> The anti-thesis axioms:
> "1) The universe is non-objective.
> 2) Scientists perform experiments on the universe that are meaningful."
>
> Now, given these obviously erroneous axioms, where will we locate the
> contradiction?
Why you'd simply locate them when they occured. If there was no
contradictions to be found than that universe would be in fact be
objective. That would be a contradiction of the axiom. Thus for a
non-contradictory universe, reduction ad absurdum, a non-objective
universe cannot exist! We do experiance a non-objective universe of
sorts on a nearly nightly basis. That world of our dreams. However we
know they are dreams is because of the contradictions. Try to preform a
meaningful experiment in one of your dreams. If you get anything good
be sure and publish the results by all means!
If experiments on a non-objective universe are assumed to
> be meaningful, what is the nature of "meaning"?
How many legs does a dog have if we assume the tail is a leg? Answer: 4
. Just because you assume the tail is a leg does not make it a leg!
Can we reach a definition
> of "meaningful" derived from the anti-thesis axioms that is in clear
> conflict with our understanding of what the "truth" is?
Given the first axiom ,there is no truth, and no conflict because
anything can be everything!
And thus disprove
> the anti-axioms?
Disproving anything requires first and foremost a universe where proofs
are possible!
>
> Or... ?
Or what?
>
> Give it a shot, Nateman. Impress me with your Objective approach.
>
> -Prof. Tim
Consider yourself shot. Only you can say if you were impressed or not. (
unless of course its a non-objective universe in which case I can say if
you were impressed or not because anything is possible in such a
place!)