Berkeley's Idealism

[genkaus]

This may be a point of semantics more than real difference. Metaphysics would just be physics not yet developed. There must be only one reality and I've been calling the Totality. Maybe cosmos (kosmos) would be the more appropriate term. I've been calling physical reality the reality governed by physics to distinguish it from other forms of inquiry, like philosophy, mathematics, etc. Perhaps instead refering to "physical reality", I should refer to material reality, although I do not find that much of an improvement. (Suggestions?)

Plus I'm not convinced that everything reduces to physical processes as currently understood. I do not say that in order to defend theism. I still think there are serious problems in philosophy of mind that go beyond four fundamental forces and physical constants.

There is a difference between being "reduced to" and "arising from".

Consider the forms of inquiry which could be considered independent of the material reality - philosophy, mathematics, logic etc. All these fields arise from the material reality as a result of the process of abstraction. For example, we can only perceive concrete examples of humanity, i.e. a single person here or there. But when we identify the defining qualities and aggregate them conceptually, we get the concept of a human being. And while this concept may have instantiated concretes, it cannot be said to be reduced to them.

It would be incorrect to say that these fields go "beyond" physical reality or to assert that they assert any effect over it, since they have developed from the material reality in the first place.

Would such a inter-dependency/coincidental be called nominalism in academic discourse?

Maybe. I don't know.

You are correct. I misplace a negative. I'm still uncomfortable because this form uses the term "fact" for something that may never be observed. To me that's a bit of a problem. How then do you know if it is the true statement is really true? You could state a fact and not even know it to be true.

Any statement of fact implies knowledge of truth. To state something as a fact, while claiming no knowledge of its truth is self-contradictory. Now, if a thing is never observed (directly or indirectly) then there can be no knowledge about it and therefore no factual statement about it either.

To correct this problem, perhaps the following would be more accurate:

1. A fact is a statement about a thing that is observed to be true and which continues to be true even when the thing ceased to be observed.
2. "P" is a true statement about thing "E"
3. Thing "E" goes unobserved.
Therefore:
4. "P" cannot be a fact.

There is also a time element involved in the Premise 1 where it says "continues to be true". Because the fact can only be known be a true statement only during observation. A change could happen after the observation. Like if I say there is beer in the fridge but unbeknownst to me my "friend" drank it all.

Certain ambiguity here.

The first premise is incorrect definition about a fact. A fact is simply a statement about a thing that is currently observed to be true. Any further continuation of its truth or any further observation are irrelevant.

For example, if I stated "George Bush is the president of America" - this would have been both a fact and the truth in 2004. But now the same statement is neither. Facts are not absolute and unchanging - they are contextual.

So, in the rest of your argument - P can be a fact upto the point that E has been observed and no change in E occurs. After that, P is no longer a fact.

This seems to strike at the heart of Idealism. Like you said, without facts there can be no proof. And without proof (in the form of observation) there can be no facts.

You are equivocating between scientific meaning of proof and general meaning. Scientifically, what is observed is a fact. It requires no further proof, it is self-evident. Where a theory is concerned, the facts that support it are equivalent of the proof.

In layman's terms, observation identifies facts. The difference here is just what is true and identification of that truth. While no statement can be made about truth without proper identification, it exists regardless.