The "Axioms" Of Nature

Possibly. Although "axiom of existence" might be a better phrase. The reality external to "I" would seem to be immune from analysis from that starting point alone. Maybe "Our experience of reality is subjective and incomplete" could be the second "axiom" in such a line of equiry.It is certainly better than anything Bertot has come up with. I guess Bertot is unlikeley to go down in history in quite the same way that Descarte has.

quote:

---

...this is not about cosmological origins per se it is about methods of making reliable conclusions about the physical world.

​

Any conclusions made using methods that can be shown to be invalid will necessarily be deemed unreliable.
  —Straggler

---

To whom it may concern,
I've been loosely following this debate and have come upon a stumbling block. Let me take a moment to attach a disclaimer, that being, I'm mildly retarded ...In order that one may, or may not, deem this method reliable concerning its various applications in regards to determining conclusions about the physical world, one must first determine whether they have a sufficient framework, or word things carefully ...Within the discussion there has been numerous references to axioms and tautologies as an attempt was made to provide clear, concise definiton(s) accordingly. From an outside, mildly retatded, perspective it would seem the goal was not achieved and although clear and concise definitions were given to serve their correlating agendas, there was not a clear, concise differentiation between what is considered "axiomatic" in science as opposed to math or vice versa. There seems little reason for me to make any further attempts, and I assume many can/do observe the differences regardless. I digress ...If I follow correctly, which is highly unlikely in any event, an example of the "method" on the stand states that when an "axiomatic" statement is made only two "logical" solutions may follow in "reality" ... only two possible outcomes.But this only works when the statement is loaded it seems, or when absolute knowledge of the framework is ascertained, not to imply the given Star Trek scenario was loaded intentionally. For instance, this method wouldn't always work when discussing winning and losing an arbitrary contest or debate.It wouldn't be "axiomatic" or "logical", as much as premature, to give the statement below ...* They won or they lost.... unless some other empirical data provided a framework for that specific "axiom". Unless it is first revealed there can be no tie and that things must end in overtime, how does the possibility of a tie factor into this statement? If the contest may indeed end in a tie, and finally does, but the person supposing the statement above was not privy to all of the framework/rules assigned therein before making the statement prior to the finish of the debate, then the statement may not be "truthful", "logical" or "axiomatic". And yet it may be one of those, if, coincidentally, the contest does not end in a tie ...You must first load the statement in a fashion similiar to this ...* They won or they did not win.
* They lost or they did not lose.It may, or may not, follow then that "axiomatic" statements may or may not "logically" "exist" within their given framework.

BertotNearly 200 posts and you still have not stated a single "axiom of reality". Your position is untenable.You have stopped even pretending that your "axioms" are borne of anything other than incomplete empirical experience. It seems that you now also agree that a hypothesis based approach to investigation is the superior method of drawing reliable conclusions. I would call this progress. Instead you just insist that your initial conclusions, which let us not forget are necessarily borne of subjective experience as applied to incomplete empirical evidence, are conclusions that "cannot be avoided" and should thus be considered "axioms".So: (axioms of reality)=(incomplete empirical evidence)+(deductive logic) is unequivocally your position after all. How do you know how much evidence it requires to turn your subjective experience of incomplete empirical evidence into an "axiom"?Obviously you cannot know such a thing.Thus we are back full circle to my original refutation of your position.(incomplete empirical evidence)+(deductive logic)=(unreliable conclusions) Well you seem almost be adopting the methods of science whilst still resisting the idea that it is your ultimate conclusions that need to be tested rather than your silly idea of axioms on which you then proceed to pile on a whole heap of subjective "logic".If a hypothesis based approach is, as you seem to now suddenly agree, superior why not subject your final conclusions to such testing rather than attempting the impossible task of forming "axioms" from which you then wish to derive all other conclusions? There are no tested, reliable conclusions as yet regarding cosmological origins. Including your pitifully unreliable and flawed attempt at an answer.Simply stating that you have a superior position because you have an answer no matter how unreliable that answer may be or how invalid the method of drawing that conclusion obviously is, demonstrates gross stupidity.Now that you have finally come round to a hypothesis based approach you should realise this. I do understand your method. It is to take subjective experience of necessarily incomplete empirical evidence and to re-label this as an "axiom". You then apply a whole heap more flawed logic onto this "axiom" to derive whatever conclusions satisfy your personal belief system. It really is quite pathetic. The truths of reality are not subjective. What you determine those truths to be, that which you call "axioms", obviously are.Unless you can explain how it is you can derive indisputable "axioms" from empirical experience whilst that empirical experience is necessarily incomplete and subjective?You repeatedly refuse to even tackle this key question. I hoped it would demonstrate the impossibility of making any objective, legitimate and genuinely axiomatic statements regarding nature or reality. I hoped it would confirm the superiority and necessaity of a hypothesis based approach to investigation and the formation of reliable conclusions.Given that you are still unable to state a single axiom.......So far so good!

Hi Straggler,I will take the last first and address it. Did I misunderstand you as I thought you promoted the idea that these conclusions were not fact but were only tenative conclusions.How would a tenative conclusion be better than a axiomatic reality? Definition of axiom from Wiki. The universe exists.ThereforeThe universe has always existed.OrThe universe began to exist.That is an axiom according to the definition given by Wiki.Unless there is another option.Apparantly that does not meet your definition of an axiom, as you state: What is your definition of an axiom?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."

Rrhain writes:

quote:

---

Who is this "atheist" you are presenting? I don't know any atheists who say anything like what you say since, assuming the atheist knows something about Big Bang cosmology, the Big Bang was neither a "quantum fluctuation" nor "from nothing.

---

Well actually I was being sarcastic and attempting humor. Lighten up. I put a smiley after each statement.Since you feel obliged to correct my misconceptions. As far as I am aware it is still unknown the intitial ...vaccum state..quantum state...insert your favorite here. this quantum/vaccum state underwent a quantum fluctuation and the emergent properties of the universe came into being...emerged...insert your least unsavory athiest word here.Is this a unreasonable statement? Do you have a problem with the words quantum fluctiation. And the word nothing? Not all athiest are as well read and brilliant as yourself. Go ahead pick every statement apart. As much as you know you still do not know squat about the orgins of the big bang. It is a mystery. Ut Oh.... I sense your cringe at that word too. To Catholic sounding?My axiom: No matter where you go, there you are.

Once again, modern cosmological views are shared by a scientific community that is very diverse when measured in religious terms. These views are not atheistic because they neither affirm nor deny God, and they are held by scientists of all religions and no religion.I think both Rrhain and I assumed that yours was an easily corrected misimpression, and so we responded. One or two posts, we figured, and we'd be done. If this isn't the case, though, then we really shouldn't divert this thread into a discussion of whether some scientific views are atheistic. It would be better if you proposed a new thread over at [forum=-25].--Percy

Taking your first last and your last first: Something assumed to be true for the sake of an argument. Because it is at least based on some evidence (checked against the objective evidence of reality, ground truthed, etc), and the tentativity is recognized. When you assume a truth you sometimes forget that it is not based on any evidence.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

803 writes:My axiom: Thats funny I like that one. An axiom nonthelessOnifre writes: Im not sure you understand how debate works, so I will expalin it to you. YOU are asserting that paricles come from nothingness, this is your statement and assertion. You need to demonstrate this assertion other than merely assuming it is true that is comes from nowhere or nothingness. Its not my responsibility to demonstrate they do not.
Secondly, as I had stated in another post, you need to demonstrate that nothingness invloves, has properties or that it is stable or unstable, or that it has any qualites at all to demonstrate that it is actually nothingness .Now how in the world will you begin to remolely demonstrate any of these assertions, yet this is YOUR responsibility, not mine initially. If I were to counter though, knowing you cannot even get started with your assertions, I would maintain that nothingness is exacally what it is described as, void of any properties. Mine is self explanatory. In other words how would you counter the obvious simple explanation that nothingness is absolutely nothing. Now remember you need to demonstrate they are coming from nothing, before i counter your argument. Have fun. Please define and demonstrate a quantum state, this should be interesting. Debating techniques or knowing when someone else is using them helps me observe and point out your obvious errors. You stated all conclusions are tenative and subjective, so tell me how you can know these things are coming from nothingness. By the way junior calm down and take it slow, you will appear to be more mature, as opposed to looking and sounding like a spoiled child.. The above statement is is both incorrect and ignorant. If you can observe quantum fluctuations or thier effects, then it would follow they are a part of reality. Secondly, if they are accomplishing thier purpose then they are not defying reason. Watch this simple point. If you cannot see that yourself, Cavediver and Straggler are three of the most rude, demining and belittling individuals on the site, then it is reasonable to assume you could not see any other truth either. The ole Pot calling the kettle black syndromeI Wow thats heavy. And ofcourse this statement applies to everybody but you correct?
Cavedicer writes:What I said is that "eternal and created" is a combination of the only two possibilites available to us and you chose to ignore that fact. When I came here I said that aperson could not think of or imagine a nother solution that will not fall withingthe two or that is not a COMBINATION ofthe two, which is in reality one of the same two possibilites. But you go ahead and think you have accomplished this task cavediver, if it makes you feel better.
I believe in an earlier post you said you had given atleast two others in connection with the axiom, but for he life of me I can not find them, is it because they dont exist. Cavediver cant confirm his assertion, now theres an axiom for you folks. This is how Cavediver deals with his inbility to meet an argument and challenge. Is this the ole British way Cavediver.Onifre writes:You cant say basically nothingness, it either is or is not. If we are going to DEFINE it as you suggest, then it has to be absolutely void of anything. This statement is a clear indication that given my earlier remarks in this post that you cannot even get started demonstrating any of your assertions in this connection. You do see what a rational response in this connection looks like correct, Onifre? As Agobot points out you would have to IMAGINE that QF are possible in nothingness, indicating that your argument and your assertion are simply silly and that you could not even get started demonstraing it, even if you wanted to.Bailey writesThe problem you are having here Bailey is this. There are no axioms in science, then in math and then in another field of study, there are only axioms. What happens in this connection as I clearly demonstrated and pointed out to Nosyned, is that usage and definitons of simple words get misued and misapplied to the point that almost any argument and contention is possible, depending on how one chooses to redirect the definiton. Rrhain's usage of the word tautology is valid until he claims that what I am contending for are actually tautologies. Please reference my post 171.Indeed what good are definitions if we cant use any of them as the are simply stated. I would also reference Onifre's attempts to redifine Nothingness. Redefining a word will ofcourse help your cause if no one pays attention to the fact that you are redefining it. In some instances not in all of them. This is actually a very good example of how this axiom works. There is no loading of the statement first for it to fall squarely within the axiom. Both win and neither lost. The parties experience the value of the only two possible chooses that reality will allow, but there is no other category to which it can be taken or applied.Straggler writes: Provide the post to your assertion, if you cant I will accept it as another assertion from the other rude individual from the UK.I never said that empericism wasnt a good approach to investigation. I simply said an axiom involves the same principles but that you dont really need them to see the force of its conclusions. Let me ask you a question. Do you deliberately misrepresent people or are you really not capable of simple comprehension. ? My guess is both and a person just has to decide which one it is at any given time All you have to do Straggler is give another option than the only two, to demonstrate my position as subjective and yet you wont even try, why is that Straggler? Come on Straggler you are straggling behind, better hop to it.Perhaps you and Onifre could work together on this solution and the one where he will demonstrate that nothingness has certain properties in it. I would love to be a fly on the wall listening in on that conversation.Razd writes: Uh oh, he's back, I wondered when you would get aroungd to this? Hello RAZD. Now you can start worrying folks here comes trouble, ha ha. It always took me days to weed through his very exhausitive post, a real egghead.However, my friend some truths and axioms are based in reality (absolute objectivity) and therefore evidence of the highest order, the likes of which are not teastable any further. Dont make me start showing how you believe dead people can and may actually do things, ha ha.Fortunately axioms, real ones dont involve themselves in tenativity. And away we go folks, its going to be a bumpy ride from hereD Bertot.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

I can't find your reference to the COMBINATION comment - can you provide it? Memory loss or genuine deceit? Neither are looking too good for you, Bertot. If they don't exist, then what were these words of yours related to? In this babble we have you trying to argue theoretical physics with me I have zero patience to wade through this idiocy, appalling grammar, hilarious misspelling, accusations of bad logic, ignorant claims of making assumptions, etc, etc. So I'm going to bow out here, and just call you for the sad desperate idiot you are. With a bit of luck, that will earn me my first suspension at EvC and I'll be able to get on with the work to which I desperately need to attend.For those interested in the possibilities I presented, they are here and hereIf anyone is interested in discussing these rationally, then propose a thread and I will be happy to oblige...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

My apologies, Rrhain and Percy. I concede I know way less about this than you guys. I will not interrupt this thread again. Peace.

Do you agree that "axioms" of reality actually need to be true as compared to reality? Indeed. Scientific conclusions are always tentative to some degree. The degree of reliability will depend on the evidence with which they are supported and the tests that have been undertaken. But new evidence can always potentially overturn any scientific conclusion. This is absolutely true.(incomplete empirical evidence)+(deductive logic)=(hypothesis)Hypotheses have to be tested in order to be rendered reliable. But all scientific conclusions are tentative to some extent. That is the scientific method. In a nutshell. It would not if such things actually existed. The problem you have is knowing that your conclusions are legitimately, objectively and genuinely axiomatic.I don't deny that there are truths of nature. Only that you can ever know them as such in order to label them "axioms". "It's truth is taken for granted". "Necessary decision". "Self evident". These are subjective decisions.
In maths that is fine. Axioms are just a starting point for logical deduction. There are no "wrong" axioms as long as they are not self contradicting. You can create maths that describes things that are not "real".However if you are claiming "axioms of reality" they need to actually be true. They need to measure up to something external in a way that mathematical axioms do not. "Axioms" that do not reflect reality are not axioms. Axioms of reality need to actually be universal truths of reality that all evidence will adhere to all the time everywhere in all circumstances. If just one piece of evidence breaks your "axiom" it is no longer an axiom. It is just something that is almost always true. But not always. That is not an axiom. I think you will agree. Does Wiki claim to hold all the truths of reality? I doubt it. Given that you are stating this as a truth of nature how do you know this to be true? On what basis do you know that this is true?Or are you using as an axiom in the sense that "It's truth is taken for granted"? Are you assuming it to be true rather than knowing it to be true? If so what if you are wrong? Your resulting conclusions will also be wrong. And your so called "axiom" will be no such thing.You need to show that your conclusion holds up in all cases under all circumstances. An "axiom of reality" specifically would actually need to be true as compared to reality. And known to be absolutely true. Not just assumed or "taken for granted" or an arbitrary decision or subjectively decided to be "self evident". It would need to be true as compared to reality.On the basis of incomplete evidence how can you ever form such a thing? You cannot. All you can do is assume for the sake of argument. And that is no basis for reliable conclusions of any sort.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Still not a single axiom able to be stated then? Oh dear oh dear. Quite a hole you have dug for yourself.What axiom did your Spock example demonstrate exactly? That the fictional character Spock is rather silly? That you have a penchant for very bad examples? Whilst true these are certainly not axioms.So what was the axiom you were demonstrating in that example? Why don't you tell us?If you cannot state a single "axiom of reality" you have no positionA few questions which I am sure you will avoid as usual

How many of these axioms of reality are there exactly?

Does every situation require it's own "axiom"? Are there an infinite number of "axioms"?

Does this actually mean that your "axioms" are in fact just a means of justifying your preconceived conclusions rather than a viable method of drawing conclusions?

Would you use this (axioms of reality)+(deductive logic) methodology of yours in other areas of science? Or only where you need to support your subjective beliefs?

Would you use this methodology in medicine for example? If so how exactly?

​

All you have to do Straggler is give another option than the only two, to demonstrate my position as subjective and yet you wont even try, why is that Straggler? Come on Straggler you are straggling behind, better hop to it.

​

The person with no axioms and no position asks me to justify my argument!!!!

​

I gave you an answer to your question. But you keep ignoring it. Both willing and unwilling. Both able and unable. All simultaneously. Using methods of thought that require humans to think in new ways.

​

If this breaks your "axiom" what is that axiom? How do you know it is objective, legitimate and genuinely axiomatic?

​

But you are unable to state the "axiom"...........

​

Because, in a quantum state, quantum fluctuations defy BOTH reality and reason.

​

Neither created nor eternal but very very real.

​

You lose. Yet again.

Hi Straggler, If it is not true it is not an axiom of reality. So they exist you just can't ever know they exist, is this your position? They don't need to be true. They must be true and are, else they are not "axioms of reality". The universe exists today.That makes it necessary that:The universe has always existed.
OR
The universe began to exist.It is a proposition that is self-evident.This has been proven by the lack of any attempt to disprove the axiom, and we are at 192 Posts.If you disagree then give an alternative that will disprove the axiom.You haven't even tried yet, all you have done is make assertion after assertion. Wouldn't that make it a scientific fact? Which I am told does not exist.So you don't mind if I stick with Wiki's do you?RAZD's source lists the definition: axiom
The one he quoted is a scientific definition giving an example.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."

Bertot responds to me:

quote:

---

by DEFINITON a tautology is a human expression or idea applied to a reality.

---

Incorrect. A tautology, by definition, is the collection of all possible outcomes of a truth statement such that all are true. The classic example is "A v ~A," but you can have tautologies with multiple propositions and which involve more than mere assertion but also include implication.It is not an axiom.

quote:

---

by definiton, the word tautology would include the principle of an axiom

---

Incorrect. A tautology is not an axiom nor is it related to an axiom. It is a logical derivative.

quote:

---

An axion is a self-evident truth that requires no proof and is free from contradiction

---

Not quite. "Self-evident" is not required for an axiom. All an axiom is is a declaration of truth and cannot be derived from other axioms.

quote:

---

If that is not the correct use of the word tautology, there can be no rational application of it.

---

Incorrect. Mathematicians do it all the time. Why do you think the word "tautology" is a logical term that is defined via logic?

quote:

---

It is not possible for one to leave the realm of logic if they are defining, describing and applying a word by its given definition.

---

When your definition is wrong, it is quite easy to leave the realm of logic.

quote:

---

While it is true that a tautology is a consequence of logic, you are assuming that this is the only thing the word can have application or menaing to.

---

Incorrect. I am assuming that we are discussing a single subject: Axioms. Axioms are a part of logic. Therefore, when discussing tautologies in a larger discussion about axioms, this means we are referring to the logical definition.If you wish to change the subject, that's fine, but do be aware that this will mean we are no longer talking about axioms which is the topic of this thread.

quote:

---

but they are also independent of the axioms truths and realities at the same time.

---

You just contradicted yourself: A tautology cannot both "include" the axiom and yet be "independent" of it. A ^ ~A is false.

quote:

---

To say that a tautology is the consequence of logic and not axioms is both silly and nonsiensical, given its definition.

---

Your definition is incorrect. Thus, you come to an incorrect conclusion. Given that you contradict your own argument, this is not surprising.The reason I claim that a tautology is a consequence of logic is because it is a term that is defined via logic: The collection of all possible outcomes of a truth statement such that all are true. The simplest version is "A v ~A," but any combination of propositions that are combined such that the final result of the statement is true regardless of the truth value of the propositions is, by definition, a tautology. If you want a more "eloquent" definition, a statement whose truth table contains only "true" is a tautology.Here is a more complex tautology:A ^ B = ~(~A v ~B)Let's construct the truth table:

A	B	A ^ B	~A	~B	~A v ~B	~(~A v ~B)	A ^ B = ~(~A v ~B)
T	T	T	F	F	F	T	T
T	F	F	F	T	T	F	T
F	T	F	T	F	T	F	T
F	F	F	T	T	T	F	T

Note the final column: All entries are true. Therefore, the statement "A ^ B = ~(~A v ~B)" is a tautology. No matter what the truth value of the statements A or B, the sentence is true. That is the definition of a tautology.

quote:

---

The principle is reality and the demonstratable principles of the axiomatic truth applied to physical properties.

---

This sentence no verb.Tautologies are not connected to axioms. A tautology is true because you can logically prove it to be so. An axiom cannot be logically proven true. It simply is.

quote:

---

Hey guess what thats what makes it an axiom and not a tauology.

---

Incorrect. Your statement was "A v ~A." That is a tautology, not an axiom.

quote:

---

Please drag out a dictoinary and look at the definition of tautology.

---

Argumentum ad dictionary? OK, if you say so: The only examples you gave were of tautologies: A v ~A. Ergo, a tautology, not an axiom. A v ~A. Ergo, a tautology, not an axiom. A v ~A. Ergo, a tautology, not an axiom. A v ~A. Ergo, a tautology, not an axiom.

quote:

---

If an axiom is a self-evident truth

---

An axiom is not a "self-evident" truth. An axiom is a declared truth. It cannot be derived from first principles because it is the first principle.Of the three axioms I gave, "parallel lines always converge," "parallel lines always diverge," and "parallel lines neither converge nor diverge," which one is "self-evident"?

quote:

---

a tautology is a needless repetition of a word

---

In rhetoric, yes, but we are not discussing rhetoric. We are discussing logic and that is not the definition of a tautology in logic. The definition of a "tautology" is a sentence whose truth table only contains "true."

quote:

---

Tautologies dont describe what I ahve been describing, they simply repeat thier obvious nature.

---

You realize that even by the rhetorical definition of a tautology, you just contradicted yourself, yes? If you want a "tautology" to mean a "repetition," then your admission of "repeating their obvious nature" is precisely a tautology.Which means it is not an axiom.And this is precisely what I predicted would be the problem:What is meant by "axiom"?

quote:

---

I cant believe you cant see the difference.

---

Given that you are trying to use rhetoric to argue logic and given that you have contradicted your own statements at least twice, I am not surprised you can't understand why I don't agree with you.Every example you have given is a tautology, not 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.

ICANT responds to Straggler:

quote:

---

The universe exists.

​

Therefore

​

The universe has always existed.

​

Or

​

The universe began to exist.

​

That is an axiom according to the definition given by Wiki.

---

Incorrect. Not only is that not an axiom, but also it isn't an axiom by the definition given by Wikipedia.Again, a tautology is a statement for which the truth table is nothing but "true." The classic example is "A v ~A."Your statement, "The universe has always existed or the universe began to exist," is of the form "A v ~A." Therefore, it is not an axiom but rather a tautology.

quote:

---

What is your definition of an axiom?

---

You do realize that you quoted his definition of an "axiom" in your response to Straggler, yes? What part of this are you having trouble with?You may recall my examples of the various parallel postulates. They are axioms of geometry. One is that "parallel lines never converge or diverge." This is an axiom of Euclidean geometry. "Parallel lines always converge" is an axiom of elliptical geometry. "Parallel lines always diverge" is an axiom of hyperbolic geometry.But the combination of the three, "Parallel lines either converge, diverge, or neither converge nor diverge," is not an axiom. It is a tautology.So far, nobody has given an axiom that would apply to 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.