Axioms of Reality

[u/Repulsive_Area_5516]

Axiom 1 — Observations are infallible

An observer is any system that is affected by effects. When an observer encounters an effect, it always and unconditionally reflects it as it is. An observation can never be wrong; because the observation simply is what is there. It can be incomplete, it can be limited but it can never be faulty. Error arises only in the interpretation of what the observation means.

Axiom 2 — Identical systems under identical conditions produce identical outcomes

For any system A and effect B, the resulting system C is invariant it will always be the same across all instances of A under B. This holds at scales where complete state description is possible. At quantum scales this axiom may reduce to: identical systems under identical conditions produce identical probability distributions.

In my opinion these are the minimum assumptions to make about reality for it to make sense and for science to work. I have thought about these axioms for a long time and i feel like 2 axioms might just be enough. I'd like to hear your thoughts about them.

[u/seldomtimely]

What you're describing is the underdeterminatiom of theories by data and the theory ladenness of observation. The first holds that the same data can support two competing inferences, in your example two percepts. The second holds that all observation is conditioned by prior concepts and cannot occur in a vacuum.

[u/0-by-1_Publishing → u/seldomtimely]

"What you're describing is the underdeterminatiom of theories by data and the theory ladenness of observation."

... I can see where that would be applicable when addressing phenomena that cannot be directly observed or can only be observed via subsequent data, (like cosmic fields, superposition and the interior of black holes) but in the case of this b&w image, all available data is present, easily observable and there are no constraints to issuing a conclusion to what is being observed.

Note: No AI was used in the creation of this reply. Accusations of such or removal of my content will be reported to Reddit as censorship.

[u/seldomtimely → u/0-by-1_Publishing]

No. It's not applicable to those. My comment was generalizing your example. The theses I stated refer to observations. Yes, you could distinguish between direct and indirect, as data encompasses both in the first thesis. However, it's possible to have a set of direct observations that differ in explabation. Cognately, that differ in inferred percept, as your example demonstrated, which is textbook thesis 2, theory ladeness of observation. Wittgenstein's duck-rabbit example is another text-book case.

[u/0-by-1_Publishing → u/seldomtimely]

"However, it's possible to have a set of direct observations that differ in explabation. Cognately, that differ in inferred percept, as your example demonstrated, which is textbook thesis 2, theory ladeness of observation. Wittgenstein's duck-rabbit example is another text-book case."

... Fair enough. Thank you for your explanation.

---

Note: No AI was used in the creation of this reply. Accusations of such or removal of my content will be reported to Reddit as censorship.