The "Axioms" Of Nature

only in your limited mind, Bertot only as YOU choose define them - can you really not see the utter subjectivity of this?Just for fun, here's another one - there is no 'they', so Spock's statement is ill-defined from the start.And just what is the actual axiom you are discssing, of which your Spock-scenario is but an example?Finally, is Spock's implicit 'or' inclusive or exclusive, as you don't specify and it is rather important...

Ah, you were obviously unaware of Bertot's last thread on axioms Bertot's position on axioms cannot get any more ridiculous

Just what is the actual axiom you are discussing, of which your Spock-scenario is but an example?

and I can't believe you still have no clue as to the nature of an axiom.And are you really telling me that you think that your Spock/Unable/Unwilling scenario is an example of your "axiom" that states "An eternal God or the eternality of matter itself." Oh god, sorry, I'm choking on my lunch now. I mean, just WTF are you talking about, Bertot? This is hilarious.Actually, I'm being a little mean, because I have a good feeling as to the nature of your idea (as does everyone else here, but they're too busy giggling to express it). So let me play teacher...You are essentially saying that the answer to any suitably expressed question can always fall into one of two mututally exclusive sets? Does that sound right? Unwilling or unable, reacts or doesn't react, eternal matter or eternal god, etc?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Are you really telling us that you think that your Spock/Unable/Unwilling scenario is an example of your "axiom" that states "An eternal God or the eternality of matter itself."?This just further demonstrates that you do not know what an axiom is. There are at least three mathematicians qualified in logic here (myself, Rrhain, PaulK) all telling you that you don't know what you are talking about, and everyone else agrees. Not even the other fundementalists here are willing to jump to your defense. As Percy pointed out, time to just ignore your babbling.

What axiom would that be, ICANT?Perhaps you haven't quite got the gist of my argument with Bertot? It is that he does not know what an axiom is. Given your comment above, I guess you share his confusion. Really? I could have sworn I presented at least two alternatives in that thread. Perhaps I dreamt it?

Oh for fuck's sake - finding an alternative has NOTHING to do with it being an axiom or not.

Given that time is part of "it", how can "it" be "brought into existence", when this implies a time ordering which we've just said doesn't exist? Otherwise we are forced to conclude that the "bringing into existence" is itself part of existence, and we have a contradiction.

Exactly - Bertot is trying to prove that either the Universe is eternal or it is not. This is reasonably ok (though in actuality it isn't that simple) - but he then thinks that if the Universe is not eternal, this necessarily implies that it was created by "God", and claims that this is self-evident. So even his fundemental argument is completely bogus.Bizarrely, he thinks our main objection to this argument is his claim that the Universe is eternal or it is not. He claims that this "axiom" must hold, and tries to demonstrate its validity by bringing up this Spock example. But he fails to see that the two are completely different. In the former, we are considering A and ~A (ignoring the comlexities), but in the Spock example we are considering A and B, plus the claim that B is ~A, even though it is blatently apparent that A intersection B is not empty, and as many try to point out, A intersection B is not exhaustive.There are just so many errors here, never mind the simple point that Bertot has no clue when it comes to the definition of an axiom. And now we have ICANT jumping in Run! Run for the hills...

But even "come into existence" implies a time ordering, and without existence, there can be no time ordering. So again we are stuck.

Given that time is an integral part of the Universe, the Universe has always existed whether it is has finite or infinite extent into the past. So your statement is not particularly informative. You can state this is an axiom all you like, and you are welcome to take it as an axiom for your own belief system - but it is obviously false - why not eternal AND created? And why does not eternal imply created? Hint - it doesn't... if you think it does, perhaps you might like to prove it? And if you want it to be accepted as an axiom, proof is what you will need - not mere evidence. is so obviously not the same as If you think they are, then be my guest and prove it...

I'm sorry, Bertot. This reply more than adequately demonstrates your complete inadequacy in this discussion. You may go now.

The temerity of you to ask this after the months of you quoting ad-nauseam from Hawking and others... I did say repeatedly that quoting it doesn't mean you understand it, and here is perfect proof of precisely that...

You see, this is why I laugh so much at this stupidity. Bertot, and now you, are trying to make categoric statements ("axioms" as you call them) about the nature of the existence of the Universe using everyday language and definitions, that we have known for over 100 years have zero application to even the structure of one single atom.Perhaps you would like to tell me what "existing outisde time" means? And what are you defining as "time"? You see, ICANT, in fundamental physics we strictly define every term we use - typically in terms of the underlying mathematics. The moment someone pops up spouting off about their own ideas without doing this, we know instantly that it is utter shit. Because it is meaningless drivel. Ah, so your god is incapable of creating a universe that is eternal? Interesting...And what does "outside of time" mean again? Given that your original "definiton" of eternal is so screwed, why would its negation be any better defined?

Really? Why? Relying on dictionaries for your definitions again? So you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof? And you're here desperately trying to show yourself as an expert on logic You do love to play the fool, bertot. But give it up, as you can only make yourself look like an idiot for so long before it becomes tiresome. Not correct, no You've obviously never heard of special and general relativity. What? Who said anything about precluding "his" existence? I think you are imagining things again. And I'm making no assumptions - I'm pointing out the weaknesses in yours oh Bertot, senility really has set in for good, hasn't it? I would just go away, quietly.