The "Axioms" Of Nature

Hello bertot,
There are varied reasons why this may have occurred. You would have to eliminate each to reach the most likely reason. Supposedly Spook does this with logic only. However without first eliminating all alternatives to arrive at the original scenario, it all boils down to his best guess. Here is a list of possibilities just from the top of my head.Aliens unwilling to answer
Aliens unable to answer
Enterprise unable to receive
Enterprise unwilling to receive
Response unable to be interpreted
Response unnoticed by Enterprise
Original communication not received
Original communication not sent
Response sent and received but Q erased all knowledge of the event
It was just the way the script was worded in order to add suspense to the show
All the tribbels on the deflector dish garbled the communicationI could continue, however it seems to be very irrelevant to your point. What does any of this have to do with an axiom of nature? Which axiom are you addressing specifically? How do you know that it is in fact an axiom? Most importantly how do you know that you deductive logic is not faulty and therefore producing a faulty result? First we get the money, than we get the kahkis, then we get the chics.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ

the Spock is example is weak. Bertot, you are tying yourself in knots trying to defend your hypothesis. If anything, this shows the danger in trying to hang on to axiomatic truths in the face of contrary evidence.I don't believe axioms exist in nature in the way you define them. Can you give a real example of one? Personally I don't think we can even assume that the rules of logic necessarily apply to the universe, without evidence.Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.Edited by Richard Townsend, : fixes to grammar.

The whole point of Bertot's methodology is to make hypotheses and the associated testing unnecessary when rendering conclusions reliable.Instead of the practical and valid form of investigation in the real world, namely:(incomplete evidence)+(potentially valid logic)=(unreliable conclusion)=(hypothesis)Bertot instead asserts that:(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)Thus, according to him, we need not necessarily undertake any empirical testing of hypothees as we can make reliable conclusions about nature and reality using axioms and reason alone.In the absence of these axioms the methodology obviously fails.Should Bertot ever actually provide any of these "axioms" I am confident that I will be able to demonstrate these "axioms" to themselves be borne of the subjective interpretation of incomplete empirical evidence.Of course if he is unable to even cite what these axioms actually are even this will be unnecessary to discredit his position.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am not sure that we have enough evidence to make that conclusion. Lets put it to the test.Hypothesis: Bertot's position has yet to reach it's peak of potential ridiculousness.Prediction: Bertot's posts within this thread will display increased levels of demonstrably subjective reasoning, greater numbers of assertions will be made on the basis that "it is obvious" or "it is self evident" and Bertot's position will become even more untenable and even more ridciulous than any of us have yet witnessed. Resorting to biblical quotes and references to scripture are a distinct possibility in the face of obvious humiliation.Or he might just stop replying.........Either way I hope you will agree that reality, and not the subjective application of poor logic to incomplete evidence, will be the judge

Hello all, perhaps everyone is missing his/her point. The context of the statement is what framed the choices. Unfortunatley it is chock full of holes and is fodder for EvC. The term respond is the problem. I do not want to dredge up another 40 messages of Spock probabilities. But I see where the OP was going with this. Regardless of how one twist, finaggles and turns the scenerio. The choices I believe, the OP put forth are: "unable" or "unwilling" Something is either unable to do something or unwilling to do it. Thems the choices. Are there other choices? Yeah, they did repond but it was not understood. Then, that falls into the unable camp. etc.....Now how this corresponds to how Axiom's simplistically describes a accurate description of reality is that maybe the term "close enough for government work." is good enough for some people. If you drop a anvil on your foot, you do not know for a fact that it will break your bones. But the inference you can make is pretty reliable that it will from the axiom: "Big heavy forged iron anvils dropped on soft feet breaks bones in this frame of reference." It either will break your foot or you missed. The truth of the matter is the empiricist have pretty much deflated the gleaning of knowlege of reality based soley on cause and effect. But so what, your still going to need a cast if you drop that anvil on your foot.So a axiom of nature could be that "nature will always follow the laws of Chemistry and physics in how reality is manifested in concious perception." Maybe?

So how does the fact that a clock ticks faster at the top of a mountain than an identical clock does at the bottom of that mountain "manifest in conscious perception"? For example? How do we know what the laws of chemistry and physics actually are? Common sense? Logic? Empirical testing of hypotheses?This thread is about the methodology of making reliable conclusions.If you think that:(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions) then perhaps you can give us an example of this methodology in action?So far Bertot has failed to achieve this so by all means feel free to try.Note that no empirical testing is involved in Bertot's methodology. Just "axioms" and logic. If the axioms themselves are empirically derived then Bertot's whole case falls irretrievably apart. As per Message 295And thus you have agreed upon the necessity of empirically testing conclusions.In case you are unaware Bertot's whole position relies on the premise that no such testing is necessary. Either to form axioms or to test conclusions.I suggest you read the full thread (and the relevant portions of the thread that this conversation originated in) before commenting further.Your empirically tested concept of "close enough" to "axioms" to all practical intents and purposes is quite sensible in all but the use of the term "axiom". In reality if such an "axiom" is found to be untrue it is modified or abandoned. Thus it is not an axiom, but a conclusion subject to possible change. A tentative conclusion of the sort science makes all the time.This is very different to the "axioms" Bertot is defending.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

Scotty (interjecting), 'Ah, Skipper, no offence to Mr. Spock, but don`t you think it`s about time you let me fix that friggin` transmitting antenna.'

As we seem to have a lack of examples of these axioms of nature , and given that this thread is about them , and we have a number of post’ers who seem to be able to use deductive logic , is it thought possible to reverse engineer to reach an axiom?i.e. starting from a reliable conclusion , use logic to work back to the necessary axiom .If this is possible , can we firstly agree on a number of reliable conclusions?anyone ..

Hi Bertot,I know everyone wants to stop talking about your Star Trek example, but there are tons of other possibilities. I haven't seen or don't recall the episode so these might not fit perfectly, but you'll get the general idea:

1. There's no other ship, it's an illusion.
   ​
2. There is no other ship, it's just playback from the ship's computer.
   ​
3. The whole segment is a dream sequence.
   ​
4. The Enterprise's receivers are malfunctioning.
   ​
5. The other ship is communicating just fine, Uhura is lying about receiving no signal.
   ​
6. The other ship is communicating just fine. Though Uhura says there is no signal on any frequency, she has made a mistake and failed to check some frequencies.

The point is that our understanding of reality is never axiomatic but always provisional. Independent of whether you're right or wrong about there being an absolutely unambiguous underlying reality, it's a reality we can never know with anything approaching certainty. No human statement of that reality can escape the provisional nature of our understanding. No matter how long Spock makes his list of possibilities, it is doomed to be forever incomplete.--Percy

Two thoughts:1. Would this statement itself be an example of the long sought axioms of nature? If it is, hurray! If it isn't, then the statement itself is provisional, which would mean that some of our understanding of reality could be, in principle, based on axioms. Self-reference is a fiendish concept, don't you think?2. To invalidate this statement, Bertot, you only have to come up with one counter example (preferably not from Star Trek I might add).Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Goodmorning Parasomnium, Whether or not Bertot provides a counter example, I believe Stragglers point that axioms of nature are useless without testing, is the most valid to the point. The uinderlying nature of the universe does not really allow for very reliable conclusions to be drawn with deductive logic alone. Since most of the mechanics of physics and chemistry do not fall in line with what would normaly be considered logical. (points to Stragglers clock example) This is a perfect example of the nature of the universe that would not be logicaly deduced without empirical testing. For some folks, even after they have been shown how certain aspects of nature are conterintuitive to their reasoning, they can not rap their heads around the logic of it.

Hello Rueh,Since humans deal with nature on a human scale, and have developed logic in accordance with that, it stands to reason that basic human logic is inadequate to deal with aspects of nature on very different scales, like relativistic speeds and quantum phenomena. Furthermore, a lot of people mistake common sense for logic. It used to be common sense to opine that the sun revolves around the earth, because, after all, anyone who was not blind could see it happen before their very own eyes. Then Copernicus and Galileo showed us that common sense cannot always be trusted. Like Rrhain put it so eloquently in one of the first responses to this thread: by now we should have learned something about the tentativeness of what we think we know.So I agree with you, there are no axioms of nature. We cannot, a priori, know the basics of nature without looking at it. The only thing I can think of that would even remotely approximate an axiom of nature is "something exists", which, as axioms go, seems to be a bit of a pointless thing to say.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I think that you need to consider the difference between common sense reasoning and pure deductive logic. Pure deductive logic, done properly is absolutely reliable and that is what Bertot claims to be using although this seems to be more to do with his Star Trek fetish than any understanding of the subject. (In fact his argument is just a commonplace apologetic of no worth).You are absolutely right to point out that common sense reasoning will not work. You would be right to say that any use of deductive logic in realms outside of normal human experience must be done even more carefully than usual to avoid errors creeping in from unstated and "obvious" assumptions which don't apply.If nature is to be considered an axiomatic system, the expression of it would be the physicist's "Theory of Everything" - which has yet to be worked out. Science works through empiricism, working back from observations to build theories, which are considered to be tentative and fallible. Because that is what works. The Rationalist approach of trying to start with axioms and work forward does not, because there is no reliable way of getting the axioms in the first place.

Cavediver writes:I believe I left off here. I cant believe anyone is so so silly as not know we are actually speaking about the only two possibile alternatives to the existence of things. An eternal God or the eternality of matter itself. You cannot think or contrive another possibility that does not fall within the two, or is a combination of the two. Have you been on this palnet for the lastmonth?
PaulkK writes: UNABLE and UNWILLING. Wrong as I have numerous times demonstrated.Par writes What is amusing is you attempt to change the whole scenerio to fit in an answer. You cant change reality to ingnore the obvious. Even if they didnt exist, Spocks statement would be valid. They are UNABLE because they are not there. Nice try though. Try to understand this simple point. UNABLE AND UNWILLING do not describe hypothetical knothead, they are actual things, hence the expression ABLE and WILLING. These are the only two categories in reality that will allow you to do or not do a thing. Everything will fall within the two,its axiomatic and reality.Changing the scenerio would be like changing the whole context of reality. again, even if they were not there it would not change the validity of his statement. Unable and unwilling apply to both parties and reality, not just one side.Subbie writes: This demonstrates my point exacally, you euate attempts with actual answers. No doubt you actually believe there is a way for a dead person to ACTUALLY talk. The first axiom hasnt and cant be unsettled, let alone this one. Wow.
Onifre writes: Sorry my comic relief friend, reality is not NOT unsupporting data. You can avoid all of this rehtoric by simply giving me another alternative besides the two,or one that will not fall within the two. Another possibility, less jabbering. And if I worshipped someone it would ofcurse be 7 of 9, even if she could kick my butt.Huntard writes:UNABLE. Getting tired yet. You ignore the axiom right in front of you and your ability to show it as not one, then ask me to provide one. OK heres another one. Bluejay stated that a chemical has the possibiltiy of two choices, to react or not react, this is correct. Please provide me with another possibility. If it does it did, if it doesnt it didnt, what or are the other choices in that context,now remember dont change the scenerio and reality. You really dont pay attention do you. OUr abilites have nothing to do with the REALITY that they were unable to GET the message through, FOR WHATEVER REASON. Pay very close attention and you will see that I did.reuh writes .
UNable and unwilling apply to both parties as they would in reality. In this one they were unable to recieve the transmission. Your changing the situation, like one would try and change reality to fit in an answer. it would be like saying Gravity does not exist because we are not really here, it wont work. If by "continue" you mean that you can actually provide another solution, then by all means continue. Further, I know my logic is not faulty because reality is what it is and it will not let you do otherwise.the Spock is example is weak.RT writes: Actually, just the opposite is true, it is yourselves that are tying yourselves up, looking for a solution to the problem. You would spend your time better providing a solution than saying you dont believe they exist. Then you ask me to give you an example of something I am describing. I am in the affirmative and have provided it, you need to give an example of why it is not, you could not if you wanted.
Further, logic and deductive reason apply to EVRYTHING. Try and find something that it does not apply to after you wake and start your morning. Man I cant believe this is so hard to understand. Heres the iorny, if you applied deductive reasoning, maybe you would understand.
Strag writes:This is a total misrepresentation of my overall position. Most if not all forms of investigation are valid. Axioms and deductive reasoning are simply two valid methods. You are purposely misrepresenting me to draw attention away from the real issue. YYou have not even scratched the surface in removing the validy of axioms. They are a part of realitym and cannot be unsettled. I either exist or I dont, reality would suggest that I do. What are the other choices besides these two?
Axioms are a valid and practical method of investigation. Actually they will dictate the course of all subsquent investigations. If not for fear of getting in trouble from admin, I would say this is just dishonest, so I wont say it. Im still waiting for an answer to the first axiom. My prediction is that we could wait another 900 post and way beyond and you will still be floundering. You rehetoric above is what you are best at though. Ill demonstrate my point again, give it another try or simply reproduce the last knuclehead attempt by saying we simply dont understand them. You saw how easily this one was dismissed with by the word UNABLE.803 writes We are not talking about nature only but reality. Reality will only let you make certain deductions no matter what the physical characteristics are, as in the example of the UNABLE AND UNWILLING Axiom, there are no other terms that will not be apart of these two, as there are no other possibilites than the two for the existence of things, reality will not allow it.stag writesWhen you dismiss deductive reasoing as an invalid method of emperical testing you will have a point, thus your contention is nonsesnse.
Night train writes:While humerous this makes a very good point. Spock and Scotty have valid methods of arriving at conclusions and solving problems. Thanks Nighttrain.Percival writes:You simply dont understand do you? All of these examples will fall in one of the two categories or they change the reality of the situation. Axioms have context in reality, you cnat change the fact that gravity is real to say that it is not, then have your argument work. Even though we dont understand ll things it should be simple enough to demonstrate that some axioms are applicable no matter what else we dont know, as per the example I have provided. People are scrambling to find a solution adn they cant.Ive got to stop here, some appointments this mornig. Stragglers estimation that I will simply give up or that I will resort to scripture are both false and unnecessary. However, I might point out that reality is also Gods Word.D Bertot

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.