bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Because the universal set cannot contain all sub-sets and still be a universal set. Why? Basically all sub-sets is bigger than the universal set. In another hand we assume that the universal set exists which mean it contains all sub-sets which this means that the universal set is bigger than all sub-sets. These two contradict each other therefore the universal set does not exist.
If there is a contradiction, (which, by the way, I do NOT see from my perspective), then, anyway, WHY is it that the 'universal set' does not have to exist? WHY is it NOT the case that the 'sub-set' is NOT necessarily bigger than the 'universal set'?
You and I must have a different comprehension and/or different definition of the word 'Universal'. The word 'Universal', to me, has or implies an ALL, or a NOTHING ELSE, connotation to It.
And, the word 'sub', to me, has a LESS THAN rather than a MORE THAN connotation to it. To me, by definition, a 'sub' set would be smaller than the Universal set. With numbers of course the 'SUB set' of numbers of 'A PARTICULAR set' of numbers may be longer in length, but that in no way, to me anyway, infers that 'THAT PARTICULAR set' of numbers is necessarily 'A Universal set' of numbers. The very fact that 'THAT SET' does NOT contain ALL numbers, to me, means that is NOT the actual 'Universal set'.
Whatever would you call 'A set' that contains absolutely EVERY thing? I would call this 'set' A 'Universal set'.
The sub-set has less elements than the set. The point is that there exist many sub-sets. For example, lets consider a set A={a,b}. It has two member so its size two. The set of all sub-sets however is B={empty-set, {a}, {b}, {a,b}} which clearly has size four. This applies to all set. Now if you consider that the A is a universal set
But why would any one CONSIDER the A is a 'universal set'?
That is the trouble with using words, sometimes. Words can APPEAR to be expressing a truth but, in Reality, they are NOT, really.
The trickery and deception is in the words being used. This is NOT to say that all participants are intentionally being tricky nor deceptive when using words, but that they, themselves, have been tricked and/or deceived into BELIEVING some thing that is NOT actually real and true anyway.
By definition, the word 'Universe' infers One whole set of absolutely EVERY thing. Therefore, to consider any thing as a 'Universal set', then that set MUST include absolutely EVERY thing. This EVERY thing would, obviously, also have to include absolutely EVERY sub set.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm then it must be bigger than B which is not therefore it is contrary to assume that the universal set exist since the set of all its sub-sets is bigger than the universal set.
That is ONLY, as I just pointed out, if any one CONSIDERED a SMALLER set as a 'universal set'. And, WHY any one would consider any set other than the set of EVERY thing, which obviously would be the biggest and largest set, a 'Universal set' I do NOT know?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
10.
So, you can SEE that there is another view point that there is only one, One and only Mind, correct?
I know of that model.
What do you mean by you know of THAT model?
Is there only ONE model about a one and only Mind?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm I had a thread on the topic "why not only one Mind?" a long time ago. This model however has problems which we can discuss it if you wish.
To me a 'problem' is just a question posed for a solution/answer. So, if YOUR model has problems and you would like the solution/answer to those problems, then if you like I can sort them out for you. If, however, you consider this "model" to being less flawed than YOUR at least two mind "model", and them even being close to
what IS actually True and Right in Life, then we will have to wait and SEE.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Science says that the reproduction is a local phenomena which is the result of mixing an egg and a sperm.
Who cares what 'science' supposedly says.
Is science perfect? Has science ever "said" inaccurate things? Has what science "said", since science began, been always accurate and correct?
Also, this is a very narrow and small view that you are looking from here.
Ok. What is the other view?
A much larger and completely OPEN view of things, producing a much bigger, brighter, clearer, and Truer picture perfect view of things.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
It is this mixture which is important not all physical things.
What mixture is that? Is that the mixture of physical things together?
Yes. Mixture of egg and sperm.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
I cannot follow you here.
WHAT is 'mind', to you?
Mind to me is the essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and cause. What is mind to you?
'Mind' is THE Being/Thing, which is completely OPEN to create absolutely any thing, other than Its Self, has the ability to transcend absolutely any thing, and thus also has the ability to observe, experience, decide, and again cause/create absolutely any thing other than Its Self.
If, to you, a 'mind' is the essence of any being, then what is THE 'being' in 'any being'?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
WHAT observes 'things' occurring/happening?
All sort of things.
What do you mean by 'all sort of things'? Can a 'shoe' observe 'things' occurring/happening? A shoe, after all, is a 'sort of thing'.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm Me typing. Me drinking coffee. etc.
Who/what is 'me'?
Which brings us back to who/what am 'I', in the question Who am 'I'?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
For example, what you are reading is the result of me typing the words.
What CAUSED you to type these words?
I decided to reply to your post. But there was this stimuli, your post, which I experienced.
Who/what is the 'I' which experienced?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Are those words the result of you only, or the result of some thing that influenced you to type particular words in a particular order?
It is the result of all my experiences most importantly what you wrote.
How long is 'all of 'my' experiences'?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Were the previously typed words, which you read and are replying to, WHAT caused 'you' to do some thing?
I experienced them. I am however a free agent
Who/what is, supposedly, a free agent?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm so I can decide to reply or reply not. I can decide how much thought I should put in my reply, etc.
Are you going to suggest that this 'free agent', which you are talking about now, was not created?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
In other words was I in charge and thus responsible for this whole change?
Yes, you influenced me.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Could there possibly be just One who IS responsible for ALL of this change, which is observing/witnessing, deciding, and causing ALL of this change?
There are at least two who are in charge of the changes
Is this what you think is the case, or, what you BELIEVE is the case?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmbecause I am replying to someone else otherwise I knew all I know and there was no communication.
Who/what you are, and, who/what you are replying to has to be KNOWN, before you will truly understand things.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
And, if so could this One be doing ALL of this through different bodies, with some of these bodies being human beings?
The question is why that Mind is not aware of everything which is happening inside different bodies.[/quote]
Who/what is the 'one' that is asking why the Mind is not aware of everything?
Why does that 'one' ASSUME such a ridiculous thing.
The Mind IS aware of EVERY thing, which is happening inside different bodies.
Some people, however, lie so much or so often that they even deceive their own self.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm It is one mind in charge of all change, therefore that Mind should be aware of everything which is happening.
Which is EXACTLY what thee one and only Mind does.
The Mind is aware of absolutely EVERY thing.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Could you and me be actually causing the change that is happening through our writings, but actually there being another One Being that is observing, deciding, and causing ALL of this to happen, without us even realizing this is happening?
What we are?
In this instance, 'we' are two people, existing within two human bodies.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmWe experience, decide and cause. Don't we?
Yes, but in the scheme of things, 'we' only experience, decide, and cause a minuscule fraction of ALL-THERE-IS.
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
Could the 'mind' in 'your mind', as you put it, actually just be One Mind?
I don't think so. As I know there are changes that I don't experience and cause. [/quote]
Of course the 'you' does NOT experience and cause ALL change. But the 'you' is NOT the 'I'. The one and only 'I' IS the One that experiences and caused ALL change.
Who/what the 'you' actually IS, and how that thinking 'one' is related to the True KNOWING One that Who/What the 'I' actually IS, needs to be understood first.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmThese words that I am reading is your words not mine.
Yes there are two 'you' here. That is; 'me', being one person, and the other person being the other 'me', sometimes referred to as 'you'. 'We' are thinking human beings. We do NOT have a mind. 'We' are neither the Mind. The Mind is the 'I' within 'us', the 'me's' within ALL bodies.
So, although there are two 'me's' writing different words, and replying to each other, there is, on a much deeper level, a much BIGGER and TRUER 'Me', or what could also be referred to as the 'I', in the question Who/What am 'I'? Who this 'I' is, IS the one and only Mind, which is Truly always OPEN, in order to be able to Create absolutely any thing. What this 'I' is, IS the WHOLE physical Universe, Itself. The interaction of ALL physical things is how 'I' am the Creator of ALL-THERE-IS.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm And these words that you read are mine not yours.
On the human being level agreed wholeheartedly. These words are coming through two different bodies, from two different people, from within those two different human bodies.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pm So there are at least two minds.
If you have THE definition for 'mind' that when LOOKED AT, fits into THE BIG picture of Life (or ALL-THERE-IS) perfectly, and thus SHOWS a crystal clear image of WHAT IS TRUE AND RIGHT IN LIFE, of which there is NO distortions, NO ambiguity, and a JUST Truly FACTUAL representation that is NOT at all refutable, then great. Let us ALL SEE this definition. Until then, if 'I' was 'you' I would just remain OPEN to there might just be a more sufficient definition of and for 'Mind' then the one that you have now.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Do you think that you have a mind?
NO. But there is a 'me' and there is a 'Mind'.
How do you define Mind?
At the moment, A free source of Energy within EVERY thing and OPEN to absolutely ANY thing.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Or you are self-deriving ideas?
'Self-deriving ideas' is NOT 'Who 'me' is'. But 'self-deriving ideas' has provoked an idea that could possible help Me in better describing and thus communicating just how 'you' the brain functions in relation to how 'I' the Mind functions.
So you are the Mind and I am the brain? How about the opposite?
If 'you', that brain, so chooses to SEE it this way. If those definitions can work in EXPLAINING sufficiently enough about ALL-THERE-IS, then great. Let us use them.
Whatever works, WORKS. It is, after all, in agreement WHERE Truth lays, and is thus FOUND.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
For this you need to understand the theorem. I gave it another shot and explaining things more simply.
If the "theorem" states that there are some times more, or a longer list of, numbers of a group of 'sub set' numbers in relation to a very specific 'set' of other numbers, then that neither invalidates nor validates what I have been discussing. That just shows some thing, which on reflection is rather very obvious. However, if that is NOT what that "theorem" states, then I still do not understand that "theorem".
No, the theorem simply says that the sub-sets of any set is larger, has more members, than the set.
THAT is WHAT I just SAID.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmThe universal set, which contain everything presumably must contain everything and be biggest set yet it is smaller than its sub-sets.
To you maybe. But to me the 'Universal set', by definition, HAS to BE the one and only biggest and largest SET.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
No, because there is always more than more.
But there is NOT more than ALL. By definition of ALL, how could there be more?
Surely this is NOT to hard to understand?
Consider there are just two shapes, a and b, which is all that exist, set E={a,b}. We have four sub-sets which is the result of different combination of a and b which is N={empty-set, {a}, {b}, {a,b}}. N is bigger than E.
So then N is obviously the 'Universal set'. BUT, if there is a larger SET, then that SET is the 'Universal SET'.
If some thing could be bigger, larger, or more than ALL-THERE-IS, then please tell me HOW?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
The set of all things is the universal set.
That is what some would/could call the set of ALL things.
Do you call the 'set of ALL things' the 'universal set'?
Yes. All things is however
unbound.
According to who?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
If so, do you still insist that a 'Universal set' could NOT exist?
Yes. As soon as you say that the universal set exists then it means that it has a sub-sets which is bigger than the original set. So we are dealing with this contradiction.
Okay, if we want to and are going to keep looking at this, like this, then what happens if we do NOT call ALL-THERE-IS, EVERY thing, the Universe, a "set" at all? And, instead, just called them for what they REALLY ARE?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:10 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
I already explained that you cannot have a set of everything. Let's see if my explanation works this time.
Are you talking about the explanation a fair way up this post?
If you are, then that "explanation" did NOT work in explaining how it is impossible to have a 'set of EVERY thing', did NOT work for me anyway.
I tried again. So let's see if this time things for for you.
If you do NOT accept that a 'set of EVERY thing' is possible, then do you at least accept that EVERY thing that exists is sometimes KNOWN as Everything?
If you can accept that, then can and/or do you accept that there exists an Everything?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Please let me know which part you don't understand so I can explain it to you.
Let us just say absolutely EVERY symbol in that explanation of yours I do NOT understand. That way when you explain EACH and EVERY one of them, then it will be more clear to me.
Ok, lets consider that there are only an apple and an orange in the world. This we call it the universal set. The sub-sets of this set are, empty-set (when you have nothing), apple, orange and apple and orange. So you have four combination which means that the sub-sets is bigger than original set. Does that make sense?
Only if you are TRYING TO prove some thing. What is it that you are TRYING TO prove with this concept?
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
I did it in the beginning of this post.
That, to me, did NOT explain HOW a set of EVERY thing is an impossibility.
Because the sub-sets of set of every thing is bigger than set of every thing. So you have to call the sub-sets as every thing.
What do you mean by 'So you HAVE TO call the sub-sets as every thing'?
I always WAS and always HAVE BEEN calling absolutely EVERY thing, Everything.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
bahman wrote: ↑Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:37 pm
Not, given the definition of mind.
Oh, I was unaware that there is A one and only, specific, definition of 'mind'. Can you share THAT definition of 'mind' with us here?
Mind is essence of any being with the ability to experience, decide and cause. What is your definition of Mind?
For now, same as above.
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 4:16 pmAge wrote: ↑Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:02 am
Maybe that will give clarity how there are MANY 'minds' or at least TWO 'minds'.
Yes, it will. You experience and cause certain changes. You are very aware that there are changes that is not due to you. Therefore there is at least one more mind.
This is only depended upon A specific definition of 'mind' here.