"Can God create a rock..."

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
Set theory. An attempt of placing definition on the undefinable. Definitely needed, and helpful really.

Do you know who A represents in the Equation: A if then 1 = 2

If you know who it is, You know why People would deny its existence. Or more correctly ignore that it is there.

a reply to: spy66

I enjoyed reading both of your posts. I spent 1.5 hours going over your original response and this one. I think I should have written my original post as follows

A -> 1 = 2, where A is the statement (1 = 2).

By substitution

(1 = 2) -> (1 = 2)

I didn’t just randomly choose this contradiction. It embodies the nature of the omnipotence paradox. The paradox isn’t a result of applying logic to the definition of the word omnipotence. The paradox is the definition of our concept of omnipotence. It is very much like an inconsistent axiom.

I see that I misinterpreted your use of the term absolute. I think Cantor’s concept of breaking the infinite set down with a sub-multiplicity is relevant here. I see your argument.

I can’t fully comment on your reply because I don’t understand a pivotal point in your post. Take the set S=[A(1)]. You seem to be saying that S is absolute infinite because the cardinality of S is one. In addition the implication is that the universe consists of only this set S, therefore, is infinite. Is this an accurate assessment of your statement? If it is accurate then could you please explain how physical space relates to set theory?

I hope this isn’t drifting from the OPs original intent for this thread.

a reply to: Diderot

This makes my meager paradox of the unmovable rock a trifle

I can't help but feel this is an obtuse reference to the Princess Bride.

Our brains haven't exploded yet. So we seem well equipped to handle the contradictions.

a reply to: compressedFusion

1 = 2 dont change the consept. It can still be the same as A = 1, or A = 2.

This is how i see the consept.

Before 1 Equal 2 you have to define the Properties of 1. In other Words: What is 1 ?

1 is the property that will create the new property 2. So we have to know what 1 is. We have to know if the property of 1 is capable of creating the New property of 2.

If the consept is that the property of 1 is all that exists before it Equals the property of 2. One is the property of absolute infinite. The property of two dont exist until it is created.

If the consept is that 1 is absolute infinite, it is also a absolute contant. Because it takes up all Space there is, and 1 is all there is.

"1 would be the absolute void of absolute constant infinite Space". This Space can never disappear or change.

This creates a problem when it comes to 1 = 2. Becasue we have to define what two is. One thing is for sure, 2 is not 1.

I know that 1 is the absolute void of absolute constant infinte Space. So i know that 2 is not. Because 2 is not 1.

2 is a 3D finite. Because it can not have the exact property of 1. Becasue if it did you would have the Equation: 1 = 1.

If you are With me so far, you know that we have two differnt physical Properties that exist.

1. We have 1 as the absolute void of absolute infintie Space.

2. We have a the property of 2 which is a 3D finite.


The 3D finite "2" is not Space, its mass takes up a volume of absolute infinite Space "1".

- What ever is within the mass of Our universe is not Space, it takes up a volume of finite Space. Which make up the mass of Our finite universe. Add up everything and you get the total finite mass of Our universe.


EDIT:

If you grasp what i have written you will know how 1 created 2. There is only one possibility.

a reply to: TzarChasm

"there are those who will die before reaching the top, never knowing happiness for having made it halfway. that is the curse of perfection. if you do not die while trying to attain it you will die trying to keep it."

We die if we do; we die if we don't.
I say we should try to cheer up this mortal coil.

a reply to: compressedFusion

"Our brains haven't exploded yet. So we seem well equipped to handle the contradictions."

Here I must disagree. Not that our brains have yet to explode, but that we can handle the contradictions.

The human mind is still a confounded, superstitious mass of contradicting folly.

We still are primitive apes who barely have left the savannah.

A simple paradox is a titanium barrier that we have yet to pass, but one day we shall.

a reply to: spy66

Yes... I do.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm

To make this very short. I know you dont understand this.

My initial response was not intened for you anyway. So just forget this and move on.

my apologies. i was denying ignorance. if i nicked you in the process, i assure you it was only with the best intentions.

No, You think you are denying ignorace. That is a big difference when you dont understand the consept i was giving an answer to.

oh, i saw BS and thought id drop a line on it. maybe im not the only one who feels your concept has a few holes in it.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: TzarChasm

"there are those who will die before reaching the top, never knowing happiness for having made it halfway. that is the curse of perfection. if you do not die while trying to attain it you will die trying to keep it."

We die if we do; we die if we don't.
I say we should try to cheer up this mortal coil.

and yet, modern philosophy encourages us to be happy with less, to be less concerned with this existence and more concerned with the overarching theme to the whole of existence...you know what i mean. minimize attachment to optimize nirvana. this suggests to me that one could be just as happy in a cave at the bottom of the mountain. no need to climb the mountain to appreciate it. some would even say that climbing the mountain is just a metaphor for climbing yourself. why not simply learn to be satisfied with who and what you are? all that will really change is how you react to yourself, whether it be by seeking perfection or learning contentedness. there are men who sit in caves all day dressed in rags and eating crusts. they are perfectly content. how is it they can be happy and a millionaire comedian commits suicide? its a matter of want versus need. you want to be perfect. but you dont need to be.

originally posted by: compressedFusion
a reply to: spy66

I enjoyed reading both of your posts. I spent 1.5 hours going over your original response and this one. I think I should have written my original post as follows

A -> 1 = 2, where A is the statement (1 = 2).

By substitution

(1 = 2) -> (1 = 2)

I didn’t just randomly choose this contradiction. It embodies the nature of the omnipotence paradox. The paradox isn’t a result of applying logic to the definition of the word omnipotence. The paradox is the definition of our concept of omnipotence. It is very much like an inconsistent axiom.

I see that I misinterpreted your use of the term absolute. I think Cantor’s concept of breaking the infinite set down with a sub-multiplicity is relevant here. I see your argument.

I can’t fully comment on your reply because I don’t understand a pivotal point in your post. Take the set S=[A(1)]. You seem to be saying that S is absolute infinite because the cardinality of S is one. In addition the implication is that the universe consists of only this set S, therefore, is infinite. Is this an accurate assessment of your statement? If it is accurate then could you please explain how physical space relates to set theory?

I hope this isn’t drifting from the OPs original intent for this thread.

ah, that was somewhat clearer. thank you. now heres where my confusion lies -

"S is absolute infinite because the cardinality of S is one" how has this been established? the cardinality and the nature thereof.

"the universe consists of only this set S" how has this been established?

it feels like there are still a lot of leaps being made without much in the way of linear logic.

Great thread! I loved reading fellow ATS members' contributions and input. Keep it coming


2nd

a reply to: Diderot

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm

To make this very short. I know you dont understand this.

My initial response was not intened for you anyway. So just forget this and move on.

my apologies. i was denying ignorance. if i nicked you in the process, i assure you it was only with the best intentions.

No, You think you are denying ignorace. That is a big difference when you dont understand the consept i was giving an answer to.

oh, i saw BS and thought id drop a line on it. maybe im not the only one who feels your concept has a few holes in it.

I am used to People saying BS. And never putting anything on the table to correct where i have made a mistake.

That means you are not giving anything usfull to the topic. And you are not helping me.

a reply to: Diderot

I don't think its vary hard to equate the concept simply.

You don't even need algebra to see the question is posing a known concept of a rock to an unknown concept of ultimate power.

An untouchable concept such as omni potency and omni presence lends commonality with all that exists. Applying those concepts to a singular object which our minds know to that which is unknowable.

The trick is matching up the denominator.

What does god not do, what god does, what under observation occurs when you try and communicate with an all knowing all powerful force that.... is vocally silent.

I would lend that the only rocks god is capable of creating are metaphorical, despite seeing forces in nature that can do almost immeasurable feats of power and destruction. The procession of the universe and its large living and exotic spheres. There a lot of big stones being moved around.... via observation. But as far as we know all existing and all power isn't moving these things because its not observable.

Thats... a judgement call, not true observation. No more then looking at a child whose smeared his lunch all over the walls and hearing "The dog did it." You cant be sure... but there's fingerprints we don't understand.

I would also volunteer that if one equates god with all existence we cannot be apart from it, though should we all unite like ants would we be bound like Sisyphus to push a rock... metaphorical or otherwise.

I contend god has already made a stone it could not in its infinite power lift and that would be its own free will. Or our own.

On the other hand asking if god can make and ice-cream sammich so large it couldn't eat it would be like trying to stir a pot with your dogs sense of humor.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm

To make this very short. I know you dont understand this.

My initial response was not intened for you anyway. So just forget this and move on.

my apologies. i was denying ignorance. if i nicked you in the process, i assure you it was only with the best intentions.

No, You think you are denying ignorace. That is a big difference when you dont understand the consept i was giving an answer to.

oh, i saw BS and thought id drop a line on it. maybe im not the only one who feels your concept has a few holes in it.

I am used to People saying BS. And never putting anything on the table to correct where i have made a mistake.

That means you are not giving anything usfull to the topic. And you are not helping me.

1 =/= 2 theres your correction. one does not equal two. and 'A' is not infinite because 1 is not infinite, so thats scuppered as well. show me a mathematical theorem that proves your statement and i will concede. all you have to do is show me. save the excuses for someone else.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: TzarChasm

To make this very short. I know you dont understand this.

My initial response was not intened for you anyway. So just forget this and move on.

my apologies. i was denying ignorance. if i nicked you in the process, i assure you it was only with the best intentions.

No, You think you are denying ignorace. That is a big difference when you dont understand the consept i was giving an answer to.

oh, i saw BS and thought id drop a line on it. maybe im not the only one who feels your concept has a few holes in it.

I am used to People saying BS. And never putting anything on the table to correct where i have made a mistake.

That means you are not giving anything usfull to the topic. And you are not helping me.

1 =/= 2 theres your correction. one does not equal two. and 'A' is not infinite because 1 is not infinite, so thats scuppered as well. show me a mathematical theorem that proves your statement and i will concede. all you have to do is show me. save the excuses for someone else.

How did you get 1 = / = 2 from the Equation A -> (1 = 2) ?

The Equation: A -> (1 = 2) or 1 = 2 is false within mathematics.

a reply to: spy66

How did you get 1 = / = 2 from the Equation A -> (1 = 2) ?

its an invalid supposition. unless you can prove it is valid.

The Equation: A -> (1 = 2) or 1 = 2 is false within mathematics.

thats what ive been saying!

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: spy66

How did you get 1 = / = 2 from the Equation A -> (1 = 2) ?

its an invalid supposition. unless you can prove it is valid.

The Equation: A -> (1 = 2) or 1 = 2 is false within mathematics.

thats what ive been saying!

But i could still explain the consept non the less. And that is what i did.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: spy66

How did you get 1 = / = 2 from the Equation A -> (1 = 2) ?

its an invalid supposition. unless you can prove it is valid.

The Equation: A -> (1 = 2) or 1 = 2 is false within mathematics.

thats what ive been saying!

But i could still explain the consept non the less. And that is what i did.

not that you made it anymore plausible in doing so.

a reply to: TzarChasm

" no need to climb the mountain to appreciate it. some would even say that climbing the mountain is just a metaphor for climbing yourself."

To me, a mountain unclimbed is a mountain yet to be appreciated,
and many of us fail to climb the mountain within.

To achieve ecstasy, we must surpass the summit and look down upon ourselves to see our place in this world.

The astral journey is really a journey to the depths of one's soul.

a reply to: FamCore

Hello FamCore,

"Great thread! I loved reading fellow ATS members' contributions and input. Keep it coming"

Sometimes I feel like a raging river, and by God, I shall reach the sea!