Because a rock is still a rock regardless of if humans are around to observe it.
Nice, the old "argumentum ad lapidem".
I understand we find it easy, in fact, it's intuitive and downright "obvious" that "things" "exist" "independent of observation and evidence".
But what you seem to be missing is that this "common sense" (a priori "fact") is a de facto philosophy in-and-of-itself, namely Naive Objectivism (naive realism).
Any "thing" we don't have evidence of is an aspect of NOUMENON.
Part of the NOUMENON is potentially "knowable", Mysterium Invisus and part of it is fundamentally unknowable, Magnum Mysterium.
I'd say that "existence" is probably not the best word to describe noumenon (mainly because the definition of "exists" requires empirical verifiability). I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium). For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of. In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend. All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality". I mean since noumenon may involve a great many (likely) possibly subjective layers (simulation/dream/multiverse) below our primitive perceptions, although we can deduce with the confidence afforded us by our logic, that there must be, at some level, "real" and "true" and "objective" "reality", we cannot have any confidence that what we are able to perceive has anything-at-all to do with the-hypothetical-objective-essence directly. It's like the old story of the princess and the pea. Clearly there is "something" under the bed, but what are the chances that a normal person would be able to detect it through ninety-nine high-quality mattresses(?).
I gave a tautology, which is a necessarily true statement, rather than making the fallacy of a stone. Just because I used a stone as example doesn't mean I gave a fallacy involving a stone. The fact that I asserted that a rock is a rock doesn't mean that all that I was doing is making a baseless asseriton. Far from baseless, "a rock is a rock" is necessarily true on account of it being tautologically true. "A rock is a rock" is on a par with A=A which is the law of identity which is the fundamental law of logic and cannot be false.
Nope. You failed to make your definitions explicit.
And because you failed to make your definitions explicit, you've inadvertently made an "appeal to common sense", which is a naked "appeal to ignorance".
A noumenon has to be a thing for it to be anything at all, as far as I'm concerned. Either there is a such thing as X or there isn't. And "There's no such thing as X" equates to "X doesn't exist". Either the noumenon is a thing or it is nothing at all.
I like where you're going with this.
NOUMENON is a special case.
In order for a "thing" to properly "exist" we must have some way of detecting it empirically, either directly or indirectly.
NOUMENON is not detectable empirically, but it is LOGICALLY NECESSARY.
We only "know" of NOUMENON, because we can deduce that we DO NOT currently know "everything".
Therefore, NOUMENON "exists" more like a category, and less like an actual "thing" (even though it may contain currently undetected things).
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
Essential HIVE links,
https://hive.vote/
https://beeme.icu/?account=logiczombie
https://hiveblocks.com/@logiczombie
Copyright notice: Feel free to copy and paste any LOGICZOMBIE original content (posts and or comments and or replies and logiczombie logo, excluding quoted 3rd party content of course) according to copyleft principles.
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
Peakd said "4 minute read" on this interesting piece....
It took me about 10 minutes the first time, and about 15 minutes the second time....
Nice, thanks!
I've wondered about the accuracy of those estimates...
An interesting and thought provoking post, that 'few' will 'probably' ever read...
It exists, none-the-less and perhaps...'that' is good enough :>)
Thanks for taking the time to battle through such a dense post.
You're welcome... Reminds me of the type of reading I used to indulge in, years ago when my mind was young and curious :>)
Somebody needs to keep those young whipper-snappers in line!
If God created the rock and observed the rock as God created the rock, problem solved. If there is a God, then God makes the rules, perhaps. But if there is no god, then a rock may not be defined until it is defined and described to be a rock or to be whatever. According to natural law, you would have to assume that the rock is whatever the rock is even without the rock being observed. If a rock or a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound because sound is vibration. When a deaf person fails to hear it, the deaf still feels the vibration from the fall.
(IFF) god created everything and sees everything and knows everything (THEN) that still doesn't help us humans see stuff and know stuff.
In order for a human to call something "true", that phenomenon (or idea) must be (EITHER) empirically verifiable (OR) logically necessary.
Any "thing" that is NOT empirically verifiable and also NOT logically necessary CANNOT be categorized as "true" or "extant".
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
Check this out, it was made by a Christian philosopher,
But that doesn't make something not real, just because we don't know it. So, it is not relevant. Eventually, we can know something. When we see something, we are not making the thing exist as soon as we see it.
Try to consider that you might be making the thing exists as soon as you see it.
Try thinking about it like this,
I am not talking about that. I am not talking about what I know but what exists. You may not know wind exist but that does not mean wind does not knock you over. You might know about the wind when it knocks you over but not before. But the wind was still there before you knew about it. So, the wind existed before you knew it existed.
The important bit here is being able to very clearly distinguish between "EXISTS" and "DOES NOT EXIST" (does not qualify as extant).
(IFF) you have no empirical evidence (and cannot demonstrate some logical necessity) of "spiritual-wind" (THEN) you cannot categorize "spiritual-wind" in the "EXISTS" category.
Certainly there might be (currently undiscovered) things that will be said to "EXIST" in the future, and we might even RETROACTIVELY say they "EXISTED" "before" they were "discovered", but up-to-and-until that day when they are empirically verifiable (and or demonstrated to be logically necessary) we cannot say "spiritual-wind" "EXISTS".
Radio waves are a good example of this.
Are you talking about scientifically trying to prove that something is tangible? Sure, within the realm of scientific experiments, as in observational science, of course you are going to go through a process in an attempt to verify, to confirm the evidence regarding alleged claim of the reality of something. I understand you might be alluding to the limitation of the religion of historical science, as seen in the myth of evolution for example in superimposing assumptions into the past which violates the process of observational science which is done in live time, step by step. So, I agree that people should try harder not to conflate observational science with historical science.
That's not "natural law", it's "naive realism" (materialism).
No. It is how the universe works. It is like gravity, what goes up must go down.
MAGNUM MYSTERIUM in 1 minute 40 seconds,
https://www.intpforum.com/threads/how-to-shatter-humes-guillotine.28764/page-3#post-618605