[reliablereason]

In this case you "observed" the anthill by writing about and describing it.

Things emerge in to something. In this case it emerged in to models of the world that exist in mine and your mind.

The pattern that was the anthill exists, but it has not emerged in to something before it has emerged in to a model of something.

So I guess it goes wrong cause we use different definitions for what it means for something to emerge.

On a side note. I am not quite sure what you mean with "a fact of nature", my best guess is something like: it is an axiom of truth that anthills exist. But that does not make sense to me. Maybe it is more like: we observe anthills so they must exist. Idk? Probably not relevant, seams more like you are refuting some postmodern idealistic idea which states that everything is mind, which I don’t subscribe to.