Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84  But before that there would be no valuer, and some of those 1's and 0's are never switched around. What no-one sees do see does not exist? |
The value is already there, in that if they were switched about, you would be screwed. I assume you value not being screwed, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84 Honestly it is because i hold mathematical axioms to higher regard. I am rather biased in this, as i study physics. I see no reason to not try make philosophy-axioms look like math-axioms as much as possible, why not, in both logic is the method of deducing things from them. (only con is, as discussed before, logic we speak here is less strict then that used in math) |
It is a different context, and therefore not appropriate in this context. I would also contend that metaphysical and epistemological axioms are more fundamental, in that without metaphysics and epistemology, there would be no math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jasper84 So, how does it, in your opinion, not implicitly claim goals are derivable from metaphysics? What do you think about my previous attempt to define an axiom? Your definition does not seem very good to me. "A true axiom can not be refuted because the act of trying to refute it requires that very axiom as a premise." Is just silly, what can be refuted can depend on what axioms you have, if you have axiom A, and someone else has axiom B and B implies A false, A is a refutable axioms to that second person, and B to the first. |
You miss the point. Take "existence exists" as an example. In order to refute that, you must accept that you exist to refute it. Therefore, "existence" is a premise to any refutation of "existence exists". There can be no more fundamental form in which "existence exists" can be broken down to. It is primary. Not so silly, eh?