A question to theists . . . . . . .

[SlowwHand]

Hebrews 11:1

[beingofone]

Straybow:

In axiomatic set theory it is postulated to exist by the axiom of empty set and all finite sets are constructed from it.

Hmmm, Wikipedia... This is a lousy explanation. The last "it" is too ambiguous. Are all finite sets are constructed from "the axiom of the empty set" or from "the empty set" in this description? The difference is significant. The first means that a set either contains something or it doesn't. I'm not sure what to make of the second.

The last "it" is not ambiguous at all, it is crystal clear - unless of course you do not like the answer.

There is only '1' empty set - there is no other. It cannot be measured nor defined. It is the stillness of God.

How does *X* appear without *-X*?

A=A

This infinite set of necessity is in union with the empty set, it does not contain an empty set.

If there were any way to make sense of that statement I can't find it.

Simple - you cannot identify anything without it being compared to what it is not.

Understand?

So if there is only one 'empty set' - how many of them are there?

Oh, wait a minute, now I've made sense of your statement. Garbage in, garbage out. There is, by definition, only one empty set.

That is what I said - who are you debating with?

Suggestion for you, Bo1: leave the math out, you're only twisting yourself in knots

No, you are just not keeping up.

I notice you keep skipping questions you do not like - hmmm.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by beingofone
If you strike a match, what does it become? If you say it is no longer relative to a match; I agree.

What does it eventually return to?

Was something destroyed by the striking if the match?

Collision reshapes matter and its energy equivalent, including atomic.

Relativistically, the mass was transformed into kinetic energy, or macroscopically, heat. But I'm only talking about a simply collision, say, of two balls, here, which is different from a chemical reaction. Classically in chemistry, it's simply the removal of the chemical potential of particles being removed from the substance. It's converted into another substance by the swapping of atoms into a new configuration. Relativistically, the mass loss is so small that you can consider it a conserved quantity, but as I said before, a match here is a poor analogy.

Electricity meets resistance - it then performs the intended work or function through transformation, it is not annhialated.

I never said anything about the annihilation of electrical energy. I said that it was tranformed. However, it is transformed into a different form of energy, normally thermal energy. But it doesn't mean that energy is something sentient.

Same with kinetic - just because it sets in motion cause and effect (or is in the continuum of) does not mean it is vacuum.

Hm? It's kinetic energy. Kinetic energy isn't a "substance", it's simply energy in the form of movement. It is incorrect to say that energy is simply a substance, although it is . Energy (or more precisely, work) is simply the path integral of force over a distance, which can be stored in different forms, but it doesn't mean that it is a substance, outside of possibly mass.

Our identification of the essential energy changes, not the essence itself.

It's not an essense. It is ultimately a mathematical construct that allows us to explore symmetries of the universe. A photon by itself is not energy - light has energy. There is a difference.

If it transforms into another form of energy, it therefore; manipulates the field of energy with will/intent with design/purpose.

Purpose? You don't need purpose, nor design. The laws of physics don't need a "purpose", and it is transforming because of the laws of physics.

It is then the territory and not just a map. So if it is not energy then? It impacts energy and manipulates the field. It is then the territory and not just a map.

...what? You repeated yourself and are speaking nonsense. I do not understand what you are saying here at all. Do you even know what you are saying yourself?

I am glad we agree; it does indeed transcend energy and therefore; will/intent with design/purpose to manipulate the field of energy. Ergo; hello God.

What? If anything, "consciousness energy" is simplified to thermal and electrical energy - action potentials and molecular motion, as well as information, but information by itself is not energy. I was arguing against the fact that conciousness is not eternal, not that it could be considered a form of "energy".

Individual forms of energy are parts of the whole. Any part is not the whole, it is contained in the totality.

Perhaps ultimately in the stress-energy tensor, which includes all material/energy interactions, and they do have an intimate relationship, but it doesn't mean that they are the same thing. Thermal energy may be reduced to kinetic energy, yes, but electrical energy is quite different, stored in the electromagnetic fields. There is no "substance" that is universal to energy.

To apply great emphasis on a limitation and to believe that limitation cannot be transcended; that is to not realize the very act of setting a limit implies it has already been transcended.

How can a limit be transcended by placing a limit? If you define the universe as "all that is", that does not mean that you transcend the universe because you somehow "transcended" to "nothing that is". Perhaps logically you have to define the set, but that doesn't mean that you are above the set you are defining just because you have defined it.

You cannot have a limit without it being transcended, that is not logically possible.

...
Definition of transcend:

tran‧scend  /trænˈsɛnd/
–verb (used with object)
1. to rise above or go beyond; overpass; exceed

And taking a simple definition for limit (I won't be a smartass and take the mathematical definition)

limits, the premises or region enclosed within boundaries

Logically, you are incorrect. True, you cannot transcend without having a limit to transcend, but you can have a limit which cannot be transcended. Simple example? The fact that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

If a drop of water is acted on by heat it transcends itself into steam, it does not limit itself to only what it cannot be.

...It's just a bunch of water molecules flying in the air due to more kinetic energy instead of being bounded into a liquid by its molecular attractions. It doesn't change substance microscopically.

There is only '1' empty set - there is no other. It cannot be measured nor defined. It is the stillness of God.

...
By the fundamental axioms of mathematics, there is only one empty set. Reality has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with theology or the existence of god at all. Mathematics is deductive, theology is inductive.

No, you are just not keeping up.

Stop the pseudoscience and leave the real science to the scientists. Trying to make a belief system out of what little you know about empirical reality and combining it with a spiritual belief system generally fails in such a matter that you are doing. As for skipping your questions - some of what you say either is redundant or isn't clear.

...have you even studied set theory?

[beingofone]

Bill3000:

Relativistically, the mass was transformed into kinetic energy, or macroscopically, heat. But I'm only talking about a simply collision, say, of two balls, here, which is different from a chemical reaction.

Okay, simple collision.

Classically in chemistry, it's simply the removal of the chemical potential of particles being removed from the substance. It's converted into another substance by the swapping of atoms into a new configuration. Relativistically, the mass loss is so small that you can consider it a conserved quantity, but as I said before, a match here is a poor analogy.

The two balls is a poor analogy.

BO1: Electricity meets resistance - it then performs the intended work or function through transformation, it is not annhialated.

Bill: I never said anything about the annihilation of electrical energy. I said that it was tranformed. However, it is transformed into a different form of energy, normally thermal energy.

Yes you did, right here:

That does not follow. Mass is a form of energy, yet it is not eternal - it is not conserved in the simplest of collisions, relativistically.

First you want to speak of relative comparisons and then change gears to a comprehensive perspective and then tell me what again?

Is energy eternal or not? I know it is transforms in the relative - I already said that.

You are just pulling the old switcharoo of context.

But it doesn't mean that energy is something sentient.

Okay and I agree; what is your consciousness then?

BO1: Same with kinetic - just because it sets in motion cause and effect (or is in the continuum of) does not mean it is vacuum.

Bill: Hm? It's kinetic energy. Kinetic energy isn't a "substance", it's simply energy in the form of movement. It is incorrect to say that energy is simply a substance, although it is . Energy (or more precisely, work) is simply the path integral of force over a distance, which can be stored in different forms, but it doesn't mean that it is a substance, outside of possibly mass.

You get hung up on words instead of meanings. You are just on a merri-go-round of words here.

Where did I say that energy was substance? I did not, did I? I said it was not "vacuum".

Stay in context please.

BO1: If it transforms into another form of energy, it therefore; manipulates the field of energy with will/intent with design/purpose.

Bill: Purpose? You don't need purpose, nor design. The laws of physics don't need a "purpose", and it is transforming because of the laws of physics.

Would you please make an attempt at communication or this is pointless and I will not respond to spinning. Go argue with a dictionary if that is the case.

Does your consciousness have will? If it has will does it use design?

Simple.

BO1: So if it is not energy then? It impacts energy and manipulates the field. It is then the territory and not just a map.

Bill: ...what? You repeated yourself and are speaking nonsense. I do not understand what you are saying here at all. Do you even know what you are saying yourself?

Is your consciousness energy or not? That is the question.

If you get involved in a conversation, do try to understand what the other person is saying. Otherwise; you end up debating the little guy in your head.

What? If anything, "consciousness energy" is simplified to thermal and electrical energy - action potentials and molecular motion, as well as information, but information by itself is not energy. I was arguing against the fact that conciousness is not eternal, not that it could be considered a form of "energy".

How can that be? Is it energy or not?

You just said:

Purpose? You don't need purpose, nor design. The laws of physics don't need a "purpose", and it is transforming because of the laws of physics.

Does your consciousness have will/design to effect the field?

If it does is it energy?

If it is not energy it is transcendant.

You tell me another conclusion you could make?

BO1: Individual forms of energy are parts of the whole. Any part is not the whole, it is contained in the totality.

Bill: Perhaps ultimately in the stress-energy tensor, which includes all material/energy interactions, and they do have an intimate relationship, but it doesn't mean that they are the same thing.

According to you.

Who defines the identifications of things?

Thermal energy may be reduced to kinetic energy, yes, but electrical energy is quite different, stored in the electromagnetic fields. There is no "substance" that is universal to energy.

That is why the necessary inclusion of the empty set.

You can draw distinctions all day long, it is still your consciousness making the comparisons.

BO1: To apply great emphasis on a limitation and to believe that limitation cannot be transcended; that is to not realize the very act of setting a limit implies it has already been transcended.

Bill: How can a limit be transcended by placing a limit?

If you define the universe as "all that is", that does not mean that you transcend the universe because you somehow "transcended" to "nothing that is". Perhaps logically you have to define the set, but that doesn't mean that you are above the set you are defining just because you have defined it.

You cannot define the infinite - it defies all categories of distinction.

Same with your experience of consciousness.

You could say time cannot be transcended - that statement is already history and cannot be repeated at the same time.

You can never, ever repeat experience. It is always unique in an eternal momentum.

BO1: You cannot have a limit without it being transcended, that is not logically possible.

...
Bill: Definition of transcend:

Beyond the limit.

Eclipse, transform, exceed, surpass, excel, outstrip, enhance, surmount, and rise above.

Logically, you are incorrect. True, you cannot transcend without having a limit to transcend, but you can have a limit which cannot be transcended. Simple example? The fact that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century.

You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.

Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart.

Aspect

...It's just a bunch of water molecules flying in the air due to more kinetic energy instead of being bounded into a liquid by its molecular attractions. It doesn't change substance microscopically.

Cmon Bill - trees and forest.

IS IT A DROP OF WATER?

By the fundamental axioms of mathematics, there is only one empty set. Reality has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with theology or the existence of god at all. Mathematics is deductive, theology is inductive.

Reality has everything to do with it - would you think beyond your box please.

How can anything appear without what it is not?

Stop the pseudoscience and leave the real science to the scientists. Trying to make a belief system out of what little you know about empirical reality and combining it with a spiritual belief system generally fails in such a matter that you are doing. As for skipping your questions - some of what you say either is redundant or isn't clear.

...have you even studied set theory?

Just because you don`t like it does not make it incorrect - it just means you don`t like it.

Answer the question - is your consciousness energy or not?

Follow the answer all the way - don`t stop on the path and get sidetracked - go all the way to the end.

When you do that, then tell me.

[Bill3000]

The two balls is a poor analogy.

No, it proved my point as to what I was saying at the time. A form of energy that used to be mass is no longer mass. Similarly, if you could quantify consciousness as energy, if consciousness dissipates then it is no longer consciousness. However, I am using a counterfactual argument here - I am not saying that consciousness is energy.

First you want to speak of relative comparisons and then change gears to a comprehensive perspective and then tell me what again?

Whoops. I had misunderstood you the second time, actually, and you are right - I had seemed to have changed what I had said. However, I ultimately meant the same thing. The actual energy itself is not annihilated, but it is transformed from electrical energy to other energy. Et cetera, I think you know what I mean here now.

Is energy eternal or not? I know it is transforms in the relative - I already said that.
You are just pulling the old switcharoo of context.

I am sorry if what you are saying is too obscure for most human beings to understand. Yes, technically, energy is eternal, but let me ask you this: Does it matter? A system may have the sum of all energy remain a constant in a closed system, but that doesn't mean that the energy that can be used for work is eternal. A closed system with maximum entropy is at its final state - outside of making it a non-closed system, nothing can be done inside the closed system.

So is energy eternal? Yes. Is energy that can be used for anything productive eternal? No.

Does your consciousness have will/design to effect the field?
If it does is it energy?
If it is not energy it is transcendant.
You tell me another conclusion you could make?

Consciousness is a concept. It is the state of several qualities, such as self-awareness, sapience, sentience, and subjectivity.

Energy has a stipulative definition in science. Energy is the ability to do work. Work is defined as the path integral of force over a distance. In the context of quantum mechanics, energy is an operator on the wavefunction. That's all it is. It's a very important concept, yes, but making analogies in metaphysics for energy will only lead to failure.

Can various processes that ultimately lead to consciousness have some qualities to energy? Yes. Action potentials through neurons, including the pulses of electric potential and the movement of the ions throughout the brain to produce said potential. But this doesn't mean that consciousness itself is energy.

As I said before, my argument about two collisions of mass was a counterfactual argument. That is, if consciousness was energy, as if there was some energy that made one concious other than those that can be degraded into more fundamental energies, it would still not be eternal because useful energy is not eternal. As for the question if conciousness could manipulate a field, no. There is no such thing as psionics.

You cannot define the infinite - it defies all categories of distinction.

I am sorry, but you are quite wrong. Infinity (which is a mathematical concept which, like energy, has a stipulative definition) is quite well defined - there are in fact more than one types of infinity. Ordinal infinity, cardinal infinity, countably infinite, normal infinity, (the basic form of infinity, being larger than any real number) complex infinity. (complex number of infinite magnitude and undeterminite phase) If it wasn't defined, then it would be undefined, and therefore useless in science. However, infinity is used quite a lot in mathematics, although not a true "number" in itself, it is a concept that is well defined. This is as opposed to, say, 1/0, which is undefined.

Same with your experience of consciousness.

You could say time cannot be transcended - that statement is already history and cannot be repeated at the same time. You can never, ever repeat experience. It is always unique in an eternal momentum.

Ignoring your incorrect use of momentum () it is possible to repeat experience. It's extremely unprobable, but there is nothing in the laws of physics that says that a particle cannot be in the same state as it was in the past in an indeterminate amount of time. (And ultimately, all of nature reduces to that.) Besides, I can always say "Time cannot be transcended" twice.

Beyond the limit.
Eclipse, transform, exceed, surpass, excel, outstrip, enhance, surmount, and rise above.

It is true that you cannot have these words without a limit. But it does not follow that you must have those words if you have a limit.

Aspect

Mm? It's well known. Quantum teleportation does not transfer information that can travel at the speed of light. While wavefunctions can change instantaneously, observations about said wavefunctions still require a non-FTL method. You still need to observe at least one particle's state before the entanglement will work correctly, and then you would have to comminicate in a non-FTL way to give the information to the other booth. Otherwise, it is useless to call it teleportation, as you will not gain any information from it.

IS IT A DROP OF WATER?

Yes, it's a drop of water. Yes, it changes phases. But no, it is still water.

Reality has everything to do with it - would you think beyond your box please.

How can anything appear without what it is not?

I'll give you an analogy.
Pi (the number) still exists in curved spaces. It would not be the ratio of the circumferance of the circle to the diameter, but Pi exists regardless of the state of reality, as it is completely defined in euclidean space. You can still make mathematical theories that are not related to reality at all and can still be internally consistant. This is what math is in the end. Physics is the application of math to the natural world. But math, unlike physics, has no anthropic principle. 1 + 1 = 2 is still true within the fundamental axioms of mathematics whether or not the universe exists or not.

[Straybow]

The last "it" is not ambiguous at all, it is crystal clear - unless of course you do not like the answer.

Not at all. Let's look at this again:

This infinite set of necessity is in union with the empty set, it does not contain an empty set.

The first part makes no sense, and the second part is wrong.

By definition, the empty set is finite. Therefore the infinite set of all finite sets does contain the (not "an") empty set.

Saying that all finite sets are constructed from the empty set in fact says that every finite set contains the empty set. In effect, adding the empty set to a set returns the original set.

So, obviously, the definition was ambiguous enough for you to misunderstand it. Or you don't understand the Union function.

There is only '1' empty set - there is no other. It cannot be measured nor defined. It is the stillness of God.

It has been measured and is defined. You just cited the definition, which is a set containing no elements (ie, measured).

How does *X* appear without *-X*?

A=A

Simple - you cannot identify anything without it being compared to what it is not.

Understand?

So God cannot exist without [not-God]? Wouldn't that militate against creation ex nihilo and omnipotence?

[Flip McWho]

From what I can gather of what BO1 is saying is that
God = the totality of experience

[beingofone]

Bill3000:

BO1: The two balls is a poor analogy.

Bill: No, it proved my point as to what I was saying at the time. A form of energy that used to be mass is no longer mass.

In that case, why did you say the match was a poor analogy? Were you hoping I would not notice?


I was using sarcasm to get your attention. I could tell you just assumed I was an idiot that you would dispense with a good thrashing.

Similarly, if you could quantify consciousness as energy, if consciousness dissipates then it is no longer consciousness. However, I am using a counterfactual argument here - I am not saying that consciousness is energy.

We cannot assume consciousness dissipates. Since the only consciousness you can know is yours and yours alone, have you ever had the experience of your counsciousness dissipating?

Truth is what stands the acid test of experience.

I agree that consciousness is beyond energy.

Whoops. I had misunderstood you the second time, actually, and you are right - I had seemed to have changed what I had said. However, I ultimately meant the same thing. The actual energy itself is not annihilated, but it is transformed from electrical energy to other energy. Et cetera, I think you know what I mean here now.

And beingofone tips his hat to Bill3000 in honesty of exchange of ideas - throws a few coins in the air.

I am sorry if what you are saying is too obscure for most human beings to understand.

LOL

It has always befuddled me how most try to examine truth or reality and attempt to exclude the very tool that is being used to make the study ie: consciousness.

This is true of scientists, preachers, philosophers, and gurus.

Yes, technically, energy is eternal, but let me ask you this: Does it matter? A system may have the sum of all energy remain a constant in a closed system, but that doesn't mean that the energy that can be used for work is eternal.

It matters a great deal - look Bill, you can try to make new and better discoveries about the nature of reality, if we never pause and ask ourselves "who is making these discoveries?"

Have we not missed the most important question of all?

To answer your second question; could you tell me where reality begins and your conscious perception ends?

I am not sure whether you mean cosmology when you say "closed system" or the human body?

At any rate; you are talking about the definition of energy as per exchange(interaction) and then transformation. The enrgy is still there as you said, it just is no longer subject to previous identification in the category.

I do not think the universe is a closed system, that does not appear to be valid logically. If there is no resistence, momentum never ceases. We could say it 'contains' momentum, but to me that does not make sense in that logic as well as math is valid and therefore; will design.

There does not seem to be anything that slows the momentum of the Totality and that does not mean it must be limited or contained.

In other words, it does not need pressure to isolate as that would result in the breakdown of any system.

So is energy eternal? Yes. Is energy that can be used for anything productive eternal? No.

Do you mean usefull?

Productive to who?

Consciousness is a concept. It is the state of several qualities, such as self-awareness, sapience, sentience, and subjectivity.

You are avoiding the question.

Who or what is creating the concept?

Energy has a stipulative definition in science. Energy is the ability to do work. Work is defined as the path integral of force over a distance. In the context of quantum mechanics, energy is an operator on the wavefunction. That's all it is. It's a very important concept, yes, but making analogies in metaphysics for energy will only lead to failure.

Who or what is observing energy that does work?

Does it take energy to observe?

Does it take energy to participate in reality?

Who or what makes the choice?

Can various processes that ultimately lead to consciousness have some qualities to energy? Yes. Action potentials through neurons, including the pulses of electric potential and the movement of the ions throughout the brain to produce said potential. But this doesn't mean that consciousness itself is energy.

Look at what you said here Bill.

It is contradictory.

You first say energy can lead to consciousness.

Then you say the energy itself makes a 'decision' to become conscious through "Action potentials through neurons" and so forth.

Then you give the potential - hand delivered - to consciousness as if the energy itself sentient.

Then you divorce consciousness from the energy and ipso facto - nothing mysterious going on here?

As I said before, my argument about two collisions of mass was a counterfactual argument. That is, if consciousness was energy, as if there was some energy that made one concious other than those that can be degraded into more fundamental energies, it would still not be eternal because useful energy is not eternal. As for the question if conciousness could manipulate a field, no. There is no such thing as psionics.

Can you wiggle your finger? - you just manipulated the field.

BO1: You cannot define the infinite - it defies all categories of distinction.

Bill: I am sorry, but you are quite wrong. Infinity (which is a mathematical concept which, like energy, has a stipulative definition) is quite well defined - there are in fact more than one types of infinity. Ordinal infinity, cardinal infinity, countably infinite, normal infinity, (the basic form of infinity, being larger than any real number) complex infinity. (complex number of infinite magnitude and undeterminite phase) If it wasn't defined, then it would be undefined, and therefore useless in science. However, infinity is used quite a lot in mathematics, although not a true "number" in itself, it is a concept that is well defined.

No - not one of those theories gives a definition - it is identification of the infinite, not a definition. Identification is not definition.

It can be alluded to as a hypothetical concept and used in creating formulas, it is never defined. It is usefull in comparisons.

To define it would be the introduction of a finite number that equals the infinite. You may allude to the infinite, it cannot, under any circumstances, be measured.

Infinity is larger than any number that can be counted.

I think it may be a question of semantics here.

This is as opposed to, say, 1/0, which is undefined.

Same with your experience of consciousness.

I agree.

Ignoring your incorrect use of momentum () it is possible to repeat experience. It's extremely unprobable, but there is nothing in the laws of physics that says that a particle cannot be in the same state as it was in the past in an indeterminate amount of time.

What is the date of these two particles in the same state?

(And ultimately, all of nature reduces to that.) Besides, I can always say "Time cannot be transcended" twice.

What time did you say it twice?

It is true that you cannot have these words without a limit. But it does not follow that you must have those words if you have a limit.

How can you have a limit without the opposite?

Could you give an example of a limit that cannot be transcended?

Otherwise, it is useless to call it teleportation, as you will not gain any information from it.

*sigh* - that is not what I said at all.

You said - speed of light communication cannot be transcended.

Yes, it's a drop of water. Yes, it changes phases. But no, it is still water.

Is it a liquid or gas? I know it is still water Bill - I mean really - duh.

You keep talking about usefull vs useless energy, follow?

Don`t make the illustration more important than the point itself.

It is no longer identified as a drop of water - what don`t you get here? It is NOW identified as steam and not a drop of water.

The point is, all distinctions are drawn by what again? What cannot transcend our identifications?

How can anything appear without what it is not?

I'll give you an analogy.
Pi (the number) still exists in curved spaces. It would not be the ratio of the circumferance of the circle to the diameter, but Pi exists regardless of the state of reality, as it is completely defined in euclidean space. You can still make mathematical theories that are not related to reality at all and can still be internally consistant. This is what math is in the end. Physics is the application of math to the natural world. But math, unlike physics, has no anthropic principle. 1 + 1 = 2 is still true within the fundamental axioms of mathematics whether or not the universe exists or not.

So Pi exists without a Pi?

How does Pi appear without a non Pi?

You still have the theory appearing as compared to the reality that it is most certainly not.

Not one thing exists (including theory) that are not compared to what they are not - that is not logically possible.

A=A


Straybow

By definition, the empty set is finite. Therefore the infinite set of all finite sets does contain the (not "an") empty set.

If the empty set is finite, why is there only one?

You avoid its measurement so perhaps you could point it out.

Could you point to one set that it does not contain?

There are spaces between each word.

Saying that all finite sets are constructed from the empty set in fact says that every finite set contains the empty set. In effect, adding the empty set to a set returns the original set.

No- all sets of necessity require what they are not, that is why there are no finite empty sets, there is only one and one only.

There are spaces everwhere and every when, without exception. There is only one space.

So, obviously, the definition was ambiguous enough for you to misunderstand it. Or you don't understand the Union function.

How many empty sets are there?

It has been measured and is defined. You just cited the definition, which is a set containing no elements (ie, measured).

No - that is not a definition, there is no place it is not.

It is not made of the sum of its parts - that is not definition nor is it measurement.

If it is everywhere and every when, how many are there?

How does *X* appear without *-X*?

A=A

Simple - you cannot identify anything without it being compared to what it is not.

Understand?

So God cannot exist without [not-God]? Wouldn't that militate against creation ex nihilo and omnipotence?

No - God is everwhere and every when, how many are there?

There is no place he is not.

He is not made of the sum of his parts and all finite sets are constructed from him.



Flip McWho:

From what I can gather of what BO1 is saying is that
God = the totality of experience

It is so simple - isn`t it?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Hebrews 11:1

I just might take that bet

[Flip McWho]

It is so simple - isn`t it?

No, but if I had to sum up the jist of your argument in less than a sentence then that's what I get.

[beingofone]

Originally posted by Flip McWho


No, but if I had to sum up the jist of your argument in less than a sentence then that's what I get.

"What is this?"
"You're looking at NOW, Sir."
"What happened to THEN?"
"We passed it."
"When?"
"Just now."
"When will THEN, be NOW?"
"SOON."

[aneeshm]

I've found two solutions to the problem which I myself posed .

a) What if perfection is not a state , but a process ?

b) What if it is in the nature of God to become the creation ? That is , he does not require desire to become creation , for it is his nature ?

[Straybow]

If the empty set is finite, why is there only one?

Um, because it is finite, and there is only one?

No- all sets of necessity require what they are not, that is why there are no finite empty sets, there is only one and one only.

Wrong on each point. A set does not "require" what it is not. There are finite empty sets (speaking as a generality, subtracting a set from itself is an empty set which is not necessarily unique), but since all potential empty sets are proven identical there is only one.

Again, apparently you don't understand math very well if the concept of a finite set being unique is beyond you.

[beingofone]

aneeshm:

I've found two solutions to the problem which I myself posed .

a) What if perfection is not a state , but a process ?

b) What if it is in the nature of God to become the creation ? That is , he does not require desire to become creation , for it is his nature ?

a) Indeed this is true; the only 'problem' is when perfection is reduced to a final stasis. Perfecting is evolving beyond what it could only be.

b) Nature to become implies desire but not necessarily from a lack of or need - it can also mean an expression of completion.

I think need and completion compliment each other.

For example:
There is no need to look at a tree to identify what it is, we have already seen one. To behold a tree in reality is quite different than using memory or projection, it is alive.


Straybow:

BO1: If the empty set is finite, why is there only one?

Straybow: Um, because it is finite, and there is only one?

If there is only one that is everywhere, could you point it out?

There is only one universe that is everywhere, could you point it out?

BO1: all sets of necessity require what they are not, that is why there are no finite empty sets, there is only one and one only.

Straybow: Wrong on each point. A set does not "require" what it is not.

Could you give an example of a set that does not compare to what it is not?

There are finite empty sets

This is the whole problem right here, you keep thinking there are multiple 'empty sets' - there are no plurality of empty sets - there is one and only one empty set.

(speaking as a generality, subtracting a set from itself is an empty set which is not necessarily unique), but since all potential empty sets are proven identical there is only one.

Then the set that is subtracted from itself reduces down to the 'single' empty set as there is only one. They are not identical empty sets, they are reduced to a zero state which is always unique as it is always itself.

You can have two identical apples but you can only have one no apples. This is true in all possible worlds.

Again, apparently you don't understand math very well if the concept of a finite set being unique is beyond you.

Blah - an ad hom is what it is all over again.

Push deeper, go further and for goodness sake keep your mind open would ya?

[Straybow]

BO1: If the empty set is finite, why is there only one?

Straybow: Um, because it is finite, and there is only one?

[Bo1:] If there is only one that is everywhere, could you point it out? There is only one universe that is everywhere, could you point it out?

Thank you for showing that you don't understand that mathematics is an abstract science.

Could you give an example of a set that does not compare to what it is not?

Sure, Real Numbers. Real Numbers (including the concept of infinite in extension and infinite in division) existed alone before the abstract concept of Imaginary Numbers was proposed. In fact, the name Real was invented to distinguish between what had been simply "numbers" and the new Imaginary numbers.

You can have two identical apples but you can only have one no apples. This is true in all possible worlds.

No, you can't have two identical apples. You can have two similar apples, but not identical. You can't have two number 1's. There is only one "1." Because numbers are abstract you get to use "1" as many times as you want.

Just so, if you go back and re-read on Empty Set, the proof of uniqueness is constructed exactly as I described. There is one Empty Set, but you get to use it as many times as you want. To the untrained eye one might think there are many, but there is only one.

And, no, I'm not going to "keep an open mind" to this blather that you mistake for "depth." It is shallow and pretentious.