Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "Axioms" Of Nature
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 31 of 297 (486473)
10-21-2008 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Dawn Bertot
10-21-2008 2:20 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Nature
Bertot writes:
Huntard writes
but don't.
You do understand that "but dont" is a choice to not "willing" do or not do something, correct. In your scenerio they seem to be willing at first but then change thier mind, which would mean that they were then unwilling.
D Bertot
No, not correct. I admit it goes completely against logic, but you can want to do something, have the means to do it, and yet not do it. They don't change their mind, they are simply illogical beings.
Edited by Huntard, : Spellings

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 2:20 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 32 of 297 (486474)
10-21-2008 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by ikabod
10-21-2008 3:36 AM


Spock's oversight: another possibility
Spock: 'Sir, they are either unwilling or unable to respond.' [Thinks it over, then raises right eyebrow] 'Hmm... fascinating. Another possibility has just occurred to me: the ship may be abandoned and the biosignals we received may have been faked, emitted by fully automated systems aboard the alien vessel. This would surely rule out unwillingness and inability. There may be even more possibilities that I have overlooked, I am only (half) human after all.'

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ikabod, posted 10-21-2008 3:36 AM ikabod has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 33 of 297 (486476)
10-21-2008 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Dawn Bertot
10-21-2008 2:29 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
We are now over 30 posts into a thread setup to examine the "axioms" upon which you claim that your whole methodology for drawing reliable conclusions rests.
And yet you have still failed to provide a single example of such an "axiom".
This ongoing failure is making your position look utterly ridiculous.
Which would mean that thier methods of communication and understnding are so different that it would make it in reality, UNABLE to get a message through, correct?
No. It means that we need to be able to expand our own methods of reasoning in order to understand their actions. Whether or not this is humanly possible remains to be seen. We will not know until we try. Until we test.
Reality is as we find it. Not as we deduce it to be on the basis of deductive logic subjectively applied to incomplete evidence.
Isnt it interesting that not one person can provide one other solution that does not fall within the two categories. Hmmmmm?
Is it not interesting that you are totally unable to define a single "axiom" of reality despite the whole basis of your argument resting upon such "axioms" both actually existing and being genuinely axiomatic.
(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
Is this a fair representation of your position or not?
If not, what exactly is your position?
Unless you can define these "axioms of reality" and the basis on which it can be ensured that they are indeed objective, legitimate and axiomatic you really have no position at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 2:29 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by cavediver, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 35 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM Straggler has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 34 of 297 (486483)
10-21-2008 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Straggler
10-21-2008 8:20 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
And yet you have still failed to provide a single example of such an "axiom".
This ongoing failure is making your position look utterly ridiculous.
Ah, you were obviously unaware of Bertot's last thread on axioms
Bertot's position on axioms cannot get any more ridiculous

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2008 8:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2008 5:04 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 35 of 297 (486484)
10-21-2008 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Straggler
10-21-2008 8:20 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
Ikabod writes:
To put a end to the Star Trek axiom may i propose the following logical option number three ..
the aliens are both willing and able , and have so done ,and have taken over Spock , he is now telling lies to confuse the Captain ,so that, while he under alien mind control,he can take over the ship ....
You simply dont get it do you. While this is the closest anyone has come, it demonstrates that they are UNWILLING to communicate with the enterprise in the form of deception, there desire is NOT TO, therefore UNWILLING. In other words the enterprise has not recieved a response because of deception on the aliens part, hence they are unwilling to communicate with them. How much simplier could it be
Nice try though.
Cavediverwrites:
only as YOU choose define them - can you really not see the utter subjectivity of this?
Just for fun, here's another one - there is no 'they', so Spock's statement is ill-defined from the start.
There is nothing subjective about reality. You situation takes the whole situation out of context and reality. That would be like discusssing the existence of things, then saying nothing exists. Your example is both silly and nonsense.
As is blatantly obvious, you are the one attempting misdirection again. Quite obviously a response that is not received is still a response. For instance, a letter lost in the post was still written and sent, regardless of the failure of the post office to deliver.
How can you not see that this means they were UNABLE from the enterprises perspective. The reason of how or why does not matter, they simple were unable, given the situation and your example. Surely your smarter than that PaulK
Was the letter mailed ABLE OR UNABLE to get to the person it was sent to?
You've only demonstrated that your claims rely on misrepresentation and dishonesty. If Spock is a paragon of logic his statmeents must be clear and precise, and therefore all your "he didn't mean what he said, he meant what Dawn Berottsays" arguments are futile. As well as demonstrating a complete contempt for the supposed authority-figure you base your arguments on.
Wow, these are strong words PaulK, especially given the fact that I have demonstrated each and everyone of you examples as counterfactual and incorrect. "Dishonest"? If I disagree and can demonstrate my position I am now dishonest? Is this how you respond to every argument you have trouble with.
Surely you are not so silly as to believe I have some Hero worship of a TV character, if I did it would be the writer, not Spock, use your head man. The statement regardless of where it came form, when it came from is perfectly logical and axiomatic in nature.
Huntard writes:
No, not correct. I admit it goes completely against logic, but you can want to do something, have the means to do it, and yet not do it. They don't change their mind, they are simply illogical beings.
Surely you are joking here. If you have a mind to do something and yet not do it, it means you changed your mind. Not following through means you decided not to, illogical or otherwise. I will admitthis is the wierdest response yet.
They don't change their mind, they are simply illogical beings.
Even being illogical involves a decision, unless we are talking about women, ha ha.
Spock: 'Sir, they are either unwilling or unable to respond.' [Thinks it over, then raises right eyebrow] 'Hmm... fascinating. Another possibility has just occurred to me: the ship may be abandoned and the biosignals we received may have been faked, emitted by fully automated systems aboard the alien vessel. This would surely rule out unwillingness and inability. There may be even more possibilities that I have overlooked, I am only (half) human after all.'
It most certainly would involve UNABLE. Unable involves the enterprises perspective as well as any nonexistent beings or ones that have automated systems. Spocks suggestion is still in tact. Besides all of this the reality of the situation under consideration is that they were actually there, changing the whole scenerio to try and fit in a suggestion or response is simply silly. That would be like discussing the properties of some physical property, then simply saying, "well it may not be there after all". If you are not going to be reasonable, why try?
We are now over 30 posts into a thread setup to examine the "axioms" upon which you claim that your whole methodology for drawing reliable conclusions rests.
And yet you have still failed to provide a single example of such an "axiom".
This ongoing failure is making your position look utterly ridiculous.
Posturing and intimidation by yourself will not let you ignore the fact that axioms exist. In this simple illustration I have provided it should be clear that inability to demonstrate otherwise is indicative of the fact that they are very real.
You do realize that in the negative of this position that it is your responsibility to show how an axiom, even the one I am presenting is incorrect, correct? An axiom is "a self evident truth that requires no proof". If you dont believe this what was the puropse of someone forming a word and giving it a definition, or is this just another imagination of someone? You are now suggesting that axioms dont exist at all.
Repeating that I have not demonstrated examples of axioms is not the same as demonstrating them as invalid. Each and every example I have reduced to the two examples. It is your and others failure to demonstrate or give examples otherwise that establishes it as a valid example.
Heck, I am still waiting for another alternative to the existence of the universe besides the only two logical possibilites, you havent even accomplished this task yet.
You cant just imagine or complain a problem away. Axioms are self evident truths that require no proof. Actually I dont even need to do anything except watch you try and provide examples otherwise, thats the nature of axioms, they are self evident truths, Knothead.
No. It means that we need to be able to expand our own methods of reasoning in order to understand their actions. Whether or not this is humanly possible remains to be seen. We will not know until we try. Until we test.
Reality is as we find it. Not as we deduce it to be on the basis of deductive logic subjectively applied to incomplete evidence.
It is interesting how and the methods someone will employ to avoid the force of an argument. So you are admitting that for whatever reaso, our inablity, thier inablity, thier fault, our fault, nobodys fault,they were UNABLE to get a message through, correct? This is what you need to deal with , not some lecture on how we need to improve our ablities to do this or that.
This is the most eloquent way I have ever seen anyone avoid answering the question, but I suppose its you only recourse. To the task man.
Is it not interesting that you are totally unable to define a single "axiom" of reality despite the whole basis of your argument resting upon such "axioms" both actually existing and being genuinely axiomatic.
Only a person not paying any attention at all, or a person unable to respond to the axiom, would make such a statement. If you dont like this practical example and cannot provide any solutions, then give me another solution to the nature of things, that does not fall squarely within the only two logical possibilites.
Your only response and ability (should say inability) thus far is to cry, "well we just dont know everything", boo hoo, therefore its an unreasonable request. To the task man give me another solution or admit it is axiomatic in charater.
(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
Yep, that is exacally correct and you havent even put a dent in it or any of my examples. Quit crying about what you dont know and tell me what you do, give me examples that wont fall squarely in between or that or not a combination of the two. My prediction is that you will not be able as I have already shown, reality will not let you do otherwise.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2008 8:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 10-21-2008 9:38 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 10-21-2008 9:52 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 38 by Parasomnium, posted 10-21-2008 9:56 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 41 by onifre, posted 10-21-2008 10:26 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 42 by ikabod, posted 10-21-2008 10:34 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 43 by Huntard, posted 10-21-2008 12:15 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 44 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2008 1:40 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 46 by rueh, posted 10-21-2008 2:42 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 10-22-2008 5:28 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 36 of 297 (486485)
10-21-2008 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dawn Bertot
10-21-2008 9:30 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
Just what is the actual axiom you are discussing, of which your Spock-scenario is but an example?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 37 of 297 (486486)
10-21-2008 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dawn Bertot
10-21-2008 9:30 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
quote:
How can you not see that this means they were UNABLE from the enterprises perspective.
Because it doesn't. Spock has no way to know if the aliens have a means of responding that would work, but that they have not yet attempted.
And even if it did it wouldn't matter. Spock asserted that they were "unable or unwilling to respond" without any further qualification.
quote:
The reason of how or why does not matter, they simple were unable, given the situation and your example. Surely your smarter than that PaulK
Apparently you think that refusing to acknowledge an obvious truth is a sign of intelligence.
quote:
Wow, these are strong words PaulK, especially given the fact that I have demonstrated each and everyone of you examples as counterfactual and incorrect
This is yet more dishonesty. The fact is that I have provided a counter-example that you have been unable to honestly refute.
quote:
Surely you are not so silly as to believe I have some Hero worship of a TV character,
If you did not, then you would not be appealing to Spock as your paragon of logic - to the point of engaging in obvious dishonesty to try to protect that reputation.
quote:
The statement regardless of where it came form, when it came from is perfectly logical and axiomatic in nature
It is neither axiomatic nor logical and a valid counter-example has been provided.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 38 of 297 (486487)
10-21-2008 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dawn Bertot
10-21-2008 9:30 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
Bertot writes:
It most certainly would involve UNABLE. Unable involves the enterprises perspective as well as any nonexistent beings or ones that have automated systems. Spocks suggestion is still in tact. Besides all of this the reality of the situation under consideration is that they were actually there, changing the whole scenerio to try and fit in a suggestion or response is simply silly. That would be like discussing the properties of some physical property, then simply saying, "well it may not be there after all". If you are not going to be reasonable, why try?
What Spock's reasoning in my version comes down to is: they're either unwilling to respond, or they're unable to, or they simply don't exist. Your attempt to equate nonexistence with inability is quite amusing but it doesn't work.
The aliens being there in the actual scene has no bearing on my example. We are not talking about the actual scene, we are discussing a hypothetical situation which you say has only two solutions. You suggested that there is no other logical possibility, your opponents showed you there is. One of the solutions could be that at the moment Spock uttered his conclusion, he could be wrong because it was also possible that there were no aliens on the other ship. You have been proved wrong.
[from your response to Straggler:] Only a person not paying any attention at all, or a person unable to respond to the axiom, would make such a statement.
Well, what if the aliens simply weren't paying attention? Would that constitute unwillingness, or inability? Have you shot yourself in the foot?
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 39 of 297 (486488)
10-21-2008 10:05 AM


Next!
I really think this Spock thing has run its course. Isn't it about time for you to trot out the "Dead men tell no tales" line, so we can destroy that while you ignore our arguments?

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 40 of 297 (486489)
10-21-2008 10:18 AM


Moderator Request
Objectively demonstrating right or wrongness is conceptually straightforward, but doing the same for intentional misrepresentation or dishonesty is problematic in the extreme. Please keep discussion confined to the former, not the latter.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 41 of 297 (486490)
10-21-2008 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dawn Bertot
10-21-2008 9:30 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
Bertot writes:
Yep, that is exacally correct and you havent even put a dent in it or any of my examples. Quit crying about what you dont know and tell me what you do, give me examples that wont fall squarely in between or that or not a combination of the two. My prediction is that you will not be able as I have already shown, reality will not let you do otherwise.
The point of this thread is to show that the method you us is nothing more than an assertion. You claim that there are axiomatic trtuths about reality, yet certain aspects of reality have not been understood therefore to make a prediction about it is worthless since the nature of it is not known, and your prediction cannot be falsified.
This thread was started because you said the origin of the universe is either 'Matter is eternal', or 'God created everything and He is eternal'.
Both of these are not supported with any evidence that shows the nature of reality at that point in time, it cannot be falsified and is nothing more than an attempt at an answer without any supporting empirical data. You are simply circling around that point. You can say its an axiomatic truth, you can say its not an axiomatic truth, both of those statements have equally non-supporting data. The nature of certain things are not known, their origins would then be less understood and to postulate about it would just be philosophical musing.
Turtles all the way down remember...
And Christ, could we stop talking about Star-Trek, chics aren't gonna show up to this thread.
Edited by onifre, : spelling

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 42 of 297 (486491)
10-21-2008 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dawn Bertot
10-21-2008 9:30 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
Let us start with the original statement
Aboard the enterprise, they were faced with a situation where they were trying to ascertain the status of other individuals aboard another ship. Mr. Spock (Rahvin) states to the captain, "Sir, there are only two logical possibilities, they are unable to respond, they are unwilling to respond"
The crew of the other ship have responded ,by deliberately ignoring the Enterprise, this is a considered and logical response , for they know that by actively ignoring the Enterprise time will pass and they will gain an advantage . To enhance this cleaver plan the other ships crew are humming loudly so that they can later claim, lie , they did not hear the communication system going beep . They are willing to continue this type of response for a further hour .
Now before you tell me I am wrong .
The act of ignoring is a response, one that requires thought , and action .
You can not ignore something you are unaware of , if you act because you are aware of some thing you are clearly responding to that something .
Deliberately ignoring something is a calculated act , which sends a message , and seeks to provoke a counter response .
By the act of ignoring the enterprise they are sending a very clear message , which the enterprise has received , it is Spocks non human nature that has misinterpreted the responce .
This is why Spock is the science officer not the communications officer
Edited by ikabod, : (( sorry i took so long writing another mass of posts appeared .. no more Star trek agreed ))

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 43 of 297 (486494)
10-21-2008 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dawn Bertot
10-21-2008 9:30 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
Bertot writes:
Huntard writes:
No, not correct. I admit it goes completely against logic, but you can want to do something, have the means to do it, and yet not do it. They don't change their mind, they are simply illogical beings.
Surely you are joking here. If you have a mind to do something and yet not do it, it means you changed your mind. Not following through means you decided not to, illogical or otherwise. I will admitthis is the wierdest response yet.
No I'm not joking. I have a mind to do a great many things, but I don't do them all. The fact that I don't do everything I want to do doesn't mean I don't WANT to do them though.
They don't change their mind, they are simply illogical beings.
Even being illogical involves a decision, unless we are talking about women, ha ha.
[sarcasm]Well, you hit the nail on the head, these are female aliens[/sarcasm]
But fine, whatever, let's concentrate on the main argument here, I'm done with this, you won't concede anyway. Please provide some "axioms of reality" so we can discuss them.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 44 of 297 (486496)
10-21-2008 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Dawn Bertot
10-21-2008 9:30 AM


Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
Over 40 posts and counting. Still no sign of any axioms.
(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
You have agreed that this is your position.
In the absence of being able to state a single one of these axioms the weakness of this position is apparent to all.
Posturing and intimidation by yourself will not let you ignore the fact that axioms exist. In this simple illustration I have provided it should be clear that inability to demonstrate otherwise is indicative of the fact that they are very real.
Then what are they?
I have given you an answer to your Star Trek example but you chose to ignore it. Here it is again:
Straggler writes:
The beings in the other ship could have methods of decision making that are totally alien to human beings. Methods that mean that they are both willing and unwilling and able and unable all simultaneously. Methods that are perfectly legitimate and valid by their own forms of "reason".
We need to be able to expand our own methods of reasoning in order to understand their actions and intentions.
If you feel that this breaks one of your "axioms" of reality please state:
  • Which exact axiom of reality has been broken?
  • On what basis it is that you claim that this particular axiom is legitimate, objective and genuinely axiomatic?
    If you do not state which axiom has been violated by the above answer to your original example I will assume that you are simply unable to do so because no such axioms exist.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 35 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 9:30 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 45 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-21-2008 2:03 PM Straggler has not replied

      
    Dawn Bertot
    Member
    Posts: 3571
    Joined: 11-23-2007


    Message 45 of 297 (486497)
    10-21-2008 2:03 PM
    Reply to: Message 44 by Straggler
    10-21-2008 1:40 PM


    Re: The "Axioms" Of Reality
    Strag writes:
    You have agreed that this is your position.
    Yes absolutely. There are five or six post I will get to after work this evening, with no problem I assure you. Thanks for the continued discussion, I simply dont have the time, so thanks for your patience and I will get to each issue in time.
    D Bertot

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 44 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2008 1:40 PM Straggler has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024