The Democrat Party Hates America

[BigMike]

I’d like to see what you think “physics” includes.

How quickly you forget. This from 4 days ago:

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.

It’s honestly refreshing to read Will Bouwman’s posts. Clear-headed, grounded, and not afraid to point out that physics—while immensely powerful—is still a human framework for describing what we observe, not a final word on what is. That kind of nuance tends to get steamrolled in these threads, but Will keeps bringing it back with precision.

[FlashDangerpants]

I’d like to see what you think “physics” includes.

How quickly you forget. This from 4 days ago:

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.

It’s honestly refreshing to read Will Bouwman’s posts. Clear-headed, grounded, and not afraid to point out that physics—while immensely powerful—is still a human framework for describing what we observe, not a final word on what is. That kind of nuance tends to get steamrolled in these threads, but Will keeps bringing it back with precision.

Tell him about your "no axioms" stance and see if he has any precision to offer for you.

[BigMike]

How quickly you forget. This from 4 days ago:

It’s honestly refreshing to read Will Bouwman’s posts. Clear-headed, grounded, and not afraid to point out that physics—while immensely powerful—is still a human framework for describing what we observe, not a final word on what is. That kind of nuance tends to get steamrolled in these threads, but Will keeps bringing it back with precision.

Tell him about your "no axioms" stance and see if he has any precision to offer for you.

Flash—

I think you’re conflating two very different domains.

I’m a mathematician. I fully accept that mathematics—and logic—are axiomatic deductive systems. We start with definitions and axioms, and we derive everything else from them. It’s a closed, formal structure. That’s why mathematical proofs are absolute within a given framework. They're not contingent on observations.

But physics isn’t like that. Physics is a hypothetico-deductive science. It starts with observations, proposes hypotheses, and builds models that can be tested and falsified. It doesn't assume axioms in the mathematical sense—it proposes laws that hold until they’re proven not to. They're not "true" in the way axioms are. They're tentative. That's the entire point of the scientific method.

So no, I don't reject axioms where they belong. I just don’t pretend the empirical sciences operate on the same footing as formal ones. That’s not anti-precision. That is precision.

[FlashDangerpants]

It’s honestly refreshing to read Will Bouwman’s posts. Clear-headed, grounded, and not afraid to point out that physics—while immensely powerful—is still a human framework for describing what we observe, not a final word on what is. That kind of nuance tends to get steamrolled in these threads, but Will keeps bringing it back with precision.

Tell him about your "no axioms" stance and see if he has any precision to offer for you.

Flash—

I think you’re conflating two very different domains.

I’m a mathematician. I fully accept that mathematics—and logic—are axiomatic deductive systems. We start with definitions and axioms, and we derive everything else from them. It’s a closed, formal structure. That’s why mathematical proofs are absolute within a given framework. They're not contingent on observations.

But physics isn’t like that. Physics is a hypothetico-deductive science. It starts with observations, proposes hypotheses, and builds models that can be tested and falsified. It doesn't assume axioms in the mathematical sense—it proposes laws that hold until they’re proven not to. They're not "true" in the way axioms are. They're tentative. That's the entire point of the scientific method.

So no, I don't reject axioms where they belong. I just don’t pretend the empirical sciences operate on the same footing as formal ones. That’s not anti-precision. That is precision.

Yeah, tell him that, but don't forget the OG version which went thus: Science doesn’t “assume” the universe behaves consistently—it observes it. The principles of physics weren’t plucked from a metaphysical void; they’re derived from repeatable, observable phenomena. If you drop an apple, it falls—every time, no exceptions. This isn’t an “axiom” in the philosophical sense; it’s an empirical fact, confirmed over centuries of observation.

[BigMike]

Tell him about your "no axioms" stance and see if he has any precision to offer for you.

Flash—

I think you’re conflating two very different domains.

I’m a mathematician. I fully accept that mathematics—and logic—are axiomatic deductive systems. We start with definitions and axioms, and we derive everything else from them. It’s a closed, formal structure. That’s why mathematical proofs are absolute within a given framework. They're not contingent on observations.

But physics isn’t like that. Physics is a hypothetico-deductive science. It starts with observations, proposes hypotheses, and builds models that can be tested and falsified. It doesn't assume axioms in the mathematical sense—it proposes laws that hold until they’re proven not to. They're not "true" in the way axioms are. They're tentative. That's the entire point of the scientific method.

So no, I don't reject axioms where they belong. I just don’t pretend the empirical sciences operate on the same footing as formal ones. That’s not anti-precision. That is precision.

Yeah, tell him that, but don't forget the OG version which went thus: Science doesn’t “assume” the universe behaves consistently—it observes it. The principles of physics weren’t plucked from a metaphysical void; they’re derived from repeatable, observable phenomena. If you drop an apple, it falls—every time, no exceptions. This isn’t an “axiom” in the philosophical sense; it’s an empirical fact, confirmed over centuries of observation.

Flash—

Right, and I stand by that “OG version,” too. Because again, it highlights the difference between empirical generalization and formal assumption.

When I said physics doesn’t “assume” consistency axiomatically, I meant exactly that: the laws of physics emerge inductively from repeated observation. They aren’t declared self-evident truths. They’re tentative, model-dependent generalizations grounded in data. And they survive only so long as they keep matching the results.

Mathematics, on the other hand, is deductive from the ground up. We assume axioms not because we’ve observed them, but because we’ve defined them as the basis for reasoning. In physics, if a conserved quantity fails to conserve under new conditions, the theory changes. In math, if a logical contradiction appears, the system collapses.

You’re trying to trap me with consistency, but all I’ve done is treat two kinds of systems according to their nature. And honestly, if that distinction bugs you, I don’t think it’s my precision that’s lacking.

[Belinda]

Rehearse? It was fairly spontaneous - spontaneity as with a DEGREE of free will is irrelevant, it's binary - either free will is TRUE or FALSE - there is no degree of free 'will'.

Does "no degree of free will" mean :

*all living creatures have the same amount of free will?

*each human has the same amount of free will as any other human?

* a newborn human has the same amount of free will as a mature human?

* a sleeping human has the same amount of free will as a wide awake human?

Yes, I see your point and I am to a degree contradicting something I originally posted way back on joining the forum in 2011!

"The ebb and flow of a cause and effect universe eventually ceases its natural progression as life evolves into an increasingly intelligent form.
The more intelligent the life-form, the greater the opposition to this natural causal outcome.
Intelligent life forms require increasing amounts of energy to sustain their lifestyle. As resources diminish these lifeforms must interface to a super efficient state."

Does an ant have free will?

Does my dog?

It's terribly difficult to comprehend, yet I know GOD exists thus this leaves me to believe that humans do have free will, otherwise what was the point of x Commandments?

So I'll state my case per HUMANS - as binary, not a 'degree' of. That is to say, imo, humans have free will.

Atto, you say "yet I know GOD exists thus this leaves me to believe that humans do have free will,"

This is an important point and helpful post!

I take my lead from Genesis ' explanation of the expulsion from Eden. Adam and Eve chose to eat the apple of knowledge of good and evil so they were condemned to make voluntary decisions. This was unlike all the other creatures who are never in any doubt what is right and what is wrong, they know it instinctively. Being able to make voluntary decisions is like a poisoned chalice that causes humans no end of grief.The animals that remained in Eden are blessed compared with us.

Your dog is trained to know your version of right from wrong so he doesn't have a problem, Ants are like the creatures who never were expelled from Eden, ants do what ants have to do.

I think that Mosaic law is a wonderful advance on pagan law, and np doubt Moses codified the law at just the right juncture in the human past. The point of the Ten Commandments was to help benighted humans to make good decisions.

It seems that what you name as "free will" I call "voluntary decisions".

A lot of people here will object the Garden of Eden story is an iron age myth. So it is however it's myth that the editors of The Bible were wise to include . The story describes the human condition, which is that we don't and cannot rely on instincts like other life forms, but are condemned to decide for ourselves.

(Dogs excepted. He threw in his lot with humans .Genesis might have had a bit about the little dog who slipped out unobserved by God , to be with his human family come what may)

[Immanuel Can]

I’d like to see what you think “physics” includes.

How quickly you forget. This from 4 days ago:

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.

Very, very vague: you describe strategies of investigation, with which I agree: but you don't say what they are actually investigating.

So what is the subject matter of all these "mathematical descriptions"? What, exactly, are they "describing"? What "phenomena" are included in your understanding of physics? You don't say here. And that is what I wish to know.

[Darkneos]

Tell him about your "no axioms" stance and see if he has any precision to offer for you.

Flash—

I think you’re conflating two very different domains.

I’m a mathematician. I fully accept that mathematics—and logic—are axiomatic deductive systems. We start with definitions and axioms, and we derive everything else from them. It’s a closed, formal structure. That’s why mathematical proofs are absolute within a given framework. They're not contingent on observations.

But physics isn’t like that. Physics is a hypothetico-deductive science. It starts with observations, proposes hypotheses, and builds models that can be tested and falsified. It doesn't assume axioms in the mathematical sense—it proposes laws that hold until they’re proven not to. They're not "true" in the way axioms are. They're tentative. That's the entire point of the scientific method.

So no, I don't reject axioms where they belong. I just don’t pretend the empirical sciences operate on the same footing as formal ones. That’s not anti-precision. That is precision.

Yeah, tell him that, but don't forget the OG version which went thus: Science doesn’t “assume” the universe behaves consistently—it observes it. The principles of physics weren’t plucked from a metaphysical void; they’re derived from repeatable, observable phenomena. If you drop an apple, it falls—every time, no exceptions. This isn’t an “axiom” in the philosophical sense; it’s an empirical fact, confirmed over centuries of observation.

He ignored my evidence again, I wouldn't expect any sort of response from the guy TBH. Dude says they're a mathematician but that's highly doubtful.

Not to mention that is what I said physics is and he ignored that because it wasn't convenient for his argument. He had no argument for what a society running on determinism looks like and when given evidence for where that leads he ignores it.

He's not a serious person about what he believes, it really is just "trust me bro" that it will work out.

[Darkneos]

I’d like to see what you think “physics” includes.

How quickly you forget. This from 4 days ago:

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.

It’s honestly refreshing to read Will Bouwman’s posts. Clear-headed, grounded, and not afraid to point out that physics—while immensely powerful—is still a human framework for describing what we observe, not a final word on what is. That kind of nuance tends to get steamrolled in these threads, but Will keeps bringing it back with precision.

Literally what I said......

[Darkneos]

I’d like to see what you think “physics” includes.

How quickly you forget. This from 4 days ago:

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.

I agree with physics being a human construct, but the main point here is Mikes stance on Hard Determinism, which as has been pointed out would be a net negative for human society.

[accelafine]

Flash—

I think you’re conflating two very different domains.

I’m a mathematician. I fully accept that mathematics—and logic—are axiomatic deductive systems. We start with definitions and axioms, and we derive everything else from them. It’s a closed, formal structure. That’s why mathematical proofs are absolute within a given framework. They're not contingent on observations.

But physics isn’t like that. Physics is a hypothetico-deductive science. It starts with observations, proposes hypotheses, and builds models that can be tested and falsified. It doesn't assume axioms in the mathematical sense—it proposes laws that hold until they’re proven not to. They're not "true" in the way axioms are. They're tentative. That's the entire point of the scientific method.

So no, I don't reject axioms where they belong. I just don’t pretend the empirical sciences operate on the same footing as formal ones. That’s not anti-precision. That is precision.

Yeah, tell him that, but don't forget the OG version which went thus: Science doesn’t “assume” the universe behaves consistently—it observes it. The principles of physics weren’t plucked from a metaphysical void; they’re derived from repeatable, observable phenomena. If you drop an apple, it falls—every time, no exceptions. This isn’t an “axiom” in the philosophical sense; it’s an empirical fact, confirmed over centuries of observation.

He ignored my evidence again, I wouldn't expect any sort of response from the guy TBH. Dude says they're a mathematician but that's highly doubtful.

Not to mention that is what I said physics is and he ignored that because it wasn't convenient for his argument. He had no argument for what a society running on determinism looks like and when given evidence for where that leads he ignores it.

He's not a serious person about what he believes, it really is just "trust me bro" that it will work out.

A 'society running on determinism' looks exactly like what we have

[Darkneos]

Yeah, tell him that, but don't forget the OG version which went thus: Science doesn’t “assume” the universe behaves consistently—it observes it. The principles of physics weren’t plucked from a metaphysical void; they’re derived from repeatable, observable phenomena. If you drop an apple, it falls—every time, no exceptions. This isn’t an “axiom” in the philosophical sense; it’s an empirical fact, confirmed over centuries of observation.

He ignored my evidence again, I wouldn't expect any sort of response from the guy TBH. Dude says they're a mathematician but that's highly doubtful.

Not to mention that is what I said physics is and he ignored that because it wasn't convenient for his argument. He had no argument for what a society running on determinism looks like and when given evidence for where that leads he ignores it.

He's not a serious person about what he believes, it really is just "trust me bro" that it will work out.

A 'society running on determinism' looks exactly like what we have

Not really, society today tuns on the belief in free will, hence why even if it might be an illusion (which is still unclear) it's still good for people to believe it.

The same way folks believe they'll survive the month, some beliefs are useful to have even if they aren't "True".

[accelafine]

He ignored my evidence again, I wouldn't expect any sort of response from the guy TBH. Dude says they're a mathematician but that's highly doubtful.

Not to mention that is what I said physics is and he ignored that because it wasn't convenient for his argument. He had no argument for what a society running on determinism looks like and when given evidence for where that leads he ignores it.

He's not a serious person about what he believes, it really is just "trust me bro" that it will work out.

A 'society running on determinism' looks exactly like what we have

Not really, society today tuns on the belief in free will, hence why even if it might be an illusion (which is still unclear) it's still good for people to believe it.

The same way folks believe they'll survive the month, some beliefs are useful to have even if they aren't "True".

I don't think you understood my comment. Never mind.

[BigMike]

I’d like to see what you think “physics” includes.

How quickly you forget. This from 4 days ago:

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.

I agree with physics being a human construct, but the main point here is Mikes stance on Hard Determinism, which as has been pointed out would be a net negative for human society.

Darkneos—

You keep repeating that hard determinism is a “net negative for society,” but that’s not an argument against its truth. That’s just moral preference dressed up as metaphysics.

You’re basically saying: “If it makes us uncomfortable, it must be false.” But that’s not how truth works. Germ theory made people uncomfortable. Heliocentrism shattered religious cosmologies. Evolution undermined divine specialness. Yet we didn’t toss them aside because they were hard to swallow. We adjusted.

You say hard determinism would harm society. I say: not necessarily. In fact, accepting that behavior has causes—biological, social, psychological—might push us toward systems that heal rather than punish, educate rather than blame, and understand rather than moralize.

What’s harmful is clinging to outdated folk concepts like metaphysical free will, which props up retribution, shame, and the myth that people “just chose” to be who they are.

So let’s not confuse usefulness with truth. Let’s deal with the world as it is—caused, structured, lawful—and then decide how to make it more humane.

Because facing reality isn’t the danger.

Refusing to is.

[Will Bouwman]

I’d like to see what you think “physics” includes.

How quickly you forget. This from 4 days ago:

You really should have a better understanding given the number of times I have pointed out that physics is a human construct, consisting of mathematical descriptions of phenomena. Some mathematical descriptions are predicated on a particular ontological claim; the spacetime posited in general relativity being an example, the gravitons of some quantum hypotheses being one of several rivals. There is no limit to the number of potential ontological claims, and provided the calculations are consistent with observation, there is no limit to the number of mathematical theorems, with or without any metaphysical postulate.

Very, very vague...

Welcome to the real world. One thing you learn early on as a philosophy undergraduate, is that trying to demarcate almost any field of human endeavour is a fools errand. Most people can agree on some broad definition of the arts and sciences, but the deeper you look, the fuzzier it gets.

...you describe strategies of investigation, with which I agree: but you don't say what they are actually investigating.

So what is the subject matter of all these "mathematical descriptions"? What, exactly, are they "describing"? What "phenomena" are included in your understanding of physics? You don't say here. And that is what I wish to know.

Well, at a minimum, any phenomenon that is amenable to the strategies of investigation that you agree with.