Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "Axioms" Of Nature
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 211 of 297 (487053)
10-27-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Dawn Bertot
10-27-2008 9:40 AM


Re: Still No Axioms?
Bertot writes:
Straggler thank you for these set of postulates of the imagination, contemplation and theroretical speculation, which have nothing to do with physical properties, which have nothing to do with even the title of your thread "Axioms in nature" Now perhaps you colud provide some illustrations that have to do with ACTUAL physical properties instead of theorecticl speculation.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
You claimed that these "axioms of reality" actually exist. You claimed that you can derive reliable conclusions from these axioms. I setup this whole thread as a challenge to you to cite these axioms on the basis that they do not exist. Now, after 200+ posts of failure on your part, you want me to tell you what they are........? WTF!
Remember your position has been unequivocally stated to be:
(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)
In the absence of any such axioms your whole position is completely non-existant.
Your examples of axioms should atleast correspond to some physical property in reality and not just the imagination. Ill be holding my breath with anticipation.
Dude you hold your breath for as long as you want.
The axioms I cited are not intended to be representations of physical reality. They are the purely abstract and wholly mathematical axioms of number theory. They are examples of the format that you should be following with regard to these "axioms of reality" that you claim to be privy to. Those same "axioms" that I have told you cannot exist.
So when you can provide us with even a single "axiom" that meets your own criteria ("should at least correspond to some physical property in reality") and that you can show to be objective, legitimate and genuinely axiomatic, then let us all know.
Until then you have no "axioms", you have no position, you have no argument and you look very foolish.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-27-2008 9:40 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-27-2008 11:16 AM Straggler has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 212 of 297 (487061)
10-27-2008 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Straggler
10-27-2008 10:25 AM


Re: Still No Axioms?
Straggler writes:
The axioms I cited are not intended to be representations of physical reality.
Therein lies your problem, you are trying to take abstract concepts and imply that these constitute the only concepts or reality of the nature of an axiom. True axioms will equate to a physical properties or reality. Reality drives the axiomatic principle not vis versa.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2008 10:25 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by NosyNed, posted 10-27-2008 11:32 AM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 215 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2008 11:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 213 of 297 (487064)
10-27-2008 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Dawn Bertot
10-27-2008 11:16 AM


Simple yes or no question for Bertot
Here is a very simple question. It only needs a yes or no answer. You don't actually have to supply any axioms but just answer:
Do you ever intend to actually supply any axioms of nature?
Edited by NosyNed, : fix goof of dbcodes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-27-2008 11:16 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-27-2008 11:45 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 214 of 297 (487066)
10-27-2008 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by NosyNed
10-27-2008 11:32 AM


Re: Simple yes or no question for Bertot
Ned writes:
Here is a very simple question. It only needs a yes or no answer. You don't actually have to supply any axioms but just answer:
Do you ever intend to actually supply any axioms of nature?
Here is a simple question for yourself. Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that I have done this over and over and you and others simply disagree that they are axioms or give them another name. The latest is Rrhains attempts to classify them as Tautologies.
Here is another question. If I am not presenting any how in the world can you have disagreement with the fact that they are NOT, axioms, or that you are trying to reclassify them as something else. In other words I AM presenting them and you are simply disageeing that they are such, even though I have demonstrated them and it over and over. You do understand that disagreement and reclassification are not an actual argument to the ones I am presenting, correct.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by NosyNed, posted 10-27-2008 11:32 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2008 11:59 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 218 by NosyNed, posted 10-27-2008 1:22 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


(1)
Message 215 of 297 (487068)
10-27-2008 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Dawn Bertot
10-27-2008 11:16 AM


Re: Still No Axioms?
Therein lies your problem
In a whole thread designed to examine your claims that "axioms of reality" exist, a thread where you have been unable to cite a single such axiom.......I have a problem??????
Therein lies your problem, you are trying to take abstract concepts and imply that these constitute the only concepts or reality of the nature of an axiom.
As has been explained to you by Rrhain different geometries can have different and even contradicting sets of axioms. Axioms in this sense are starting points for mathematical deduction. They need only be self consistent. This is where the term axiom normally applies. It is you who is (quite unsuccessfully I might add) claiming that we can derive axioms of reality.
Axioms of reality need to be true as compared to reality itself. They cannot just be "assumed" or subjectively "self evident" or "taken for granted" in the way that mathematical axioms can be. Axioms of reality are not just a set of internally consistent unprovable assumptions. Axioms of reality must actually be true.
They must actually be true as measured against objective reality.
But you can never know the truths of nature based on incomplete empirical evidence. That is your problem.
True axioms will equate to a physical properties or reality. Reality drives the axiomatic principle not vis versa.
I don't disagree with that. I simply dispute that you can ever know the truths of nature so completely as to form such axioms.
If you culd you would have cited at least one by now.
YOUR PROBLEM: INCOMPLETE EVIDENCE
Way back when we started this discussion in Message 295 I explained to you how the problem of incomplete evidence meant that a hypothesis based approach was the only viable method of evidence based investigation.
Despite your assertions regarding "axioms of reality" you have never tackled this key area. You have simply asserted that your own initial empirically derived conclusions (i.e. your "axioms") are free from this problem. But they quite evidently are not.
Whatever you currently think is an "axiom" of nature is the product of incomplete evidence. You cannot say with 100% certainty that further evidence will not show that "axiom" to be false. You can say it is extremely unlikely but you cannot truthfully say that it is impossible. Not without all of the possible evidence.
How can you form "axioms" that must be 100% true in all circumstances on the basis of empirical evidence unless you have ALL of the empirical evidence, unless you can know the nature of all future discoveries? Unless you are omniscient?
Your "axioms" amount to nothing more than the extrapolation of incomplete evidence. And we have already seen that:
(incomplete evidence)+(deductive logic)=(unreliable conclusions)
The nature of empirical investigation makes axiomatic statements impossible. There can always be new evidence. And that evidence can always potentially overturn those things that we consider to be "axioms". There are numerous historical examples of exactly this occurring.
That is your problem. That is the problem you need to address.
Alternatively you could just state these axioms of yours........
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-27-2008 11:16 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

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


(1)
Message 216 of 297 (487069)
10-27-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Dawn Bertot
10-27-2008 11:45 AM


Re: Simple yes or no question for Bertot
Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that I have done this over and over and you and others simply disagree that they are axioms or give them another name.
I have seen you cite specific scenarios/tautologies/stories but you have never stated the actual underlying axiom that any of your scenarios is supposedly demonstrating.
Or is each scenario itself an "axiom"?
How many "axioms of reality" are there exactly?
Are there an infinite number of "axioms"?
If there are an infinite number how do you know which one to choose in order to make a particular conclusion?
Or does your "axioms of reality" methodology only work when you have a preconceived conclusion already in place?
The hole you are digging gets deeper and deeper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-27-2008 11:45 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Bailey
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 574
From: Earth
Joined: 08-24-2003


Message 217 of 297 (487076)
10-27-2008 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dawn Bertot
10-26-2008 8:46 AM


Re: Bertot's Hypothesis Revelation
Bertot writes:
Bailey writes:
Within the discussion there has been numerous references to axioms and tautologies as an attempt was made to provide clear, concise definition(s) accordingly. From an outside, mildly retarded, 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 ...
The 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.
This "problem" has been rectified by conceding to the reality that science, as well as many other facets of thought, use the term and reality of axioms as place markers for propositions that are assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from them. Again, an axioms role concerning physics, math, science, or another field of study does not serve any purpose towards the debate at hand.
You've made it clear the axiom you refer to lies in the realm of mathematics.
Bertot writes:
Bailey writes:
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.
In some instances not in all of them.
Does this deem the method fallible ?
Can it be demonstrated in a testable fashion, so as to prove or refute, that the instances of a statement with two possibilities that all other conclusions and possibilities will fit squarely within will/can/may be increased and/or decreased by means of constructing the original statements in a particular fashion towards that end?
Can it be demonstrated in a testable fashion, so as to prove or refute, that the instances of a statement with two possibilities that all other conclusions and possibilities will fit squarely within will/can/may be increased and/or decreased by means of acquiring the absolute knowledge of the framework prior to logically constructing the original statements randomly/partially/completely within said framework?
Would it matter if it could?
Bertot writes:
Bailey writes:
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 ...
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.
It may be a good example of how an axiom "works", defining "works" notwithstanding, but it seems a poor example of how an axiom follows logically or conclusively Bertrot ...
The statement, repeated below, has not been structured to logically accept or absorb a separate outcome other than the two given. This is not to suggest that it could or could not accomplish this task randomly. It was hypothetically declared prior to the attainment of absolute knowledge concerning the parameters of its framework. This hypothetical framework contains the evidence, and therefore knowledge, that the contest will not concede in overtime so as to establish a clear and concise winner. For this reason, amongst others, a separate outcome is available.
* They won or they lost.
In this case, reality would need to be distorted as a byproduct of this method you speak of in order for your method to prove true. Accordingly, one must lend the essence and definition of a "win" to the essence and definition of "tie".
Without lending the essence and definition of a "loss" to the essence and definition of "forfeit", one could not also accept the possibility of a catastophic event absorbing the contest and eliminating all the participants and observers.
Therefore, neither statements below fall squarely within the "axiom" ...
* The game concluded in a tie.
* The game was eradicated.
One could easily posit many more examples.
There's obvious dissention concerning whether your given method falls squarely within the definitions of axioms or tautologies, but surely we can evade any dissention between the essences', definitions, and realities of a win, a loss, and a tie ... much less forfeiture and eradication.
In other words, the statement may fall squarely within the proposed "axiom" only by disregarding logic and equating a tie to a win in your specific instance.
A win is a win, a loss is a loss, and a tie is a tie.
Surely the participants that tied for third place are certainly not the winners or would one disagree with this statement?
In a contest that ends in a tie, there is no concise victor, or winner.
There is no winner or loser in a game that becomes subject to inevitable and complete destruction.
As you've pointed out, all words have separate values, definitions, and realities associated with them.
Again, together we can learn how this method wouldn't always work when discussing winning and losing an arbitrary contest or debate, and, yet, how it can function properly under certain circumstances.
Once you have ascertained an absolute knowledge of your framework, in this instance, one that will include the declaration of a tie as a possibility for example, you can reconstruct the former "axiom"...
* They won or they lost.
... to a variety of latter’s axioms ...
* They won or they did not win.
* They lost or they did not lose.
One could easily posit many more examples.
It still would seem the method you've provided only conclusive when the statement is structured to that end or when absolute knowledge of the framework is ascertained prior to the giving of said statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2008 8:46 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 218 of 297 (487080)
10-27-2008 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Dawn Bertot
10-27-2008 11:45 AM


Re: Simple yes or no question for Bertot
Here is a simple question for yourself. Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that I have done this over and over and you and others simply disagree that they are axioms or give them another name. The latest is Rrhains attempts to classify them as Tautologies.
Rrhains "attempt" was not just an attempt. They are, by all consensus definitions shown, tautologies.
However, we can work within a new set of definitions if you want. You'll just have to define "axiom". It appears you do have some definition in mind and it happens to be exactly what the dictionaries define as "tautology". If it is different you'll have to supply a quality definition of what you mean by "axiom" so we can proceed with that.
If you wish to speak with people you have to be sure you are speaking the same language. It appears you choose not to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-27-2008 11:45 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 219 of 297 (487090)
10-27-2008 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Dawn Bertot
10-27-2008 9:40 AM


Re: Still No Axioms?
Bertot writes:
Now perhaps you colud provide some illustrations that have to do with ACTUAL physical properties instead of theorecticl speculation.
You periodically ask this question, and the answer hasn't changed. It is your position that axioms of nature exist, and so you've been asked to provide examples. But instead of providing examples of such axioms you instead ask us for them, seemingly forgetting that it is our position that no such axioms of nature exist.
Axioms are the realm of mathematics and logic, not science.
If it helps, one principle that might be considered an axiom of nature is that the physical laws of nature are the same everywhere and everywhen throughout the universe. It could be considered an axiom of nature in many scientific fields because it is a "proposition that is not proved or demonstrated" (Wikipedia) but that is necessary for making sense of things. However, even this is not axiomatic across all science because some scientists consider it possible that the laws of our universe might have been different in the past.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-27-2008 9:40 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Agobot, posted 10-27-2008 5:14 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 241 by Rrhain, posted 10-29-2008 4:03 AM Percy has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 220 of 297 (487101)
10-27-2008 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Percy
10-27-2008 4:24 PM


Re: Still No Axioms?
Percy writes:
It is your position that axioms of nature exist, and so you've been asked to provide examples. But instead of providing examples of such axioms you instead ask us for them, seemingly forgetting that it is our position that no such axioms of nature exist.
And you are all wrong. Axioms exist in nature, it's just that creationists don't put up a good fight. At all.
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.
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein
"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 10-27-2008 4:24 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by NosyNed, posted 10-27-2008 5:47 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 223 by Blue Jay, posted 10-27-2008 6:04 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 242 by Rrhain, posted 10-29-2008 4:25 AM Agobot has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 221 of 297 (487107)
10-27-2008 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Agobot
10-27-2008 5:14 PM


An axiom example
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.
But you seem to misunderstand, still, what an axiom is. It isn't an axiom if it is proven true (or not proven false).
An axiom is just taken as being true for particular purposes. Percy gave an excellent one above. It may not even be true but it is a useful starting point and is often just taken as true.
And besides:
What date and time to I write on the tombstone of one of my wee pet bacteria?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Agobot, posted 10-27-2008 5:14 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Agobot, posted 10-27-2008 6:01 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 228 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-28-2008 9:01 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 222 of 297 (487109)
10-27-2008 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by NosyNed
10-27-2008 5:47 PM


Re: An axiom example
NosyNed writes:
But you seem to misunderstand, still, what an axiom is. It isn't an axiom if it is proven true (or not proven false).
I thought an axiom was a self-evident truth.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein
"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by NosyNed, posted 10-27-2008 5:47 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Blue Jay, posted 10-27-2008 6:07 PM Agobot has replied
 Message 235 by Straggler, posted 10-28-2008 2:42 PM Agobot has not replied
 Message 239 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2008 7:50 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 223 of 297 (487110)
10-27-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Agobot
10-27-2008 5:14 PM


Re: Still No Axioms?
Hi, Agobot.
Agobot writes:
And you are all wrong. Axioms exist in nature, it's just that creationists don't put up a good fight. At all.
The argument hasn't been that there aren't axioms in nature: the argument has been that we don't have a way of knowing them with absolute certainty, so there is no practical difference between theories and Bertot's axioms in terms of solving real-world problems.
Agobot writes:
Here is one axiom of nature:
LIFE ENDS IN DEATH
And this is circular reasoning: "Life ends" and "death" are the same thing. Whenever you define something as itself, of course you're going to be right all the time.
If you had said it more accurately---"Life cannot sustain itself indefinitely"---you would only be arguing the laws of thermodynamics. The LoT are not axiomatic, but actually derived from other maths (which maths I cannot, personally, spew forth for you at this time).

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Agobot, posted 10-27-2008 5:14 PM Agobot has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 224 of 297 (487111)
10-27-2008 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Agobot
10-27-2008 6:01 PM


Re: An axiom example
Hi, Agobot.
Agobot writes:
I thought an axiom was a self-evident truth.
In common parlance, this is the definition.
But, the phrase "self-evident" stands as antithesis to "proven," so, things that are proven are not self-evident.
{AbE: So, an axiom is something that you know to be true without having to prove it.}
Edited by Bluejay, : Addition.

-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Agobot, posted 10-27-2008 6:01 PM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Agobot, posted 10-27-2008 6:19 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Agobot
Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 225 of 297 (487114)
10-27-2008 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by Blue Jay
10-27-2008 6:07 PM


Re: An axiom example
Bluejay writes:
But, the phrase "self-evident" stands as antithesis to "proven," so, things that are proven are not self-evident.
{AbE: So, an axiom is something that you know to be true without having to prove it.}
Hi Bluejay,
I never felt the need to prove that life always ends in death, I took as an axiomatic truth. I can't imagine anyone trying to do a research or a probe whether life always ends in death. But i don't want to take part in this silly debate, i still don't see the point of this thread, so this will be my last post in it.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind" - A.Einstein
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion" - Albert Einstein
"Matter is nothing but the harmonies created by this vibrating string..The laws of physics can be compared to the laws of harmony allowed on the string. The universe itself, composed of countless vibrating strings, would then be comparable to a symphony." - Michio Kaku

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Blue Jay, posted 10-27-2008 6:07 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024