> >> >Do you really think belief or not is the only choice one can make about > >> >axioms? > >> > >> No I don't but those who use syllogistic inference to establish the > >> truth of theorems with respect to axioms have no other choice. > > > >On the contrary. One need no more "believe" in the axioms of a system to > >work in that system successfully than one needs to "believe" in the > >rules of chess in order to play the game. > > Or to work in any faith based system.
Or to work in the non-faith based systems of standard mathematics.
That Zick is apparently self-restricted to believe in only faith based systems does not mean that his belief is anything more that unfounded failth. > > >> >Personally, I prefer "Should I use this set of axioms for purpose X?" > >> >but I'm sure other people have other choices they make about axioms. > >> > >> None of which rest on the demonstrated truth of axioms. Consequently > >> they rest on belief and assumptions of truth. > > > >Assumptions only for purposes of finding what derives from them, just > >as one "assumes" the rules of a game in order to play it. > > Trivial pursuit in action.
Better that Zick's trivial inaction in pursuit of nothing.