Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Axioms and Faith

  1. Mar 4, 2010 #1
    I had a question about axioms. Assuming I understand this correctly, axioms can neither be proven nor disproven; they are self-evident definitions that we have made to simplify math.

    So someone (with a strong religious motivation I might add) said that axioms are based on faith. You can't prove or disprove them, therefore you just have to accept them on faith.

    What I'm wondering is, what really separates axioms from other beliefs held on faith? The main differences I can see are that axioms were created in a far more logical way and that they can be changed if necessary (unlike most religious beliefs). But, in terms of supporting evidence, they would almost seem the same as other faith-based beliefs. You can neither prove them nor disprove them.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 4, 2010 #2
    Earth wasn't created 2000 years ago ...

    Interesting question and I never thought of that but I think Axioms stand because there is no contradiction to them.
     
  4. Mar 4, 2010 #3
    That's true. I was thinking more about faith based beliefs that can't be disproven (like with Russell's Teapot).
     
  5. Mar 4, 2010 #4

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In math, an axioms is just a statement, no different from any other statement, aside from the fact we decided to call it an axiom.

    A mathematical proof is essentially just an arithmetic calculation, except it's done with statements instead of with numbers.

    A mathematical theory is a collection of statements. Typically, we present a theory by naming certain statements as axioms, and then saying the theory consists of all statements that can be proven from the axioms.
     
  6. Mar 4, 2010 #5
    yeah, if you look at the probability axioms, they're just simple math statements. you can't really say more than that. we can use results to make predictions about processes that appear random to us, but whether the universe is truly deterministic or not is unknowable. but it provides a framework for solving problems.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_axioms
     
  7. Mar 4, 2010 #6
    So are we essentially taking it on faith that the universe is deterministic?
     
  8. Mar 5, 2010 #7
    An axiom is in the same form as a theorem, but is not proven, it is taken to be true without proof. Theorems are then proven using the axioms. A set of axioms needs to be consistent and independent. Consistent means that you can't prove both theorem A and theorem ~A. Independent means that if you remove one of the axioms, you can't prove that axiom as a theorem using the remaining axioms.

    This does not mean that the axioms cannot be proven, it just means that they aren't. If you pick a different set of axioms, then any axiom in your current set may show up as a theorem.
     
  9. Mar 5, 2010 #8

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You seem to be confusing axioms in mathematics with postulates/axioms in the physical sciences. Mathematics attempts to make no predictions about the physical world that we interact with. There is no discrimination in Mathematics between one set of axioms and another.

    On the question of the difference between postulates accepted by physical scientists and blind faith, there is a huge difference between the two. The former are repeatedly tested through experimental/observational verification of various models that are based upon them. Tests of Special Relativity, for instance, are also tests of the validity of its axioms. We accept certain postulates or axioms, not on faith, but because the models built upon them generate reproducibly good predictions of the behavior of the physical world.
     
  10. Mar 5, 2010 #9
    That clarifies things a bit. But let me give an example of one such axiom believed on "faith", from Euclid's Elements:

    "It is possible to draw a straight line from any point to any other point."

    He argues that since there is no evidence in nature of a perfectly straight line, we have to have faith in its existence.
     
  11. Mar 6, 2010 #10
    The theorems follow from the axioms whether you have faith in them or not.
     
  12. Mar 6, 2010 #11

    lisab

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Is that you, jimmysnyder? I hardly recognized you! You look great!
     
  13. Mar 6, 2010 #12

    dx

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Axioms are implicit definitions. For example, in the mathematical structure that we call 'Euclidean geometry', the axioms are implicit definitions of the words 'line', 'point' etc. So when we say something like "there is a single straight line between any two points", it is not a 'belief based on faith' about the world of experience, but a kind of definition of the terms that occur in this statement. A number of such statements will serve to characterize the whole conceptual structure of Euclidean geometry, and will be a basis for a deductive system. At this stage, there is no question of the 'existance' of any of the schemata that occur in this system, since the mathematics itself does not assert any connection with Nature or experience.

    The confusion lies in the relationship of this purely conceptual structure to the world of experience. Now we are outside the domain of mathematics, and enter the realm of physics, which deals with the description of experience. It is of course clear that the only reason these concepts of Euclidean geometry were invented was because they describe our experience, but it is important to realize that this connection between a mathematical structure and experience is not something that can be arrived at a priori. Our immediate experience of navigation on the surface of the planet can be adequately described by the scheme of Euclidean geometry, but a more careful analysis of experience reveals that it is ultimately inadeqaute, and must be replaced by non-Euclidean geometry.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2010
  14. Mar 6, 2010 #13

    dx

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    It is not a question of whether the universe is deterministic, but how much of our universe can be described within a deterministic framework. The motions of large inanimate bodies, like spinning tops, planets, baseballs etc. can be described within a deterministic framework. When we go to the level of atoms and elementary particles, we have not been able to find a deterministic framework that describes them, and, in fact, we find that even the concepts of space and time cannot be applied in the usual manner. In a sense, the atomic processes transcend description in the causal/deterministic framework within space and time.
     
  15. Mar 6, 2010 #14
    Consistency of ZFC (axioms of set theory) cannot be proven within ZFC and therefore it is taken on faith. In other words, we "believe" that axioms will not lead to contradictions.
     
  16. Mar 6, 2010 #15

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    One does not need to believe the axioms of ZFC are consistent in order to use them.
     
  17. Mar 6, 2010 #16
    If ZFC is not consistent then one can prove any statement.
     
  18. Mar 6, 2010 #17

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That is true*. But what does it have to do with my assertion?


    *: Assuming, of course, that metamathematics is a model of formal logic
     
  19. Mar 6, 2010 #18
    What is the point to use the axioms if one does not believe in their consistency?
     
  20. Mar 7, 2010 #19
    There can be a purpose outside of mathematics.

    Evolution has seem to found a use for them. Most human judgements are made from heuristics, which are not consistent, but are consistent enough to be of utility in real world application.

    The wikipedia article gives a good summary of the topic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic
     
  21. Mar 7, 2010 #20
    Excellent post! I think this clears the issue up perfectly.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook