|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "Axioms" Of Nature | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Bertot responds to me...well, no. No, he doesn't. He's asked a direct question by me:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Bertot writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Parasomnium writes:
quote: 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 Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Bertot responds to me:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Percy responds to me:
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Bertot responds to me:
quote: The part where you actually say it directly. You never actually said it. Instead, you tossed off statements like:
Do you need the 'stage lights' at the theater to fall on your head. ha ha Yeeees? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Bertot responds to Straggler:
quote:quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: That I inferred correctly that you were stating "Things exist" to be an axiom.
quote: 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:
4. hard to understand; not clear or lucid; obscure: "The problem remains opaque despite explanations." 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
NosyNed responds to me:
quote:quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Percy writes:
quote: With regard to the philosophy of science, no, not really. The thing is that most scientists work science without any formal training in the philosophy of science. In and of itself, this isn't too horrible: Most people can do math, even complex math, without any formal training in the ZFC axioms of set theory. When you're introduced to arithmetic in school, you are given examples of one and one equaling two, but you certainly aren't given the formal proof of it. It's way too complex and the fact that it can be proven is sufficient to start from there. That is, we treat the foundations of arithmetic as axioms even though they're not. Because they can be derived as true from the axioms of set theory is sufficient for most purposes. But treating it as an axiom is very different from it actually being an axiom. That's the point I am making (which I think Straggler agrees with): There are things we treat as axioms, but that is only because we don't know any better.
quote: Not quite. It's more that I am making the distinction between assumptions and conclusions. This comes up every now and again in our debates here with creationists claiming that we are assuming evolution when in reality we are concluding it. 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 Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
NosyNed responds to me:
quote:quote: Incorrect. The Fifth Postulate is an axiom. Non-Euclidean geometry doesn't change that. Instead, it completely discards it and replaces it with another axiom. In science, new observations give us new understanding about how the world works, but they don't change the observations we have already made. When we moved from Aristotelian to Newtonian to Einsteinian mechanics, none of the things we had observed before changed. You could still run the same experiments and come up with the exact same results. As Gould put it, apples didn't hover in mid-air, waiting for us to figure out how gravity worked. But if you change an axiom, reality changes. In Euclidean geometry, parallel lines never converge or diverge. But if you replace that with a the axiom from hyperbolic geometry that parallel lines always diverge, then the case of you having two lines that never converge or diverge means not only are they no longer parallel but also they are no longer straight. The entire structure of everything is altered if an axiom changes.
quote: No, the philosophy of science concludes reality. It is not taken as an axiom. Now, we can draw true conclusions from true statements that are themselves true conclusions of earlier true statements (everything eventually goes back to the axioms), but the fact that we start in the middle doesn't make those middle things axioms. That is, let A -> B. We can then engage in a new process to conclude B -> C. This doesn't make B an axiom because B is derived from A. For practical purposes, we're treating B as an axiom because it is awfully tedious to have to start from sand every single time, but B isn't really an axiom. If we have to, we can go all the way back to the beginning.
quote: I don't think we are. The point is subtle, I admit, but it is important. As Straggler points out: There is a difference between starting from perfect knowledge (represented by an axiom) and starting from imperfect knowledge (something that we treat as an axiom but is really just the result of a collection of imperfect observations that so far have yet to be contradicted). I deal with this necessity of analysis all the time in my work. When I train new people, I often give them a question (that I admit I stole from a Foxtrot strip):
A train leaves Station A at 10:00 am and arrives at Station B, 180 miles away, at 2:00 pm. What do we need to assume in order to determine the average speed of the train? You see, if you were given the setup and were asked to determine the average speed of the train, you'd note that 10:00 am to 2:00 pm is 4 hours, divide 180 miles by 4 hours, and come up with 45 mph. Ah, but is that really the answer?
The assumption of the clocks being working, accurate, stations in the same time zone, 180 miles being the exact distance the train traveled, etc. are all perfectly reasonable assumptions to make, but we should not take them for granted or forget that that is all they are: Assumptions and they may not be true. The point is that because we do not have perfect knowledge of what it is that we're dealing with, we have to be careful. Treating something as an axiom is not the same thing as it actually being an axiom. 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 Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Percy responds to me:
quote: I wouldn't say that. I'm simply pointing out that people have been thinking about this very question for literally thousands of years. The philosophical traditions that we have all eventually come back to this question. The Buddhist idea that everything is naught but illusion is quite different from the Western view that there is a separate reality apart from human experience. Bertot and I both seem to be more along the lines of Western philosophical underpinings: There is a reality and it behaves in a consistent way. The question we have is whether or not we can know what that way is or can we only approximate it at best. But agreed: We need a single definition of "axiom." But since I'm the one who introduced "tautology" into the discussion, I'm the one who gets to say what it means in this context. Tautologies are not axioms. 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 Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Percy responds to me:
quote:quote: Um, what part of "I'm the one who introduced 'tautology' into the discussion" are you having trouble with? Here are the exact words I used when I brought the term up (Message 75):
Rrhain writes: Incorrect. This is not an example of an axiom. It is an example of a tautology: A or ~A. A tautology is not an axiom. This was in response to Bertot's statement (Message 7):
Bertot writes: Now to the example. Aboard the enterprise, they were faced with a situation where they were trying to ascertain the status of other individuals aboard another ship. Mr. Spock (Rahvin) states to the captain, "Sir, there are only two logical possibilites, they are unable to respond, they are unwilling to respond". While the information was pretty much useless to the captain,it demonstrated an axiom in reality So I introduce the term, define it immediately after introducing it, and somehow I'm not allowed to say that I meant what I said? You might be able to say that my definition and use of the term is a non sequitur, but how do you justify contradicting me on my term used in my sentence with my definition? Now, far be it from me to resort to argumentum ad dictionary, but Bertot seems to like it and his own quotation of the dictionary definition of "tautology" is "A or ~A," which is exactly what I said. So again, how is it that I am not the final authority on what I meant when I said what I did? 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 Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Well, if you give me some time, I'll see if I can dig up my old philosophy of knowledge/science texts and see if I can come up with a good original post regarding what philosophers have said about how we can know what we know.
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024