A question to theists . . . . . . .

[beingofone]

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?

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

Oh no no - thank you, for cherry picking what you want to answer and ignore many of my questions.

If I lack the understanding, why do you avoid many of my questions?

Ad hom again?

Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.

"I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".

"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."

Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"

Plato nodded.

"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.

Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'."

Yup; even the most brilliant minds, at times, overlook the obvious.

BO1: Could you give an example of a set that does not compare to what it is not?

Straybow: 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.

Then 'Real Numbers' are compared to not 'Real Numbers'. How can anything exist alone without it being compared to what it is not?

You cannot have anything - not even a concept, without what it is not.

You are not seeing the obvious. It is a non sequitur.

A=A

BO1: You can have two identical apples but you can only have one no apples. This is true in all possible worlds.

Straybow: 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.

Well said and you are right. Because everything is in flux there are no two identical things - true.

You can use one as many times as you want, it is always compared to what is not "1".

There is space between each word.

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.

This is what I have been saying; over and over again.

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

A student of philosophy, eager to display his powers of argument, approached Diogenes, introduced himself and said, "If it pleases you, sir, let me prove to you that there is no such thing as motion."

Whereupon Diogenes immediately got up and left.

Learning blocks, i.e., assumptions, prejudices, and repulsive attitudes or mindsets in particular comprise 100% of the obstacles to comprehension and effective understanding.

The nature of reality cannot be taught nor can it be learned; but it must be REALIZED. The operating paradigm actively displaces the relative truth (it is time-bound, which reality is not).

The greatest obstacle is the premising of space as the quality of vacuum, but space is itself and is not what is meant by "vacuum", absolute vacuum in the context of vacuum energy physics, it is absolute but potentiated nothingness that has to be the starting point for mentation in the field.

This refers to "The Prime Mover" or to God Almighty (if you will.) The schizoid break stifles realization. Be of one mind, not unnecessarily anxious and perennially shifting one's mental focus.

The way one thinks out problems in scalar physics is identical to the manner in which one parses a dream to determine who is who or what in a dream one is having or has just had; it is the same mental process, one having no purchase in every day dealings which are generally materialistic.

[Straybow]

[Bo1:] Oh no no - thank you, for cherry picking what you want to answer and ignore many of my questions.

I am addressing the errors in your logic, and ignoring the "deep" sounding pap that stands upon that faulty logic (or rather falls with it).

[Bo1:]Then 'Real Numbers' are compared to not 'Real Numbers'. How can anything exist alone without it being compared to what it is not?

You cannot have anything - not even a concept, without what it is not.

You are not seeing the obvious. It is a non sequitur.

I agree, I am not seeing what you think is "obvious"—your assertions are non sequitur.

Before imaginary numbers were discovered "Real" numbers were all that were defined. There was no "non-Real" to contrast.

What's more, once Complex math was discovered all Real and Imaginary numbers are merely components of Complex numbers (a+bi). There is no number that is "non-Complex."

Real numbers are Complex numbers with a zero-coefficient imaginary component (a+0i). Pure Imaginary numbers are Complex numbers with a zero-coefficient real component (0+bi).

[beingofone]

Straybow:

I am addressing the errors in your logic, and ignoring the "deep" sounding pap that stands upon that faulty logic (or rather falls with it).

What you do is ignore questions that would lead to an answer you do not like.

The other thing is you are all over the board and keep changing positions.

For example:

There are finite empty sets

Then say:

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 then pretend like it was me the whole time who did not understand this. You admitted this, after several posts, and then lecture like it was your position the entire time.

Now you say what about my logic?

You aren`t addressing errors in logic - if you were you would be consistent and have the common courtesy to acknowledge a point when you see it.

Holding your fingers in your ears and sticking your tongue out is not logic no matter how much you wanna get me.

This is about you protecting some concept of God you have isn`t it? That is why you are resorting to ad homs continuously.

At some point we have to look God in the eye, Straybow and be at home with what we see.

Before imaginary numbers were discovered "Real" numbers were all that were defined. There was no "non-Real" to contrast.

You missed it again - whether imaginary or real is not the point.

What's more, once Complex math was discovered all Real and Imaginary numbers are merely components of Complex numbers (a+bi). There is no number that is "non-Complex."

It does not matter if it is the formula for photons or 1+1.

It is not about how complex the math - you are hypercomplexifying the mundane.

Real numbers are Complex numbers with a zero-coefficient imaginary component (a+0i). Pure Imaginary numbers are Complex numbers with a zero-coefficient real component (0+bi).

You already said "there is only one empty set". Because you can use zero in many different equations does not negate the fact that it remains the same.

You can measure the square footage of two homes and include zero in both measurements, there is still only one single space, that never changes, ever.

You cannot escape the obvious by complicating it.

You can string a whole page of this thread with complex math - it does not matter.

*X* appears by *-X* this is true in all possible worlds.

A=A

[Straybow]

Originally posted by beingofone
Straybow:

I am addressing the errors in your logic, and ignoring the "deep" sounding pap that stands upon that faulty logic (or rather falls with it).

What you do is ignore questions that would lead to an answer you do not like.

No, you continually disply an inability to understand mathematics.

The other thing is you are all over the board and keep changing positions.

For example:

There are finite empty sets

Then say:

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 then pretend like it was me the whole time who did not understand this. You admitted this, after several posts, and then lecture like it was your position the entire time.

Ah, way to misquote me. Let's look at the entire paragraph:

[Bo1:]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.

This is called "deductive reasoning." You start from a premise, and lead to a conclusion. This is how mathematics works.

The premise is always something obvious, prima facia. In this case the premise is that subtracting a (finite) set from itself results in an empty set.

Now try and follow, if you can. Because there are an infinity of finite sets with different number of elements, differing types of elements, etc, one must prove that the resulting empty sets are not different, but identical. And identical sets are, by definition, the same set. The set contains zero elements, a countable number.

Therefore, the Empty Set is finite and unique.

Then, when you demonstrated an inability to understand these principles, I pointed you back to the proof of uniqueness.

The phrase you quoted from me was not an assertion, but a part of the mathematical process of proof.

Let me know when you comprehend this, and we can move forward.

[beingofone]

Straybow:

BO1: What you do is ignore questions that would lead to an answer you do not like.

Straybow: No, you continually disply an inability to understand mathematics.

And you continue to overlook what is right before your eyes.

Ah, way to misquote me. Let's look at the entire paragraph:

I did misquote you, my apologies, it was not intentional.

I honestly thought you changed position, I can see now you did not.

This is called "deductive reasoning." You start from a premise, and lead to a conclusion. This is how mathematics works.

Now try and follow, if you can.

What you do not yet realize is that I understood what you are saying on the last page but whatever.

I had thought you changed positions but that does not mean I cannot comprehend stringing out an infinite number of equations that all derive the empty set.

That does not change the fact that all things, no matter conceptual or hypothetical are compared to what they are not.

Because there are an infinity of finite sets with different number of elements, differing types of elements, etc, one must prove that the resulting empty sets are not different, but identical. And identical sets are, by definition, the same set. The set contains zero elements, a countable number.

Lets me see if I got thisn here qautions.

1-1=0 the empti sit.
2-2=0 hte emtye set.
3-3=0 tHE eMPTy sat
aDD finiti

Roi?ght


Because we can conceptualize an infinite amount of equations deriving a zero does not mean there is more than one space or empty set. It just means we can subtract okay without losing count - that is all it means.

As I already said (take your fingers out of your ears) - you can fill this thread with equations that result in zero; you still cannot have more than one space.

Space is everywhere and everywhen. Anything must of necessity be compared to what it is not.

I keep asking for an example of this and you have yet to produce any thing, set, or analogy.

Then, when you demonstrated an inability to understand these principles, I pointed you back to the proof of uniqueness.

The reason you keep avoiding providing a comparison of something that cannot be compared to what it is not.

PAUSE RIGHT HERE:
It cannot be done - all things of necessity must be compared to what it is not. If you could provide one example you would overturn the fabric of the universe.

Now; do you understand yet?

Let me know when you comprehend this, and we can move forward.

We can move forward when you take your sunglasses off.

Give an example of one thing that cannot be compared to what it is not.

I double dog dare ya!

[beingofone]

Straybow,
My last post to you unless you have questions or suggestions or actually do find a flaw; and you want to talk more.

I realize you are a bright guy and you need something more to sink your teeth into. My mind works on Occams Razor almost always so I will flesh it out and hopefully give you something to chew on.

Bear with me, I will start simple and work outward.

1) Why is it not permitted to divide by zero else the wrong conclusion?

Don`t just kick out a textbook answer, I am asking you, ponder that. I think you could help me flesh this out if you do see it, truly I think that.

2) If A and B have no common elements the intersection is the empty set, yes?

3) If the thing is itself and not other than what it can be or A=A is it contained by the empty set?

4) The Axiom of Choice - Every group of nonempty sets has a choice of function. You can pick an element from any set and it has properties, except the empty set.

5) Godel
Meta First Order Logic - see if what I am saying passes this test.

Soundeness Theorom

Completeness Theorom

Extended Completeness Theorom

Compactness Theorom


Math needs intellect as it is incomplete without it, same is true for logic and therefore; God is real.

[Straybow]

Bo1, I did give a fully qualified answer to something that was defined without reference to anything it was not.

Numbers. Until Complex math was discovered numbers were simply Numbers. There were no numbers that weren't numbers, or whatever. Complex redefined them as Real Numbers, a+bi where b=0.

Now we recognize, hypothetically, there could be a metaclass of numbers a+bi+c¤..., where ¤ (or other symbols) is some extension to "numbers" not yet theorized. Heck, for all I know there may already be extensions to Complex numbers.

We know that there are things that aren't numbers at all. The characters we use to represent numbers aren't themselves numbers, for example. But we don't bother to specifically define numbers as non-character quantities represented by characters.

Does that make sense?

So, just because the Empty Set, or Zero, or whatever is infinitely useful, it is still finite. Just like the number "1" can be used infinitely. We never run out of instances of 1 or Empty Set or Zero.