The "Axioms" Of Nature

Why don't you? (you can look up the word "dictionary" first )

I checked a number of available definitions for the words "axiom" and "tautology". If there is anyone making things up it is you. But you told others to check the definitions. This is confusing.If you don't want to use the consensus definitions then why ask others to check them.If you want to use your own then you have to give a good definition for the terms you are using.As it is no one has a clue what you are talking about so you might as well start over by defining "axiom" then giving the ones you want to use for the universe (or whatever).

Bertot, they are given as examples so you know what an axiom is like. They are not intended to be the axioms of nature that is the topic of this thread.It is your job to supply these axioms of reality that you have been on about for days and days. It appears that you don't have any.All you have to do now is supply them.

Here is a very simple question. It only needs a yes or no answer. You don't actually have to supply any axioms but just answer:Do you ever intend to actually supply any axioms of nature?Edited by NosyNed, : fix goof of dbcodes

Rrhains "attempt" was not just an attempt. They are, by all consensus definitions shown, tautologies.However, we can work within a new set of definitions if you want. You'll just have to define "axiom". It appears you do have some definition in mind and it happens to be exactly what the dictionaries define as "tautology". If it is different you'll have to supply a quality definition of what you mean by "axiom" so we can proceed with that.If you wish to speak with people you have to be sure you are speaking the same language. It appears you choose not to.

But you seem to misunderstand, still, what an axiom is. It isn't an axiom if it is proven true (or not proven false).An axiom is just taken as being true for particular purposes. Percy gave an excellent one above. It may not even be true but it is a useful starting point and is often just taken as true.And besides:
What date and time to I write on the tombstone of one of my wee pet bacteria?

It is to!!! Precisely because we can't prove it or even be sure that it is true we postulate it's truth so we can get on with the study of "reality". It is perhaps the most basic axiom of science.

We would adapt as we did by developing non-Euclidean geometries that deal with other alternatives.Right now we don't have the evidence so we, for the most part, take reality as an axiom.Sure the alternatives are considered but not with a fraction of the percent of resources directed to working in a "reality" where the axiom is taken as given -- that is, as an axiom. So we aren't disagreeing for the most part? That is what I think we do too. (almost all the time).