The "Axioms" Of Nature

[qs]Your moronic tactics...{/qsThat is the last one of those, thank you very much.

OK, so "I exist" is one of your axiomatic truths of nature. Suppose we accept it as an axiom for the moment, could you now point out what use it is? In other words, could you use it in an exercise of deductive logic and present us with some reliable conclusions? And could you do the same for the axiomatic truth "things exist"?

---

"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.

Bertot responds to me...well, no. No, he doesn't. He's asked a direct question by me:

quote:

---

"Something exists"? That's your axiom?

---

But, he doesn't follow through with the actual answer. My question was not rhetorical. I need you to say yes or no to it so I can know if that's the axiom you wish to discuss."Something exists"? That's an 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.

Bertot writes:

quote:

---

I exist, things exist. Willing and Able, etc etc etc.

---

Are you actually saying that "I exist" and/or "things exist" are axioms of the universe? I need you make a definitive statement so that I can know if that's where the conversation is going."Willing and Able" is not an axiom. It is a tautology and tautologies are not axioms.Your thesis seems to be that the axioms of the universe can be known. Therefore, it would be helpful if you could produce one. Are you saying that "I exist" and/or "things exist" are axioms 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.

Parasomnium writes:

quote:

---

OK, so "I exist" is one of your axiomatic truths of nature. Suppose we accept it as an axiom for the moment, could you now point out what use it is? In other words, could you use it in an exercise of deductive logic and present us with some reliable conclusions?

---

If "I exist" is an axiom, then it leads us to conclude that the experiences we have are independent of the world around us. It separates us from the world around us and tells us that there is at least one thing in the universe.From the standpoint of the philosophy of knowledge, that is an extremely important thing to know. It's why Déscartes when on about it in his Pensées. But, as Déscartes pointed out, that we exist isn't something that can be taken for granted. It is possible that we are nothing more than a mind "plagued by demons," as he phrased it. He goes through a lot to come up with a way to remove this doubt, coming up with the famous phrase, "I think, therefore I am," but notice that this means "I exist" is not an axiom but rather a derived conclusion.

---

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.

Rrhain writesYou aint the sharpest crayon in the box are you son. Do you need the 'stage lights' at the theater to fall on your head. ha ha Yeeees?D Bertot

You do realize that word usage is not reality correct, the existence of physical properties is reality. Since we will not agree on some word usage, lets say that the definition of axiom best desribes reality, or the reality of existence itself, by its definition. I certainly believe that any definition of tautology or axiom will not affect realities properties or existence, they are what they are. Philosophers or philosophising at reality will not reduce the actuality of reality. Imaginations, simulations, minds plauged by demons (whatever that means) and "I think therefore I am" are all simply, speculative and imaginative nonsense. I agree, even the expression I think therefore I am, falls way short of demonstrating the actuality of reality because it does not decribe what makes reality reality. It does not use physical properties for and to its conclusion. "Things exist" does. Since the existence of reality is independent of each mind, reality established itself in properties.The only way to avoid the reality of existence and things is to "imagine" it otherwise, this ofcourse is neither an argument or reasonable. Certainly anyone can imagine anything to the contrary, demonstrating that point in actuality with the assistance of physical properties would be nonsensical since they clearly exist. Imagining it as a simulation, dream, plauge or whatever else only push the problem backwards. Yet more that that it should be noted that IMAGINATIONS do not constitute reality or the dismantlling of its reality and that what counts, removing its obvious reality. I do not agree that this is not axiomatic given what an axioms definition is. An axiom simply best desribes reality by its definition. A derived conclusion and axiomatic definitions certainly can be be intertwined due to the fact that thier methodologies are closely related, yet seperate.Hence the expression, I think therefore I am is a conclusion based upon ones own perspective. The reality of "things existing" is independent of each individuals concept or imaginations, it does not require the mind for its existence. For this not to be true each individual in existence would be producing thier own perception of reality, or the source would be presenting the concept of the perception of reality, yet there would be a source nonetheless of and for reality itself, even if it is imagined by someone or something else.Again and more importantly IMAGINING something based on no physical evidence or properties is not evidence, therefore not even reasonable and this is what one has to do and its is the only way to discard the REALITY that things do exist. It is therefore not even a consideration.Things exist, that is a reality no matter how any philosopher wishes to twist it up. Put that in your smipe and poke it.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

The only person who has a disagreement on verbage is yourself, and the definition you want to propose only applies to your argument. I think that is no reason to re-write a dictionary just to ensure that it aligns with your argument. Unfortunatly "things exist" is also a conclusion based on ones own perspective. I believe that a statement that "things may exist" is more forthright That is not entirely true. If we did not pocess a mind, we would have no idea that things exist. The other problem is people who have mental disorders. For some it is possible that, things exist in their reality that does not exist in someone elses. In which case this demenstrates that at least the perception of reality is entirely dependant on the individual's mind. But only according to your definition. Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

Rueh writes:You appearently missed my argument. The reality of existence is clearly more appearent than it is not. As I said the only way you could disregard this fact is to imagine it otherwise, which is not the same as removing the obvious existence of things. Imagining numbers to infinity is not the same as demonstrating that they are an actual thing. Things are real, to remove this fact you would have to DEMONSTRATE it otherwise. If you did we and things would not be here and it would not matter. Contemplation and imagination as in your instance does not relate itself to reality or things, it therefore has no application other than imagination.Even ones perspective would need to be removed completley as only imagination before you could even get started demonstrating that things exist is only a perception. There is a source of reality even if it is someones imagination somewhere else. Your task is insurmountable to tsay the least.
D Bertot

The task is easy, all I need to demonstrate is that "things" are only as real as your perception. A thousand years ago the crystal spheres that held up the heavens were "real". Two hundred years ago universal time was "real". A flat earth was "real". These ideas of the universe, much like your own was based on the best data that they had at the time. It was their perception of the universe, as true to them as your tautologies are to you. This I believe is the same argument that others in this thread have raised. At any time, we only have incomplete evidence of the nature of reality. And as Straggler has made abondently clear (incomplete evidence) + (deductive logic) = (unreliable conclusions). Changing definitions of what is and is not an axiom does not overcome this problem.

How? Exactly. Please do not ignore this question as you have done so many others. Given that your perception of reality is both subjective and incomplete can you tell me how you distinguish between that which appears to be true to you and that which actually is objectively true?Apparently you know "REALITY" so please do tell.

So what are your axioms again..........?

The other one he squeezed out is a short version of the same.
About 250 posts later, Bertrot stated this one can go on both lists for now.
Would be nice to have more ...
Until reality overturns them. Thank you for the reply Bertrot. That's one way to perceive reality.
At least we can deduce we are still within the same frequency. Atta boy ...
Are either of the assertions below demonstrated true by reality itself?* Reality is invariable or axioms are variable
* Reality is variable and axioms are invariable.If so, what is your reasoning? I'm just glad you're finally catching on.
No apology necessary Bertrot. Wait a sec - didn't I already lap you? Is this another one of your axioms?There is reality, and what we perceive as reality.
To humanities dismay, they are not always in alignment.Reality suggested our sphere as a disc and reality suggests the disc was always a sphere.Moral: Perception is not invariable and that reality can be sneaky .... Sometimes, but not always ... Feels as if progress is being made. I additionally adhere to an incorporeal existence that I imagine contains axioms as well ...
If this interferes with your reality at any point I will lobby the God for a new word.I doubt you will even notice tho ... many realities are impenetrable. Incorrect - he was not reduced to ashes by the other fighter.Just when I thought you were gettin' it too ... You are free to deny any activities you choose from having taken place prior to a contest that cannot be finished.
This, of course, does not realistically negate any activities from having taken place.It simply evidences the inability to grasp reality.Will this contend as an axiom for your list ...There must be an excited state at an energy of 7.6 million electron volts in the nucleus of carbon-12 since if he, Bertrot, a life form based upon carbon molecules, existed, then the resonance must also exist to create the carbon.

Bertot responds to me:

quote:

---

Do you need the 'stage lights' at the theater to fall on your head. ha ha Yeeees?

---

Yes. Too many people make an off-hand comment that seems to be an actual point but when it gets taken up, they backtrack saying they didn't mean. Therefore, I need you to be specific and direct. For the fourth time:Your thesis seems to be that the axioms of the universe can be known. Therefore, it would be helpful if you could produce one. Are you saying that "I exist" and/or "things exist" are axioms of the universe?Is there a reason why you are refusing to answer this simple question?

---

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:Well, no...no, he doesn't. He tries to play argumentum ad dictionary, having the arrogance to try and tell me that the word I used doesn't mean what I used it to mean, even though his own dictionary entry repeats the exact usage I gave.Let's start over:A tautology is not an axiom."Unwilling or unable" is a tautology. Ergo, it is not an axiom.Can you give us an axiom of the universe? I say we cannot know what they are. Your thesis seems to be that we do. So help us out:Give us an axiom of the universe.Yes, I need you to be specific. I need you to say something along the lines of, "An axiom of the universe is...," and then fill in the blank. I think you're trying to say that "Things exist" is an axiom of the universe, but you haven't been direct. I need you to be direct. Is there a reason why you are refusing to be direct?

---

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.