The "Axioms" Of Nature

Then name your "axiom". If it exists. 90 posts and counting. Still no sign of an actual axiom being stated........There is nothing I can say that demonstrates the fundamental weakness of your position better than that.You are unable to state a single "axiom of reality". After a thread of 90+ posts. In case you had forgotten the whole point of this thread was to examine your methodology for making reliable conclusions. Your method has been found to be invalid on the basis that your "axioms" are nothing but extrapolations of incomplete empirical evidence. As you have already admitted: Can you explain to me how exactly your "axioms" are anything other than the product of incomplete empirical evidence and deductive logic?What components are your "axioms" composed of?(Bertot's "axioms" of reality)=(incomplete empirical evidence)+(deductive reasoning)If this is inaccurate perhaps you could tell us what these axioms are composed of? How are they formed? How can I determine one for myself?You've lost Bertot. You are just too stubborn or silly to have realised it yet.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Lose the ticket.
The lottery company goes bankrupt and never completes the draw.
Somebody steals the ticket. It wins but you do not.
The tickets numbers are not printed properly. You are denied the prize although you know your numbers were drawn.
The lottery is all a big con. You "win" but so does everybody else who entered and when you all give your bank details for the prize they clean out your bank account.Frankly the possibilities are endless.What constitutes a "win". What constitutes a "loss"?And without empirical experience of some sort how would you even know what a lottery ticket was?Bertot has said that:(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)There is no room for empirical experience in here unless it is included in the "axioms of reality" part. If it is these can hardly be "axioms" as we cannot possibly claim to have all of the empirical evidence required to know that they are universal truths of reality.ICANT if you have an "axiom of reality" that you can state please do so. Bertot has failed to cite one as yet.100 posts and counting. Still no sign of an actual axiom of reality.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think they have.For the sake of Onfire's chick pulling power lets change the example from Star Trek for one moment.I am willing and able to teach my son Newtons laws of motion. But my son is 2 years old and can barely speak yet. So I may have to wait 10-15 years before he actually understands that which I am willing and able to teach him.Am I not willing? Am I not able? Does my ability depend on his ability to understand? Is it my willingness or my ability that changes in time or his ability to understand? At what point does "unable" change to "able" as his ability to understand progresses? Is it black and white or is it graduated? Is there a point in time where one second we can say he is "unable" and the next he is "able"? How does an axiom apply to a graduated change like that?Now back to the Star Trek example (sorry Onfire). If the alien ship is both willing and able and the crew of the Enterprise are able but do not know that they need to reason and think in a way that they have never yet considered where does leave the unstated "axiom"?The axiom is depenedent on the experience and knowledge of those making the conclusion.Thus it is not an "axiom" at all but a subjective conclusion derived from limited empirical experience. With different experience and different modes of thinking a different conclusion would have been drawn. And still can be later in time. Just like the understanding of my son.This is what Bertot is too stibborn or silly to understand. His "axioms" are just subjective conclusions that he considers to be untouchable based on persistent empirical experience. Incomplete empirical experience.If we had relied on this method for reliable conclusions relativity, for one, would never have been discovered.Bertot's methodology allows for no new experience or thinking that contradict established conclusions that he considers "axiomatic". But science is full or such "axioms" having been overthrown on the basis of empirical reality.Reality is as we find it not as we deduce it to be.
Without empirical testing as the basis no discovery is possible.
With empirical experience and testing as the basis no such things as "axioms" are possible.

120 posts still not a single axiom stated. Oh dear oh dear. You are supplying case specific scenarios. Not axioms.Are you saying each individual situation requires it's own axiom? Are your "axioms" infinite?
What is the actual "axiom" in your example? You seem unable to grasp what your own position actually is.(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclsusions)In the absence of generalised "axioms" of reality you have no position at all.
If your unstated "axioms" are derived from empirical experience, as you have already susggested them to be, then they are based on necessarily incomplete evidence and thus meet the criteria of the originally refuted position.Either way you lose. Only you have not realised this yet. All you have done is extrapoloate your incomplete and subjective empirical experience and re-label it "axiom". This is invalid.In what other areas of investigation would you trust a methodology that does not test it's conclusions against reality? Medicine? Would you take drugs that hade been derived from "axioms" and deductive logic alone without testing?Universal and constant time was once an "axiom". Reality proved it wrong. With your methodology relativity could not have been discovered.If your methodology is valid it should be universal.But it isn't. It's just an excuse for you to introduce your silly subjective belief system into areas of investigation that will require proper empirical discovery before we can draw any truly reliable conclusions.

Each discovery is only as good as the latest evidence. If by "axiom" you mean "to the best of our current knowledge" then yes.But that is not what is usually meant by the term "axiom"........

There is a wider issue here.Everytime a creationists/IDist says "the evidence is the same only the interpretations are different", everytime they come up with a pet theory that "proves" God/creator must have been involved you can bet your last dollar that their argument will come down to an assertion that evidence in one form or another plus logic is enough on which to draw conclusions. No testing of conclusions is required. No hypotheses need be formed. They have their conclusions and they are valid. As far as they are concerned.All their arguments are the same fundamentally.Science is intrinsically different. Scientific conclusions are tested. For this reason they are reliable. For this reason they are always tentative to some degree. For this reason they are superior.Even where science has no answer it is because the level of reliability required by testing conclusions has not been met.It is this that I am trying to get across.Bertot may never get it. I doubt he ever will in fact. But geting into the usual "you have no evidence", "but you have no answer", "but you have no evidence" etc. etc. etc. etc. argument over a specific conclusion is not really the point I hoped this thread would make.So my advice, for what little it is worth, is don't let Bertot turn the discussion in that specific direction.If his methods are nonsense then it follows that his conclusions are almost certainly bollocks.

If you are claiming that axioms of reality exist then I would agree that such axioms should indeed be real. Exactly (but the non-changing nature of reality is itself potentially subject to being wrong!!) Agreed. But our perception of reality is limited to subjective empirical experience. That too is indisputable. How can we "prove" anything? We can discover what we believe to be reality but given our subjective outlook and the fact that we cannot experience all of the empirical evidence how can we ever be sure that what we know is a true reflection of reality?We thought we understood time. Until Einstein changed all the "axioms". For example.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If the axioms of reality are not limited by empirical reality what are they?How do you decide what is an axiom? How can you be sure that it is objective, legitimate and genuinely axiomatic?"Obviousness" is subjective so just stating "it is obvious" is no argument.Unlike a mathematical axiom an axiom of reality would have to be universally and eternally true in reality. Yet we cannot experience entirety for eternity and what limited experience we do have is inherently subjective.That is your problem.That is why neither you nor Bertot have actually been able to state an "axiom of reality" after 140 posts of opportunity to do so.

How do you know what is real? How do you know that reality is unchanging? No. It is merely imposes the limitation we have of ever knowing what is real. Exactly. And overturned that which had previously been considered "axiomatic". There are no axioms because we can never know what such axioms are. Reality is reality. Our knowledge of reality is what determines what we think is axiomatic at any given time. But it can always be wrong.Whatever "axioms" of nature it is you think exist could just as easily be overturned by new evidence.So what are these axioms........... You still have not said. 150 posts and counting.

You are confusing axioms with 'truths'. Axioms in this context are merely what we believe to be truths.We can prove nothing. That which we regard as axiomatic at any given time is limited by our knowledge at that time.Reality does not change but our perception of it does.So what "axioms" do you have and how do you know that they will not be overturned by new evidence?If there are any true axioms of reality we can never truly know what they are. That is the point. That is why your talk of axioms is silly.Try this for an "axiom of existence": We can only ever experience reality imperfectly, subjectively and incompletely.What do you think?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Possibly. Although "axiom of existence" might be a better phrase. The reality external to "I" would seem to be immune from analysis from that starting point alone. Maybe "Our experience of reality is subjective and incomplete" could be the second "axiom" in such a line of equiry.It is certainly better than anything Bertot has come up with. I guess Bertot is unlikeley to go down in history in quite the same way that Descarte has.

BertotNearly 200 posts and you still have not stated a single "axiom of reality". Your position is untenable.You have stopped even pretending that your "axioms" are borne of anything other than incomplete empirical experience. It seems that you now also agree that a hypothesis based approach to investigation is the superior method of drawing reliable conclusions. I would call this progress. Instead you just insist that your initial conclusions, which let us not forget are necessarily borne of subjective experience as applied to incomplete empirical evidence, are conclusions that "cannot be avoided" and should thus be considered "axioms".So: (axioms of reality)=(incomplete empirical evidence)+(deductive logic) is unequivocally your position after all. How do you know how much evidence it requires to turn your subjective experience of incomplete empirical evidence into an "axiom"?Obviously you cannot know such a thing.Thus we are back full circle to my original refutation of your position.(incomplete empirical evidence)+(deductive logic)=(unreliable conclusions) Well you seem almost be adopting the methods of science whilst still resisting the idea that it is your ultimate conclusions that need to be tested rather than your silly idea of axioms on which you then proceed to pile on a whole heap of subjective "logic".If a hypothesis based approach is, as you seem to now suddenly agree, superior why not subject your final conclusions to such testing rather than attempting the impossible task of forming "axioms" from which you then wish to derive all other conclusions? There are no tested, reliable conclusions as yet regarding cosmological origins. Including your pitifully unreliable and flawed attempt at an answer.Simply stating that you have a superior position because you have an answer no matter how unreliable that answer may be or how invalid the method of drawing that conclusion obviously is, demonstrates gross stupidity.Now that you have finally come round to a hypothesis based approach you should realise this. I do understand your method. It is to take subjective experience of necessarily incomplete empirical evidence and to re-label this as an "axiom". You then apply a whole heap more flawed logic onto this "axiom" to derive whatever conclusions satisfy your personal belief system. It really is quite pathetic. The truths of reality are not subjective. What you determine those truths to be, that which you call "axioms", obviously are.Unless you can explain how it is you can derive indisputable "axioms" from empirical experience whilst that empirical experience is necessarily incomplete and subjective?You repeatedly refuse to even tackle this key question. I hoped it would demonstrate the impossibility of making any objective, legitimate and genuinely axiomatic statements regarding nature or reality. I hoped it would confirm the superiority and necessaity of a hypothesis based approach to investigation and the formation of reliable conclusions.Given that you are still unable to state a single axiom.......So far so good!

Do you agree that "axioms" of reality actually need to be true as compared to reality? Indeed. Scientific conclusions are always tentative to some degree. The degree of reliability will depend on the evidence with which they are supported and the tests that have been undertaken. But new evidence can always potentially overturn any scientific conclusion. This is absolutely true.(incomplete empirical evidence)+(deductive logic)=(hypothesis)Hypotheses have to be tested in order to be rendered reliable. But all scientific conclusions are tentative to some extent. That is the scientific method. In a nutshell. It would not if such things actually existed. The problem you have is knowing that your conclusions are legitimately, objectively and genuinely axiomatic.I don't deny that there are truths of nature. Only that you can ever know them as such in order to label them "axioms". "It's truth is taken for granted". "Necessary decision". "Self evident". These are subjective decisions.
In maths that is fine. Axioms are just a starting point for logical deduction. There are no "wrong" axioms as long as they are not self contradicting. You can create maths that describes things that are not "real".However if you are claiming "axioms of reality" they need to actually be true. They need to measure up to something external in a way that mathematical axioms do not. "Axioms" that do not reflect reality are not axioms. Axioms of reality need to actually be universal truths of reality that all evidence will adhere to all the time everywhere in all circumstances. If just one piece of evidence breaks your "axiom" it is no longer an axiom. It is just something that is almost always true. But not always. That is not an axiom. I think you will agree. Does Wiki claim to hold all the truths of reality? I doubt it. Given that you are stating this as a truth of nature how do you know this to be true? On what basis do you know that this is true?Or are you using as an axiom in the sense that "It's truth is taken for granted"? Are you assuming it to be true rather than knowing it to be true? If so what if you are wrong? Your resulting conclusions will also be wrong. And your so called "axiom" will be no such thing.You need to show that your conclusion holds up in all cases under all circumstances. An "axiom of reality" specifically would actually need to be true as compared to reality. And known to be absolutely true. Not just assumed or "taken for granted" or an arbitrary decision or subjectively decided to be "self evident". It would need to be true as compared to reality.On the basis of incomplete evidence how can you ever form such a thing? You cannot. All you can do is assume for the sake of argument. And that is no basis for reliable conclusions of any sort.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Still not a single axiom able to be stated then? Oh dear oh dear. Quite a hole you have dug for yourself.What axiom did your Spock example demonstrate exactly? That the fictional character Spock is rather silly? That you have a penchant for very bad examples? Whilst true these are certainly not axioms.So what was the axiom you were demonstrating in that example? Why don't you tell us?If you cannot state a single "axiom of reality" you have no positionA few questions which I am sure you will avoid as usual

How many of these axioms of reality are there exactly?

Does every situation require it's own "axiom"? Are there an infinite number of "axioms"?

Does this actually mean that your "axioms" are in fact just a means of justifying your preconceived conclusions rather than a viable method of drawing conclusions?

Would you use this (axioms of reality)+(deductive logic) methodology of yours in other areas of science? Or only where you need to support your subjective beliefs?

Would you use this methodology in medicine for example? If so how exactly?

​

All you have to do Straggler is give another option than the only two, to demonstrate my position as subjective and yet you wont even try, why is that Straggler? Come on Straggler you are straggling behind, better hop to it.

​

The person with no axioms and no position asks me to justify my argument!!!!

​

I gave you an answer to your question. But you keep ignoring it. Both willing and unwilling. Both able and unable. All simultaneously. Using methods of thought that require humans to think in new ways.

​

If this breaks your "axiom" what is that axiom? How do you know it is objective, legitimate and genuinely axiomatic?

​

But you are unable to state the "axiom"...........

​

Because, in a quantum state, quantum fluctuations defy BOTH reality and reason.

​

Neither created nor eternal but very very real.

​

You lose. Yet again.

ICANT if something is self evident but also turns out to be untrue is it an "axiom of reality"? I would say not. And I think you would agree. Truths exist. But we can never know when or if we have found one. Yes that is my position. Absolutely. Have we ever had so much agreement ICANT? Exactly. More agreement!!!
"Axioms of reality" cannot exist for exactly the same practical reasons that indisputable scientific facts cannot exist. Namely that we cannot ever know what is indisputably true. What is self evident to you may not actually be true as compared to reality. Which kind of contradicts your previous argument, that axioms of reality actually need to be true as compared to reality.You cannot have it both ways. Is that an axiom? Anyway.........I have explained to you why you can never know something to be axiomatic regarding reality. You have just not listened. I will try again.120 years ago things were waves or particles.
That would have been self evident and axiomatic at the time. But it was wrong. Reality disagreed. No one could have predicted that QM would be discovered. But it was.I have absolutely no idea what alternatives there could possibly be to your question. But neither of us can be 100% sure that no other possibility will ever be discovered or could possibly exist. The fact that we cannot think of one now may tell us more about our ignorance and lack of imagination than it does anything about the truths of reality.That is the point. That is why "axioms of reality" can never be known.Whatever you consider to be an "axiom" now is only ever one discovery away from being overturned.Tentative conclusions of the tested hypothesised scientific sort are the best we can ever hope for.Do you understand now?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and quote box formatting.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.