The "Axioms" Of Nature

In the "GOD IS DEAD" thread myself and Bertot have started a conversation that I would like to continue.In summary: Bertot is making an argument in favour of deductive logic as a valid method for drawing reliable conclusions regarding the physical world.Based on this method he concludes that a creator is indeed the most reliable answer for cosmological origins.I am less interested in the conclusion than the methodology. If the methodology is invalid then the conclusions are necessarily unreliable. As such I have set about demonstrating that evidence based investigation necessarily equates to:(incomplete empirical evidence)+(potentially valid logic)=(unreliable conclusions)I have then gone on to propose a hypothesis based approach as the solution to this problem of unreliable conclusions.This can be seen at Message 295Bertot seems to broadly accept this argument. He has certainly not offered any refutation of this position. However he has claimed that this is irrelevant to his own position as rather than incomplete evidence his own conclusions are based on the "axioms of nature".Thus Bertot's claim becomes (as I understand it, this would require confirmation from him)(axiomatic truths of nature)+(valid logic)=(reliable conclusions)His response to my message can be seen here: Message 301So what are these "axioms" of nature?. Do they exist? Are they valid?In Message 303 I write: I would like the opportunity to continue this discussion with Bertot. If promoted I would like the validity of different methodologies rather than detailed discussions of specific conclusions to be the main focus.In other words 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.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Methinks the stumbling block is "axiom."By definition, an "axiom" is an accepted truth that is never contradicted. In an abstraction like mathematics, we can do this without too much trouble because we get to choose those axioms by fiat.But in an observational process such as science, we can never know if what we assume to be always true actually is. We cannot observe everything. We might have it right, but we can never know for sure. We cannot simply state by sheer force of will that energy is conserved. It certainly looks like it and all of our tests seem to bear that out, but it only takes one observation to change that conclusion.It's happened before: Aristotelian physics stated that objects in motion came to rest. It certainly looked like it and all of the tests at the time seemed to bear that out, but it wasn't correct. Newtonian physics stated that objects in motion remained in motion unless acted on by an outside force. It certainly looked like it and all of the tests at the time seemed to bear that out, but even that wasn't correct. So now we have Einsteinian physics that says that motion is only relative to a frame of reference which is necessarily arbitrary and for which there is no universal. It certainly looks like it and all of the tests of the time seem to bear that out, but surely we have learned by now that we can only make that claim tentatively.In short, there are no axioms in science. There are only things that we take as axioms simply because we don't know any better. As soon as we do, we'll change them.

---

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.

Stragler writesStraggler I will try and get started on your last post in previous thread and you latest one in this new one as soon as I can today. I have to piecemeal my days to work on it.ThanksD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Yup. That is exactly what I had concluded. Any "axioms" in science are the result of incomplete evidence and subject to modification or abandonment in the face of new evidence. Good to have it verified by a mathematician's concept of the term "axiom" though.Thus Bertot's argument necessarily reduces to:(Incomplete empirical evidence)+(potentially valid logic)=(unreliable conclusions)Exactly as I had demonstrated previously.I doubt however that Bertot will accept this without a fight so I await his argument in favour of these axioms.

That is fine. As before quality is preferred to rapidity.It would be better if we both just reply in this thread rather than the previous one for any continuation of this discussion.The first thing we need to establish is whether or not:(axiomatic truths of nature)+(valid logic)=(reliable conclusions)Is a fair representation of your position (and if not what exactly your position is and exactly what components are included in reaching conclusions using your methodology).

Stag writes:The title of your thread is a bit misleading. It actually should read Axiomatic truths of reality. The fact of the matter is that everything in reality is an axiom, some have simply not been discovered. In other words things are what they are whether we understand them or not.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. There is finality it reality even if it is eternality.Not understanding everything is not a requirement to know certain immoveable truths.In a previous thread I used an example from Star Trek to demonstrate this point. Perhaps it will have some application here. Or at bare minimum you would like to take a shot at answering it.It has been continuously argued here that not having all knowledge inhibits one from being sure about certain absolute truths, this is simply not true. While not all things are ascertainable in reality, due to a lack of knowledge, there are others that are that will not let you proceed any further in you understanding, regardless of the information applied. If one argues that more information is required then ofcourse one would need to demontrate and provide that information to the contrary. Simply continuing to repeat that it may not be all in not suffiecient.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, the likes of which, no other alternatives could be added to the statement, that would not fall into those two categories, that would not include either or would not be a combination of the two.Here is a situation in reality that demonstrates that all information was in in the statement Mr. Spock made, now watch this, REGARDLESS of whether he knew any of the exact circumstances. In other words no other information would shake or unsettle the axiomatic truth Mr. Spock spoke, that would not fall into the two categories, hence absolute truth with no possibility of contradiction. His two choices encompass reality.Further it does not matter whos perspective you are looking at it from, his statement was axiomatic and completely absolute. Here then is a pratical example of how some truths in reality cannot be otherwise irregardless of what information is forthcoming. The same would be true of the only logical possibiltes to the reality of existence itself.I suppose we can start here homie, ha ha. have fun.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Call them what you will. It matters not.Is (axiomatic truths of reality)+(valid logic)=(reliable conclusions) a fair representation of your position or not?The questions remain:

What are these axiomatic truths of reality?

On what basis do you claim that these particular axioms are legitimate, objective and genuinely axiomatic?

​

If you want to limit your list of axioms to those required to derive your cosmological origins conclusion that is fine by me also.

​

As for your Star Trek example: All that does is demonstrate that in the absence of complete evidence no amount of pure logic will suffice when it comes to drawing conclusions that we can be certain are reliable.

​

The only practical way forwards for the captain in your example is to make a reasoned judgement as to the best method of testing which of the logical possibilities is actually true.

​

Hypothesis. Testing. Conclusions that have been rendered reliable.

​

You are making my argument for me.

​

Now back to that list of axioms..................?

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi, Bertot.I have been reading widely for a paper on a topic very similar to this, so I’d like to put in a few words of my own. As I understand its usage here, an “axiom” is a self-evident truth that can be seen easily and universally in nature (or reality, if you prefer).The problem is that whatever “axioms” there are do not reliably predict all the consequences in all situations, thus rendering their status as “axioms” rather dubious, at best. Here are two examples from the opening paragraph of a paper I just read last night:

quote:

---

For example, liberalizing hunting regulations for a species tends to increase harvest by hunters. In any specific instance, however, liberalization may not cause an increased harvest because of other influences such as the number of animals in the population, weather conditions during the hunting season, and the cost of gasoline as it affects hunter activity.

---

quote:

---

In an agronomic setting, adding P fertilizer may generally be expected to increase the yield of a crop, but it may not happen in a specific instance because another nutrient is limiting, P is already in adequate supply, or moisture is insufficient for the plants to utilize the added P.

---

Source:Johnson, D.H. 2006. The Many Faces of Replication. Crop Science 46:2486-2491.In these two examples, the effect of the treatment (free hunting licenses and addition of fertilizer, respectively) can only be shown to have a statistically significant effect, not an absolute effect. The moral of the story is that you have to replicate the treatment a number of times in order to see any sort of correlation, because the correlation is inconsistent.This would imply that whatever forces or processes are causing the phenomenon are simply not absolute. And, this is rampant in nonphysical sciences like biology (and can even occur in physics: try throwing a ball with the same velocity and angle and hitting the same spot every time if you don’t believe me), which is why there are multiple different hypotheses for the cause of evolution in different situations, for example.In short, even if there are true axioms in the universe, the consequences of those axioms are not absolute. Not only does this confound our attempts to discover the axioms (as Rrhain has described very well in Message 3), but it also makes you wonder whether the axioms are really axioms, after all.----- How can a statement of alternatives be an axiom? Doesn’t an axiom have to take a stand on some issue, as in, “objects very near the earth will fall toward the center of the earth”?Using your logic, another axiom of reality is, “A chemical reaction will either happen, or it won’t.” Another: “The emergence of life was either natural or supernatural.”Spock’s statement is only correct because it is vague and specifically designed to incorporate an indefinite number of alternatives. Because of that, it’s useless. “Useless” can hardly coexist with “axiomatic.”

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Now we are getting down to the nitty gritty. Testing which of the logical possibilites is true is not a response to override the fact that it is axiomatic in character. You need to demonstrate that it has other possibilites, not that he can choose from the only two possibilites. You are side stepping the argument.If existence of existence is to grand of a scale for you to accomplish this task I have now reduced it to a practical situation where other possibilites should present themselves in a reasonably simple way, and all you do is complain about my method.To the task Straggler. Present me another solution and or word that would provide another solution too the only two possibiltes. You are failing because the two words Unable and Unwilling encompass the totality of reality, no matter the circumstances.Again, this is a practical situation, not to grand in scale that should allow you to provide another simple explanation. Why wont you do this, is it that reality wont allow it? Better get busy your falling behind early.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Bluejay thanks for you response. I will get to the entirity of it later as I have got to scoot off to work in a while. However, the indefinite number of possibilites of which you speak have to do with the problem itself, not to the overall axiomatic truth or choices Mr. Spock presented. None of the alternatives in the exact situation will change the overall truth itself. Remember any of the number of problems or alternatives will fall squarely with in Mr. Spocks statement.If indeed there are other alternatives or solutions then simply present them or it.My prediction is that reality and its limitations will not allow you to do this. This is how axioms AT TIMES can be demonstrated as absolute answers in questions to certain things, not always but sometimes.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Just wanted to pop in to point something out. While it IS true that those are the only two LOGICAL possibilities, there is a third illogical possibility. They are both willing and capable to respond, yet still don't. Like I said, completely illogical. However, it is a possibility.

---

I hunt for the truth

It has been noted that you are either unwilling or unable to state a single one of these "axioms" of reality.Until you do so whatever other arguments you put forward are frankly redundant. I am side stepping the argument? You claim that these "axioms" of reality undeniably exist and that they form the entire basis for your whole methodology.Yet you repeatedly fail to present us with a single example of such an "axiom". That is one.Or 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".If you feel that this 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?

​

How can you legitimately or consistently base any methods or conclusions on "axioms" that you are unable to state?

Hi, Bertot. It doesn’t matter how many alternatives “fit within” your “axiom,” Bertot: it matters that you have erroneously claimed that a list of all possible hypotheses counts as a single axiom.I have another “axiom” for you:

1. Catholicism is entirely true
2. or Lutheranism is entirely true
3. or Mormonism is entirely true
4. or Shintoism is entirely true
5. or Dijambara Jainism is entirely true
6. or Svetambara Jainism is entirely true
7. or Greek mythology is entirely true
8. or (etc.) is entirely true
   .
   .
   .

14. or none of them is entirely true.

Now, this "axiom" constitutes an absolute answer to any possible scenario about the truth of religions: in other words, it's always right. Yet, strangely enough, it doesn't really help me answer the question of which religion is true, does it?How then does it constitute an axiom?----- As a side-note here, once you stipulate “at times,” you forfeit the luxury of using analogies, because all evidence for a non-universal principle must be case-specific (or at least case-relevant). So, even if you prove your point about Spock, you will only have to prove it again for each of your points about nature.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

quote:

---

If indeed there are other alternatives or solutions then simply present them or it.

---

A third alternative: they did respond, but the Enterprise didn't recognize it as such.You pretty much ignored this in the previous discussion, I expect the same here, but I'll toss it out, just for fun.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat