Talk:Self-evidence

create paragraph: Self-evidence and self-causation of physical foundations

The self-evidence and/or self-causation of the physical foundations; necessarily self-evidently/ self-causally produces infinite different physical worlds (universes) and calculational proof systems (all the infinite different geometries and all the infinite different [allo]mathematics with any possible axiomatic foundations).

What is the difference between physical universe-like [substantialities] systems and calculational and measuring proof systems (like all [allo]geometries and all [allo]mathematics [allo-: different])?

A wide physical system requires a more coherent axiomatics/ axiomaticity. Usually an algorithmic axiomatics and not a mere list of axioms (hybrid [algorithm + list] axiomatics is an alternative).

Axioms should be stratified in wide universe-like [substantiality] physical systems. The first layer of the physical foundations is in tandem arbitrary and logical (logic here means mathematical and allomathematical logic; allomathematics means mathematics with different axiomatics or axiomatic algorithm, still rigorous). Arbitrary and logical = self-evident and self-caused. The universe we live in is anthropically arbitrary (thinkers dwell in the puny percentage of intelligent-life-yielding cosmoi/ universes). It is arbitrary because infinite other universes are logically possible. Mathematical and allomathematical logic = physicalism/ antisupernatural foundations are necessary because the supernatural isn't only unreachable and unteachable, but it isn't also scientifically hypothesizeable, because it could not have any specific logical foundations, thus it cannot have exact characteristics, thus the supernatural is impossible; it cannot exist.

Most universes or cosmoi (not necessarily exactly like our universe) have very simple foundations; but still simple foundations can produce complexity.

Universes with very simple and very complicated foundations probably aren't suitable for intelligent life. The best option for life is universes with medium complexity foundations. Medium complex for stability and not simple foundations for [allo]biochemical complexity.

Many physicists and mathematicians base their axiomatics/ foundations on nihilogony (nilogony: cosmogony from nothing/ a universe from nothing; mathematical foundations from the null set, etc.). They are wrong.

Any axiomatic foundations is based on mathematical and allomathematical logic itself. If you say: nothing[ness] organizes itself and performs tasks; the most important thing isn't the Nothing (which doesn't and cannot exist and shouldn't be confused with the void); instead it is the logical procedurality (procedurality: the state of procedural function/ usually complicated procedures).

Thus any axiomatic foundations is based on logic (not common sense logic because it's not axiomatic, based on biases, and the biases differ per thinker and aren't coherently organised in a manner that produces an axiomatic system).

logicogony versus nihilogony: Logic and not nothing[ness] (the Nothing) is the foundations of any axiomatic system, physical or calculational proof system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8A5B:6D00:3D99:7FC5:8365:E2A1 (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Unsorted Talk

It is impossible for the something to be and not be at the same time in the same manner.

This may seem self evident, but with quantum physics, it IS possible for something to exist in a flux state where it is both "on" and "off" at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.23.5 (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's so evident that you take it for granted. Try to assert anything to be true without it. E.g., the statement "it IS possible for something to exist in a flux state where it is both "on" and "off" at the same time." The principles of reasoning are presumed by any sort of physics. JKeck (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious - how would you classify the statement "I am"? Dagelf (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As to the United States Declaration of Independence and self evidence; I wonder if this is a reference to “a priori” arguments, in that these might also be considered axiomatic (as moral statements of fact). Kant, and others, would also argue that ethics can be derived from a purely logical or reasoned basis, though in this case, Jefferson was most certainly referring to Tom Paine’s “Common Sense”, and it has a distinctly Deist ring to it. Cla3mute (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)cla3mute

Is there a source that confirms this statement: "the proposition 'we ought to treat subjects known to be equal in a certain sense equally in regard to that sense' is morally self-evident"? Or is that just a logical derivation? 74.95.255.197 (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This assertion requires explanation: "it is an argumentative fallacy to assert that disagreement with the proposition indicates misunderstanding of it." JKeck (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That ought to be self-evident! :p How would you explain it? Dagelf (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fractals

If the universe is a fractal, then everything in it is by deduction self-evident, a reflection of a piece of the whole. It's not unimaginable that the fractal algorithm is so perfectly tiny and elegant so as to lead to what we see and experience - and I do not believe that it is very deep nor that that algorithm consists of an infinitely complex or large structure. Anyone passionately researching this is welcome to brainstorm with me as I believe that the study of what self-evidence means holds the key to building a knowledge network capable of perhaps more than mere simulation of intelligence. Looking for correlations between things that are "clearly not-related at all" can lead to, what may simply be amusing at first, turn out to be irrefutable tangible facts and eventually an understanding that can show you how everything is self-evident albeit difficult to talk about due to lack of the type of functional language required to usefully dissect self-evidence. Dagelf (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Superfluous article?

I think the article conflates two issues: analytic truths and self-evident beliefs. The former is not exclusively an issue of epistemology, but also an issue about truth and philosophy of language. After all, analyticity has to do with the truth of a proposition by virtue of its meaning. The latter is about beliefs that do not require further justification in order to constitute knowledge; one is entitled to them. This has more or less to do with the issues of foundationalism. Since there are independent Wikipedia articles on analyticity and foundationalism, I don't see what this article adds that is not addressed in either article. Do we still need this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philonous14 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

definition

The definition of self-evident can be a proposition whos evidence is visible to relevant parties. The value/usefulness of this definition of self-evident is in the clarity of the idea of visibility. I offer this as guidance in searching/selecting material from "published" sources. 67.162.163.176 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)