The "Axioms" Of Nature

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

If by this you mean that I don't understand how it could be that the obvious contradictions in your position haven't become clear to you after having been pointed out so many times, then you're right, I simply don't understand. I, like everyone else, believe you're misusing the word "axiom", but anyway, if the additional possibilities I mentioned changed the reality of the situation then that wasn't the real reality, was it, in which case your axioms weren't axiomatic of reality, were they. They're incomplete and provisional. The attention you're getting is what always happens at a discussion board when someone advocates an obviously irrational position. Everyone rushes in thinking they can easily correct the misapprehension, and it takes a while for it to sink in that it's very deeply rooted and likely unamenable to correction or rational argument. Once this is realized people stop paying attention and just ignore the posts. It happens time and again at discussion boards.The power of an idea is determined not by the tenacity with which it is held, but by its ability to persuade others. So far no one on either side of the creation/evolution debate is convinced.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling and grammar.

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.

As Rrhain points out, views on cosmology do not divide on boundaries of theistic belief. Those who ascribe to modern cosmological views are adherents of a multiplicity of religions and no religion.This thread is discussing whether there is any such thing as axioms of nature. Human knowledge and understanding is provisional, not axiomatic, therefore even if we assume that reality is absolute, this absolute quality is beyond our reach and we can make no statements that are axiomatic of it.--Percy

Once again, modern cosmological views are shared by a scientific community that is very diverse when measured in religious terms. These views are not atheistic because they neither affirm nor deny God, and they are held by scientists of all religions and no religion.I think both Rrhain and I assumed that yours was an easily corrected misimpression, and so we responded. One or two posts, we figured, and we'd be done. If this isn't the case, though, then we really shouldn't divert this thread into a discussion of whether some scientific views are atheistic. It would be better if you proposed a new thread over at [forum=-25].--Percy

Okay, but I guess I should mention that Rrhain was also making the additional point that you were not only ascribing to atheists views they do not hold as a group, but the views as you described them seemed to be composed to fit your argument rather than to be accurate characterizations.But the main point is that the controversy isn't between atheists on one side and theists on the other. It's between the very religiously diverse body of scientists and Christian fundamentalists. If Christian fundamentalists are right about the science then it will be because of the quality of their science, not because of who's atheistic or not.--Percy

You periodically ask this question, and the answer hasn't changed. It is your position that axioms of nature exist, and so you've been asked to provide examples. But instead of providing examples of such axioms you instead ask us for them, seemingly forgetting that it is our position that no such axioms of nature exist.Axioms are the realm of mathematics and logic, not science.If it helps, one principle that might be considered an axiom of nature is that the physical laws of nature are the same everywhere and everywhen throughout the universe. It could be considered an axiom of nature in many scientific fields because it is a "proposition that is not proved or demonstrated" (Wikipedia) but that is necessary for making sense of things. However, even this is not axiomatic across all science because some scientists consider it possible that the laws of our universe might have been different in the past.--Percy

Except that it isn't axiomatic that all life ends in death. For example, consider bacteria. When a bacteria divides, are the two resulting bacteria new bacteria, or is one of them the old bacteria and one the new? If you consider them both new bacteria, then what happened to the old one? Its end certainly wasn't death.And if you consider one the old bacteria and one the new, then obviously many bacteria from billions of years ago are still alive. Our understanding of the physical universe, such as about the evolution of stars and solar systems, and about the laws of thermodynamics that tell us that the universe will quite possibly end in heat death and therefore the death of all life, means that we can be pretty sure that all life will end in death, but this is hard-earned scientific knowledge, not a self-evident truth. Then in that case you're in the odd situation of claiming self-evident status for truths that are self-evident only to you.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I hope I don't get drawn into this discussion again, but with only 30 messages to go I guess I'm not risking much. Anyway, I know it's up to Bertot to provide an example of the type of axiom he means, but "things exist" seems like a poor choice because it will inevitably get tangled up with philosophical considerations like, "Is reality real or an illusion?"It might work better to first stipulate (by agreement for the sake of discussion, not because everyone would agree it is self-evident) that reality is real, and then request an example of an axiom of reality that doesn't directly bear on the nature of reality itself. Something analogous to a simple Euclidean geometry axiom like, "Parallel lines never intersect."Bertot will apparently never agree to use the same definition of axiom as the rest of the world, but he's an army of one, so who cares. I remember the first discussion with Bertot about axioms. He was claiming his declarations were axioms of reality, making them correct without being subject to test or validation, despite that no one agreed with him and despite that they were self-evident to no one but him. He apparently can't be persuaded that he can't just invent his own axioms.--Percy

Hi Bertot,I disengaged from discussion with you because of the difficulty of engaging you in a constructive dialog. I know you're convinced that your arguments are overcoming all objections, after all you declare yourself victorious in every other paragraph and seem to believe that just declaring it makes it so, and I don't think much progress can be made in the discussion while you're in this state.--Percy

I only offered the suggestion because it seems as if the tack you're taking is lost on Bertot. You can keep doing the same thing, but it would be surprising if something different happened in the time remaining with this thread almost over. You're correct that this is my opinion, but I come to it only very recently, plus I understand that it is just my opinion. Obviously others feel differently, else they wouldn't be continuing the dialog, plus there's something about Bertot's style that apparently makes ignoring him difficult for some, maybe it's the put-downs and self-congratulations. But he's staying pretty much within the Forum Guidelines, so no moderator action is called for. I say carry on, but we are nearing the end, so after maybe another 20 messages people might want to begin their summations.One thing this thread has shown moderators is that Bertot shouldn't be permitted to use arguments based upon axioms in any threads not dedicated to that subject, at least until he shows he can find some common ground with everyone else.--Percy

Let me see if I can make sense out of the last few posts from Rrhain, NosyNed and Straggler.Rrhain says that "things exist" is not an axiom of nature. NosyNed says it most certainly is. And Straggler draws a distinction between the axioms of science and the axioms of reality.Me, I think the problem is that axiom has more than one definition. As Straggler says, "things exist" is an unprovable assumption, and scientists generally accept this as a fundamental axiom, for to allow the possibility that things may only seem to exist would bring scientific progress to a halt. And that is one of the definitions of axiom: an unprovable assumption that is accepted so we can get on with things.But there is another definition of axiom, which is something that is accepted because it is self-evident, and this is why I don't like the "things exist" example of an axiom of reality, because to some people "things exist" will be self-evident, while to other people it is not self-evident but rather an unprovable assumption, a postulate if you will. The "self-evident" criteria actually only works amongst a group of people who have agreed among themselves that it is self-evident. I understand that Rrhain is using this precise difference of opinion to show Bertot why he is wrong, but as I said before, I think the point is lost on him, he shows no sign of grasping it.There's another definition of axiom, something that is universally accepted, but we don't have to worry about that one because there's little chance of any axiom being universally accepted in this thread. Anyway, I think two things are required for this thread to make any progress (probably as a successor thread). First, we have to focus on just one definition of axiom. And second, Bertot has to sincerely want to find some common ground.--Percy

It feels to me like you and Bertot are each arguing that your own way is the only way to look at things, and you're both taking the tack that if you can just convince everyone else to accept your way of looking at things then you win the debate. The significant difference between you is that your way makes sense while Bertot's is just made-up nonsense, but I think you're both wrong in thinking there's only one way to approach discussion of the issue.But to reduce confusion I think only one definition of axiom at a time should be in play in a thread. Bertot's having a field day pointing out the inconsistencies between the viewpoints expressed here.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I'm not sure why you think you get to choose which definition of axiom is in play, but you could certainly do so if you propose the successor thread.--Percy

You are, but you can't force your definition of axiom on everyone else, that is unless you propose the topic yourself and make it one of the preconditions, hint, hint.--Percy