A axiom in mathematics is called a non-derived basic rate, that is, a statement obtained as may accept, but never - can prove - within the appropriate theoretical construct. Axioms are unquestioned foundations on which is based the rest of the theory. There are three such "beliefs" but it also in our everyday life (he) live - three things you can only guess (more or less reason), but can not verify. Three things pretty basic one at that.
first There is a world outside of our own consciousness
This is the basic message, the doubts of the philosophical approach of the solipsism. Strange as it may sound, all experienced what is and what is not only the mere awareness of their own, all the beautiful colorful wide world out there might as well be my imagination, a film, computer game, a matrix within my mind without any real tangible content. The human body itself could be a chimera, which dazzled us our brain, and even the existence of the brain would then doubtful. "I think therefore I am" is so used a little too far. "I think therefore it is my consciousness" is the (slightly circular) statement that you can take a maximum of security.
second I am a constant existing since birth being
we now loosening the skepticism a bit and allow it an objectively tangible world are around us. Then there is still no guarantee that I am as old as it says in my passport. Every night I lose namely 8-hour awareness and gain it back - or ..? Strange as it sounds, but one can not rule out that I was born this morning in its current form or otherwise as was created, with the final memories of the last decades. Or that you yesterday's "me" killed, cloned, and the fresh "copy", which I am now, with the experiences of my life "vaccinated" has. One lives for themselves nailed down provable through only as long as one does not fall into deep sleep. After that life begins at the beginning - maybe as the same person, maybe not that one was yesterday.
third You see the color red just as I see it.
we let yet another room and now assume that there is the world outside of consciousness, and it was so long in life, as we think we remember. This is not to say that I qualia, the subjective experience of content of a mental state, just like you experience. For me, for example, the color red to look like for you green, and we will always consider both, we speak of the same color, namely, the top of the traffic lights. You can tell a thousand people a color-blind, as the wavelength and other physical properties of the color red are - he'll understand, but just do not. The phenomenon of qualia is something highly subjective and untestable from the outside. In that regard, the end of each turn is trapped within themselves.
sown doubts? As Voltaire said, doubt is not pleasant, but certainty is absurd.
Of all God's evidence and other arguments for the existence of God that mankind has ever devised, most of the nonsense (see here ). A single but has a kind of prima facie plausibility to it a certain prominent position among all the others are. The argument is difficult to refute, and therefore I dedicate it a separate post.
It is the problem of fine-tuning of the natural food musicians. The universe as we know it is based on natural laws. This in turn contain certain constants - such as the strength of gravity, the mass of elementary particles or the number of dimensions in space. All these values together constitute a fragile balance that is exactly the space that has brought us people. Had only a few of these values by a few percent different, there would be no fusion, no sun fire, no carbon for the DNA and no chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, the has given us our dear H2O. Human life would be impossible for sure. The physicist Roger Penrose has calculated spaßenshalber that the probability that all the fundamental constants have exactly the value we know, 10 to 10 high is 123. There must have but one shot at the big bang at the controls and just given the right numbers, right? The universe seems literally to have been created for people, right? One can not but work at the World 10 high 10 high dice 123 times!
The argument is based on a difficult to spot fallacies of the "exclusive probability. One that provides all of us have ever been made, as we thought about an old friend, and just saw him at the moment on the road. "It's no accident!" think we more or less seriously in the moment and fall into the logical trap. Because the probability of when thinking of that person just to make that person is in fact very low. But chances to take when thinking of any person we know, this person is relatively high, as each of us 200 people readily determined person knows or has at least seen, continuously thinking and usually traveling in densely populated areas is. A chance to calculate backwards behind your back would be at each event to incredibly low result. Consider, for example, how many factors have contributed to the project's birth - and still is one of the world.
same fallacy was the ominous " Bible Code " basis, where you read the texts including the Genesis book on a tricky way (one about every fourth letter read, etc.) and in the "Code" Predictions of the murder of Yitzhak Rabin and claims to have found the fight against bin Laden. Even this seemingly incredible result can be easily explained: If, after any looking combination of letters and then calculated the probability of randomly discovered, one comes to grandiose but meaningless probability numbers. Consequently, inventors have the same method found in the Bible, including the statement "There is no God . What probably is the probability of this is? ..
And one should also the problem of fine tuning think the fundamental constants: Unbeknownst to narrow this fact among the possible results of probability theory to a world in which we live, and to a life form that we know, especially the carbon-based DNA-/RNA-gestützte. No one has said, however, that this is the only possible form of life in general. May arise in the universe altered starting positions without stars and water, it may even exist only 1000 years, we lack Just the imagination to imagine what others with similar life forms we can not give it then. The argument is based therefore on the large of the Carl Sagan correctly titled " carbon chauvinism . Life as we know it is the result of the predetermined constants, and not vice versa. If you think that the universe is the human "adapted" has been, subject to the typical size illusion of religious people - and is therefore through the back door the advance what he wants to prove through fine-tuning of the constants of nature - the existence of God. In this sense the argument is ultimately just a circular argument.
Are you a romantic, you you should consider whether you want to read this post further. We do namely the evolutionary origins of mate choice and retention illuminate a little. And they have little to do with love, but especially with mathematics, tactics, and cool facts. To confront the question of what drives us together and binds together, we must in fact take the view of genes and look at it from their perspective based on their interests. For all the love feelings for partner, we feel, of course, just because our genes have so made that we should have them straight and true feelings. So, ready for the truth?
Lechers men, women housewives more.
This is our starting point and because feminists can still so very upset: The sexes are now sometimes provided with a congenital asymmetry : females are by definition those who have larger and more complex reproductive cells. Males are "the others", which fertilize the female. The female does not want to waste the precious resources for the "expensive" eggs, thus selects its partners very carefully and also takes care of fertilization to the delivery of child rearing, nutrition, care, etc. The male is as much easy-going, because its sex cells are cheap in the making: It just has a healthy female "convincing" to let him to fertilize. Or more females. Actually, as many females as they come. So are - even for the people - men tend to be informers and lechers and women - well, let's say, do not lose his head slightly. Not for nothing that the female element was associated since time immemorial with stability and traction ("Mother Earth", the Latin "mater" in the word "matter"), while the masculine, such as wind and breath was to be located in the sky ("Our Father in Heaven, "" the Holy Spirit "etc.). Alfred Kinsey put it in the other hand, experimental prose Sun: "Cheese crumbs spread not in front of copulating rats will distract the female but the male.
Walking upright is the source of love
No, Jesus is not the source of love, but the erect posture of man. He caused namely a narrow pelvis, because the essence not otherwise can walk upright. A narrow pelvis, in turn an early date of birth, because of the growing (with men relatively large) head through does not fit otherwise. Therefore, the human child is really too early to the world. A baby chimpanzee can For example, relatively soon to the mummy cling and crawl. A human child is, however, the first few years, a defenseless screaming lump of flesh. A mother alone it can not provide, or at least not as good as mother and father together. How to tie but the father who wants to really attract the successful fertilization process further (see above), to the mother? - Aha - love! This assumption also fits the findings that most pair separations - done after about four years ago, saw evolutionary if the child can walk and talk already and and not so helpless is - as it were the low point of love. From the time the male Genverbreitungswahrscheinlichkeit by further fertilization higher than other time-and resource investments in the existing child.
Men seeking beauty, women Status
Yet another seemingly sexist statement - and again one that's right. Because beauty is for health and fertility (see here ) - and status is available for existing resources within the social hierarchy of society. Thus both sexes primary interests are satisfied. A nice burger seller is therefore - experimentally demonstrated - not for women as attractive as a carrier of ugly chic suits. Conversely, women tend to be the more sexual partners, the less attractive they find themselves (proof here) - where they have to for lack of beauty does not a great chance qualitative partners promise to try it stop with the crowd.
And again, these preferences can hide behind the most idealistic feelings - after all, our genes tell us what we feel at the sight of the intended one or the other.
men and women have good reason to fling
So, now have come together man and woman. But wait - you can so increase chances of survival for their offspring continue to improve. And both men in that they find the "legal" children, further evidence for occasional liaisons left and right. Even if these new offspring can not look so intense, maybe it makes the number. 10 illegitimate children, 2 survive, perhaps. And this is better than no infidelity and "only" have legitimate children. The cost of an escapade are so low, the yield may be worth it. Cool math.
The women are not better. For them, it pays to find a caring family man who is willing to invest years of his life in the offspring, and then to have an affair with a genetically better equipped man of whom they obtained the hereditary healthier for the child. The child must then educate the horned caring father. So she has the best of both worlds. Here too cool mathematics.
monogamy prevents civil wars
monogamy - that is to assign a woman to a man - is ultimately a social pacification measure. Polygamous societies (which was always the man several wives and not vice versa), there were some for ages. However, such a polygamous society from a genetic point of view of good and bad women for men. Women can share a healthy and wealthy man who contributes to the good genes and provides the next generation. The women, such a (in all respects) potent man "too much" is missing but the "lower" end of the social hierarchy of men. Ie, polygamy means that there are many frustrated young woman without men. And such men, therefore, be more aggressive and restless - it is nothing to lose - and oppose the "upper", the "monopolized" the women have among themselves. So what brings unrest in society, so monogamous societies do better in the long run. Monogamy is thus a means of restraining the male underclass. The victims are the women, because in addition to the withdrawal of the benefits of polygamy (see above), they are also subjected to draconian measures against the risk of side jump, such as headscarves, female genital circumcision, domestic violence etc.. The main thing, the woman at the reproductive prevent other, so that one's own time and resources are not wasted on children of other men. One has only one woman getting allocated and will have that under control. Women sacrifice so in that respect, to bring peace in the society. A thank you at this point to all the brave women!
it, then we get after all the revelations deep breath and sing:
.png)
