Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Reply to thread

Message

III. Suppositions, Assumptions, Presuppositions, Axioms

I assume that you will understand what I mean by the words I use and the order in which I use them in sharing this idea (and in this instance, understand what I mean by mean especially).

The core of mathematics and logics is predicated on rules assigned a priori for the use of some conceptual system. The first rules on which the system is built are the axioms; what all operations done within the system are preconditioned to have supersede before the utilization of the system, i.e. axioms are antecedents to the systems they are axioms for.

Religion seems mainly predicated (largely) on information of commonly the oldest possible purported sources of a particular cultural base and that is of a high prominence in a given region. The information is commonly based on experiences of others at the time of its “documentation.” It is assumed that the “rules” of a given religion are correct in their interpretation as well as statement. There seems to also be types of inner experiences that can be made manifest for an individual who then proselytize their experience to others. They assume that their inner experiences can be made applicable to many others (if not potentially think it can be applied to all others).

In applying the sciences to learning about the world we assume a certain degree of mapping from that world to the ideal of it being rational, i.e. we assume the world is rational. This is a presupposition, or axiom in which we take for granted.

The questioning itself of these bases (and basis) of thought paradigms is perhaps irrational, but the method and manner is not. :twisted:

Assume:

Presuppose:

Axiom:

And while we're at it...

Suppose:

[Notice the details in the etymology of “from below” or “set under” and “to place,” in relation to the use of the term “underpinning” in previous section.]

In some instances and contexts these terms are interchangeable.

As I reflect on these definitions, several ideas and observations are visible before me. Most of these definitions specify the prose and position of the use of these words to include something that doesn't seem to be concrete. “To take as granted or true.” We're taking it as such, but that doesn't mean it is such. “Suppose to be the case, without proof;” need I say more? Granted, under axiom we have statements such as “self-evident truth,” “maxim taken on its intrinsic merit,” etc. What I feel is potentially taken for granted with these however are the assumptions and experiences necessary to have the faculty and capacity to arrive at such conclusions.

These definitions also show, despite not having definite or concrete “grounding” and “being,” that the positions brought about by these terms are in some ways required, types of preconditions, are necessary, and ”fruitful.” It's as if, if we pay careful attention to the suppositions, presuppositions, assumptions, and axioms, that on a deep level, in a deep way, everything we think we know is a conditional or a hypothetical: Presupposing we can generally trust our senses, and supposing reality is rational, one can assume x, and from there assume y, yielding the development of set of axioms for system q, that allow for one to assume z...

We have to start somewhere it seems. Even if that means beginning in free-fall or on shaky ground.

However, with our first step, it seems that we have detracted irrevocably from the goal of objectivity...

Granted, even the mechanisms of our senses and their functions and interactions also irrevocably detract us from objectivity as well; it's uniquely and subjectively human to perceive the world as we do.

We can also tell that we are at a particular portion of the core to most matters in regards to how we assess them and attain “knowledge” evidenced by the circularity present in the above definitions. On a few occasions, “assume” will have been swapped out for “suppose” and “suppose” for “assume” (usually as a result of the definitional rule of not using a word to define itself because that becomes circular reasoning or defining; and though circularity of reasoning is seen as a no-no in most systems of thought especially those of a formal nature, we're looking at a case of how there are instances where it paradoxically “works;” another example would be the scientific method: based on itself and supporting itself through the use of itself). There are other instances as well of one of our above four terms being used to help in defining one another.

“Self-evident truth...” :lol: I question if there is such a thing. I see statements like these as talking more about the observer and their interpretation than of the thing being observed and interpreted; one feels or thinks that instance “x” is self-evidently true. They may just have a deeply entrenched conviction on the matter (could we not potentially say this about almost any primitive or atomic (Wittgenstein) assertion we make and those that follow from them, but we'll get into that more later)...

All of our “knowledge” now seems based on supposition and assumption... like castles floating on clouds, our thought structures just “float” around.

Though we haven't touched on defining knowledge yet, it seems that our faith is applied to certain assumptions and as such our conclusions may not be as conclusive, final, decisive as we might feel or think. We may not know what we think we know.

The systems we use to explain the world are just that and not to be confused with actually being the world itself. As such, they seem to have limits.

“Assumptions make an ass out of you and me...”

Are we all asses considering the above? :lol:

Bear in mind, I am not advocating for or against these systems. I'm looking into their potential core nature through an epistemic scope, with particular emphasis on their potential weaknesses, flaws, shortcomings, loose-ends, blah blah blah... as part of our skeptical inquiry regarding “knowledge.” I don't feel or think I know what we “know” and what “knowledge” is or should be and sharing why.

One love

Note: I think this is done... I haven't engaged in such an endeavor since college, and never something where I have this much freedom (for various reasons). At the end of this one, I have a bit of an odd feeling that I can't really describe. To me, the overall concept is simple enough, even if finding the proper wording can be a bit precarious. So keep an eye out, my intuition says there may be a large edit or adjunct to this one.

[/QUOTE]

<blockquote data-quote="Voidmatrix" data-source="post: 3887843" data-attributes="member: 5">III. Suppositions, Assumptions, Presuppositions, AxiomsI assume that you will understand what I mean by the words I use and the order in which I use them in sharing this idea (and in this instance, understand what I mean by mean especially). The core of mathematics and logics is predicated on rules assigned a priori for the use of some conceptual system. The first rules on which the system is built are the axioms; what all operations done within the system are preconditioned to have supersede before the utilization of the system, i.e. axioms are antecedents to the systems they are axioms for.Religion seems mainly predicated (largely) on information of commonly the oldest possible purported sources of a particular cultural base and that is of a high prominence in a given region. The information is commonly based on experiences of others at the time of its “documentation.” It is assumed that the “rules” of a given religion are correct in their interpretation as well as statement. There seems to also be types of inner experiences that can be made manifest for an individual who then proselytize their experience to others. They assume that their inner experiences can be made applicable to many others (if not potentially think it can be applied to all others).In applying the sciences to learning about the world we assume a certain degree of mapping from that world to the ideal of it being rational, i.e. we assume the world is rational. This is a presupposition, or axiom in which we take for granted. The questioning itself of these bases (and basis) of thought paradigms is perhaps irrational, but the method and manner is not. :twisted:Assume:Presuppose:Axiom:And while we&#039;re at it...Suppose:</blockquote>[Notice the details in the etymology of “from below” or “set under” and “to place,” in relation to the use of the term “underpinning” in previous section.]In some instances and contexts these terms are interchangeable.As I reflect on these definitions, several ideas and observations are visible before me. Most of these definitions specify the prose and position of the use of these words to include something that doesn&#039;t seem to be concrete. “To take as granted or true.” We&#039;re taking it as such, but that doesn&#039;t mean it is such. “Suppose to be the case, without proof;” need I say more? Granted, under axiom we have statements such as “self-evident truth,” “maxim taken on its intrinsic merit,” etc. What I feel is potentially taken for granted with these however are the assumptions and experiences necessary to have the faculty and capacity to arrive at such conclusions.These definitions also show, despite not having definite or concrete “grounding” and “being,” that the positions brought about by these terms are in some ways required, types of preconditions, are necessary, and ”fruitful.” It&#039;s as if, if we pay careful attention to the suppositions, presuppositions, assumptions, and axioms, that on a deep level, in a deep way, everything we think we know is a conditional or a hypothetical: Presupposing we can generally trust our senses, and supposing reality is rational, one can assume x, and from there assume y, yielding the development of set of axioms for system q, that allow for one to assume z...We have to start somewhere it seems. Even if that means beginning in free-fall or on shaky ground.However, with our first step, it seems that we have detracted irrevocably from the goal of objectivity...Granted, even the mechanisms of our senses and their functions and interactions also irrevocably detract us from objectivity as well; it&#039;s uniquely and subjectively human to perceive the world as we do.We can also tell that we are at a particular portion of the core to most matters in regards to how we assess them and attain “knowledge” evidenced by the circularity present in the above definitions. On a few occasions, “assume” will have been swapped out for “suppose” and “suppose” for “assume” (usually as a result of the definitional rule of not using a word to define itself because that becomes circular reasoning or defining; and though circularity of reasoning is seen as a no-no in most systems of thought especially those of a formal nature, we&#039;re looking at a case of how there are instances where it paradoxically “works;” another example would be the scientific method: based on itself and supporting itself through the use of itself). There are other instances as well of one of our above four terms being used to help in defining one another.“Self-evident truth...” :lol: I question if there is such a thing. I see statements like these as talking more about the observer and their interpretation than of the thing being observed and interpreted; one feels or thinks that instance “x” is self-evidently true. They may just have a deeply entrenched conviction on the matter (could we not potentially say this about almost any primitive or atomic (Wittgenstein) assertion we make and those that follow from them, but we&#039;ll get into that more later)...All of our “knowledge” now seems based on supposition and assumption... like castles floating on clouds, our thought structures just “float” around.Though we haven&#039;t touched on defining knowledge yet, it seems that our faith is applied to certain assumptions and as such our conclusions may not be as conclusive, final, decisive as we might feel or think. We may not know what we think we know.The systems we use to explain the world are just that and not to be confused with actually being the world itself. As such, they seem to have limits.“Assumptions make an ass out of you and me...”Are we all asses considering the above? :lol:Bear in mind, I am not advocating for or against these systems. I&#039;m looking into their potential core nature through an epistemic scope, with particular emphasis on their potential weaknesses, flaws, shortcomings, loose-ends, blah blah blah... as part of our skeptical inquiry regarding “knowledge.” I don&#039;t feel or think I know what we “know” and what “knowledge” is or should be and sharing why.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite16" alt=":love:" title="Love&nbsp; &nbsp; :love:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":love:" />One loveNote: I think this is done... I haven&#039;t engaged in such an endeavor since college, and never something where I have this much freedom (for various reasons). At the end of this one, I have a bit of an odd feeling that I can&#039;t really describe. To me, the overall concept is simple enough, even if finding the proper wording can be a bit precarious. So keep an eye out, my intuition says there may be a large edit or adjunct to this one.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Voidmatrix, post: 3887843, member: 5"] [center]III. Suppositions, Assumptions, Presuppositions, Axioms[/center] I [i]assume[/i] that you will understand what I mean by the words I use and the order in which I use them in sharing this idea (and in this instance, understand what I mean by [i]mean[/i] especially). The core of mathematics and logics is predicated on rules assigned a priori for the use of some conceptual system. The first rules on which the system is built are the axioms; what all operations done within the system are preconditioned to have supersede before the utilization of the system, i.e. axioms are antecedents to the systems they are axioms for. Religion seems mainly predicated (largely) on information of commonly the oldest possible purported sources of a particular cultural base and that is of a high prominence in a given region. The information is commonly based on experiences of others at the time of its “documentation.” It is [i]assumed[/i] that the “rules” of a given religion are correct in their interpretation as well as statement. There seems to also be types of inner experiences that can be made manifest for an individual who then proselytize their experience to others. They [i]assume[/i] that their inner experiences can be made applicable to many others (if not potentially think it can be applied to all others). In applying the sciences to learning about the world we [i]assume[/i] a certain degree of mapping from that world to the ideal of it being rational, i.e. we assume the world is rational. This is a presupposition, or axiom in which we take for granted. The questioning itself of these bases (and basis) of thought paradigms is perhaps irrational, but the method and manner is not. :twisted: Assume: Presuppose: Axiom: And while we're at it... Suppose: [/quote] [Notice the details in the etymology of “from below” or “set under” and “to place,” in relation to the use of the term “underpinning” in previous section.] In some instances and contexts these terms are interchangeable. As I reflect on these definitions, several ideas and observations are visible before me. Most of these definitions specify the prose and position of the use of these words to include something that doesn't seem to be concrete. “To [i]take[/i] as granted or true.” We're taking it as such, but that doesn't mean it [i]is[/i] such. “Suppose to be the case, without proof;” need I say more? Granted, under axiom we have statements such as “self-evident truth,” “[i]maxim[/i] taken on its intrinsic merit,” etc. What I feel is potentially taken for granted with these however are the assumptions and experiences necessary to have the faculty and capacity to arrive at such conclusions. These definitions also show, despite not having definite or concrete “grounding” and “being,” that the positions brought about by these terms are in some ways [i]required,[/i] types of [i]preconditions,[/i] are [i]necessary,[/i] and [i]”fruitful.”[/i] It's as if, if we pay careful attention to the suppositions, presuppositions, assumptions, and axioms, that on a deep level, in a deep way, everything we think we know is a conditional or a hypothetical: [i]Presupposing[/i] we can generally trust our senses, and [i]supposing[/i] reality is rational, one can [i]assume[/i] x, and from there [i]assume[/i] y, yielding the development of set of [i]axioms[/i] for system q, that allow for one to [i]assume[/i] z... We have to start somewhere it seems. Even if that means beginning in free-fall or on shaky ground. However, with our first step, it seems that we have detracted irrevocably from the goal of objectivity... Granted, even the mechanisms of our senses and their functions and interactions also irrevocably detract us from objectivity as well; it's uniquely and subjectively human to perceive the world as we do. We can also tell that we are at a particular portion of the core to most matters in regards to how we assess them and attain “knowledge” evidenced by the circularity present in the above definitions. On a few occasions, “assume” will have been swapped out for “suppose” and “suppose” for “assume” (usually as a result of the definitional rule of not using a word to define itself because that becomes circular reasoning or defining; and though circularity of reasoning is seen as a no-no in most systems of thought especially those of a formal nature, we're looking at a case of how there are instances where it [i]paradoxically[/i] “works;” another example would be the scientific method: based on itself and supporting itself through the use of itself). There are other instances as well of one of our above four terms being used to help in defining one another. “Self-evident truth...” :lol: I question if there is such a thing. I see statements like these as talking more about the observer and their interpretation than of the thing being observed and interpreted; one [i]feels[/i] or [i]thinks[/i] that instance “x” is self-evidently true. They may just have a deeply entrenched conviction on the matter (could we not potentially say this about almost any [i]primitive[/i] or [i]atomic[/i] (Wittgenstein) assertion we make and those that follow from them, but we'll get into that more later)... All of our “knowledge” now seems based on [i]supposition[/i] and [i]assumption[/i]... like castles floating on clouds, our thought structures just “float” around. Though we haven't touched on defining knowledge yet, it seems that our [i]faith[/i] is applied to certain assumptions and as such our conclusions may not be as conclusive, final, decisive as we might [i]feel[/i] or [i]think[/i]. We may not know what we think we know. The systems we use to explain the world are just that and not to be confused with actually being the world itself. As such, they seem to have limits. “Assumptions make an ass out of you and me...” Are we all asses considering the above? :lol: Bear in mind, I am not advocating for or against these systems. I'm looking into their potential core nature through an epistemic scope, with particular emphasis on their potential weaknesses, flaws, shortcomings, loose-ends, blah blah blah... as part of our skeptical inquiry regarding “knowledge.” I don't feel or think I know what we “know” and what “knowledge” is or should be and sharing why. :love: One love Note: I think this is done... I haven't engaged in such an endeavor since college, and never something where I have this much freedom (for various reasons). At the end of this one, I have a bit of an odd feeling that I can't really describe. To me, the overall concept is simple enough, even if finding the proper wording can be a bit precarious. So keep an eye out, my intuition says there may be a large edit or adjunct to this one. :D [/QUOTE]