The "Axioms" Of Nature

Spock: 'Sir, they are either unwilling or unable to respond.' [Thinks it over, then raises right eyebrow] 'Hmm... fascinating. Another possibility has just occurred to me: the ship may be abandoned and the biosignals we received may have been faked, emitted by fully automated systems aboard the alien vessel. This would surely rule out unwillingness and inability. There may be even more possibilities that I have overlooked, I am only (half) human after all.'

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

What Spock's reasoning in my version comes down to is: they're either unwilling to respond, or they're unable to, or they simply don't exist. Your attempt to equate nonexistence with inability is quite amusing but it doesn't work.The aliens being there in the actual scene has no bearing on my example. We are not talking about the actual scene, we are discussing a hypothetical situation which you say has only two solutions. You suggested that there is no other logical possibility, your opponents showed you there is. One of the solutions could be that at the moment Spock uttered his conclusion, he could be wrong because it was also possible that there were no aliens on the other ship. You have been proved wrong. Well, what if the aliens simply weren't paying attention? Would that constitute unwillingness, or inability? Have you shot yourself in the foot?Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

Two thoughts:1. Would this statement itself be an example of the long sought axioms of nature? If it is, hurray! If it isn't, then the statement itself is provisional, which would mean that some of our understanding of reality could be, in principle, based on axioms. Self-reference is a fiendish concept, don't you think?2. To invalidate this statement, Bertot, you only have to come up with one counter example (preferably not from Star Trek I might add).Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Hello Rueh,Since humans deal with nature on a human scale, and have developed logic in accordance with that, it stands to reason that basic human logic is inadequate to deal with aspects of nature on very different scales, like relativistic speeds and quantum phenomena. Furthermore, a lot of people mistake common sense for logic. It used to be common sense to opine that the sun revolves around the earth, because, after all, anyone who was not blind could see it happen before their very own eyes. Then Copernicus and Galileo showed us that common sense cannot always be trusted. Like Rrhain put it so eloquently in one of the first responses to this thread: by now we should have learned something about the tentativeness of what we think we know.So I agree with you, there are no axioms of nature. We cannot, a priori, know the basics of nature without looking at it. The only thing I can think of that would even remotely approximate an axiom of nature is "something exists", which, as axioms go, seems to be a bit of a pointless thing to say.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I was in a shop the other day, called Bertot's Hardware Emporium. I wanted to buy some nails to hammer into someone's coffin. When I came to the counter and asked for nails, the man behind the counter put a box of nails in front of me. I patted my pockets for my wallet. It appeared I had put my wallet in an unusual place because I didn't find it immediately.To my amazement the fellow behind the counter put the nails back on the shelf, saying, "Well, you are either unable or unwilling to pay, so I won't sell you the nails." Having found my wallet, with enough money in it, I replied, "But... but, I was just searching for my...", but they fellow had already retreated in the back room. I left him a note saying that I had been able to pay, and willing, but that he had reached his conclusion prematurely. It was faulty logic that lost him this business opportunity.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This thread could have been over in three posts: the OP, and Rrhain's posts #3 and #75.Rrhain, you reign supreme in the land of logic, and your writing is crisp and clear. Are you a teacher? If not, you should be.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I suspect Bertot is either unable or unwilling to admit his mistake. It would seem there is no other option. O, wait... there is. He has not come round to it yet. Though I have no hope he will, ever. Even if it is a logical possibility.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Bertot, I'd like to put your intuition for self-evident truths to the test: what numerical answer do you get when you multiply no numbers at all?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

The question is not irrelevant, it is designed to test your judgment of self-evident truths. I can tell you that there is an answer to my question, and that the answer is indeed numerical. So my question stands, and I dare you to answer it. What numerical answer do you get when you multiply no numbers at all?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

OK, so "I exist" is one of your axiomatic truths of nature. Suppose we accept it as an axiom for the moment, could you now point out what use it is? In other words, could you use it in an exercise of deductive logic and present us with some reliable conclusions? And could you do the same for the axiomatic truth "things exist"?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.