Everything is Not a Thing

[Sculptor]

The set of all things is a set of itself , because the set of all things (like other sets)has a unique defining attribute: the unique defining attribute of the set of all things is the set of all things is cause of itself.

What do you call the set of thing that contains the set of all things?

Sculptor, 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.

There is a bigger set. The set of all absolute sets. The trouble with that is, is that it still cannot contain itself.

[popeye1945]

No each thing acts to its nature. Systems are emergent qualities which the compoents are not aware of. They are entities which are created in the minds of humans due to their interest in the universe.

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.

yes it is.. no its not...yes it is.. no its not...yes it is.. no its not...yes it is.. no its not...

You will have to do better than that.

It is not the hill I've chosen to die on, if you really wish a greater understanding, google general systems theory.

[Sculptor]

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.

yes it is.. no its not...yes it is.. no its not...yes it is.. no its not...yes it is.. no its not...

You will have to do better than that.

It is not the hill I've chosen to die on, if you really wish a greater understanding, google general systems theory.

I've already told you , my understanding of this theory is greater than yours.

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.

[popeye1945]

Only subjectively.
You could try and do more than just say not. You could actually try to demonstrate your claim.

If you wish to know more about systems, google, general systems theory.

I was googling when you were in short trousers. I know more about systems theory than you know about the back of your hand.
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.

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.

[Agent Smith]

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!

[Belinda]

What do you call the set of thing that contains the set of all things?

Sculptor, 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.

There is a bigger set. The set of all absolute sets. The trouble with that is, is that it still cannot contain itself.

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.
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.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. And this word, "set", means nothing when it means everything.

Not true.
You just have to know the context.

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.

You are clearly very confused.

3. So there are not a whole orange attached to a tree?

QED my last statement.

4. What I am saying is the whole/part dichotomy is an illusion grounded in the relative nature of the things we observe.

No,. It's all about context.
If it were an illusion or meaningless, then I'd not be able to address your points separately.

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.

It does not invalidate the concept just because it has uniqueness.

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.

[Sculptor]

1. And this word, "set", means nothing when it means everything.

Not true.
You just have to know the context.

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.

You are clearly very confused.

3. So there are not a whole orange attached to a tree?

QED my last statement.

4. What I am saying is the whole/part dichotomy is an illusion grounded in the relative nature of the things we observe.

No,. It's all about context.
If it were an illusion or meaningless, then I'd not be able to address your points separately.

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.

It does not invalidate the concept just because it has uniqueness.

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.

It's still a thing else you coulf not talk about it.

I just think you are not properly hooked up in a cognitive sense.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

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.

It's still a thing else you coulf not talk about it.

I just think you are not properly hooked up in a cognitive sense.

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]

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.

It's still a thing else you coulf not talk about it.

I just think you are not properly hooked up in a cognitive sense.

If the logic negates itself then it is not logical. If language refutes itself then it is not saying anything thus not a language.

No to both.

[Eodnhoj7]

It's still a thing else you coulf not talk about it.

I just think you are not properly hooked up in a cognitive sense.

If the logic negates itself then it is not logical. If language refutes itself then it is not saying anything thus not a language.

No to both.

Why the assertion...no logic on your part?

[Sculptor]

If the logic negates itself then it is not logical. If language refutes itself then it is not saying anything thus not a language.

No to both.

Why the assertion...no logic on your part?

1. Please give example (logic)
2.How can language refute itself? Example please.

[Eodnhoj7]

No to both.

Why the assertion...no logic on your part?

1. Please give example (logic)
2.How can language refute itself? Example please.

1. A therefore B.
2. The liar's paradox. Or: "Everything is true; this statement is false."

[Agent Smith]

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.

[Sculptor]

Why the assertion...no logic on your part?

1. Please give example (logic)
2.How can language refute itself? Example please.

1. A therefore B.
2. The liar's paradox. Or: "Everything is true; this statement is false."

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.