The "Axioms" Of Nature

Hi Straggler, If you buy two tickets:You are guaranteed to either win or lose.If you buy 100 tickets you are guaranteed to either win or lose.If you buy 1 million tickets you are guaranteed to either win or lose.Is there any other choice if you buy a ticket?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi cavediver, Why does Bertot need anyone to defend him?No one has presented an alternative yet to unable or unwilling or a combinaiton of both with the spock example.No one has even mentioned an alternative to the eternal or created example that gave rise to this thread.You did mention it but I don't remember it being stated as you stated: Not everyone agrees.Do you think telling someone they are wrong is the same as proving they are wrong?Would it not be easier to present an alternative that is not covered by one or both of the parts of the axiom Bertot put forward?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This is contradicting. To know what reality suggests and allows you must understand the nature of reality at the points in which you are trying explain what they suggest and allow. At the point in time which we are talking about, you don't know the nature of reality, ergo you don't know what it will suggest or allow. AND since you cannot test your deductive logic for this particular point in time, you hold NO rational stand point. And who judges the worth of your theory? You? This makes no sense. This is the same argument that could have been made when suggesting the Earth was flat! One could have contemplated that the Earth was either flat and finite or flat and infinite, and held to the stubborn opinion that those where axiomatic truths about reality, which is fucking ridiculous by todays standards, as is your stubborn opinion because we understand the fallacy of your thinking. Because I am not going to make the same arrogant statements that you are making about a point in time in which nothing is currently understood. Axiomatic stand point? ...whatever. Now your just winging it. How many times should I repeat my point?Here, in bold letters!There are currently NO POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS because the nature of reality at the point in time which we are discussing is not understood. Simply stating that because things exist they have to be created by something or be eternal is nonsense. It is not an empirical statement within the context of the origin of the universe.Your claims are NOT POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS, there is nothing to the contrary.Just because there is existance, it does not follow that it either was created or eternal. Just because the Earth looks flat, it does not follow that it is either finite of infinte. Your conclusions about God and eternal matter are as nonsensical as a finite or infinitly flat Earth, both of which can be considered axiomatic truths from a subjective perspective.Your turn,--Oni

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

The problem is that Bertot can't just claim that its an axiom and now we have to provide a contrary example. He must establish why its an axiom other than through HIS deductive logic and reasoning.The point is that there is no alternative, because no axiom is established. We continue to explain this and he continues to ignore this.It would have been considered an axiomatic truth about reality that the Earth is flat, right?You can see that is not an axiom though, right?What alternative would you give at that time, given that the geometry of the Earth at that time was not understood?You would simply state that until more is understood there are no axiomatic truths about the geometry of the Earth that we currently know about so it would be premature to postulate an axiom. Here now we hold to the same conclusion, there are no axiomatic truth about the nature of reality at the point of origin until more is understood, to postulate an axiom is premature. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : spelling

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

The fact that it does not involve a choice is exactly my point! It's completely illogical for me to do so, but who says the aliens from your first example work the same way as humans. In fact, it is most likely they work in a completely different way. They could work this way, and this would leave your "axiom" in shambles. So, I state the aliens work this way, and your "axiom" is defeated, try again please.Oh and about that ignorant comment, I don't really care what you call me, I'll let the others decide for themselves what they think about me. I said: Let me break it down for you:The main sentence here is: "By your logic, I am able to state that ANYONE has a chance of 50% to win the lottery" That is my statement if you will. This part: "because you either do or don't, there's no denying this "reality"." is an explanation of why I made that statement. This: "Try to refute it if you can." Is a challenge to you to refute the statement that "ANYONE has a chance of 50% to win the lottery"If you then reply with: You AGREE that people have a 50% chance to win the lottery. Nothing form this statement points to you NOT agreeing with this. But thanks for calling me a Knothead in the process. We DID demonstrate your position is incorrect. You just keep shouting NUH-UH! And then go about your business as if you're still in the right. And even the fact you say you MIGHT, IF demonstrated to be false does not speak for you. If one is shown he is not correct, it shows him to be a well thinking fellow if he just admits this fact and goes to seek other ways of arguing his case, not screaming "NO WAYZ!" at the top of his lungs. But I'm ignorant, so what do I know.

---

I hunt for the truth

Persuasion is a measure of an argument's underlying rationality and supporting evidence, not vice versa, and by this measure your arguments depart dramatically from both reason and reality, which is what everyone has been explaining to you.I didn't say that you're attention getting. I said that the attention you're getting is due to the initial impression that such simple and obvious mistakes should be easy to correct. But after a while people will realize you're not amenable to reason and evidence, and over time fewer and fewer will bother responding.I originally said this not to take a dig at you, but as a response to your claim that, "People are scrambling to find a solution and they can't." The reality is that you're drawing lots of responses because your posts are chock full of easy-to-rebut illogic and non sequiturs. People making simple errors always draw lots of responses. For a while. If they keep it up it just gets tiresome. Yeah, well, your registration says you joined on March 7th of this year, a little over 7 months ago, not two years. Maybe you've been watching too much Star Trek. Let us know when you're ready to join the rest of us in reality.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

quote:

---

You know that the words UNABLE and UNWILLING cannot only apply to aliens, it would make no logical sense for him to make the statement in the first place, if the words did not have meaning to them as well.

---

Then let's look at the statement again: The use of the third person indicates he is referring to a group in which he does not include himself - unllke the Enterprise crew. The unwillingness and inability referred to are an "unwillingness to respond" or an inability "to respond", and those are only meaningful applied to the aliens. But of course anyone literate in English could work it out for themselves (except, perhaps for fanatical Spock-worshippers who cannot accept the failures of their fictional idol).The mere fact that you reduced to insisting that Spock could not have meant what he said only confirms that my points adequately refuted Spock's actual statement.

Hi Oni, Wrong.There were people over 2000 years ago that believed the earth was round. If someone had said it was an axiomatic truth all they would have had to say is no, it could be round. Somebody else might have chimed in I think it is square. Therefore it could not be axiomatic. Correct, it is not an axiom and I explained why it could never have been considered one. There was an alternative.Now what Bertot has put forward is either an axiom or it is not.If there is an alternative that does not fall under the unable or unwilling it could not be an axiom.All you or anyone has to do to put this issue to rest is provide that alternative.I love puzzles, and trying to solve them but after two days I can not come up with any viable alternative.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

quote:

---

Now what Bertot has put forward is either an axiom or it is not.

​

If there is an alternative that does not fall under the unable or unwilling it could not be an axiom.

​

All you or anyone has to do to put this issue to rest is provide that alternative.

---

It's been done. In this thread and the previous one.What is more, it isn't an axiom and wouldn't be even if it hadn't been shown to exclude valid possibilities.
It's just a conclusion, derived from ordinary common-sense reasoning. (Which is one of the reasons it does exclude valid possibilities)

What axiom would that be, ICANT?Perhaps you haven't quite got the gist of my argument with Bertot? It is that he does not know what an axiom is. Given your comment above, I guess you share his confusion. Really? I could have sworn I presented at least two alternatives in that thread. Perhaps I dreamt it?

Oh for fuck's sake - finding an alternative has NOTHING to do with it being an axiom or not.

Hi Oni, We know it exists today.Since it exists today it has always existed. (eternal)ORIf it has not always existed it had to be brought into existence . (created)ORYou or anyone else may provide an alternative.In the above statement there is no mention or hint of how this may have occured.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Given that time is part of "it", how can "it" be "brought into existence", when this implies a time ordering which we've just said doesn't exist? Otherwise we are forced to conclude that the "bringing into existence" is itself part of existence, and we have a contradiction.

Lose the ticket.
The lottery company goes bankrupt and never completes the draw.
Somebody steals the ticket. It wins but you do not.
The tickets numbers are not printed properly. You are denied the prize although you know your numbers were drawn.
The lottery is all a big con. You "win" but so does everybody else who entered and when you all give your bank details for the prize they clean out your bank account.Frankly the possibilities are endless.What constitutes a "win". What constitutes a "loss"?And without empirical experience of some sort how would you even know what a lottery ticket was?Bertot has said that:(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)There is no room for empirical experience in here unless it is included in the "axioms of reality" part. If it is these can hardly be "axioms" as we cannot possibly claim to have all of the empirical evidence required to know that they are universal truths of reality.ICANT if you have an "axiom of reality" that you can state please do so. Bertot has failed to cite one as yet.100 posts and counting. Still no sign of an actual axiom of reality.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi, Bertot.I have been trying to make another point that you seem incapable of understanding, but you have essentially ignored me so far. Your "axiom" already consists of two alternatives. So, if an "axiom" can consist of two alternatives, what difference would it make if Straggler could add a third alternative? You could just amend your statement to include three possibilities, and declare that the new "axiom."For that matter, given your way of looking at axioms, any axiom of reality could just consist of all the competing hypotheses and wild guesses that might apply, and be perfectly correct, because it would "exhaust all the possiblities," as you are so keen to assert. Yet, strangely, such an "axiom" wouldn't actually explain anything.In fact, it would be extremely difficult (perhaps even impossible) to use such an "axiom" as the basis of deductive logic, because the logic could only be applied to discerning which of the axiom's indefinite number of possible explanations is actually correct. Or, in other words, you'd have to do science exactly how it is already being done, as Straggler has already explained to you.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.