There is a bigger set. The set of all absolute sets. The trouble with that is, is that it still cannot contain itself.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 8:23 amSculptor, I call it the absolute set. Nothing is excluded from the absolute set, and everything is necessary to the absolute set.
I understand that to be a set, the aggregate in question must have a uniquely defining attribute i.e. the circumference of the circle in a diagram of sets.The uniquely defining attribute of the absolute set is the absolute set is cause of itself.
Everything is Not a Thing
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
It is not the hill I've chosen to die on, if you really wish a greater understanding, google general systems theory.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 11:11 amyes it is.. no its not...yes it is.. no its not...yes it is.. no its not...yes it is.. no its not...popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 7:54 amEach thing is a system, period. If the atom is defined as a system and it is, then everything is a system. A Un system, I would imagine would not be a thing, it would be unmanifest energy.
You will have to do better than that.
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
I've already told you , my understanding of this theory is greater than yours.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 11:28 amIt is not the hill I've chosen to die on, if you really wish a greater understanding, google general systems theory.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 11:11 amyes it is.. no its not...yes it is.. no its not...yes it is.. no its not...yes it is.. no its not...popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 7:54 am
Each thing is a system, period. If the atom is defined as a system and it is, then everything is a system. A Un system, I would imagine would not be a thing, it would be unmanifest energy.
You will have to do better than that.
And the point would have to be, If I might take the tentative step of bringing it back the the thread. "everything" (the greatest system of all), is not less a "Thing" for being purely conceptual. In exactly the same way that "GOD" is a system and also not real but is, in fact, a THING.
-
- Posts: 2151
- Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
Well, to start off with junior I doubt that very much. A system is not its product. The varieties of elements constituting the system are systems themselves, that which is emergent is not a property of any of the parts, that is where the saying comes from the system is greater than the sum of its parts. Because it has produced something unique which undoubtedly is the system itself. So, where is the system in those little parts, I already told you that the atom itself is considered a system, it might even apply to elementary particles not sure, but they do interact and change. Sorry if I pissed you off that is life. You may be more versed in general systems theory than I am, but you certainly missed an important point. PS: Everything is conceptual before it is made manifest in the world.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 11:10 amI was googling when you were in short trousers. I know more about systems theory than you know about the back of your hand.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 7:49 amIf you wish to know more about systems, google, general systems theory.
It's a "Theory", that means it is conceptual'
A system is extra-material, not present in its components.
So where is the system?
Hint: I just told you.
Last edited by popeye1945 on Mon May 01, 2023 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Agent Smith
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
Such mind-blowing statements make me wanna dive, headfirst, into active volcanoes, boiling hot lava and all, with jumbo-sized propane tanks strapped to my back!
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
But if there were more than one absolute set these sets would impinge upon each other which would be tantamount to not absolute at all.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 11:12 amThere is a bigger set. The set of all absolute sets. The trouble with that is, is that it still cannot contain itself.Belinda wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 8:23 amSculptor, I call it the absolute set. Nothing is excluded from the absolute set, and everything is necessary to the absolute set.
I understand that to be a set, the aggregate in question must have a uniquely defining attribute i.e. the circumference of the circle in a diagram of sets.The uniquely defining attribute of the absolute set is the absolute set is cause of itself.
Just to explain what I mean by absolute: if every known set is causally connected to every other known set in a web or network formation then each known set is not absolute but is relative to other sets in the network.
Is it more correct to call it the universal set when it's the set of all things and, it follows, the cause of itself ?
If there were to be more than one absolute set it would be in another universe.
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
1. And the number of contexts is without end considering the set can be applied to any multitude....and the number of multitudes is beyond the ability to count.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 9:49 pmNot true.
You just have to know the context.You are clearly very confused.
2. The whole as a 'relative part' is the whole relative to another whole thus leaving us only with the phenomenon of 'the whole' as 'the wholes' share the same nature of 'the whole'. As only the whole exists it is without compare. When it is comparable then it is a part but as a part it is still a relative whole thus the relative whole shares the same nature of the absolute whole, i.e. 'everything' or 'the totality' as the relative whole and the absolute whole are both wholes. The 'totality' is absolute as only the 'totality' exists. Thus the emphasis on "'relative' part". Considering 'the totality', 'the whole', is relative only to itself it is nothing as it is without compare.QED my last statement.
3. So there are not a whole orange attached to a tree?No,. It's all about context.
4. What I am saying is the whole/part dichotomy is an illusion grounded in the relative nature of the things we observe.
If it were an illusion or meaningless, then I'd not be able to address your points separately.It does not invalidate the concept just because it has uniqueness.
5. A thing requires comparison. "Everything", i.e. the totality, is without comparison for if it were to compare it would not be "everything", i.e. the totality.
2. I will break it down further... the absolute whole and the relative wholes are both a whole thus the nature of 'whole' is contradictory.
3. Face palm.
4. And all contexts are relative thus right in one respect and wrong in another. When taking all contexts into account the contexts are both right and wrong at the same time and we are left with absurdity.
5. Uniqueness requires comparison, the totality is without comparison.
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
It's still a thing else you coulf not talk about it.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:01 pm1. And the number of contexts is without end considering the set can be applied to any multitude....and the number of multitudes is beyond the ability to count.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 9:49 pmNot true.
You just have to know the context.You are clearly very confused.
2. The whole as a 'relative part' is the whole relative to another whole thus leaving us only with the phenomenon of 'the whole' as 'the wholes' share the same nature of 'the whole'. As only the whole exists it is without compare. When it is comparable then it is a part but as a part it is still a relative whole thus the relative whole shares the same nature of the absolute whole, i.e. 'everything' or 'the totality' as the relative whole and the absolute whole are both wholes. The 'totality' is absolute as only the 'totality' exists. Thus the emphasis on "'relative' part". Considering 'the totality', 'the whole', is relative only to itself it is nothing as it is without compare.QED my last statement.
3. So there are not a whole orange attached to a tree?No,. It's all about context.
4. What I am saying is the whole/part dichotomy is an illusion grounded in the relative nature of the things we observe.
If it were an illusion or meaningless, then I'd not be able to address your points separately.It does not invalidate the concept just because it has uniqueness.
5. A thing requires comparison. "Everything", i.e. the totality, is without comparison for if it were to compare it would not be "everything", i.e. the totality.
2. I will break it down further... the absolute whole and the relative wholes are both a whole thus the nature of 'whole' is contradictory.
3. Face palm.
4. And all contexts are relative thus right in one respect and wrong in another. When taking all contexts into account the contexts are both right and wrong at the same time and we are left with absurdity.
5. Uniqueness requires comparison, the totality is without comparison.
I just think you are not properly hooked up in a cognitive sense.
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
If the logic negates itself then it is not logical. If language refutes itself then it is not saying anything thus not a language.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 10:45 pmIt's still a thing else you coulf not talk about it.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:01 pm1. And the number of contexts is without end considering the set can be applied to any multitude....and the number of multitudes is beyond the ability to count.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 9:49 pm
Not true.
You just have to know the context.
You are clearly very confused.
QED my last statement.
No,. It's all about context.
If it were an illusion or meaningless, then I'd not be able to address your points separately.
It does not invalidate the concept just because it has uniqueness.
2. I will break it down further... the absolute whole and the relative wholes are both a whole thus the nature of 'whole' is contradictory.
3. Face palm.
4. And all contexts are relative thus right in one respect and wrong in another. When taking all contexts into account the contexts are both right and wrong at the same time and we are left with absurdity.
5. Uniqueness requires comparison, the totality is without comparison.
I just think you are not properly hooked up in a cognitive sense.
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
No to both.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:02 pmIf the logic negates itself then it is not logical. If language refutes itself then it is not saying anything thus not a language.Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 10:45 pmIt's still a thing else you coulf not talk about it.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 8:01 pm
1. And the number of contexts is without end considering the set can be applied to any multitude....and the number of multitudes is beyond the ability to count.
2. I will break it down further... the absolute whole and the relative wholes are both a whole thus the nature of 'whole' is contradictory.
3. Face palm.
4. And all contexts are relative thus right in one respect and wrong in another. When taking all contexts into account the contexts are both right and wrong at the same time and we are left with absurdity.
5. Uniqueness requires comparison, the totality is without comparison.
I just think you are not properly hooked up in a cognitive sense.
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
1. A therefore B.
2. The liar's paradox. Or: "Everything is true; this statement is false."
- Agent Smith
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
I know that ... I've seen it before ...
Somewhere?
No, I mean yes.
Don't do that thing you always do, ok? OK?
Yeah, alright!
Phew! Thanks.
Somewhere?
No, I mean yes.
Don't do that thing you always do, ok? OK?
Yeah, alright!
Phew! Thanks.
Re: Everything is Not a Thing
1. This is not a statement that negates logic.
2. THis is not a refutation of langauge. It is called a paradox. Thus the word "paradox" redems language by having an adequate description.
None this this relates to the thread.