axioms

[ME No.1541991]

Hey /sci/. I'm here to talk to you all about philosophy. Before anyone points it out, I know this board is about Science & Math. But I also know that you all have the potential to have the best discussions and are big fans of logic and reasoning.

The first topic is: axioms. I'll explain a bit about them in the next post.

Pic related, it's Mortimer J. Adler, probably the greatest philosopher of the 20th and 21st centuries and a champion of education and teaching.

[Anonymous No.1542001]

continue

[ME No.1542007]

-----The Nature of an Axiom-----

An axiom is a proposition. It cannot be proven. Rather, it is considered self-evident, and its truth taken for granted.

[mc No.1542017]

My mistake, I had the wrong name set. This is the name I normally use. Continuing...

[Anonymous No.1542020]

>>1542007
example: everyone deserves to live.

[mc No.1542032]

-----The Role of Axioms-----
Axioms are the necessary basis of reason, from which all other truths are drawn. Any truth which is not self-evident can be inferred from a set of accepted facts. Every such premise must ultimately derive from one or more axioms, or itself be an axiom. In this way, propositions are proven. Conversely, a unproven proposition may be taken as a premise along with one or more accepted truths. If the proposition in question or any proceeding inference contradicts an axiom, the proposition cannot be true. In this way, propositions are disproven.

[mc No.1542042]

>>1542020
Not quite. That's a fundamental moral idea, but it's not a self-evident truth.

[mc No.1542059]

-----Basic axioms-----
General reasoning is founded in three axioms, without which almost any functioning thought would be impossible. The first axiom is that truth is objective. The second axiom is that observations reflect reality. The third axiom is that all things proceed from a sufficient cause.

[mc No.1542068]

I'll wait a moment for people to read and reply.

[Jack Bauer !enVNahatWQ No.1542091]

>>1542059

>truth is objective

I can hear Nietzsche spinning in his grave.

[Anonymous No.1542096]

>>1542059
Inb4 science vs religion shitstorm (also capcha: synchrony lubing, feels bad man)

[mc No.1542121]

I apologize if my writing is unclear or dense. I'm sure you all have noticed that an author's diction and syntax are very directly influenced by what they have read. If someone were to read the Lord of the Rings and become inspired to write their own fantasy novel, it would very likely have recognizable similarities to the style of J. R. R. Tolkien.

Well, in terms of the time I've spent reading the works of others, a large portion (even a majority) of my studies have focused on the classics. As a result, my writings in English tend to sound as if they were English translations of a Latin text, which are not exactly smooth reading.

[Anonymous No.1542125]

>>1542059
But to this extent, could something being an axiom, in itself, be subjective? For example, religious people believe that the existence of God is an objective truth, while athiests believe it is not a truth?

[Anonymous No.1542128]

PROTIP: NOONE GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR SHIT mc

[Anonymous No.1542133]

>>1542121
nah, your diction is fine, mate. Everyone else is just posting in religion troll threads or not bothering to read it because BIG WERDS MAKE HED HERT. But I'm here and I'm reading.

[Anonymous No.1542134]

>>1542125
>>1542096
O.o

[Anonymous No.1542158]

>>1542133
Don't let me down OP keep posting (move onto another subject if you wish).

[Anonymous No.1542160]

Is MC still here?

[mc No.1542161]

>>1542125
You're right, there is a degree of uncertainty. That's why some arguments between different schools of thought are irreconcilable. You can't argue for an axiom no matter how apparently obvious it is to one party. If one group takes a different set of axioms, there's not much anyone can do.

Though, for the sake of avoiding massive barrages of trolls, let's not use the example of atheists and religious people.

[mc No.1542200]

>>1542161
>>1542125
Examples of contrasting groups with different sets of axioms tend to inadvertently belittle the party with fewer axioms, so I'll try and think of an example where that party is a very small minority in real life.

I'll go with solipsism (there are always arguments as to what exactly it implies, but here I'm referring to the idea that nothing outside of one's own mind can be known for sure). Suppose I came up to you and told you that you didn't exist. I believe this because I have no absolutely certain reason to think that you are anything more than a figment of my imagination.

Sounds silly, right? To people who take an idea for granted, it always will... even though the solipsist is being the more purely logical one. It's something we all have to accept - by making any conclusion, we're going out on a limb.

[Anonymous No.1542210]

>>1542200
or nihilists assuming that nothing has meaning or purpose, while the vast majority disagrees

[mc No.1542214]

>>1542160
I'm still here man.

Does anybody have questions about what I've said so far? Even if you don't have any and you're cool with what's been said, say that.

>>1542133
Thanks bud. The writing is about to get a little worse, though, so hang on.

[Anonymous No.1542223]

>>1542214
I've read student translations of Sartre and Tolstoy (those being the worst I can remember), you cannot be as bad as them

[mc No.1542227]

>>1542210
That's an interesting choice of words, I'm glad you said that.

Nihilists don't assume that nothing has meaning or purpose. That would be an axiom, a truth that they take for granted. Actually, they lack an axiom. Rather than assuming that nothing has purpose, they refuse to assume that it does.

[Anonymous No.1542234]

>>1542214
Still here, still interested.
Feel free to continue.

[Anonymous No.1542237]

>>1542227
You know what I meant

[mc No.1542238]

-----The Logical Succession of the Basic Axioms-----
The three basic axioms do not proceed logically insofar as one proves another, for axioms cannot be proven. Rather, each provides the basis without which the next would be meaningless. The assumption of objectivity proceeds rationally from nothing, and practically from necessity, for reason itself is nonsensical without the idea of truth. The assumption of the validity of empiricism rests on the objectivity of reality, for the cognition of truth presupposes the existence of the same. The assumption of causality is based on observation, for it is the assumption that the apparent and consistent fundamental patterns of nature are in fact laws.

[mc No.1542242]

>>1542237
I thought so, but for everyone's edification I clarified. Your example was a good one, in fact. I only disagreed because "assume" happens to be a word with a very exact meaning when we're talking about axioms.

[Anonymous No.1542256]

>>1542242
Fair enough, anyways keep up the good work and maybe add some type of examples or questions to gain interest/create discussion (or don't because of trolls) your call I guess

[mc No.1542264]

>>1542238
And on an interesting note for anyone studying the classics, (and related to >>1542121) there isn't a single word there longer than three syllables that doesn't directly derive from Latin.

Wait, there is. +10 internets to anyone who can find it.

[Anonymous No.1542302]

could it be possible that the human mind/brain has not yet reached a level where it can understand effect without cause. must there always be cause?

[mc No.1542309]

>>1542256
I dunno about questions. I'm more here to explain one method of discovering truth - deductive reasoning and its application as philosophy - to a group of people who tend toward another - empiricism and the scientific method.

However, if this thread remains stable for a good while, I might share something that would certainly cause some discussion, and even more certainly attract trolls. But that's for later.

[Anonymous No.1542315]

>>1542309
A'ight mate, can't wait

[mc No.1542317]

>>1542302
Yes, everything must have a cause. It's a fundamental property of existence, though if you disagree there's not much I can do about it.

What do you mean, understand effect without cause?

[mc No.1542361]

Everything from this point forward is written on the spot. Also, this post closely references >>1542059

-----Errors Proceeding from the Absence of the Basic Axioms-----
The absence of the first basic axiom results in subjectivity.
The absence of the second basic axiom results in solipsism.
The absence of the third basic axiom results in insanity.

[mc No.1542374]

Next I have a treat for you all: An example of inductive reasoning, using the basic axioms and one axiom of logic, to conclude a common philosophy.

[Anonymous No.1542377]

>>1542374
Hooray!
Capcha: Seek Specks
Good advice

[mc No.1542383]

>>1542377
Are you
>>1542256
and
>>1542315
?

[Anonymous No.1542394]

>>1542383
Maybe I am, maybe I am the only other person in this thread

[Anonymous No.1542399]

>>1542394
Nope. I'm here too. :D

[Anonymous No.1542429]

OP don't let this die

[Anonymous No.1542454]

MC, where r u???

[Anonymous No.1542477]

>>1542454
He an hero'd from lack of interest I suppose

[mc No.1542481]

I was away from the keyboard for a bit. Bump so this thread doesn't die while I type the argument.

[Anonymous No.1542483]

>>1542477
I dun goofed

[Anonymous No.1542514]

B-b-b-bump

[Anonymous No.1542522]

Bumping with Sartre, because he's awesome

[mc No.1542525]

This argument is particularly interesting because an axiom necessitates a partial exception to itself.

Proposition 1 (elaboration on basic axiom 3): Everything that exists or occurs does so as the result of some sufficient cause.

Proposition 2 (elaboration of axiom 3): Further, material things (not necessarily familiar things that exist in the known universe, just things that can exist within the confines of materialism) must have a sufficient cause outside of themselves. Particles cannot cause themselves to exist, not can they cause themselves to act a certain way, and the same applies on a macroscopic scale.

Proposition 3 (from logic): Infinite regression is a logical fallacy. It is impossible.

And thus we get the tenets of deism.

Theorem 1 (from propositions 1 and 2): All things must have some first cause.

Theorem 2: (from theorem 1 and propositions 1 and 3): This first cause cannot be without a sufficient cause, but rather must be its own sufficient cause.

Theorem 3 (from theorem 2 and proposition 2): This first cause must exist outside of the material.

[mc No.1542536]

You might notice that I organize my philosophical propositions according to the basic format used for geometric proofs. This was done out of pure spite for subjectivism.

[Anonymous No.1542538]

>>1542525

And that cause needs a cause, and that cause needs a cause, and that cause needs a cause, so forth and so on. I wouldn't say that your argument really means anything.

[mc No.1542541]

>>1542454
Attending to my woman.

[Anonymous No.1542542]

Your props are inductive assumptions and therefore not very viable in a deductive argument.

[mc No.1542552]

>>1542538
You misunderstand. In typical format:

A is caused by B. B is caused by C. But the chain cannot continue ad infinitum. As I said, infinite regression is a logical fallacy. If it does, then there is no sufficient cause for anything.

Ergo, there has to be something that started it all, something that doesn't have anything preceding it. Since nothing is without a sufficient cause, that thing has to just be its own sufficient cause.

[Anonymous No.1542557]

>>1542007
> An axiom is a proposition. It cannot be proven. Rather, it is considered self-evident, and its truth taken for granted.

Already know I should stop reading before I get trolled endlessly.

[Anonymous No.1542559]

>>1542552
I'm tempted to call troll now...
But, I won't because I like this thread

[Anonymous No.1542577]

>>1542552
But if you allow things that are their own sufficient cause, what makes you think there can be only one such thing? If you allow stuff to be their own sufficient cause, the whole axiom becomes meaningless.

[Anonymous No.1542580]

>>1542557

The truth of an axiom is supposed to be self evident and necessarily true.

x = x is reliant on the identity property which is a self evident axiom.

You can't just make shit up and call them axioms.

[Anonymous No.1542590]

>>1542552

You keep saying that infinite regression is a logical fallacy, but just because you say it doesn't mean its true. How far can you regress before you just have to say "well I guess that's enough, one more step backwards and we're in fallacy land".

Bringing in the concept of time, you can only regress as far back as the big bang. There is no "before" the Big Bang because time is meaningless outside of our universe. So you can say "well that was caused by A", but then what cause A? Saying that A caused itself is a logical cop out.

[Anonymous No.1542593]

>>1542580
You can, actually. That's kind of the point of mathematical logic: take a certain set of axioms, and see what follows from it.

[mc No.1542596]

>>1542559
I'm just providing the reasoning because it's an example of the process. I'm not arguing for or against it, just explaining the argument.

>>1542542
Deductive reasoning is a system wherein premises are used to make a conclusion. Those premises are necessarily inductive assumptions, or else conclusions which are ultimately rooted in inductive assumptions.

If inductive assumptions make deductive reasoning invalid, then all deductive reasoning is invalid.

[Anonymous No.1542603]

>>1542552
So basically, without making us aware of it, you began a religious debate. /wrists.

[Anonymous No.1542605]

>>1542580
> You can't just make shit up and call them axioms.
Sure you can. And truth has nothing to do with anything.

The rules define the pieces and legal moves in a game. A board position is valid if it can be reached from the starting position through an application of the rules. Rules are not true or false. They are just rules.

[mc No.1542612]

---PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT---

The argument for deism was an example of how axioms are used. I am not personally arguing deism.

[Anonymous No.1542621]

>>1542612
Ah, terribly sorry.

[Anonymous No.1542623]

>>1542596

Nothing can be proven about the world using deductive logic because the truth of the required
inductive premises can never be proven.

[mc No.1542645]

>>1542623
That's absolutely right. Every conclusion we make, every answer we find, anything we think is true, is a conditional. It is true IF our axioms are correct, and we have no way of knowing that they are.

[Anonymous No.1542650]

I'm abit of a newb at philosophy but I've been trying to get into some of it recently as I see its importance and need.

Karl Popper etc

can someone explain the difference between a tautology and an axiom exactly?

[mc No.1542651]

>>1542577
Actually, the argument is that material things can't be their own sufficient cause, and thus that the first cause must be immaterial.

That's also my favorite response to the deism argument: there is no reason why there cannot be multiple, concurrent first causes.

[Anonymous No.1542663]

>>1542651
>material things can't be their own sufficient cause, and thus that the first cause must be immaterial.
That certainly doesn't follow from your stated axioms, so that's a completely flawed argument.

[Anonymous No.1542665]

>>1542623

Nothing can be proven about anything because our assumptions about everything cannot be proven.

This thread is now about how everything reduces to physics, even philosophy.

[Anonymous No.1542675]

Tautology -> Bachelors are unmarried men

Axiom -> For every natural number x, x = x

[Anonymous No.1542679]

>>1542665
That only holds for the natural world, not abstract models. So the only thing that reduces to physics is... stuff that studies the natural world. What a surprise.

[mc No.1542690]

>>1542663
An argument is flawed when the logic is wrong, not when the assumptions are wrong. The argument:
All birds can fly.
Penguins are birds.
Therefore, penguins can fly
Is a valid argument. The conclusion, of course, is wrong. But the logic, the argument, is not.

Also: Yes, "material things cannot be their own sufficient cause" was in fact a stated premise of that argument. It was proposition 2.

-----And I repeat-----
>>1542612

[Anonymous No.1542701]

>>1542690
Oh, right. I didn't realize you were using different axioms than in >>1542059.

[mc No.1542704]

>>1542665
Physics and philosophy both reduce to the pursuit of truth.

[Anonymous No.1542714]

>>1542704
there is no truth, this is the problem with all of philosophy and religion

"It is true that it is snowing" means just "it is snowing." Truth is semantically empty.

[Anonymous No.1542722]

Nihilism is the only correct position, but it doesn't matter that this is true

[mc No.1542728]

The best remedy for hate and argument is to switch perspectives. If I'm arguing with my buddy John, and we just can't seem to agree, I might ask him what he's taking as premises, and explain mine to him. Once that's done, and if we've both been logical, we should be able to see the reason behind what the other has to say. Anger = diffused.

[mc No.1542734]

>>1542722
It's one of the most purely logical, but it may or may not be the correct position.

[Anonymous No.1542735]

>>1542714
>Truth - that which is the case
>"It is snowing outside"
>It really is snowing outside
>Therefore "It is snowing outside" is true

[Anonymous No.1542738]

>>1542734
It was a joke friend

[Anonymous No.1542739]

>>1542728

Ummm no. Clearly if you can scream louder in his face and intimidate him then you are the one holding the truth. Or you can beat it into him.

[Anonymous No.1542746]

I once read that truth was a viscous liquid.

[mc No.1542748]

>>1542714
You're correct (disregarding less essential definitions of truth like "honesty"). The only reason we even talk about it, or have a word for it, is because people disagree. We have this idea of a 'statement' or 'idea' or 'theory' or 'conclusion,' things which may or may not *be*. Linguistically, it's more convenient to have a word for that quality of correctness.

[Anonymous No.1542751]

while i wholeheartedly respect and admire your use of philosophical reasoning, i find a regretable flaw or two.

the problem lies within the axioms, which contradict each other:
our observations reflect the nature of reality (if they're accurate).
we must be OBJECTIVE to our observations, so our interpretation does not skew our reasoning.
the single most adhered to system in physics is quantum mechanics, which has yet to be countered by ANY observation, EVER.
QM asserts that positions, velocities, etc. do not need causes, since they exist via probability.
also, vaccuum energy (another experimentally and empirically proven observation) shows particle pairs coming into existence without cause and can cause macroscopic effects (hawking radiation).

while your logic is excellent, its the faulty axioms that are this ideas downfall.

[Anonymous No.1542754]

How do you guys avoid getting trapped in circular logic.

[mc No.1542780]

>>1542751
>QM asserts that positions, velocities, etc. do not need causes, since they exist via probability.
Do you mean that there is no cause for the existience of position and velocity as properties of particles?

>also, vaccuum energy (another experimentally and empirically proven observation) shows particle pairs coming into existence without cause and can cause macroscopic effects (hawking radiation).
I'm not sure I understand. You observe something occur, but how are you certain that there is no cause for it? That sounds like you are proving a negative. Unless you mean that they came into existence from nothing. If that is the case, I would say that the TOE (whatever it ends up being) is the sufficient cause for their coming into being.

Also, this is why I don't study philosophy alone.

[Anonymous No.1542801]

>>1542780
as strange as it sounds, yes: they did come into existence from nothingness, whitin a perfect vaccuum.

i studied philosophy for a long time but turned my attention to physics to try and reconcile common sense with quantum mechanics.
mixing physics with philosophy is the focus of my studies

[mc No.1542830]

>>1542801
They come into existence from nothing. That's good to know, I wasn't aware of that. But that is not the same as having no sufficient cause.

[mc No.1542849]

>>1542751
Also, I think I need to clarify my axioms. I'm not sure how they contradict.

Truth is objective: This just means that what is true is true, what is real is real. If my observations and your observations are mutually exclusive (i.e. they contradict eachother irreconcilably), it isn't just a matter of opinion or perspective. At least one of us must be wrong.

Our observations reflect what is true: When I see an image, that image is there. There is actual light directed toward my eyes such that I perceive something. (inb4 virtual images in optics). In other words, no solipsism, no Matrix, etc.

Causality: Nothing happens 'just because.' The cause of something might be unknown, or even something that we lack the means to know. It might be something we don't understand. Regardless, when something happens or exists, it's because something else caused it to.

[mc No.1542858]

Is everyone comfortable with axioms?
What they are?
Why they're necessary?
What the basic ones are, and the result of not having any of them?

[Anonymous No.1542870]

>>1542801
No, a vacuum is not nothingness. The vacuum state is a frothing ocean governed by complex equations. It is far from nothingness.

[mc No.1542915]

A metaphor, for all you nihilists, solipsists, and subjectivists out there:

Suppose you were seated at a table from which you were unable to rise, with a man sitting across from you. On the table is a chess board with pieces, a game you've never played before and for which you don't know the rules.

The man explains the rules to you. "Take my word for it," he says, "and when you win, you can leave."

What would you do, /sci/? You can't get up. Your only options are to play, trusting a man you have no reason to trust, or to sit there until the timer runs out and the possibility of victory ends.

[Anonymous No.1542924]

>>1542915
Play because it's better than boredom and I could do anything else I wanted if ever I won

[Anonymous No.1542926]

>>1542849
in the case of quantum mechanics (the most faithful theory developed), your 2nd and 3rd axioms do not lay in agreement.
2: our observations are true. QM remains unmarred and 100% faithful in both its observations and predictions.
3. causality reigns supreme

unsettlingly, QM is far distance from common sense. it breaks causality, breaks locality, breaks simultaneous certainties.

i dont want to bust your balls, but:
axiom 1 broken by relativity: observations of the same event are different for different observers in motion. a perfectly simultaneous event witnessed by one observer can be seen as occuring one after another.

axiom 3 is broken by QM. example 1: an isolated, uneffected isotope will decay randomly, without cause. example 2: previously stated vaccuum energy, in which Bilions of particle and wave pairs arise and annihilate out of existence without cause in perfectly isolated vaccuums.

if axiom 2 is true, is shows that 3 cannot be entirely, due to our new observations.

the system of axioms works perfectly on the scale of everyday experience, but not all scales, so it doesnt faithfuly represent nature.

[Anonymous No.1542936]

>>1542735
Exactly. It has no semantic content.

[Anonymous No.1542973]

>>1542936
You have no semitic content

[fascist goldfish !Rrxa7zePwI No.1543000]

what made you such a huge fanboy of adler, op?

also sciducks, check out this guy.

[mc No.1543056]

>>1543000
His works were my introduction to philosophy. Specifically, the Great Ideas and 10 Philosophical Mistakes.

[mc No.1543140]

>>1542924
The thing is, though, that the man could be lying to you. The things he tells you could be wrong.

[Anonymous No.1543143]

>>1542059
> General reasoning is founded in three axioms, without which almost any functioning thought would be impossible.
I.e., "You have to accept my assumptions because I can't personally imagine how it might be otherwise."

> The first axiom is that truth is objective.
Only for objective propositions.

> The second axiom is that observations reflect reality.
Pencil, glass, crooked

> The third axiom is that all things proceed from a sufficient cause.
Not self-evident at all, and probably not even true given observed random behavior in nature.

[mc No.1543171]

>>1542926
>Axiom 3 is broken by QM
Random decay? It's not decaying because of some property of the particle, or some law of physics? The same goes for the particles coming into and out of existence. There's not some law of nature prompting this to occur?
And is this decay practically random, or actually random? Are we unable to predict precisely because of the inability to know all of the precise properties of a particle (most famously, position and velocity), or does the decay literally follow no laws?

>axiom 1 broken by relativity
That doesn't mean that truth is subjective. What happened doesn't depend on the observer.

[Anonymous No.1543195]

>>1543171

we cannot precisely know which particles actually decay there is no rhyme or reason to it, it just happens randomly.

This is a famous example from like, PHI101.

Physicist/Philosopher here, you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.1543200]

>>1543171

Actually what happened DOES depend on the observer. Two different observers can observe the same event, see two different things, and both be correct.

[fascist goldfish !Rrxa7zePwI No.1543216]

okay. you should be further introduced to philosophy. modern analytic philosophy and philosophical logic in particular.

[mc No.1543243]

>>1543143
No. i.e. The countless decisions you make every day are based on a few basic assumptions. When I stop for gas to fill up my car, I assume that the action of pumping gas into my car will result in my car getting gas like it normally does.

If a proposition is subjective, truth isn't even a relevant issue. Of course objectivity of truth doesn't apply to opinions.

Yes, that's why we study the natural sciences as well. Our sensory faculties are based on vibrations and waves, things that could confuse us if we didn't have a practical understanding of them. You've made a good point there.

Randomness doesn't contradict causality. Randomness just means we don't have the means to predict something. If I flip a coin, we say that whether it lands heads-up or tails-up is random. What we mean is that we can't predict it with certainty and have to resort to probability. But it still follows laws. If I knew the initial velocity and angle of the coin, the rate of rotation, air resistance, and all of the various forces acting on the coin, it would cease to be random.

[mc No.1543262]

>>1543195
>>1543200
And it seems that the axioms necessary for daily action and decision making are not quite correct, only practical.

While I don't appreciate being called retarded for my ignorance of quantum physics, I do appreciate you all sharing your knowledge, as I strove to do with this thread.

[sage No.1543265]

sage

[fascist goldfish !Rrxa7zePwI No.1543276]

>>1543262
why are you starting your thinking with axioms? axiomatic philosophy of this kind hasn't been popular since modern philosophy began. you are doing some kind of medieval syllogism

[Anonymous No.1543292]

>>1543171
as for decay, it's random. the mathematical models fit randomness without cause. as for the vaccuum energy, it was measured time and time again in a vaccuum and in the absence of any stimuli. i know it doesnt seem to make sense, but thats why i study it.

relativity assigns two interpretations of a single event equal validity.
example: time dilation. the faster you go, the slower move through time when viewed by an outside observer. if you and another move around each other in a relative way, you are each moving slower than each other through time, even though that seems to contradict itself. relativity says that both viewpoints are valid and correct equally at the same time. if you can chose either of the contradictory truths, it makes truth itself arbitrary and subjective.

[mc No.1543303]

And now it's apparent that I have a clear misunderstanding of the meaning of randomness in quantum mechanics. Could one of you physicists please explain?

Now, I acknowledge that the people I'm addressing are more knowledgeable than I am, but as I'm the one with the misconception, I'd like to direct the conversation.

First: I was under the impression that laws of nature (ultimately, a TOE) dictate the properties, interactions, etc of all particles. Is this correct?

If I don't use the proper terms, I won't be offended if you correct me. In fact I'd be grateful. By 'particles' I mean to reference everything, both matter and energy.

[Anonymous No.1543327]

>The first axiom is that truth is objective.
As was pointed out, relativity contradicts this.

>The second axiom is that observations reflect reality.
The very existence of perception-distorting substances and phenomena disproves this. Observations can reflect reality to various degrees, but this depends entirely on the status of the observer.

>The third axiom is that all things proceed from a sufficient cause.
Sure, but this also automatically implies that there is no "first cause".

Also sage for not science.

[Anonymous No.1543343]

>>1543327
Without philosophy, there would be no science nor math, ingrate. All scientific procedure is found sound through the three axioms that you just discredited. If you champion science, you must champion axioms from which a logical and mathematical system can be deduced.

Additionally, observation in no way implies human observation.

[mc No.1543354]

>>1543276
I don't start my philosophy with axioms. I simply made a discussion out of them, because an understanding of axioms and their function illustrates a lot of essential points about reasoning and truth. My interest in them stems from my formal education concerning philosophy, when my peers remained bent on the most frustrating tactics of subjectivity (Professor: -explains the Socrates-is-a-man deduction- Student: "But professor, that's just his opinion"). Largely out of frustration, I adopted the style of geometric proofs in my writing, though not much in my thinking.

But you've caught me on one point, my philosophy is not exactly modern.

[Anonymous No.1543362]

>>1543327
>first axiom is disproven by relativity
Okay, so an observation of reality disproves the first axiom. In order for an observation of reality to be of any deductive worth, it must follow from the idea that relativity is an objective truth and that observation is a sufficient reflection of reality.

So, in order for your relativity argument to sufficiently discredit axiom I, it must follow from axiom I.

Huh.

[Anonymous No.1543376]

>>1543362
>Okay, so an observation of the universe disproves the first axiom. In order for an observation of the universe to be of any deductive worth, it must follow from the idea that observation of the universe is an objective truth and that observation is a sufficient reflection of the universe.

fixed for clarity

[Anonymous No.1543380]

>>1543343
OR I could consider many different sets of axioms, and eliminate a set whenever I find it leads to a contradiction. I then make decisions by adopting an initial probability measure over the sets of axioms based on their simplicity (this step is subjective) and compare the expectation value of everyone's happiness for each possible course of action. (Actually, I use heuristic methods designed to approximate this way of making decisions.)

[Anonymous No.1543385]

>>1543343
>ingrate
no u

>All scientific procedure is found sound through the three axioms that you just discredited.
That doesn't mean that they are valid.

>human observation
Where did I mention this?

[Anonymous No.1543387]

>>1543380
And yes, I realize this is a philosophical position, and I am still assuming some basic axioms, but better this than declaring all sorts of non-trivial conclusions to be self-evident.

[mc No.1543388]

>>1543292
I think I've got you. But for clarification:
>if you and another move around eachother in a relative way
Do you mean any specific path of movement? Or do you just mean that the relative velocity of each to the other is not zero?

[Anonymous No.1543389]

>>1543362
i wasnt trying to discredit axiom 1 entirely, but simply to show a hole in it. most of the time it works fine, but there are select cases when it may not.
by flushing out these holes, MC can create a stronger theory.

[mc No.1543395]

>>1543380
THIS MAN understands the chess analogy from earlier.

[Anonymous No.1543411]

MFW:

>> A large portion (even a majority) of my studies have focused on the classics. As a result, my writings in English tend to sound as if they were English translations of a Latin text, which are not exactly smooth reading.

OP sounds insufferable.

[mc No.1543415]

So according to relativity, two people can observe something moving at different speeds, and both be correct.

But surely, this does not imply that a body can be moving at two different speeds simultaneously, right?

[Anonymous No.1543417]

>>1543389
Nonetheless, I don't think you've found a sufficient hole. Relativity speaks about differences in observation from different observers, whose observations are, by definition, clouded by subjectivity. The first axiom states that there exists an objective truth independent of subjective experiences of it. Regardless of the position of an observer in spacetime, the event they observe occurs, and therefore is, and is therefore true.
>last clause included for clarity despite it's semantic emptiness.

Unfortunately, given that all observers are subjective by definition, it follows that it is impossible to observe objective truth. This is why it's existence is assumed

[Anonymous No.1543420]

>>1543415

Yes, yes it does.

[Anonymous No.1543421]

>>1543388
non zero velocities in relation to each other without an outside reference frame (yes that sounds weird, but just focus on the concept). like 2 cars driving past each other minus the earth. you cant tell if both are moving at equal sppeds, or one at twice the speed with the other static. both vantages are equally and simultaneously true.

[mc No.1543441]

>>1543421
No, it doesn't sound wierd. I'm not an ignorant classicist. I'm familiar with mechanics, thermodynamics, optics, electromagnetism, etc, as well as biology, chemistry, and engineering. I just wanted to be sure you weren't referring to anything more specific than just having a nonzero relative velocity.

[Anonymous No.1543443]

>THIS THREAD IS TL;DR:

>Physics and Philosophy don't always agree.
>STUDY BOTH.

[Anonymous No.1543452]

>>1543420
If it follows that the moving object is moving at two separate speeds simultaneously, then it follows that all subjective experiences are true, and a single objective truth does not exist.

Then on from principle is the theory of relativity assumed to be true?

[mc No.1543470]

>>1543420
Silly question. Velocity is relative, so it's pointless to act as if something has an objective velocity.

But does relativity imply that two bodies can have two different relative velocities at the same time?

[Anonymous No.1543473]

>>1543380
John von Neumann and John Forbes Nash would love you.

[Anonymous No.1543483]

I think relativity and QM can be fit into your framework.

For relativity: All statements about a particle's velocity are subjective, but statements about the relative velocity of two particles are objective. All statements of the first type can be reformulated as statements of the second.

For quantum mechanics: You have two options. Either accept every random event as a first cause, or adopt one of the deterministic interpretations (pilot waves, many-worlds).

[mc No.1543489]

My attempt at reconciliation:

Truth is objective. Mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true.

Relativity states that two people can observe different relative velocities and both be correct.

I wouldn't say this implies that truth is subjective. It just implies that "the body is moving at 5 k/h" and "the body is moving at 6 k/h" aren't mutually exclusive.

[Josef @lab !!nUf2NflSAyw No.1543501]

Continue, I'll just stand on the side and watch approvingly.

[mc No.1543508]

>>1543501
Who might this gentleman be?

[Anonymous No.1543511]

wat

[Anonymous No.1543533]

>>1543508
He's a fella with a good reputation on /sci/.

[Josef @lab !!nUf2NflSAyw No.1543547]

>>1543508
Just some tripfag who is having breakfast at the lab PC, who is also interested in philosophy but is usually annoyed or fallen* to sleep by philosophical literature. My last texts needed 50 pages to express half a decent thought. Because of that, my source is mostly of secondary nature, such as talking to philosophers, getting recommended texts by them that are somewhat significant (Nagel's bat for example) and, sometimes, lurking on 4chan when an interesting philosophical thread comes up.

*: Yes, that's passive form. I may do that.

[mc No.1543566]

I asked before, but didn't really get an answer:

Basic mechanics shows us that position and velocity are relative, and depend on the location that we set as [0,0] and the object that we use as the reference point for velocity.

Does relativity show us that the passing of time in a system is relative, and that it is dependent on the velocity of the observer relative to the system?

[Anonymous No.1543577]

>>1543566
Yes time is relative as well if you travelling close to speed of light time travels slower.

[Josef @lab !!nUf2NflSAyw No.1543587]

>1543566
The time you measure is always the same, it's your proper time.
When someone's looking at your watch while you're traveling at high speeds, he sees the seconds pass slower on your watch compared to his own one.
So yes, the time perceived is dependent on the speed of the observer.

[Anonymous No.1543601]

>>1543566
Time is exactly as relative as the position coordinates x, y, and z are. Just as coordinate system translations can change the value of x, y, and z, and rotations can change the <span class="math">x_1 - x_2[/spoiler] between two points, t is changed by temporal translations, and <span class="math">t_1 - t_2[/spoiler] is changed by Lorentz transformations, which are a type of four-dimensional generalization of rotations.

[mc No.1543629]

>>1543577
So time is relative to the observer. It's a useful, practical quality to treat as constant for every day purposes, but ultimately it's a matter of perspective like left versus right.

So it seems that truth is, once again, objective. If two observers with different positions and velocities relative to the system observe a different passing of time in the system, they are both right. You just have to include "for an observer moving at X velocity relative to the system" before describing the system, and the apparent contradiction is resolved.

Just as if two observers stood facing the same direction with a building between them. One would say "the building is on the left." The other would say "the building is on the right." It sounds contradictory until they use the proper syntax: "the building is on MY left/right."

[mc No.1543685]

>>1543577
If I might make a prediction, could the slowing of time as I approach c be modeled as

passing of time = [1 - (my velocity / c)] times (insert quantity account for differences in units)

?

[Josef @lab !!nUf2NflSAyw No.1543687]

>>1543629
That's what I love about physics. At some level, it always comes down to how your world actually looks like, and philosophical thoughts arise from an empirical science.
"Truths can depend on the observer"
"You can either make a curve or bend space and go straight ahead"
And don't get me started on quantum mechanics

[Josef @lab !!nUf2NflSAyw No.1543707]

>>1543685
Yes, it could be modeled like that, but that model would fail the experiment. ;)
The correct version is <div class="math">t'=\frac{t}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}</div>
with t' being the time perceived by the observer.

[Josef @lab !!nUf2NflSAyw No.1543720]

Someone even posted a plot of that function a few minutes ago:
>>1543326

[mc No.1543759]

>>1543707
Although my guess was wrong, we're referring to different plots. That equation gives the passing of time as perceived by the observer. Mine gave the passing of time as perceived by moving body.

[Josef @lab !!nUf2NflSAyw No.1543783]

>>1543759
The formula that describes the time a moving body feels is quite easy:
<div class="math">t'=t</div>
What that basically says is that the time in your own system is always the same. The time rescaling only occurs if you're looking at another system moving relatively to you.

[Anonymous No.1543819]

>>1542522

Sartre was emo.

[Anonymous No.1543840]

All human actions are equivalent and all are on principle doomed to failure.
Jean-Paul Sartre

Every existing thing is born without reason, prolongs itself out of weakness, and dies by chance.
Jean-Paul Sartre

Everything has been figured out, except how to live.
Jean-Paul Sartre

I am no longer sure of anything. If I satiate my desires, I sin but I deliver myself from them; if I refuse to satisfy them, they infect the whole soul.
Jean-Paul Sartre

If you are lonely when you're alone, you are in bad company.
Jean-Paul Sartre