Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[Trailblazer]

I meant it's true only for those who believe it. And there are also others who believe differently and for them something other is true.

I have to translate my thoughts to English. I don't know if I'm correctly using the word "for"...

Yes, I understood what you meant, but I was trying to put a different spin on things.
So when I said that God manifests Himself for everyone, not only for those who believe it is true, I meant that the Manifestations of God are sent for everyone, not only for those who believe in them. In other words, what they reveal in their teachings and laws can help everyone, not only those who follow them.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sorry for the delay, real life got in the way of posting here for a while.

A material example doesn't work because in the beginning there are no material objects.

So what difference does that make? Even you are telling us that god created the material.

I am talking about a God concept which is infinite in a domain where there is only God and nothing else.

Again, so what? If god is omnipotent, it could create a material world that was still perfect, and would still be different ('other') because it would be material and finite. You have still provided no logic just wittered on about infinite numbers. Anyway, doesn't the bible promise a perfect future anyway?

1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”​

Revelation 21:1-4 NIV​

 

[Trailblazer]

Anyway, doesn't the bible promise a perfect future anyway?

1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”​

Revelation 21:1-4 NIV​

I believe that God promised a 'better' future for humanity, but I don't believe it will be perfect. As long as we live on Earth, which is a mterial world, there will always be the problems that go along with life in a material world, such as having to make a living and having a physical body that is subject to accidents, injuries, pain and disease. I believe there will be fewer accidents and injuries as mankind evolves spiritually and disease has the potential to be lessened and even eradicated as as science evolves and makes new discoveries, but Earth will never be problem-free like Heaven is. I think that the attitude towards death will be much different in the future but I do nointerpret those verses literally since there will always be physical death since humans are mortal beings.

 

[dybmh]

Sorry for the delay, real life got in the way of posting here for a while.

No problem, thanks for getting back to me.

So what difference does that make? Even you are telling us that god created the material.

OK, you brought the example of human parents, and proposed that God should be able to create like human parents do. ( If I'm understanding ). I objected saying that this doesn't work because God is immaterial. At that point, our dialogue had become hostile, so I wasn't offering any detail.

The reason that it matters is that material is defined by its borders, it's defined by what seperates it from the other material objects. Immaterial doesn't do that. It's the opposite of material, it has no borders to define it. So, if in the beginning there was only-god, only this singular infinite immaterial being, under these conditions, creating any other thing requires a specific multiple step process. For human parents, these initial required steps have already taken place. There already exists material which defines each individual "thing". There is already a womb, a negative space, to contain this new being.

Yes, there is a small criticism that can be raised by this. Claiming creation *requires* a specific multi-step process sounds like it contradicts omnipotence. But I don't think that's valid for the following reasons:

1. Creating, itself, is a binary decision. Create OR Not-Create. That's it. There are no mutiple options. But it's not a limitation on omnipotence, it's a choice.
2. Omni-benevolent is also a choice. Not a limitation. The omnipotent could choose to do evil, but it doesn't. The multi-step process is a result of this choice to be omnibenevolent.
3. The reasons for the required specific multi-step process follows from these two choices. They are self-imposed limitations. That's what a choice is. But that does not contradict omnipotence. Omnipotence is defined by making choices.

So, solving the problem of evil by requiring a specific creative process is not a limitation I'm imposing on the omnipotent. The omnipotent is making choices. Those choices render a specific process and a specific creation. Making different choices would render a different creation. The omnipotent could have done that. But it didn't.

My claim is: the omnipotent can choose to be omnibenevolent and create a world which includes suffering and evil without compromising either omnipotence nor omnibenevolence, and this solves the problem of evil. To do that God needs to be defined properly, creation needs to be defined properly, evil needs to be defined properly.

Again, so what? If god is omnipotent, it could create a material world that was still perfect, and would still be different ('other') because it would be material and finite.

Not really no. The perfection that you seem to be describing cannot exist independent and seperate from the tri-omni god.

You have still provided no logic just wittered on about infinite numbers.

Logic begins with proper defintions. Without it "square=circle" is perfectly logical, they're both closed shapes. And I didn't say numbers. If I recall, I gave an example of nullification, and I used the true statement of "infinity + infinity = infinity" to illustrate what I meant.

If god is perfect, creating a pefect world, is not creating anything at all, the perfect world would immediately reassimilate back into the source just like Infinity+infinity=infinity.

This is where the discussion broke down, because, what I'm actually saying is being ignored and replaced with something else. This is why I asked you an important question and you didn't answer. I think that needs to be answered before moving on.

I am talking about a God concept which is infinite in a domain where there is only God and nothing else.

That's all. There are two words here which I think you understand. infinite and only. That's all that's needed.

Are you refusing to consider this god concept? If so, why?

Refusal. The conversation had broken down at that point. I think reluctance is a better word. While you were gone I had a high-level converstation with another person here, and ultimately the other person was *reluctant* to consider god in the manner I was describing. because of that, the discussion couldn't continue.

So, if you refuse to consider god in the manner I'm describing, that doesn't mean I am not speaking logically. You would need to bring reasons why that god-concept should be ruled out. But if the concept is never considered, refused, then you aren't bringing anything but a strawman.

So, I'll respond to the last issue you raised in your reply. But after that, we cannot move on without some commitment to consider the god concept I am actually describing. That means shedding the preconceived notions. Forget about scripture. Ignore the fleshy-father-king-priest-dying-rising-god hybrid. And let's start fresh. Let me describe the tri-omni god concept which solves the problem of evil, and consider what I'm actually saying without any interference?

Will you consider it? The actual god I'm describing? Are you reluctant? If so, why?

Anyway, doesn't the bible promise a perfect future anyway? Revelation 21:1-4 NIV

The bible is irrelevant at this point. While I do think that it fits with what I'm saying, that does not mean it literally fits. One of the main problems that comes from including the bible in any debate is that many people do not differentiate between the different types of divine revelation that the souce/author/compiler/whomever intended.

For the book Revelation, it's a vision; that is not word of God prophecy. It's more like a dream, and interpretting it is going to be like dream interpretation. I don't know the book well, but I would not claim that anything in it is literally true. There might be true concepts in it. But connecting it to the discussion at this point is premature.

 

[ratiocinator]

The reason that it matters is that material is defined by its borders, it's defined by what seperates it from the other material objects. Immaterial doesn't do that. It's the opposite of material, it has no borders to define it. So, if in the beginning there was only-god, only this singular infinite immaterial being, under these conditions, creating any other thing requires a specific multiple step process.

Non sequitur. Why? Nothing in your long post properly explains this. A logical argument involves defined premises, a set of logical steps that lead to a defined conclusion. You have posted nothing that resembles that.

On the subject of borders, why would it matter if the immaterial creates the material? That in itself, according to what you've said, creates borders. As an aside, what about the borders between god, angels, Satan, and souls (assuming you accept any of these and consider them all to be immaterial)?

Creating, itself, is a binary decision. Create OR Not-Create. That's it. There are no mutiple options. But it's not a limitation on omnipotence, it's a choice.

Nonsensical. Creation involves multiple choices. Even if I accepted your assertion that evil was necessary to be 'other', then there are multiple possible material universes and beings that would meet that requirement.

Omni-benevolent is also a choice. Not a limitation. The omnipotent could choose to do evil, but it doesn't. The multi-step process is a result of this choice to be omnibenevolent.

Another non sequitur and for the same reason as above. You can't just assert that a conclusion follows from what you said, you have to show your working.

The reasons for the required specific multi-step process follows from these two choices.

How? Again, nothing resembling a logical argument.

Logic begins with proper defintions.

It does, take note.

If I recall, I gave an example of nullification, and I used the true statement of "infinity + infinity = infinity" to illustrate what I meant.

You did, unfortunately you haven't defined your terms. 'Infinity' is ambiguous - there are an infinite number of different infinities* - and it's not at all clear how any of them relate to your assertions. You also used the term 'domain' which has a number of colloquial meanings as well as a strict mathematical one.

So, if you refuse to consider god in the manner I'm describing, that doesn't mean I am not speaking logically.

You haven't really properly defined the god you are 'describing', you've just made a lot of assertions about the consequences. I'm happy enough to consider a god in any of the ways you've directly described it so far (or any non-contradictory concept of god that anybody wants to use, for that matter), but what you've said is riddled with ambiguity and bare assertions about consequences. I don't think that you're not speaking logically because of your concept of god but because you don't seem to get the distinction between logic and assertion.

As I said, if you want to use logic you need to define your premises (presumably about your god-concept), properly distinct from the logical steps that go from that concept to your conclusion (presumably, the necessity of evil). You can't define a god in terms of the conclusion that you want to draw from it (e.g. something like "I define god as a being that can't create anything without creating evil"), that just becomes a bare assertion, not logic.

The bible is irrelevant at this point.

Okay, fine. But even ignoring the points I've made that relate to it, I'm still left with no properly defined concept of god and no logic that gets me to your conclusions.

---

* To be technical about it, if we take a 'standard' idea of 'infinity' to be the cardinality ('size') of the set of natural numbers, i.e. {0, 1, 2, 3,...}, referred to as aleph-zero, then it's true that aleph-zero + aleph-zero = aleph-zero, but 2 raised to the power of aleph-zero,is a different matter, it has a different (larger) cardinality. Are you limiting god's creation to addition?

 

[dybmh]

I'm happy enough to consider a god in any of the ways you've directly described it so far (or any non-contradictory concept of god that anybody wants to use, for that matter), but what you've said is riddled with ambiguity and bare assertions about consequences.

Great!

This is what I said, and where it needs to begin.

"I am talking about a God concept which is infinite in a domain where there is only God and nothing else."

That's the beginining. Not numeric infinity. Infinite in all manner, expanding forever in all dimensions in a every conceivable manner.

This infinity includes omnipotence, a unity without any division, eternity. It was not created. It always was, is and will be.

Good so far?

in your long post

To avoid complaints about long posts, we can just go one step at a time.

A logical argument involves defined premises, a set of logical steps that lead to a defined conclusion. You have posted nothing that resembles that.

We need defintions first. This is a very complicated topic. Many have tried to solve the problem of evil. I am attempting something few, if any, have accomplished. Once we get to the end, if we get to the end. I will be happy to type out something that shows the logical flow.

 

[ratiocinator]

"I am talking about a God concept which is infinite in a domain where there is only God and nothing else."

This is still rather vague. Again, the word 'domain' is ambiguous. As for infinity, well you've said more, so here goes...

That's the beginining. Not numeric infinity. Infinite in all manner, expanding forever in all dimensions in a every conceivable manner.

It's unclear to me how you are going to precisely define 'infinity' without recourse to mathematics.

Now we also have an expanding infinity. It is certainly possible for something infinite to expand (space may be infinite and expanding but that requires a careful definition of what is meant). I don't see what you mean here, however.

You've also added 'dimensions'. This is again unclear as the term is again ambiguous, but for something to be expanding into them implies a very physical interpretation, which seems to be at odds with other things you've claimed. The ending with "in a every conceivable manner" doesn't seem to mean anything at all.

This infinity includes omnipotence, a unity without any division, eternity. It was not created. It always was, is and will be.

I get omnipotence and I'll accept no division but you've then brought temporal concepts into it: "...expanding forever.." and "...eternity. It was not created. It always was, is and will be". All these terms imply the existence of time, which is, again, a physical concept. (Space-)time is a physical part of this universe.

To use a definition in logic, you're going to have to be much more precise and be clear what you mean when you use apparently entirely physical concepts to describe something that you claim is non-material.

To avoid complaints about long posts, we can just go one step at a time.

I wasn't really complaining about its length per se, just that you'd written a lot and none of it contained the explanation I was looking for. Anyway, it's probably better to take it in shorter posts because each of your points seems require additional clarification.

 

[dybmh]

it's probably better to take it in shorter posts because each of your points seems require additional clarification.

I agree.

Again, the word 'domain' is ambiguous.

Try including it with the words following it... "domain where there is nothing else." So, what I am describing is that this being is infinite and completely alone. You could replace it with the word solitary.

"I am talking about a God concept which is infinite and solitary."

It's unclear to me how you are going to precisely define 'infinity' without recourse to mathematics.

Whatever I use is going to be a model. Do you agree accept a model and try to imagine it in your mind?

There are different ways to model infinity. One way is to use mathematics. But that fails quickly. I like to model it as an infinite relational database where each object in reality is defined including events. Physical objects, physical actions, ideas, symbols, and the attributes defining them all of them is included in this database. Each object is linked to the others in many-to-many relationships. It's important to consider the negations of these objects as well. For example, the events included in the database would be past events, current events, future events. But also the database would include events that didn't happen, aren't happening and won't happen. Including free-will there is also could-be events that are resolved in real time.

Once these events are broken out moment to moment, and the could-be events are considered, and all of the corresponding could-be events that are triggered by the resolution of could-be into was and wasn't, a person can start to comprehend literal infinity. But it's just a model. It's kind of like imaging all of reality ( what was, what wasn't, what is, what isn't, what will be, what won't, and what could-be ) as an exploded view of all the parts in detail of a car.

So math won't get us there. Generally people imagine infinity on a number line. That certainly won't work.

Now we also have an expanding infinity. You've also added 'dimensions'. This is again unclear as the term is again ambiguous, but for something to be expanding into them implies a very physical interpretation,

Ah. Sorry. I skipped a word. It's not expanding into the dimensions. It's own dimensions, all of them are expanding, and each of the dimensions, it's own dimensions, are increasing in quantity as well. Let me add a few tiny words, and add a colon...

"Infinite in all manner: expanding forever in all of its dimensions in a every conceivable manner."

And it's not spacial, not physical, these dimensions of infinity itself are expanding in detail. And the dimensions themself are increasing as well. Maybe think of a matrix, an array, for keeping track of everything and all the attibutes that define everything. And the attributes themself are included in the array as well. Then cross reference everything. It's expanding in detail.. endlessly. Not physical though.

To use a definition in logic, you're going to have to be much more precise and be clear

We're getting there. I just left out a few words and a colon. And this is before creation of space and time so, I'm not talking about expanding into space. There is no space. There is only this infinite omnipotent being.

Infinite is modeled as the relational database which includes all of reality, all the different versions of existence, all objects, all actions, all ideas, all symbols, all attributes, all events, every moment, all possibilites, and their negations. The objects of this database are increasing in quantity, and in detail, endlessly. Each of these objects is a dimension of this database. So the dimensions themself are increasing, and they are also expanding in detail, and the database itself is expanding in detail.

Each object in a way gets lost, nullified, in the endless expansion of detail. Each class/catagory/dimension gets nullified. Absolutely everything that can be imagined, big small, groups or individuals... they are are nullified and completely united in literal infinity.

So... creating anything apart and distinct from this literal infinty is going to be real challenge.

 

[ratiocinator]

Try including it with the words following it... "domain where there is nothing else." So, what I am describing is that this being is infinite and completely alone. You could replace it with the word solitary.

This doesn't really clear up the ambiguity of 'domain'. FWIW, what I think you mean is something like "all of the non-material reality" (obviously assuming that there is a non-material reality).

Whatever I use is going to be a model. Do you agree accept a model and try to imagine it in your mind?

Yes, but you need to be precise about what your model is. If you're going to use it as a premiss for a logical argument, then vague hand-waving will not do.

I like to model it as an infinite relational database where each object in reality is defined including events. Physical objects, physical actions, ideas, symbols, and the attributes defining them all of them is included in this database. Each object is linked to the others in many-to-many relationships. It's important to consider the negations of these objects as well. For example, the events included in the database would be past events, current events, future events. But also the database would include events that didn't happen, aren't happening and won't happen.

Two problems. Firstly, an infinite relational database, which consists of discrete items, is almost certainly the same cardinality as aleph-zero, so you haven't escaped mathematics at all. Secondly, you're trying to apply this to your immaterial 'domain' which you claimed had no borders and hence has no individual events or items. You seem to be describing a database of the material reality and its possible different forms and histories, so I don't see how this can describe your immaterial 'domain'.

Including free-will there is also could-be events that are resolved in real time.

Here is another large can or worms. 'Free will', in the sense that many people understand it, is not a logically self-consistent concept in any way I've seen it defined. If this is going to be an important feature of your argument, then you need to define that too.

And it's not spacial, not physical, these dimensions of infinity itself are expanding in detail. And the dimensions themself are increasing as well. Maybe think of a matrix, an array, for keeping track of everything and all the attibutes that define everything. And the attributes themself are included in the array as well. Then cross reference everything. It's expanding in detail.. endlessly. Not physical though.

This still doesn't tell me what you mean by 'dimension' and it suffers from the same problem as above in the sense that you're describing individual details about something that you've said has no borders, and hence no actual details. To be clear, I'm perfectly happy with non-physical dimensions (they are actually used all the time in science and mathematics) but it's still unclear as to how this can relate to your non-physical, border-less 'domain'.

There is also the big problem with using time-based concepts like expansion at all in a description of a non-physical reality.

Time is physical.​

Each object in a way gets lost, nullified, in the endless expansion of detail. Each class/catagory/dimension gets nullified. Absolutely everything that can be imagined, big small, groups or individuals... they are are nullified and completely united in literal infinity.

This makes no sense to me. It appears to be self-contradictory and you appear to have undermined all your previous definitions. How can the details get 'nullified' just because there are an infinite amount of them? If they're nullified, then there aren't any of them and your infinity becomes just (a static, non-expanding) one. Individual items would make an infinitesimal contribution to the whole if the whole is an infinite number of those items, but that is not the same as being nullified. Without the individual items, the infinity doesn't exist.

 

[dybmh]

This makes no sense to me.

Sure it does. If possible, please read all three of my posts before replying. They're not too long, unless you want to read what's in the spoiler.

Anyway I know it makes sense to you be because you didn't disagree with infinity+infinity=infinity. This concept simply needs to be applied. And it needs to be understood that infinity is not limited to numbers.

Each object in a way gets lost, nullified, in the endless expansion of detail.

any number gets lost, nullified in the endless details that are included in literal infinity

1+infinity=infinity
2+infinity=infinity
3+infinity=infinity
4+infinity=infinity
5+infinity=infinity
100+infinity=infinity
etc... there are endless examples

But not just numbers, any object gets lost, nullified, in the endless details that are included in literal infinity

cat+infinity=infinity
dog+infinity=infinity
car+infinity=infinity
bus+infinity=infinity
governor+infinity=infinity
president+infinity=infinity
etc... there are endless examples

Not just individuals, but also groups get lost, nullified, in the endless details that are included in literal infinity

cat+dog+infinity=infinity
car+bus+infinity=infinity
governor+president+infinity=infinity
etc... there are endless examples

And those groups have designated names which get lost, nullified, in the endless details that are included in literal infinity

all animals+infinity=infinity
all vehicles+infinity=infinity
all elected officials+infinity=infinity
etc... there are endless examples

And all the attributes that define each of these examples get lost, nullified, in the endless details that are included in literal infinity

And all the attributes that define each of the attributes
And the the attributes that define each of those attributes, etc... it's an endless chain of attributes that are nullified
And the compliments/negations of all the attibutes
And the attributes that define the compliments/negations
And the attributes of those attributes and all of their corresponding compliments/negations, etc... it's another endless chain of attributes that are nullified

And the compliments/negations of all the groups, and their corresponding attributes, and the attributes of those attributes, and all the corresponding compliments/negations, etc... it's another endless chain which is nullified

And the compliments/negations of all the non-numeric objects, and their attributes, and the attributes of those attributes, and all the corresponding compliments/negations of all the attributes of the attributes of the attributes, etc... it's another endless chain that is nullified

And there are infinite chains, and chains corresponding from those chains, both the chain itself and all the corresponding compliments/negations.

Everything, anything, and its compliment/negation are all nullified in literal infinity. literal infinity includes all of the general objects: physical actions, physical objects, ideas, symbols, and all the compliments/negations of these objects, and all the attributes which define those objects, and all the attributes which define those attributes, and all the attributes of those attributes, ad infinitum, and all the compliments/negations of the physical actions, physical objects, ideas, symbols, and all of their corresponding attributes, and the attributes of those attributes, and the attributes of those attributes, and the attributes of those attributes, and all of their corresponding compliments/negations.

These multiple paragrahps, this long statement, everything in it, and its implications are all described elegantly and accurately by the true statement I made earlier in the thread:

infinity+infinity=infinity

That's it. That's all there is to it. Limiting this to numbers, making it into a one dimensional number line extending in both directions expresses the exact same concept I described using multiple paragraphs, and numerous examples. So now you have it: a very detailed explanation of infinity+infinity=infinity and the nullification that is implied by it. And this concept is not limited to numbers.

This doesn't really clear up the ambiguity of 'domain'

It's really not that difficult. You defined a domain "x" in your signature.

 

[dybmh]

Yes, but you need to be precise about what your model is.

The definition is a method. The method is endless. When the method is performed/considered it produces a model. This is no different than the definition of a sine wave, Pi, or a ratio.

The method I've given you is the construction of a relational database where each object ( all physical objects, physical actions, ideas, and symbols that anyone can think of and more ) is linked in many-to-many relationships, and each object is defined by attributes, and each attribute is itself defined by attributes, and those attributes are defined by attributes, and those attributes as well, ad infinitum in an endless chain. Also the compliments/negations of each object are included and there is an endless chain of attributes which define those compliments/negations. And each attribute has its own compliments/negations. And this establishes another endless chain. And the objects themself can be grouped, these groups have compliments and attributes. it just keeps going. This the biggest, badest, most awesome version of infinity that can be contemplated. Don't forget about the links, the "joins", the many-to-many relationships. Those are also endless.

So, the method IS precise. It's just very very big. The method never ends. Whatever we do, no matter how long we do it, what ever is produced will be imprecise. It will always produce a model. But that does not take away from the method. If you want a recipe:

Spoiler: a method for producing literal infinity

1. survey each and every person that has lived, is living, will live, and could possibly live for a list of items of all the physical objects, physical actions, ideas, and symbols they can imagine
2. review the list of items eliminating duplicates
3. fully define each item in the list with a series of attributes
4. review the list of attributes removing duplicates
5. fully define each of these attributes with a list of attributes
6. combine the list of attributes and remove duplicates
7. repeat steps 5 and 6 until no new attributes are being added to the list, only duplicates
8. survey each and every person that has lived, is living, will live, and could possibly live asking them to review the list of attributes looking for missing attributes
9. review the list of missing attributes removing duplicates
10. repeat steps 5 and 6 until no new attributes are being added only duplicates
11. make a list of the compliments/negations of every item in the list
12. fully define each of these compliments/negations using attributes
13. repeat steps 5 and 6 until no new attributes are being added only duplicates
14. review the list of attributes removing duplicates
15. survey each and every person that has lived, is living, will live, and could possibly live asking them to review the list of attributes of the compliments/negations looking for missing attributes
16. repeat steps 5 and 6 for the missing attributes
17. review the list of attrbutes removing duplicates
18. make a list of the compliments/negations of the combined list of attributes
19. fully define each of these attributes using attributes and repeat steps 5 and 6 until no new attributes of the compliments/negations are added to the list
20. make a list of the compliments/negations of these attributes
21. repeat steps 19 and 20 until no new attributes of the compliments/negations and no new compliments/negations of those attributes are added, only duplicates
22. remove the combined list of attributes and the corresponding compliments/negations of the attributes and the corresponding attributes of the compliments/negations and the compliments/negations of those attributes removing duplicates
23. survey each and every person who has lived, is living, will live, and could live asking them to review this list of attributes of the compliments/negations looking for missing attributes
24. review the full list of attributes of the corresponding compliments/negations removing duplicates
25. survery each and every person who has lived, is living, will live, and could possibly live asking them to review the list of items, the compliments/negations of the items, the attributes of the items, and the compliments/negations of the attributes looking for similarities and differences
26. review the list of similarities and differences removing duplicates
27. survery each and every person who has lived, is living, will live, and could possibly live asking them to review the list of similarities and differences looking for similarities and differences between the similarities and differences
28. review the combined list of similarities and differences removing duplicates
29. repeat steps 27 and 28 until no new similarities and differences are found, only duplicates
30. these similarities and differences are called catagories
31. fully define each catagory using attributes
32. repeat steps 6-24 for these the attributes of the catagories developing a complete list of all the attributes and corresponding compliments/negations of the attributes of the catagories
33. review the list of items, their corresponding compliments/negations, attributes, and their corresponding compliments/negations, and catagories removing duplicates
34. survery each and every person who has lived, is living, will live, and could possibly live asking them to review the list from the above step looking for relationships between each and every entry in the list
35. fully define each relationship using attributes
36. repeat steps 6-24 for these attributes of the relationships developing a complete list of all the attributes and corresponding compliments/negations of the attributes of the relationships
37. review the list of relationships removing duplicates
38. survery each and every person who has lived, is living, will live, and could possibly live asking them to review the list from the above step looking for similarities and differences between each and every relationship
39. review this list of of similarities and differences removing duplicates and calling them catagories
40. repeat the steps for for fully defining the catagories and relationships using attributes, then repeat the steps looking for catagories and relationships of these attributes, removing duplicates after each iteration.
41. Contnue repeating the search for new attributes, compliments/negations, catagories, and relationships until no new items are found, only duplicates
42. Make a list of the compliments/negations for each catagory and relationship.
43. Fully define each compliment/negation for each catagory and relationship using attributes
44. repeat the steps above looking for attributes for the attributes, their corresponding compliments/negations, catagories of these attibutes and corresponding compliments/negations, and relationships and their corresponding compliments/negations, until each of these is fully defined using attributes and no new items are being added, only duplicates
45. Do a final review of every physical object, physical action, idea, symbol, catagory, relationship, their corresponding compliments/negations, the attributes which fully define them, the attributes' corresponding compliments/negations, the catagories that define those attributes and their corresponding compliments/negations, the relationships of those attributes and their corresponding compliments and negations removing duplicates
46. develop a relational database which includes each item, its full definition of attributes, its compliments and negations, all associated catagories and relationships. Also include each attribute with its full definition of attributes, its complments and negations, all assocaited catagories and relationships. Also include each catagory with its full defintion of attributes, its compliments and negations, all associated catagories and relationships. Also include each relationship, its full definition of attributes, its compliments and negations, its catagories and relationships. Each of these items are tables in the database. Each attribute catagory and relationship is a row in each of the tables. Catagories and relationships are junction tables linking each attribute in many-to-many joins so that all the tables are linked together and the relationships between every row of every table and every other row of every other table is maintained

There you go. Completing this method will produce what I am defining as literal infinity.

 

[dybmh]

Firstly, an infinite relational database, which consists of discrete items, is almost certainly the same cardinality as aleph-zero,

What's wrong with that? I already said this god is solitary before creation. The cardinality of aleph-zero=1. There's just 1 database being produced. However, each item is not discrete. Even if its attributes are finite, which I doubt they would be, their negations would be infinite.

Consider 1.

The table for 1 includes: ... not -3, not -2, not -1, not 0, not 2, not 3, not 4, not 5, not 6, not 7, not 8, ... not A, not B, not C, not D ... not dog, not cat, not car, not truck, not bus...

1 is actually endless, not discrete. None of the tables will be discrete. Each and everything about this database is endless. The items are endless, the attributes are endless, the catagories are endless, the relationships are endless.

you're trying to apply this to your immaterial 'domain' which you claimed had no borders and hence has no individual events or items. You seem to be describing a database of the material reality and its possible different forms and histories, so I don't see how this can describe your immaterial 'domain'.

No, none of these things exist yet. We are at the very beginning, before creation. They're all just ideas. They are all potential before creation.

'Free will', in the sense that many people understand it, is not a logically self-consistent concept in any way I've seen it defined.

That's because you haven't seen me define it. But let's not get sidetracked with that. I simply used those "could-be" events as a way of modeling infinity. They would certainly be included in the way I have defined producing literal infinity above.

This still doesn't tell me what you mean by 'dimension'

They're catagories. Just imagine a graph, you've got x as a dimension, y as a dimension. They're aspects of reality which are being represented in the x/y domain. Could be chickens (x), and eggs (y). It really isn't complicated. There's just infinitely many dimensions in infinity. It can't be represented on paper or on a screen the same way a 3-d x,y,z or even 4-d can be represented on paper or on screen. It has to be imagined. And a database is a great way to do that.

There is also the big problem with using time-based concepts like expansion

It's expanding in detail. Endlessly more and more and more and more and more detail to the point where each detail, each item, each attribute, each catagory, each relationship is completely insignifcant and nullified. A dog is nothing compared to infinity. A cat is nothing compared to infinity. A dog+cat is nothing compared to infinity. And when considering literal infinity, all the attributes which define dog and cat are also nothing. And this is what produces the bizzare behavior, "dog=cat". Their differences are also nullified.

How can the details get 'nullified' just because there are an infinite amount of them?

Easy... signficant figures. Rounding. This happens everyday in every branch of empirical science. And it is known and accepted fact:

1+2+3+4+5+6+7....+infinity=infinity

It doesn't matter how many details are added to infinity, it's still just infinity. Those numbers which are added, aren't adding anything at all. They are no different than:

0+0+0+0+0+0...+infinity=infinity

Just look at those two true statements, and you've got this. Once this nullification concept is accepted, we can move on to the next idea.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What's wrong with that? I already said this god is solitary before creation. The cardinality of aleph-zero=1. There's just 1 database being produced. However, each item is not discrete. Even if its attributes are finite, which I doubt they would be, their negations would be infinite.

...

Just look at those two true statements, and you've got this. Once this nullification concept is accepted, we can move on to the next idea.

Hi dybmh
I will try to keep this as simple as possible. What you are doing as you is to create a series of thoughts that are in effect valid for how you think them through. In other words for valid I simply grant you that you think correctly.

But then you have to shown that your thoughts correspond to something independent of your thoughts. Do you understand, the technique I am using. I am accepting that it is valid and moving on to sound.
So you have to show that your ideas are sound.

"A valid argument need not have true premises or a true conclusion. On the other hand, a sound argument DOES need to have true premises and a true conclusion: Soundness: An argument is sound if it meets these two criteria: (1) It is valid. (2) Its premises are true."

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1440/validity.pdf

 

[Willamena]

So, supposedly there is an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. (Not according to me, I'm thinking more Abrahamics)

Well, this God supposedly does not want man to suffer. Yet there is suffering. So is He not omnipotent? Or is He not omnibenevolent? It appears to me this God needs some help in ending suffering for man!

Perhaps this God does not really care if we suffer. Perhaps He cannot completely intervene on His own. Perhaps this type of omnimax God is not really there. For how can He, given the state of the world?

I believe in an omnipotent force. I think it is not a God with a personality. It is not benevolent. So my idea of the most powerful force, "God", stands up to the problem of evil; it has no personality, so how can it claim benevolence? It is power itself.

Isn't the Problem of Evil great? It's been a while since I've seen it explored here and it's on my mind, so here is this thread.

What are logical deductions of the Problem of Evil?

One is that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God cannot exist, due to the current state of the world.

Isn't the problem of evil sufficient by itself to disprove the existence of an omnimax God? I think so. And, if that isn't enough, just read the Old Testament and ask yourself if a Omnibenevolent god can do all the things Yahweh does.

Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are complimentary attributes, they are the three factors of conscious being emulated on an eternal (omni) scale. "I am, I am aware, and I am aware that I am." Together these three senses make the "I" that we call ourselves.

Omnibenevolence is a fairy tale inserted for probably political reasons and doesn't have much stay in logic.

Logic dictates that we take the world as it is, not as we might want it to be.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sure it does. If possible, please read all three of my posts before replying. They're not too long, unless you want to read what's in the spoiler.

I'm not ignoring you - I posted a long response to this yesterday,and I think you replied IIRC, and it all appears to have disappeared. I've sent a message to ask why as I don''t want to go though it all again. I'll see what I get in response.

ETA: Looks like we have a server problem: Missing posts?. I've had a few more ideas since yesterday, so I might try to just summarise. May take me a while and I'll keep a copy...

 

[dybmh]

I'm not ignoring you - I posted a long response to this yesterday,and I think you replied IIRC, and it all appears to have disappeared. I've sent a message to ask why as I don''t want to go though it all again. I'll see what I get in response.

ETA: Looks like we have a server problem: Missing posts?. I've had a few more ideas since yesterday, so I might try to just summarise. May take me a while and I'll keep a copy...

No problem. I read your replies. And my response is summarized below. Please read the entire post before replying.

1. Since I'm not defining a set, your objections are generally irrelevant.
2. Even if I were defining a set, the same nullification behavior occurs when a member of an infinite set is combined with the infinite set
3. Even if I were defining a set, there is no self-referential paradox. That was avoided in the definition I provided.
4. If you know what I mean, there's no reason to pretend that you don't. Objecting to N when you knew I meant ℕ, objecting to ℝ when I could have used ℤ, eventhough ℝ works perfectly well, is what caused the conversation at the beginning to break down. I didn't object to your useage of the letter "beth/bet" to describe the cardinality of ℝ, even though it's actually "aleph₁". But since I knew what you meant, there was no reason to distract with quibbles about notation.
5. Then after this nonsense about notation, you changed what I was saying by attempting to consider a non-member of the infinite set, when I am considering a member of the infinite set.

So, your objections have been strawmen, but even the relevant strawmen remain standing. Considering non-members of infinite sets are completely irrelevant. Considering finite sets are completely irrelevant. And if you know what I mean, why-oh-why make an issue over notational nonsense? This is how the conversation fell apart previously. That's the summary of my replies.

But, you did ask an important question, though. And that needs a detailed explanation.I have been talking about expansion, eventhough the literal infinity I have defined is already expanded. You asked why have I been using these terms if it is already currently expanded. The answer is, nullification is a relationship. Technically it's the absolute lack of any defining relationship. This results in absolute inclusion. This inclusion is best understood as an infinite limit. It's an infinite expansion. That's why I spoke about it using those terms.

As the model for literal infinity is produced the defining relationships become infinitesimal until literal infinity is acheived. Then the defining relationships are literally annihilated, but the attributes which define them are not annihilated. The relationship is annihilated, but the content is not. The result is an amorphous blob. There are no similarities nor differences. There is no hierarchy. Everything is united without any division. Literal infinity is formless and there can be no exclusion of any kind. There is only 1 literal infinity.

These implications: total absolute solitude, total absolute inclusion, totally absolutely formless, are all derived as a thought experiment when the relationships are considered objects, and the relationship of these objects to literal infinity are considered as literal infinity approaches absolute inclusion. This can be written formally as: the limit of a/x, where 'a' is an individual relationship or group of relationships of similarities and/or differences, and 'x' is approaching the absolute complete total of all possible similarties and differences that have ever and will ever exist, and 'a' is not 'x'. As 'x' approaches full inclusion, the similarities and diffrences approach insignificance. If this inclusion is absolutely infinite, then all similarities and differences will be absolutely insignficant.

And I can show that the inclusion is infinite, because even if the similarites are finite, the differences are not.
1 is 1 and is not 2 and is not 3 and is not 4 and is not 5 and is not 6 and is not 7 ...

When a new object is considered, even though this violates the defintion, The same nullification happens. Literal infinity absolutely includes all relationships. This renders all similarities and differences between the new creation and literal infinity null. Nothing new is created. It is already included per the defintion. The theoretical new creation is reassimilated back into the source immediately, concurrenlty, simultaneously with creation. Or perhaps it's easier to say, it cannot be created at all.

Hopefully that get's us past this hurdle. No matter how it is considered, using the definition I brought, literal infinity, is solitary, there are no others. It is all inclusive without any division. It is formless. This is stict monotheism. And literal infinity ----> nullification. Nullification is not annihilation. It is oblivion. I can talk more about that if you want, but I think it's time to move on. In order to undermine this, you'll need to bring a counter example where the antecedent is true, and the consequent is false. It cannot be done.

Last note: the notion that I would be some sort of nobel prize winner for coming up with these ideas is a bit flattering. But it's really not that big of a deal. All of these concepts exist, and have existed for a long time. Leibniz considered these things. Cantor considered these things. But they didn't have computer science, category theory, or topology theory, so I'm at a significant advantage. They were working with sets, just like you are. And set theory doesn't have the tools to accomplish this task. As the old sayng goes: "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." For Cantor and Leibniz and maybe for you too, if all you have is set theory, everything looks like a set. For me, a relational database is the right tool for this job. It's been a long time since set theory was developed. We now have computers and category theory which has greatly extended human capability to model literal infinity.

 

[ratiocinator]

No problem. I read your replies. And my response is summarized below. Please read the entire post before replying.

Okay, I read it all and I'm afraid there are still multiple problems.

IIRC, you yourself emphasised the importance of being exact about definitions, which is why I pointed out some technical problems. They may be a bit pedantic but I like to be precise - perhaps it's a distraction in this context but, what can I say? I am rather pedantic when it comes to this sort of thing.

The distinction between ℤ and ℝ, is relevant because going from ℕ to ℤ doesn't change the cardinality, whereas going from ℕ to ℝ does. The idea that the cardinality of ℝ is aleph-one (ℵ₁) is called the continuum hypothesis and is far from settled, which is why I used the beth number which are defined in a way makes beth-one (ℶ₁) the cardinality of ℝ.

Anyway, on the the argument.

There is only 1 literal infinity

I think using the term 'literal infinity' is actually confusing things because every single infinite number is literally infinite. You seem to be going for some sort of absolute infinity. To be more exact, and correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to want a set/list/category of every single concept that is possible, so that everything you try to add will be a duplicate.

If this is the case, it makes all your talk of infinity + infinity = infinity, and similar, totally irrelevant because that's not the point.

It has been proved that there cannot be an absolute infinity, which is why I said that if you'd managed it, you'd be up for a Nobel. Everybody today has access to all the modern concepts you mention and still be best minds in the world have not managed to do what you have claimed you've done. Perhaps you'll get why I'm sceptical?

As for the list of all concepts, your procedure definitely didn't produce it, if only because it talked about people, and there are almost certainly concepts that nobody has ever thought of or ever will, or potentially could, because they are beyond the capability of human minds. You also seem to think that making it a relational database is significant. I don't see why. A relationship is just another concept, after all.

I don't actually think it's possible to construct such a list - all you could do is imagine that it existed. I also don't really see how you get around the logic of the set of all sets paradox. Just asserting that it isn't a set doesn't really help.

Then we get to 'nullification'. This just doesn't make sense at all and none of your 'arguments' for it stand up to actual known mathematics.

These implications: total absolute solitude, total absolute inclusion, totally absolutely formless, are all derived as a thought experiment when the relationships are considered objects, and the relationship of these objects to literal infinity are considered as literal infinity approaches absolute inclusion. This can be written formally as: the limit of a/x, where 'a' is an individual relationship or group of relationships of similarities and/or differences, and 'x' is approaching the absolute complete total of all possible similarties and differences that have ever and will ever exist, and 'a' is not 'x'. As 'x' approaches full inclusion, the similarities and diffrences approach insignificance. If this inclusion is absolutely infinite, then all similarities and differences will be absolutely insignficant.

This is a simple limit process. There is nothing novel about it at all.

We know 'nullification' doesn't work from (just as one example) calculus. A continuous function, something like y = x², for example, has a continuum infinity of points and yet they remain distinct. We can select any one of them and differentiate at that one point to find the gradient at that one point. And calculus is, of course, based on exactly the same limit concept you used above. Distinctions never disappear, they only become infinitesimal (which is not the same thing at all) compared to the whole.

Without nullification, you are left with an infinity of boundaries, not none.

Finally, you tried to brush away the problem of time, but you're going to have to deal with the fact that time is both a physical concept and also introduces boundaries itself. For example, if your god makes a choice or takes some action (like creation), then we get a boundary between before and after.

 

[dybmh]

These are a couple of long replies. I'm sorry about that.

The TLDR version is:

The set of all sets paradox is resolved because I have avoided the self-reference in the defintion.
The objections to nullification are moot because they are considering the members as they are included, not a new creation which is excluded. The nullification still occurs internally, but it is not absolute, it is infinitesimal. But externally, the distinctions are literally zero. And none of this should be a surprise, because literal infinity is all inclusive. There is no exclusion.

And the examples you brought are still strawmen. But those strawmen are still standing.

The distinction between ℤ and ℝ, is relevant because going from ℕ to ℤ doesn't change the cardinality, whereas going from ℕ to ℝ does.

It wasn't relevant because the point you were trying to make was considering an element ( -1 ) which was not a member of ℕ, eventhough the example I brought was considering elements which were, in fact, elements of ℕ. So, you changed what I was saying. Then I avoided that problem and others by shifting to ℝ. I could have chosen ℤ, or even better than ℝ, I could have chosen ℂ. But none of that was relevant to the idea considering the relationship of an element to an infinite set.

I think using the term 'literal infinity' is actually confusing things because every single infinite number is literally infinite. You seem to be going for some sort of absolute infinity. To be more exact, and correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to want a set/list/category of every single concept that is possible, so that everything you try to add will be a duplicate.

I'm avoiding using "Absolute infinity" because that might indicate a set of all sets, and I am not defining a set. A category of all categories works. And since I started out using the term literal infinity, I'd like to continue using it. Lists and sets won't work because they do not have relationships. The defining relationship is vital because that is what is is null when the category is all inclusive.

If this is the case, it makes all your talk of infinity + infinity = infinity, and similar, totally irrelevant because that's not the point.

It's an example. It doesn't matter what is added to infinity, even if infinity is added to itself, nothing is new is being added. Here, infinity is a one dimensional quantity. So it's only similar to literal infinity in that one dimension, in that one concept, a quantity. The defining relationship between infinity and what ever is being added to it is "quantity". That defining relationship is nothing, it's null. Quantity is absolutely insignificant. It's not infinitesimal, it is literally null because infinity is infinity. It's not approaching infinity.

So this is a one dimensional example showing that "quantity" is absolutely insignificant. This same idea can be generalized for any defining relationship. A category of categories, or my preference, an infinite relational database which is all inclusive would render all defining relationships null wen considered from the outside.

It has been proved that there cannot be an absolute infinity, which is why I said that if you'd managed it, you'd be up for a Nobel. Everybody today has access to all the modern concepts you mention and still be best minds in the world have not managed to do what you have claimed you've done. Perhaps you'll get why I'm sceptical?

Except, literal infinity is not absolute infinity. Besides not being a set, it's more like a Russel set where the self-reference is avoided as part of the definition. And ZFC is not the *only* set theory that exists. It's the most common, and the most simple. ( axioms can be memorized and taught and applied dogmatically ). But like I've been saying, these ideas have been extended. The universal set of all sets exists in NF, MK, NBG, PST, and QST. All of which are either new formulations or extensions to ZFC which were developed later. I don't know how any of them work. So I don't know their virtues or liabilities. But, when you say "It has been proved that there cannot be an absolute infinity" that is in 1 system, and that was in the 1900s.

Since I have excluded the self-reference, this objection is moot, and that ignores that absolute infinity has not been disproven in all logical frameworks.

As for the list of all concepts, your procedure definitely didn't produce it, if only because it talked about people, and there are almost certainly concepts that nobody has ever thought of or ever will, or potentially could, because they are beyond the capability of human minds. You also seem to think that making it a relational database is significant. I don't see why. A relationship is just another concept, after all.

Given an infinite amount of time, all concepts would be included. These unthinkable concepts and relationships are included as the negations and compliments of the others which are already included in the method I defined. If you need those unthinkable concepts and relationships added explicitly to the method, I can do that. But I don't think it will be adding anything, only duplicates.

In a way, you're 100% right. The signficance, which is a relationship is unimportant. It is completely insignificant, it is null. That's the point. So take that and apply it understanding that without these defining relationships, nothing new can be created. You're 100% right when considering whether or not something can excluded.

When considering something that is included, the limit is applied. When considering the included object or objects, absolute inclusion is not acheived, it's approaching all-inclusion It's approaching it, but hasn't gotten there. As a result, the defining relationships exist but are infinitesimal when considered to the whole. But when considered to each other, they are significant.

So, it'a all about perspective. You're 100% right when considering an object or objects which is/are excluded. The relationship is utterly absolutley insignificant. It is null. When considering the relationship as an object which is included, the relationship is infinitesimal, but still exists, when it is included to the whole. It is completely signficant when considering inter-object relationships and definitions to each other.

It's dizzying, but with practice, it's too bad shifting perspective. From the outside, literal infinity is like an amorphous blob. If a new creation were to be attempted it would immediately reassimilate back into the blob. From inside the blob, everything would still appear blobby/blobbish. But zooming in on the blob would be like looking into a microscope and seeing individual cells.

The relational DB model is also important for what comes next.

 

[dybmh]

I don't actually think it's possible to construct such a list - all you could do is imagine that it existed.

It's the same with any thought experiment. This one is just very big.

I also don't really see how you get around the logic of the set of all sets paradox. Just asserting that it isn't a set doesn't really help.

I keep anwering this. But I don't mind repeating. The paradox comes from a self reference which is excluded / avoided in the definition I have given. The paradox is avoided.

Then we get to 'nullification'. This just doesn't make sense at all and none of your 'arguments' for it stand up to actual known mathematics.

It's the recipricol of infinity generalized. It does make sense. Just saying "I don't get it" isn't an argument against. Just saying "It's novell" isn't an argument against.

You need to find a counter-example where the antecedent is true and the consequent is false to disprove the implication.

Literal infinity ----> nullification

Literal infinity was defined earlier. Nullification is where the relationship of the similarities and differences of a member object is compared to the all inclusive category. There are no counter-examples. There are no contradictions in the definitions.

This is a simple limit process. There is nothing novel about it at all.

I know!

We know 'nullification' doesn't work from (just as one example) calculus. A continuous function, something like y = x², for example, has a continuum infinity of points and yet they remain distinct. We can select any one of them and differentiate at that one point to find the gradient at that one point. And calculus is, of course, based on exactly the same limit concept you used above. Distinctions never disappear, they only become infinitesimal (which is not the same thing at all) compared to the whole.

It's not a comparable example. If you want to use functions, then you would need to keep including more and more functions until the entire 2-d domain is included. That would be all inclusive. It's an infinite plane.

But, if you are limiting the domain to y=x², then the relationship of each ordered pair in the domain to the domain is equivilant. That's what a function means. Each ordered pair satisfies the function in the same exact way. There is nothing different about the ordered pairs when they are considered to the domain itself. They all do the same thing. When they are considered individually, yes, there are distinctions. But when considered against the whole as an member of the domain those distinctions are infinitesimal. When considered as an excluded ordered pair, there are no distinctions in the relationship to whole. That relationship is the identity "=".

And this can be generalized for any operator, any relationship, it doesn't even need to be infinite. That's what I said before, and you said it was word salad. If the function is "shapes". Then the relationship of circle to "shapes" and the relationship of square to "shapes" is identical. There is no distinction in any way in this relationship. This is an equivilance class. In the class of "shapes", circle=square. If the class/category is all inclusive, then everything becomes equivilant. That's nullification. It doesn't matter if the members are considered individually or in groups. They're still equivilant in the same way.

So the example of y=x² doesn't really fit. It's another strawman. It would need to be extended to include all functions of x,y. But even if the strawman is considered, it remains standing. It's the relationships of any ordered pair to the function which is absolutely equivilant. That relationship is the resulting identity from the function, y = x². That's what a function means. That's what a function does. When considering the distinctions between the ordered pairs which are produced from the function, the distinctions do exist and their significance depends on how many ordered pairs are considered simutaneously.

All of this is nullification. From the outside, if such a thing were possible, literal infinity is literally an amorphous blob. From the inside it looks like an amorphous blob, but isn't. And zooming in to examine the details, distinctions become significant. The internal distinctions are not important yet, because the point, the important point is, literal infinity cannot create anything new without making the choice to create. And that choice requires a specifc creative method. But this is not a limitation on omnipotence. It is omnipotence actualized by the choice.

Without nullification, you are left with an infinity of boundaries, not none.

There is nullification. But it's the external defining relationship to the whole ( which is all inclusive and literally infinite ) which is nullified. The relationship is nullified. And because literal infinity is literally all inclusive, there is only inclusion and no exclusion.

Finally, you tried to brush away the problem of time, but you're going to have to deal with the fact that time is both a physical concept and also introduces boundaries itself. For example, if your god makes a choice or takes some action (like creation), then we get a boundary between before and after.

It really isn't a problem. If you are ready to accept the nullification and absolute inclusion, we can talk about that next. But it really is simple. You'll probably say something like, "well, that's convenient" and roll your eyes. But, it really is that simple and there's nothing illogical or contradictory about it.

 

[ratiocinator]

It wasn't relevant because the point you were trying to make was considering an element ( -1 ) which was not a member of ℕ, eventhough the example I brought was considering elements which were, in fact, elements of ℕ.

As I pointed out, the whole point was to add elements that weren't in the original set, thereby getting a set that was the same cardinality but a different set. Hence demonstrating the irrelevancy of infinity + something else = infinity and the confusion you seem to have between contents and cardinality.

A category of all categories works. And since I started out using the term literal infinity, I'd like to continue using it. Lists and sets won't work because they do not have relationships.

As I said, relationships make exactly no difference, A relationship is just another concept. You seem to think that making it a relational database makes a difference but you have provided no logic to support the idea.

It's an example. It doesn't matter what is added to infinity, even if infinity is added to itself, nothing is new is being added.

But it does. You can have two entirely disjoint sets with the same (infinite) cardinality.

Here, infinity is a one dimensional quantity.

The number of dimensions make no difference at all. The cardinality of ℕⁿ is the same as the cardinality of ℕ, the same is true of ℝ, or ℂ, for that matter.

Except, literal infinity is not absolute infinity. Besides not being a set, it's more like a Russel set where the self-reference is avoided as part of the definition. And ZFC is not the *only* set theory that exists. It's the most common, and the most simple. ( axioms can be memorized and taught and applied dogmatically ). But like I've been saying, these ideas have been extended. The universal set of all sets exists in NF, MK, NBG, PST, and QST. All of which are either new formulations or extensions to ZFC which were developed later. I don't know how any of them work.

That's a bit of a problem then, because what we need is a proper and rigorous definition of this 'literal infinity' - otherwise we have nothing that can be analysed and properly considered.

Since I have excluded the self-reference, this objection is moot,

But how can we tell when you haven't actually defined your concept? If this 'literal infinity' includes every concept, then it will contain itself and you run right into the Russell's paradox.

Given an infinite amount of time, all concepts would be included. These unthinkable concepts and relationships are included as the negations and compliments of the others which are already included in the method I defined. If you need those unthinkable concepts and relationships added explicitly to the method, I can do that. But I don't think it will be adding anything, only duplicates.

In a way, you're 100% right. The signficance, which is a relationship is unimportant. It is completely insignificant, it is null. That's the point. So take that and apply it understanding that without these defining relationships, nothing new can be created. You're 100% right when considering whether or not something can excluded.

When considering something that is included, the limit is applied. When considering the included object or objects, absolute inclusion is not acheived, it's approaching all-inclusion It's approaching it, but hasn't gotten there. As a result, the defining relationships exist but are infinitesimal when considered to the whole. But when considered to each other, they are significant.

So, it'a all about perspective. You're 100% right when considering an object or objects which is/are excluded. The relationship is utterly absolutley insignificant. It is null. When considering the relationship as an object which is included, the relationship is infinitesimal, but still exists, when it is included to the whole. It is completely signficant when considering inter-object relationships and definitions to each other.

It's dizzying, but with practice, it's too bad shifting perspective. From the outside, literal infinity is like an amorphous blob. If a new creation were to be attempted it would immediately reassimilate back into the blob. From inside the blob, everything would still appear blobby/blobbish. But zooming in on the blob would be like looking into a microscope and seeing individual cells.

Nothing in all this properly defines your concept and none of it resembles a logical argument.

The relational DB model is also important for what comes next.

As I've pointed out, adding relationship changes nothing - a relationship is just another concept.

It's the same with any thought experiment.

No, it isn't. A thought experiment should be logically precise or it's useless.

The paradox comes from a self reference which is excluded / avoided in the definition I have given.

You haven't provided a proper definition.

There are no contradictions in the defini

Because there is no definition.

It's not a comparable example. If you want to use functions, then you would need to keep including more and more functions until the entire 2-d domain is included. That would be all inclusive. It's an infinite plane.

As I said above, adding dimensions literally changes nothing. The set ℚ (rational numbers), which are effectively ordered pairs, has exactly the same cardinality as ℕ. The same goes for ℝ² (ordered pairs of real numbers) and ℝ.

When they are considered individually, yes, there are distinctions. But when considered against the whole as an member of the domain those distinctions are infinitesimal.

Which isn't the same as 'nullification'.

When considered as an excluded ordered pair, there are no distinctions in the relationship to whole.

Pairs make no difference.

There is no distinction in any way in this relationship. This is an equivilance class. In the class of "shapes", circle=square. If the class/category is all inclusive, then everything becomes equivilant. That's nullification. It doesn't matter if the members are considered individually or in groups. They're still equivilant in the same way.

This is just another, apparently nonsensical, assertion with no supporting logic.

If you are ready to accept the nullification and absolute inclusion...

I'm not. You haven't properly defined 'literal infinity' and you have provided no logic at all for nullification.