Para writes:
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.
I believe this is where I left off again. Testing is the very thing that is under consideration in the context of the discussion. He complained that my example of an axiom against existence itself was to broad because we donot know everything. I then reduced it to an common place example in the area of UNABLE AND UNWILLING. Something I though would be a little more simple for him to handle. Now i did this with full knowledge that he or others had not even scratched the surface of providing me an alterantive two the only possible logical conclusions with regard to the existence of existence or things. He then starts complaining that I have not provided an example of an axiomatic truth, yet he or others cannot provide me with another word or idea that do not fall quarely within or a combination of the two
Look at it this way, if you cant provide another deductive alternative in the context of the existence of things because its to broad, then atleast try and imagine or postulate another solution that will not fall within the two and ONLY to logical possibilites. My prediction is that you cant even do that.
Para writes:
So I agree with you, there are no axioms of nature. We cannot, a priori, know the basics of nature without looking at it. The only thing I can think of that would even remotely approximate an axiom of nature is "something exists", which, as axioms go, seems to be a bit of a pointless thing to say.
This statement is both unreasonable and illogical. All of nature is a fact or axiom. Not only does nature exist but reality as well. Looking at reality is exacally what I am purposing. Not having certain facts about things is not the same as saying you cant know some things. While there may be limitless possibilites about who or what caused the universe, all of them will fall within the context of the axiom of only two logical choices. An eternal creator is one of the only two choices and you know this by observation and experimentation of things, reality, and deductive reasoning.
PaulK writes
If nature is to be considered an axiomatic system, the expression of it would be the physicist's "Theory of Everything" - which has yet to be worked out. Science works through empiricism, working back from observations to build theories, which are considered to be tentative and fallible. Because that is what works. The Rationalist approach of trying to start with axioms and work forward does not, because there is no reliable way of getting the axioms in the first place.
This statement is fraught with so much assumption. The theory of everything would be qualified no matter its conclusions with the reality of existence itself. If you dont believe me take any of the current theories and see if any of thier properties can give another explanation that is not a part of only two logical choices. Point to the aspect of any of them that will provide a completely different solution. My prediction is that the axiom will not be disturbed.
What you call a Rationalist approach is actually a scientific approach. It basis itself in reality and not nature only. Have any current theories ever unsettled the axiom of only two logical solutions, I dont think so. If they have then present it to me.
Cavediver complains:
and I can't believe you still have no clue as to the nature of an axiom.
And are you really telling me that you think that your Spock/Unable/Unwilling scenario is an example of your "axiom" that states "An eternal God or the eternality of matter itself."
Oh god, sorry, I'm choking on my lunch now. I mean, just WTF are you talking about, Bertot? This is hilarious.
Actually, I'm being a little mean, because I have a good feeling as to the nature of your idea (as does everyone else here, but they're too busy giggling to express it). So let me play teacher...
You are essentially saying that the answer to any suitably expressed question can always fall into one of two mututally exclusive sets? Does that sound right? Unwilling or unable, reacts or doesn't react, eternal matter or eternal god, etc?
So your whole post (60) consist of sarcasm and more redundant questions but no solutions or alternatives. Now why doesnt that surpise me. Are you afraid to try Cavediver, my guess is that you are?
PaulieK writes:
And if they have a means that will work (although they have not worked their way around to trying it yet) as suggested they would not only be be ABLE to respond, but ABLE to respond in a way that the Enterprise would understand, which is the point you are attempting to object to.
If you cannot manage even such basic common sense reasoning you have no hope of working successfully with formal logic.
Tell me please that you are not an actual logician. Once again for the third or fourth time now. Unable applies to the whole situation (reality) Paul and both parties, not just the aliens. Think about it Paul, who is making the statement in the first place, Spock is and who would it have more application to, Spock or the aliens? Even if they did reply and were ABLE, the enterprise was UNABLE to recieve or understand it. Therefore spocks statement is valid regardless who was UNABLE or UNABLE to do whatever. The enterprise was UNABLE to recieve it, even if an attempt was made. Geez Moniez.
Huntard writes:
Yes, very tired. Where did I state I was unable to do them? I am able to knock someone over the head if he pisses me off, I also WANT to do that, yet I don't. And now of course you are going to say I'm not REALLY wanting to do it then. So I guess I'll just debate in this style with you until YOU get tired:
I have refuted your "axiom".
Hardly.
You do realize that not doing something even if you have a mind to involves a decision to not follow through, so it would fall into the category of unwilling (decided not to) or unable (because you decided otherwise or something got in the way), correct.? In other words WHY did you not follow through with kncking him in the head? Answer that simple question.
By your logic, I am able to state that ANYONE has a chance of 50% to win the lottery, because you either do or don't, there's no denying this "reality". Try to refute it if you can.
Exacally correct. Hey guess what another axiom. You have one of two choices, you will either win or you will not. What other choices are there that logic, relaity and commonsesnse will allow. Glad you reminded me I need to get my tickests for the work group before its to late this evening, Im the Power ball honcho.
If you play and win you win, if you dont play and someone else plays in your name and they win you win. Or if you dont play and know one else plays for you, you dont win. You see there is no way to avoid one of the two choices. You either win or lose, even if you dont play, you dont win, there are no other choices, thats the nature of an axiom. thanks Huntard.
Rueh writes:
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 Re: concious perception (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.
Not a problem, will do. Also, I would be very interested in seeing the "milloin" other solutions.
Onifre writes
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.
Your problem in this instance is that I am not making any of the CLAIMS you set out in this statement. I am not claiming to understand the physical nature of reality in all its details, only that reality suggests and allows only certain things at times. When you TEST applications of it and understand that there are no other possibilites from a rational standpoint, it should be obvious that no matter what its EVIDENCE for a certain point of it, it will still fall squarely into only two possibilites. Again, even if we dont understand all things, you should still be able to contemplate or theorize another solution. I think you are starting to see the difficulty in trying. When you try you fail miserably.
Why not just try and avoid all this rehtoric.
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.
Fortunately for me axioms are not subjective reasoning, they are reality with no fear of contradiction. If it were possible to demonstrate it otherwise you would have already done it. You just keep complaining. Iam point blank challenging you to give a solution to the contrary of the only two possible solutions.
If deductive reasoning does not apply HERE, then how in the world do you come to any conclusions at all? Are you telling me that conclusions or possible conclusions scientists make are subjective, that is what your argument implies
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.
Yes from a logical or deductive reasoning standpoint correct, a person could be incorrect, but not from an axiomatic standpoint. Any person could misapply logic or deductive reasoning, but axiomatic truths will not allow this possibility. Reality will always dictate that things either have the property of self-existent, eternal characteristics or they do not. The mere fact that they exist permits no other choice than the only axiomatic truth in this instance.
I wont admit the fallacy in THAT LOGIC, not because its LOGIC, but because it is the strongest form of an Axiom that could be demonstrated. See the difference in logic and axioms.? Logic is an invention of man and axioms are reality, no matter what I think or know. Your turn
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.
1. An eternal creator (call him what you want) is easily demonstrated by the use of an axiom, the strongest form of emperical data. Tests are conducted against nature and reality, the conclusions and results of which are free of any contradiction. Remember, simply disagreeing with the force of an axiom is not the same as showing it as false or unobjective. You simply need to offer another solution to actually demonstrate it as non-axiomatic, that is no fear of contradiction.
2. Your statement in 2 , is a clear cut example of what Iam talking about. What would be any other property of matter except eternal or created by that which is eternal? You do realize that the words "nonsensical" and 'meaningless" are not valid arguments against the force of it, correct? They amount to you complaining and demonstrate that you can offer no solution and that is why it has no fear of contradiction.
Bluegenes writes:
Has anyone said this? They are both able and willing to respond, but they haven't got around to doing it yet.
Actually they have, just in a different form. "havent got around to it", has to have a reason, even if the reason is just standing there doing nothing at all. Could you provide a reason for you assertion. Reality would suggest that if they had not got around to it, something happened that prevented them from being ABLE to follow through, even if they are just waiting for something else. Not doing something is not the same as actually doing it, correct ?
There are an infinite number of possibilities in such an unknown area.
True, but none that wont fall within the context of the axiom and its only two possible logical choices. its all reality will allow. If there are any other possibiltes otherwise I a still waiting.
Percy writes:
I, like everyone else, believe you're misusing the word "axiom", but anyway, if the additional possibilities I mentioned changed the reality of the situation then that wasn't the real reality, was it, in which case your axioms weren't axiomatic of reality, were they. They're incomplete and provisional.
Certainly it was. Anyone can certainly change a situation verbally or mentally to fit in an argument. Your example would be like discussing the law of gravity, then at the end concluding that is all doesnt matter because gravity is not real anyway. You involved yourself in the same type of rationalization.
The attention you're getting is what always happens at a discussion board when someone advocates an obviously irrational position. Everyone rushes in thinking they can easily correct the misapprehension, and it takes a while for it to sink in that it's very deeply rooted and likely unamenable to correction or rational argument. Once this is realized people stop paying attention and just ignore the posts. It happens time and again at discussion boards.
Come on Percy was this really necessary. Ive been here over two years now and been in numerous threads from start to finish. Defended my positions without hesitation and the best you can do to rspond to my argument is accuse me of "attention getting".
I might remind you that I did not initiate this thread and I was invited to defend my position, as result of Straggglers challenge. Also, it may be possible that no one can correct this so-called irrational position because it is not,as is indicated by the fact that no one can offer solutions except to cry foul, subjecive, unreasonable, irrational anf the such like. Axioms are real whether you like them or not.
Again, I did not start the thread, I was challenged to defend my position and I think I have now done that very easily.
Logically then, you have not even began to persude me, I therefore must be correct, correct?
The power of an idea is determined not by the tenacity with which it is held, but by its ability to persuade others. So far no one on either side of the creation/evolution debate is convinced.
Persuation is not the key to the power of an argument it is its ability to conform to deductive reasoning and reality, regardless of its perception.
Onfire writes:
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.
Agreed, but axioms in reality are not simply logic, they are reality.
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 know you would like to end the debate with eveyone paying attention to the fact that you have not even attempted to offer another solution that does not fall within the only ones reality will allow. You are in the negative of this position, it is your responsibility to provide an expalnation and ALTERNATIVE counterfactual to the axioms offerd, not to simply imagine that it is not real or axiomatic, you do understand this correct?
Why would myself and ICANT acknowledge something you have not even demonstrated to the contrary.
Straggler writes:
I don't disagree that reality can be axiomatic to all practical intents and purposes but where it is this itself is borne of empirical experience.
You are exacally correct, I knew eventually you would start to ackowledge and realize the force of axiomatic truths. Emperical experience and reality are one and the same and are testable to the highest degree, so much so that they can be accepted without fear of contradiction.
You cannot reliably conclude God created the universe on the basis of "to all practical intensts and purposes" because there are no "practical intents and purposes" that make such extraordinary claims part of everyday experience.
Again this is more complaining and assertion, assuming that axioms that I have presented have been demonstrated to be false, or that another solution has been offered to the contrary. I will admit it is some fine song and dance but not alternate solutions to the fact that reality will allow only two possible solutions, one of which is an eternal creator. If I am incorrect then simply provide the alternate solution, my prediction is that you will not.
70+ posts and counting. Still no signs of a single axiom.
Repeating yourself does not make your problem go away.
Even if despite all the evidence you are right about the whole awful Star Trek example what does this tell us about anything other than this specific example? Unless it can be generalised to a universal rule or "axiom"? Nothing at all.
You know full well where the application is and you just keep ignoring it. The whole debate can be reduced to this: Axioms are real, they are demonstratable, you dont like them and can provide no other solutions in there context, except to complain that we dont know everything and then complain that they are subjective, but you cannot provide another solution to the contrary of reality. Even though you cant demonstrate it from a physical standpoint you should be able to atleast offer a theoretical solution but wont even attempt it because you know you will fail. Thus you keep repeating yourself, in hopes no one will pay attention. You are in the negative of this position, but are not upholding your responsibility. Instead of complaining about my method simply provide a solution that will not fall within or that is not a combination of the two only axiomatic truths and you will have demonstrated your point.
My prediction is that you will not because you cannot.
Are you saying that reality is limited to that which we are able to understand at any given time?
Reality is not limited at all, it is what it is, regardless of whether we understand it or not. i know you are desperately trying to make an axiom limited because our knowledge maybe limited, but the truth is that axiomatic truths are pitted against reality and only reality, not our understanding of things. There are certain things that reality and axioms and reality WILL NOT allow, even if we did understand everything.
This would suggest that whatever concepts we are unable to grasp at any given point in time cannot exist according to you.
You cannot grasp that which is impossible to ascertain. There are no other solutions. It is a logical contradiction to maintain that something both has the property of always having existed and not at the same time. If it is there and exists, it is either eternal or it is not. This is the force of the axiomatic truth you are trying to avoid but cannot. What information in the future will allow you to circumvent this very simple truth.
Secondly, since an eternal creator is one of the only two possible explanations that is axiomatic in nature that fits in the axiom, it follows that no information will unsettle this very simple principle. It is reasonable, (not experientially however) to assume the possibility of the eternality of matter,but if it is not as all indications of its nature would indicate, then it would have t have another source and the only other source could be that which is eternal in character, hence and eteranal creator. You simply have to provide another solution t demonstrate this axiom as incorrect.
If you do not state which axiom has been violated by the above answer to your original example I will assume that you are simply unable to do so because no such axioms exist.
More complaining and assumption as I have now clearly demonstrated.
Rahain writes
The best we can say is that it is something that we "think" is an axiom and are treating as an axiom, but that is only because we don't know any better.
If Mr. Rahain is supreme in logic then let him provide atleast a tenative solution to the only possibilites, that are not a combination of the two or a part of the two. You are blinded to the fact that eloquence is not the same as an actual argument or response. You can place any term on a reality (axiom) that you wish, such as tautology you wish, but it will not change the force of its application.
So what is the size of the continuum? A Platonist, such as myself, will tend to respond that the continuum has a size, we just don't know what it is. And while our current axioms indicate that we can never know, that doesn't change the claim that it does have a size.
More song and dance, Ive seen it all before. There is no such thing as an CURRENT AXIOM, it is either an axiom or it is not. If something is demonstrated to be otherwise it was not an axiom in the first place. Axioms WILL NOT and can NEVER be demonstrated to be otherwise, as is indicated by the ones I have set out. All you have to do Rahain is quit exponding on the exuberance or your verbosity and give an alternate solution, even if it is theoretical. My prediction is that you cannot and will not. What say ye Mr. logic?
I may be perfectly willing and able to respond to the hail but if I am unaware that there is a hail to respond to, then it would be very unlikely of me to simply open hailing frequencies on the off chance that someone is trying to reach me.
There is also the possibility that my response is going unheard. Thus, I am willing and able and, in fact, am responding but you are not hearing it for whatever reason.
You really should pay closer attention to the the post where I said that UNABLE AND UNWILLING apply to reality and both parties. It does not matter what either of the parties did or did not do, for the application of the categories to apply. Again like percy you are changing reality to fit in an answer.It is clear from the situation and the reality of the situation that they were AWARE that they were trying to respond.
Secondly, ofcourse there is the possibility that the response was going unheard, for technical or other problems, which would make the message as UNABLE to respond regardless of the situation or who was unable to do this or that, thats the whole point. But keep trying this is fun to watch and maybe we are learning something as well.
You just dont know how much fun it it is to watch secular fundamentalist and the so-called scientific types that believe all things are subjective, respond to the reality of axiomatic truths. Are we having fun yet or what?
But this goes to the basic point: The collection of possible outcomes is not an "axiom." It is simply the collection of possible outcomes and represents a tautology.
Wrong. More rehtoric with no solutions or possible solutions. This is your task my simple friend. If there are other possible outcomes then simply present them and quit suggesting that there are.
Para writes:
To my amazement the fellow behind the counter put the nails back on the shelf, saying, "Well, you are either unable or unwilling to pay, so I won't sell you the nails." Having found my wallet, with enough money in it, I replied, "But... but, I was just searching for my...", but they fellow had already retreated in the back room. I left him a note saying that I had been able to pay, and willing, but that he had reached his conclusion prematurely. It was faulty logic that lost him this business opportunity.
I prefer solutioms and arguments to commedy, but you deal with any way you wish.
Next?
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)