Transcendent Facts: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Transcendent Facts » Transcendent Facts

Transcendent Facts
ontological & epistemological implications ... especially for sound reasoning

Page: 1 2 3 4

Transcendent Facts

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 968

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 09:53 AM:	#21
I am not confident about this, but I don't think the issue of being transcendent by 180's definition is whether or not a fact is empirically observable so much as whether or not a fact is limited by empirical OR logical constraints--that is, limited in such a way that we can actually conceptualize it as a distinct coherent mental construct. If the future scientists can logically infer the state of the universe beyond what they actually can empirically observe, then such an inference is not transcendent fact by 180's definition, it's simply a proposition that's logically coherent with and consistent with the available empirical observations they actually can make.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 562

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 10:22 AM:	#22
brainpharte wrote: I am not confident about this, but I don't think the issue of being transcendent by 180's definition is whether or not a fact is empirically observable so much as whether or not a fact is limited by empirical OR logical constraints--that is, limited in such a way that we can actually conceptualize it as a distinct coherent mental construct. If the future scientists can logically infer the state of the universe beyond what they actually can empirically observe, then such an inference is not transcendent fact by 180's definition, it's simply a proposition that's logically coherent with and consistent with the available empirical observations they actually can make. Logic transcends empiricism, but logic + empiricism is the epitome of knowledge for scientists today. Our ability to determine what is a logical possibility is determined only by some a priori basis for judgemnent (i.e. there must be some fact assumed). The logical conclusion that they would draw from empirical evidence available to them (unless there were a record from our time, for instance) would fit their reality fine, but it would not be a fact about what is actually the universe at large. Facts about the universe at large would transcend their ability to rationally talk about them (in the same way that possible transcendent facts, now, may exist and exceed our knowing empirically about them). The scientists could posit logical possibilities, but have no basis for choosing the right one (just as we posited an open, closed, or flat universe today, but were able to choose the flat one based on empirical observation).
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 968

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 10:45 AM:	#23
rigelrover wrote: Facts about the universe at large would transcend their ability to rationally talk about them (in the same way that possible transcendent facts, now, may exist and exceed our knowing empirically about them). I think the issue is that facts about the universe at large would exceed (as distinguished from transcend) their ability to rationally talk about them. I don't have the impression that your use of "transcend" is how 180 was using it.
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 562

Posted 11/03/09 - 11:47 AM:	#24
Maybe not. But, as I tried to point out earlier, my definition is the non-trivial and more useful of the two. I suggested that I might be wrong about that, but no one has addressed that yet. Thanks for the consideration b-p.
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5137

Posted 11/03/09 - 12:33 PM:	#25
Perhaps my definition of "transcend transcendent transcendence" is trivial but no one has yet shown that my definition is not consistent with prevailing uses in metaphysics theology & traditional hermeneutics. Your concern, rigelrover, is relative to local, even parochial, cognitive limits which is psychologistic, and therby misses the broader logical (and epistemological) point of the OP. In other words, "transcending reason" (or our minds) does not imply that which, as I define, is beyond conditions & limits (i.e. unconditional & unlimited). For instance, any intractable problem "transcends" our minds and yet consists in conditions that determine such a problem's complexity (i.e. computational requirements); thus, transcending some conditions (i.e. minds, reason, etc) is a only a subset of transcend as I define it (i.e. all conditions). Edited by 180 Proof on 11/04/09 - 12:57 PM. Reason: Clarifying my confabulations ...
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

brainpharte
Huh?

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 07, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 968

Posted 11/03/09 - 01:34 PM:	#26
180, Is it not the case that all you are saying (expressed in set theory concepts) is that the definitions of 'fact' and 'transcendent' logicslly entail that there is no such thing as a 'transcendent fact'?
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 562

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 01:41 PM:	#27
There cannot be, by his definition... But this is not a useful fact in itself; it is just the definition that makes it so. This is what I mean by trivial. His concern is that the definition used for transcendent is equivalent to its usage in the above mentioned fields, and thereby these fields are dealing with an empty concept (perhaps). Edited by rigelrover on 11/03/09 - 01:47 PM. Reason: Added a bit..fixed grammer
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5137

Posted 11/03/09 - 01:50 PM:	#28
brainpharte wrote: Is it not the case that all you are saying (expressed in set theory concepts) is that the definitions of 'fact' and 'transcendent' logic(a)lly entail that there is no such thing as a 'transcendent fact'? Yes. rigelrover wrote: There cannot be by his definition. But this is not a useful fact in itself. It is just the definition that makes it so. It's a set and not a fact itself. It's useful as discursive tool (i.e. criterion) with respect to discussing perennial topics (e.g.) "gods" "mind" "soul" "supernaturalia" "absolutes" "universals" etc ... as well as Meinong's, Escher's & Penrose's impossible objects.
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 562

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 01:55 PM:	#29
180 Proof wrote: *It's a set* and not a fact itself*. It's useful as discursive tool (i.e. criterion) with respect to discussing perennial topics (e.g.) "gods" "mind" "soul" "supernaturalia" "absolutes" "universals" etc (... or Meinong's, Escher's & Penrose's impossible objects*). I mean 'the fact the the set is empty' is not a useful fact, in light of its triviality. I can see how it would be if the topics mentioned fall in line with your definition, however. I enjoy your posts because I get to look up new things with google (e.g. Meinongian Logic). Edited by rigelrover on 11/03/09 - 02:07 PM
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5137

Posted 11/03/09 - 02:10 PM:	#30
rigelrover wrote: I mean 'the fact the the set is empty' is not a useful fact, in light of its triviality. In the abstract (i.e. outside of an applicable context), I agree.
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.