naturalplastic wrote:
A. Set of all elephants is not itself an elephant.
B. The set of all thoughts is not itself a thought.
C. Set of all sets is not itself a set.
A is unambiguously true. The set of all elephants is indeed not itself an elephant.
B is ambiguous. The set of thoughts is not itself a thought. Except that it IS a thought because you hafta think about it.
C Is unambiguously false. The set of sets is obviously itself a set. Further, it also contains itself.
So...what does this set question have to do with our boulder question?
Well, you should probably think about it. In explaining it I wouldn't be doing anyone any favors.
However, in the case of immovable objects Vs. unstoppable forces it's prudent to contemplate whether force precedes object or object force, as it is prudent to ask which precedes which in the case of things Vs forces which create things. Placing successive iterations of causal dependencies on equal planes and posing them as proofs of inequality isn't really honest. I can make things I can't move for example but it doesn't make me inferior, I can unmake them just as easily and I can't do it unintentionally so it always stems from intention and in the intent is a greater force than a lack of capacity to move a thing I may have created to be deliberately unmovable by myself. Whatever I make which I cannot move there is a yet greater self that can unmake it.
My ability to make such a thing is then evidence of my power not an indicator of a lacking. Me>Boulder and not Boulder><me. there's no equality because complex things don't acausally pop into existence in equal opposition (Not counting virtual particles because they aren't complex). Such a stone is the god of stones so you may as well ask if god can create a god who is equal because it's the same thing and it's more to the point. In terms of dependency, if God is as we assume then there is some level of reality in which God is all there is so there isn't anything above that creating a second and equal God would then be either God falling a level of dependency, or creating a higher one and in another case negating himself. "can God negate himself?": again...the same question. "Can God, Not "God" ?" If God is God's own genesis, then Yes, God can "not God" but he can "re God" just as easily which to me just indicates that the structure of the dilemma is a higher order one and that's what my question has to do with the first.
But you should still think through it.
As for your reply, if you think you have a concrete and indisputable solution to russel's paradox(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox ), you should probably publish that.