Axioms as Randomness

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Axioms as Randomness

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
They are not bloody random then are they?

All axioms manifest randomness through self-evidence as the self is undefined.
Historically the ratio of randomness came to be removed from objectivity—the farther removed, the more completely objectivity was subjected to its axioms, and finally to the one axiom of identity.

Their is no objective argument for objectivism as objectivists acquire knowledge (whether history, philosophy, etc.) from non-objectivists. Their are several interpretations of objectivism that include but are not limited to: Rand, Plato, Gottlob Frege, Kant, Leonard Peikoff, etc. All of them reflective of one another in one degree or another, and with that reflectivity an increase in definition akin to randomness as these objectivist perspectives require a nature of subjectivity that causes the axioms to differ from one another.

However, you are giving me a pseudo history on the nature of objectivity...not an argument. The point about "the self" within axioms it not argued against. Rather your above argument is equivalent too: "The philosophical community (ie a group of people) has changed the definition of objectivity over time to avoid randomness." What you have failed to observe is that "the definition has been changed over time" which means their is some element of randomness as a flux.

I am arguing the that nature of the "self" is what magnifies randomness within axioms...and then you emphasizing that objectivity has excluded randomness over a period of time proves I am wrong. But the argument I am providing is about "the self" being the cause of randomness within all axioms. Objectivism (although I do not strictly believe in the system, nor am arguing for it) is congruent with this premise.


The pedantries of all systems, down to the architectonic complexities of Kant—and even of Hegel, despite the latter’s program.

This is not even a sentence...it is somewhat of a pedantry. Throwing around names of people who have had brilliant thoughts is more akin to an argument for subjectivity, not objectivity.

Consequently the open thought has no protection against the risk of decline into randomness; nothing assures it of a saturation with the matter that will suffice to surmount that risk. But the consistency of its performance, the density of its texture, helps the thought to hit the mark.

"The consistency of it performance, the density of its texture, helps the thought to hit the mark" is an example of a necessary subjectivity in aquiring definition as all of these points (and you are welcome to give an example to prove me wrong) require an axiomatic self evidence in nature. Its sounds more like a writing on the sensory experience of eating at some restaurant.

I will agree that the manifestation of ratios in order to acquire definition does help to avoid randomness. But the argument I provided was about "the self" within self-evidence having no strict definition therefore is akin to randomness, not the fact that ratios are necessary in definition as I have post elsewhere agreeing to this point. This randomness magnifies along with the axiom being magnified because the axiom has at minimum a dualistic nature of stability in dimension and a flux congruent with randomness.



There has been an about-face in the function of the concept of certainty in philosophy.
No example provided, and you are arguing truth is subject to people's opinions (ie: "There has been an about face") What you are arguing for, without realizing it is the inherent nature of flux within philosophy.

Thus the assertive pedantry of the obscurantist is marked by the uncertainties of axiomatic function which thrusts trust in the sense experience in which axioms are wrought. In simple terms you are wrong.
Their is nothing obscure about what is provided, as obscurity is a subjective interpretation and as an "objectivist" you cannot "objectively" makes such claims. Their are no uncertaintaties about axiomatic function. Their are uncertainties about the self affecting axiomatic function. The uncertainty is not with the nature of evidence, but rather the relativity of the "self" to evidence.

You are arguing objectivism is right because generally speaking "the self" is what can dilute truth or take away its definition as truth. This deficiency in structure is what randomness is equal in definition too. The argument provided is based upon the unavoidable element of the self in all axioms, and that this element due to its undefinability is akin to randomness; therefore the axioms magnify it. Objectivism reflects this point in one degree or another. So in effect you are agreeing with me while trying to say I am wrong. Axiom as having a random element due to "the self" helps objectivism by avoiding a "sensory only experience" (although the senses have their place in truth).

I am sorry, but your argument is pedantry...you are just pissed because you feel inferior...and I could care less because people like you are a dime a dozen...and it gets boring after awhile. Please don't tell me this is your best.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Axioms as Randomness

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:

All axioms manifest randomness through self-evidence as the self is undefined.
Historically the ratio of randomness came to be removed from objectivity—the farther removed, the more completely objectivity was subjected to its axioms, and finally to the one axiom of identity.

Their is no objective argument for objectivism as objectivists acquire knowledge (whether history, philosophy, etc.) from non-objectivists. Their are several interpretations of objectivism that include but are not limited to: Rand, Plato, Gottlob Frege, Kant, Leonard Peikoff, etc. All of them reflective of one another in one degree or another, and with that reflectivity an increase in definition akin to randomness as these objectivist perspectives require a nature of subjectivity that causes the axioms to differ from one another.

However, you are giving me a pseudo history on the nature of objectivity...not an argument. The point about "the self" within axioms it not argued against. Rather your above argument is equivalent too: "The philosophical community (ie a group of people) has changed the definition of objectivity over time to avoid randomness." What you have failed to observe is that "the definition has been changed over time" which means their is some element of randomness as a flux.

I am arguing the that nature of the "self" is what magnifies randomness within axioms...and then you emphasizing that objectivity has excluded randomness over a period of time proves I am wrong. But the argument I am providing is about "the self" being the cause of randomness within all axioms. Objectivism (although I do not strictly believe in the system, nor am arguing for it) is congruent with this premise.


The pedantries of all systems, down to the architectonic complexities of Kant—and even of Hegel, despite the latter’s program.

This is not even a sentence...it is somewhat of a pedantry. Throwing around names of people who have had brilliant thoughts is more akin to an argument for subjectivity, not objectivity.

Consequently the open thought has no protection against the risk of decline into randomness; nothing assures it of a saturation with the matter that will suffice to surmount that risk. But the consistency of its performance, the density of its texture, helps the thought to hit the mark.

"The consistency of it performance, the density of its texture, helps the thought to hit the mark" is an example of a necessary subjectivity in aquiring definition as all of these points (and you are welcome to give an example to prove me wrong) require an axiomatic self evidence in nature. Its sounds more like a writing on the sensory experience of eating at some restaurant.

I will agree that the manifestation of ratios in order to acquire definition does help to avoid randomness. But the argument I provided was about "the self" within self-evidence having no strict definition therefore is akin to randomness, not the fact that ratios are necessary in definition as I have post elsewhere agreeing to this point. This randomness magnifies along with the axiom being magnified because the axiom has at minimum a dualistic nature of stability in dimension and a flux congruent with randomness.



There has been an about-face in the function of the concept of certainty in philosophy.
No example provided, and you are arguing truth is subject to people's opinions (ie: "There has been an about face") What you are arguing for, without realizing it is the inherent nature of flux within philosophy.

Thus the assertive pedantry of the obscurantist is marked by the uncertainties of axiomatic function which thrusts trust in the sense experience in which axioms are wrought. In simple terms you are wrong.
Their is nothing obscure about what is provided, as obscurity is a subjective interpretation and as an "objectivist" you cannot "objectively" makes such claims. Their are no uncertaintaties about axiomatic function. Their are uncertainties about the self affecting axiomatic function. The uncertainty is not with the nature of evidence, but rather the relativity of the "self" to evidence.

You are arguing objectivism is right because generally speaking "the self" is what can dilute truth or take away its definition as truth. This deficiency in structure is what randomness is equal in definition too. The argument provided is based upon the unavoidable element of the self in all axioms, and that this element due to its undefinability is akin to randomness; therefore the axioms magnify it. Objectivism reflects this point in one degree or another. So in effect you are agreeing with me while trying to say I am wrong. Axiom as having a random element due to "the self" helps objectivism by avoiding a "sensory only experience" (although the senses have their place in truth).

I am sorry, but your argument is pedantry...you are just pissed because you feel inferior...and I could care less because people like you are a dime a dozen...and it gets boring after awhile. Please don't tell me this is your best.
Bloody hell - it's like you didn't even read what I said!
I think you must be plug stupid.
The excrescences of the systems, ever since the Cartesian pineal gland and the axioms and definitions of Spinoza, already crammed with the entire rationalism he would then deductively extract—by their untruth, these excrescences show the untruth, the mania, of the systems themselves. Traditional thinking, and the common-sense habits it left behind after fading out philosophically, demand a frame of reference in which all things have their place. Not too much importance is attached to the intelligibility of the frame—it may even be laid down in dogmatic axioms—if only each reflection can be localised, and if unframed thoughts are kept out. But a cognition that is to bear fruit will throw itself to the vertigo which this causes is an index to the shock of inconclusiveness, the neutral that it cannot help appearing in the frame covered, never-changing realm, is true for untruth only, and it is thus that all axiomatic statements are consciously the design of the speaker. Such utterances are not random. All actions are the inevitable consequence of the deterministic principles underlying the perceptual rational considerations, and by design are used to iterate reality from the phenomenal truths of observation. Axioms are not only, not random. Nothing is random. Nothing can be random. Axioms are the conscious monuments of exposition, they are considered, structural signifiers of the analytic building blocks of reason and logic. Calling them random is not only a misunderstanding of "axiom", but a misunderstanding of reality.
Worst still, everything in your (ahem!) "argument" is based on self generated axioms and would be self refuting, if your claim of randomness were valid. However it fails to be meaningful in anyway. It is, laughingly, not even wrong..
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Axioms as Randomness

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Historically the ratio of randomness came to be removed from objectivity—the farther removed, the more completely objectivity was subjected to its axioms, and finally to the one axiom of identity.

Their is no objective argument for objectivism as objectivists acquire knowledge (whether history, philosophy, etc.) from non-objectivists. Their are several interpretations of objectivism that include but are not limited to: Rand, Plato, Gottlob Frege, Kant, Leonard Peikoff, etc. All of them reflective of one another in one degree or another, and with that reflectivity an increase in definition akin to randomness as these objectivist perspectives require a nature of subjectivity that causes the axioms to differ from one another.

However, you are giving me a pseudo history on the nature of objectivity...not an argument. The point about "the self" within axioms it not argued against. Rather your above argument is equivalent too: "The philosophical community (ie a group of people) has changed the definition of objectivity over time to avoid randomness." What you have failed to observe is that "the definition has been changed over time" which means their is some element of randomness as a flux.

I am arguing the that nature of the "self" is what magnifies randomness within axioms...and then you emphasizing that objectivity has excluded randomness over a period of time proves I am wrong. But the argument I am providing is about "the self" being the cause of randomness within all axioms. Objectivism (although I do not strictly believe in the system, nor am arguing for it) is congruent with this premise.


The pedantries of all systems, down to the architectonic complexities of Kant—and even of Hegel, despite the latter’s program.

This is not even a sentence...it is somewhat of a pedantry. Throwing around names of people who have had brilliant thoughts is more akin to an argument for subjectivity, not objectivity.

Consequently the open thought has no protection against the risk of decline into randomness; nothing assures it of a saturation with the matter that will suffice to surmount that risk. But the consistency of its performance, the density of its texture, helps the thought to hit the mark.

"The consistency of it performance, the density of its texture, helps the thought to hit the mark" is an example of a necessary subjectivity in aquiring definition as all of these points (and you are welcome to give an example to prove me wrong) require an axiomatic self evidence in nature. Its sounds more like a writing on the sensory experience of eating at some restaurant.

I will agree that the manifestation of ratios in order to acquire definition does help to avoid randomness. But the argument I provided was about "the self" within self-evidence having no strict definition therefore is akin to randomness, not the fact that ratios are necessary in definition as I have post elsewhere agreeing to this point. This randomness magnifies along with the axiom being magnified because the axiom has at minimum a dualistic nature of stability in dimension and a flux congruent with randomness.



There has been an about-face in the function of the concept of certainty in philosophy.
No example provided, and you are arguing truth is subject to people's opinions (ie: "There has been an about face") What you are arguing for, without realizing it is the inherent nature of flux within philosophy.

Thus the assertive pedantry of the obscurantist is marked by the uncertainties of axiomatic function which thrusts trust in the sense experience in which axioms are wrought. In simple terms you are wrong.
Their is nothing obscure about what is provided, as obscurity is a subjective interpretation and as an "objectivist" you cannot "objectively" makes such claims. Their are no uncertaintaties about axiomatic function. Their are uncertainties about the self affecting axiomatic function. The uncertainty is not with the nature of evidence, but rather the relativity of the "self" to evidence.

You are arguing objectivism is right because generally speaking "the self" is what can dilute truth or take away its definition as truth. This deficiency in structure is what randomness is equal in definition too. The argument provided is based upon the unavoidable element of the self in all axioms, and that this element due to its undefinability is akin to randomness; therefore the axioms magnify it. Objectivism reflects this point in one degree or another. So in effect you are agreeing with me while trying to say I am wrong. Axiom as having a random element due to "the self" helps objectivism by avoiding a "sensory only experience" (although the senses have their place in truth).

I am sorry, but your argument is pedantry...you are just pissed because you feel inferior...and I could care less because people like you are a dime a dozen...and it gets boring after awhile. Please don't tell me this is your best.
Bloody hell - it's like you didn't even read what I said!
I think you must be plug stupid.

It's almost as if you are attracted to me...I wouldn't blame you.
The excrescences of the systems, ever since the Cartesian pineal gland and the axioms and definitions of Spinoza, already crammed with the entire rationalism he would then deductively extract—by their untruth, these excrescences show the untruth, the mania, of the systems themselves.
Yes, because the system's are in themselves extensions of the philosopher's and these excresences are simply excessive definition that borders on randomness. Obscurity through excessive definition is equal in definition to randomness as randomness reflects as "undefinition" or "obscurity".


Traditional thinking, and the common-sense habits it left behind after fading out philosophically, demand a frame of reference in which all things have their place. Not too much importance is attached to the intelligibility of the frame—it may even be laid down in dogmatic axioms—if only each reflection can be localised, and if unframed thoughts are kept out.
Yes, definition through the manifestations of proportions and ratios I have given brief responses in other threads about this and will continue expanding. You are avoiding my point about "the self" within axioms.

But a cognition that is to bear fruit will throw itself to the vertigo which this causes is an index to the shock of inconclusiveness, the neutral that it cannot help appearing in the frame covered, never-changing realm, is true for untruth only,
The sentence structure is almost as if you are trying to sound smart. Anyhow, the first elements of the sentence appears to reflect the spiritual and intellectual of knowledge as subjective terms such as: "vertigo" "bear fruit" "shock of inconclusiveness" reflect a necessary anthropomorphic nature in knowledge (which I am not against) however seems to contradict your slant towards objectivism.

and it is thus that all axiomatic statements are consciously the design of the speaker.
I already acknowledged the element of the self as an unavoidable element within axioms, you are agreeing with me again. What you forget, with all your "fruitful" language is you are increasing the degree of the "self" within "self" evidence. Obscure writing reflects a heavy nature of subjectivity that is akin to randomness...obscurity does not equal depth.


Such utterances are not random. All actions are the inevitable consequence of the deterministic principles underlying the perceptual rational considerations, and by design are used to iterate reality from the phenomenal truths of observation.

And what deterministic principles are you referring to exactly? Here is a whole list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism. It appears the definition of determinism is more attune with chaos theory than determinism itself as the increase of definition is akin to a decrease in observation.



Axioms are not only, not random. Nothing is random. Nothing can be random. Axioms are the conscious monuments of exposition, they are considered, structural signifiers of the analytic building blocks of reason and logic. Calling them random is not only a misunderstanding of "axiom", but a misunderstanding of reality.
"Axioms as randomness" is an argument of randomness as an element within the axioms; therefore all axioms can only be viewed as approximates or probabilistic densities. This randomness is still an element of deficiency within all structures.

Here is the definition of randomness:
Randomness
Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable.

It correlates with everything thing argue for randomness is a "deficiency in definition" which is akin to a "deficiency in observation" or a "deficiency in intelligibility". I understand that the repetition of trials to determine structure, is reflective of quantum theory, but their is no predictability within each scientific trial and this contradicts the scientific method. Frequencies are an observation of flux and while flux is approximate, its approximate nature gives evidence to a lack of complete definition or observation therefore points towards an element of randomness. Probabilities and approximates acknowledge a degree of randomness through undefinability.



Worst still, everything in your (ahem!) "argument" is based on self generated axioms and would be self refuting, if your claim of randomness were valid. However it fails to be meaningful in anyway. It is, laughingly, not even wrong..
I think you should insert bigger words, I still don't think you were giving me your best. I have a better idea, as I am arguing the "self is undefined and axioms have an element of the self, axioms therefore have a degree of randomness." Why don't you just argue what "the self" is? After all you do know everything except for what you talk about.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Axioms as Randomness

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Their is nothing obscure about what is provided, as obscurity is a subjective interpretation and as an "objectivist" you cannot "objectively" makes such claims. Their are no uncertaintaties about axiomatic function. Their are uncertainties about the self affecting axiomatic function. The uncertainty is not with the nature of evidence, but rather the relativity of the "self" to evidence.

You are arguing objectivism is right because generally speaking "the self" is what can dilute truth or take away its definition as truth. This deficiency in structure is what randomness is equal in definition too. The argument provided is based upon the unavoidable element of the self in all axioms, and that this element due to its undefinability is akin to randomness; therefore the axioms magnify it. Objectivism reflects this point in one degree or another. So in effect you are agreeing with me while trying to say I am wrong. Axiom as having a random element due to "the self" helps objectivism by avoiding a "sensory only experience" (although the senses have their place in truth).

I am sorry, but your argument is pedantry...you are just pissed because you feel inferior...and I could care less because people like you are a dime a dozen...and it gets boring after awhile. Please don't tell me this is your best.
Bloody hell - it's like you didn't even read what I said!
I think you must be plug stupid.

It's almost as if you are attracted to me...I wouldn't blame you.
The excrescences of the systems, ever since the Cartesian pineal gland and the axioms and definitions of Spinoza, already crammed with the entire rationalism he would then deductively extract—by their untruth, these excrescences show the untruth, the mania, of the systems themselves.
Yes, because the system's are in themselves extensions of the philosopher's and these excresences are simply excessive definition that borders on randomness. Obscurity through excessive definition is equal in definition to randomness as randomness reflects as "undefinition" or "obscurity".


Traditional thinking, and the common-sense habits it left behind after fading out philosophically, demand a frame of reference in which all things have their place. Not too much importance is attached to the intelligibility of the frame—it may even be laid down in dogmatic axioms—if only each reflection can be localised, and if unframed thoughts are kept out.
Yes, definition through the manifestations of proportions and ratios I have given brief responses in other threads about this and will continue expanding. You are avoiding my point about "the self" within axioms.

But a cognition that is to bear fruit will throw itself to the vertigo which this causes is an index to the shock of inconclusiveness, the neutral that it cannot help appearing in the frame covered, never-changing realm, is true for untruth only,
The sentence structure is almost as if you are trying to sound smart. Anyhow, the first elements of the sentence appears to reflect the spiritual and intellectual of knowledge as subjective terms such as: "vertigo" "bear fruit" "shock of inconclusiveness" reflect a necessary anthropomorphic nature in knowledge (which I am not against) however seems to contradict your slant towards objectivism.

and it is thus that all axiomatic statements are consciously the design of the speaker.
I already acknowledged the element of the self as an unavoidable element within axioms, you are agreeing with me again. What you forget, with all your "fruitful" language is you are increasing the degree of the "self" within "self" evidence. Obscure writing reflects a heavy nature of subjectivity that is akin to randomness...obscurity does not equal depth.


Such utterances are not random. All actions are the inevitable consequence of the deterministic principles underlying the perceptual rational considerations, and by design are used to iterate reality from the phenomenal truths of observation.

And what deterministic principles are you referring to exactly? Here is a whole list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism. It appears the definition of determinism is more attune with chaos theory than determinism itself as the increase of definition is akin to a decrease in observation.



Axioms are not only, not random. Nothing is random. Nothing can be random. Axioms are the conscious monuments of exposition, they are considered, structural signifiers of the analytic building blocks of reason and logic. Calling them random is not only a misunderstanding of "axiom", but a misunderstanding of reality.
"Axioms as randomness" is an argument of randomness as an element within the axioms; therefore all axioms can only be viewed as approximates or probabilistic densities. This randomness is still an element of deficiency within all structures.

Here is the definition of randomness:
Randomness
Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable.

It correlates with everything thing argue for randomness is a "deficiency in definition" which is akin to a "deficiency in observation" or a "deficiency in intelligibility". I understand that the repetition of trials to determine structure, is reflective of quantum theory, but their is no predictability within each scientific trial and this contradicts the scientific method. Frequencies are an observation of flux and while flux is approximate, its approximate nature gives evidence to a lack of complete definition or observation therefore points towards an element of randomness. Probabilities and approximates acknowledge a degree of randomness through undefinability.



Worst still, everything in your (ahem!) "argument" is based on self generated axioms and would be self refuting, if your claim of randomness were valid. However it fails to be meaningful in anyway. It is, laughingly, not even wrong..
I think you should insert bigger words, I still don't think you were giving me your best. I have a better idea, as I am arguing the "self is undefined and axioms have an element of the self, axioms therefore have a degree of randomness." Why don't you just argue what "the self" is? After all you do know everything except for what you talk about.
Sorry but I don't think you are smart enough to follow me.
I'm wasting my time with a confused twat.
Bye bye.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Axioms as Randomness

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Bloody hell - it's like you didn't even read what I said!
I think you must be plug stupid.

It's almost as if you are attracted to me...I wouldn't blame you.
The excrescences of the systems, ever since the Cartesian pineal gland and the axioms and definitions of Spinoza, already crammed with the entire rationalism he would then deductively extract—by their untruth, these excrescences show the untruth, the mania, of the systems themselves.
Yes, because the system's are in themselves extensions of the philosopher's and these excresences are simply excessive definition that borders on randomness. Obscurity through excessive definition is equal in definition to randomness as randomness reflects as "undefinition" or "obscurity".


Traditional thinking, and the common-sense habits it left behind after fading out philosophically, demand a frame of reference in which all things have their place. Not too much importance is attached to the intelligibility of the frame—it may even be laid down in dogmatic axioms—if only each reflection can be localised, and if unframed thoughts are kept out.
Yes, definition through the manifestations of proportions and ratios I have given brief responses in other threads about this and will continue expanding. You are avoiding my point about "the self" within axioms.

But a cognition that is to bear fruit will throw itself to the vertigo which this causes is an index to the shock of inconclusiveness, the neutral that it cannot help appearing in the frame covered, never-changing realm, is true for untruth only,
The sentence structure is almost as if you are trying to sound smart. Anyhow, the first elements of the sentence appears to reflect the spiritual and intellectual of knowledge as subjective terms such as: "vertigo" "bear fruit" "shock of inconclusiveness" reflect a necessary anthropomorphic nature in knowledge (which I am not against) however seems to contradict your slant towards objectivism.

and it is thus that all axiomatic statements are consciously the design of the speaker.
I already acknowledged the element of the self as an unavoidable element within axioms, you are agreeing with me again. What you forget, with all your "fruitful" language is you are increasing the degree of the "self" within "self" evidence. Obscure writing reflects a heavy nature of subjectivity that is akin to randomness...obscurity does not equal depth.


Such utterances are not random. All actions are the inevitable consequence of the deterministic principles underlying the perceptual rational considerations, and by design are used to iterate reality from the phenomenal truths of observation.

And what deterministic principles are you referring to exactly? Here is a whole list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism. It appears the definition of determinism is more attune with chaos theory than determinism itself as the increase of definition is akin to a decrease in observation.



Axioms are not only, not random. Nothing is random. Nothing can be random. Axioms are the conscious monuments of exposition, they are considered, structural signifiers of the analytic building blocks of reason and logic. Calling them random is not only a misunderstanding of "axiom", but a misunderstanding of reality.
"Axioms as randomness" is an argument of randomness as an element within the axioms; therefore all axioms can only be viewed as approximates or probabilistic densities. This randomness is still an element of deficiency within all structures.

Here is the definition of randomness:
Randomness
Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable.

It correlates with everything thing argue for randomness is a "deficiency in definition" which is akin to a "deficiency in observation" or a "deficiency in intelligibility". I understand that the repetition of trials to determine structure, is reflective of quantum theory, but their is no predictability within each scientific trial and this contradicts the scientific method. Frequencies are an observation of flux and while flux is approximate, its approximate nature gives evidence to a lack of complete definition or observation therefore points towards an element of randomness. Probabilities and approximates acknowledge a degree of randomness through undefinability.



Worst still, everything in your (ahem!) "argument" is based on self generated axioms and would be self refuting, if your claim of randomness were valid. However it fails to be meaningful in anyway. It is, laughingly, not even wrong..
I think you should insert bigger words, I still don't think you were giving me your best. I have a better idea, as I am arguing the "self is undefined and axioms have an element of the self, axioms therefore have a degree of randomness." Why don't you just argue what "the self" is? After all you do know everything except for what you talk about.
Sorry but I don't think you are smart enough to follow me.
I'm wasting my time with a confused twat.
Bye bye.
Pointing toward the deficiencies in axioms only magnifies the degrees towards which axioms can manifest proportions and definitions (a light shines relatively brighter in the dark). Axioms as probabilistic densities of observation takes into account randomness. Their is nothing contradictory about axioms having random elements.

You forget, that in a completely deterministic universe (your perspective), that universe just manifested the argument about "Axioms as Randomness". Don't contradict the universe.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Axioms as Randomness

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Eodnhoj7 wrote: I think you should insert bigger words, I still don't think you were giving me your best. I have a better idea, as I am arguing the "self is undefined and axioms have an element of the self, axioms therefore have a degree of randomness." Why don't you just argue what "the self" is? After all you do know everything except for what you talk about.
Sorry but I don't think you are smart enough to follow me.
I'm wasting my time with a confused twat.
Bye bye.
Pointing toward the deficiencies in axioms only magnifies the degrees towards which axioms can manifest proportions and definitions (a light shines relatively brighter in the dark). Axioms as probabilistic densities of observation takes into account randomness. Their is nothing contradictory about axioms having random elements.

You forget, that in a completely deterministic universe (your perspective), that universe just manifested the argument about "Axioms as Randomness". Don't contradict the universe.
Your brain needs a holiday.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Axioms as Randomness

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Sorry but I don't think you are smart enough to follow me.
I'm wasting my time with a confused twat.
Bye bye.
Pointing toward the deficiencies in axioms only magnifies the degrees towards which axioms can manifest proportions and definitions (a light shines relatively brighter in the dark). Axioms as probabilistic densities of observation takes into account randomness. Their is nothing contradictory about axioms having random elements.

You forget, that in a completely deterministic universe (your perspective), that universe just manifested the argument about "Axioms as Randomness". Don't contradict the universe.
Your brain needs a holiday.
At least I have one.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Axioms as Randomness

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Pointing toward the deficiencies in axioms only magnifies the degrees towards which axioms can manifest proportions and definitions (a light shines relatively brighter in the dark). Axioms as probabilistic densities of observation takes into account randomness. Their is nothing contradictory about axioms having random elements.

You forget, that in a completely deterministic universe (your perspective), that universe just manifested the argument about "Axioms as Randomness". Don't contradict the universe.
Your brain needs a holiday.
At least I have one.
Please refer to the posts I made above.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Axioms as Randomness

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Your brain needs a holiday.
At least I have one.
Please refer to the posts I made above.
You have no argument, as the nature of randomness is a deficiency in observation. Unless you want to argue that you see everything, or that humanity see's everything. That argument is set. If you really looked at our "debate" you would have seen we agreed more than disagreed.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Axioms as Randomness

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

I have observed some confusion about this subject on some other forums, so I figured I would delve deeper into what may remain "unclear"...haha random...pardon the pun I just had to put it in.


A simple example would what is self evident to you may not be self evident to me, what is self evident to me may not be self-evident to you. Because of this lack of observability or definition there is a degree of randomness.

I will try to address some points which may appear confusing:

A) All axioms manifest randomness through self-evidence as the self is undefined.

All axioms are a duality of "the self" and "evidence". The self is undefined, by almost anyone's terms; therefore due to it's lack of definition and unobservability (ex: a person may say "I don't understand myself, I don't know who I am, etc.) it is random. All evidence is simply proportions/ratios/stability between the observer and structures, observers and observers, structures and structures; therefore there is a degree of definition that is not random.

C) All propagation is a continuum in definition of the beginning axiom(s), therefore all beginning definitions are in flux.

Because all arguments are built upon axioms, and argument for the most part seek to observe and further define these axioms, these axioms self-propagate. The beginning axiom(s) reflect into another axiom or set of axioms and the ratio manifests as the argument. However with each extension of the argument, through the manifestation of ratios through reflective axioms, the original definition of the axiom is in constant flux.

ex: Axiom A leads to Argument B

The argument continues to be observed and Argument C comes into fruition. Argument C does not contradict either Argument B or Axiom A, however it redefines Axiom A as Axioms A's definition originally stemmed from the ratios of Axioms in Argument B. With the extension of definition of Axiom A comes a new definition of Axiom A, meaning Axiom A always has a property of continuing definition who possibilities are not always observable due to a continual flux; this equates to the Axiom as having a degree of randomness. However the Ratios of Axiom A and Argument B are always there, so there is a degree of stability. This duality of stability and flux, means that all axioms are probabilistic as a gradient form of observation.



G) All possible axioms are not actual axioms, therefore are deficient in structure. This deficiency in structure is congruent with randomness. However, all possible axioms define all actual axioms.

All things are defined by their potential or "possibilities". An example may be a child, he or she is defined by what he or she "maybe" someday, or by the expectations placed upon him or her. The same applies for axioms, as the observation of this manifests further possibilities. It is these "possibilities" which although having a degree of definition as "maybe" are still probabilistic. This probabilistic has a degree of randomness.


I) All unmeasurability is self-evident.

All randomness is self evident as a "deficiency in observation". For example: "I cannot see over the cliff" implies a degree of deficiency in what I can observe, therefore my knowledge is reflective of "randomness".

J) All unmeasurables, as axioms, gain definition through relations. However all relations are dependent upon axioms.

All axioms are fundamentally something that cannot be reduce any further than themselves, they are "primitives". Because of this nature, they manifest definition as to what they are or contain by relations to other primitives.

ex: 1+3=4 gives a degree, not totality, of definition as to the natures of "1" "3" and "4" and from this relationship we understand some degree of their natures.

The problem that occurs is the "definition" through "relations" (or "relativity") occurs from structures that have no "value" on their own terms. This manifests a constant flux necessary to achieve definition. The problem occurs, that although flux as degrees of observability, it also has degrees of randomness as flux is a deficiency in stability.


H) Unmeasurability is unavoidable as unmeasurability is self-evident.

This deficiency in observability is unavoidable.

I) All self evidence is the manifestation of observation as measurement.

All axioms are basically points of measurement within knowledge. We use axioms to "measure" reality, or in other terms manifest ratios of proportionality.

J) All measurement is an extension of the self; therefore is a reflection of the self.

The problem occurs as all measurement is an extension of the "self" there is a degree of randomness within it. Which leads to the next point:

K) All measurement relies upon an element of randomness; therefore no measurement is proportional in its entirety.


This argument is not to be confused with axioms "only" having a random nature, but rather as axioms having an "inherent degree of randomness".
Post Reply