The "Axioms" Of Nature

The point of this thread is to show that the method you us is nothing more than an assertion. You claim that there are axiomatic trtuths about reality, yet certain aspects of reality have not been understood therefore to make a prediction about it is worthless since the nature of it is not known, and your prediction cannot be falsified.This thread was started because you said the origin of the universe is either 'Matter is eternal', or 'God created everything and He is eternal'.Both of these are not supported with any evidence that shows the nature of reality at that point in time, it cannot be falsified and is nothing more than an attempt at an answer without any supporting empirical data. You are simply circling around that point. You can say its an axiomatic truth, you can say its not an axiomatic truth, both of those statements have equally non-supporting data. The nature of certain things are not known, their origins would then be less understood and to postulate about it would just be philosophical musing.Turtles all the way down remember...And Christ, could we stop talking about Star-Trek, chics aren't gonna show up to this thread.Edited by onifre, : spelling

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Like I've continuously said, and has been repeated by others, there are no axiomatic truths about the state of reality at the origin of the universe. You are speculating about a point in time which you no nothing about. You use the word God as if that has any meaning outside of a philosophical context. You say the eternality of matter as if you understand what that even means. You couldn't even give me an example of matter, hell you couldn't even define matter. It's nonsense. Those are not 2 plausable scenarios. The fact is there are no plausable scenarios yet because the universe is not understood, and further more any plausable scenario will be theoretical and have evidence to support it. Once again you prove that your scenarios are nothing more than musings.Note: The word theoretical is being used within the context of the scientific method; in other words a theory concluded after objectively verified evidence was evaluated(i.e. atomic theory, QFT, theory of GR, etc, etc)...and not to be confused with the general use of the word theory. As in "Bertot's theory of reality".Edited by onifre, : Added (note) because Bertot would have jumped all over the word theory and taken it out of context.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

When you claim to understand the physical nature of reality at a point in time when all evidence for that point in time falls apart by simply applying deductive reasoning from a laymen perspective, then it is safe to conclude that you probably don't have any clue as to what you're talking about.Deductive reasoning does not apply here because you don't understand the nature of the former to logically conclude the nature of the latter. You don't know what conditions were like just after the BB to be able to use deductive reasoning in concluding the origin of such an event. But, since your deductive reasoning only uses subjective evidence then I understand why you feel it is logical. But, science does not work like that and objective evidence will always trump subjective interpretations.You have been shown how easy it would be to logically conclude that the Sun revolves around the Earth through subjective intrpretations of the nature of reality from a Earthly PoV; that was shown to be wrong by empirical evidence. Now, you do the same with the origin of the universe, can't you see the fallacy in that logic? I think you can but won't admit to it.Just to re-state my objection to you're scenarios:

• 1. God is not empirically proven to exist therefore it is not empirically plausable to conclude God from an objective stand point.
• 2. The eternality of matter is nonsensical and meaningless.

...thus both of your scenarios are NOT axiomatic truths, even if you feel they are from a subjective stand point.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT, Note it specifically states traditional logic. What traditional logic can be applied to an area of science that is unknown? And wouldn't you agree that traditional logic is tenative? By traditional standards in our day to day observation of reality the Earth is flat, by todays standards that is an illogical conclusion yet reality did not change, our understanding of it changed. When we speak of the origin of the universe, philosophicallly you can muse all you want, scientifically you will not be saying much. But lets include the rest of that definition that you left out..

quote:

---

The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense may include both being and nothingness, whereas existence is often restricted to being (compare with nature). In other words, "reality", as a philosophical category, includes the formal concept of "nothingness" and articulations and combinations of it with other concepts (those possessing extension in physical objects or processes for example).

​

In the strict sense of western philosophy, there are levels or gradation to the nature and conception of reality. These levels include, from the most subjective to the most rigorous: phenomenological reality, truth, fact, and axiom.

---

So, again, in philosophical terms reality can be represented by the subjective experience. However, since it is subjective it requires the person to be present to observe and subjectively interpret the phenomenon. We cannot do that for the origin of the universe, hence theoretical physics tries to explain it by means of mathematics and experiments that try to make predictions. This is the only non-subjective way to try and answer the questions of origin. It cannot be subjectively interpreted unless one is only talking about philosophical interpretations. The 2 are not equal and cannot be combined to form a theory of orign, at least not in a theory that uses empirical evidence.And this last definition is just to put it into perspective from a scientific sense.

quote:

---

Quantum mechanics (QM) has kept physicists and philosophers in debate on the nature of reality since its invention. QM states that prior to observation, nothing can be said about a physical system other than a probability function which seems to be definable to a degree by assumptions about the system's elements.
further more...
Even the notion of cause and effect is brought into question in the quantum world where irreducible randomness cannot currently be avoided as a basic assumption. In theory large numbers of random quantum elements seen as a group from a very great distance can seem like cause and effect which is why our level of experience appears to function almost completely deterministically.

---

With these definitions your determinations are basic assumptions and philosophical in their nature. And neither of these can be empirically defined within the nature of reality at the origin of universe because such a reality is currently unknown.We can end the debate like this, admit that yours/Bertots determinations about reality are philosophical and hold no true axiomatic truths about nature in an empirical sense. I think we all understand the need for subjective interpretations, but we cannot allow them to be truths until they can be objectively verified using the only method that objectively verifies evidence, which is science, more specifically theoretical physics(in this context).Edited by onifre, : change of wording

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This is contradicting. To know what reality suggests and allows you must understand the nature of reality at the points in which you are trying explain what they suggest and allow. At the point in time which we are talking about, you don't know the nature of reality, ergo you don't know what it will suggest or allow. AND since you cannot test your deductive logic for this particular point in time, you hold NO rational stand point. And who judges the worth of your theory? You? This makes no sense. This is the same argument that could have been made when suggesting the Earth was flat! One could have contemplated that the Earth was either flat and finite or flat and infinite, and held to the stubborn opinion that those where axiomatic truths about reality, which is fucking ridiculous by todays standards, as is your stubborn opinion because we understand the fallacy of your thinking. Because I am not going to make the same arrogant statements that you are making about a point in time in which nothing is currently understood. Axiomatic stand point? ...whatever. Now your just winging it. How many times should I repeat my point?Here, in bold letters!There are currently NO POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS because the nature of reality at the point in time which we are discussing is not understood. Simply stating that because things exist they have to be created by something or be eternal is nonsense. It is not an empirical statement within the context of the origin of the universe.Your claims are NOT POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS, there is nothing to the contrary.Just because there is existance, it does not follow that it either was created or eternal. Just because the Earth looks flat, it does not follow that it is either finite of infinte. Your conclusions about God and eternal matter are as nonsensical as a finite or infinitly flat Earth, both of which can be considered axiomatic truths from a subjective perspective.Your turn,--Oni

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

The problem is that Bertot can't just claim that its an axiom and now we have to provide a contrary example. He must establish why its an axiom other than through HIS deductive logic and reasoning.The point is that there is no alternative, because no axiom is established. We continue to explain this and he continues to ignore this.It would have been considered an axiomatic truth about reality that the Earth is flat, right?You can see that is not an axiom though, right?What alternative would you give at that time, given that the geometry of the Earth at that time was not understood?You would simply state that until more is understood there are no axiomatic truths about the geometry of the Earth that we currently know about so it would be premature to postulate an axiom. Here now we hold to the same conclusion, there are no axiomatic truth about the nature of reality at the point of origin until more is understood, to postulate an axiom is premature. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : spelling

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Who said anything about 2000 years? What does an alternative have to do with it being an axiom? Even if there is no alternative it can still not be an axiom, im sorry but you've lost me in your logic here. Bertot has not proven how its an axiom of reality, he is simply stating that it is. It is not. No alternative necessary. Bertot is concluding something about reality and not explaining an axiom about reality. First, I am not even going to entertain his star-trek analogy, im debating his axiom about the origin of the universe. And in my particular debate with him no such alternative exists, nor makes sense.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Sure, perhaps, who knows. Who can even understand eternal? 14 billion years have taken place till today, plus another 50 billion till the universe exausts its energy, seems like an eternity wouldn't you say? How else can we even attempt to define eternal? Especially when he is saying that matter is eternal, yet he will not define what he means by matter. I see your correction on your reply to cavediver, So sure, this is an alternative as well. I think those 2 are fine.But neither of them imply that either matter is eternal OR God is eternal, and therefore I would consider the 2 above statements to be axiomatic truth about reality. Edited by onifre, : spelling

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Sweet! Damn!

Whats there? You are talking about a point in reality which is not understood by any standards, you are just musing. Philosophical musing if fine, but to call something axiomatic requires more than just your thoughts on the matter. REALLY???Flat Earth - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Belief in a flat Earth is found in mankind's oldest writings. In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus.

---

REALLY???Vacuum - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A vacuum is a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is much less than atmospheric pressure.

---

also,Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia

quote:

---

That means that conservation of energy can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

---

This is the core problem of you axiom, This is not an axiom. As cavediver pointed out, if there is no 'time' then there is no 'space' from which something can be brought from. Nothing was brought into anything, this also forcibly implies a need for a creator, which is just your belief and again, not an axiom.The matter being eternal thing I take issue with because you have not established what you mean by matter. In quantum fields particles come in an out of existance neither requireing anything to bring them in nor are the particles eternal. Unless you can better define it, it is still not an axiomatic truth by those standards. However, like I have said before, if you're speaking philosophically then I can accept matter being eternal because then eternal really does not need to be defined. Explain reality to me in a quantum world, what would you say is an axiomatic truth about it? And remember quantum worlds exist in our reality, we just can't see it.--OniEdited by onifre, : Deleted part of post as per Stragglers request.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT This is what I was refering to. Perhaps I did misunderstand that particular part of his post. However, he is not giving us an axiom, he is stating his opinion about reality based off of his deductive reasoning, he wants us to accept his 2 possibilities as the only 2 axioms of reality, yet neither is established as an axiom. Yes I typed my post before I read Stragglers post about not getting into that part of the debate.
Noted.*And as per Stragglers request I will delete that part of my post as to not further go into that in this thread. Yeah I get this statement, and that it is what he claims to be an axiom. But neither of those 2 possibilities make sense."The universe is eternal"...what does that mean? That it has always existed? Well clearly it hasn't, it is 14Byo, it will exuast its energy, it is not eternal.Bertot claimed, "Matter is eternal"...what does that mean? What is the definition of matter in this case? Does he mean a quantum field? The vacuum of space? Thus IMO matter is not eternal, nor can it be if the universe is not eternal."Had to be created"...by who? What do you mean by created? A process of creation from what to what? From nothing to something? Well the something we know exists, the nothing is not understood, maybe that nothing is still something, who knows.Nor does he/you give a reason as to why it has to be created. What are the natural processes that would be violated and require creation? It not being eternal? Again define eternal.And at what point would the universe be considered nothingness? When it reaches a quantum state?Is the vacuum of space considered nothing? If it is, is that nothing considered eternal?And if it is considered nothing then why make it eternal, it is nothing, how can nothing be eternal?How can nothing be anything but nothing?Let me know when you get tired, I can spin it like that for a while.These are not axioms, these are philosophical musings.The only axiom would be that we didn't exist, and now we do. To go further like "the universe is eternal", or "matter is eternal", or "the universe had to be created" is not axiomatic, it is a subjective interpretation based off of a belief, and in the case of matter being eternal, it is a misunderstanding of the physical nature of matter. The only axiom that is logical and can be deduced by observing reality is "the universe exists", eternal need not be added. Philosophically, yes there have been, empirically, no one as of yet will admit this. Theologically, yes, empirically it cannot be proven. How 'bout "No one has a clue yet and they are just musing"? Edited by onifre, : spelling

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT The is the only axiom, the rest is not.

Hi ICANT, I don't know if it always existed and in what state it existed in, perhaps a quantum state, but this does not represent matter though, so matter being eternal is not equally representative of the vacuum of space. Will it cease to exist? That depends on what you call 'exist'. If it collapses back into a quantum state singularity would you not consider that non-existant? I would simply because space is gone. If it re-expands as in Loop Quantum Gravity theory then it becomes existance again. The materials that compose the universe? Don't know what that means. The universe that you see is the expanded version of what was at T=O. It is cooler now obviously so matter was able to form from sub-atomic particles(quick version). The universe expanded from its previous state, let say a quantum state, so nothing was borne out of, or came into, it went from one state(pre-BB), to the current state(expanding). Does that mean the quantum state is eternal? I wouldn't say that but, if you do I have no beef with that. But just keep in mind that we are talking about nothingness, so can 'nothing' be eternal, or simply just plain ole nothing? You can answer that however you please. I thought it was evident? 'These' was my ramblings about eternal nothingness and nothing not being eternal but simply just nothing.
Sorry I hope I defined it better now. Yeah I'm cool with that. No, not cool with that. But if you feel this better helps you then by all means say it. Remember time ends if you go backwards past the BB. Space is the universe, therefore time is part of it, if there is no space there is no time. How can it be eternal and timeless? It gets too deep to understand, currently, with our current models of the universe. Again, I can agree with that but you add... Why are you trying to sneak created pass the goalie?Came into existance from its previous state. Quantum fluctuation do this without the need of creation. Created implies creator and creator implies God.Came into existance will suffice. No. Always existed AND came into existance from a previous state are both fine by me. To add eternal to a point where spacetime does not exist(i.e. a quantum state), or to add created when creation is not needed, is what I don't agree with.Me personally I would simply say "It exists" and it "came into existance" from a previous, not yet fully understood, state. I believe these are axioms AND supported by empirical objective evidence. Edited by onifre, : spelling

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi ICANT, Cool, I would accept either or, its just a matter of perspective. No, it will not but it will be an empty vacuum, nothingness. Would you consider that eternal? Like I asked in the other post, if its nothingness how could it be anything other than nothing. No you are thinking of the Big Freeze. The running out of energy, or rather, if you'd like the technical term, reaching a state of maximum entropy, theory is Heat Death.Heat death - Wikipedia Outside of the universe? What does 'outside the universe' mean?How could there be something outside of existance? If it is something then it's part of existance. I did not suggest this at all, I think you misunderstood me. IF it continues to expand it will eventually be an empty vacuum, if it collapses it will become a quantum state singularity.However, an empty vacuum of space would be what could eventually occur to the universe because it has a positive cosmological constant, hence the universe expantion is accelerating indefinitely. But that is not 100% agreed upon so I left room for the Big Crunch. Sub-atomic particles are not materials though.And sub-atomic particles appear after the BB. So the universe is not composed of them but rather they are part of the universe, like hydrogen atoms, planets and bio organisms. Fair enough, we'll both play dumb on this one. Agreed.--Oni

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Kuresu, Real quick as to not get too off topic.The cosmological constant(lambada) has to be positive in order to counter gravities attractive force.The chart you show is showing the Omega(vacuum energy density) factor. Omega being represented by the Omega sign. If lambada is greater than omega then the universe will expand forever. However, the debate is in the omega, or vacuum energy density being at zero or greater than 1. Some physicist are not convinced, or so I've read.I don't want to get completely off topic but heres a better link,
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.htmlEdited by onifre, : spelling

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky