Bertot responds to Straggler:
quote:
quote:
Nobody is disputing that reality exists. But what do any of us, including you, know of reality but that which out limited perception of incomplete evidence allows?
We KNOW that it exists
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:
Perhaps you are one of the ones that does not agree with him and does deny the existence of reality.
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:
Rrhain, you do realize that any fact, truth, axiom or even reality itself can be questioned correct?
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:
Yet this is not the same as presenting intelligent rational and evidential support to its demise, right?
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:
Because yours is not the only perspective in the world Rrhain.
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:
Im not sure what "agreeing to me"
That I inferred correctly that you were stating "Things exist" to be an axiom.
quote:
But let me assure I have a darn good sense of humor, just ask Onifre he will tell you.
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:
If you cant see me now understand I am using dactology at this moment
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:
I believe that the statement "Things exists" is an axiom, in all of its parts shapes and forms
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:
Anyone can be in opposition to a reality, they simply need to present it form a evidential standpoint not simply disagreement or imagination and that is all you are presenting. Wheres the beef?
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:
I think therefore I am, is not a valid response to establish the existence of reality, it does not connect itself with physical properties.
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:
Simply provide me physical evidence that things dont exist.
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:
Remember fellas physical evidence not imagination.
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.
™ Version 4.2
