Straggler writes:
The truly scientific questions would relate to that beyond the imagined reality. All else would be "engineering".
Thus I stick with my original proposed axiom.
I suppose that what I'm trying to say is that one day science may very well be able to identify that we do not have an objective, external reality.
-Science may be able to verify that some results do necessarily depend upon how they are measured
-Science may be able to verify that the reality I measure does not equal the reality that you measure
...if science is able to verify/falsify such things, then it is not an "axiom" so much as it is a tentatively held conclusion.
If it were an axiom, then if it were ever "shown to be false", we would then be forced to keep the axiom. If, however, we are willing to get rid of the data if it were ever "shown to be false", then it is a tentatively held conclusion, and not an axiom.
Then again... maybe I'm thinking about the word "axiom" incorrectly. Because I could even say this about Mod's first axiom of "I exist."
That is, what if science one day shows that I, in fact, do not exist? Then it is was no longer an axiom?
I think I'm not really understanding what an "axiom" is as compared to a "tentatively held conclusion."
What's the difference between holding "we exist in an external, objective reality" or "I exist" tentatively, or holding "F=ma" tentatively?
I suppose there is evidence leading us to believe "F=ma" to be correct. There are also falsifiable tests that "F=ma" currently passes.
There does not seem to be any evidence one way or the other that "I exist" is correct. I can't think of any falsifiable way to test such a thing either.
But there is evidence leading us to believe "we exist in an external, objective reality." Namely... I can measure an object and get a result. And then you can measure the object and get the exact same result. Such a thing is a test for an "external, objective reality." Also, it can be falsified, that is, if I measure an object and get a result, and then you measure the same object but you get a different result... repeatedly... then we have falsified that we exist within an "external, objective reality."
There seems to be a testable, verifiable, falsifiable test for being in an "external, objective reality" where there is no testable, verifiable, falsifiable test for "I exist."
That seems to be a rather large difference. Are you sure we can call them both axioms?