Logical deduction (religion, the PoE)

[dybmh]

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

Don't be silly. The concept exists. You didn't refute the uber-basic examples I brought.

I already told you. The concept is defined as either:
Select Where ME.Attribute-Relationship-Filter=False
Select Where NOT ME.Attribute-Relationship-Filter=True

There it is. It exists. You cannot claim it's excluded.

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

Your misunderstanding ( seemingly intentional ) is a comment about you.

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?

Please provide YOUR precise defintion so that we can discuss. I think this is the 5th or 6th time I've asked. I brought my defintion, at least 3 times and you haven't commented on it, or explained its fault.

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

It's no different than what you did on a larger scale.

Neither is ℕ, and that's what I said... You just rephrased what I said (except for the mistake you keep on making: ℕ ≠ {ℕ}).

You saying "Neither is ℕ", means that what you said is invalid for the same reason as the example I brought.

We've been though this before about putting ℕ in curly-backets. Previously it was when you tried to distinguish between LI and {LI}.
There is no conceptual difference between LI and {LI}. There is no conceptual difference between ℕ and {ℕ}.

A concept is ALL the charcteristics of ALL the included members.

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.

Nope. You're absolutely wrong. And now you are right back to preaching set-theory.

Dreams are included in Sleeping-stuff. But {Dreams} is not a literal member of {Sleeping-stuff}. Your test is invalid.

I said charateristics... all of them.

An analogy is different. It has some things in common, and some things are not.

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

I explained it. Now you're either pretending to be stupid, or....

And you cropped out the explanation. It's immediately following what you replied to.

It means to list "all the ones that DON'T"... SELECT WHERE NOT ...

producing results is not a contradiction.
not producing results is not a contradiction.
it all depends on how the selection is being made. direct or indirect (contra-positive)

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.

YOU have not defined what YOU'RE talking about. I have defined what I'm talking about many times. I gave you the post#. I told you how to find it easily. Search for the word arbitrary. Now we're at the level of primitive approaches to potty training a dog: Rubbing its nose in it. "Arbitrary" First hit on the page takes you right to post#450.

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.

No. YOU are violating the defintion of a concept. YOU are flipping between literal membership which is the opposite of a concept.

A concept is ALL the combined characteristics of ALL the members. That's ALL there is to it.

It's proven...

{dreams} are not literally included in {sleepy-stuff} per your test.

The concept of sleepy-stuff includes the concept of dreams and a whole lot of other stuff. You can put your set theory away now.

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.

It's a perfectly valid comparison. YOU are bringing an exclusive concept. A concept with excludes. That exclusion can be tested in 2 ways. You can make a list of the ones that DON'T exclude. OR You can make a list of the ones that DO exclude.

Getting 0 back shows that ALL are excluded.
Getting them ALL back shows that NONE are excluded.

This is because concept is EXCLUSIVE.

Do you understand what "NEGATION" means?

It means, Not TRUE = False AND Not False = TRUE

NOT Excluded = Included
NOT Included = Excluded

Excluded = NOT Included
Included = NOT Excluded

Inclusion in an excluded concept = NOT Excluded. That's what you want, right????

Not what I said. Blatant straw man.

The concept IS a query. You're trying to tell me the concept is not included if it returns 0 results. If you find that absurd, it's time to ditch that argument.

I can extract no relevant sense from this word salad.

You probably didn't try. And I undertand how it must feel to have your argument shown to be complete animal feces. And I've shown it repeatedly. You're being a bad-dog. Bad-bad-dog.

Here, let me drag your eyeballs over to show you the mess you made.

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"

This means your argument is meaningless. Why?

"all atomic elements" is not a concept of an element" does not equal in any way "all atomic elements" includes "all atomic elements".
"ℕ is not a natural number" does equal in any way "ℕ" includes "ℕ"

I never said "the concept all atomic elements" is "an element". That's stupid.
I never said "ℕ" is "a natural number". That's stupid.

The concept "All atomic elements" cannot be "an element" to include all the characteristics of all the atomic elements.
The concept "All atomic elements" includes the concept of "an element" and more.

The concept "ℕ" cannot be "a natural number" to include all the characteristics of all the natural numbers.
The concept "ℕ" includes the concept of "a natural number" and more.

Concept: Per Google: "an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects."

The punchline of what I said is at the end:

 

[dybmh]

"all atomic elements" does not.

You are leaving out the most important part.

CONCEPT.

The concept of all atomic elements includes The concept of all atomic elements.

Be ready. Anytime you omit the word concept from either side of the "include" YOU fail.

Concept A includes Concept A

Concept ... Concept. Both sides need that.

Defintion: Concept: "an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects."

 

[ratiocinator]

I'm really not going to go round everything again because it's becoming pointless and your posts include multiple instances where you appear to contradict yourself, you've used undefined concepts, and have emphasised things I don't disagree with for no apparent reason. You also seem to be bringing up all sorts of things that have no obvious connection with what I've said at all. I will add a sample response to a part of it in the spoiler at the end, to illustrate the points.

Instead, perhaps you can point out where you think the following goes wrong or where you don't understand it?

Please provide YOUR precise defintion so that we can discuss.

I really don't know how to make this simpler, but I'll go through it in detail.

1. There are concepts that are singular, like those representing specific items in the world (or some possible world), like 'cat', 'house', 'hydrogen', etc. We also have concepts that group together other concepts that are related in some way. This includes "all atomic elements", "all vegetables", and so on. We can call these grouping concepts. LI itself is a grouping concept.
2. We have also two distinct types of grouping concepts. We can call one normal, that is, things like the examples above. They are not instances of the concepts they are trying to group. "All atomic elements" is not an atomic element so cannot be a part of itself when you enumerate its contents, without violating the definition.
3. There are also grouping concepts that we can call abnormal in that they do meet the criteria to be a part of the list when we enumerate their contents. The concept "all grouping concepts" is one example.
4. Now we can consider the grouping concepts of "all normal concepts" and "all abnormal concepts". Neither can be be empty. If we enumerate their contents, then we will at least get "all atomic elements" from the former and "all grouping concepts" from the latter.
5. So what happens when we enumerate the contents of the concept "all normal concepts"? If it includes itself it becomes abnormal and that is a contradiction. If it does not, then is normal and that is also a contradiction.
6. Hence, paradox. The structure we have describe is impossible.

So, at what stage do you think that breaks down or you think is not properly defined in some way?

Spoiler: Example of detail

Here, let me drag your eyeballs over to show you the mess you made.

Should be fun.

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"

This means your argument is meaningless. Why?

Do tell.

"all atomic elements" is not a concept of an element" does not equal in any way "all atomic elements" includes "all atomic elements".
"ℕ is not a natural number" does equal in any way "ℕ" includes "ℕ"

Which is exactly what I said, so why are you even saying this?

I never said "the concept all atomic elements" is "an element". That's stupid.
I never said "ℕ" is "a natural number". That's stupid.

Well there have been many times when you tried to directly compare these sorts of concepts with those that are instances of the things they are supposed to contain, so perhaps more clarity on your part is in order?

The concept "All atomic elements" cannot be "an element" to include all the characteristics of all the atomic elements.

So where did the concept of "all the characteristics of all the atomic elements" come from? That's a different concept that I never even mentioned.

The concept "All atomic elements" includes the concept of "an element" and more.

No it doesn't. It's just the concept of all the atomic elements. If we enumerate its contents we should get something like "Hydrogen, Helium, Lithium, etc." There is no way it should include "an element" or anything else that isn't a specific element.

The concept "ℕ" cannot be "a natural number" to include all the characteristics of all the natural numbers.
The concept "ℕ" includes the concept of "a natural number" and more.

Same problems as the above, except here it's even more obvious that ℕ ≠ {1, 2, 3, 4,... "a natural number",...}.

Concept: Per Google: "an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects."

And...?

I rarely use google (DuckDuckGo respects my privacy more) but looking for a few definitions:

a principle or idea
A general idea or understanding of something: synonym: idea.
something conceived in the mind : thought, notion

The point really being is that it is a very general, err, concept. Once you start messing with it to restrict it or add things to specific concepts, then you'll be excluding ideas from LI and it is no longer all-inclusive.

 

[dybmh]

I'm really not going to go round everything again because it's becoming pointless and your posts include multiple instances where you appear to contradict yourself, you've used undefined concepts, and have emphasised things I don't disagree with for no apparent reason. You also seem to be bringing up all sorts of things that have no obvious connection with what I've said at all. I will add a sample response to a part of it in the spoiler at the end, to illustrate the points.

None of that is true. But thank you for finally defining what you preceive to be a problem. However, I already told you even if you force something into a paradox, I can still include it as a concept that is a paradox. I understand that's frustrating for you. But you haven't been able to give any reason why a paradox cannot be included as a paradox. If I can include a 3-wheeled-bicycle, I can incude anything you can dream-up.

But let's look at it.

Instead, perhaps you can point out where you think the following goes wrong or where you don't understand it?

OK

I really don't know how to make this simpler, but I'll go through it in detail.

1. There are concepts that are singular, like those representing specific items in the world (or some possible world), like 'cat', 'house', 'hydrogen', etc. We also have concepts that group together other concepts that are related in some way. This includes "all atomic elements", "all vegetables", and so on. We can call these grouping concepts. LI itself is a grouping concept.
2. We have also two distinct types of grouping concepts. We can call one normal, that is, things like the examples above. They are not instances of the concepts they are trying to group. "All atomic elements" is not an atomic element so cannot be a part of itself when you enumerate its contents, without violating the definition.
3. There are also grouping concepts that we can call abnormal in that they do meet the criteria to be a part of the list when we enumerate their contents. The concept "all grouping concepts" is one example.
4. Now we can consider the grouping concepts of "all normal concepts" and "all abnormal concepts". Neither can be be empty. If we enumerate their contents, then we will at least get "all atomic elements" from the former and "all grouping concepts" from the latter.
5. So what happens when we enumerate the contents of the concept "all normal concepts"? If it includes itself it becomes abnormal and that is a contradiction. If it does not, then is normal and that is also a contradiction.
6. Hence, paradox. The structure we have describe is impossible.

So, at what stage do you think that breaks down or you think is not properly defined in some way?

OK, so, first of all, that's not how the word concept is defined.

The definition of a concept is: "an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects"

A normal grouping: They are not instances of the concepts they are trying to group. Contradicts the definition of a concept.

All atomic elements = combined aspects of all the atomic elements including the definition of an atomic element.

concept of "all atomic elements" is not the concept of "an element", doesn't really matter.
concept of "all atomic elements" MUST include the concept of "an element" or else it cannot be the concept of ANY atomic elements, much less all of them.

"All atomic elements" cannot be a concept formed by combining all the aspects of the atomic elments without including the aspect called "an element".

It's what I've been telling you for many posts. The entire thing you've written would need to be rewritten without the word concept. You need to bring some other definition for it.

---

Let's skip that word, ok? Let's just call them singular, normal, abnormal,

normal does not include itself, because you say so. OK.
abnormal does include itself, because you say so. OK.

From 4: All normal has 1 member, because you say so. OK.
From 4: All abnormal has 1 member, because you say so. OK.

From 5: What happens when we enumerate "all normal"? We get the 1 member you specified called "all atomic elements". And any others you chose to include.

"All normal" includes "a normal" is not a contradiction. All normal's only rule is it includes all the normal.

"A normal" has a restriction on it. "All normal" does not.

A normal is a concept.
All normal is a different concept.

This is what I said above:

I rarely use google (DuckDuckGo respects my privacy more) but looking for a few definitions:

a principle or idea
A general idea or understanding of something: synonym: idea.
something conceived in the mind : thought, notion

Didn't I give you a proper defintion? I'm not making this up. Again. Just because YOU can define something in a way that causes problems, that doesn't mean I cannot define them in a way that doesn't.

If you really really want to argue, this should settle it:

Concepts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

 

[ratiocinator]

However, I already told you even if you force something into a paradox, I can still include it as a concept that is a paradox.

I'm not forcing anything at all, and you can't just include the paradox if it arises directly from the way you've defined LI (as all-inclusive). Effectively, LI itself is self-contradictory.

From 4: All normal has 1 member, because you say so. OK.
From 4: All abnormal has 1 member, because you say so. OK.

At least one element because I gave examples. Of course, there will be many more. The point is that they are not empty.

From 5: What happens when we enumerate "all normal"? We get the 1 member you specified called "all atomic elements". And any others you chose to include.

It's not me choosing, it's according to the definition: all the normal grouping concepts.

"All normal" includes "a normal" is not a contradiction. All normal's only rule is it includes all the normal.

"A normal" has a restriction on it. "All normal" does not.

A normal is a concept.
All normal is a different concept.

What's that got to do with anything? The question is, does it produce "all normal concepts" when we enumerate its contents? That is the problem, it doesn't relate to whether it includes "a normal concept". You don't seem to be following this at all.

This is what I said above:

That appears to be your confusion, not mine. This is all about the the grouping concept itself. The singular form is not relevant to the paradox.

Didn't I give you a proper defintion?

You gave a proper definition, not the proper definition because English doesn't work like that. The other definitions I gave are just as 'proper'. What have I been saying about English not being up to the task? One could talk all day about how different disciplines approach the term:

Concept - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

However, if you don't use it it the broadest possible way, then you'll compromise the all-inclusivity of LI.

The definition of a concept is: "an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects"

A normal grouping: They are not instances of the concepts they are trying to group. Contradicts the definition of a concept.

All atomic elements = combined aspects of all the atomic elements including the definition of an atomic element.

Not only have you chosen at a particular definition here, but you've then interpreted it in your own way.

Frankly, it doesn't matter. LI is supposed to be all-inclusive, so, if it's missing what I've call "normal grouping concepts", then it doesn't meet its own requirement and I can just add all such groups without duplication. You have also excluded simple mathematical sets like ℕ, or even {1, 2, 3, 4}. All concepts are not sets, but are you really saying that sets aren't concepts?

What's more, just adding the singular form, so including "an atomic element" in "all atomic elements" doesn't help to resolve the paradox anyway (see above). To do that, you'd have to make everything 'abnormal', so "all atomic elements" would have to include "all atomic elements".

The way to overcome the paradox is to use restrictive definitions but doing so immediately and necessarily undermines your desired goal. The real joke is that you haven't done it in a rigorous way and, as a result, you've ended up with an over-complicated, totally contrived mess, formulated in vague English that doesn't meet the goal of all-inclusivity and doesn't even resolve the paradox.

Not that it matters much, but can you, now, for example, tell me the exact contents of the concept of "all natural numbers less than 5"? If it's not just the group of 1, 2, 3, and 4, what else is in it? If that involves other English descriptions, then fully define those too. Can you do that?

The entire thing you've written would need to be rewritten without the word concept.

Okay, use 'idea' (listed as a synonym in some definitions).

 

[dybmh]

I'm not forcing anything at all, and you can't just include the paradox if it arises directly from the way you've defined LI (as all-inclusive). Effectively, LI itself is self-contradictory.

If you produce a contradictory concept, then I can include it. Agreed.

At least one element because I gave examples. Of course, there will be many more. The point is that they are not empty.

Still no problem,

It's not me choosing, it's according to the definition: all the normal grouping concepts.

You chose the definition. Still no problem.

What's that got to do with anything? The question is, does it produce "all normal concepts" when we enumerate its contents? That is the problem, it doesn't relate to whether it includes "a normal concept". You don't seem to be following this at all.

You haven't produced a contradiction. According to what you wrote:

"All normal" includes "All atomic elements". What's the problem?

That appears to be your confusion, not mine. This is all about the the grouping concept itself. The singular form is not relevant to the paradox.

You haven't produced a paradox. Your definition, your rules:

"All normal" includes "All atomic elements"

You gave a proper definition, not the proper definition because English doesn't work like that. The other definitions I gave are just as 'proper'. What have I been saying about English not being up to the task? One could talk all day about how different disciplines approach the term:

Then there can be no objection to using the more precise definition I brought especially considering your preference is precision.

Concept - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

However, if you don't use it it the broadest possible way, then you'll compromise the all-inclusivity of LI.

Not true.

Not only have you chosen at a particular definition here, but you've then interpreted it in your own way.

Not true, it matches it precisely.

"an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects."

"a statement of conjunctions and/or disjunctions and/or negations"

"combining all their aspects" = "a statement of conjunctions and/or disjunctions and/or negations"

And I wrote those words before looking up the definition.

Frankly, it doesn't matter. LI is supposed to be all-inclusive, so, if it's missing what I've call "normal grouping concepts",

It does include it. There's no reason it can't.

then it doesn't meet its own requirement and I can just add all such groups without duplication. You have also excluded simple mathematical sets like ℕ, or even {1, 2, 3, 4}. All concepts are not sets, but are you really saying that sets aren't concepts?

You keep saying it even though it's false. Why? It absolutely includes simple math concepts.

What's more, just adding the singular form, so including "an atomic element" in "all atomic elements" doesn't help to resolve the paradox anyway (see above). To do that, you'd have to make everything 'abnormal', so "all atomic elements" would have to include "all atomic elements".

You're typing a lot of words, but none of it changes that per your definitions:

"all normal" includes "all atomic elements" is not a contradiction. If you want to place a restriction on "all normal" you would need to ... place a restriction on it.

The way to overcome the paradox is to use restrictive definitions but doing so immediately and necessarily undermines your desired goal. The real joke is that you haven't done it in a rigorous way and, as a result, you've ended up with an over-complicated, totally contrived mess, formulated in vague English that doesn't meet the goal of all-inclusivity and doesn't even resolve the paradox.

I don't need to draw boxes and arrows to define something which is consistent and complete. No one does this in the real world. It's just your own self imposed limitation.

Not that it matters much, but can you, now, for example, tell me the exact contents of the concept of "all natural numbers less than 5"? If it's not just the group of 1, 2, 3, and 4, what else is in it? If that involves other English descriptions, then fully define those too. Can you do that?

"All natural numbers less than 5" = "ALL" AND "NATURAL" AND "NUMBER" AND "LESS THAN" AND "5"

Okay, use 'idea' (listed as a synonym in some definitions).

Sure, no idea doesn't include itself. It's a contradiction.

All ideas that don't include themself is NULL
All ideas that do include themself is Infinite.

 

[ratiocinator]

You haven't produced a contradiction. According to what you wrote:

"All normal" includes "All atomic elements". What's the problem?

Your capacity to spectacularly miss the point is truly jaw-dropping. How many more times...?

It is nothing to do with "all normal concepts" including "all atomic elements" it's whether "all normal concepts" includes "all normal concepts" or not. Both possibilities are contradictions.

Jeez.

"All natural numbers less than 5" = "ALL" AND "NATURAL" AND "NUMBER" AND "LESS THAN" AND "5"

Wow, just wow! So, it doesn't include 1, 2, 3, and 4. Great. And you think you're being clear and precise!

All ideas that don't include themself is NULL

Nonsense. "All atomic elements" doesn't.

 

[dybmh]

Your capacity to spectacularly miss the point is truly jaw-dropping. How many more time...?

It is nothing to do with "all normal concepts" including "all atomic elements" it's whether "all normal concepts" includes "all normal concepts" or not. Both possibilities are contradictions.

Jeez.

Wait, you're saying both are contradictions. How is "all normal" including "all atomic elements" a contradiction? That was precisely what you said. There was no restriction applied in what you wrote that is being violated. How is "all normal" included in "all normal" a contradiction. There was no restriction applied to "all normal" in what you wrote that is being violated.

You are either assuming a restriction exists that doesn't. Or there's a restriction in your mind that isn't being written down.

All you wrote is: "All normal" includes "all atomic elements".

Wow, just wow! So, it doesn't include 1, 2, 3, and 4. Great. And you think you're being clear and precise!

Sure it does. That's what "LESS THAN" AND "FIVE" means. You seem to take for granted what is happening intellectually, cognitively, when a concept is produced.

This is how any function works. I had this same problem with another adherent to ZFC. ZFC in a way is great. It's easy, rule based. It's like AI. But it's also an intellectual crutch. Over-use produces intellectual atrophy.

Nonsense. "All atomic elements" doesn't.

The idea of all elements includes the idea of all elements. If you don't hold the necessary condition that both are ideas, then you'll get the wrong answer. It's just like any other math problem.

 

[ratiocinator]

Wait, you're saying both are contradictions. How is "all normal" including "all atomic elements" a contradiction?

Seriously? You read "It is nothing to do with "all normal concepts" including "all atomic elements"..." but still interpreted the "both possibilities" in "...it's whether "all normal concepts" includes "all normal concepts" or not. Both possibilities are contradictions." as referring the idea I'd just said it had nothing to do with?

And you still think you can be rigorous in English?

How is "all normal" included in "all normal" a contradiction.

Because then it wouldn't be a normal concept. It would be abnormal because it included itself. I just can't believe I'm having to explain this again!

There was no restriction applied to "all normal" in what you wrote ht is being violated.

The only restriction is its definition, i.e. that it's the grouping concept of all those grouping concepts that are normal (don't include themselves).

You are either assuming a restriction exists that doesn't. Or there's a restriction in your mind that is being written down.

The only restriction is its definition, which is right in front of you, clearly written down, plain as day.

The idea of all elements includes the idea of all elements.

You're just getting silly now. I can have the idea of a group that contains all the atomic elements without thinking the group also contains the idea itself. Some ideas are inherently recursive and some aren't. Group of all groups, is, group of all vegetables, isn't.

 

[dybmh]

Seriously? You read "It is nothing to do with "all normal concepts" including "all atomic elements"..." but still interpreted the "both possibilities" in "...it's whether "all normal concepts" includes "all normal concepts" or not. Both possibilities are contradictions." as referring the idea I'd just said it had nothing to do with?

And you still think you can be rigorous in English?

I'm just reading what your're writing.

Because then it wouldn't be a normal concept. It would be abnormal because it included itself. I just can't believe I'm having to explain this again!

Again, it cannot be a concept. What ever it is. And you can repeat 100 times. If you didn't place a restriction on "all normal" then you didn't place a restriction on "all normal".

You never said the concept "all normal" was "a normal" concept.

The only restriction is its definition, i.e. that it's the grouping concept of all those grouping concepts that are normal (don't include themselves).

Beautiful. So where in the above does it say the grouping concept cannot include itself? The included "normals" don't include themself. That's the only restriction. You just said it.

The only restriction is its definition, which is right in front of you, clearly written down, plain as day.

I know. Nothing you have typed so far says "all normal" cannot include itself.

You're just getting silly now. I can have the idea of a group that contains all the atomic elements without thinking the group also contains the idea itself. Some ideas are inherently recursive and some aren't. Group of all groups, is, group of all vegetables, isn't.

Sure, you can think whatever you want. But that doesn't make it true. I like the example of all atomic elements.

Please remove something from the idea, pick something, anything. I'll show you that it cannot be the same idea anymore. Once you start removing the idea from the idea, you have a different idea.

Do you know how patents and copyrights work? Do you have those where you are? Any tiny addition or removal or adjustment produces a new idea.

 

[ratiocinator]

I'm just reading what your're writing.

I'm finding it hard to see how you interpreted it as you did because it would mean I directly contradicted myself. The other way to read it ("both possibilities" referring to the two contain in "...it's whether "all normal concepts" includes "all normal concepts" or not") is self-consistent.

But you're just emphasising again that you can't use English for a rigorous definition. Since you posted:

"All natural numbers less than 5" = "ALL" AND "NATURAL" AND "NUMBER" AND "LESS THAN" AND "5"​

I have literally no clue what your database looks like. Even your initial procedure is riddled with waffle and ambiguity. Also, for a specific example, in English "NATURAL" AND "NUMBER" does not lead to the technical, mathematical meaning of natural number. What could be more natural than π, for example? Ambiguity of English in action.

Sure, you can think whatever you want. But that doesn't make it true.

What on earth do you even mean by 'true' in this context? Any idea I can think of is an idea (obviously). Hence the idea of a group containing all the atomic elements is an idea (because I can think of it). I would not (and I really can't imagine why anybody else would) be imagining that the idea of "all the atomic elements" would be in the group rubbing shoulders with the likes of hydrogen and carbon. Why would I?

On the other hand, if I imagine a group of all groups, then it quite clearly belongs inside itself, beside all the other grouping concepts like "all the atomic elements". This really isn't rocket science.

I know. Nothing you have typed so far says "all normal" cannot include itself.

You never said the concept "all normal" was "a normal" concept.

Incredible. You actually have the self-contradiction in your mind and you still can't see it! I'll try one more time, then I'm giving up.

Is "all normal concepts" a normal concept or an abnormal one?

Think about it.​

If you decide it is normal, then it becomes a concept that should be included in "all normal concepts", but "all normal concepts" is itself. Therefore it includes itself, so it is an abnormal concept.

If you decide it is abnormal, then it becomes a concept that should not be included in "all normal concepts", but "all normal concepts" is itself. Therefore it doesn't includes itself, so it is a normal concept.

"All normal concepts" is normal ⟹"All normal concepts" is abnormal.
"All normal concepts" is abnormal ⟹"All normal concepts" is normal.

 

[dybmh]

You actually have the self-contradiction in your mind and you still can't see it!

First, sorry it took so long to respond, you replied on a saturday. I missed the notification.

I definitely see the contradiction. But I needed you to write it. Because it is not a "self-contradiction" it is a contradiction you manufactured.

Until you choose that "all normal" needs to be "a normal", there is no contradiction.
Until you choose that "all normal" needs to be "an abnormal" , there is no contradition.
Until you choose that all groups need to be either normal or abnormal, there is no contradition.

All normal concepts" is normal ⟹"All normal concepts" is abnormal.
"All normal concepts" is abnormal ⟹"All normal concepts" is normal.

These concepts that you defined would be included in Literal Infinity as contraditions no different than any other contradiction.

three-wheeled-bicycle
non-dairy-milk
true-lie
bright-darkness
falling-upwards
etc..

I have literally no clue what your database looks like

It's not a literal database.

I would not (and I really can't imagine why anybody else would) be imagining that the idea of "all the atomic elements" would be in the group rubbing shoulders with the likes of hydrogen and carbon. Why would I?

The point is, just because you don't imagine it, or cannot imagine it, does not mean it cannot be included, or isn't included by default.

You are applying your axiom, YOUR axiom of foundation to MY concept ( Literal Infinity ). It's a category error. This is the problem we were having waaaaaay back in the beginning. You had a god imagined in your mind. A white man sky-daddy with a white beard in a cloud. But the god concept that solves the PoE is not white not a man not a daddy lacks a beard and is not in a cloud.

You said you would consider whatever god concept I presented. But you are still inserting your own imagined restrictions from some other religion ( axiomatic set theory ) onto my ideas.

Just as you were imagining the restriction on "all normal", you are imagining a restriction on "concepts/ideas".

There is no reason that a concept cannot include a conceptual duplicate of itself.
And by definition a concept includes a concept of itself.

You said "it can't be, it's blasphemy, I cannot not imagine it, no one would imagine it" Here's your quote again:

I would not (and I really can't imagine why anybody else would) be imagining that the idea of "all the atomic elements" would be in the group rubbing shoulders with the likes of hydrogen and carbon. Why would I?

Your entire argument is, "I would not have imagined it, and no one else would either."

Hi. Nice to meet you. I'm the first person you've ever met to have imagined it. Remember, this is modal logic. If it can exist in any possible world, then, it is valid.

If you say it CANNOT be in any possible world that "the concept of all atomic elements" include "the concept of all atomic elements", then the burden is on you to show that. I already showed how it is included, and you have not given any reasons that undermine that. The only way to do that is if you choose to apply a restriction to the definition of "concept" manufacturing the "restricted concept".

Literal Infinity is not a restricted concept. You cannot arbitrarily CHOOSE to place a restriction on it that does not exist. That's the same thing as imagining a "white-man-sky-daddy" god, when you said you wouldn't do that.

 

[ratiocinator]

Until you choose that all groups need to be either normal or abnormal, there is no contradition.

Sorry but either a grouping concept includes itself or it doesn't. What do you propose as a third option?

The point is, just because you don't imagine it, or cannot imagine it, does not mean it cannot be included, or isn't included by default.

But in order to be all-inclusive, LI has to incorporate both our ideas.

You had a god imagined in your mind. A white man sky-daddy with a white beard in a cloud.

This is both untrue and irrelevant.

You said you would consider whatever god concept I presented. But you are still inserting your own imagined restrictions from some other religion ( axiomatic set theory ) onto my ideas.

I am not using axiomatic set theory.

Your entire argument is, "I would not have imagined it, and no one else would either."

Nope. I can imagine it, so LI must include it or it wouldn't be all-inclusive.

 

[dybmh]

Sorry but either a grouping concept includes itself or it doesn't. What do you propose as a third option?

Asked and answered. All concepts include themself as a concept by defintion, grouping or not.

But in order to be all-inclusive, LI has to incorporate both our ideas.

Yup. Both are included. One is included as a contradition and produces 0 results. The other produces all that match the selection criteria.

This is both untrue and irrelevant.

It is true and relevant, if you proceed to insert your axioms ( religious style doctrine ) into my completely different religious concept.

This is not a reese peanut butter cup

I am not using axiomatic set theory.

Your prohibition of a set including itself is the axiom of foundation in ZFC.

Nope. I can imagine it, so LI must include it or it wouldn't be all-inclusive.

Great! So what's the problem? This is modal logic. We should be ready to move on. There is no contradiction. Honestly, this is the simplest part of my solution to PoE, there are so so many other opportunities to identify faults in what I am planning on saying next. We haven't even touched on time yet. And I think you have some very strong, no offense, opinions about that. I think it's easy to resolve, but, maybe I'm wrong. If we can ever get to the point where you can just go with "it's all-inclusive, what now?" we might be able to have a little more fun.