The "Axioms" Of Nature

quote:

---

...this is not about cosmological origins per se it is about methods of making reliable conclusions about the physical world.

​

Any conclusions made using methods that can be shown to be invalid will necessarily be deemed unreliable.
  —Straggler

---

To whom it may concern,
I've been loosely following this debate and have come upon a stumbling block. Let me take a moment to attach a disclaimer, that being, I'm mildly retarded ...In order that one may, or may not, deem this method reliable concerning its various applications in regards to determining conclusions about the physical world, one must first determine whether they have a sufficient framework, or word things carefully ...Within the discussion there has been numerous references to axioms and tautologies as an attempt was made to provide clear, concise definiton(s) accordingly. From an outside, mildly retatded, perspective it would seem the goal was not achieved and although clear and concise definitions were given to serve their correlating agendas, there was not a clear, concise differentiation between what is considered "axiomatic" in science as opposed to math or vice versa. There seems little reason for me to make any further attempts, and I assume many can/do observe the differences regardless. I digress ...If I follow correctly, which is highly unlikely in any event, an example of the "method" on the stand states that when an "axiomatic" statement is made only two "logical" solutions may follow in "reality" ... only two possible outcomes.But this only works when the statement is loaded it seems, or when absolute knowledge of the framework is ascertained, not to imply the given Star Trek scenario was loaded intentionally. For instance, this method wouldn't always work when discussing winning and losing an arbitrary contest or debate.It wouldn't be "axiomatic" or "logical", as much as premature, to give the statement below ...* They won or they lost.... unless some other empirical data provided a framework for that specific "axiom". Unless it is first revealed there can be no tie and that things must end in overtime, how does the possibility of a tie factor into this statement? If the contest may indeed end in a tie, and finally does, but the person supposing the statement above was not privy to all of the framework/rules assigned therein before making the statement prior to the finish of the debate, then the statement may not be "truthful", "logical" or "axiomatic". And yet it may be one of those, if, coincidentally, the contest does not end in a tie ...You must first load the statement in a fashion similiar to this ...* They won or they did not win.
* They lost or they did not lose.It may, or may not, follow then that "axiomatic" statements may or may not "logically" "exist" within their given framework.

This "problem" has been rectified by conceding to the reality that science, as well as many other facets of thought, use the term and reality of axioms as place markers for propositions that are assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from them. Again, an axioms role concerning physics, math, science, or another field of study does not serve any purpose towards the debate at hand.
You've made it clear the axiom you refer to lies in the realm of mathematics. Does this deem the method fallible ?Can it be demonstrated in a testable fashion, so as to prove or refute, that the instances of a statement with two possibilities that all other conclusions and possibilities will fit squarely within will/can/may be increased and/or decreased by means of constructing the original statements in a particular fashion towards that end?Can it be demonstrated in a testable fashion, so as to prove or refute, that the instances of a statement with two possibilities that all other conclusions and possibilities will fit squarely within will/can/may be increased and/or decreased by means of acquiring the absolute knowledge of the framework prior to logically constructing the original statements randomly/partially/completely within said framework?Would it matter if it could? It may be a good example of how an axiom "works", defining "works" notwithstanding, but it seems a poor example of how an axiom follows logically or conclusively Bertrot ...The statement, repeated below, has not been structured to logically accept or absorb a separate outcome other than the two given. This is not to suggest that it could or could not accomplish this task randomly. It was hypothetically declared prior to the attainment of absolute knowledge concerning the parameters of its framework. This hypothetical framework contains the evidence, and therefore knowledge, that the contest will not concede in overtime so as to establish a clear and concise winner. For this reason, amongst others, a separate outcome is available.* They won or they lost.In this case, reality would need to be distorted as a byproduct of this method you speak of in order for your method to prove true. Accordingly, one must lend the essence and definition of a "win" to the essence and definition of "tie".Without lending the essence and definition of a "loss" to the essence and definition of "forfeit", one could not also accept the possibility of a catastophic event absorbing the contest and eliminating all the participants and observers.Therefore, neither statements below fall squarely within the "axiom" ...* The game concluded in a tie.
* The game was eradicated.One could easily posit many more examples.There's obvious dissention concerning whether your given method falls squarely within the definitions of axioms or tautologies, but surely we can evade any dissention between the essences', definitions, and realities of a win, a loss, and a tie ... much less forfeiture and eradication.In other words, the statement may fall squarely within the proposed "axiom" only by disregarding logic and equating a tie to a win in your specific instance.A win is a win, a loss is a loss, and a tie is a tie.
Surely the participants that tied for third place are certainly not the winners or would one disagree with this statement?
In a contest that ends in a tie, there is no concise victor, or winner.
There is no winner or loser in a game that becomes subject to inevitable and complete destruction.
As you've pointed out, all words have separate values, definitions, and realities associated with them.Again, together we can learn how this method wouldn't always work when discussing winning and losing an arbitrary contest or debate, and, yet, how it can function properly under certain circumstances.Once you have ascertained an absolute knowledge of your framework, in this instance, one that will include the declaration of a tie as a possibility for example, you can reconstruct the former "axiom"...* They won or they lost.... to a variety of latter’s axioms ...* They won or they did not win.
* They lost or they did not lose.One could easily posit many more examples.It still would seem the method you've provided only conclusive when the statement is structured to that end or when absolute knowledge of the framework is ascertained prior to the giving of said statement.

Thank you for the reply Bertrot. Thank you for conceding to this point.
This is not to infer that a great many people do not live their lives basing their reality, emotions and decisions by utilizing their own semi-interdependent, yet independent, axiomatic balances or truths ...The fact that the logic founding your proposed axiom may be increased and/or decreased by reasonably constructing the original statements within the absolute knowledge of the framework, seems conclusive enough to deem it variable, not to mention impossible. As we do not have an absolute encompassing universal framework assembled for nature or the universe at this time that we may establish the purposed "axioms of nature" in, they sufficiently meet the criteria that allows them to be established as an unreliable method of deducing reality.Your "axioms of nature" however cannot logically be deemed a wholly refutable hypothesis with the potential to declare reality.If it is not falsifiable, logically, it cannot be wholly refuted. The assertion that your "axioms of nature" are false only because they have yet to be proven true fits squarely within the argumentum ad ignorantiam.The notion that the logic founding your proposed axiom may also be increased and/or decreased by illogically constructing the original statements outside of the absolute knowledge of their framework is likely irrelevant. Demonstrable tests that lead to invariable conclusions. As can be evidenced above, the former question was asked to initiate an intended response, thus ending the debate at hand for me.
The latter question, rhetorical in nature, need not be answered. Bertrot has stated the remains of the participants of the inevitable decimation outcome and the tie/draw participants are all winners !!Let's hypothetically congratulate them and give them their trophies .... oh, wait, one team doesn't exist anymore, and the other is pissed they didn't gain a solid victory.The latter team went as far as to state they don't want a trophy, they want a hypothetical rematch.My reality looks like cheesecloth, and yours has holes too Bertrot ... everybody’s does.This does seem in line with your equating participants who tie for first, second, or third place as "winners". Does it strike anyone as odd that professional boxing, as well as most sporting affiliations, do not record a tie and a draw as a win. Shouldn't it somehow interfere with reality if we are to constitute your logic in this instance? If a tie and a draw are equivalent to wins, why are they not recorded as such in reality?It's simple ...Man has ordained it, and reality sustains it.A win is a win, a loss is a loss, and a draw/tie is a draw/tie.A tie/draw and inevitable destruction are not an invariably realistic equivalent to winning.I thought for sure you would not consider the participants that have been reduced to ashes following a hypothetical incineration, or another variable that concludes in utter decimation, as the winners in any realistic sense of the word.Yet you did.You adhere that a reality that concludes with the assertion ...* "They won or they lost"... as an axiomatic reality, squarely contains the following realistic outcome possibilities ...* a tie/draw
* an inevitable decimation where all participants are reduced to ashI have proposed why the assertion "They won or they lost" is not axiomatic, nor can it logically exist within a reality that contains a tie/draw outcome possibility for the participants or an inevitable decimation outcome possibility where the participants are reduced to ash.You declare all participants winners ...Please support your position or digress. Being that I've provided an "axiomatic truth", and you concede that it fails, I feel we're in agreement.
I think I'll wait until you actually propose an "axiom of nature" that is invariably conclusive before I delve any further.
It's clearly more entertaining to watch somebody else trip over their own thoughts than attempting to prove a false/positive oneself.
In all fairness I do it as well at times, and am entertained in retrospect just the same ... Though I've again provided the statement to prove a point, the assertions above are not all interchangeable. They are not repetitive of one another. They are three separate statements, which show without careful wording, randomness, or forming a question within an absolute knowledge of its framework, a statement cannot be deemed invariable. For this reason, not all simple assertions can be deemed axiomatic.I am not as close minded regarding this potentially valid truth as you might think - please provide your "axiom of nature".ps. The sky is blue, or it is not black.

Thank you for the response Bertrot . You do realize this argument was in defense of your axioms of nature right?
The assertion does not require your claim to be falsified, or "not proven true" as you say.
Read it again, as you may be taking something out of context.All this stated is that one cannot conclude your hypothesis false. Polly want a cracker ... Thank you. These will serve as debatable ... It may have been incorrect if it was ever asserted.
I said they have yet to be proven true.
Now that you are supplying them, we can observe their truths, or lack thereof ... Incorrect - the hypothetical situation, or “axiom”as you would say, was constructed prior to the outcome.
It simply does not contain all outcome possibilities.
It never will unless it is worded differently.
Not to imply that a different random assertion wouldn’t have. A boxer that becomes reduced to ashes well into the seventh round, will still have played his game.
He simply won’t live to tell of the tale, therefore, you are being silly right now.
If the categories can’t apply it is not axiomatic.You disagree ? The point I see is without careful wording, randomness, or forming n assertion within an absolute knowledge of its framework, a statement cannot be deemed invariable. For this reason, not all simple assertions can be deemed axiomatic. lol - let’s hope not ... No even that is true.
Inevitable destruction is not an invariably realistic equivalent to winning.
Man has ordained it ... reality sustains it. No a tie/draw is recorded in reality as a tie/draw.Tho in the tautology you have provided above ...*They will win and not lose.... You may equate a tie/draw to a “not loss” .Reality will not allow such an outcome within your “They will win or lose” “axiom”.
At least not until you add “not” before “lose”.This is repetition ...
Without careful wording, randomness, or forming an assertion within an absolute knowledge of its framework, a statement cannot be deemed invariable. For this reason, not all simple assertions can be deemed axiomatic.Nice tautology lesson, but getting old ... rotfl lol - I am indeed mildly retarded ... thank you for noticing. Thank you. This shall be placed on one of the lists.
One will contain the “Axioms of Nature” and another listing the “Axioms of Reality”.Providing they can be distinguished from one another.

The other one he squeezed out is a short version of the same.
About 250 posts later, Bertrot stated this one can go on both lists for now.
Would be nice to have more ...
Until reality overturns them. Thank you for the reply Bertrot. That's one way to perceive reality.
At least we can deduce we are still within the same frequency. Atta boy ...
Are either of the assertions below demonstrated true by reality itself?* Reality is invariable or axioms are variable
* Reality is variable and axioms are invariable.If so, what is your reasoning? I'm just glad you're finally catching on.
No apology necessary Bertrot. Wait a sec - didn't I already lap you? Is this another one of your axioms?There is reality, and what we perceive as reality.
To humanities dismay, they are not always in alignment.Reality suggested our sphere as a disc and reality suggests the disc was always a sphere.Moral: Perception is not invariable and that reality can be sneaky .... Sometimes, but not always ... Feels as if progress is being made. I additionally adhere to an incorporeal existence that I imagine contains axioms as well ...
If this interferes with your reality at any point I will lobby the God for a new word.I doubt you will even notice tho ... many realities are impenetrable. Incorrect - he was not reduced to ashes by the other fighter.Just when I thought you were gettin' it too ... You are free to deny any activities you choose from having taken place prior to a contest that cannot be finished.
This, of course, does not realistically negate any activities from having taken place.It simply evidences the inability to grasp reality.Will this contend as an axiom for your list ...There must be an excited state at an energy of 7.6 million electron volts in the nucleus of carbon-12 since if he, Bertrot, a life form based upon carbon molecules, existed, then the resonance must also exist to create the carbon.