Is religion dying?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Falsehood is real, but it doesn't exist.

So how do you know, it doesn't exist. Do you literal do nothing to know that?

 

[viole]

married-bachelor is a contradiction. empty-set is a contradiction. open-closed is a contradiction. right-left is a contradiction. black-white is a contradiction. etc...

No, it is not a contradiction to say that there are no married bachelors. None whatsoever. in fact, it is very true. Ergo, we can make sense of sentences involving married bachelors without introducing contradictions very easily.

And also this statements of yours fails, in general.

any contradiction put into a set is not empty. the contradiction itself is the element, object, construct, which is contained in the set. A set can contain an idea. the contradiction is the idea.

What? No. the sentence "the set whose elements are married bachelors" does not contain the sentence, or the idea, or whatever you have in mind. It contains married bachelors. By definition. Following your reasoning, I could say that the set of all Jews contain the idea of Jews, and that therefore has only one element. Which is obviously false.

married-bachelor IS the element. Here, like this: 1 >>>> { 1 }. Married-bachelor >>>>> { Married-bachelor }. Null >>>>>> { Null }. Contradiction >>>>> { Contradiction }.

Not at all. The set of married bachelors is a well defined, not contradicting idea. What would be a contradiction if it contained one married bachelor. But it doesn't, because it can be proved to be empty. Ego, no contradiction.

t's because you are ignoring the cognitive step where the definition of set is being applied to the concept "empty". Its happening automatically, instantaneously, and without your awareness. When the definition is applied, that is when the set is being generated and "empty" becomes the element. This is what I meant previously when I said that {} is being conflated with { {} }.

Nobody conflated {} with { {} }. This is, I am afraid, only in your mind. For the simple reason that {} and { {} } are two very different sets.

Can't be. Singleton, finite, infinite all have elements. The so-called "empty-set" has none.

According to this logic, I could say that infinite sets are not sets, because the empty, singleton and finite sets contain all a finite amount of elements.

Therefore, it is a non sequitur. Again, I am afraid.

The empty set is just one type of set. Nothing more, nothing less. One with no elements. And that is why all definitions call it a set, a type of set, etc. Otherwise they would not have called it a set, don't you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Well, the problem is that if you can talk about a contradiction but it doesn't exist, how can you then talk about it, because you talking, is doing something, unless you are actual doing really nothing. But how do you do that?

Let me explain what is going on. A contradiction is the experience of a feeling of being off, but that is still a feeling. It is just a negative feeling. So what you are talking about is the limit of human cognition as to always make positive sense, but it doesn't.
In empirical terms you are having a first person internal and not external sensory experience of a negative.
Your idea is that the world is logic and I just say no.

I disagree. That's not what is happening with me. There's two ways of understanding. One way is intellectual. That is what I am doing in this thread. There's another way which is emotional. That is not what I am doing in this thread.

 

[viole]

Yes, "All elements" assumes that "elements" exist.

No it doesn't. Suppose that I say: "all guys in this room that speak German: raise your hand!". Do you think that this requires the assumption that there is at least one in the room that speaks German, in order to make sense? Of course not.

Therefore, your argumentation is based on a false premise.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I disagree. That's not what is happening with me. There's two ways of understanding. One way is intellectual. That is what I am doing in this thread. There's another way which is emotional. That is not what I am doing in this thread.

Well, we do empiricism, ontology and logic differently. And that exists.

 

[dybmh]

No, it is not a contradiction to say that there are no married bachelors. None whatsoever. in fact, it is very true. Ergo, we can make sense of sentences involving married bachelors without introducing contradictions very easily.

And also this statements of yours fails, in general.

The contradiction is in the concept itself. Then another contradiction occurs anytime a person makes a postive claim about this contradiction except for one.

Married-bachelors have blue hair? False, there is no hair and it certainly isn't blue.
Married-bachelors have big feet? False, there are no feet, and they certainly aren't big.

Married-bachelors don't exist? True ( this is also not a positve claim )
There are no married-bachelors? True ( this is the only positive claim that can be made about them )

What? No. the sentence "the set whose elements are married bachelors" does not contain the sentence, or the idea, or whatever you have in mind. It contains married bachelors. By definition. Following your reasoning, I could say that the set of all Jews contain the idea of Jews, and that therefore has only one element. Which is obviously false.

The set of "all Jews" contains the idea of "Jews". The set of any idea, any concept, anything you can imagine or name, is a set that contains at least 1 element. If this is obviously false as claimed. Attempt to prove it, and I will show the fault.

Can sets contain ideas, or not?

Not at all. The set of married bachelors is a well defined, not contradicting idea. What would be a contradiction if it contained one married bachelor. But it doesn't, because it can be proved to be empty. Ego, no contradiction.

Yes, and when you well-define it, that is the cognitive step which is applying a definition to it, which makes the concept "married-bachelor" an element. The contradiction occurs when a person denies that "married-bachelor" is an idea which is being included in a set.

Nobody conflated {} with { {} }. This is, I am afraid, only in your mind. For the simple reason that {} and { {} } are two very different sets.

{} is not a set if it has no elements. As soon as it is made into a set by applying the definition to it, {} is being conflated with { {} }.

According to this logic, I could say that infinite sets are not sets, because the empty, singleton and finite sets contain all a finite amount of elements.

False. That is not what I said. I said the opposite. If you cannot make an argument without changing what I'm saying then, you lose.

Singleton, finite, infinite all have elements. The so-called "empty-set" has none.

Infinite sets have elements. They are a set. That is what I said. The so-called "empty-set" has no elements. It is not a set.

The empty set is just one type of set. Nothing more, nothing less. One with no elements. And that is why all definitions call it a set, a type of set, etc. Otherwise they would not have called it a set, don't you think?

No. The "empty-set" is the opposite of a set. A set contains elements, and the "empty-set" does not.

By your so-called logic:

an un-truth a type of truth, or else why did they call it un-truth?
a dis-joint is a type of joint, or else why did they call it dis-joint?
an A-theist is a type of theist, or else why did they call it A-theist?

So, that argument doesn't work.

 

[dybmh]

No it doesn't. Suppose that I say: "all guys in this room that speak German: raise your hand!". Do you think that this requires the assumption that there is at least one in the room that speaks German, in order to make sense? Of course not.

Therefore, your argumentation is based on a false premise.

Ciao

- viole

Equivocation fallacy.

"All guys in this room that speak German: raise you hand!" =/= "All guys in this room that speak German are raising their hands"

 

[dybmh]

So how do you know, it doesn't exist. Do you literal do nothing to know that?

It's the same experiment I offered before. Right now, lift up your hand, open it, flip it over, shake it out. Any statement made about what you see in your hand will be false. That is falsehood. It describes what does not objectively exist.

 

[dybmh]

Well, we do empiricism, ontology and logic differently. And that exists.

How are we doing logic differently?

 

[viole]

Married-bachelors have blue hair? False, there is no hair and it certainly isn't blue.
Married-bachelors have big feet? False, there are no feet, and they certainly aren't big.

The claim is that all married bachelors have blue hair, and that is certainly true. There is no contradiction whatsoever, for the simple reason that there are no married bachelors.

Look, this is simple logic, and it rests on the principle of the excluded middle.

It is either true or false that all married bachelors have blue hair. Let's prove it is not false, and it is therefore true. The claim "all married bachelors have blue hair" is false if and only if there is at least one married bachelor that does not have blue hair. But this is clearly impossible, because there are no married bachelors at all, not to speak of the ones having any hair color. Ergo, the claim "all married bachelors have blue hair" cannot be false, and it is therefore true.

Out of the basic laws of logic. And for sure no contradiction whatsoever arises from the claim.

The set of "all Jews" contains the idea of "Jews". The set of any idea, any concept, anything you can imagine or name, is a set that contains at least 1 element. If this is obviously false as claimed. Attempt to prove it, and I will show the fault.

Can sets contain ideas, or not?

Yes, if they are defined as the set of ideas. But the set of married bachelors is defined as the set of married bachelors. And a married bachelor is not an idea of a married bachelor.

Therefore, your deduction is based on a category error.

Yes, and when you well-define it, that is the cognitive step which is applying a definition to it, which makes the concept "married-bachelor" an element. The contradiction occurs when a person denies that "married-bachelor" is an idea which is being included in a set.

The empty set is extremely well deigned. It is actually the simplest definition for a certain type of set.
And again, the set of X, does not contain the idea of X, since X and ideas of X are different object. So, thinking otherwise is confusing things with their idea which is a category error.

{} is not a set if it has no elements. As soon as it is made into a set by applying the definition to it, {} is being conflated with { {} }.

Of course it is. It is defined as a set. It is not defined as a horse with no elements. Or as US president with no elements. It is a set. And all definitions you can find stress that.

And this thing that it is conflated with {{}}, is something that only you do. Nobody would say anything so absurd, otherwise. Because you cannot possibly conceive something as simple of a set with no elements. And I really wonder why. What is simpler than that?

And what do you mean, as soon it is made into a set? It is already a set. By definition.

alse. That is not what I said. I said the opposite. If you cannot make an argument without changing what I'm saying then, you lose.

Well, it is a fact that singleton, infinite sets, finite sets, empty sets they all belong to the same category. They are all set. And the fact that one type is different from the others, does not invalidate inclusion. in the category. The empty is a set, defined as a set since it has been incepted. All mathematicians in the world would consider that as obvious as 2+2=4.

So, you are fighting against something that does not correspond to the definition.

o. The "empty-set" is the opposite of a set. A set contains elements, and the "empty-set" does not.

Not true. There is no assumption that a set must contain at least one element in order to be called a set A set is a collection of objects, and that collection can be empty, as all definitions you will find everywhere will confirm to you. Give me a source of your liking, and I will show you where it says exactly that.

an un-truth a type of truth, or else why did they call it un-truth?
a dis-joint is a type of joint, or else why did they call it dis-joint?
an A-theist is a type of theist, or else why did they call it A-theist?

Do you thing that the statement "2+2=5 is false" is not true?
C'mon.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Equivocation fallacy.

"All guys in this room that speak German: raise you hand!" =/= "All guys in this room that speak German are raising their hands"

It is different, but both true. If there are no German speaking guys in the room, then it is the case that all of them are raising their hands. Can you see one who doesn't? Of course not. Therefore they all do that.

So, I am not sure what your point is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

The claim is that all married bachelors have blue hair, and that is certainly true. There is no contradiction whatsoever, for the simple reason that there are no married bachelors.

Married bachelors don't have any hair. It certainly isn't blue.

Look, this is simple logic, and it rests on the principle of the excluded middle.

OK, let's read your logic, and I will color code the faults. The red is a false assumption. The blue are contraditions.

It is either true or false that all married bachelors have blue hair. Let's prove it is not false, and it is therefore true. The claim "all married bachelors have blue hair" is false if and only if there is at least one married bachelor that does not have blue hair. But this is clearly impossible, because there are no married bachelors at all, not to speak of the ones having any hair color. Ergo, the claim "all married bachelors have blue hair" cannot be false, and it is therefore true.

Do you see what happened?

1) This is illogic of the highest order. Something is not assumed to be true unless it can be proven false.
2) You attempted to prove it is false, but since there is nothing to compare, nothing to observe, no hair at all, you didn't prove anything false. And then you attempted to claim that you did. You proved nothing.

Out of the basic laws of logic. And for sure no contradiction whatsoever arises from the claim.

The entire claim is a contradiction if you KNOW that there are no married-bachelors.

Yes, if they are defined as the set of ideas. But the set of married bachelors is defined as the set of married bachelors. And a married bachelor is not an idea of a married bachelor.

Now you're stuck. You just claimed that a married-bachelor is not an idea of a married-bachelor. Prove it.
It is obvious and true that married-bachelor IS an idea of a married-bachelor.

Therefore, your deduction is based on a category error.

Denying that married-bachelor is an idea is delusional.

The empty set is extremely well deigned. It is actually the simplest definition for a certain type of set.
And again, the set of X, does not contain the idea of X, since X and ideas of X are different object. So, thinking otherwise is confusing things with their idea which is a category error.

Nope. X is an idea. It can be a set of ideas, or just an individual idea. It could be a sound, a number, a bird, anything you want, or nothing at all.

Of course it is. It is defined as a set.

It is defined as the opposite of a set. Just like A-theism.

It is not defined as a horse with no elements. Or as US president with no elements. It is a set. And all definitions you can find stress that.

No, the definition from Drexel, does not. Any defintion you find, IF you do not crop out the qualifier, defines it as not having elements. It is defined by negation. It is defined by what it isn't.

And this thing that it is conflated with {{}}, is something that only you do. Nobody would say anything so absurd, otherwise. Because you cannot possibly conceive something as simple of a set with no elements. And I really wonder why. What is simpler than that?

Sure I can conceive of it. It's properly conceived in opposition. As soon as it is not in opposition, it's gained an element.

And what do you mean, as soon it is made into a set? It is already a set. By definition.

Asked and answered. It is no different than 1 >>> { 1 }. Here the concept of 1 is made into a set, by applying the definition to it. Shirts and shoes as concepts become { Shirts,Shoes }when the defintion is applied to them. "empty" becomes a set when the definition of set is applied to it. And as soon as that definition is applied to it, "empty" becomes an element.

Well, it is a fact that singleton, infinite sets, finite sets, empty sets they all belong to the same category. They are all set.

The only way to make this true is to define "empty" as an element.

And the fact that one type is different from the others, does not invalidate inclusion.

It does if the type is opposite from inclusion.

The empty is a set, defined as a set since it has been incepted. All mathematicians in the world would consider that as obvious as 2+2=4.

Flat-earth thinking. Ad-pop fallacy.

So, you are fighting against something that does not correspond to the definition.

Nope I am understanding the definition properly. I am not selectivley ignoring half of it.

Not true. There is no assumption that a set must contain at least one element in order to be called a set A set is a collection of objects, and that collection can be empty, as all definitions you will find everywhere will confirm to you. Give me a source of your liking, and I will show you where it says exactly that.

Ah! This is another logical fault. If it doesn't exclude from the definition, it includes it.

"There is no assumption that a set must contain at least one element in order to be called a set A set is a collection of objects"

Yes, there is an correct assumption that it must contain at least one element. Otherwise it is not a collection of elements.

When something is defined, it doesn't list all the things it isn't. That's impossible. When you read a recipe, does it tell you all the things it doesn't have? No! If I offer you a glass of water, can I replace it with vodka simply because I didn't say, "would you like a glass of water, not vodka?" This is where it becomes like a criminal mind-set.

A criminal convinces themself it's OK to steal in a number of ways. One way is, "you didn't tell me NOT to take it." This is usually in the form of "if they didn't want it stolen, they shouldn't have left it in their car" or "they shouldn't have left their door open" or "I don't see your name on it".

When the set is defined as a collection of elements, that means it has elements in it or else it's not a set. If you order chicken soup at a restaurant, and it is missing chicken, are you saying you have no right to complain? Is it chicken soup if it has ZERO chicken in it?

Do you thing that the statement "2+2=5 is false" is not true?
C'mon.

It's a perfect example. Notice, "is false" is negation. It is a negative claim. Yes, you can make a negative claim about something that doesn't exist.

Let's apply it.

"All the Jews I know are Atheist" is false if I don't know any Jews. "I know" is a positive claim.
"All the Jews I know aren't Atheist" is false if I don't know any Jews. "I know" is a positive claim.

"I don't know any Jews that are Atheist" is true if I don't know any Jews. "I don't know" is a negative claim.
"I don't know any Jews that aren't Atheist" is true if I don't know any Jews. "I don't know" is a negative claim.

This last one is a little sneaky, but at least it's true.

 

[dybmh]

It is different, but both true. If there are no German speaking guys in the room, then it is the case that all of them are raising their hands. Can you see one who doesn't? Of course not. Therefore they all do that.

So, I am not sure what your point is.

Ciao

- viole

Nope. If no guys who speak German are in the room, there are no hands to raise. This proof by contradiction fails everytime when speaking about something that doesn't exist in reality.

You are claiming that non-existent guys are raising their hands. This is the opposite of reality. If you think it's true, then that is delusional.

And if your claim is "But that's the way it's defined." Then the definition does not match reality and the definition needs to be changed or discarded in favor of something that produces true conclusions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's the same experiment I offered before. Right now, lift up your hand, open it, flip it over, shake it out. Any statement made about what you see in your hand will be false. That is falsehood. It describes what does not objectively exist.

Yeah and real doesn't objectively exist, because it is an idea in your mind. You have build your system on a falsehood and even that is not real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How are we doing logic differently?

I don't confuse ontology and logic. And to know true and false is a first person cognitive act and not a part of objective reality.
Now after reading this, point to truth like you can point to your hand, if you have one.

And there is no existence out there, because you can't point to that either. The same with real.

 

[dybmh]

Yeah and real doesn't objectively exist, because it is an idea in your mind. You have build your system on a falsehood and even that is not real.

Real includes both what exists and what doesn't exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Real includes both what exists and what doesn't exist.

See above your post.

 

[dybmh]

See above your post.

Please quote it and comment on it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't confuse ontology and logic. And to know true and false is a first person cognitive act and not a part of objective reality.
Now after reading this, point to truth like you can point to your hand, if you have one.

And there is no existence out there, because you can't point to that either. The same with real.

Here you go @dybmh

 

[dybmh]

I don't confuse ontology and logic. And to know true and false is a first person cognitive act and not a part of objective reality.
Now after reading this, point to truth like you can point to your hand, if you have one.

And there is no existence out there, because you can't point to that either. The same with real.

I don't think this answers the question I asked. I asked "How are we doing logic differenly?"

If a person does not accept true and false, then they cannot do logic at all.

Are you maybe saying "I don't do logic." ??