Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not saying "for all cases of X is Y" I'm saying "for all cases of X is Y or Not Y"



Is it the "+" sign that's making it look like I'm violating this?

When I write "Literal Infinity = all that exists + all that doesn't exist", do you think I should replace the "+" with "or"?

The problem that all that exists, doesn't exist in pratice at the same time and space and in the same respect.
In practice if you don't check of all of not Y is not a case of non-existence. It is just another respect that Y.

Answer this, for all that exists, does it exist at the same time and space and in the same respect?
Forget that, which doesn't exist. Can you reduce all that exists down to the same in all respects?

 

[dybmh]

The problem that all that exists, doesn't exist in pratice at the same time and space and in the same respect.
In practice if you don't check of all of not Y is not a case of non-existence. It is just another respect that Y.

Ah. Maybe time is the issue here? Or maybe I still don't get it. I appreacite your patience if I don't. Maybe I will after I answer your questions and read your replies to them.

Answer this, for all that exists, does it exist at the same time and space and in the same respect?

What is the "it"? Is "it" "all that exists"? If so, I interpret the question as follows:

Question: "does all-that-exists exist at the same time and space and in the same respect?"
My Answer: Yes, because, when this is evaluated, time is a fixed specific moment, space is very very large, and respect is the sense/properties of each of the "things" in the blob of all that exists at the specific moment.

Forget that, which doesn't exist. Can you reduce all that exists down to the same in all respects?

If this is evaluated at a specific moment, then yes. When the entire blob is considered there is only one respect/sense/property, "inclusion".

 

[ratiocinator]

The distinction is the difference between ∈ and ⊂.

In this case it is unambiguously ∈. LI is a concept. Hence is must be one of "all concepts" that LI consists of.

But I am not defining a set, as you have heard me say repeatedly.

It seems indistinguishable from the idea of an unrestricted, naive set. What's the difference? I know you want to give it a structure like a relational database but that doesn't really help much. You also keep on talking about a hierarchy but there seems to be nothing in your original procedure that would produce one or anything in what you said otherwise that would. It all seems confused and cobbled together to me.

One of your problems is the lack of a theoretical basis for what you're doing. You keep on making vague references to things like category theory and other set theories but these are worthless if you're not strictly following them.

 

[dybmh]

In this case it is unambiguously ∈. LI is a concept. Hence is must be one of "all concepts" that LI consists of.

A concept is an abstraction which means "contains" "consists of" or any other words you choose is also an abstraction.

It seems indistinguishable from the idea of an unrestricted, naive set. What's the difference? I know you want to give it a structure like a relational database but that doesn't really help much. You also keep on talking about a hierarchy but there seems to be nothing in your original procedure that would produce one or anything in what you said otherwise that would. It all seems confused and cobbled together to me.

The difference is, what I am defining resolves into 1 absolutely general all inclusive blob. An unrestricted naive set does not resolve it keeps getting more and more diverse. Using the database as a model helps in several ways. For one, it permits me to produce results that a naive set cannot produce. Also, in the next step it's important that the omnipotent chooses to be omnibenevolent, and this flips a bunch of attribute-relationship pairs to reflect that choice.

And honestly, I should be able to choose any model I want. If I want it to define it with imaginary purple and pink ribbons attached to imaginary handle-bars, that is my choice. If/when I say those streamers justify evil, OK, then there is an objection, "how in the world did you do that?" But in this case, the objections have been answered.

When you start to say, "It's cobbled together", that's not fair. I defined it comprehensively and methodically begining with 4 types of concepts: physical actions, physical events, ideas, and symbols.

Then these were defined, and those a definitions were defined in a loop until only repeats were produced. The "only-duplicate" condition is what stopped the loop. This same procedure was repeated for categories, similarities, and differences. To be comprehensive, I needed to repeat the attribute defintion procedure, again looking for the "only-duplicate" condition. Also, to be comprehensive, I defined all the negations and compliments of everthing which was previously defined. Then I needed to repeat the category definition process, which triggered a repeat of the other defining processes. At each stage, there is a loop. But the loop continues "WHILE ONLY-DUPLICATES=FALSE". This is a common programming construct/method which is placed at the beginning of a loop procedure.

So, it's not cobbled together, but in order to write it in a comprehensive manner there will be a series of nested loops. I understand how it looks, and it gives you a great big target and lots of ammo to make claims about it being sloppy and amateur. But it's not. It's just big. And the result is a blob. That's not my fault. It actually is a blob. But the definition is orderly. And I have simplified and summarized it for you several times.

One of your problems is the lack of a theoretical basis for what you're doing. You keep on making vague references to things like category theory and other set theories but these are worthless if you're not strictly following them.

The references are addressing a specific objection, which was "You can't because of naive set theory. What you're saying is blasphemy."

 

[ratiocinator]

A concept is an abstraction which means "contains" "consists of" or any other words you choose is also an abstraction.

And......?

The difference is, what I am defining resolves into 1 absolutely general all inclusive blob. An unrestricted naive set does not resolve it keeps getting more and more diverse.

I know that's what you want to achieve but absolutely nothing you've said so far would make that make any sense. Your identification with a unity is the next big problem for you. You have given no hint at all of how you can possibly do that.

And honestly, I should be able to choose any model I want.

Of course you can but you've got to be precise about it so that we can actually apply logic to it. All you've posted so far is not nearly precise enough. We've got a relational database, which wouldn't resolve into a unity or address Russell's paradox, then again, sometimes it's a hierarchy, which also wouldn't resolve into a unity or address Russell's paradox; nor is it clear how you'd arrange literally everything into a hierarchy.

When you start to say, "It's cobbled together", that's not fair. I defined it comprehensively and methodically begining with 4 types of concepts: physical actions, physical events, ideas, and symbols.

Okay, if you're going to use those English labels, you need to define them exactly in the context. How do they relate to each other and how do they fit into your database and/or hierarchy. What, for example, is the difference between an 'idea' and a 'concept', or between an 'action' and an 'event'? Taking the English meaning, I'd tend to think of an action as a specific kind of event. Is that the case here? See? Just using unqualified English words like this is way, way too vague.

 

[dybmh]

And......?

And that's why paradoxes produced by ∈ and inconsistencies coming from literal containment of the conglomerate in itself are a semantic fault. A concept is abstract. Therefore the concept of all concepts is, in fact, included as an abstraction or a replica, your choice.

I know that's what you want to achieve but absolutely nothing you've said so far would make that make any sense. Your identification with a unity is the next big problem for you. You have given no hint at all of how you can possibly do that.

I have. I've explained in detail and in summary. Anytime you ask a challenging question, I have been able to answer it.

Of course you can but you've got to be precise about it so that we can actually apply logic to it. All you've posted so far is not nearly precise enough. We've got a relational database, which wouldn't resolve into a unity or address Russell's paradox, then again, sometimes it's a hierarchy, which also wouldn't resolve into a unity or address Russell's paradox; nor is it clear how you'd arrange literally everything into a hierarchy.

The database is one database. That's the unity.

Russell's paradox is avoided in 2 ways which I have already described. First, the literal contradiction is flagged as a contradiction, it does not produce any results, nor would any results be attempted. It's not a category. Second, a concept can be defined which produces all the concepts which do not contain themself without any paradox or inconsistency.

The only reason this has been complicated is because a concept has been considered up till now differently between us. Now that it is clearly understood that a concept is not literal, the inconsistency you were repeatedly asserting is no longer an issue.

The arrangement of categories is part of the defining procedure you have been provided in detail and in summary. At various stages similarities and differences are evaluated between objects. Objects have been defined previously. From these similarities and differences categories are defined with, among other things, a single statement of conjunctions, disjunctions, and/or negations called an attribute-relationship-filter. The entire definition process consists of nested loops which cease on condition when only duplicates are produced. Looking at the definitions of each object, on paper or on screen, will not look like nested categories which becomes more and more general, but if the topology is mapped out that is what is being produced. The entire database is a single conglomerate of all of these nested categories. At the top level there are very few very general categories.

Okay, if you're going to use those English labels, you need to define them exactly in the context. How do they relate to each other and how do they fit into your database and/or hierarchy. What, for example, is the difference between an 'idea' and a 'concept', or between an 'action' and an 'event'? Taking the English meaning, I'd tend to think of an action as a specific kind of event. Is that the case here? See? Just using unqualified English words like this is way, way too vague.

I see what you mean, and I can answer those questions, but what's actually happening is you are "spell checking" what I'm describing instead of engaging in what I'm actually intending to say.

The simple answer is, those 4 large categories were just seeding the definition process.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

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.

Does evil even exist?
Maybe it's just a concept derived by a creature trying to make sense of the inexplicable phenomena it has experienced?
A rationalization or excuse that represents a comfortable foundation to base personal perception and beliefs?

I'll end with a question I've asked many friends; What creature could come up with a concept such as 'evil', but one that is defined as such?

 

[ratiocinator]

And that's why paradoxes produced by ∈ and inconsistencies coming from literal containment of the conglomerate in itself are a semantic fault. A concept is abstract. Therefore the concept of all concepts is, in fact, included.

Sorry but I can extract nothing meaningful from that muddle of words. If you have something that has within it all concepts, then it inevitably has itself within it. This is really simple.

If you can't understand it, everything else is pointless.

The database is one database. That's the unity.

A relational database is not a unity. It can only exist as such because of its structure and you can't have any structure at all without internal borders, which is what you claimed didn't exist. This too is simple.

Russell's paradox is avoided in 2 ways which I have already described. First, the literal contradiction is flagged as a contradiction, it does not produce any results, nor would any results be attempted.

This is just trying to hack round a fundamental contradiction with coding bodges. Not only is this adding complexity and getting you further away from from any concept of unity, it doesn't address the fact that your database is now either incomplete or inconsistent.

Second, a concept can be defined which produces all the concepts which do not contain themself without any paradox or inconsistency.

You've just said you'll flag it to not work.

It is literally impossible to form the concept of all concepts that don't contain themselves without a contradiction.

The arrangement of categories is part of the defining procedure you have been provided in detail and in summary. At various stages similarities and differences are evaluated between objects. Objects have been defined previously. From these similarities and differences categories are defined with, among other things, a single statement of conjunctions, disjunctions, and/or negations called an attribute-relationship-filter. The entire definition process consists of nested loops which cease on condition when only duplicates are produced. Looking at the definitions of each object, on paper or on screen, will not look like nested categories which becomes more and more general, but if the topology is mapped out that is what is being produced. The entire database is a single conglomerate of all of these nested categories. At the top level there are very few very general categories.

Lots of words, nothing specific or precise. Assuming software is your background, have you ever had to formally specify a software system or work from a formal model or specification? I mean model it in a CASE tool with consistency checking and so on? Or have you always worked with wordy English specs? Better still, mathematical specification, like Z?

You really do need to get to the mathematical level of being exact if you're ever going to get anywhere near demonstrating what you want to. You need to stop thinking like a coder and start to think like a mathematician.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ah. Maybe time is the issue here? Or maybe I still don't get it. I appreacite your patience if I don't. Maybe I will after I answer your questions and read your replies to them.



What is the "it"? Is "it" "all that exists"? If so, I interpret the question as follows:

Question: "does all-that-exists exist at the same time and space and in the same respect?"
My Answer: Yes, because, when this is evaluated, time is a fixed specific moment, space is very very large, and respect is the sense/properties of each of the "things" in the blob of all that exists at the specific moment.



If this is evaluated at a specific moment, then yes. When the entire blob is considered there is only one respect/sense/property, "inclusion".

Yeah, but that is not the entire blob. That is a process in your brain. That you can think everything, doesn't mean you are everything.
If you think everything and I think differently, is that differently a case of non-existence or a case of not everything, but something else.

 

[dybmh]

Sorry but I can extract nothing meaningful from that muddle of words. If you have something that has within it all concepts, then it inevitably has itself within it. This is really simple.

If you can't understand it, everything else is pointless.

I said: "the concept of all concepts is, in fact, included." There is nothing difficult to understand about those words.
I also said that your objection about inconsistency is a semantic fault, and I explained why. There is nothing difficult about understanding those words.

Why is it a semantic fault? Because a concept doesn't literally contain anything, but you are looking for literal containment in a concept, not finding it, and claiming there's a problem with this. There is no problem, because, by definition a concept doesn't literally contain anything.

A relational database is not a unity. It can only exist as such because of its structure and you can't have any structure at all without internal borders, which is what you claimed didn't exist. This too is simple.

Nope. I made a clear distinction; internal borders are infinitesimal.

This is just trying to hack round a fundamental contradiction with coding bodges. Not only is this adding complexity and getting you further away from from any concept of unity, it doesn't address the fact that your database is now either incomplete or inconsistent.

The process is complex, but the result is a simple concept. All-inclusion. You keep making claims about incomplete or inconsistent, but cannot bring any examples.

You've just said you'll flag it to not work.

The concept as you have defined it is no different than a married-bachelor, or a true-lie. The fact it doesn't produce results means the structure I have defined IS working. Properly identifying contradictions is important. Naive set theory can identify them, but cannot include the contradiction you defined in any set. Literal Infinity can define them all and can include them all accurately, simply, without any paradox or inconsistency at all. Further, I can define the same concept you did in a different way which does produce results which are complete and consistent without paradox.

It is literally impossible to form the concept of all concepts that don't contain themselves without a contradiction.

A concept is not literal. This is a category error.

Lots of words, nothing specific or precise.

It is precise enough for you to understand what I mean.

You really do need to ....

I'm not indulging you any more in comments about me. We are talking about a structure. Like it or not, it includes all concepts, even itself, without any inconsistency or paradox. Your argument at this point reduces to faith that an inconsistency must be there. This argument is without merit.

 

[dybmh]

Yeah, but that is not the entire blob. That is a process in your brain. That you can think everything, doesn't mean you are everything.
If you think everything and I think differently, is that differently a case of non-existence or a case of not everything, but something else.

Just to be clear, you asked me to skip half the blob. So when you're saying "that is not the entire blob", you're really only talking about "the entire half-blob" that you asked me to consider, right?

Also, I can't think everything. I never said I could. But when I include the negation/compliment of everything I can imagine, then I automatically get the total. Y+NotY includes everything. Nothing is excluded by defintion.

And! Even if you and I think totally differently, and your version of Y is totally different than my version of Y, when each of us applies the negation/compliment of our own versions of Y and combines it with our own versions of Y, we get the same total. That's how mutally exclusive properties work.

 

[dybmh]

model it in a CASE tool with consistency checking and so on? Better still, mathematical specification, like Z?

Z does not appear capable of working with categories? Do you have access to it? Can you demonstrate how it works?

CASE? Do you have access to it? Can you give a demo for how it would be used in this discussion?

 

[timothy1027]

In over 4,423 years of religious scriptures (since 2,400 BCE), nobody has ever provided any evidence that Gods exists. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to claim any of God's attributes (e.g., all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, wise, perfect, jealous, loving) or what God wants, thinks, did, said, etc. etc. etc. God has chosen to remain anonymous & mysterious over the millennia. I don't make the rules, I just play the game (live a productive life).

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

In over 4,423 years of religious scriptures (since 2,400 BCE), nobody has ever provided any evidence that Gods exists. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to claim any of God's attributes (e.g., all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, wise, perfect, jealous, loving) or what God wants, thinks, did, said, etc. etc. etc. God has chosen to remain anonymous & mysterious over the millennia. I don't make the rules, I just play the game (live a productive life).

In fact, some attributes ascribed to God would postulate that such an entity would by nature be impossible to conceptualize, let alone describe or explain. Sometimes, the hubris of human beings has no bounds... Is that a facet of His image, or ours?

 

[timothy1027]

In fact, some attributes ascribed to God would postulate that such an entity would by nature be impossible to conceptualize, let alone describe or explain. Sometimes, the hubris of human beings has no bounds... Is that a facet of His image, or ours?

Well, let's see. The Christians claim that we were made "in His image." So I guess it's a "like father like son" kind of thing.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why is it a semantic fault? Because a concept doesn't literally contain anything, but you are looking for literal containment in a concept, not finding it, and claiming there's a problem with this. There is no problem, because, by definition a concept doesn't literally contain anything.

You've not made a proper distinction.

Seriously, you don't seen to understand that you're being vague. You have a concept (LI) that is a whole bunch of other concepts including itself (because it too is a concept). It matters not one jot whether you call it "literal containment" (I suspect you're getting confused by representation again because you can't stop thinking like a coder) or not - it contains itself in exactly the same way as it contains any other concept, like fried artichokes on toast or whatever.

Just having groupings of arbitrary concepts pretty much is naive set theory, which is why you run into the problems, that you keep trying to use vague language and programming bodges to get round.

It makes no logical difference whether you call it "literal inclusion" or not.

It makes no logical difference how you might imagine implementing it. You're not going to implement it; it's supposed to be a fundamental concept (the most fundamental concept, apparently), not an elaborate databases replete with endless flags and programming hacks.

Nope. I made a clear distinction; internal borders are infinitesimal.

So it's not a unity at all.

The concept as you have defined it is no different than a married-bachelor, or a true-lie.

It's entirely different because it was directly deduced from you own construct. This is a reductio ad absurdum of your LI concept.

In fact it's virtually the same as the pretty much universally accepted proof that the number of subsets in a set is larger than the set itself, even if it is an infinite set.

The proof starts with the opposite assumption and assumes that the number of subsets is the same and we can therefore put the subsets in a one-to-one map with the original elements. The problem is that in such a pairing the element is either in the subset it's paired with or not. So what about the sunset of all the elements that are not in its paired subset?

This is the same proof that continuum infinity has a larger cardinality than countable infinity.

This, of course, will also apply to LI because the concept of all the groups of concepts in LI is going to be bigger than LI itself.

A concept is not literal. This is a category error.

A concept is a concept. I said something was "literally impossible", not that any concept was literal. What's a literal concept anyway?

It is precise enough for you to understand what I mean.

No. You don't seem to understand how exact you have to be if you're going to prove something like this is possible.

I'm not indulging you any more in comments about me.

I'm just referring to how you are going about constructing your argument here. I'm not trying to be personal.

Your argument at this point reduces to faith that an inconsistency must be there.

No. I've been exact throughout and provided formulas where needed.

Z does not appear capable of working with categories? Do you have access to it? Can you demonstrate how it works?

Since you don't seem to be using formal category theory, not sure that it matters. I studied it a while back, there are probably tools around but you can do it in normal documents.

Anyway, that wasn't my point. I was trying to understand why you aren't being more precise, because software specifications can be very precise if done formally, and you don't have to go all the way to Z to do better.

CASE? Do you have access to it? Can you give a demo for how it would be used in this discussion?

That explains something. CASE - Computer-Aided Software Engineering. It generally involves using visual models. That is diagrams that have a formal syntax that can be used to specify software systems. A good CASE tool will also do a number of automatic consistency checks. At it's simplest you can just draw the diagrams.

Last time I was involved UML was the modelling language for almost everything, with a variant called SysML for wider systems that involved hardware too.

Anyway, I digress. The point is that those sorts of systems help one to thing in exact terms and avoid the vagaries of English. For example, to take your previous examples: physical actions, physical events, ideas, and symbols. If you were thinking in terms of putting them on a UML class diagram, then you'd have to think about how they relate to each other. If action is a type of event (as I speculated), then that's an inheritance relationship, maybe something like this:

I'm not saying you should do this, but thinking in these terms helps precision.

Anyway, the fundamental problems you have are to do with saying exactly where and how your LI deviates from naive set theory (which is the simplest way of considering informal groups of anything) and how exactly you avoid these contradictions.

And your argument really does need to move away from hand-waving and ad hoc coding bodges.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In over 4,423 years of religious scriptures (since 2,400 BCE), nobody has ever provided any evidence that Gods exists. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to claim any of God's attributes (e.g., all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, wise, perfect, jealous, loving) or what God wants, thinks, did, said, etc. etc. etc. God has chosen to remain anonymous & mysterious over the millennia. I don't make the rules, I just play the game (live a productive life).

Yeah, I live another in part different productive life than you, because I play the game in part differently than you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, let's see. The Christians claim that we were made "in His image." So I guess it's a "like father like son" kind of thing.

Well, not all gods are Christian or even theistic and not all religion is Abrahamic.

 

[dybmh]

In over 4,423 years of religious scriptures (since 2,400 BCE), nobody has ever provided any evidence that Gods exists. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to claim any of God's attributes (e.g., all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, wise, perfect, jealous, loving) or what God wants, thinks, did, said, etc. etc. etc. God has chosen to remain anonymous & mysterious over the millennia. I don't make the rules, I just play the game (live a productive life).

This thread is not about claiming what God is. This thread is about claiming what God can't be, and then testing if that is true.

The claim is: "God can't be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent because ..." I am arguing that is false. God can be both simultaneously in spite of the condition of the world we live in. There are several implications if God actually is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But I am not arguing that. All I'm saying is it could be true, and if it is then none of the suffering and hardship is in vain. All of it has meaning and value.

 

[dybmh]

You've not made a proper distinction.

I did, but you ignored it. The common-ground should be set theory since you are using set theory consistently here.
The distinction is ∈ ≠ ⊂. To which you answered: "I know."

Seriously, you don't seen to understand that you're being vague. You have a concept (LI) that is a whole bunch of other concepts including itself (because it too is a concept). It matters not one jot whether you call it "literal containment" (I suspect you're getting confused by representation again because you can't stop thinking like a coder) or not - it contains itself in exactly the same way as it contains any other concept, like fried artichokes on toast or whatever.

Literal infinity includes itself exactly the same as any other concept includes anything. There is a symbolic representation for producing the desired result. What is included is "virtually the same" as "pretty much" any other function or method used in set theory. I put those phrases in quotes because you used those same phrases later in your reply. So you should not object to my use of them as well.

Just having groupings of arbitrary concepts pretty much is naive set theory, which is why you run into the problems, that you keep trying to use vague language and programming bodges to get round.

It's not arbitrary. It's orderly. I have already shown that the construct I have defined can produce results that a naive set cannot produce.

Further, we could do an experiment to test the bounds of the capabilites of a naive set. It doesn't have to be complicated. I think the test will show that a naive set either: cannot produce anything close to what I am describing OR the limitations on what can be included in the set will be reduced to the point where anything can be included in a set without paradox or inconsitency.

If I'm right, then it can be concluded that the objections based on the capabilites of a naive set are moot. When the limitations are rigidly enforced, the naive set is not at all like what I'm describing. When the limitations are relaxed, there can be no objections to what I am describing based on naive set theory.

It makes no logical difference whether you call it "literal inclusion" or not.

A set literally contains ( except the empty set ). That is its definition.
A concept never literally contains. That is its defintion.
That's why there is a paradox in naive set theory, and not in what I have defined.

It makes no logical difference how you might imagine implementing it. You're not going to implement it; it's supposed to be a fundamental concept (the most fundamental concept, apparently), not an elaborate databases replete with endless flags and programming hacks.

Obviously I'm not going to implement it any more than anyone is going to compute the last digit of Pi.

So it's not a unity at all.

I think it is, but I can't prove it, and I don't need that property in the way you are defining moving forward.

It's entirely different because it was directly deduced from you own construct. This is a reductio ad absurdum of your LI concept.

No it wasn't. You did not use my construct. I precisely defined the concept "all concepts which do not contain themself", then I precisely defined how I would enumerate them without paradox or inconsistency. You defined it differenty using a different construct which produced a contradiction. It's the same as any other contradiction.

In fact it's virtually the same as the pretty much universally accepted proof that the number of subsets in a set is larger than the set itself, even if it is an infinite set.

That's just a quantity.

The proof starts with the opposite assumption and assumes that the number of subsets is the same and we can therefore put the subsets in a one-to-one map with the original elements. The problem is that in such a pairing the element is either in the subset it's paired with or not. So what about the sunset of all the elements that are not in its paired subset?

This is the same proof that continuum infinity has a larger cardinality than countable infinity.

Just a quantity.

This, of course, will also apply to LI because the concept of all the groups of concepts in LI is going to be bigger than LI itself.

No. the concept of all the quantity of groups of concepts in LI is going to be bigger than the quantity of LI itself.

Yes. That's true. That's what it means when the categories become more and more general producing an absolute all inclusive conglomerate. The quantity of the categories is always greater than quantity of the conglomerate which is 1.

A concept is a concept. I said something was "literally impossible", not that any concept was literal. What's a literal concept anyway?

Yes literal containment is literally impossible for any concept by definition. A "literal-concept" is a contradiction. That is why considering whether or not any concept is literally contained in any other concept is a category error.

No. You don't seem to understand how exact you have to be if you're going to prove something like this is possible.

Not true. That's not how logic works. The proposition can be valid, but not sound. A logical implication ( the material conditional ) is assumed true unless it is proven that both the antecedent is true and the consequent is false.

And technically, this is modal logic. All I need to show is there is 1 possible world where what I am describing can be true. That's why bringing one method that produces a paradox does not invalidate a different method which does not produce the paradox.

The way to disprove what I'm saying is to take what I'm actually saying and undermine it. I have given you precise definitions, and you do understand them. But you can't undermine them, because they work. That's the difference between math and engineering. Engineers know which tools to use to make stuff that works. I've contructed a tool that works.

No. I've been exact throughout and provided formulas where needed.

Actually I could be pendantic and pick apart what you've written in the same way you are trying to pick apart what I'm saying, eventhough, you *actually* understand what I mean.

Ignoring that, there are at least two things which you haven't precisely defined. And I think precisely defining them would resolve all or most of the debate, either in my favor or against: Incomplete and Inconsistent. You have asserted that the construct I have defined will be either one or both. But these terms have not been defined; I think the failure condition you are asserting is a semantic fault. But I could be wrong.

Once these two failure conditions are precisely defined then we have two options. Either you can take what I have defined and show that it is either incomplete or inconsistent, or you can challenge me to produce a concept which you predict must be either one of those. I have already precisely defined the concept: "all concepts which do not contain themself", so we could start there.