Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[ratiocinator]

And it does.

Species is a concept, A species is a concept.

Atomic elements is a concept. An atomic element is a concept.

Transportation is a concept. A means of transportation is a concept.

And you've missed the point again. I know they're all concepts, that doesn't matter. What matters is exactly what the different collective concepts are are grouping together. "Concept of all concepts" is supposed to include every concept and so belongs in itself. The others are not groups of general concepts, they are groups of specific, selected concepts that they themselves do not belong to.

Hence, there is a basic and unavoidable difference between the "Concept of all concepts" and all the other examples I listed.

There will be others that share this difference too, like the "concept of all concepts that are groups of concepts". Because it is itself a concept that is a group of concepts, its own selection criteria will select itself to be included. Compare and contrast with (for example) the "concept of all atomic elements". It is not itself a concept of an atomic element, so its selection criteria will not select itself for inclusion.

The problem is that once you've identified this difference, you can then ask about the concept of "all concepts whose selection criteria do not select themselves" and ask the question: does that selection criteria select itself or not? If it does, it shouldn't have, and if it doesn't, it should have.

Note also, that I did not refer to any set theory at all in any of that argument.

If you can't understand this, the whole conversation is pointless.

 

[dybmh]

And you've missed the point again. I know they're all concepts, that doesn't matter. What matters is exactly what the different collective concepts are are grouping together. "Concept of all concepts" is supposed to include every concept and so belongs in itself. The others are not groups of general concepts, they are groups of specific, selected concepts that they themselves do not belong to.

Starting out considering a concept then switching to not considering concepts is a category error.

Hence, there is a basic and unavoidable difference between the "Concept of all concepts" and all the other examples I listed.

Then the point you're making is invalid. Apples/oranges.

There will be others that share this difference too, like the "concept of all concepts that are groups of concepts". Because it is itself a concept that is a group of concepts, its own selection criteria will select itself to be included.

So what? That's not inconsistent or incomplete in the definition I brought for Literal Infinity.

Compare and contrast with (for example) the "concept of all atomic elements". It is not itself a concept of an atomic element, so its selection criteria will not select itself for inclusion.

Sure it will. Your test is invalid. What is your selection criteria? Did you flip from considering a concept included in a concept again?

Mercury and Lithium and Boron, etc are all concepts which are included.
The sum of all those included concepts is "the concept of an atomic element and the concept of what is not an atomic element".
The concept of "all the atomic elements" = "the concept of an atomic element and the concept of what is not an atomic element".
The concept "all the atomic elements" is included in the concept "all the atomic elements". Nothing conceptually is excluded.

The problem is that once you've identified this difference, you can then ask about the concept of "all concepts whose selection criteria do not select themselves" and ask the question: does that selection criteria select itself or not? If it does, it shouldn't have, and if it doesn't, it should have.

You haven't identified a difference. You've switched from considering a concept included in a concept to considering literal membership again. That doesn't work. It's an invalid test. It's violating the defintion of a concept.

Note also, that I did not refer to any set theory at all in any of that argument.

You didn't make a valid argument. And I am guessing that if you actually describe your "selection criteria" is will be something having to do with set theory and set membership.

If you can't understand this, the whole conversation is pointless.

I'm quite sure I've learned everything you have to teach on the subject.

 

[ratiocinator]

Starting out considering a concept then switching to not considering concepts is a category error.

I didn't switch to not considering concepts. Analogy: if I point out (say) that prime numbers have a property that distinguishes them from other numbers and then you point out that they are all numbers, then me pointing at that you missed the point, wouldn't mean I was no longer talking about numbers.

I'm still talking about concepts, but I'm talking about a difference between concepts that require self-inclusion and those that don't.

Then the point you're making is invalid. Apples/oranges.

Bare assertion.

That's not inconsistent or incomplete in the definition I brought for Literal Infinity.

I didn't say it was.

Sure it will. Your test is invalid. What is your selection criteria? Did you flip from considering a concept included in a concept again?

What on earth do you mean by 'flip' to it? Some concepts, by their definition, must include themselves.

Mercury and Lithium and Boron, etc are all concepts which are included.
The sum of all those included concepts is "the concept of an atomic element and the concept of what is not an atomic element".
The concept of "all the atomic elements" = "the concept of an atomic element and the concept of what is not an atomic element".
The concept "all the atomic elements" is included in the concept "all the atomic elements". Nothing conceptually is excluded.

Muddled thinking.

Collecting all the concepts that represent elements does not magically become the "the concept of an atomic element and the concept of what is not an atomic element". That's a different concept entirely. Or is this a classic deepity? It's trivially true in the sense that you can just remove "all atomic elements" from everything else and get what "the concept of what is not an atomic element", which is just irrelevant to the point.

The statement "all the atomic elements" is included in the concept "all the atomic elements" is nonsensical. If it includes "all the atomic elements", then it is not the concept of "all the atomic elements", it's the concept of "all the atomic elements" with the concept "all the atomic elements" (which isn't an atomic element) added in to it.

You haven't identified a difference. You've switched from considering a concept included in a concept to considering literal membership again.

It simply doesn't matter whether it's "literal inclusion" (however you define that) or not. It's the difference between concepts that are themselves instances of those items they are supposed to group together and those that are not. This is a clear difference between concepts whether you like it or not.

And I am guessing that if you actually describe your "selection criteria" is will be something having to do with set theory and set membership.

How do you want to do it? Take your pick. For "all atomic elements" you just need to find all the items in your database (to use your own analogy) that represent an atomic element. If it manages to select "all atomic elements", then it's a terrible, buggy search, query, or whatever. On the other hand, if you try to find "all concepts that are collections of other concepts", and it doesn't find itself, you've likewise got a terrible bug-ridden process.

[Edited for typos]

 

[dybmh]

The problem is that once you've identified this difference, you can then ask about the concept of "all concepts whose selection criteria do not select themselves" and ask the question: does that selection criteria select itself or not? If it does, it shouldn't have, and if it doesn't, it should have.

"all concepts whose selection criteria do not select themselves" will select itself. What's inconsistent about that? It doesn't say it shouldn't select itself.

 

[ratiocinator]

all concepts whose selection criteria do not select themselves" will select itself. What's inconsistent about that?

The fact that if it selects itself it is not a concept whose selection criteria do not select themselves.

 

[dybmh]

The fact that if it selects itself it is not a concept whose selection criteria do not select themselves.

So what? The concept is "all concepts whose selection criteria do not select themselves".

"All the concepts whose selection criteria do not select themselves" =/= "A concept whose selection criteria does not select themselves"

Those are two different concepts.

And to save you a bit of time. The concept is not the selection criteria itself.

"A concept whose selection criteria does not select themselves" =/= "the selection criteria which does not select themself"

So, when the concept above is defined, it doesn't actually self-reference in a way that produces a paradox. That's because a concept permits abstraction.

The actual search criteria is not the concept, so it also doesn't produce a paradox. There's a seperation between enumerating the results and the concept itself.

 

[ratiocinator]

"All the concepts whose selection criteria do not select themselves" =/= "A concept whose selection criteria does not select themselves"

No, but "All the concepts whose selection criteria do not select themselves" should include all instances of "A concept whose selection criteria does not select themselves", that's kind of what 'all means.

And to save you a bit of time. The concept is not the selection criteria itself.

The concept's definition defines its selection criteria. The selection criteria are just a way of applying the definition.

So, when the concept above is defined, it doesn't actually self-reference in a way that produces a paradox. That's because a concept permits abstraction.

Makes no sense.

You said:

"all concepts whose selection criteria do not select themselves" will select itself.

Which makes it wrong because its contents will then be incorrect according to its definition, i.e. it will include one concept (itself) that contradicts its definition.

So, when the concept above is defined, it doesn't actually self-reference in a way that produces a paradox. That's because a concept permits abstraction.

Why not and how does abstraction help?

The actual search criteria is not the concept, so it also doesn't produce a paradox. There's a seperation between enumerating the results and the concept itself.

The enumeration produces the contents. In this case, according to what you said, it will produce contents that contradict the definition.

 

[dybmh]

Which makes it wrong because its contents will then be incorrect according to its definition, i.e. it will include one concept (itself) that contradicts its definition.

What definition? Your defintion or my definition? This is the crux of all of this. Just because YOU can define things in a way that produces a paradox, that doesn't mean I cannot define it in a way that does not produce the paradox.

Including itself doesn't violate the definition, it satisfies it.

"all concepts whose selection criteria that do not select themselves" = Select * From * Where "select-itself=false"
---> this will return itself satisfying the defintion

"all concepts whose selection criteria that do not select themselves" = Select * From * Where "select-itself=true"
---> this will not return itself satisfying the defintion

Whether or not it returns itself is purely abitrary, it all depends on whether the condition is filtered on "=true" or "=false".

 

[ratiocinator]

What definition? Your defintion or my definition?

The definition of the relevant concept.

"all concepts whose selection criteria that do not select themselves" = Select * From * Where "select-itself=false"
---> this will return itself satisfying the defintion

This is a clear contradiction of its definition. By selecting itself it becomes a counterexample to its own definition.

If you're just going to arbitrarily set its flag to "select-itself=false", then the flag contradicts what it's actually selecting (grouping together) and now you've got two contradictions.

 

[dybmh]

The definition of the relevant concept.

There's 2 ways to define the selection criteria. Both are equally valid.

This is a clear contradiction of its definition. By selecting itself it becomes a counterexample to its own definition.

No, that specific example is a contrapostive.

I said:

"all concepts whose selection criteria that do not select themselves" = Select * From * Where "select-itself=false"
---> this will return itself satisfying the defintion

"do not select themselves" AND "select-itself=false" is True. It's not a contradiction.

When the SELECT statement returns itself, that is consistent BECAUSE of the defintion.

But if it bothers you, I can do it the other way too.

If you're just going to arbitrarily set its flag to "select-itself=false", then the flag contradicts what it's actually selecting (grouping together) and now you've got two contradictions.

The flag isn't arbitrary. The choice of whether to select on True/False is arbitrary. And the interpretation of the results follows from that. That's because there's 2 ways to evaluate True/False. The direct approach asks "is it true or false?" The contrapostive, you know this, I'm sure, asks "is it not true or not false?"

"Select-itself" would be produced using a special variable called "ME". Databases can self-reference without any problems at all.
But there's a still a choice whether to select on "WHERE Not ME.Attribute-Relationship-Filter=True" or "WHERE ME.Attribute-Relationship-Filter=False"

Either way works. Since you're not liking the contrapositive, for the special case "does not select itself" let's use "WHERE Not ME.Attribute-Relationship-Filter=True"? OK? This will produce 0 results in Literal Infinity as I have defined it.

Each concept is an object. Each object is defined by a statement of conjuntions and/or disjunctions and/or negations of attribute+relationship pairs. That statement can be used in an attribute-relationship-filter to select matching objects using a SELECT statement. Because all objects have a corresponding attribute-relationship-filter, selecting for those that do not have a corresponding attribute-relationship-filter will produce 0 results. All concepts are objects and all objects have a corresponding attribute-relationship-filter by defintion. It's what a concept is.

Conversely the special case "does select itself" would return Literal Infinity, itself. Everything matches by definition.

There's no reason to ever execute that command. It only produces duplicates. But it could be done. There's also no reason to execute the command "does not select itself". That's equally pointless. Just as selecting all the square-circles, true-lies, 3-wheel-bicycles... but all those concepts exist in Literal Infinity. They simply produce 0 results.

 

[YoursTrue]

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 needGods 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.

I'm going to start with myself. Because when I first learned about God, not knowing much because nobody really taught me, I figured that God, in a manner of speaking (meaning privilege and authority and power) was way above me. Most of all, in power. Who was He (or it)? I didn't know much about him, but I still had the idea He (whoever He was) was way above me, certainly in power. I knew I could not see Him but He was somewhere. Where I didn't know. Meaning I didn't think He was on the Earth. But I didn't really learn much until I was older. Thanks for the question, or your thoughts above. (Food for thought and remembrance.)

 

[ratiocinator]

"all concepts whose selection criteria that do not select themselves" = Select * From * Where "select-itself=false"
---> this will return itself satisfying the defintion

"do not select themselves" AND "select-itself=false" is True. It's not a contradiction.

You're now trying to change the concept itself to get round the problem. The original is still a concept whether you like it or not.

All this database stuff and all the flags you've brought in can be nothing but analogies because you're trying to define something fundamental. There can't literally be a database, neither can you go through fiddling with flags "by hand" to avoid contradictions. There will be an infinite number of concepts to consider.

And, of course, if LI was literally a database, I could add anything that wasn't a database and there would be no duplication. Even if what I added was already in the database, just removing it from the structure would make it different.

"all concepts whose selection criteria that do not select themselves" is just an analogy (to fit in with your obsession with databases) of "all concepts that don't include themselves" or "all concepts whose definition does not imply self-inclusion".

""do not select themselves" AND "select-itself=false" is True" is a new and different concept that's brought in a concept of a flag and a bodge to said flag to try to get round the problem with the original concept. And the flag is an additional contradiction. If it's set false and it does select itself, the the flag is wrong.

You've done nothing to address the contradiction with the original concept.

 

[dybmh]

You're now trying to change the concept itself to get round the problem. The original is still a concept whether you like it or not.

I haven't changed a thing. It's simple.

All this database stuff and all the flags you've brought in can be nothing but analogies because you're trying to define something fundamental. There can't literally be a database, neither can you go through fiddling with flags "by hand" to avoid contradictions. There will be an infinite number of concepts to consider.

I'm not avoiding any contradictions. That's the point. They are included just as they are. As contradictions.

And, of course, if LI was literally a database, I could add anything that wasn't a database and there would be no duplication. Even if what I added was already in the database, just removing it from the structure would make it different.

It's a model. The database is a way to model it. When I asked you to precisely define something, you brought a finite example, then produced very short truncated version of an infinite set to make your point. I have done the same thing.

"all concepts whose selection criteria that do not select themselves" is just an analogy (to fit in with your obsession with databases) of "all concepts that don't include themselves" or "all concepts whose definition does not imply self-inclusion".

Well... now, you're the one being imprecise.

"all concepts that don't include themselves" produces 0 results.
"all concepts whose definition does not imply self-inclusion" produces 0 results.

"do not select themselves" AND "select-itself=false" is True" is a new and different concept that's brought in a concept of a flag and a bodge to said flag to try to get round the problem with the original concept.

Please precisely define the concept that you are talking about.

You've done nothing to address the contradiction with the original concept.

Please define what you're talking about so we can discuss it properly.

 

[ratiocinator]

I'm not avoiding any contradictions. That's the point. They are included just as they are. As contradictions.

They are not external contradictions. They represent internal inconsistency. Every time I work it though in a different way, you've made up something else. This time adding a "select-itself" flag that is inconsistent with the definitions.

Well... now, you're the one being imprecise.

"all concepts that don't include themselves" produces 0 results.
"all concepts whose definition does not imply self-inclusion" produces 0 results.

Then the results are wrong. The selection criteria are just another way of expressing the definition of the concept. So "all concepts that are groups of concepts" directly implies self-inclusion, conceptually includes itself, and its selection criteria selects itself. Those all all ways of saying exactly the same thing.

As I said before, there can be no literal database, there can be no flags. This is supposed to be the most fundamental concept there is. If you make it into an elaborate database that needs contradictory flags and the like to work, it's clearly a creation and cannot possibly be a fundamental concept, let alone a unity with no boundaries.

Please precisely define the concept that you are talking about.

The one that causes you the problem (well, the most obvious one) is "all concepts that don't include themselves", which is identical to "all concepts whose definition does not imply self-inclusion" which is identical to "all concepts whose selection criteria that do not select themselves". They are just different ways to express the same idea, depending on what analogy you're using.

 

[dybmh]

They are not external contradictions. They represent internal inconsistency. Every time I work it though in a different way, you've made up something else. This time adding a "select-itself" flag that is inconsistent with the definitions.

i haven't made up something else; all i'm doing is answering your questions. you haven't shown any inconsistency. you strongly believe it must be there. kind of like an invisible satan. but you need to have real evidence that it exists to make a logical argument about it. even the wind has objective evidence of its own existence.

Then the results are wrong.

how are they wrong? what's wrong about them?

The selection criteria are just another way of expressing the definition of the concept. So "all concepts that are groups of concepts" directly implies self-inclusion, conceptually includes itself, and its selection criteria selects itself. Those all all ways of saying exactly the same thing.

I know they mean the same thing. That's why I said none of them produce any results. My point is that sometimes it's ok to be imprecise. I was trying to show you that the "it's vague" tactic is a double-standard which is being applied only to me.

Now. What you said above is very important. possibly one of the most important things so far in the discussion:

"all concepts that are groups of concepts" directly implies self-inclusion, that's true! But when the concept is in he form "All X that don't..." it could be better to use the indirect, contrapostive. It all depends on the situation.

As I said before, there can be no literal database, there can be no flags. This is supposed to be the most fundamental concept there is. If you make it into an elaborate database that needs contradictory flags and the like to work, it's clearly a creation and cannot possibly be a fundamental concept, let alone a unity with no boundaries.

And as I said before it's not a literal database. the database is a model. it's no different than bringing a truncated infinite set which demonstrates a trend approaching numeric countable infinity. Or a matrix/array approaching numeric uncountable infinity.

Limit of a sequence - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The one that causes you the problem (well, the most obvious one) is "all concepts that don't include themselves", which is identical to "all concepts whose definition does not imply self-inclusion" which is identical to "all concepts whose selection criteria that do not select themselves". They are just different ways to express the same idea, depending on what analogy you're using.

Please, I asked for a precise definition. I have described what the words "all concepts that don't include themselves" mean to me. And you have not indicated what is contradictory about my understanding of those words. You have declared they must be contradictory, but you have not indicated how or where the contradiction comes from. You keep saying its so simple. If so, it should be simple to type it out.

A contradiction should be in the form of:

up-down
black-white
true-lie
nondairy-milk
theist-atheist
open-closed

something like that.

To be clear I'm saying: "all concepts that don't include themselves" can be defined to ways: directly or contra-positive (counter-intuitive). My brain prefers the contra-positive in this case. I would like a list of "hits" I can point to with my finger. That's why when you originally brought up this concept, I used the contra-positive which produces a list.

In a professional environment, I think, hopefully, you can understand my thinking?

If the boss asks "what are all the X that don't Y", I'm going to bring them a list of the ones that satisfy the condition. I'm not going to email them back and say, "X is never not Y". If I did that, they would email me back and say, "No, I want a list of them. I have a meeting, this is for a presentation..."

Example, from my professional career, Boss: "What are the workstations in the jail that don't surf the internet?" Answer: "None of them surf the interent, we have it blocked." Boss: "No, I want a list to show the Sheriff" Answer: "Just tell the Sheriff, none of them surf the internet." Boss: "I didn't ask 'how many', Please do an audit on internet usage in the jail, then report back which ones do not surf the internet. If the list includes all of them, that's great! It means we're doing our job!"

This wouldn't actually happen, I would know it's for a presentation...

For some reason, this has produced an imagined contradiction when you are considering "all concepts that don't include themselves", but it's all about persepctive. "All concepts" is inclusive. "don't include themself" is exclusive. If the focus is on "ALL" then the contrapositive is appropriate. If the focus is on "DON'T" then it isn't. But both work equally well, it just depends on what is the focus and how the results are interpretted.

You're the Boss. You want to focus on "Don't", no problem. The answer is "NONE of them do" and "all of them DON'T".

But, just because none =/= all and do =/= don't, please don't confuse "NONE of them do" and "all of them DON'T" as a contradiction.

 

[ratiocinator]

I know they mean the same thing. That's why I said none of them produce any results.

If this is true, then LI is not all-inclusive. If, as you said:

"all concepts that don't include themselves" produces 0 results.
"all concepts whose definition does not imply self-inclusion" produces 0 results.

...then I can add those concepts to LI without duplication.

My point is that sometimes it's ok to be imprecise.

No, it isn't. I thought this was clear, and your answer confirms that it was (between us, anyway). However, it is true that this was not clear from just the things I posted, which means that I wasn't being precise enough. This is the basic problem with trying to use English that I pointed out before.

You need a formal framework in order to prove anything like this, so as long as you stick to English, you'll never achieve it.

"all concepts that are groups of concepts" directly implies self-inclusion, that's true! But when the concept is in he form "All X that don't..." it could be better to use the indirect, contrapostive. It all depends on the situation.

The way you re-defined what I said, added a flag that changed the concept. It had nothing to do with what you call a "contrapostive". What's more, the flag was set so that it contradicted what was actually happening. In other words, it was just an arbitrary hack, that attempted to bodge around a fundamental contradiction.

You simply can't have 'hand crafted' flags that are set arbitrarily to try to get round fundamental contradiction in a concept that is meant to be fundamental.

And as I said before it's not a literal database. the database is a model. it's no different than bringing a truncated infinite set which demonstrates a trend approaching numeric countable infinity. Or a matrix/array approaching numeric uncountable infinity.

What is the process that you are taking the limit of? That is, what are the first few steps from a database towards a fundamental concept? Unless you can specify exactly how this is done, in a purely algorithmic way, you have nothing to take the limit of.

I have described what the words "all concepts that don't include themselves" mean to me. And you have not indicated what is contradictory about my understanding of those words.

You added a flag to it that changed the concept. You need to deal with the bare concept otherwise LI is missing it.

You have declared they must be contradictory, but you have not indicated how or where the contradiction comes from. You keep saying its so simple. If so, it should be simple to type it out.

What!? How many times? The contradiction is simple. If the concept of the group of "all concepts that don't include themselves" includes itself, then it shouldn't, and if it doesn't, then it should have.

This is a reductio ad absurdum of the whole notion that you are trying to construct. That's a standard way to refute an idea, and this is an absolutely standard result associated with attempts to construct things like LI.

It's worth pointing out again that if you stick with a coding paradigm, then you're going to run into another limitation that was discovered in the early 20th century. Despite all that has happened in computing since, no computer has ever done anything that doesn't reduce to a general recursive or μ-recursive function.

For some reason, this has produced an imagined contradiction when you are considering "all concepts that don't include themselves", but it's all about persepctive. "All concepts" is inclusive. "don't include themself" is exclusive. If the focus is on "ALL" then the contrapositive is appropriate. If the focus is on "DON'T" then it isn't. But both work equally well, it just depends on what is the focus and how the results are interpretted.

You're the Boss. You want to focus on "Don't", no problem. The answer is "NONE of them do" and "all of them DON'T".

It really doesn't matter which way round you do the logic, the concept question is perfectly valid. There are clear examples of both concepts that include themselves and those that don't:

"All atomic elements" - does not include itself.
"All apes" - does not include itself.
"All concepts" - does include itself.
"All concepts that are groups of other concepts" - does include itself.

Therefore "all concepts that don't include themselves" is a valid group concept to ask about., and the question of whether it includes itself is valid too. You cannot just bodge in a flag because you don't like where the logic takes you and still pretend that you're defining a fundamental concept.

But, just because none =/= all and do =/= don't, please don't confuse "NONE of them do" and "all of them DON'T" as a contradiction.

No idea why you think this is at all relevant. Of course they are the same. It's supremely irrelevant to the point.

 

[dybmh]

If this is true, then LI is not all-inclusive. If, as you said:


...then I can add those concepts to LI without duplication.

You're still stuck in set theory. I said:

"all concepts that don't include themselves" produces 0 results.
"all concepts whose definition does not imply self-inclusion" produces 0 results.

Both concepts are included AND they have 0 results. Just because they have zero results doesn't mean they aren't included.

No, it isn't. I thought this was clear, and your answer confirms that it was (between us, anyway). However, it is true that this was not clear from just the things I posted, which means that I wasn't being precise enough. This is the basic problem with trying to use English that I pointed out before.

You need a formal framework in order to prove anything like this, so as long as you stick to English, you'll never achieve it.

Not true. Modal logic. What I'm saying is true if it can exist in 1 possible world.

The way you re-defined what I said, added a flag that changed the concept. It had nothing to do with what you call a "contrapostive". What's more, the flag was set so that it contradicted what was actually happening. In other words, it was just an arbitrary hack, that attempted to bodge around a fundamental contradiction.

You simply can't have 'hand crafted' flags that are set arbitrarily to try to get round fundamental contradiction in a concept that is meant to be fundamental.

Not true. That's not what I did. I explained where the flag comes from. Post#450. It's up a few posts. Just scroll up, it's in the middle. Or search this page for the word "arbitrary".

What is the process that you are taking the limit of? That is, what are the first few steps from a database towards a fundamental concept? Unless you can specify exactly how this is done, in a purely algorithmic way, you have nothing to take the limit of.

Post#331

You added a flag to it that changed the concept. You need to deal with the bare concept otherwise LI is missing it.

Please precisely define the concept you are referring to.

What!? How many times? The contradiction is simple. If the concept of the group of "all concepts that don't include themselves" includes itself, then it shouldn't, and if it doesn't, then it should have.

There is nothing in the words "all concepts that don't include themselves" that says it cannot include itself.
There is nothing in the words "all concepts that don't include themselves" that says it must include itself.

This is why a precise definition is needed for the concept you are talking about.

This is a reductio ad absurdum of the whole notion that you are trying to construct. That's a standard way to refute an idea, and this is an absolutely standard result associated with attempts to construct things like LI.

It's worth pointing out again that if you stick with a coding paradigm, then you're going to run into another limitation that was discovered in the early 20th century. Despite all that has happened in computing since, no computer has ever done anything that doesn't reduce to a general recursive or μ-recursive function.

Name dropping won't work. From the link, the first sentence, emphasis mine:

​

In mathematical logic and computer science, a general recursive function, partial recursive function, or μ-recursive function is a partial function from natural numbers to natural numbers that is "computable" in an intuitive sense – as well as in a formal one.​

​

It works both intuitively and formally. So, you need to show how it is somehow a problem.

It really doesn't matter which way round you do the logic, the concept question is perfectly valid.

I never said it wasn't a valid question. I'm saying it's not a problem.

There are clear examples of both concepts that include themselves and those that don't:

"All atomic elements" - does not include itself.
"All apes" - does not include itself.
"All concepts" - does include itself.
"All concepts that are groups of other concepts" - does include itself.

What is the conceptual difference between "All atomic elements" and the combined characterisitics of its members?
What is the conceptual difference between "All apes" and the combined characterisitics of its members?
What is the conceptual difference between "All concepts" and the combined characterisitics of its members?

What is the conceptual difference between "x=y" and the combined characterisitics of its members?
What is the conceptual difference between "x^2=y" and the combined characterisitics of its members?
What is the conceptual difference between "x^3=y" and the combined characterisitics of its members?

What is the conceptual difference between {ℕ} and the combined characterisitics of its members?
What is the conceptual difference between {ℤ} and the combined characterisitics of its members?
What is the conceptual difference between {ℝ} and the combined characterisitics of its members?

I've made this point several times. All you could come up with is cardinality, but that is irrelevant.

Therefore "all concepts that don't include themselves" is a valid group concept to ask about

I never said it wasn't a valid concept to ask about. Please ask about ANY concept. It will be included by definition.

., and the question of whether it includes itself is valid too.

I never said it wasn't. I said there are 2 ways to consider it. Do you want a list of all the ones that don't? Or do you want an empty list showing that none do? It's totally your call, I can do both.

You cannot just bodge in a flag because you don't like where the logic takes you and still pretend that you're defining a fundamental concept.

You like this word bodge. We don't use that word in America. Below is what's important right now:

There is nothing in the words "all concepts that don't include themselves" that says it cannot include itself.
There is nothing in the words "all concepts that don't include themselves" that says it must include itself.

Even if you want to force it into a contradiction, I can still include it.

Why do you think that if a concept produces 0 results that means that it cannot be included as a concept? I think if you can answer that question, it will be significant progress for both of us. Thank you,

No idea why you think this is at all relevant. Of course they are the same. It's supremely irrelevant to the point.

I'm struggling to understand your logical objection in any other way.

The only other way I can understand it is in the form of a strongly held belief. That you really-really-really want God to be provably-illogical. And you have convinced yourself it must be true. And you've held this idea for a long time. And many other super-intelligent people agree. But none of that is a logical argument. It's just a strongly held belief.

 

[ratiocinator]

Both concepts are included AND they have 0 results. Just because they have zero results doesn't mean they aren't included.

Nonsensical, regardless of set theory.

Not true. Modal logic. What I'm saying is true if it can exist in 1 possible world.

The problem is ambiguity.

Not true. That's not what I did. I explained where the flag comes from. Post#450. It's up a few posts. Just scroll up, it's in the middle. Or search this page for the word "arbitrary".

That was just you misunderstanding the problem. The problem is that you've included a flag which not only changes the concept but is then set arbitrarily to a value that you happen to like. It can't be set consistently because that, in itself, exposes the contradiction.

Post#331

Post #331 was mine. How do you think that helps?

So, you need to show how it is somehow a problem.

There are problems it can't solve and truths it can never reach.

What is the conceptual difference between "All atomic elements" and the combined characterisitics of its members?
What is the conceptual difference between "All apes" and the combined characterisitics of its members?
What is the conceptual difference between "All concepts" and the combined characterisitics of its members?

What is the conceptual difference between "x=y" and the combined characterisitics of its members?
What is the conceptual difference between "x^2=y" and the combined characterisitics of its members?
What is the conceptual difference between "x^3=y" and the combined characterisitics of its members?

What is the conceptual difference between {ℕ} and the combined characterisitics of its members?
What is the conceptual difference between {ℤ} and the combined characterisitics of its members?
What is the conceptual difference between {ℝ} and the combined characterisitics of its members?

I've made this point several times. All you could come up with is cardinality, but that is irrelevant.

Not even sure what you're getting at, The point about these groups is that they don't belong in themselves. As I said before, "all atomic elements" is not a concept of an element, so doesn't belong in itself. Likewise ℕ is not a natural number, so doesn't belong in itself (it's as obvious for the set containing ℕ as its only element, which is what you've actually written). The same goes for all the rest.

Do you want a list of all the ones that don't? Or do you want an empty list showing that none do? It's totally your call, I can do both.

Only the first would be valid and that leads to a contradiction.

There is nothing in the words "all concepts that don't include themselves" that says it cannot include itself.

Have you still not understood that the definition makes self-inclusion either true or false?

Of course it cannot include itself because, by its definition, it is the group of concepts that don't include themselves. Hence, if it did, it would contradict that definition because the group would then include one concept that did include itself, namely, itself.

There is nothing in the words "all concepts that don't include themselves" that says it must include itself.

Of course there is. If it doesn't include itself, then it cannot be the group its definition requires. It would be missing one concept that doesn't include itself, namely, itself.

This is the problem - both possibilities are self-contradictory. It is pointing out a logical absurdity that results directly from the way LI must be defined to achieve what you want (being all-inclusive)

Why do you think that if a concept produces 0 results that means that is cannot be included as a concept?

With your database analogy, if you query for a item and get zero results, that means the item is not in the database. How simple can this be?

The only other way I can understand it is in the form of a strongly held belief. That you really-really-really want God to be provably-illogical.

Since you've got countless other problems to get from LI to any idea of God, and I can't see how you'd achieve any of them, this has no real connection in my mind to God. My problem is just that you don't seem to be grasping the basic logic of the contradiction. In fact, you don't seem to even grasp the difference between definitions that require self-inclusion and those that don't.

 

[dybmh]

Nonsensical, regardless of set theory.

How?
1-1=0
2-2=0
1+2-3=0

How is a concept which produces 0 results somehow a problem?

The problem is ambiguity.

Sometimes. But I'm not being ambiguous.

That was just you misunderstanding the problem. The problem is that you've included a flag which not only changes the concept but is then set arbitrarily to a value that you happen to like. It can't be set consistently because that, in itself, exposes the contradiction.

Please precsiely define the concept you are talking about. I didn't change anything. As you have admitted. I said:

"please don't confuse "NONE of them do" and "all of them DON'T" as a contradiction."

Then you said:

"No idea why you think this is at all relevant. Of course they are the same. It's supremely irrelevant to the point."

My approach is "all of them DON'T". And so I produce a list of all of them. But you have a problem with this. Producing a list of all of them doesn't change the concept. YOU claim it does. But you won't define the concept YOU are talking about. But at the same time object to being ambiguous and being imprecise.

Post #331 was mine. How do you think that helps?

Sorry. 311.... typo.

There are problems it can't solve and truths it can never reach.

Woh. That's deep, bro.

( still not a logical argument )

Not even sure what you're getting at, The point about these groups is that they don't belong in themselves.

What is your test for "belonging"? It's literal group membership, right? But we've already established that this is an invalid test for concept inclusion.

As I said before, "all atomic elements" is not a concept of an element

Correct. It's the concept of all the combined charateristics of all the elements.

, so doesn't belong in itself.

""all atomic elements" =/= "an element". So what?

Likewise ℕ is not a natural number, so doesn't belong in itself (it's as obvious for the set containing ℕ as its only element, which is what you've actually written). The same goes for all the rest.

The concept of {ℕ} is not the concept of "a natural number". So, you're botching the definition of {ℕ}. See what I did there?

Only the first would be valid and that leads to a contradiction.

No. Not true. But if that's your firm opinion, then that's what we'll use. What's next, Boss?

Have you still not understood that the definition makes self-inclusion either true or false?

Of course it cannot include itself because, by its definition, it is the group of concepts that don't include themselves. Hence, if it did, it would contradict that definition because the group would then include one concept that did include itself, namely, itself.

Not true. The inclusion MEANS it's not included. That's what it means to list "all the ones that DON'T" SELECT WHERE NOT...

You said that you've written databases before.

Of course there is. If it doesn't include itself, then it cannot be the group its definition requires. It would be missing one concept that doesn't include itself, namely, itself.

Sure it can. None of the concepts DO include themself. It's an empty-set. It doesn't NEED members to be a valid concept. If what you're saying is true, say bye-bye to {} and bye-bye to axiomatic ZFC set theory.

This is the problem - both possibilities are self-contradictory. It is pointing out a logical absurdity that results directly from the way LI must be defined to achieve what you want (being all-inclusive)

Please precisely define the concept you are talking about.

With your database analogy, if you query for a item and get zero results, that means the item is not in the database. How simple can this be?

LOL! No, the query exists in the database. You really haven't done this before, have you. I do this everyday of the week. I monitor a specific type of traffic to insure that no one is piggy-backing onto my off-site backups. ZERO is the success condition. IF NOT ZERO, my phone buzzes... over and over and over and over...

This was an absolute necessity where I work. No lame, bodgey, ( is that how you use it? ) cloud based backup system would work. Because if we ever needed that data it could take months, plural, to get back. Not mention the "what-if" they get hacked.

So, according to you, I'm never actually monitoring for ZERO. That whole method is fabricated. I cannot have any query that produces ZERO. Wow. I wonder how I've been doing this. And when I setup the honey pot to test it. I must have been dreaming or something. 'Cause that whole procedure just.. poof, magically doesn't exist, and CANNOT exist.

Boy, I'd better run along now and figure out a new way to solve this problem....

Since you've got countless other problems to get from LI to any idea of God, and I can't see how you'd achieve any of them, this has no real connection in my mind to God. My problem is just that you don't seem to be grasping the basic logic of the contradiction. In fact, you don't seem to even grasp the difference between definitions that require self-inclusion and those that don't.

You're still making the same category errors, semantic faults.

You're saying:
"all atomic elements" is not a concept of an element"
"ℕ is not a natural number, so doesn't belong in itself"

The truth is:
The concept of all atomic elements is not the same as a concept of an atomic element.
The concept of {ℕ} is not the same as the concept of a natural number.

Those are 4 different concepts.

A concept is "all the combined charateristics of all the members."

ALL the combined charateristics ARE INCLUDED in the concept by definition.

You're comparing ALL (plural) with ONE (singular).

All combined charateristics.

A statement of conjunctions and/or disjunctions and/or negations.

Not just 1 example.

 

[ratiocinator]

How is a concept which produces 0 results somehow a problem?

You can't look for a concept, not find it, and then say it's included.

But I'm not being ambiguous.

What you've posted is riddled with ambiguity (and misunderstanding).

Please precsiely define the concept you are talking about. I didn't change anything. As you have admitted. I said:

"please don't confuse "NONE of them do" and "all of them DON'T" as a contradiction."

Then you said:

"No idea why you think this is at all relevant. Of course they are the same. It's supremely irrelevant to the point."

My approach is "all of them DON'T". And so I produce a list of all of them. But you have a problem with this. Producing a list of all of them doesn't change the concept. YOU claim it does. But you won't define the concept YOU are talking about. But at the same time object to being ambiguous and being imprecise.

The list you produced (by adding a flag) does not correspond to the definition and the point above it has nothing to do with it. How can you not see this?

Sorry. 311.... typo.

That's no good either. It just outlines how you produced a database, not how you go about transforming it into a fundamental concept.

The concept of {ℕ} is not the concept of "a natural number".

Neither is ℕ, and that's what I said.

What is your test for "belonging"? It's literal group membership, right?

Conceptually, it has to be. You can't get hung up on representation because there will not be any representation. All possible representations are only analogies.

Not true. The inclusion MEANS it's not included.

"The inclusion MEANS it's not included.", what are you on (about)?

That's what it means to list "all the ones that DON'T" SELECT WHERE NOT...

That tells me exactly nothing, unless you tell me what "..." is. If you construct the query in a way that doesn't fit with the definition - which is what you did last time, by adding a flag - then it's the wrong query.

None of the concepts DO include themself. It's an empty-set.

Nonsense. This is just not respecting the definition of the concepts. "All concepts that are groups of concepts" directly implies self-inclusion and "all atomic elements" does not. If you can't see, and account for, the difference, your ideas will be invalid. Once you acknowledge it, then "the concept of all concepts that don't imply self-inclusion" gives you the contradiction.

I do this everyday of the week. I monitor a specific type of traffic to insure that no one is piggy-backing onto my off-site backups. ZERO is the success condition. IF NOT ZERO, my phone buzzes... over and over and over and over...

Which has nothing to do with querying a database for the inclusion of a specific item, getting zero back and then claiming the database includes it anyway. Totally invalid comparison.

I cannot have any query that produces ZERO.

Not what I said. Blatant straw man.

You're saying:
"all atomic elements" is not a concept of an element"
"ℕ is not a natural number, so doesn't belong in itself"

The truth is:
The concept of all elements is not the same as a concept of an element.
The concept of {ℕ} is not the same as the concept of a natural number.

You just rephrased what I said (except for the mistake you keep on making: ℕ ≠ {ℕ}).

Those are 4 different concepts.

A concept of is all the combined charateristics of all the members.

Your comparing ALL (plural) with ONE (singular).

All combined charateristics.

A statement of conjunctions and/or disjucntions and/or negations.

Not just 1 example.

I can extract no relevant sense from this word salad.