The "Axioms" Of Nature

ICANT if something is self evident but also turns out to be untrue is it an "axiom of reality"? I would say not. And I think you would agree. Truths exist. But we can never know when or if we have found one. Yes that is my position. Absolutely. Have we ever had so much agreement ICANT? Exactly. More agreement!!!
"Axioms of reality" cannot exist for exactly the same practical reasons that indisputable scientific facts cannot exist. Namely that we cannot ever know what is indisputably true. What is self evident to you may not actually be true as compared to reality. Which kind of contradicts your previous argument, that axioms of reality actually need to be true as compared to reality.You cannot have it both ways. Is that an axiom? Anyway.........I have explained to you why you can never know something to be axiomatic regarding reality. You have just not listened. I will try again.120 years ago things were waves or particles.
That would have been self evident and axiomatic at the time. But it was wrong. Reality disagreed. No one could have predicted that QM would be discovered. But it was.I have absolutely no idea what alternatives there could possibly be to your question. But neither of us can be 100% sure that no other possibility will ever be discovered or could possibly exist. The fact that we cannot think of one now may tell us more about our ignorance and lack of imagination than it does anything about the truths of reality.That is the point. That is why "axioms of reality" can never be known.Whatever you consider to be an "axiom" now is only ever one discovery away from being overturned.Tentative conclusions of the tested hypothesised scientific sort are the best we can ever hope for.Do you understand now?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and quote box formatting.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As I think is all too obvious in Bertot's stated methodology. He seems to need to know what conclusion he is aiming for in order to determine which one of his infinite number of "axioms" he needs to invoke.It would be hilarious if it were not so tragic.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Most generalisations are wrong IMO and so is your understanding that all axioms may one day be overturned.I find your above statement to be too bold and would like to know what you think of:2+2=4Is this "tentative conclusion", which happens to be an axiom, ever going to change? If so, How?Sorry if i have misunderstood your statement, i have big troubles understaning your debate. This thread is by far the biggest confusion i've seen here on EvC, but true axioms do exist, otherwise the universe wouldn't be here(although from certain perspective i seem to contradict my long-held understanding of reality with that statement). Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku

2+2=4 is not an axiom as I understand it. It is mathematically provable based on prior axioms for a start........I am no mathematician but I understand that these are the axioms upon which such a conclusion would be derived: Full details here Peano axioms - Wikipedia but Rrhain may be able to shed more light on the axioms that underlie arithmetic if none of this makes any sense.I remember being shown the proof that 0+1=1 once upon a time and it made me very glad I was not studying pure maths.However we are discussing the "axioms of reality". In this case whatever "axioms" are stated need to be indisputably true with reference to reality.Axioms in mathematics do not have to be true in relation to anything external. They are simply consistent starting points for the application of logic and can form the basis of descriptions of things that are not at all "real".The fact that we can use mathematics to model reality is a fascinating topic possibly worthy of it's own thread at some point.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Bertot's nonsense apart I would be interested on your thoughts regarding the possible link between mathematical axioms and reality.When we say that 0+1=1 we can mean that in a purely abstract mathematical number theory sort of sense. But can we also apply that to reality?In many ways we can assume in an axiomatic sense that this is objectively 'true' regarding reality. 0 objects + 1 object will result in 1 object.Can we prove that this will always be true? Not by any means other than mathematically as derived from the axioms that underlie number theory as far as I am aware.From a mathematicians viewpoint what is the relation between number and reality and could the axioms of number theory be considered as underpinning reality in some way?

Hi Straggler, "NO"Answer this question.Does the universe exist?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I would tentatively say 'yes'.But I could be a brain in a jar existing in a completely different universe and a completely different reality. I could be imagining all of this including you.I am so sure that this is not the case as to make it irrelevant to all practical intents and purposes but I cannot ever actually prove it not to be so.Thus I am 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.....9999999........999999999999 etc.% certain that the answer to your question is 'yes'.But in the absence of 'proof' I can never be 100% sure. Thus my answer is tentative to some tiny degree.Do you understand now?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Too many 9's.

Hi Straggler, What does science fiction have to do with your reality?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Okay, but I guess I should mention that Rrhain was also making the additional point that you were not only ascribing to atheists views they do not hold as a group, but the views as you described them seemed to be composed to fit your argument rather than to be accurate characterizations.But the main point is that the controversy isn't between atheists on one side and theists on the other. It's between the very religiously diverse body of scientists and Christian fundamentalists. If Christian fundamentalists are right about the science then it will be because of the quality of their science, not because of who's atheistic or not.--Percy

Hi ICANT,Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hey Bertot started with the Star Trek nonsense I was simply giving a demonstration of the limits imposed on our knowledge.You say an "axiom of reality" must be true.But there are no proofs of reality. Only evidence.When we are talking about reality and evidence based knowledge -We can say: The evidence strongly suggests X.But we can never say: X is indisputably true.Thus our conclusions are tentative and "axioms" derived from evidence are impossible.Again consider that 120 years ago the idea that something could be both a wave and a particle would have been considered ridiculous and "axiom" defying. Now we know better. How can you know with 100% certainty that those things you consider to be axiomatic will fare any better?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Rrhain writes:In these definitons it should be very clear that one must start with the root meaning of the word initially to form a foundation for its use in other areas. The example given in the above instance is widow women, a repetition of an actual physical property. The tautology IS NOT the reality ITSELF, which is the widow that is the actual axiom and axiomatic truth. The tautology applies to only the repetition of a physical reality, thus it only has application to the axiom described above. In these instances and definitions it should be clear that what I am describing is not a tautololgy, even though the axiom might involve its principles indirectly.In the instance of logic it is used in the same fashion to demonstrate a repetition of the real property itself, but that application is only an expression of repetition twords the truth itself, it is NOT the actual reality of the specific axiom, which is established by physical properties, which is naturally limited by certain possibilites in certain instances.Isnt it interesting when the dictionary explains in a simple sentence (Its use in logic A or not A)what Rrhain is doing so with rehtoric and much eloqunce, it looks like this "The candidate will win or not win"Even from its use in logic it still only becomes a repetition of the actual physical reality which is characterised by the axiom and axiomatic truth or reality. Again repetition of the axiomatic truth or axiom itself is not the actual property Secondly, and most importantly it does not remove the force of the argument that there are only limited choices that reality will allow in connection with its reality based premises.In other words, even if we described an axiom as a tautology it would not remove the force of its conclusion that there are only two logical possibilites in connection with reality that it will not allow you to postulate further. An eternal creator is one of those only two choices. Perhaps you could provide us with another solution, eh.Heres an exercise for you. In a simple sentence give me an example of a tautology, no symbols, no rehtoric and no eloquence, like the dictionary definiton. In other words not the below statement: Just a a simple sentence or example not the above explanation, please. Lets see what it looks like, ok? Not according to the dictionary or any observable truth or reality. You just dont get this do you? Something declared is a human expression about reality, like the expression "self-evident". However, your play on words do not change the main force of the definiton of the axiom itself and that is that it is set against reality and physical properties, the conclusion of which are irrefutable and free of contradiction. It is a FIRST PRINCIPLE because it is reality and reason based. These are examples of postulates in the strictest sense of the word, because they are not reality based. In other words there is no physical property to pit them against, they are hypothetical, therorized contemplations. An axiom that is reality based has to have a physical property to illustrate its conclusions. In your examples there is no way to test any of the results of the conclusions other than imagination. Thats not the case with physical properties and reality based axioms. No we are discussing axioms. While logic is useful it can be very tenative and subjective in its conclusions, axioms are not. The sentence whose truth table contains true, is true for a reason and the reason is the axiom itself. A Tautology simply reinforces the truth of it, whether it is used in a rehtorical or logical sense. .False. Axioms are characterised as being truths against physical properties. In other words they have to have application to the real world. Hence the experssion, I exist. Existence is demonstrated by the reality of physical things. A tautology is a repetition of this reality, so in this respect it applies to the axiom but is independent of the physical reality of its physical properties. We will wait for your simple sentence or example of a tutology to illustrate this point.D Bertot

Over 200 posts and still not a single axiom cited Bertot.Your position is ever more ridiculous. Just to help you along here is an example of a actual set of axioms. Note the structure. A series of short statements. If you ever get around to stating any of these mysterious and unspoken "axioms of reality" might a suggest a similar format. Given you inability so far however I won't be holding my breath........ We await your "axioms of reality" with keen anticipation

Straggler writes:Straggler thank you for these set of postulates of the imagination, contemplation and theroretical speculation, which have nothing to do with physical properties, which have nothing to do with even the title of your thread "Axioms in nature" Now perhaps you colud provide some illustrations that have to do with ACTUAL physical properties instead of theorecticl speculation.Your examples of axioms should atleast correspond to some physical property in reality and not just the imagination. Ill be holding my breath with anticipation.D Bertot

Bertot, they are given as examples so you know what an axiom is like. They are not intended to be the axioms of nature that is the topic of this thread.It is your job to supply these axioms of reality that you have been on about for days and days. It appears that you don't have any.All you have to do now is supply them.