The "Axioms" Of Nature

Hello bertot,
There are varied reasons why this may have occurred. You would have to eliminate each to reach the most likely reason. Supposedly Spook does this with logic only. However without first eliminating all alternatives to arrive at the original scenario, it all boils down to his best guess. Here is a list of possibilities just from the top of my head.Aliens unwilling to answer
Aliens unable to answer
Enterprise unable to receive
Enterprise unwilling to receive
Response unable to be interpreted
Response unnoticed by Enterprise
Original communication not received
Original communication not sent
Response sent and received but Q erased all knowledge of the event
It was just the way the script was worded in order to add suspense to the show
All the tribbels on the deflector dish garbled the communicationI could continue, however it seems to be very irrelevant to your point. What does any of this have to do with an axiom of nature? Which axiom are you addressing specifically? How do you know that it is in fact an axiom? Most importantly how do you know that you deductive logic is not faulty and therefore producing a faulty result? First we get the money, than we get the kahkis, then we get the chics.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ

Goodmorning Parasomnium, Whether or not Bertot provides a counter example, I believe Stragglers point that axioms of nature are useless without testing, is the most valid to the point. The uinderlying nature of the universe does not really allow for very reliable conclusions to be drawn with deductive logic alone. Since most of the mechanics of physics and chemistry do not fall in line with what would normaly be considered logical. (points to Stragglers clock example) This is a perfect example of the nature of the universe that would not be logicaly deduced without empirical testing. For some folks, even after they have been shown how certain aspects of nature are conterintuitive to their reasoning, they can not rap their heads around the logic of it.

Hellio Bertot, Oh I got a million of them. Inorder to save space and continue this along I will concede the fact that you will never acknowledge any of the counter examples you have been supplied. I believe Onifre's post Message 65 sums up the attitude of myself and the other posters nicely and will continue the debate after you address his post. Not that I couldn't say it myself, but why repeat something that is already brought to your attention.

Hello Icant, Why do the staments have to be mutually exclusive of each other?
What about the idea of, the universe is created and eternal. There is no evidence that it could not be this way, just as much as there is no evidence that it could. At this time anyways. If knowledge and technology advance at a point further in time to where we find that there is a multiverse, both statements could be true. I believe Bertot is discussing matter in particular. So Bertot's Tautology should read. Either matter was created, or matter is eternal, or matter was created and is eternal. Although using the term matter does lead to a problem, when you try and define just what we consider matter to be. If we were to substitute the word, universe for matter it may be more correct.

The only person who has a disagreement on verbage is yourself, and the definition you want to propose only applies to your argument. I think that is no reason to re-write a dictionary just to ensure that it aligns with your argument. Unfortunatly "things exist" is also a conclusion based on ones own perspective. I believe that a statement that "things may exist" is more forthright That is not entirely true. If we did not pocess a mind, we would have no idea that things exist. The other problem is people who have mental disorders. For some it is possible that, things exist in their reality that does not exist in someone elses. In which case this demenstrates that at least the perception of reality is entirely dependant on the individual's mind. But only according to your definition. Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

The task is easy, all I need to demonstrate is that "things" are only as real as your perception. A thousand years ago the crystal spheres that held up the heavens were "real". Two hundred years ago universal time was "real". A flat earth was "real". These ideas of the universe, much like your own was based on the best data that they had at the time. It was their perception of the universe, as true to them as your tautologies are to you. This I believe is the same argument that others in this thread have raised. At any time, we only have incomplete evidence of the nature of reality. And as Straggler has made abondently clear (incomplete evidence) + (deductive logic) = (unreliable conclusions). Changing definitions of what is and is not an axiom does not overcome this problem.