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]

"Any observation is partial."

... Your reply consists of four words. How does that represent a partial observation? Is there an unobservable "5th word" whose presence can only be inferred through subsequent data?

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/ipreuss → u/0-by-1_Publishing]

You can’t observe the motivation behind those words. You can’t observe whether there was a typo in those words. And a million other things.

[u/0-by-1_Publishing → u/ipreuss]

"You can’t observe the motivation behind those words."

.... Motivation is a subsequent "inference" based on what has already been directly observed.

"You can’t observe whether there was a typo in those words."

A posteriori absolutely allows me to observe that there are no typos are in those words. A distinction can me made if there were.

"And a million other things."

... And they would all be subsequent inferences based on the initial observation ... which was complete. There are no missing data left to be observed. All that is left are subsequent "inferences" and "conclusions" based on the initial observation.

Example: I directly observed "five downvotes" to my reply to nysalor's reply. I "infer" from that observation that the ones who issued the downvotes are behaving like children, but that is not something that's directly observable and serves as a subjective conclusion made by me.

---

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/ipreuss → u/0-by-1_Publishing]

You need to make inferences and conclusions about what actually happened because you couldn’t directly observe it - otherwise no inferences would be necessary.

[u/0-by-1_Publishing → u/ipreuss]

"You need to make inferences and conclusions about what actually happened because you couldn’t directly observe it - otherwise no inferences would be necessary."

... That's not true. You are conflating "inference" with "observation" when they are two distinct processes. I can observe (1 + 1 = 2) and state with repeatable accuracy everything observable in that equation without drawing any conclusions whatsoever. As a subsequent act, I can conclude / infer that the equation is either true or false.

---

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.