Page 2 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

lostonearth35
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 9,039
Location: In my own little world. :)

03 Jul 2018, 11:39 am

Yeah, I've wondered about that ever since my brother asked me the question a long time ago. And I have other questions as well:

God rested on the 7th day. If He's so perfect and powerful, why would He get tired?

And if God is so perfect, why did He create humans to be so not perfect? In fact, nothing in the world is 100% perfect.

And are the Pearly Gates in Cartoon Heaven always gold when pearls are white? :)



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 61,544
Location: Queens, NYC

03 Jul 2018, 11:48 am

Yep...even an omnipotent God could get bored....he is so High and Mighty---that he might get lonely Up There :P



Cash__
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,421
Location: Missouri

11 Jul 2018, 7:26 pm

If God knows everything, then does he know what its like to have sex with a hooker? If not, then I know more then him. If so, then shame on him.



Spectral Aurtist
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 153
Location: Helltopia

13 Jul 2018, 2:55 am

Does the set of all sets contain itself?



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,113
Location: temperate zone

13 Jul 2018, 3:54 am

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?



Spectral Aurtist
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 153
Location: Helltopia

14 Jul 2018, 10:24 am

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.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 21,113
Location: temperate zone

14 Jul 2018, 5:22 pm

Dude! You messed up.

I just now glanced at the article about Russell.

You left a few words out of the sentence, and failed to state it correctly.

It's not "does the set of all sets contain itself?".

It's "Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves contain itself?"

Big difference.

That's why your post confused me. But now I get what you were.. trying...to say.

There is no contradiction, that I can see, in the statement "does the set of all sets contain itself?".

But if you state Russell's thing correctly then, youre right, it is comparable to my boulder question.

Some sets contain themselves (like the set of all sets), and some do not (like the set of all elephants).

But ...does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves contain itself?

If the answer is "yes" that it does contain itself then ...how can it be in the set of sets that DONT contain themselves?

If the answer is "no", that it does NOT contain itself, then it IS a "set that doesn't contain itself" which means that it IS in the set.....



Spectral Aurtist
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 153
Location: Helltopia

14 Jul 2018, 6:54 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Dude! You messed up.
I just now glanced at the article about Russell.
You left a few words out of the sentence, and failed to state it correctly.
It's not "does the set of all sets contain itself?".
It's "Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves contain itself?"
Big difference.


I did know this, but I did also misstate it. Thank you for calling my attention to this mistake. I cannot promise that I will not commit the crime again as I have zero intention of checking each thing I type for precise referential correctness as this would detract from the amount of time I can spend actually offering thoughtful answers and instead relegate me to something like neurological accounting, or....Library sciences...Both of which are truly noble careers having lead to significant achievements in the history of mankind.

I am glad to see that the misunderstanding has been resolved however. Let us all raise our virtual glasses! To the triumphs of communication over petty error! HERE HERE! :coffee:

My point would be that 1st order logic does not resolve the question and can in fact NOT resolve it, and you are of course free to follow it through into exhaustion just as you are free to hunt through Pi for a pattern but it won't make it less of an exercise in futility.



Peacesells
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2014
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,915
Location: Anzio, Italy

14 Jul 2018, 7:21 pm

If a man possesses everything, does he also possess nothing?



cberg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,859
Location: Boulder CO

14 Jul 2018, 7:23 pm

Spectral Aurtist wrote:
Does the set of all sets contain itself?


Not in conventional set theory, that would make it a recursive super set.


_________________
"Standing on a well-chilled cinder, we see the fading of the suns, and try to recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds."
-Georges Lemaitre
"I fly through hyperspace, in my green computer interface"
-Gem Tos :mrgreen:


Spectral Aurtist
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 153
Location: Helltopia

14 Jul 2018, 8:28 pm

cberg wrote:
Spectral Aurtist wrote:
Does the set of all sets contain itself?


Not in conventional set theory, that would make it a recursive super set.



I like you :)



Spectral Aurtist
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2016
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 153
Location: Helltopia

14 Jul 2018, 8:30 pm

Peacesells wrote:
If a man possesses everything, does he also possess nothing?



If Man possesses nothing do his things posses him?



Campin_Cat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,934
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.

15 Jul 2018, 9:56 am

naturalplastic wrote:
If God exists, and if he is omnipotent then could God build a boulder so big, that even he, God, couldn't lift it?

Well, first-of-all, I never took "omnipotent" to mean "physical strength". IMO, "omnipotent" means "powerful", as in a country's leader, for instance, has power.

Secondly, the question is trying to apply a human's definition of "physical strength" to God----and, IMO, a human can't even BEGIN to fathom God's physical strength (or, even if He has it, or not).





_________________
White female; age 57; diagnosed Aspie.
I use caps for emphasis----I'm NOT angry or shouting. I use caps like others use italics, underline, or bold.
"What we know is a drop; what we don't know, is an ocean." (Sir Isaac Newton)


Peacesells
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2014
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,915
Location: Anzio, Italy

15 Jul 2018, 11:42 am

Spectral Aurtist wrote:
Peacesells wrote:
If a man possesses everything, does he also possess nothing?



If Man possesses nothing do his things posses him?

What?



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,619
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

15 Jul 2018, 1:38 pm

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?



but in Age of Empires....


Image