Facts are evidence when you do empirical proofs but evidence is not the whole story when you are theorising about existence itself. Metaphysics goes beyond empirical facts. True, scepticism is indispensible to both metaphysics and science.NickGaspar wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 5:47 amOh! So we are already in the woo territory where definitions and facts do not play a role in how we confirm or verify claims. How convenient!Belindi wrote: ↑April 6th, 2022, 5:33 amObservation doesn't imply observer. Observations attributed to Nick Gaspar or to Belinda do not imply Nick Gaspar or Belinda exist other than as collections of observations.NickGaspar wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 4:51 pmBelindi wrote: ↑April 4th, 2022, 1:49 pm Nick Gaspar wrote:
It's obviously definition number 1. that this is about.
No phenomenon is real in the sense that it's independent of being experienced. Some would claim phenonema are real whether or not they are experienced. The question is not physical but metaphysical. As metaphysical, the question will not be amenable to empirical investigations but will be embedded in some large theory of existence.
(NG)
If so then time is dual aspect and may be understood both ways depending on the Dasein, or depending on a consensus so a conversation can take place.
-"No phenomenon is real in the sense that it's independent of being experienced."
-Pls read again the first definition. (a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen...) A fact are objective and independent of an observer. An observer only experiences and identifies a fact as specific phenomenon.
-" Some would claim phenonema are real whether or not they are experienced. "
-Only those who understand Forensic Reasoning.
-" The question is not physical but metaphysical. "
-Those are not mutually exclusive terms. A metaphysical question can either address a physical or a non physical subject. The problem rises when a question addresses the supernatural.
-"As metaphysical, the question will not be amenable to empirical investigations but will be embedded in some large theory of existence."
-I think you use a definition of metaphysical that isn't used in Philosophy. Metaphysical in philosophy doesn't mean "non physical". It means beyond our current knowledge.
So if a metaphysical question is not amenable to empirical investigation, then the problem lies in our question.
-"If so then time is dual aspect and may be understood both ways depending on the Dasein, or depending on a consensus so a conversation can take place."
-Time is a simple concept based on an observable fact of "Processes not happening all at once and in different rhythms". The process has properties (duration, pace etc) that we can quantify by a simple scale (time). There is nothing supernatural or dualistic or magical in the concept of time.
When I say its more than a concept I point out the facts that render the concept useful and meaningful for its quantification.
Existence is necessary for observations to be made. Both the observer and what it observes need to exist.
If you want to play tennis without the net then you are not in the correct forum. They are theological and new age forums that you can talk about your non existence while eating a sandwich...in order to provide fuel to your metabolism...for no reason at all (according to you).
I am sure if you identify the thief taking your car, you won't repeat the same ideas in the court of law....
There is plenty of evidence that relativity is a fact. There is psychological evidence our senses deceive us. There is social psychological evidence our mental biases deceive us.
You claim "Existence is necessary for observations to be made. Both the observer and what it observes need to exist." Existence is what this conversation is about. We are asking if time exists. We redefine time and we can see time as 'mind' dependent like a tree or a animal pet is mind dependent.
Mind does not exist which is why I inserted startle marks.What exists is experience and nothing but experience. Mind is a reification of experience. Forget subject and object; experience is a two-sided coin and whichever aspect of it, self or environment, you choose to inspect does not make the coin less of a whole. Me and not-me are not two things but are how biological beings think, and it's mental bias that disparages holism by calling it "New Age" or "Religion".
I am not omnibenevolent but human so when the thief takes my car and the stone that I stub my toe on hurts me I call on the authorities to mend the pavement and bring the thief to justice.