Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "Axioms" Of Nature
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 61 of 297 (486537)
10-22-2008 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
10-22-2008 8:10 AM


Re: concious perception
quote:
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.
UNABLE and UNWILLING
In the given scenario they have chosen to attempt to communicate, therefore they are WILLING to respond.
They are using their communciations gear therefore they are ABLE to respond. Even though the Enterprise is not equipped to receive the message.
Thus this is a valid counter-example.
And if they have a means that will work (although they have not worked their way around to trying it yet) as suggested they would not only be be ABLE to respond, but ABLE to respond in a way that the Enterprise would understand, which is the point you are attempting to object to.
If you cannot manage even such basic common sense reasoning you have no hope of working successfully with formal logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-22-2008 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Parasomnium, posted 10-22-2008 9:16 AM PaulK has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 62 of 297 (486539)
10-22-2008 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
10-22-2008 8:10 AM


Re: concious perception
Bertot writes:
You can avoid all of this rehtoric by simply giving me another alternative besides the two, or one that will not fall within the two.
Like I've continuously said, and has been repeated by others, there are no axiomatic truths about the state of reality at the origin of the universe. You are speculating about a point in time which you no nothing about. You use the word God as if that has any meaning outside of a philosophical context. You say the eternality of matter as if you understand what that even means. You couldn't even give me an example of matter, hell you couldn't even define matter. It's nonsense. Those are not 2 plausable scenarios. The fact is there are no plausable scenarios yet because the universe is not understood, and further more any plausable scenario will be theoretical and have evidence to support it. Once again you prove that your scenarios are nothing more than musings.
Note: The word theoretical is being used within the context of the scientific method; in other words a theory concluded after objectively verified evidence was evaluated(i.e. atomic theory, QFT, theory of GR, etc, etc)...and not to be confused with the general use of the word theory. As in "Bertot's theory of reality".
Edited by onifre, : Added (note) because Bertot would have jumped all over the word theory and taken it out of context.

"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 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-22-2008 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2008 12:12 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 63 of 297 (486542)
10-22-2008 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by PaulK
10-22-2008 8:28 AM


Re: concious perception
I was in a shop the other day, called Bertot's Hardware Emporium. I wanted to buy some nails to hammer into someone's coffin. When I came to the counter and asked for nails, the man behind the counter put a box of nails in front of me. I patted my pockets for my wallet. It appeared I had put my wallet in an unusual place because I didn't find it immediately.
To my amazement the fellow behind the counter put the nails back on the shelf, saying, "Well, you are either unable or unwilling to pay, so I won't sell you the nails." Having found my wallet, with enough money in it, I replied, "But... but, I was just searching for my...", but they fellow had already retreated in the back room. I left him a note saying that I had been able to pay, and willing, but that he had reached his conclusion prematurely. It was faulty logic that lost him this business opportunity.

"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 61 by PaulK, posted 10-22-2008 8:28 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 64 of 297 (486544)
10-22-2008 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
10-22-2008 8:10 AM


Re: concious perception
Bertot writes:
Huntard writes:
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.
UNABLE. Getting tired yet.
Yes, very tired. Where did I state I was unable to do them? I am able to knock someone over the head if he pisses me off, I also WANT to do that, yet I don't. And now of course you are going to say I'm not REALLY wanting to do it then. So I guess I'll just debate in this style with you until YOU get tired:
I have refuted your "axiom".
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.
You ignore the axiom right in front of you and your ability to show it as not one, then ask me to provide one. OK heres another one. Bluejay stated that a chemical has the possibiltiy of two choices, to react or not react, this is correct. Please provide me with another possibility. If it does it did, if it doesnt it didnt, what or are the other choices in that context,now remember dont change the scenerio and reality.
Again:
I, and others, have refuted your "axiom".
By your logic, I am able to state that ANYONE has a chance of 50% to win the lottery, because you either do or don't, there's no denying this "reality". Try to refute it if you can.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-22-2008 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 65 of 297 (486545)
10-22-2008 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
10-22-2008 8:10 AM


Re: concious perception
Bertot writes:
When you dismiss deductive reasoing as an invalid method of emperical testing you will have a point, thus your contention is nonsesnse.
When you claim to understand the physical nature of reality at a point in time when all evidence for that point in time falls apart by simply applying deductive reasoning from a laymen perspective, then it is safe to conclude that you probably don't have any clue as to what you're talking about.
Deductive reasoning does not apply here because you don't understand the nature of the former to logically conclude the nature of the latter. You don't know what conditions were like just after the BB to be able to use deductive reasoning in concluding the origin of such an event. But, since your deductive reasoning only uses subjective evidence then I understand why you feel it is logical. But, science does not work like that and objective evidence will always trump subjective interpretations.
You have been shown how easy it would be to logically conclude that the Sun revolves around the Earth through subjective intrpretations of the nature of reality from a Earthly PoV; that was shown to be wrong by empirical evidence. Now, you do the same with the origin of the universe, can't you see the fallacy in that logic? I think you can but won't admit to it.
Just to re-state my objection to you're scenarios:
  • 1. God is not empirically proven to exist therefore it is not empirically plausable to conclude God from an objective stand point.
  • 2. The eternality of matter is nonsensical and meaningless.
...thus both of your scenarios are NOT axiomatic truths, even if you feel they are from a subjective stand point.

"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 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-22-2008 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 66 of 297 (486546)
10-22-2008 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
10-22-2008 8:10 AM


Re: concious perception
Hellio Bertot,
Bertot writes:
reuh writes
It was just the way the script was worded in order to add suspense to the show
All the tribbels on the deflector dish garbled the communication
.
UNable and unwilling apply to both parties as they would in reality. In this one they were unable to recieve the transmission. Your changing the situation, like one would try and change reality to fit in an answer. it would be like saying Gravity does not exist because we are not really here, it wont work.
Oh I got a million of them. Inorder to save space and continue this along I will concede the fact that you will never acknowledge any of the counter examples you have been supplied. I believe Onifre's post Message 65 sums up the attitude of myself and the other posters nicely and will continue the debate after you address his post. Not that I couldn't say it myself, but why repeat something that is already brought to your attention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-22-2008 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 67 of 297 (486547)
10-22-2008 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
10-22-2008 8:10 AM


Has anyone said it yet?
Bertot writes:
All of these examples will fall in one of the two categories or they change the reality of the situation.
Has anyone said this? They are both able and willing to respond, but they haven't got around to doing it yet.
You need to give Spock a line like "either they have responded or they haven't" in order to get a real truism, in which case Captain Kirk could be reasonably excused for hitting him, I would think.
Even then, there would be the problem of them possibly being in the process of responding while he was speaking.
Bertot writes:
I cant believe anyone is so so silly as not know we are actually speaking about the only two possibile alternatives to the existence of things. An eternal God or the eternality of matter itself. You cannot think or contrive another possibility that does not fall within the two, or is a combination of the two.
We can't? How about seven eternal Goddesses? Or an eternal succession of non-eternal Gods, each creating another before becoming non-existent? Or an eternal set of dimensions in which matter is formed from nothing, or from some unknown entity, or from anti-matter, and universes are created?
There are an infinite number of possibilities in such an unknown area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-22-2008 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 68 of 297 (486548)
10-22-2008 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by onifre
10-22-2008 8:42 AM


Re: concious perception
Onifre writes:
Like I've continuously said, and has been repeated by others, there are no axiomatic truths about the state of reality at the origin of the universe.
Oni, I thought there was an axiomatic truth about the state of reality at the origin of the universe. But I could be wrong maybe you can clear up my thinking on the matter.
First Wiki's definition of axiom.
In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
Then Wiki's definition of reality.
Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist".
My thinking at the origin of the universe.
Something existed. (from this something the universe was formed)
OR
Something was created. (created meaning being brought into existence, from this something the universe was formed)
I would like any input that would clear my thinking if I am wrong. But do not expect an answer as I do not intend to debate my thinking.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by onifre, posted 10-22-2008 8:42 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by onifre, posted 10-22-2008 1:07 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 69 of 297 (486549)
10-22-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
10-22-2008 8:10 AM


Re: concious perception
Bertot writes:
You simply dont understand do you?
If by this you mean that I don't understand how it could be that the obvious contradictions in your position haven't become clear to you after having been pointed out so many times, then you're right, I simply don't understand.
All of these examples will fall in one of the two categories or they change the reality of the situation.
I, like everyone else, believe you're misusing the word "axiom", but anyway, if the additional possibilities I mentioned changed the reality of the situation then that wasn't the real reality, was it, in which case your axioms weren't axiomatic of reality, were they. They're incomplete and provisional.
People are scrambling to find a solution adn they cant.
The attention you're getting is what always happens at a discussion board when someone advocates an obviously irrational position. Everyone rushes in thinking they can easily correct the misapprehension, and it takes a while for it to sink in that it's very deeply rooted and likely unamenable to correction or rational argument. Once this is realized people stop paying attention and just ignore the posts. It happens time and again at discussion boards.
The power of an idea is determined not by the tenacity with which it is held, but by its ability to persuade others. So far no one on either side of the creation/evolution debate is convinced.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling and grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-22-2008 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 70 of 297 (486556)
10-22-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
10-22-2008 12:12 PM


Re: concious perception
Hi ICANT,
Wiki definition of axioms writes:
In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision.
Note it specifically states traditional logic. What traditional logic can be applied to an area of science that is unknown? And wouldn't you agree that traditional logic is tenative? By traditional standards in our day to day observation of reality the Earth is flat, by todays standards that is an illogical conclusion yet reality did not change, our understanding of it changed. When we speak of the origin of the universe, philosophicallly you can muse all you want, scientifically you will not be saying much.
wiki definition of reality writes:
Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist".
But lets include the rest of that definition that you left out..
quote:
The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense may include both being and nothingness, whereas existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature). In other words, "reality", as a philosophical category, includes the formal concept of "nothingness" and articulations and combinations of it with other concepts (those possessing extension in physical objects or processes for example).
In the strict sense of western philosophy, there are levels or gradation to the nature and conception of reality. These levels include, from the most subjective to the most rigorous: phenomenological reality, truth, fact, and axiom.
So, again, in philosophical terms reality can be represented by the subjective experience. However, since it is subjective it requires the person to be present to observe and subjectively interpret the phenomenon. We cannot do that for the origin of the universe, hence theoretical physics tries to explain it by means of mathematics and experiments that try to make predictions. This is the only non-subjective way to try and answer the questions of origin. It cannot be subjectively interpreted unless one is only talking about philosophical interpretations. The 2 are not equal and cannot be combined to form a theory of orign, at least not in a theory that uses empirical evidence.
And this last definition is just to put it into perspective from a scientific sense.
quote:
Quantum mechanics (QM) has kept physicists and philosophers in debate on the nature of reality since its invention. QM states that prior to observation, nothing can be said about a physical system other than a probability function which seems to be definable to a degree by assumptions about the system's elements.
further more...
Even the notion of cause and effect is brought into question in the quantum world where irreducible randomness cannot currently be avoided as a basic assumption. In theory large numbers of random quantum elements seen as a group from a very great distance can seem like cause and effect which is why our level of experience appears to function almost completely deterministically.
With these definitions your determinations are basic assumptions and philosophical in their nature.
ICANT writes:
Something existed. (from this something the universe was formed)
OR
Something was created. (created meaning being brought into existence, from this something the universe was formed)
And neither of these can be empirically defined within the nature of reality at the origin of universe because such a reality is currently unknown.
We can end the debate like this, admit that yours/Bertots determinations about reality are philosophical and hold no true axiomatic truths about nature in an empirical sense. I think we all understand the need for subjective interpretations, but we cannot allow them to be truths until they can be objectively verified using the only method that objectively verifies evidence, which is science, more specifically theoretical physics(in this context).
Edited by onifre, : change of wording

"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 68 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2008 12:12 PM ICANT has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 71 of 297 (486557)
10-22-2008 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Straggler
10-21-2008 6:52 PM


Re: concious perception
Hello Straggler,
quote:
So how does the fact that a clock ticks faster at the top of a mountain than an identical clock does at the bottom of that mountain "manifest in conscious perception"?
The difference of time between the two clocks is negligable for all practical purposes in my opinion and therefore moot in regards to how I manage to put my pants on in the morning. Time dialation and the bizzare quirky-ness of the quantum world can not be inffered. Yet our daily observations and perceptions continue to convey our existance.
Straggler writes:
quote:
For example? How do we know what the laws of chemistry and physics actually are? Common sense? Logic? Empirical testing of hypotheses?
Point taken. We do all of the above to obtain knowlege.
Back to Axioms, Self evident truth: I can cut a rope into equal lengths and reliablyconclude the other side is equal. I can say that the addition of 1 to any set increases that set by a factor of one. I can realiably conclude these things without testing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 10-21-2008 6:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Straggler, posted 10-22-2008 1:36 PM 1.61803 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 72 of 297 (486564)
10-22-2008 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by 1.61803
10-22-2008 1:08 PM


Re: concious perception
Back to Axioms, Self evident truth: I can cut a rope into equal lengths and reliablyconclude the other side is equal. I can say that the addition of 1 to any set increases that set by a factor of one. I can realiably conclude these things without testing.
If you cut a rope into two equal pieces and found everytime that one side was longer than the other would you rely on your dedcutive logic or your empirical experience as to what is actually true?
How would this example work in an accelerating frame of reference with one "half" of the rope travelling at a different speed to the other?
I don't disagree that reality can be axiomatic to all practical intents and purposes but where it is this itself is borne of empirical experience.
With logic alone and no empirical verification of conclusions the "axioms" upon which we base other conclusions are subject to change.
For example the idea of universal time.
The difference of time between the two clocks is negligable for all practical purposes in my opinion and therefore moot in regards to how I manage to put my pants on in the morning.
But "to all practical intents and purposes" are not the "axioms" Bertot is talking about.
You cannot reliably conclude God created the universe on the basis of "to all practical intensts and purposes" because there are no "practical intents and purposes" that make such extraordinary claims part of everyday experience.
And those that make such claims rarely accept that such claims are tentative which they must be if genuinely evidence based.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by 1.61803, posted 10-22-2008 1:08 PM 1.61803 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 73 of 297 (486566)
10-22-2008 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dawn Bertot
10-22-2008 8:10 AM


Axioms of Reality: What are They?
70+ posts and counting. Still no signs of a single axiom.
In attempting to answer every point you have actually failed to adequately answer any. This is a debating tactic. Not a viable position.
Given that you have unequivocally stated your position to be:
(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
Your ongoing inability to state a single such axiom tells us more about the weakness of your position than anything I could possibly say.
Even if despite all the evidence you are right about the whole awful Star Trek example what does this tell us about anything other than this specific example? Unless it can be generalised to a universal rule or "axiom"? Nothing at all.
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.
You really dont pay attention do you. OUr abilites have nothing to do with the REALITY that they were unable to GET the message through, FOR WHATEVER REASON.
Are you saying that reality is limited to that which we are able to understand at any given time?
If we are potentially able to understand their thinking but we need to relearn how to think to do so how exactly does your example apply?
This would suggest that whatever concepts we are unable to grasp at any given point in time cannot exist according to you.
How insanely silly.
I will ask again:
If you feel that this answer 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.
    If no such axioms exist you have no argument and thus no position.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 59 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-22-2008 8:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


    (1)
    Message 74 of 297 (486587)
    10-22-2008 6:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 53 by ikabod
    10-22-2008 3:18 AM


    Re: axiom hunting
    As we seem to have a lack of examples of these axioms of nature , and given that this thread is about them , and we have a number of post’ers who seem to be able to use deductive logic , is it thought possible to reverse engineer to reach an axiom?
    i.e. starting from a reliable conclusion , use logic to work back to the necessary axiom .
    If this is possible , can we firstly agree on a number of reliable conclusions?
    anyone ..
    I think the whole point of science is that there are no such things as purely logical reliable conclusions. Our evidence is always incomplete and our conclusions are always tentative to some degree. Untested conclusions are inherently unreliable. If you remove the test component from the whole equation then there is no reliability.
    If we start with the conclusion and work our way back we are actually committing the cardinal sin of evidence based investigation. The sin of preconceived indisputable conclusions. There can be no such thing.
    Whilst I suspect that this is exactly what Bertot is doing, namely creating an unspecified "axiom" to fit each specific predefined situation or conclusion, I have no intention of letting him off the hook by defining his axioms for him. He will just tell us we setting up straw men anyway.
    No. Let him dig himself further into his hole. If he does give an example it will be demonstrably subjective and definitely non-axiomatic. If he continues not to present any examples the weakness of his position will become ever more evident to all.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by ikabod, posted 10-22-2008 3:18 AM ikabod has not replied

      
    Rrhain
    Member
    Posts: 6351
    From: San Diego, CA, USA
    Joined: 05-03-2003


    Message 75 of 297 (486600)
    10-23-2008 1:38 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by Dawn Bertot
    10-20-2008 10:59 AM


    Bertot writes:
    quote:
    To say that there are no axioms in nature or science is simply incorrect. Things are absolutes no matter if I understand them or not.
    And as predicted, the problem seems to be the word "axiom."
    I am what is called a "Platonist." It is a philosophical position in mathematics that, in a simplistic sense, says that the things of mathematics are real. Take, for example, the Continuum Hypothesis. We currently do not know how to resolve it and, under our current axioms of set theory, it turns out that we can NEVER know how to resolve it.
    The Continuum Hypothesis has to do with the "continuum," or the set of Real numbers. To understand the "Real" numbers, we have to move back a bit.
    First, there are the "Integers." These are the whole numbers that we are most familiar with: 1, -12, 67, etc. Any number that has no fractional part and no imaginary part, be it positive, negative, or neither (for 0 is neither positive nor negative), is an "Integer."
    Next, comes the "Rationals." These are numbers that can be represented as "p/q" where p and q are both Integers. You will see that the set of Rationals includes the set of Integers because every Integer can be expressed as "p/q" where q = 1.
    But, there are some numbers that cannot be expressed as "p/q" such as the square root of 2 or pi. These numbers are called "Irrationals." The "Reals" is the combination of the Rationals and Irrationals. It's often called the "continuum" because it models the continuous flow of numbers across the number line.
    Now, how big are these sets of numbers? Leaving aside a lot of explanation, the size of the Rationals is called "aleph-null." There are a whole string of alephs, each greater than the last. Aleph-one, for example, is the next aleph and is larger than aleph-null. Since I want to keep this explanation simple, I'll simply say that there is a way to construct these numbers...they aren't just pulled out of the air. That is, just you like get "2" by adding "1" to "1" and then you get "3" by adding "1" to "2," there's a process by which you start with aleph-null and you get aleph-one. Do it again, and you get aleph-two, and so on.
    It turns out that the size of the Reals is larger than the size of the Rationals. Thus, it is larger than aleph-null. It also turns out that it is smaller than aleph-two. In fact, we can show that it can be no larger than aleph-one.
    Well, that's great, but that still doesn't tell us the size of the Reals. We know it's bigger than aleph-null but not bigger than aleph-one. Are there, perhaps, numbers between aleph-null and aleph-one? We don't know of any, but that may simply be that we're not clever enough to find them yet.
    Well, it was shown that if we assumed that the continuum was equal to aleph-one, then there were no contradictions to the axioms of set theory that is the foundation of mathematics. Sounds great, right?
    Not so fast. It was later shown that if we assumed that the continuum was not equal to aleph-one, then there are also no contradictions to the axioms of set theory.
    So what is the size of the continuum? A Platonist, such as myself, will tend to respond that the continuum has a size, we just don't know what it is. And while our current axioms indicate that we can never know, that doesn't change the claim that it does have a size.
    With this attitude, I certainly agree that there are fundamental constants in the universe. There are things that simply are true. The problem is that science, being an observational process, will never allow us to know what they are. To truly know it, we would need to have perfect observation of all possibilities which is something we can never have. We might have it right. It is possible that our observations have brought us to the actual answer, but because we arrived there via observation and our observations are never perfect, we can never honestly say that it is an "axiom" in the sense that it is something that we "know" to be always true.
    The best we can say is that it is something that we "think" is an axiom and are treating as an axiom, but that is only because we don't know any better.
    quote:
    Now to the example. 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 possibilites, they are unable to respond, they are unwilling to respond". While the information was pretty much useless to the captain,it demonstrated an axiom in reality
    Incorrect. This is not an example of an axiom. It is an example of a tautology: A or ~A. A tautology is not an axiom.
    quote:
    In other words no other information would shake or unsettle the axiomatic truth Mr. Spock spoke
    Again, that is not an axiomatic statement. Instead, it is a tautological statement which is not an example of an axiom.

    Rrhain

    Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-20-2008 10:59 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 76 by Parasomnium, posted 10-23-2008 2:08 AM Rrhain has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024