You're confusing substance with "accidents." Use with being. Maybe gold is a better example, although as example it teaches the same lesson. Question, is an atom of gold, gold? Yes? No? Making a gold ring out of an atom of gold is a whole other question - and I suppose we agree that a ring of gold cannot be made from one atom of gold.

Your assumption can lead to absurdities. E.g., 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 (if a part were, then we'd have the same argument on the part). Because your ring is not gold, then send it to me and I'll reimburse you for postage - don't forget to insure it. The same for iron and water, though no need to send either of them.

If you want to talk about usage, then it's clearer if you make that clear. What is your point about usage?

If comedy has ontological value and

if you like the tongue twister

how many sets could the set of all sets set if the set of all sets set sets

then it holds without possible objection the set of all sets has ontological value

A set is a selection of items with specific attributes. To talk of a set of things with attributes is to exclude nothing.

This is no more than a misapplication of linguistics to abstract logical concepts.

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.

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

Yes, a set is a defined selection of specific qualities that are distinguished from other sets and also from nothingness, that is, an empty set with no qualities.

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

sets have meaning only in relation to other sets, OR in relation to themselves. if a set exists, it persists, and if the qualities of a set are changing and the set is therefore expanding, which is true of sets that are ontological and not imaginary, that set is identical to itself from moment to moment in time in its essence, but not identical to itself from moment to moment in time in its quality.

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.

That’s gibberish. You cannot agree AND disagree with what I said. You admit it is a linguistic issue then persist that it isn’t.

You cannot have it both ways friend.

Consider the game of chess. There are set rules. Of you break the rules you can insist that you’re still playing chess, but I’d disagree for obvious reasons. This is no different. A set is a set, there is no “rule of rules” other than in your imagination.

A set cannot be related to itself. That is plainly contrary. You see to think it reasonable to extend abstract thought into physical reality without even batting an eyelid? Maybe because your eyes are already tightly shut? ;)

You say this (which is utter contrary gibberish):

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.

I agree. It is simple. It is simply gibberish.

Note: you may think this means something and you may well actually have a point to make that is buried in your head. You’re failing to express whatever it is OR the point you wish to make is so deeply flawed you’re just going around in circles. That is my honest view of what you’ve shown so far.

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

That's just my point; the characteristics of gold is only through a set of atoms, not one single atom. Even in gas form, it's the group of atoms which makes up gold, a single atom is neither gas, solid or liquid gold, it's specifically a gold atom. So the essence of gold is through the group of gold atoms making up gold, not single atoms. Point being, how we define the materials around us aren't based on the singular atoms, but the grouping of those atoms. A ring cannot be made of one gold atom, only a group of atoms, therefore, how we work and view gold as a substance does not come from the singular atom, but the group that makes up how we define it as a substance. Even in chemical reactions, one single gold atom is impossible to make enough reactions when in contact with a group of others. You wouldn't say that an iron dagger which has one gold atom in it, is an iron-gold alloy.

It's not really about what is technically true here, it's about language, how we define things. Technically, one gold atom is gold by the makeup of its neutrons, protons, and electrons, but no one would define gold as a substance with the essence of gold as we view it, if there was only one atom. Because the properties of gold as we know them comes from a group of those atoms, not one atom.

according to your understanding, it seems, the abstract set which contains all the parts of a thing, and distinguishes it from other things, comes into being when we conceive of it in our minds, while my understanding is that the abstract set precedes our conception of it, and also, preceded the existence of the object itself. According to my understanding, the abstract precedes the concrete, the concrete is contained within the abstract, and abstract thought precedes concrete things which are, in their truest essence, abstract ideas that have become actualized into existence by means of subjectivity relative to an a priori limited sense perception.

think about what it means for you to say that the law of identity, an abstract concept, doesn’t come into being until after man conceived of it, or rather, that the law of identity is a subset of man and man, and nature itself, is not a subset of the law identity. this is what your position asserts. think about what that means, it means that existence can be become non-existence from one moment to the next in time, or be equal to non-existence. it’s quite literally the most absurd position ever held, ever, at any time or anywhere.

I think I get the gist of what you’re attempting. The problem is you’re necessarily bound to the use of language (as in the words you’ve written) and if this isn’t addressed it looks more like mysticism dressed up as logic.

“I” exists because if language. Without language there is no “I”. That is to paraphrase part of an argument I heard some time ago form who I don’t recall? The point being the meaning of “I” is bound in language. To talk of something ‘outside’ of language is to pull such a “thing” into the sphere of language thus destroying its non-language attribute. In this sense language is a means of adumbrating what isn’t language.

So I have issue with what you’re expressing in regards to how you’re dealing with it ontologically and epistemologically - each being necessarily parts of each other.

There is no doubt this is a seriously tricky topic because we’re stretching the use of language (and I am suggesting you’re overreaching).

language isn’t defined by human language. logic is language, mathematics is language, so of course, what am saying is bound by language, yes, but not human language. man didn’t invent logic or mathematics, he discovered it.

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.

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.

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.

Does that mean you admit it is mysticism?

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.

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.

Logic without a medium is NOT logic. If logic is language then why are there two word concepts? Are they the same thing? If not what is the difference?

Does that mean you admit it is mysticism? — I like sushi

yes, if you still haven’t achieved the mystical union, you’ve yet to achieve the pinnacle of human evolution. as a result, you remain, in comparison to what you could be, primitive and unevolved

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

go into meditation. move your awareness from its natural center to the tip of your finger and back to its center. now, do this again in various places around your body. you’ve just disproven your theory that one’s cognition of their own existence requires language. it really only requires will and imagination in combination with memory.

the only medium logic needs is memory and intuition, as well as will and imagination. this is empirically verifiable within oneself. one doesn’t need to speak or think the words “I exist” to know intuitively that they exist; to say so is beyond absurd.

Never mind. Have fun in your mystical little garden :)

I'm going to be the surrogate forum moderator here, and am going to be flagging ad hominems that arise.

More chimp-pig content, please.

Stahp.

@TheGreatArcanum, 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?

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

the set of all sets is the set of all memories, and Memory, that is, a perfect, infallible, Absolute Memory, just the same as the set of all sets, both contains itself and does not simultaneously. This Absolute Memory is identical with the Law of Identity itself, meaning that each change occurring within the Absolute Memory is equal to itself so long as it exists, and is stored as it is in relation to all other changes in the Absolute Memory. I say that the set of all sets has "ontological value" because there is some thing which is both completely abstract and existent that both contains itself and does not simultaneously. This is the greatest discovery that any philosopher has ever made. That philosopher is me.

Psychoceramics...

you wouldn't think so if you saw my argument, which is as simple as it is elegant.

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.

the essence of existence must be preserved over time because that which exists, persists in existing. the essence of a thing is abstract. the only possible thing that can preserve the essence of an abstract concept over time is memory.

You might as well say that God is the set of all sets that is epistemically closed in a solipsistic manner. I digress. — Wallows

Well, I have a definition for God, of course. If God exists, God cannot be not Self-Aware, that which is self-aware necessarily possesess a will, an imagination, and a memory; so to prove the existence of God, one need only prove that the set of all sets involves memory in its essence, for where there is memory, there are abstract concepts, where there are an expanding number of abstract concepts, there is imagination, and where there is imagination, there is willing, that is, subjectivity.

Imagination, willing, and subjectivity, and God... 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?

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

its not hopeless to draw out why imagination, willing, and memory which together as a trinitarian unity define subjectivity, because where there is one there is necessarily all three. This is because the essence of each necessarily involves the other two, one cannot will without memory or imagination, for example...


it is closed off, so to speak, from all of its past memories, but not epistemologically closed off in the sense that it can retrieve them in its present awareness by means of will and imagination. Absolute Objectivity involves only those aspects of being which remain eternally unchanged, that is, Absolute Memory, or the Absolute Law of Identity (E(t∞) = E(t∞)) and the Absolute Law of Non-Contradiction (E (t, infinity) ≠ ⌐E (t, infinity)), that is, Absolute Time or Duration, which together formulate "Absolute Objectivity" i.e. (E (t, infinity) = E (t, infinity) ≠ ⌐E (t, infinity)). Absolute Objectivity is God Unmanifest. Manifest God doesn't spring forth from the Unmanifest until the Law of Excluded Middle (E (t1, Will) v ⌐E (t1, Will)) comes into being (it may be eternal, it may not be; I haven't decided if it is, or if I can know whether it is or not yet, I just know that it exists). and from there, there is a dialectical developmental process of Consciousness, in which, the change created by the will creates a new concept in memory which is then preserved perfectly as it was in relation to all other current states of being, eternally thereafter, and as a result, the Absolute level of Intuition and Self-Knowledge is raised.

I sense Hegel here. Is that where you're deriving your rationale here because it needs some grounding I suppose.

No, Hegel is a fool, his dialectical process is pretty much correct, but his philosophy is so convoluted and poorly written that he did more harm to idealism than he did good. My philosophy is a mix between Schopenhauer's, Hegel's, Descartes', Spinoza's, and Leibniz's. Believe me when I say that I've expounded on these concepts a great deal and my phenomenology of the will alone is going to make me famous.

I digress.

I digress. — Wallows

if the law of identity isn't eternal, then it came into being once upon a time. if it is eternal, everything that exists is contained within an eternally abstract concept, meaning that space is an illusion and only time and consciousness are absolutely real. if you want to make the case that the law of identity came into being once upon a time, by all means, go right ahead. you can't explain that away without contradicting yourself. hence the reason philosophers today, who are more so fools than they are wise men, avoid the nature of the ground of being altogether and then proceed to create philosophies without knowing its nature. philosophy isn't dead, only man's intellect is dead. All of these post-modern philosophers are, in the universal sense of the word, idiots.

I've not read much of the above. I merely comment that I seem to remember that Russell's Paradox was dismissed by Wittgenstein as being 'aberrant language'. IMO the substantive issue is breakdown of static classical set theory in the context of dynamic perceptual states. If, for example, we consider 'fuzzy sets' in which 'the law of the excluded middle' does not apply then the so called 'paradox' disappears because 'set membership' is fluid.
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.
Classical logicians beware ! :cool:

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

Good God. Cohen did nothing of the sort. He showed (in conjunction with ‎Gödel) that CH was formally independent of ZFC. ‎Both ‎Gödel and Cohen believed that CH is false -- in other words, that it has a definite truth value. Just one that's not accessible via ZFC.

You are confusing syntax with semantics, formal systems with models.

By the way you even stated CH incorrectly. CH doesn't say that there's a set "between Cantor's infinite sets." Rather, the negation of CH is that the real numbers have a cardinality that's larger than Aleph-1. ‎Gödel believed the reals had cardinality Aleph-2. Cohen thought it might be much larger than that. But all the Alephs are Cantor's cardinals.

Thankyou. I stand corrected on the technicalities of Cohen's work. But as an example of 'problems' with classical logic I still claim validity.
I have no idea where you are hoping to go with my alleged 'confusion' between syntax and semantics etc. As far as I'm concerned the contexts in which you want to differentiate between those terms is nothing to do with the context of my anti-classical logic position.
'