The "Axioms" Of Nature

How? Exactly. Please do not ignore this question as you have done so many others. Given that your perception of reality is both subjective and incomplete can you tell me how you distinguish between that which appears to be true to you and that which actually is objectively true?Apparently you know "REALITY" so please do tell.

So what are your axioms again..........?

No you did not invent reality.Which is why you can no more know the truths of reality than anyone else.
Which is why you can no more decide what should be considered axiomatic than anyone else.
Which is why you have abjectly failed to state these "axioms of reality" upon which your whole absurd position rests.
Which is ultimately why, despite your bluster, you lost this debate a long time ago.Although this may be hard for your evidently engorged ego to accept: When we deny your "axioms of reality" we are not denying reality itself. Despite your ongoing assertion that the two are one and the same your "axioms" and reality are not synonomous. You are no more privy to what is certain and what is true in nature than anyone else.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?The problem that you repeatedly avoid is the problem of incomplete evidence. The problem that was first pointed out to you way back when this discussion first began. Simply labelling your assertions "axioms" does nothing to overcome this inherent limitation of empirical investigation.Unless your evidence is complete and unless you can know that your evidence is complete all of those things that you think are "axioms" can be potentially overturned by new evidence.(incomplete empirical evidence)+(deductive logic)=(unreliable conclusions)THERE IS NO TRUTH WE CAN OBJECTIVELY KNOW WITH 100% ABSOLUTE GUARANTEED CERTAINTY SUCH THAT IT CAN BE LABELLED AS AN AXIOM OF NATUREWhatever you think is true and axiomatic is only ever one discovery away from relegation to mere "approximation".That is why you continue to fail to state any such axioms.
That is why you continue to divert the argument by accusing those that deny your "axioms" as denying reality itself.
That is why your your argument is refuted and your position untenable.

If you contend that these axioms are knowable why will you not tell us what they are? It would save us all a lot of time and effort if you could just state these axioms.............No? I guess that clutch of nobel prizes won't be heading your way after all.To state the axioms of nature we first have to know the indisputable truths of nature with 100% absolute guaranteed certainty. Do you claim to have this knowledge? Unless we have evidence of all reality in all places at all times under all possible conditions any conclusion is potentially open to being overthrown by new evidence.Thus our conclusions are necessarily tentative, we necessarily remain uncertain as to the truths of nature and it is impossible to label any such truths as axioms.Incomplete evidence Bertot. The same problem that has been your downfall from the very beginning of this discussion. Precisely. Physical evidence is your problem.Can you state with 100% absolutely guaranteed certainty a truth of nature that cannot conceivably be contradicted by any possible future physical evidence?

I think it is possible to differentiate between the possible axioms of scientific investigation and the axioms of reality.The axioms of reality are presumably measured against the external truth of reality. Therefore we must know what is true in order to establish such axioms. That remains Bertot's problem.However those which could be considered the axioms of scientific investigation would be the base unprovable assumptions upon which empirical investigation is founded as valid. These would thus fit the genreally accepted definition of the term axiom. Namely self evident starting points that are assumed to be true.E.g

An objective reality exists.

We as individual subjective conscious beings share this common objective reality.
etc.

​

These are very different from Bertot's axioms of reality however. These are assumptions which we take to be true for reasons of pragmatism but which in themselves claim no philosophical foundation beyond acting as a required starting point..

Bertot is not using any standard definition of the term axiom. In fact he treats what he believes to be axiomatic as so indisputably true that he conflates any suggestion that his (unstated) "axioms" may not be true as synonomous with a denial of reality itself.Hence the reason that the discussion has headed down the more philosophical "does anything exist" path that it has.As for the possible definitions:1) Self evident: As you say, self evident to who? Also any conclusions derived from such axioms can only ever be as reliable as the subjective "self evident" starting point.
2) Universally accepted: As well as the fact that there probably are no such universally accepted starting points in this context we again face the problem of how reliable such accepted "truths" actually are.
3) Bertot's definition of axiom seems to be anything and everything that he personally thinks is indisputably true. Therefore there are presumably no limit to the number of asertions that he is willing to label as "axioms".Whatever definition of axiom one uses actually makes little difference in the context of Bertot's stated methodology.(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)Unless the "axioms of reality" term is 100% absolutely guaranteed to be true as compared to reality the whole methodology falls apart.Universal acceptance, subjective notions of being "self evident" and personal declarations of certainty are not sufficient.For Bertot's methodology to actually work the base truths of reality need to be known to the extent that there is absolutely no possibility of any future evidence contradicting these stated "truths".In some ways the term "axiom" and it's definition is just a smokescreen that hides the true flaws in Bertot's position. Namely the inability to derive indisputable empirical truths on the basis of incomplete empirical evidence.Bertot's nonsense apart I think the idea of "axioms of scientific investigation" is an intriguing topic in it's own right.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well I would be interested in a follow up thread that explores the "axioms of scientific investigation".In this context by axioms I mean the unprovable assumptions that are required in order for scientific empirical investigation to be considered both valid and worthwhile.For example the assumption that an objective reality that we all indvidually and subjectively perceive does actually exist.But I am not sure how much appetite there is for yet more discussion of axioms........?