Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DChristopher I just think that axioms are *allowed* to be arbitrary, by definition. Doesn't mean the ones I choose to believe about the universe are *arrived at* arbitrarily. |
I really do not know about this. Discussing this requires some kind of judgement about which axioms to discuss. Simplicity of axioms and, for sets of axioms, unability to derive them from eachother, seems to be the only measure of that. We can only hope that is enough to keep some focus on a few axioms.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by utabintarbo Try to refute "existence exists" without conceding that existence does exist. Try to refute the Law of Identity while you're at it. |
Things that cannot be proven wrong need not be true.(have you put enough thought in that part of your post?) For some mathematical things it is actually proven that they cannot be proven false and also not cannot be proven true. These are axioms, precisely because they cannot be proven. (sometimes axioms can be proven by taking other axioms though, said something in this vain earlier.)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by utabintarbo Are you absolutely certain that absolute certainty is impossible? I, too, am open to the possibility that you might be wrong. |
I agree, but it is not like people who think absolute certainty is true are ever going to convince me
.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by utabintarbo You find my intellectual certainty so threatening that you label it as "dogma"? |
Eh, your confidence is great, but please keep an open mind about the possibility you are wrong. The discussion is not a contest either, so, at some point of the disagreement everything has been said; Then agree to disagree, so that some more consideration, may clarify.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by yaaarrrgg A (Platonic?) statement like "everything that exists has a specific nature" seems like it's saying that the thing exists first before the properties. But IMO, it's only because we group similar perceptions under a common model ... like a river. |
The every-thing-consistent-behavior does not specify if these things are somehow part of each other, does not have a problem with it. I earlier considered the external world just one of these things, this seemed nessesary to be able to have properties like "uniformity of nature".
The "Buddhist model" seems to take the opposite view in that the assumption is that nature(external world) exists and all things in it are just abstractions we make. I think these abstractions can be handled similarly as the axiomatic every-thing-consistent-behavior view. (BTW repeating others a little here)