The "Axioms" Of Nature

As I think is all too obvious in Bertot's stated methodology. He seems to need to know what conclusion he is aiming for in order to determine which one of his infinite number of "axioms" he needs to invoke.It would be hilarious if it were not so tragic.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

2+2=4 is not an axiom as I understand it. It is mathematically provable based on prior axioms for a start........I am no mathematician but I understand that these are the axioms upon which such a conclusion would be derived: Full details here Peano axioms - Wikipedia but Rrhain may be able to shed more light on the axioms that underlie arithmetic if none of this makes any sense.I remember being shown the proof that 0+1=1 once upon a time and it made me very glad I was not studying pure maths.However we are discussing the "axioms of reality". In this case whatever "axioms" are stated need to be indisputably true with reference to reality.Axioms in mathematics do not have to be true in relation to anything external. They are simply consistent starting points for the application of logic and can form the basis of descriptions of things that are not at all "real".The fact that we can use mathematics to model reality is a fascinating topic possibly worthy of it's own thread at some point.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Bertot's nonsense apart I would be interested on your thoughts regarding the possible link between mathematical axioms and reality.When we say that 0+1=1 we can mean that in a purely abstract mathematical number theory sort of sense. But can we also apply that to reality?In many ways we can assume in an axiomatic sense that this is objectively 'true' regarding reality. 0 objects + 1 object will result in 1 object.Can we prove that this will always be true? Not by any means other than mathematically as derived from the axioms that underlie number theory as far as I am aware.From a mathematicians viewpoint what is the relation between number and reality and could the axioms of number theory be considered as underpinning reality in some way?

I would tentatively say 'yes'.But I could be a brain in a jar existing in a completely different universe and a completely different reality. I could be imagining all of this including you.I am so sure that this is not the case as to make it irrelevant to all practical intents and purposes but I cannot ever actually prove it not to be so.Thus I am 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.....9999999........999999999999 etc.% certain that the answer to your question is 'yes'.But in the absence of 'proof' I can never be 100% sure. Thus my answer is tentative to some tiny degree.Do you understand now?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Too many 9's.

Hey Bertot started with the Star Trek nonsense I was simply giving a demonstration of the limits imposed on our knowledge.You say an "axiom of reality" must be true.But there are no proofs of reality. Only evidence.When we are talking about reality and evidence based knowledge -We can say: The evidence strongly suggests X.But we can never say: X is indisputably true.Thus our conclusions are tentative and "axioms" derived from evidence are impossible.Again consider that 120 years ago the idea that something could be both a wave and a particle would have been considered ridiculous and "axiom" defying. Now we know better. How can you know with 100% certainty that those things you consider to be axiomatic will fare any better?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Over 200 posts and still not a single axiom cited Bertot.Your position is ever more ridiculous. Just to help you along here is an example of a actual set of axioms. Note the structure. A series of short statements. If you ever get around to stating any of these mysterious and unspoken "axioms of reality" might a suggest a similar format. Given you inability so far however I won't be holding my breath........ We await your "axioms of reality" with keen anticipation

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!You claimed that these "axioms of reality" actually exist. You claimed that you can derive reliable conclusions from these axioms. I setup this whole thread as a challenge to you to cite these axioms on the basis that they do not exist. Now, after 200+ posts of failure on your part, you want me to tell you what they are........? WTF!Remember your position has been unequivocally stated to be:(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)In the absence of any such axioms your whole position is completely non-existant. Dude you hold your breath for as long as you want.The axioms I cited are not intended to be representations of physical reality. They are the purely abstract and wholly mathematical axioms of number theory. They are examples of the format that you should be following with regard to these "axioms of reality" that you claim to be privy to. Those same "axioms" that I have told you cannot exist.So when you can provide us with even a single "axiom" that meets your own criteria ("should at least correspond to some physical property in reality") and that you can show to be objective, legitimate and genuinely axiomatic, then let us all know.Until then you have no "axioms", you have no position, you have no argument and you look very foolish.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In a whole thread designed to examine your claims that "axioms of reality" exist, a thread where you have been unable to cite a single such axiom.......I have a problem?????? As has been explained to you by Rrhain different geometries can have different and even contradicting sets of axioms. Axioms in this sense are starting points for mathematical deduction. They need only be self consistent. This is where the term axiom normally applies. It is you who is (quite unsuccessfully I might add) claiming that we can derive axioms of reality.Axioms of reality need to be true as compared to reality itself. They cannot just be "assumed" or subjectively "self evident" or "taken for granted" in the way that mathematical axioms can be. Axioms of reality are not just a set of internally consistent unprovable assumptions. Axioms of reality must actually be true.They must actually be true as measured against objective reality.But you can never know the truths of nature based on incomplete empirical evidence. That is your problem. I don't disagree with that. I simply dispute that you can ever know the truths of nature so completely as to form such axioms.If you culd you would have cited at least one by now.YOUR PROBLEM: INCOMPLETE EVIDENCE
Way back when we started this discussion in Message 295 I explained to you how the problem of incomplete evidence meant that a hypothesis based approach was the only viable method of evidence based investigation.Despite your assertions regarding "axioms of reality" you have never tackled this key area. You have simply asserted that your own initial empirically derived conclusions (i.e. your "axioms") are free from this problem. But they quite evidently are not.Whatever you currently think is an "axiom" of nature is the product of incomplete evidence. You cannot say with 100% certainty that further evidence will not show that "axiom" to be false. You can say it is extremely unlikely but you cannot truthfully say that it is impossible. Not without all of the possible evidence.How can you form "axioms" that must be 100% true in all circumstances on the basis of empirical evidence unless you have ALL of the empirical evidence, unless you can know the nature of all future discoveries? Unless you are omniscient?Your "axioms" amount to nothing more than the extrapolation of incomplete evidence. And we have already seen that:(incomplete evidence)+(deductive logic)=(unreliable conclusions)The nature of empirical investigation makes axiomatic statements impossible. There can always be new evidence. And that evidence can always potentially overturn those things that we consider to be "axioms". There are numerous historical examples of exactly this occurring.That is your problem. That is the problem you need to address.Alternatively you could just state these axioms of yours........Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I have seen you cite specific scenarios/tautologies/stories but you have never stated the actual underlying axiom that any of your scenarios is supposedly demonstrating.Or is each scenario itself an "axiom"?
How many "axioms of reality" are there exactly?
Are there an infinite number of "axioms"?
If there are an infinite number how do you know which one to choose in order to make a particular conclusion?
Or does your "axioms of reality" methodology only work when you have a preconceived conclusion already in place?The hole you are digging gets deeper and deeper.

Does all possible life absolutely and necessarily end in death?Can we say with absolute certainty that all forms of life that do currently exist, or might conceivably (or even inconceivably) exist at some point in the future, will end in death?Without having all of the evidence for all life at all times anywhere in the universe that does or will exist this is an extrapolation of incomplete evidence. It could potentially be proven to be wrong. As has happened to so many other things that have at one point or another been considered to be axiomatic. And thus it is not an "axiom of reality" in the sense that it is undeniably 100% true in all possible cases. Self evident to who?If something is "self evident" but turns out to actually be untrue as measured against reality would you still consider it to be an "axiom"?Are your "axioms" effectively necesary assumptions in the form of "self evident truths", but assumptions borne of incomplete evidence all the same?Or must your "axioms" be objectively true as compared to reality in all possible cases?You seem to be conflating the two possibilities but the two are far from certain to be the same.Both ultimately suffer from the problem of incomplete evidence.But which of the two do you actually mean when you say "axiom of reality"? Subjectively "self evident" assumption or objectively true in all cases?Which is it?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You have repeatedly ignored the whole issue of incomplete evidence as first explained to you in Message 295The truths of reality exist but how can you know when you have found a 'truth' of reality that is always true as opposed to being true as far as we can currently tell? How do you know it is an "axiom" rather than a conclusion that could be proven to be wrong at a later date?Because it is "self evident"? How many "self evident" seemingly axiomatic conclusions have eventually been proven to be wrong?Conclusions derived from empirical evidence can never be 100% immune from being overturned by new evidence. For this reason there can be no "axioms" of the sort you espouse. Conclusions will always be tentative to some degree. The problem of incomplete evidence will always exist with regard to evidence based investigation.Thus your stated position (axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions) necessarily becomes:(incomplete empirical evidence)+(deductive logic)=(unreliable conclusions)Exactly as discussed at the beginning of this conversation. The truths of nature exist. But how do you know when your evidence leads to a truth rather than something that is almost always true?This is impossible and thus your whole concept of "axioms of reality" is irretrievably refuted.Unless you can provide a solution to the problem of incomplete evidence a hypothesis based approach is the only way forwards. Simply piling more deductive logic on top of incomplete evidence can do nothing but result in unreliable conclusions.Your methods are deeply flawed and your resulting conclusions are wholly unreliable.
As was originally demonstrated way back when we started this discussion.You lose. Again.

What happens when a self evident "truth" is found to be untrue?Is it still an axiom?

After well over 200 posts you are still floundering in the dark with the same old refuted arguments. You are just too stubborn or too stupid to understand what everyone is saying to you. Nobody has ever denied that the truths of reality exist. The dispute is as to whether you can ever know them such that you can claim anything to be axiomatic. The debate is not about reality per se as you seem to assume. It is about our ability to know that which is axiomatic. To know that which is true. And that in essence is your problem.How do you differentiate between that which seems to be axiomatic and that which actually is?You cannot.EXAMPLE
Universal and constant time was once considered to be axiomatically true. Relativity showed this "axiom" to be false.On what basis can you claim that anything that you currently consider to be axiomatic will not fare equally as badly as the "axiom" of universal time in the light of new evidence.Every single thing that you can state as axiomatic is only as good as the latest evidence. Everything that you consider to be axiomatic is potentially wrong.Simply stating thinmgs to be axioms does not make them true. To claim them as axioms they have to be known to be true regardless of place, time or circumstance. And that is your problem. Nothing about nature can be known to be absolutely true based on incomplete evidence.That is why the "axioms of reality" cannot be known via evidence based investigatiion.You continue to lose the debate. You just have still not realised it yet.If you answer one question in response to this post answer this:
How can you differentiate between that which is an axiom and that
which is true in all but the most exceptional of unknown circumstances?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

For your stated methodology to work:(axioms of reality)+(deductive logic)=(reliable conclusions)It is not enough for the truths of reality to simply exist. For your methodology to work you must actually know what these truths of reality actually are. Only then can you class them as "axioms". That is your problem. We don't know what the truths of reality are. That is the whole point. Why do you keep trying to get me to state your "axioms" for you when my whole argument is that such axioms can never be known?I can only tentatively state what we think the truths of nature to currently be based on incomplete evidence. Thus they are not axioms. They are tentative conclusions derived from tested hypotheses.An example of such a conclusion would be that faster than light travel is impossible. But, whilst unlikely, new evidence could potentially overturn this conclusion. Thus it is not an axiom. It is a tested but tentative conclusion. So time does not exist? Is that one of your axioms? If you are too silly to understand the time example how about the example of empty space. It was previously considered axiomatic that the empty vacuum of space was devoid of all matter. We now know that this is not true. Virtual particles pop in and out of existance such that "empty" space as previously conceptualised does not really exist.Reality overturned that which was considered axiomatic on the basis of incomplete evidence. New evidence proved this wrong. What makes you think that any of your "axioms" will not suffer the same fate? This circular nonsense merely masks the fact that you cannot know what is true and that your whole methodology is therefore intrinsically flawed. Duh! Yourself. Have you experienced all of reality?
Unless you have experienced all of reality how can you ever know what is indisputably true? How can you know that new evidence, as yet undiscovered features of reality, will not prove that which you believe to be axiomatic as untrue?NAME A SINGLE TRUTH OF REALITY THAT YOU KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE 100% CERTAINTY CAN NEVER EVER BE DISPROVEN BY NEW EVIDENCEReality is the measure of your "axioms" and that is your problem. Reality has a nasty habit of ignoring that which we think is axiomatic and turning it on it's head.Unless you can know what the axioms of reality actually are in all the varied conditions that reality can possibly offer your "axioms" are nothing more than tentative conclusions and your methods necessarily reduce to:(incomplete empirical evidence)+(deductive logic)=(unreliable conclusions)Exactly as previously demonstrated.You lose. Yet again.

Are you stupid? Why do you keep trying to get me to state your "axioms" for you?Only tentative approximations to the truths of reality can be offered based on incomplete evidence. That is the point.Try reading my previous post again. Try answering the question:NAME A SINGLE TRUTH OF REALITY THAT YOU KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE 100% CERTAINTY CAN NEVER EVER BE DISPROVEN BY NEW EVIDENCEIf you are still having difficulty comprehending the problem of incomplete evidence with regard to your notion of "axioms" then just ask. I am here to help.