The "Axioms" Of Nature

Hi, Bertot.I have been reading widely for a paper on a topic very similar to this, so I’d like to put in a few words of my own. As I understand its usage here, an “axiom” is a self-evident truth that can be seen easily and universally in nature (or reality, if you prefer).The problem is that whatever “axioms” there are do not reliably predict all the consequences in all situations, thus rendering their status as “axioms” rather dubious, at best. Here are two examples from the opening paragraph of a paper I just read last night:

quote:

---

For example, liberalizing hunting regulations for a species tends to increase harvest by hunters. In any specific instance, however, liberalization may not cause an increased harvest because of other influences such as the number of animals in the population, weather conditions during the hunting season, and the cost of gasoline as it affects hunter activity.

---

quote:

---

In an agronomic setting, adding P fertilizer may generally be expected to increase the yield of a crop, but it may not happen in a specific instance because another nutrient is limiting, P is already in adequate supply, or moisture is insufficient for the plants to utilize the added P.

---

Source:Johnson, D.H. 2006. The Many Faces of Replication. Crop Science 46:2486-2491.In these two examples, the effect of the treatment (free hunting licenses and addition of fertilizer, respectively) can only be shown to have a statistically significant effect, not an absolute effect. The moral of the story is that you have to replicate the treatment a number of times in order to see any sort of correlation, because the correlation is inconsistent.This would imply that whatever forces or processes are causing the phenomenon are simply not absolute. And, this is rampant in nonphysical sciences like biology (and can even occur in physics: try throwing a ball with the same velocity and angle and hitting the same spot every time if you don’t believe me), which is why there are multiple different hypotheses for the cause of evolution in different situations, for example.In short, even if there are true axioms in the universe, the consequences of those axioms are not absolute. Not only does this confound our attempts to discover the axioms (as Rrhain has described very well in Message 3), but it also makes you wonder whether the axioms are really axioms, after all.----- How can a statement of alternatives be an axiom? Doesn’t an axiom have to take a stand on some issue, as in, “objects very near the earth will fall toward the center of the earth”?Using your logic, another axiom of reality is, “A chemical reaction will either happen, or it won’t.” Another: “The emergence of life was either natural or supernatural.”Spock’s statement is only correct because it is vague and specifically designed to incorporate an indefinite number of alternatives. Because of that, it’s useless. “Useless” can hardly coexist with “axiomatic.”

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Bertot. It doesn’t matter how many alternatives “fit within” your “axiom,” Bertot: it matters that you have erroneously claimed that a list of all possible hypotheses counts as a single axiom.I have another “axiom” for you:

1. Catholicism is entirely true
2. or Lutheranism is entirely true
3. or Mormonism is entirely true
4. or Shintoism is entirely true
5. or Dijambara Jainism is entirely true
6. or Svetambara Jainism is entirely true
7. or Greek mythology is entirely true
8. or (etc.) is entirely true
   .
   .
   .

14. or none of them is entirely true.

Now, this "axiom" constitutes an absolute answer to any possible scenario about the truth of religions: in other words, it's always right. Yet, strangely enough, it doesn't really help me answer the question of which religion is true, does it?How then does it constitute an axiom?----- As a side-note here, once you stipulate “at times,” you forfeit the luxury of using analogies, because all evidence for a non-universal principle must be case-specific (or at least case-relevant). So, even if you prove your point about Spock, you will only have to prove it again for each of your points about nature.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Bertot.I have been trying to make another point that you seem incapable of understanding, but you have essentially ignored me so far. Your "axiom" already consists of two alternatives. So, if an "axiom" can consist of two alternatives, what difference would it make if Straggler could add a third alternative? You could just amend your statement to include three possibilities, and declare that the new "axiom."For that matter, given your way of looking at axioms, any axiom of reality could just consist of all the competing hypotheses and wild guesses that might apply, and be perfectly correct, because it would "exhaust all the possiblities," as you are so keen to assert. Yet, strangely, such an "axiom" wouldn't actually explain anything.In fact, it would be extremely difficult (perhaps even impossible) to use such an "axiom" as the basis of deductive logic, because the logic could only be applied to discerning which of the axiom's indefinite number of possible explanations is actually correct. Or, in other words, you'd have to do science exactly how it is already being done, as Straggler has already explained to you.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, ICANT. It's really quite simple: how do we determine if something actually is an infallible axiom of reality?Quite simply, we can't: all methods of investigation are subject to error and may be superceded by better explanations in the future.So, how could we ever produce reliable results from an axiom that we don't even know?That's the gist of Straggler's argument.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Agobot. The argument hasn't been that there aren't axioms in nature: the argument has been that we don't have a way of knowing them with absolute certainty, so there is no practical difference between theories and Bertot's axioms in terms of solving real-world problems. And this is circular reasoning: "Life ends" and "death" are the same thing. Whenever you define something as itself, of course you're going to be right all the time.If you had said it more accurately---"Life cannot sustain itself indefinitely"---you would only be arguing the laws of thermodynamics. The LoT are not axiomatic, but actually derived from other maths (which maths I cannot, personally, spew forth for you at this time).

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Agobot. In common parlance, this is the definition.But, the phrase "self-evident" stands as antithesis to "proven," so, things that are proven are not self-evident.{AbE: So, an axiom is something that you know to be true without having to prove it.}Edited by Bluejay, : Addition.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.