The epistemic problem of "deriving truth from scratch "

[LastThursday]

@zurew as I said we're arguing from different paradigms, so you're not going to agree with me, and that's fine by me. For example:

27 minutes ago, zurew said:

There are facts of the matter about the laws of physics independent from your knowledge of it. It might be the case, that you dont know anything about the laws of physics , but thats just a statement about  knowledge, but that doesnt change anything about the laws of physics.

I say the laws of physics are a construction of human thought. We observe nature, make up hypotheses (propositions) about our observations, and then validate those hypotheses to get at their truth value. The very concept of "law" is a construct. There's nothing instrinsic at all about "the laws of physics". The laws of physics don't hold if you have no notion of laws or physics. In any case the laws are constantly revised and added to, a Victorian's laws of physics is not a 21st century person's laws of physics.

Equally, propositions are constructions of human thought, not separate from them. A proposition only "exists" as human thought, nothing else. And, as such propositions must be shared into other minds, and so suffer from relativity. Epistemology is not prior to human thought.

27 minutes ago, zurew said:

I dont know what it means for a proposition to exist

Because you paradigm doesn't allow it.

Edited 5 hours ago by LastThursday

[zurew]

23 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

I say the laws of physics are a construction of human thought.

Lets clear up what you actually mean by that and what that entails. There is an interpretation of that statement that is sensible to me , but there is another that isn't sensible at all.

Given how you intended to mean that statement - does that mean that if I think I can fly, then that actually makes it so that I can fly?

I also think there might be an equivocation and misinterpretation on the sentence "laws of physics" - I meant the behavior of nature and I didnt mean our modelling of nature.

23 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

Because you paradigm doesn't allow it.

It has nothing to do with what my paradigm allows or doesnt allow and it has everything to do with that sentence not being intelligible to me.

It might be a sensible and coherent statement and view, I just dont understand what 'propositions existing' mean.

Edited 5 hours ago by zurew

[LastThursday]

19 minutes ago, zurew said:

does that mean that if I think I can fly, then that actually makes it so that I can fly?

Believing you can fly doesn’t make you able to fly. But understanding the structure of reality well enough that we can build aeroplanes, does make human flight possible. My point is that physical laws are descriptions of structures in reality, not things created by belief.

21 minutes ago, zurew said:

I meant the behavior of nature and I didnt mean our modelling of nature.

What's the difference? Both are interpretations of "things we notice" in nature. The two are exactly the same. Scientific laws are just a more formal system of modelling. Interpretation is constrained by cognition and what we're wired to perceive.

22 minutes ago, zurew said:

I just dont understand what 'propositions existing' mean.

A proposition is simply a verbal statement in thought, to put it in a simple way. As such, as soon as it arises in thought, then it exists. That's it. Before it arises, it doesn't exist. I mean nothing more than that.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, LastThursday said:

What's the difference?

The difference between a thing and a description of a thing.

The difference between a thing that is interpreted and an interpretation of said thing.

The difference between the thing that is modelled and your model of said thing.

The difference between the thing that is propositionalized and a proposition of said thing.

--

Whatever you meant in your earlier statement by the structure of reality is what I meant by behavior of nature.

All im saying is that prior to modelling or interpreting or propositionalizing or making a description of the structure of reality , there is the structure of reality.

Edited 2 hours ago by zurew

[Eskilon]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

All im saying is that prior to modelling or interpreting or propositionalizing or making a description of the structure of reality , there is the structure of reality.

Does a tree fall in the forest if you're not there to listen?

Does prior and after exist?