The "Axioms" Of Nature

I hope I don't get drawn into this discussion again, but with only 30 messages to go I guess I'm not risking much. Anyway, I know it's up to Bertot to provide an example of the type of axiom he means, but "things exist" seems like a poor choice because it will inevitably get tangled up with philosophical considerations like, "Is reality real or an illusion?"It might work better to first stipulate (by agreement for the sake of discussion, not because everyone would agree it is self-evident) that reality is real, and then request an example of an axiom of reality that doesn't directly bear on the nature of reality itself. Something analogous to a simple Euclidean geometry axiom like, "Parallel lines never intersect."Bertot will apparently never agree to use the same definition of axiom as the rest of the world, but he's an army of one, so who cares. I remember the first discussion with Bertot about axioms. He was claiming his declarations were axioms of reality, making them correct without being subject to test or validation, despite that no one agreed with him and despite that they were self-evident to no one but him. He apparently can't be persuaded that he can't just invent his own axioms.--Percy

Rueh writes:In a previous post you stated that it is more forthcoming to say that things may or may not eixst. So Ill address both that and this here. May or may not is SIMPLY another way of saying they either do or do not. Since "something" atleast appears to exist from our perspective as you put it WHAT MIGHT IT BE. Also, regardless of what it is, would it constitute something or nothing.? My simple friend there is no problem to overcome. When you start with the conclusion as Straggler and yourself have that incomplete evidence exists that things exists it demonstrates that that or those person have intentions of being objective. Even if it is a dream or simulation something exists. You cannot start witha false premise and assume it is correct for argument sake. Question what is it that "appears" to exist?
Having incomplete knowledge about the NATURE of things is not the same as saying things dont exist. You are mencing words to find an answer. The examples you use above are just this. They didnt deny the earth existed, they only percieved it as flat. Now since your implication is that we might discover that things really might not exist at some point, how would you begin to go about demonstrating they dont exist, since it is obvious they clearly do. The ASSERTION that they may not is simply your imaginaion working on over time. It is not rational, reasonable, demonstratble, not evidential, not practical. Asserting that they may not is like saying, I see my car in fornt of me but I am having trouble locating it.
Your position is one of extreme imagination and nothing else. If it is not simply contemplation and imagination, then give me some facts to demonstrate that things that clearly do not exist actually do not exist.How? Exactly. Please do not ignore this question as you have done so many others. Straggler all you have to do to circumvent that reality is not actual and ONLY tenative, is simply provide evidence to the contrary. Since something clearly, obviously exists, regardless of what it actually is or is not, my positon is established. Demonstrate that SOMETHING is actually NOTHING, even if you believe it came form nothing, then demonstrate that relality is only tenative. How in the world will you get started with this overwhelming task?
Remember that the reality of things must be demonstrated to be only tenative with a process other than IMAGINATION and ASSERTION. My prediction is that you cant even get started other than to complain that there is a lack of evidence, which is both silly and nonsense. My position is is establishded by the reality or even appearent existence of things. Since things even appear to exist, WHAT MIGHT THEY BE? Perhaps you could answer that simple query? HAVE FUN.Wrailey bites* Reality is real. All you have to do OTHER THAN ASSERTION is simply demonstrate from any practical or evidental standpoint that it is not. Why do you work so hard with imagination and disregard your responsibility with actual evidence to the contrary. Do you think people cant notice the difference between imagening reality away versus simply demonstrating it otherwise. Ah I think I know why you dont, its because you cant. Imgining numbers to infinity or at all, does not make them a real thing. Imagining that things DONT or MAY not exist is not the same as ACTUALLY demonstrating they dont. Hop to IT. If you mean by using your over active imagination then yes. But then you could lap anyone in your imagination correct? You make reality anything you choose my friend and we will ofcourse all support you on your way to the shrink. Now why do you think this might be my simple friend. Because the only way you can dismiss the reality of the existence of things is to imagine this reality away, even if we dont understand it complete nature, it has nothing to do with the reality of its existence. "Many realites are impenetrable"? Ya think? Yet you think you can accomplish this task with your over active imagination. Hey Pal, mumbers are not real and neither are your assertions and imaginations to the contrary. Having taken place in a contest, then suddenly stopped for someother reason, does not consistute having finished the game, therefore by anyones rules appearently but yours, they did not play to finish the contest or declare a winner. Wow. Now that has to be the mother of all ironic statements, you accusing me of not being able to GRASP reality, now that rich beyond belief. Hey Reuh if you car is right in front of you and you can see it, is it there and are you having trouble locating it, even if you dont know what it properties are or are not?
I cant grasp reality, now that funny.Rrhain writes: What dont you understand about the word YES?. For the fourth or fifth time now YEEEEES. It would be more advantagous for you to argue the point instead of repeating it. Oh I see your the only one that realizes you cant produce a practical example other than imagination to demonstrate that reality does not exist. OK I will accept your answer then. If you can then simply provide it, remember though numbers and imagination are not examples or evidence.Percy writes:I didnt invent reality. Perhaps you would like to make another attempt like the bacteria one. We see how easily that fell to the ground. Since you fellas are being clearly evasive, here is a simple question for you Is reality and the existence of things closer to something or nothing? If its nothing or you are not sure what it is then all you have to do is simply demonstrate it other wise. This should be fun to watch.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

No you did not invent reality.Which is why you can no more know the truths of reality than anyone else.
Which is why you can no more decide what should be considered axiomatic than anyone else.
Which is why you have abjectly failed to state these "axioms of reality" upon which your whole absurd position rests.
Which is ultimately why, despite your bluster, you lost this debate a long time ago.Although this may be hard for your evidently engorged ego to accept: When we deny your "axioms of reality" we are not denying reality itself. Despite your ongoing assertion that the two are one and the same your "axioms" and reality are not synonomous. You are no more privy to what is certain and what is true in nature than anyone else.Nobody is disputing that reality exists. But what do any of us, including you, know of reality but that which out limited perception of incomplete evidence allows?The problem that you repeatedly avoid is the problem of incomplete evidence. The problem that was first pointed out to you way back when this discussion first began. Simply labelling your assertions "axioms" does nothing to overcome this inherent limitation of empirical investigation.Unless your evidence is complete and unless you can know that your evidence is complete all of those things that you think are "axioms" can be potentially overturned by new evidence.(incomplete empirical evidence)+(deductive logic)=(unreliable conclusions)THERE IS NO TRUTH WE CAN OBJECTIVELY KNOW WITH 100% ABSOLUTE GUARANTEED CERTAINTY SUCH THAT IT CAN BE LABELLED AS AN AXIOM OF NATUREWhatever you think is true and axiomatic is only ever one discovery away from relegation to mere "approximation".That is why you continue to fail to state any such axioms.
That is why you continue to divert the argument by accusing those that deny your "axioms" as denying reality itself.
That is why your your argument is refuted and your position untenable.

Hi Bertot,I disengaged from discussion with you because of the difficulty of engaging you in a constructive dialog. I know you're convinced that your arguments are overcoming all objections, after all you declare yourself victorious in every other paragraph and seem to believe that just declaring it makes it so, and I don't think much progress can be made in the discussion while you're in this state.--Percy

Percy responds to me:

quote:

---

Anyway, I know it's up to Bertot to provide an example of the type of axiom he means, but "things exist" seems like a poor choice because it will inevitably get tangled up with philosophical considerations like, "Is reality real or an illusion?"

---

But that's entirely the point!Ignoring the fact that I need him to say it so that we can agree that we are talking about something that he is claiming to be an axiom, that very thing that might be the axiom he's talking about, "Things exist," is under serious doubt. How can it be an axiom if there is no certainty in it?

quote:

---

It might work better to first stipulate (by agreement for the sake of discussion, not because everyone would agree it is self-evident) that reality is real

---

Um, you do realize that whatever it is you are stipulating is the axiom, yes? That's the point behind an axiom: It's what you stipulate as true without question.But the existence of the world around us can and is questioned. So if it cannot be stipulated, how can it be an axiom?That's the entire basis for this discussion: Can we know what the axioms are in the world or is the best we can hope for that we have a set of things that we treat as axioms but which are only tentatively held until the newest observation comes along to show us wrong?Bertot seems to be claiming that we do know what the axioms are. Thus, we need to know what they are. If he wants to choose "Things exist" as an axiom of the world, then that's the one we'll be discussing. And he needs to come out directly and state it so that we can know what it is we're talking about and not have someone back out to say he didn't mean that to be an axiom.

quote:

---

He apparently can't be persuaded that he can't just invent his own axioms.

---

If any discussion of this topic with him is doomed to failure, why is it allowed to take place?

---

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:

---

What dont you understand about the word YES?

---

The part where you actually say it directly. You never actually said it. Instead, you tossed off statements like: Now, is that "Yeeees" supposed to mean that you are agreeing to me or is that "Yeeees" supposed to be a continuation of your joke? Are you sneering at me that I don't get that you are agreeing to my inferral or are you sneering at me that I don't get that you are disagreeing to my inferral?This is why you need to be direct. I cannot read your mind and your sense of humor is opaque to me.The problem is that "Things exist" is not an axiom. It is perfectly consistent that everything about the world we see is a simulation and thus, things don't exist. This is the entire point behind what is called "Cartesian Doubt." Now, Descartes does away with his own doubt by eventually concluding, "I think, therefore I am," but notice that this is a conclusion.But if it is a conclusion, that means it cannot be an axiom. Axioms cannot be derived. If they could be, then they aren't axioms.So if "Things exist" isn't an axiom, what is? Can you give us another 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.

I only offered the suggestion because it seems as if the tack you're taking is lost on Bertot. You can keep doing the same thing, but it would be surprising if something different happened in the time remaining with this thread almost over. You're correct that this is my opinion, but I come to it only very recently, plus I understand that it is just my opinion. Obviously others feel differently, else they wouldn't be continuing the dialog, plus there's something about Bertot's style that apparently makes ignoring him difficult for some, maybe it's the put-downs and self-congratulations. But he's staying pretty much within the Forum Guidelines, so no moderator action is called for. I say carry on, but we are nearing the end, so after maybe another 20 messages people might want to begin their summations.One thing this thread has shown moderators is that Bertot shouldn't be permitted to use arguments based upon axioms in any threads not dedicated to that subject, at least until he shows he can find some common ground with everyone else.--Percy

Straggler writes:What part of the reality of existence is not described in an axiom? What part of the definition of axiom is NOT described by reality itself. If you contend that reality exists, then what part is not desribed by an axiom's definition. We KNOW that it exists and if no one is disputing THIS, then it would follow that it is axiomatic as anything could possibly be. Now unless you are willing to back track on your above statement it is irrelevant what we know about it, to KNOW that it atleast exists, correct? Hence a self evident truth. Thanks for atleast this admission. Your showing some progress. We now have you on record stating that both yourself and all others do not deny the REALITY of existence. How would one overturn this clear and obvious complete evidence? As I have stated before, not even imagination can produce a solution to the reality of the existence of things, other than to say it may not exists, which is clearly false. Physical evidence would be required to overturn the reality of existence and no such nonsensical evidence exist, even in the imagination, thus it is free of any contrary conclusions or contradictions. Wrong, reality is that sort objectivity. Sorry if this upsets your apple cart. This has been your assertion since we have started, yet you cannot produce any solutions to the contrary even by application, imagination or contemplation. Percys comments notwithstanding, these are not delarations of victory by myself, they are just reality. Ill leave the delarations of victory and defeat to you, since you mention it and state it in every single post of yours and Percy seems to pay little or no attention to that, in you, but only accuses me of such.Demonstrating that something that clearly does exists is NOT one discovery away from being discovered as not existing , nor will it ever. Again, this is not a declaration of victory but realityRrhain writesEvidently not, as indicated by Straggler. Perhaps you are one of the ones that does not agree with him and does deny the existence of reality. Maybe you should debate with him also. Rrhain, you do realize that any fact, truth, axiom or even reality itself can be questioned correct? Yet this is not the same as presenting intelligent rational and evidential support to its demise, right? Besides repeating your questions to me about what my axioms might be, you seem also to confuse doubt and speculation with evidence to the contrary. Because yours is not the only perspective in the world Rrhain. Failure according to who? I was talking to myself yesterday and I said your doing just fine Bertot, hang in there. Good job Bertot, keep up he good work. Also, when commrades like ICANT get thrown out I have to pick up the pace for Bertot. Bertot has been involved in this game for several years now and has some pretty good insights. Ill be right back he's calling me and asking me a question. Be right back.Im sorry Bertot what did you say? Well not right now Im talking with the quaint little fellas on the discussion board Ok.? Im not sure what "agreeing to me" means and I am not sure I know what you meant by the whole paragraph. But let me assure I have a darn good sense of humor, just ask Onifre he will tell you. If you cant see me now understand I am using dactology at this moment and saying YEEEEEEES, I believe that the statement "Things exists" is an axiom, in all of its parts shapes and forms Any conclusion can be a part of an imagination process as this fellas ideas and conclusions are. Anyone can be in opposition to a reality, they simply need to present it form a evidential standpoint not simply disagreement or imagination and that is all you are presenting. Wheres the beef?I have already told you and you paid no attention. I agree with you that his statement. I think therefore I am, is not a valid response to establish the existence of reality, it does not connect itself with physical properties. In this instance you are setting up your own straw man and knockin him down. Simply provide me physical evidence that things dont exist. What say ye thespian. Shut up Bertot, you idiot. Im sorry I thought it would be funny. Well it wasnt alright. Sorry.Percival writes:How dare you talk behind my back, you worthless sack of cr...... Ofcourse I am just idding there dork. Be back with you this evening, got to go change a thermostat on a vehicle, Thats if I can locate the vehicle, even though I know where it is,now thats reality dude.Remember fellas physical evidence not imagination.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

If you contend that these axioms are knowable why will you not tell us what they are? It would save us all a lot of time and effort if you could just state these axioms.............No? I guess that clutch of nobel prizes won't be heading your way after all.To state the axioms of nature we first have to know the indisputable truths of nature with 100% absolute guaranteed certainty. Do you claim to have this knowledge? Unless we have evidence of all reality in all places at all times under all possible conditions any conclusion is potentially open to being overthrown by new evidence.Thus our conclusions are necessarily tentative, we necessarily remain uncertain as to the truths of nature and it is impossible to label any such truths as axioms.Incomplete evidence Bertot. The same problem that has been your downfall from the very beginning of this discussion. Precisely. Physical evidence is your problem.Can you state with 100% absolutely guaranteed certainty a truth of nature that cannot conceivably be contradicted by any possible future physical evidence?

Bertot responds to Straggler:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Nobody is disputing that reality exists. But what do any of us, including you, know of reality but that which out limited perception of incomplete evidence allows?

---

​

We KNOW that it exists

---

No, we don't. The only way we can experience the world is through our senses. When I physically look at you, I am not seeing you. Instead, I am seeing the light that is reflected off you. That's why when there is no light shining on you, I cannot see you. That doesn't mean you aren't there. But as far as my eyes are concerned, you're not because my eyes don't sense you. They sense light.And to be even more pendantic about it, my brain does not sense light. Instead, it processes electrochemical impulses that are originated by light striking my retina. By the time my brain has come to the conclusion that I have "seen" something, the light has long since been absorbed and no longer exists. My "seeing" you is at least two steps removed from you.This is how things like photography and television work: The thing you are looking at isn't really there. Instead, a light image that simulates the thing strikes your retina and your brain reacts as if it were a real thing being seen.Since we know from studies of humans that people can easily see things that aren't there and be absolutely convinced that they are, then there is doubt as to whether or not anything we sense is actually there. It is quite possible that everything that we think exists is nothing more than a hallucination. Extremely elaborate, yes, but just because it is complicated doesn't make it impossible.Bertot then responds to me:

quote:

---

Perhaps you are one of the ones that does not agree with him and does deny the existence of reality.

---

Incorrect. I did not say I denied the existence of reality. I said the existence of reality is in doubt. It might exist. It certainly seems to exist. But we've been fooled before. Pretty much everybody experiences this fooling of our senses every night when we sleep. It all seems so real but is nothing more than the work of your brain playing tricks on your mind. And if your own brain can fool itself, by what right can we truly claim to know that reality exists?

quote:

---

Rrhain, you do realize that any fact, truth, axiom or even reality itself can be questioned correct?

---

There is so much wrong in that single sentence that it is hard to know where to begin. "Fact," "truth," and "axiom" are not related. A "fact" is an observation. "Truth" is a logical property. "Axiom" is a stipulated property that is always true and cannot be derived from anything else.Thus, facts can be questioned since observations are never perfect. Truth can be questioned since it will depend upon the truth values of the other parts of the logical statement. But an axiom cannot be questioned because that's the entire point: It is always true and cannot be derived from anything else. If you could question it, that would mean you could derive it from other statements which defeats the purpose of it being an axiom.Once again, the mathematicians of the 19th Century were certain that the Fifth Postulate wasn't really a postulate but could be derived from the other axioms of Euclidean geometry. But after a great deal of effort, they concluded that no, it cannot be derived but is, in fact, exactly what it was claimed to be: A postulate. In other words, it was an axiom.By changing the axiom, they changed the entire structure of geometry.

quote:

---

Yet this is not the same as presenting intelligent rational and evidential support to its demise, right?

---

Wrong. If you can present evidence to support its demise, then it isn't an axiom. That's the point: There can never be any evidence to deny an axiom because an axiom is always true and cannot be derived from anything.

quote:

---

Because yours is not the only perspective in the world Rrhain.

---

I never said it was. But what was asked of you was to provide us with an axiom of the universe so that we could see where those perspectives diverged.Instead, you have spent nearly 300 posts avoiding the question.

quote:

---

Im not sure what "agreeing to me"

---

That I inferred correctly that you were stating "Things exist" to be an axiom.

quote:

---

But let me assure I have a darn good sense of humor, just ask Onifre he will tell you.

---

I didn't say you didn't have a sense of humor. I said it was opaque to me. You do understand what the word "opaque" means in this context, yes? Since you seem to like dictionary definitions so much: I hasten to point out that since I was the one that introduced the term, I am the one that gets to tell you what I meant by it if you find yourself unable to understand. You will note that in the example sentence, the implication is that there is an explanation to the problem: It just isn't understood. It is "opaque."

quote:

---

If you cant see me now understand I am using dactology at this moment

---

Huh? "Dactology"? The study of fingerprints? Did you mean "dactylology," the use of fingerspelling? If so, please note that this is a text medium and while I do speak ASL, I cannot see your hands from here.

quote:

---

I believe that the statement "Things exists" is an axiom, in all of its parts shapes and forms

---

Thank you.It isn't an axiom for the reasons provided above. We can only experience the world through our senses and they are trivially fooled. There is a non-zero probability that everything which we experience is nothing more than a simulation. Descartes responds to this with some philosphical hand-waving and what is essentially the application of Occam's Razor to the problem (if the simulation is so perfect that we can never distinguish between it and the reality it is simulating, then there is no difference between reality and the simulation and thus, we can treat it as reality with confidence.) But since this means "Things exist" is a conclusion, that means it cannot be an axiom. Axioms cannot be conclusions of logic. They are the foundations upon which you apply logic.So since "Things exist" is not an axiom, since the best we can say is that it certainly seems like an axiom and we treat it like an axiom but all it will take is a fortuitous observation to make us change our minds (we "wake up" from the dream that is the reality we think we know), but it isn't a real axiom.

quote:

---

Anyone can be in opposition to a reality, they simply need to present it form a evidential standpoint not simply disagreement or imagination and that is all you are presenting. Wheres the beef?

---

Because the very act of being able to "be in opposition" means that you aren't dealing with an axiom. Nothing can be in opposition to an axiom. That's the entire point of an axiom: A statement that is always true and cannot be derived from anything. Tautologies are always true, but they are derived statements and thus are not axioms.

quote:

---

I think therefore I am, is not a valid response to establish the existence of reality, it does not connect itself with physical properties.

---

You aren't a physical being? Aren't you one of the things that exist? Wouldn't you be the very first thing you wish you knew existed?

quote:

---

Simply provide me physical evidence that things dont exist.

---

If I were trying to deny the existence of reality, that would be the appropriate thing. But since I'm not trying to deny it but simply to question it, it is not necessary. There is a non-zero probability that everything we experience is nothing more than a sensory simulation. We already know that it is possible to fool ourselves into thinking that things exist which aren't really there.

quote:

---

Remember fellas physical evidence not imagination.

---

If there were physical evidence, it wouldn't be an axiom. Axioms have no evidence. That's the point: They are not derivable.

---

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.

It is to!!! Precisely because we can't prove it or even be sure that it is true we postulate it's truth so we can get on with the study of "reality". It is perhaps the most basic axiom of science.

I think it is possible to differentiate between the possible axioms of scientific investigation and the axioms of reality.The axioms of reality are presumably measured against the external truth of reality. Therefore we must know what is true in order to establish such axioms. That remains Bertot's problem.However those which could be considered the axioms of scientific investigation would be the base unprovable assumptions upon which empirical investigation is founded as valid. These would thus fit the genreally accepted definition of the term axiom. Namely self evident starting points that are assumed to be true.E.g

An objective reality exists.

We as individual subjective conscious beings share this common objective reality.
etc.

​

These are very different from Bertot's axioms of reality however. These are assumptions which we take to be true for reasons of pragmatism but which in themselves claim no philosophical foundation beyond acting as a required starting point..

Let me see if I can make sense out of the last few posts from Rrhain, NosyNed and Straggler.Rrhain says that "things exist" is not an axiom of nature. NosyNed says it most certainly is. And Straggler draws a distinction between the axioms of science and the axioms of reality.Me, I think the problem is that axiom has more than one definition. As Straggler says, "things exist" is an unprovable assumption, and scientists generally accept this as a fundamental axiom, for to allow the possibility that things may only seem to exist would bring scientific progress to a halt. And that is one of the definitions of axiom: an unprovable assumption that is accepted so we can get on with things.But there is another definition of axiom, which is something that is accepted because it is self-evident, and this is why I don't like the "things exist" example of an axiom of reality, because to some people "things exist" will be self-evident, while to other people it is not self-evident but rather an unprovable assumption, a postulate if you will. The "self-evident" criteria actually only works amongst a group of people who have agreed among themselves that it is self-evident. I understand that Rrhain is using this precise difference of opinion to show Bertot why he is wrong, but as I said before, I think the point is lost on him, he shows no sign of grasping it.There's another definition of axiom, something that is universally accepted, but we don't have to worry about that one because there's little chance of any axiom being universally accepted in this thread. Anyway, I think two things are required for this thread to make any progress (probably as a successor thread). First, we have to focus on just one definition of axiom. And second, Bertot has to sincerely want to find some common ground.--Percy

Bertot is not using any standard definition of the term axiom. In fact he treats what he believes to be axiomatic as so indisputably true that he conflates any suggestion that his (unstated) "axioms" may not be true as synonomous with a denial of reality itself.Hence the reason that the discussion has headed down the more philosophical "does anything exist" path that it has.As for the possible definitions:1) Self evident: As you say, self evident to who? Also any conclusions derived from such axioms can only ever be as reliable as the subjective "self evident" starting point.
2) Universally accepted: As well as the fact that there probably are no such universally accepted starting points in this context we again face the problem of how reliable such accepted "truths" actually are.
3) Bertot's definition of axiom seems to be anything and everything that he personally thinks is indisputably true. Therefore there are presumably no limit to the number of asertions that he is willing to label as "axioms".Whatever definition of axiom one uses actually makes little difference in the context of Bertot's stated methodology.(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)Unless the "axioms of reality" term is 100% absolutely guaranteed to be true as compared to reality the whole methodology falls apart.Universal acceptance, subjective notions of being "self evident" and personal declarations of certainty are not sufficient.For Bertot's methodology to actually work the base truths of reality need to be known to the extent that there is absolutely no possibility of any future evidence contradicting these stated "truths".In some ways the term "axiom" and it's definition is just a smokescreen that hides the true flaws in Bertot's position. Namely the inability to derive indisputable empirical truths on the basis of incomplete empirical evidence.Bertot's nonsense apart I think the idea of "axioms of scientific investigation" is an intriguing topic in it's own right.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

NosyNed responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It isn't an axiom for the reasons provided above.

---

​

It is to!!! Precisely because we can't prove it or even be sure that it is true we postulate it's truth so we can get on with the study of "reality". It is perhaps the most basic axiom of science.

---

And what would science do if we found evidence to the contrary? Science wouldn't hiccup but would adjust to the new circumstances. If we found we were living in a real-world equivalent of the Matrix, wouldn't you start working on how to manipulate the code that represents the world? On how to get out? On whether or not the "world" in which we are but a simulation is itself a simulation in a larger world? This question of the nature of reality and whether or not it even exists goes all the way back at least to Plato's parable of the Cave.The point is that we treat it as an axiom. The question of whether or not reality exists is a large part of the philosophy of science and I don't know of any scientist who thinks that reality doesn't exist, but it is a question that must be resolved.And since it is something that is resolved, that means it is not an axiom but is rather a derived conclusion. Derived conclusions cannot be axioms. That's the entire point of being an axiom: There is no way to conclude it. It is the thing from which you derive conclusions.

---

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.