The "Axioms" Of Nature

Percy writes:

quote:

---

it is our position that no such axioms of nature exist.

---

Just to be pedantic: I claim that there are axioms of nature.It's just that we cannot know what they are due to the nature of our interaction with the universe. Since we interact with the universe via observation and since observation can never be known to be perfect, then the best we can come up with are statements that we treat as axioms but which will be tossed as soon as we come up with new observations that contradict them.F'rinstance, one could declare that the conservation of momentum is an axiom. It certainly seems to be, but that's only because we've got a ton of observations that indicate it's true. Now, from a functional perspective, this would not be surprising: Since an axiom is always true, all connections to it are necessarily true. But, that assumes we're starting from the axiom and working toward the example: Causes to effects.But we're actually working backwards from effects to causes and implications don't work both ways. If A -> B, that does not mean that B -> A. We might have an awful lot of confidence in it and might not have a single counterexample to put forward, but that isn't sufficient.I say the universe does have axioms.We just don't know what they are.

---

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.

Agobot writes:

quote:

---

Here is one axiom of nature:

​

LIFE ENDS IN DEATH

​

Now i challenge everyone and anyone of your camp to prove me wrong with an example from all earth's history that overturns this axiom.

---

Oh, really? What about single-celled organisms that reproduce by fission? When a single-celled organism divides, does it "die"? If not, then it would seem that there has been an unbroken chain back to the beginning, stretching billions of years.

---

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.

Bertot responds to me:

quote:

---

Reality is not a THEORY

---

Logical error: Equivocation.You are using "theory" in either a colloquial or a strict scientific sense. When I said "set theory," I was referring to a mathematical sense: A body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject.

quote:

---

Existence is however a PERFECT example of reality, even if we dont understand all its parts or functions.

---

Nice try, but that's my argument to you. I'm the one saying that we cannot know what the axioms of reality are, even though they exist.It has been put forward that your thesis is that we can know what the axioms of nature are. If this is your thesis, it would be nice if you could give us one. If this is not your thesis, please let us know.If we cannot know what the axioms of nature are, then how can we make reliable conclusions about the world around us?

quote:

---

The axiom is the reality of existence

---

"Something exists"? That's your axiom? Well, I think I could go along with that one. There actually is some use to it (since it is the foundation for what we experience). But that doesn't tell us if the world we experience is what actually exists or is simply a simulation and that what really exists is something else.This is known as "Cartesian Doubt," so named because René Descartes covered the topic in his Pensées. Descartes eventually does away with the idea that we are, as he describes it, "plagued by demons" by stating that if the simulation is perfect, if it is impossible to ever transcend it and see the cause of the simulation, then there is no difference between the simulation and "reality." Since a difference that makes no difference is no difference, then the simpler answer is that reality is real.But, back to the direct question: Is that an axiom of the universe? "Something exists"?

quote:

---

The only way anyone could ignore the force of the conclusions that flow from this reality is to imagine that things dont really exist at all

---

And why is this unacceptable? Are you familiar with Plato's Parable of the Cave?

quote:

---

which only removes it form one place to another.

---

Indeed, but what does that say about our reality? If all of this is a simulation, then what is the nature of reality? And if all of this is a simulation, what is to keep whatever it is that is running the simulation from changing it? And if it can be changed, what is to let us know that it has been? If everything is a simulation, it is conceivable that it was initiated two seconds ago with everything we think of as history being pre-loaded into the system.How can we possibly make any sort of accurate statement about reality then?

quote:

---

To do this however one would need to avoid or discard all the evidence of existence in the first place.

---

You say that as if doing so would be a problem.Why?

---

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.

Strg writes:This is the closest to an admission of anything I have seen to this point. When you say the truths of reality exist what do you mean?
One can always contemplate that something may or may not be true, heck one may even contemplate that existence is not real, but to imagine something is not the same as demonstrating that it is not, in this instance existence. By this method of deduction one can easily ascertain a truth in fact. Non-existence is the only conclusion or possibility of existence itself. "seemingly axiomatic conclusions", are not axioms.
There are no seemingly axiomatic conclusions They ethier are or they are not.. Also, nothing in reality especially axioms can be proven wrong. Reality can only be demonstrated things correctly, even if we get it wrong. In the matter of existence and properties there are no OTHER conclusions or posibilites. I have both made my assertion and defended it by reality itself and the examples, illustrations and definitions that support it. You should be clued into the fact that where even a mental attempt to theorize another possibility will not allow you to do so, you are looking at reality. Consider your following statement. Give me an example of a truth of nature that exists, that you yourself claim does. then you will have your answer. There are ofcourse some axioms that are irretriavably demonstratable, that to ignore there reality boarders on stupidity or is stupidity. All reality is an axiom, discovered or undiscovered. The things you can see, think, feel and know for certain are in you face. Limited possibilites even by the imagination is one of those realities. Provide even the remotest example of a counterfactual possibility, when you cant you have your answer. This is a nonsensical statement, they cant be disproven. Reality cant be disproven, its PROOF of itself.My funny little person, I dont need to provide evidence where there is the best of evidence already and no more evidence could be offered otherwise. Think about the fact again that you cannot provide even a hypthetical solution, this should clue you in. Simply saying I am wrong and no eveidence exists is not a response or answer to my argument. Proclaiming youself a victor does not circumvent the REALITY of the situation.Ill ask you this quetion. If you know that certain axioms exist, then what are they and how do you know they are real?Bailey writesSince I do not claim that they have not been proven true, this would not be applicable. They are true. If we could not demontstrate something true, there would be no reality. Exisistence and thngs in reality are proof of axioms in the first place. I exist is an axiom that is both true and demonstratable and irrefutablly correct.. Therfore you conclusion that they cannot be demonstrated true is incorrect. Your illustration takes it out of the actual situation. Think about it, if they got reduced to ashes, then they did not FINISH the game, which amounts to them not playing, therefore the categories dont apply. Surely even YOU can see this simple point. True. but realites axioms do not. True again here except for the distruction part. A tie however goes down as both a win and not a loss, it therefore is simply a rearranging of the axiom to its parts. There is simply no way to avoid this reality. I defy you to demmonstrate it otherwise. A tie will allow that certain team to advance verses a team with more losses than themselves due to the tie and not another loss correct. Go Bertot, go Bertot, go Bertot. I agree that you are not closed minded, its just that your a knothead, IM JUST KIDDING. Reality exists, I exist, things exist. There is your axiom of nature or reality. There are only certain conclusions that proceed form these axioms, that are in NO FEAR OF CONTRADICTION WHATSOEVER. Heres your chance demonstrate it PLEASEEEEEEEE.Para writes:The answer to your question is not only numerical it is subjective nonsense with no basis in reality. Again to the argument I made and to which you gave no attention. Numbers and thier conclusions are not reality they are man made concepts, like logic itself. Your question needs to be applicable to material properties for it to have application and relaity. It therefore does not matter what answer I get from your problem it is subjective and not reality. Multiplying imaginary numbers will only get you an imaginary answer.Onifre writes: Reality is never wrong. On the other hand I can remember only one time I was and I am not sure about that instance either. I thought you werent talking to me anymore jerkweed, ha ha.The scholar RAZD writes:Did you ever figure out the difference between dead and alive, ha ha.Rrhain writes: Educated guesses dont describe reality and its only possible conclusions. Further, the word has a root meaning and that is its proper use. You are trying to set the rules for reality here. A framework of reality dictates what an axioms isor is not ,not rehetoric or logic. Reality, logic (if you will) and rehtoric ALL play a part inthe process. Stop tryiing to set up the rules for reality,PLEASE. you do this so you can fit in your theory or ideologies. As I stated before to which you payed not attention. The use of a tautology here is correct the way both of us are presenting it. The axiom here however, is the reality of existence, reality of both the candidates and the ONLY possibilites that will flow from that situation, NOT how one describes it or what term you apply it. Now do you understand? I agree 100%. Like numbers terms are not actual things. Hence T an A (thats Tautology and Axiom) so to clarify if your thinking of something else, are not real. Reality is real, the terms we apply are irrelevant. You yourself believe in axioms as you have stated. How can you both believe in thier reality yet deny the reality of thier existence at the same time, as you seem to be doing. So things derived from numbers, terms, logic can be subjective. Reality however cannot be and it will allow only certain conlusions. Go Bertot. Try real hard to understand that reality is different from terms or ideas that we can apply to it. Axioms my friend do not imply a logical construction, they are what they are regardless. Our application of deductive reasoning to reality, whether you call it logic, tautology or whatever will only allow certain conclusions to certain axiomatic realites. Your use of word play and terms does not change this fact. I exist, things exist. No amount of logic or any other term will unsettle this principle. Equivocation is only involved because you are taking SUBJECTIVE terms and ideas an forcing them into realities, I on the other hand am letting reality be what it is and what it will allow. That is the only realistic approach. I still do not disagree with the your explanation of tautology, it is however a human expression twords a reality or axiom. My friend, the COMPONENTS of these specific terms are reality or what we choose to call axioms at bare minimum the are reality. The terms of willing and able are expressions of reality (holmes), they are not reality, they are simply the only possible conclusions in reality. Get with it man, ha ha. I exist, things exist, etc, etc. Your a funny dude. Reality is reality. An axiom is the closest thing besides reality that we choose to desribe it. Hence the definition. Self-evident truth, requiring no proof that is free from contradiction. Honestly I could think of no other words to use for a better definition. These very words are almost axiomatic. I agree 100%. You are simply ignoring the fact that the components of a tautology are reality and the application of its terms and conclusions are not. you want it to be one and the same. The components of the tautology are reality. The terms unwilling and unable describe that reality. I EXIST, THINGS EXIST. Does this suffice for an example of an axiom. The choices that flow from these axiomS are, I either exist or I do not. Can you think of anyother? Remember not possibilites within the axiom, but examples aside from it or outside of it. There are no other choices. That is an axiom and reality. Its not only an axiom but the choices that flow from it will only allow certain chloices and conclusions. To maintain that you exist and then say there is question as to whether you exis is the height of stupidity and the abandonment of reason and reality. The only choices are you either exist or you do not, you clearly do, to ignore this is to abandon all reason and hope of discussion in a rational sense. If this is your positon it is becoming clear why you are having trouble with reason and reality. WoW. The components that a tautology has application twords describe the parts of reaality that apply. Again terms such as unwilling and unable also describe the parts of reality that apply to the scenario itself. You are for all intents and puposes making the tautology itself reality (that is the term itself)A tautology regardless of its application in logic, rehtoric or any other use of it will only assist in the explanation of relaity. Axiom is another term that is applied to the reality of things that more closely desribes reality. My use of the definiton and yours has application. But to maintain that what I am describing is a tautology is umwarrented because the term ands its definiton are not reality itself. Like numbers themself, terms assist in explaining it, they are and can be tenative, unlike reality itself. Does that heplp?All of these terms and ideas have thier correlation with eacother at some point, therefore they have application to eachother. Reality is what matters. Disagreeing on terms is a minor problem to the problem of someone ignoring reality. If this is your problem discussion may be even greater than I imagined.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Is this a new strand? Stop smoking it, the jerky effects are evident in your attitude.Note to moderator: Sorry for off topic remark, there are few posts left so I will not intrude in the discussion anymore...

---

"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

After well over 200 posts you are still floundering in the dark with the same old refuted arguments. You are just too stubborn or too stupid to understand what everyone is saying to you. Nobody has ever denied that the truths of reality exist. The dispute is as to whether you can ever know them such that you can claim anything to be axiomatic. The debate is not about reality per se as you seem to assume. It is about our ability to know that which is axiomatic. To know that which is true. And that in essence is your problem.How do you differentiate between that which seems to be axiomatic and that which actually is?You cannot.EXAMPLE
Universal and constant time was once considered to be axiomatically true. Relativity showed this "axiom" to be false.On what basis can you claim that anything that you currently consider to be axiomatic will not fare equally as badly as the "axiom" of universal time in the light of new evidence.Every single thing that you can state as axiomatic is only as good as the latest evidence. Everything that you consider to be axiomatic is potentially wrong.Simply stating thinmgs to be axioms does not make them true. To claim them as axioms they have to be known to be true regardless of place, time or circumstance. And that is your problem. Nothing about nature can be known to be absolutely true based on incomplete evidence.That is why the "axioms of reality" cannot be known via evidence based investigatiion.You continue to lose the debate. You just have still not realised it yet.If you answer one question in response to this post answer this:
How can you differentiate between that which is an axiom and that
which is true in all but the most exceptional of unknown circumstances?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Thank you for the response Bertrot . You do realize this argument was in defense of your axioms of nature right?
The assertion does not require your claim to be falsified, or "not proven true" as you say.
Read it again, as you may be taking something out of context.All this stated is that one cannot conclude your hypothesis false. Polly want a cracker ... Thank you. These will serve as debatable ... It may have been incorrect if it was ever asserted.
I said they have yet to be proven true.
Now that you are supplying them, we can observe their truths, or lack thereof ... Incorrect - the hypothetical situation, or “axiom”as you would say, was constructed prior to the outcome.
It simply does not contain all outcome possibilities.
It never will unless it is worded differently.
Not to imply that a different random assertion wouldn’t have. A boxer that becomes reduced to ashes well into the seventh round, will still have played his game.
He simply won’t live to tell of the tale, therefore, you are being silly right now.
If the categories can’t apply it is not axiomatic.You disagree ? The point I see is without careful wording, randomness, or forming n assertion within an absolute knowledge of its framework, a statement cannot be deemed invariable. For this reason, not all simple assertions can be deemed axiomatic. lol - let’s hope not ... No even that is true.
Inevitable destruction is not an invariably realistic equivalent to winning.
Man has ordained it ... reality sustains it. No a tie/draw is recorded in reality as a tie/draw.Tho in the tautology you have provided above ...*They will win and not lose.... You may equate a tie/draw to a “not loss” .Reality will not allow such an outcome within your “They will win or lose” “axiom”.
At least not until you add “not” before “lose”.This is repetition ...
Without careful wording, randomness, or forming an assertion within an absolute knowledge of its framework, a statement cannot be deemed invariable. For this reason, not all simple assertions can be deemed axiomatic.Nice tautology lesson, but getting old ... rotfl lol - I am indeed mildly retarded ... thank you for noticing. Thank you. This shall be placed on one of the lists.
One will contain the “Axioms of Nature” and another listing the “Axioms of Reality”.Providing they can be distinguished from one another.

Rrhain writes:Sounds like atleast some objectivity. Other than that is also sounds like someone saying "I see my car in front of me but I am having trouble locating it. There is absolutely no equivocation in the fact that reality is not theory, regardless of how you choose to define the word theory. This is like saying, I know reality exists but Im not sure it does. Which is not reasonable or sain at all. "there is actually some use to it." Gee thanks. And ofcourse the rest of your statement is a careful dodge of rehtoric and eloquence to avoid that things simply do exist. It does not matter if it is a simulation or something else, only that its SOMETHING actually. All arounnd the mulberry bush the monkey chased the weasel. Like I said the ONLY way to ignore the reality of existence is to imagine fanciful nonsense as this and it is still reality nonetheless.
Rrhain writes: Then he states:.Straggler writes: Besides the above statement being riddled with nonsensical and contradictory phrases, it is also completlely silly.. You never answered my question from before. What are the "truths of reality", since you seem ot agree that they exist?. As I stated before time is not nor ever was an actual thing. In fact that which we measure "Time" against is physical properties. You contrive the idea of time against changing properties. The actual axiom in these instances is again the reality of the existence of things in the first place, so the axiom that time is constant is atually true, since it is RELATIVE or not actual and you only choose to measure that concept against THINGS, that clearly do exist. Time is relative because it is not real, existence is real because it is reality and you can observe its changes and movements. True. But stating that existence is reality does make them true and the term axiom is the one that assists in demonstrating that truth. Except reality, duh. Reality. But it should be noted that you dont differentiate between truth and axioms, they are one and the same.Bailey writesOfcourse this is only have true. Since axioms are demonstrated true by reality itself. Assuming that it may be true only because it has not been demonstrated false is only half of reality. Sorry that just how reality works. You wont even get out of the starting gate. Wrong. I would never refer to an axiom in any hypothetical situation It is either reality or it is not. Postulates are not reality or axioms. Actual axioms can only have application to physical properties.. If he was reduce to ashes by the other fighter, I believe he LOST correct. If the building and ring are reduced to ashes by a fire, then they didnt finish the fight and therefore didnt play, duh. Is this a stall for time to think up a response.?Percy writes:Percy this I must admit is one of the silliest smoke screens and dodges that I have ever seen. Your response works within the framework of the bacteria itself . This would be like sayingif I found a way to clone myself that because I was still here I wont die. You example only includes the bacteria and not outside forces working on and against those bacteria tobring about its demise. Are the bacterial invonerable to any outside force that would kill them, ofcourse not.D Bertot

Bertot responds to me:Well, no...no, he doesn't. There's just a lot of equivocation and avoiding of the subject. So let's start over:A tautology is not an axiom."Unwilling or unable" is a tautology. Ergo, it is not an axiom.Can you give us an axiom of the universe? I say we cannot know what they are. Your thesis seems to be that we do. So help us out:Give us an axiom of the universe.

---

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.

For your stated methodology to work:(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)It is not enough for the truths of reality to simply exist. For your methodology to work you must actually know what these truths of reality actually are. Only then can you class them as "axioms". That is your problem. We don't know what the truths of reality are. That is the whole point. Why do you keep trying to get me to state your "axioms" for you when my whole argument is that such axioms can never be known?I can only tentatively state what we think the truths of nature to currently be based on incomplete evidence. Thus they are not axioms. They are tentative conclusions derived from tested hypotheses.An example of such a conclusion would be that faster than light travel is impossible. But, whilst unlikely, new evidence could potentially overturn this conclusion. Thus it is not an axiom. It is a tested but tentative conclusion. So time does not exist? Is that one of your axioms? If you are too silly to understand the time example how about the example of empty space. It was previously considered axiomatic that the empty vacuum of space was devoid of all matter. We now know that this is not true. Virtual particles pop in and out of existance such that "empty" space as previously conceptualised does not really exist.Reality overturned that which was considered axiomatic on the basis of incomplete evidence. New evidence proved this wrong. What makes you think that any of your "axioms" will not suffer the same fate? This circular nonsense merely masks the fact that you cannot know what is true and that your whole methodology is therefore intrinsically flawed. Duh! Yourself. Have you experienced all of reality?
Unless you have experienced all of reality how can you ever know what is indisputably true? How can you know that new evidence, as yet undiscovered features of reality, will not prove that which you believe to be axiomatic as untrue?NAME A SINGLE TRUTH OF REALITY THAT YOU KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE 100% CERTAINTY CAN NEVER EVER BE DISPROVEN BY NEW EVIDENCEReality is the measure of your "axioms" and that is your problem. Reality has a nasty habit of ignoring that which we think is axiomatic and turning it on it's head.Unless you can know what the axioms of reality actually are in all the varied conditions that reality can possibly offer your "axioms" are nothing more than tentative conclusions and your methods necessarily reduce to:(incomplete empirical evidence)+(deductive logic)=(unreliable conclusions)Exactly as previously demonstrated.You lose. Yet again.

Rrhain writes:Then he states:Are you borrowing some of Onifre's weed?D Bertot

Straggler writes:Then he states:Whaaaat? Please tell us what the truths of reality are that do exists as you assert. Or are you not sure of even your assertion.D Bertot

Are you stupid? Why do you keep trying to get me to state your "axioms" for you?Only tentative approximations to the truths of reality can be offered based on incomplete evidence. That is the point.Try reading my previous post again. Try answering the question:NAME A SINGLE TRUTH OF REALITY THAT YOU KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE 100% CERTAINTY CAN NEVER EVER BE DISPROVEN BY NEW EVIDENCEIf you are still having difficulty comprehending the problem of incomplete evidence with regard to your notion of "axioms" then just ask. I am here to help.

I suggest that you take much more time reading posts, Bertot.It maybe that English isn't your first language but you are having trouble understanding what is being written to you. You will do better if you read it over more carefully.

Srtaggler writesHey rocket scientist, these are two different categoriies. Tenative approximations and truths of reality are clearly distinquishable. I did not ask you to provide me an exampleof an axiom since you dont like that word. I asked you to provide me with an example of a truth of reality, since you made that assertion. You must be STUPID if you cannot see the difference. For about the third or fourth time now,I exist, things exist. Willing and Able, etc etc etc. Hardly, Reality does a fine job of presenting me with complete evidence. Your moronic tactics and evasions will not help and will go counter factual to reason and REALITY. But thanks for the offer though, even if it was given in sarcasm, junior.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.