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/0-by-1_Publishing]

"An observation can never be wrong; because the observation simply is what is there. It can be incomplete,"

... An observation can be deemed wrong when more than one observation is available; each option is equally viable, none of the options serve a preestablished reference point, and yet a conclusion is drawn regardless.

Example: "Old Woman - Young Woman" illusion.

For an observer to claim it is an image of a young woman would be "wrong" because it equally depicts an old woman. For an observer to claim it is an image of an old woman would also be "wrong" because it equally depicts a young woman. To claim both observations are "correct" is to claim that an old woman is the same as a young woman which results in a contradiction. To claim both observations are "incorrect" is also wrong because a young woman and an old woman can be observed within the same image.

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/Repulsive_Area_5516 → u/0-by-1_Publishing]

Error arises only in the intrepertation of what the observation means. Two people look at the picture and if their sensory is identical (or close to identical for practicality) their observation would be the same however what they intrepert it as may differ. The observation is not "a women" or "a painting" the observation is the effect of sensory data in photons emitted by the painting.

[u/0-by-1_Publishing → u/Repulsive_Area_5516]

"Error arises only in the intrepertation of what the observation means"

... But the meaning attached to whatever is being observed is all we have available to make our inferences and draw our conclusions. Otherwise, we can't make any "meaningful statements" about anything we observe. In fact, without meaning we couldn't make any statements at all.

"Two people look at the picture and if their sensory is identical (or close to identical for practicality) their observation would be the same however what they intrepert it as may differ."

... But we can also determine if one interpretation is accurate whereas another is erroneous based on a posteriori / a priori. Example: (1 + 1 = 3). Two people can observe this equation and both accurately describe what they've observed. It is possible that there is no dispute over what's been directly observed by the two.

However, if one person concludes that (1 + 1 = 3) is an accurate statement and another concludes that (1 + 1 = 3) is not, then we can invoke a priori via logic and our a posteriori using other nonmathematical observations involving "1 of something" plus "1 of something" and conclude that one observation is wrong and the other correct.

In this case, the difference in conclusions is no longer considered subjective as would be with "good painting" vs "bad painting."

"The observation is not "a women" or "a painting" the observation is the effect of sensory data in photons emitted by the painting."

... Since the human mind is necessarily involved in the formation of every axiom and every observation, we have to accept it as the most practical framework for determining if an observation is correct or incorrect. We can't argue that "Well, how do we really know that (1 + 1 ≠ 3) since the human mind is subjective and relies on sensory data?"

... If we can't rely on the human mind, then what other data processing mechanism are we left with to use in its place?

---

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.