Feb 23 2009, 07:33 AM, said:

Bob -

I urge you - - - first read what I quoted, and then the entire essay. You are verbally jousting with a straw man wholly of your own construction. Unless you find great joy in such Don Quixote exercises, I recommend reading the text you say you are disagreeing with - to find out what it says. Your comments (and the fact that you seem to believe you are coming up with arguments against that text) make it clear that either you have not read the text or, having read it, you failed to understand it.

Bill P

I have read it. I understand it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The following prayer has often been used to explain the importance of this distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."

http://en.wikipedia....Serenity_Prayer

The implications speak for themselves and contribute towards preventing you from being at war with the metaphysical facts of reality.

As for QP, I know little, but understand it has philosophical problems, re: Law of Causailty, but it (QP) is of zero interest to me.



Will

This post has been edited by Will: 25 February 2009 - 02:13 AM

[BaalChatzaf]

Will, on Feb 25 2009, 03:12 AM, said:

BaalChatzaf, on Feb 23 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

Bill P, on Feb 23 2009, 07:33 AM, said:

Bob -

I urge you - - - first read what I quoted, and then the entire essay. You are verbally jousting with a straw man wholly of your own construction. Unless you find great joy in such Don Quixote exercises, I recommend reading the text you say you are disagreeing with - to find out what it says. Your comments (and the fact that you seem to believe you are coming up with arguments against that text) make it clear that either you have not read the text or, having read it, you failed to understand it.

Bill P

I have read it. I understand it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The following prayer has often been used to explain the importance of this distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made:

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference."

http://en.wikipedia....Serenity_Prayer

The implications speak for themselves and contribute towards preventing you from being at war with the metaphysical facts of reality.

As for QP, I know little, but understand it has philosophical problems, re: Law of Causailty, but it (QP) is of zero interest to me.



Will

Once a human as made a fact come to be it is no less a fact than one that came about by none human means. A fact is a fact is a fact. A fact is that which is.

A state or condition of the world comes about subject to the same physical laws whether man made or nature made. Man flies about in planes subject to the same aerodynamic laws as do birds, bats and bugs. Man is as natural as the rocks and the trees. Man is nature's way of making water go uphill. The distinction between the man made and the natural is artificial since both are subject to the same physical laws and constraints. We are natural beings doing what we do according to the nature of nature. We are made of the same stuff as rocks, trees and shit. It so happens.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This post has been edited by BaalChatzaf: 25 February 2009 - 07:37 AM

[general semanticist]

I think Baal's problem is with the 'reality' part of facts of reality. When we find structure that we agree upon we call it 'facts' and the 'reality' part is superfluous.

[BaalChatzaf]

general semanticist, on Feb 25 2009, 08:33 AM, said:

I think Baal's problem is with the 'reality' part of facts of reality. When we find structure that we agree upon we call it 'facts' and the 'reality' part is superfluous.

reality = facts. reality is all the facts that are (straight out of Wittgenstein).

Ba'al Chatzaf