Is there such a thing as a 'fact'?

[Mark1955]

Facts are experiences which we confidently believe would be experienced by anyone else who was also there.....

Stand in a football crowd, wait for the referee's controversial decision, it's a fact, not to half the spectators it isn't.

It seems to me that you just have more confidence than me in anyone agreeing with your experiences.

[Sy Borg]

In what way could the Earth not be a solid fact - an illusion of perception? I am not referring to the illusions of a flat Earth or geocentric solar system, but the Earth's actual existence, its presence in reality.

The existence of the Earth is so clear that the final answer to the OP question is indisputably "yes".

[Mark1955]

In what way could the Earth not be a solid fact - an illusion of perception? I am not referring to the illusions of a flat Earth or geocentric solar system, but the Earth's actual existence, its presence in reality.

The existence of the Earth is so clear that the final answer to the OP question is indisputably "yes".

One option is that nothing you perceive actually exists; you are in a tank in a laboratory being fed sensory impressions by a researcher. Odds are slim I'll agree.

[Sy Borg]

The researchers running the simulation either evolved on a planet or moon, or "it's turtles all the way down" - simulations of simulations of simulations ad infinitum.

My money's on terra firma

[Mark1955]

The researchers running the simulation either evolved on a planet or moon, or "it's turtles all the way down" - simulations of simulations of simulations ad infinitum.

They could be in a space ship, we might be in interstellar flight being preserved until we get where we're going, a brain bank like a seed bank.

[Sy Borg]

The researchers running the simulation either evolved on a planet or moon, or "it's turtles all the way down" - simulations of simulations of simulations ad infinitum.

They could be in a space ship, we might be in interstellar flight being preserved until we get where we're going, a brain bank like a seed bank.

Where would that destination be? A planet or a moon? Where might these researchers evolve if not on a planet or moon? How did they evolve to a point where they could create their "Matrix"? Where did they get the material for the space ship and equipment?

If you can deflect these and keep us in the state of uncertainty, I suggest you write a sci fi story about it, publish, send the script to Hollywood, and then enjoy a lavish retirement

[Mark1955]

Where would that destination be? A planet or a moon? Where might these researchers evolve if not on a planet or moon? How did they evolve to a point where they could create their "Matrix"? Where did they get the material for the space ship and equipment?

It doesn't matter what the specific answers are, some of them could be "I don't know" it doesn't alter the point that what you regard as 'fixed' is only fixed in your mind - literally.

[Sy Borg]

Mark, I'd say the provisos are purely theoretical. Discounting the reality of entities like stars and planets that are substantially more solidly implanted in space and time than we are is bold to say the least.

Humans tend to be a little spooked by their imaginative capacities, sometimes to the point of effectively casting doubt on everything, and making the error of treating all things as approximately equally uncertain. That all things are probabilities rather than certainties is clear. However, those probabilities range from the existence of the Earth - a higher probability than anything - to the existence of giant polka dotted waltzing axolotls wearing Santa suits and whistling the Blue Danube while riding cosmic skateboards through intergalactic space (the probability being just a tad lower).

Human cognition is grounded by that of other species that lack imaginative capabilities. Our basic perceptions are largely verified. A tree falls in the forest. Species of numerous types detect the change of light and the pressure waves and flee as one. There is no doubt. The tree fell. While there would seem to be levels of reality to which we are blind (at this stage), the basic levels of what we perceive to be reality at our scale and speed are indubitable.

How could we seriously deny the Earth without relying on "The Matrix"? One might claim that, from the perspective of inconceivably large scales of space and time, stars and planets behave more like waves than "particles". However, to embrace cosmic bodies as equivalent to quantum particle/waves within larger scales of reality at the expense of our mammal reality is to deny the veracity of our own perspective and, thus, the clearly relativistic nature of existence.

Without some basic grounding and confidence in our sense of reality, nothing can be known or achieved. One would either be paralysed by doubt or ignore all abstractions and live like an(other) animal.

[Mark1955]

That all things are probabilities rather than certainties is clear.

So going back to my post 115 we can only be in disagreement about the meaning of the word 'fact'. [Oh Wittgenstein I forgive you! ]

Without some basic grounding and confidence in our sense of reality, nothing can be known or achieved. One would either be paralysed by doubt or ignore all abstractions and live like an(other) animal.

People keep telling me this, and I'm not paralysed, just the opposite; if you had to work with me you'd quickly discover I know exactly how I want a job done and I expect it to be done exactly. I think this is because I compartmentalise very well, I'm pretty sure I'm a bit further down the autisitic spectrum than most.

[Sy Borg]

That all things are probabilities rather than certainties is clear.

So going back to my post 115 we can only be in disagreement about the meaning of the word 'fact'. [Oh Wittgenstein I forgive you! ]

It would seem so. The test of a fact would have to be reliability with confusion being created by the terms we might use.

Without some basic grounding and confidence in our sense of reality, nothing can be known or achieved. One would either be paralysed by doubt or ignore all abstractions and live like an(other) animal.

People keep telling me this, and I'm not paralysed, just the opposite; if you had to work with me you'd quickly discover I know exactly how I want a job done and I expect it to be done exactly. I think this is because I compartmentalise very well, I'm pretty sure I'm a bit further down the autistic spectrum than most.

You and me both, brother When I was a child I recorded the maximum temperature of every day of the year and created a chart on paper (long before PCs), colour coding each entry according to decile (in Fahrenheit - still in the dark ages), and calculated the averages of each month. This was in response to claims made that x month was the hottest and my month was the coldest, and I doubted the assessments . Today, far superior and more reliable information can be found in the Sydney Wikipedia entry.

When it comes to the Earth, I feel it's an odd thing for the planet's tiny, ephemeral occupants to cast doubt on its reality, akin to our bacteria claiming that we don't exist. It would seem that, the smaller the scale, the more ephemeral the existence, so general observations of the existence those objects become less reliable, less able to be established as "facts".

[Mark1955]

When it comes to the Earth, I feel it's an odd thing for the planet's tiny, ephemeral occupants to cast doubt on its reality,

Oh no not another woman obsessed with how BIG everything is

It would seem that, the smaller the scale, the more ephemeral the existence, so general observations of the existence those objects become less reliable, less able to be established as "facts".

I go both ways, I think we also make a lot of assumptions about other galaxies because we have very limited evidence.

[LuckyR]

Facts are experiences which we confidently believe would be experienced by anyone else who was also there.....

Stand in a football crowd, wait for the referee's controversial decision, it's a fact, not to half the spectators it isn't.

It seems to me that you just have more confidence than me in anyone agreeing with your experiences.

It is all a matter of perception. It is predictable (hence why you used it as an example) that in such a scenario the referee's call would be controversial and not universally accepted. And THAT is a fact (since everyone familiar with football and crowd behavior would have predicted the exact same thing).

[Mark1955]

It is all a matter of perception. It is predictable (hence why you used it as an example) that in such a scenario the referee's call would be controversial and not universally accepted. And THAT is a fact (since everyone familiar with football and crowd behavior would have predicted the exact same thing).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22470430

[LuckyR]

It is all a matter of perception. It is predictable (hence why you used it as an example) that in such a scenario the referee's call would be controversial and not universally accepted. And THAT is a fact (since everyone familiar with football and crowd behavior would have predicted the exact same thing).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22470430

If that's all you've got, I'll take the "win".

No one cares about the referee's call because... no one cares, it says so right in the piece:

"Maybe it was the early start but there were no chants and no flags or scarves in sight, just a quiet murmur around the darkened rows of seats.

Many of the fans were soldiers in green uniforms and broad-brimmed hats.

I do not know if they were under orders to attend but some were quietly reading paperbacks and showed no interest in the game."

[Sy Borg]

When it comes to the Earth, I feel it's an odd thing for the planet's tiny, ephemeral occupants to cast doubt on its reality,

Oh no not another woman obsessed with how BIG everything is

Mark, you appear to be worried by that

It would seem that, the smaller the scale, the more ephemeral the existence, so general observations of the existence those objects become less reliable, less able to be established as "facts".

I go both ways, I think we also make a lot of assumptions about other galaxies because we have very limited evidence.

Good point. My assumption neglected the possibility of "embeddedness in reality" peaking at certain scales and then scaling back to relative ephemera with increase of scale.