Cavediver writes:
Are you really telling us 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."?
Yes.
Its the same principle and cannot and will not be demonstrated otherwise. If it appears that I am repeating arguments and statements it is due to the fact that I need demonstrate anything else and because it is a debating technique that allows the audience to see that the opposition has not addressed the issues and or questions
This just further demonstrates that you do not know what an axiom is. There are at least three mathematicians qualified in logic here (myself, Rrhain, PaulK) all telling you that you don't know what you are talking about, and everyone else agrees. Not even the other fundementalists here are willing to jump to your defense. As Percy pointed out, time to just ignore your babbling.
ICANT thanks for your information in this response by Cavediver, every little bit helps and I am sure you have been doing this longer than me
Cavediver, it dawned on me the other day that it is barely possible that you types really DONT understand simple principles that logicians, philosophers, theologians and average people have no problem understanding and accept as valid and reality, because you are blinded to the srtict nonsense of the so-called Scientific Method. You do realize there are other ways to establish truth and facts, correct?
I say that kind of facetiously, implying that deductive reasoning is a type of science. It simply is and there is nothing you can do to remove that fact. You can ignore it like you do arguments but it wont make it go away.
I dont mind you ignoring what you consider babbling, I simply want you to provide another solution. Now it appears you and others are starting to ignore even the reality of reality, that being that axioms even exist. This is ofcourse the logical course one is required to follow when they ABANDON reason.
Straggler writes:
You are unable to state a single "axiom of reality". After a thread of 90+ posts
.
As ICANT now corroborates, you are simply ignoring facts, reality and truth. Answer this question. If I am not providing you with axioms, what is it that I am asking you to respond to and give ALTERNATE solutions for besides the two only logical possibilites. What are these examples of?
In case you had forgotten the whole point of this thread was to examine your methodology for making reliable conclusions. Your method has been found to be invalid on the basis that your "axioms" are nothing but extrapolations of incomplete empirical evidence. As you have already admitted:
You are misrepresenting my position again and you know it. None of the above is what I have actually stated.
You've lost Bertot. You are just too stubborn or silly to have realised it yet.
I thought I was going to be debating an actual adult, but I see I was mistaken. You already have Cavediver representing the UK poorly, I would not add to the embarrasment.
ICANT writes:
Is there any other choice if you buy a ticket?
Another example of an axiom I believe, Straggler. And I might add, is there anyother choice even if you dont buy a ticket?
Onifre writes:
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.
Wrong. All that is required to demonstrate the axiom is that it is there. While axioms invole empericism, it is also different in that it does not need explanation, experimentation and counterfactual conclusions. This is demonstrated by the fact that you cannot provide one.
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.
Isnt it interesting that the axiom about the nature of existence and things is much much older that whether the earth is flat or not. As ICANT pointed out, there were people that believed it was not 2 to 3 thoudand years ago. As he stated no one ever assumed this as axiom. There is nothing F-ing ridiculous about a standard or principle that is so simple it shouldnt even be argued, yet you keep avoiding the force of its principle by ignoring an enexcapable conclusion. Wow that is amazing.
How could something both have the property of being and not being at the same time, yet this is exacally what you imply by stating that these are not axioms. The choices reduce your ability to form any conclusion and your only recourse it to ignore it and say its not what it is. If it is there it can only have the property of two choices, to ignore this fact is simply idiotic.
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.
"A point in time" does not help you out of your perdicament, it only complicates your problem. You claim it is nonsense, yet your position is that niether possibility is even actual, which pretty much makes you a complete idiot.
Just because there is existance, it does not follow that it either was created or eternal.
What else is left. Try and even speculate another possibility. You should be able to do this even if you dont have your precious empericism. You have stand in complete amazement when you hear a statement like yours above. You either exist or you do not, are there anyother possibilites? Wow, simply amazing!!
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.
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
Are we having fun here yet or what. Your still missing the point as ICANT pointed out. There are several possibilites as to the shape and structure and size of the earth, even if you dont understand its geometry. This however is not possible with the nature of existence itself. One cannot even postualte another possibilty, regardless of incoming information, it will remain the same.
While physical properties themselves have many possibiltes and results, existence itself will not share these possibilites, it has to have the property of always have been there or brought into existence, the mere fact that you cannot even postulate another should clue you into this fact of reality.
Then within nature itself there are certain properties that do not share numerous possibilites. Ones ability to carry out and act or do something is limited to being able or willing, these are the only choices, which make it axiomatic in nature. If this is not true then one should be able to provide a different word that is not a part of the two,but its not possible. Sometimes in nature its either this or that with no other possibilites, hence axiomatic.
One does not claim REALITY, it is actual and real and right in front of you. You either exist or you do not, correct? Also, I am not looking for a contrary example, simply another alternative, there is a difference. Reality, which you keep ignoring establishes it not me.
Huntard writes:
The fact that it does not involve a choice is exactly my point!
I know, but your point is silly and nonsense. Were you unconscious or asleep, (unable) if not it does involve a choice or reason, even if you were standing there doing nothing. Please provide for me a situation or thing in reality that does not have a reason.
It's completely illogical for me to do so
Being illogical is still a mental process, as Onifre and PaulK are demonstrating, ha ha, but you see my point.
We DID demonstrate your position is incorrect.
This is interesting. How could you demonstrate my position as INCORRECT when you dont believe there is enough information to make a decision on way or another? A bit silly dont you think? Not even being able to postulate another solution only demonstrates that you are making unfounded assertions.. You should be ABLE to provide another solution in either of the examples, correct? Claiming that it is not an axiom wothout providing another solution amounts to assertion.
Huntard writes:
But I'm ignorant, so what do I know.
Careful, this is to easy to demonstrate, that is if you are not asleep or unconscious.
PaulK writes:
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).
LOL and really hard, man thats funny. Ofcourse you are grammatically correct but thats not the point. Who was UNABLE to recieve the message,even if they were willing and able or unwilling or unable. In the sceniero the enterprise was UNABLE to recieve or understand thier ability or inablity. Spocks statement would make no sense if it did not apply to the enterprise as well. Your funny Paul.
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.
I never said that Spock did not mean what he said, quite the contrary,nor did I imply it.
It's just a conclusion, derived from ordinary common-sense reasoning.
In other words an axiom.
Cavediver writes:
Really? I could have sworn I presented at least two alternatives in that thread. Perhaps I dreamt it?
Humor me and repeat them, you might have been asleep with Huntard when he was doing nothing for no reason, eh. At any rate since ICANT has already demonstrated that you are the one that is stuck and not the axiom, I will see what your next statment will be in this context.
Given that time is part of "it", how can "it" be "brought into existence",
In the mean time how is this an alternate solution to the only two logical possibilites?
Stile writes:
I mean, I have an "axiom" too. Bertot's car is either green, or it is not green.
You must have some really good eyes, you were exacally right. Now if you said it was a top of the line lexus, I would really be impressed.
Ikabod writes:
when i grow up i want to be Rrhain ....
Actually that is a very good point, maybe none of you are mature enough to understand simpleprinciples of reality. Teality and its lessons are far from tautologies (needless repetition or an idea). Reality and axioms do not needlessly repeat themselves. Hey guess what they are stable.
Rahain writes:
You're missing the point. It isn't whether or not I can come up with a third possibility (and I actually came up with a third and a fourth). It is whether or not such a thing is an "axiom."
It isn't. It is a tautology, which is something different. A tautology is logically true, not axiomatically true.
Yes Bertot responds to you, did you think you were above it? WhileI cant demonstrate this point, like I can an axiom, I get the feeling youu think you can accomplish this task no one else has been able to.
My friend reality and axioms are not tautologies (needless repetitions of an idea, statement or a word)
In Euclidean geometry, the Fifth Postulate states that if you have two lines crossed by a transversal such that the interior angles on one side of the transversal sum to less than two right angles, then the lines will meet on that side. Mathematicians of the 19th Century were sure that this was actually something that could be derived from the other axioms of Euclidean geometry. But it turns out that no, it can't be. It stands on its own.
Your problem you are facing is that geometry and postulates are not axioms in the truest form of the word. While a postulate is (assumed to be true) an axiom by itself, requires no proof and is free form contradiction. There is a difference. You are dealing with items that are a part of the axiomatic truth and not what makes it an axiom in the first place, reality. Reality will not let there be more than two choices to the nature and cause of existence itself.
The tautology is logically true: The status of parallel lines is one of all the possible outcomes. But, that isn't an axiom because we logically determine the result: A v ~A
True, but a tautology is not an axiom. And what I am describing is not a tautology, you have incorrectly applied my conclusions to a word that is by definition inconsistent with its conclusions, which are free from contradiction
You're missing the point. A tautology is not an axiom. A tautology is true, but it is a derived truth: A v ~A. There is no other way it could be.
Now your getting it. An axiom is not a derived truth. Actually truth is not derived it is just reality, therefore an axiom is not a derived truth, but a reality, with no fear of contradiction, correct
Indeed, but who said that we're dealing with the reality defined by one set of axioms? Remember, I am a Platonist: The things of mathematics are real. Euclidean geometry is real. The axioms of Euclidean geometry define the way flat geometry works. But, those axioms fail to describe the geometry of an elliptical surface and they also fail to describe the geometry of a hyperbolic surface. For those surfaces, and they are just as real as flat ones, you need a different set of axioms.
You dont define reality by a SET of axioms, just an Axiom. Reality is defined by an axiom itself.. You are working within that axiom tyring very hard to apply axiomatic truths at times where they are not actually axioms but postulates. Example if a elliptical surface is real, it has the reality of either being real or not. Now what you can do or expalin about it and hyperbolic surfaces after that point is not an axiom, but as you learn you discover that it is different from this or that, but not different from the axiom of simply existing or not. This very fine rehtoric that could be avoided by giving me another possibilty besides the only two.
You're missing the point: Axioms describe things. Different axioms describe different things. There exist flat surfaces and there are axioms that describe them. There exist elliptical surfaces and there are different axioms that describe them.
Do you deny the existence of flat and elliptical surfaces?
No your rmissing the point. Axioms may describe things but they also ARE reality. Again these are not axioms but explanations within the axiom itself. The axiom is that whatever is real either always existed or it did not, starting to get it now? If these things you are describing are real they will fall within the axiom itself.
Indeed. That's the point behind them being axioms. But axioms describe spaces. If you leave the space, you get different axioms.
Yes Mr. Spock, Indeed. Axioms desribe reality and not space alone. There is more to reality than space, there is objectivity within reality. Objectivity, reality and the existence of anything will not let you postulate another reason, idea, concept or possibility,, beyond the axiom of reality. If you leave space you will not get a different axiom than this one, it will not be unsettled.
I did. I even gave you two: They could be willing and able but unaware and they could be responding (and thus willing and able) but be unheard.
But whether or not I came up with alternatives is irrelevant. What you are presenting is a tautology, not an axiom. The reason why we have different words to describe them is because they are different things. Tautology is a logically derived statement of truth: A v ~A. An axiom is a declaration of truth: A.
In your scenerio, who is unaware of what? And if they are responding but unheard, then it would follow that they were unable to get the message through, therefore UNABLE. Your making the same mistake as PaulK. But keep trying.
You are correct, they are different things. Thats why all of your effort above will not work to unsettle the original axiom. Actually an axiom is a Truth in reality. However, on the contrary, it matters greatly that you come up with another solution to dismanttle the force of the axiom.
Fine. That still allows for at least unknowing. I can easily be willing and able to respond but if I do not know to do so, then I will not. Just because you sent a message does not mean it was received.
Again the same mistake as PaulK, you are assuming that UNABLE has meaning only to the aliens. Think about it real hard, Who made the statement in the first place Spock did, therefore UNABLE has to have meaning to him as well, otherwise the statement makes no logical sense. Wow, I cant believe that is that hard to understand, or are you avoiding the obvious AGAIN.
What you are presenting is a tautology, not an axiom. Tautologies are necessarily true, but they are logically derived. Axioms cannot be logically derived. That's the point. People tried to show that the Fifth Postulate was derivable from the others but finally realized that it could not be: It is an axiom. By changing the axiom, you change the space described. That's why we have flat, elliptical, and hyperbolic geometries.
Wrong. What you are describing in your examples are postulates, now watch this, because you can theorize and even demonstrate another solution to the actual situation. An actual axiom (reality) will not let you EVEN postulate another idea, as I have now clearly demonstrated in atleast two examples.
Since I think you seem to have forgotten: I agree with you that there are things that are simply true. I am a Platonist. There is an actual way the universe works.
The only question is whether or not we can be capable of knowing what that way is. Because science is an observational process, I say that we cannot. The best we can say is that we have an accurate model that is consistent with all of the observations that we currently have. We cannot have perfect observation and thus we cannot truly know that what we think is "axiomatically" true really is.
Remember my description of the Continuum Hypothesis? My position is that the continuum does have a size.
We just don't know what it is.
I say the universe has a way of working that is consistent.
We just don't KNOW what it is...we have what appears to be an accurate model (at least for certain things), but accuracy is not identity. The best we can ever have, because science is an observational process and we can never have perfect observations, is the claim that our model is accurate. It may very well be that we have it 100% right...
...but we can never KNOW that. I say there are axioms to the universe. We will just never know what they are.
All of this explanation works withing the framework of the actual axiom to sidestep the force of reality itself, it matters little if we KNOW everything, to know that it only has two logical possibilites to its existence in the first place. You simple need to stop the THEATRICAL routine and atleast postulate it, if it could be done with the different planes, you should be able to think of atlaest one, correct.
Incorrect. I do not care how many options your scenario has. It is irrelevant. The collection of all possible outcomes is not an axiom.
Wrong. An axiom is reality and everything it will allow. A "needless repetition of a word, phrase or idea" describes a tautology. An axiom can be a part of the definiton of the word tautology, but and axiom in its bradest sense, is more than a tautology. Since an axiom is based in reality and not my opinions, it would follow that your mixing of the two words is incorrect, correct? Tautology doesnt even begin to describe what I have been presenting or the fact tht you cannot provide another solution to the examples. That prettymuch puts the nails in the coffin.
Is a tautology an axiom?
No. As I have above explained. Let me try again. A tautology may involve the principle of an axiom, but the priciple of the axiom within the tautology is correct based in reality. A tautology only points out its repetition not the reality of its exsistence that is free from contradiction. Example, you will either win or lose, thoise are the only choices, not whether you have agreater or lesser chance than someone else.
Actually a tautology has more to do with a persons USAGE of a truth, reality or axiom, than it does with the actual axiom itself. It only points out that it is not necessary to repeat obvious and irrefutable (impossible to refute) truths. So they actually have very little to do with eachother. Your usage of them in this context deos nothing to unsettle the axioms we are discribing.
After all of this rehretoric ICANT and myself are still waiting for another solution or alternative to the two examples of axioms that have been presented. Come on guys, you should be able to theorize just one. It appears now that you have retreated to the argument that "it just doesnt matter", after you know your attempts have failed. Thanks for the attempts atleast.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)