The "Axioms" Of Nature

Hello all, perhaps everyone is missing his/her point. The context of the statement is what framed the choices. Unfortunatley it is chock full of holes and is fodder for EvC. The term respond is the problem. I do not want to dredge up another 40 messages of Spock probabilities. But I see where the OP was going with this. Regardless of how one twist, finaggles and turns the scenerio. The choices I believe, the OP put forth are: "unable" or "unwilling" Something is either unable to do something or unwilling to do it. Thems the choices. Are there other choices? Yeah, they did repond but it was not understood. Then, that falls into the unable camp. etc.....Now how this corresponds to how Axiom's simplistically describes a accurate description of reality is that maybe the term "close enough for government work." is good enough for some people. If you drop a anvil on your foot, you do not know for a fact that it will break your bones. But the inference you can make is pretty reliable that it will from the axiom: "Big heavy forged iron anvils dropped on soft feet breaks bones in this frame of reference." It either will break your foot or you missed. The truth of the matter is the empiricist have pretty much deflated the gleaning of knowlege of reality based soley on cause and effect. But so what, your still going to need a cast if you drop that anvil on your foot.So a axiom of nature could be that "nature will always follow the laws of Chemistry and physics in how reality is manifested in concious perception." Maybe?

Hello Straggler,

quote:

---

So how does the fact that a clock ticks faster at the top of a mountain than an identical clock does at the bottom of that mountain "manifest in conscious perception"?

---

The difference of time between the two clocks is negligable for all practical purposes in my opinion and therefore moot in regards to how I manage to put my pants on in the morning. Time dialation and the bizzare quirky-ness of the quantum world can not be inffered. Yet our daily observations and perceptions continue to convey our existance.Straggler writes:

quote:

---

For example? How do we know what the laws of chemistry and physics actually are? Common sense? Logic? Empirical testing of hypotheses?

---

Point taken. We do all of the above to obtain knowlege.Back to Axioms, Self evident truth: I can cut a rope into equal lengths and reliablyconclude the other side is equal. I can say that the addition of 1 to any set increases that set by a factor of one. I can realiably conclude these things without testing.

On something from nothing...is a matter of opinion. No one knows the answer. Athiest will say that the big bang is a quantum fluctuation etc. From nothing. Thiest will say that the big bang is from a quantum fluctuation that was eternal..then allude to something eternal as God.Then athiest will say..oh no you can not attribute the big bang as a eternal state if it popped out of nowhere. Then theist will say..ok then the big bang popped out of nowhere and was the moment of creation. Then athiest will say..oh wait a minute. It was not a moment of creation it was possibly a self evolving state that has always existed. Then theist will say ok...self existing, like God. Then athiest will say, no no no. It came into being on its own, for no reason it just is. And Theist will say ok. No reason except there is a element of randomness in the universe that allows for the possiblility of free will, free choice.Then atheist will say...no no no, the universe is deterministic and there is no free will, that is a illusion, there is no reason, there is no choice.
Then theist will say. ok. Then God is the universal observer and determines all outcomes. Then the athiest will say, no no no!! The universe is not completely deterministic, there is caos and uncertainty as well.On and on we go, talk about circular arguments.

Rrhain writes:

quote:

---

Who is this "atheist" you are presenting? I don't know any atheists who say anything like what you say since, assuming the atheist knows something about Big Bang cosmology, the Big Bang was neither a "quantum fluctuation" nor "from nothing.

---

Well actually I was being sarcastic and attempting humor. Lighten up. I put a smiley after each statement.Since you feel obliged to correct my misconceptions. As far as I am aware it is still unknown the intitial ...vaccum state..quantum state...insert your favorite here. this quantum/vaccum state underwent a quantum fluctuation and the emergent properties of the universe came into being...emerged...insert your least unsavory athiest word here.Is this a unreasonable statement? Do you have a problem with the words quantum fluctiation. And the word nothing? Not all athiest are as well read and brilliant as yourself. Go ahead pick every statement apart. As much as you know you still do not know squat about the orgins of the big bang. It is a mystery. Ut Oh.... I sense your cringe at that word too. To Catholic sounding?My axiom: No matter where you go, there you are.

My apologies, Rrhain and Percy. I concede I know way less about this than you guys. I will not interrupt this thread again. Peace.