A set is a selection of items with specific attributes. To talk of a set of things with attributes is to exclude nothing. — I like sushi
This is no more than a misapplication of linguistics to abstract logical concepts. — I like sushi
Sets only have meaning in relation to other possible sets. To talk of ALL sets is nonsense as it is to talk of ‘backwards yellow’ or ‘big shaped flavours’ - such strings of words are of use in a playful artistic endeavor. — I like sushi
now, ontologically speaking, this set is either contained within itself, or it is contained within a higher set. if it is contained within itself, there is no higher set, meaning that it is the set of all sets, if it is not contained within itself, it is contained within a higher set, and this chain either goes on to infinity and an infinite regress ensues, or it does not, in which case it ends in a set of all sets. it’s very simple.
if one atom of gold is not gold, then your ring, perhaps billions of atoms, cannot be gold, because no part of it is gold — tim wood
I am not overreaching. Once you become a mystic you have no other choice but to support a mystical philosophy, and this is an understatement. I speak the truth, read more of my philosophy and you will understand clearly what I mean and why it’s absolutely true.
the ‘i’ doesn’t necessitate language, only a direct apprehension or intuition of the will as a causal entity, that’s how one knows that they have an ‘i’ and this precedes language.
Does that mean you admit it is mysticism? — I like sushi
Wrong. That is not what was meant. You’re referring to an item preceding language (or rather you THINK you are) with no logical justification. — I like sushi
it's puzzling that you don't subscribe to Platonism and assert that the set of all sets has ontological value. Can you lay out your reasoning here? — Wallows
you wouldn't think so if you saw my argument, which is as simple as it is elegant. — TheGreatArcanum
You might as well say that God is the set of all sets that is epistemically closed in a solipsistic manner. I digress. — Wallows
Imagination, willing, and subjectivity... It's hopeless to try and draw out how you see any coherence between these terms used.
But, anyway, given that the set of all sets is epistemically closed off from any other set, then it is "absolute objectivity" to borrow your phrase. So, "absolute objectivity" to beat the phrase is in essence, God manifest. Yeah? — Wallows
I digress. — Wallows
A similar issue seems to be the suggested of Cohen's award of the Field's Medal, for proving both that there was and was not 'another infinite set of cardinality between Cantor's infinite sets. — fresco
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.