-->
@3RU7AL
Absolutely.
Define a universe in your own words
Posts
Total:
106
-->
@secularmerlin
The entirety of my experience and experiential knowledge as limited by human epistemology. I presume and operate under the assumption that this experience represents an actual physical universe which is to the best of my understanding a sparce collection of physical bodies puncuating the vast silent vacuum of turbulent energy fluctuations that is expanding at relativistic speeds. Expanding into what (or if that is even more than a nonsense notion) is unknown not only to me but also to the brightest and best informed minds on the frontiers of cosmological research.
well stated
-->
@Reece101
Only the known exists?
"existence" requires empirical verification and or logical necessity (QUANTA)
-->
@3RU7AL
The phaneron addresses one of those I guess.
-->
@Athias
Converting external signalling into internal data assessment outcomes, is manipulation of a primary source.....Therefore a simulation of what we assume to be real and accurate incoming information.
Did I refer to "non-simulation"?........I will have to check back.....Though relative to the self, maybe self awareness could be regarded as non-simulation.
Interesting though.....Is self awareness simply a state of being, that requires no cognitive effort?
Why is "external" messaging relevant why is it even rational.
Well, being completely solipsistic.
"Rational" is what we individually conclude I suppose.
And external messaging is how we relate our awareness to something.
292 days later
The universe: All which physically exists, and all of the non-physical structures that are directly connected to it (like math or consciousness).
Bloody big.
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
The universe: All which physically exists, and all of the non-physical structures that are directly connected to it (like math or consciousness).
It is better --closer to absolute truth--- to make some catagorical distinctions:
2} Spirit-2, 3 and 4, finite, occupied space Universe
.. 2a} } Spirit-2, physical reality falls in catagory of Spirit-2 aka fermionic matter and bosonic forces and yes there is new third catagory that is hybrid of those two,
...2b} Spirit-3, non-quantised, Gravity,
....2c} Spirit-4, non-quantised Dark Energy
None ever have, nor ever will add too, or invalidate this trinary set. Ex a Spirit-5 does not exist. There may be a few other if not many trinary subcatagories.
Ex 0} Spirit-1 Meta-space 0a} relative truths, 0b} absolute truths and 0c} false narratives { a mixture of lies and truths }.
And here I have to point out the subcatgory of physical reality being a trinary set, wherein the third set is combination of the first two fermions, bosons and a newer catagory being a hybrid set of the previous two.
-->
@ebuc
I don't see categorization as doing anything but helping our limited minds to understand what the universe is made up of. Listing what physically exists does not make physical existence any more absolute. This would be like saying that the standard mathematical definition of a natural number is not objective, because it does not categorize them as even and odd.
None ever have, nor ever will add too, or invalidate this trinary set.
It seems that just as on the Material and Spiritual thread, you seem to think that no one could possible ever think of anything outside of what you have already come up with. You really need to get over that idea, or people will see you as stuck up. I doubt that you mean to be, but it comes across that way.
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I don't see categorization as doing anything but helping our limited minds to understand what the universe is made up of.
Any good education book has at very beginning a table of contents, that lays out in general the primary topics and the subcatagorical chapters. Again, think of the 0, 1 and 2 as the table primary set of in table of conents of a book entitled Cosmic Trinary Set, and then from there we have all other subsets/subcatagorical sets. You apparrently dont grasp the simple.
It seems that just as on the Material and Spiritual thread, you seem to think that no one could possible ever think of anything outside of what you have already come up with.
Thats true, and unless you can add to the Cosmic Trinary Set { 0, 1, 2 }, or invalidate it, then what anyone else has to offer, will begin by falling into one of those three primary catagories. Please share when you have something to present that does not fall into one of more of those three primary catagories. You cannot nor anyone else nor will you or others ever be able to .
Start with most wholistic set, and no parts can be excluded. Do you understand what that means? Apparrently you do not, as I have to keep repeating it to you, in this various threads.
-->
@ebuc
You can't put everything in a set. Here is proof:
Suppose that we can indeed have everything in the same set. Then we can obtain a subset which is the set of all sets which are not elements of themselves. Would this set be an element of itself? If not, then by definition it would be. If so, then by definition it would not be. This is a contradiction, and so our initial premise must have been false.
I suggest you do some reading into Russel's paradox and the ZFC axiom system. I'll leave it at this for now, as I hope it will be enough for you to realize that this "most wholistic set" you keep speaking of is not a valid concept.
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Great your going to attempt to invalidate my comments of the invalidity of what ive presented for some 20 years now.
You can't put everything in a set. Here is proof:
Its called a Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concept of a table of contents regarding the most wholistic set, I label as the Cosmic Trinary Set
Suppose that we can indeed have everything in the same set.
It is the most wholistic set, that is no less than, and no more than the Cosmic Primary Set of catagories. All else is a sub-catagory/subset of those three. Simple, yet you have not taken the time to grasp this relatively simple concept.
Then we can obtain a subset which is the set of all sets which are not elements of themselves.
Yes, all else is a sub-set/sub-catagory of one or more of the primary set of three. Ive been very clear to you in a few of these threads today, and prior to today.
Would this set be an element of itself?
Yes, and it may have a trinary sub-set also. There a few if not many of those and again, whatever set you want to propose/present is subset/sub-catagory of the Cosmic Trinary Set. You can try all you want, and again, you nor anyone else can present a set that is not within the Cosmic Trinary Set. Please share if you think you can. You have not done that yet.
If not, then by definition it would be. If so, then by definition it would not be. This is a contradiction, and so our initial premise must have been false.
I address this above. Subsets are sets, but that does not preclude them from being a sub-set of the more wholistic trinary set, and you obviously do not grasp this relatively simple concept. We could have moved on to more of what you have too offer, except you cant get past the the Cosmic Primary Set. Maybe you dont grasp the definition of the word primary.
I suggest you do some reading into Russel's paradox and the ZFC axiom system. I'll leave it at this for now, as I hope it will be enough for you to realize that this "most wholistic set" you keep speaking of is not a valid concept.
You offered and proof of that which is not in the within --fall under-- the c Cosmic Trinary Set. You have not done that. You cant, and nor can anyone else. This is rather simple, logical common sense critical thinking. Unless there is ego issue, or truly do not grasp the concepts as defined by me.
Pull something out of you above lINKs that believe is not with the context of the Cosmic Primary Set. Please try. It cant be done. Again, what ever you present, I will tell you which of those or more three catagorical sets it falls into.
-->
@ebuc
Since you clearly didn't understand the first time I will spell things out a bit more clearly.
Would this set be an element of itself?Yes, and it may have a trinary sub-set also. There a few if not many of those and again, whatever set you want to propose/present is subset/sub-catagory of the Cosmic Trinary Set. You can try all you want, and again, you nor anyone else can present a set that is not within the Cosmic Trinary Set. Please share if you think you can. You have not done that yet.
I did not say "would this set be an element of the cosmic trinary set?" I said "would this set be an element of itself?" I'm not even claiming that there is something that doesn't fall into this set. I'm claiming that it isn't even a valid concept. I am demonstrating this by showing that if it was, then that would lead to a contradiction. Perhaps you should read up on proof by contradiction. (Do you actually go to these links? I'm doubtful you know what Russell's paradox is as you read this right now.)
If not, then by definition it would be. If so, then by definition it would not be. This is a contradiction, and so our initial premise must have been false.I address this above. Subsets are sets, but that does not preclude them from being a sub-set of the more wholistic trinary set, and you obviously do not grasp this relatively simple concept. We could have moved on to more of what you have too offer, except you cant get past the the Cosmic Primary Set. Maybe you dont grasp the definition of the word primary.
You seem to think that just because I don't agree with you means that I don't know the definition of many English words. Not everyone who disagrees with you is automatically stupid. I would have thought that someone on a debate site could respect differing points of view. Apparently not. That's sad. Now, let's break down your attempted refutation.
I address this above.
When? Where? What on earth are you talking about? I seriously dug for when you addressed this, and couldn't figure it out. Maybe I'm just blind or something, so how about you address it again?
Subsets are sets,
Good.
but that does not preclude them from being a sub-set of the more wholistic trinary set,
Makes sense.
and you obviously do not grasp this relatively simple concept.
What? Why do you assume that?
We could have moved on to more of what you have too offer, except you cant get past the the Cosmic Primary Set.
So basically you chose mocking me over providing an actual refutation. I hate to break it to you, but it has actually been known for some time among mathematicians that you simply cannot put everything in a set without it leading to contradictions. (Actually read the Russell's paradox webpage which I linked to earlier please.) Therefore, defining a set as the "most wholistic" isn't even a valid concept. Also, if you had actually read my posts over on Material and Spiritual, you would know that we are never going to get to move of what I have to offer, because I'm going to create my own forum topic once I have the qualification.
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Since you clearly didn't understand the first time I will spell things out a bit more clearly.
False. I not only understood I directly addressed it with the correct answer.
Would this set be an element of itself?
Yes, but it falls within a greater primary set ergo it is a set in of itself and it is a subset of the Cosmic Trinary Set. Your the one who doesnt grasp any of that.
The cosmic Trinary Set is a set onto them selves --elements are atoms 92 chemical elements---, and one or more of them over lap each other in some way. Ex 1} truly non-occupied space and occupied space are both of the catagory of Space: just ive presented in one or more threads and in the Revised Wholistic Set of Existence.
1} and 2} are both complemented by 0} Spirit-1 Meta-space. So and so on.
Yes, and it may have a trinary sub-set also. There a few if not many of those and again, whatever set you want to propose/present is subset/sub-catagory of the Cosmic Trinary Set. You can try all you want, and again, you nor anyone else can present a set that is not within the Cosmic Trinary Set. Please share if you think you can. You have not done that yet.
I did not say "would this set be an element of the cosmic trinary set?" I said "would this set be an element of itself?"
I didnt say that you said that. I said that it is. You dont seem to grasp, for the umpteenth time, any thing, element, molecule concept or etc will fall within the Cosmic Trinary Set. You stuck in loop of trying to get away from the truths ive presented from the start, and have to repeated bring you back to, over and over and over. Please stop running from obvious truths, as Ive clearly defined in a trinary set for you and others. Simple nnot complex yet you avoid these truths, over and over and over........etc.......
I'm not even claiming that there is something that doesn't fall into this set.
That is good, becuase you nor anyone else can do that, and ive been asking you to address that comment and others directly by understanding the above, showing evidence you understand, you accept what Ive presented as the top, most wholistic set of existence, and then we can move on. Some umpteen posts in umpteen various threads, later.
I'm claiming that it isn't even a valid concept. I am demonstrating this by showing that if it was, then that would lead to a contradiction. Perhaps you should read up on proof by contradiction. (Do you actually go to these links? I'm doubtful you know what Russell's paradox is as you read this right now.)
Huh? What exactly "isnt even a valid concept"? What specific are you talking about? Are addressing a comment I made? If I made such a, then present that comment I made that is invalid, regarding the Cosmic Trinary Set.
If not, then by definition it would be. If so, then by definition it would not be. This is a contradiction, and so our initial premise must have been false.I address this above. Subsets are sets, but that does not preclude them from being a sub-set of the more wholistic trinary set, and you obviously do not grasp this relatively simple concept. We could have moved on to more of what you have too offer, except you cant get past the the Cosmic Primary Set. Maybe you dont grasp the definition of the word primary.
You seem to think that just because I don't agree with you means that I don't know the definition of many English words.
You have shown no evidence that you have any clue of the obvious truths Ive presented in the Cosmic Trinary Set, and all of my comments directing you back to them. Ex you have nothing to present that does not fall withing one or more of the Trinary Set. Go ahead please try, drop the ego game and say you understand what Ive stated is true. You cannot invalidate, add a 4th primary or present anything that does not fall within one or more of those three.
You been running from truth since post#9 by me and Ive been chasing you to acknowledge the obvious truths. So round and round we go.
You been running from truth since post#9 by me and Ive been chasing you to acknowledge the obvious truths. So round and round we go.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is automatically stupid. I would have thought that someone on a debate site could respect differing points of view. Apparently not. That's sad. Now, let's break down your attempted refutation.
So you disagree with my response to you in post #7 in material and spiritual' that your comment falls with catagory 0} Spirit-1, Meta-space etc?
If so then your incorrect.
We could have moved on to more of what you have too offer, except you cant get past the the Cosmic Primary Set.
So basically you chose mocking me over providing an actual refutation.
Huh? False and you appear confused. What I state of above is amatter of fact. Your ego has run off trying to leave the cosmic trinary set in the dust, and that se includes definition of Universe.
I hate to break it to you, but it has actually been known for some time among mathematicians that you simply cannot put everything in a set without it leading to contradictions.
I never stated a single set. There are many catagorical sets. Ive started at the top i.e.the most wholistic sets of Eexistence and that begins with a trianary set, not a single set. Please share when you have something that does not fit into one or more of those three.
Ive been asking you for hours and hours now to present something thing. You and no one else ever has or ever will. C'mon, lets see you do it. Just as thought, you cant and your ego cannot accept this truth. Ive seen this ego game played out for 20 years or more.
(Actually read the Russell's paradox webpage which I linked to earlier please.) Therefore, defining a set as the "most wholistic" isn't even a valid concept.
Cosmic Trinary Set is valid and youve shown nothing, zip,nada that invalidates it. Place a quote here, from you LINK that invalidates the cosmic trinary set aka the most wholistic set of existence, that starts with a set of three.
Also, if you had actually read my posts over on Material and Spiritual, you would know that we are never going to get to move of what I have to offer, because I'm going to create my own forum topic once I have the qualification.
I read a line of text #7 and specifically addressed in #9. You need to go back there, so we can start all over. What a chore and waste of time and effort your proving to be. Ego is the problem here is my best guess. Maybe not understanding. Time may tell.
-->
@ebuc
I'll just point a few things out, since this will go on for long enough.
Not everyone who disagrees with you is automatically stupid. I would have thought that someone on a debate site could respect differing points of view. Apparently not. That's sad.
I don't think that you are stupid, and I do respect your point of view, I just don't agree with it. I am sharing the reasons why. Is that okay? I would have though that someone on a debate site could handle hearing differing points of view. I beginning to think not. That's sad.
Huh? False and you appear confused. What I state of above is amatter of fact. Your ego has run off trying to leave the cosmic trinary set in the dust, and that se includes definition of Universe.
What you say is automatically true, and must not be contradicted, but I'm the one with the big ego. Got it.
Cosmic Trinary Set is valid and youve shown nothing, zip,nada that invalidates it. Place a quote here, from you LINK that invalidates the cosmic trinary set aka the most wholistic set of existence, that starts with a set of three.
But of course:
Russell’s paradox is the most famous of the logical or set-theoretical paradoxes. Also known as the Russell-Zermelo paradox, the paradox arises within naïve set theory by considering the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Such a set appears to be a member of itself if and only if it is not a member of itself. Hence the paradox.
The first paragraph will do. If there is a most wholistic set, then this set that they speak of would be a subset of it. However, this set leads to a logical contradiction, as they explain here. I also found something even better. This webpage kindly proves it for me. Here's a quote:
That is, a set that contains everything cannot exist.
Go to the webpage yourself, and you can find proof of this claim under where is says "proof 1." Should be easy enough. It explains it quite well.
I read a line of text #7 and specifically addressed in #9. You need to go back there, so we can start all over. What a chore and waste of time and effort your proving to be. Ego is the problem here is my best guess. Maybe not understanding. Time may tell.
Well, you can find out right now, because I'm going to be honest with you. It's that I am not understanding. I feel more and more confused every time you post something new. Maybe someone else will kindly back me up on this, as a fear you will say that it is because I am stupid. I legitimately don't understand what you have said that refutes my argument. It feels to me like you are just saying that I don't understand a basic concept and then moving on. Also, if you find debating over differing points of view (which is what I am trying to do here) to be a waste of time and effort, then perhaps debate isn't your best choice of hobby.
I mean no disrespect. I really just want to debate this calmly and civilly. Can we do that starting now? If not, then perhaps we should agree to both drop this. Tell me if you want to do that. I mean that sincerely.
Cosmic Trinary Set is valid and youve shown nothing, zip,nada that invalidates it. Place a quote here, from you LINK that invalidates the cosmic trinary set aka the most wholistic set of existence, that starts with a set of three.
You provided no quote that directly address 0}, 1} or 2} that invalidates them as presented, much less added any validity to them. I offer zilch, nada, zero.
0} Spirit-1, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts{ abstractions }, ego math and geometric patterns, ergo, concepts of Concepts, God, Time, Space, Love, Dogs, Cats, Toyotas etc, are not actual space, or dogs or cats etc i.e a a concept has no mass, no charge, no color, no spin etc. Ok? Understand? So valid as presented
------conceptual line of demarcation clarifies distinction of the above from the below------
1} macro-infinite and truly non-occupied space, that, is outside/Meta of ergo, embraces the following, catagory
...note: valid as presented
2} Spirit-2, 3 and 4, finite occupied space Universe,
.. 2a} } Spirit-2, physical reality { energy }---associated with sine-wave pattern /\/\/ or as ^v^v^--- falls in catagory of Spirit-2 aka fermionic matter { energy } and bosonic forces { energy } and yes there is new third catagory/set that is hybrid of those two,
...2b} Spirit-3, non-quantised,ergo Meta-physical Gravity ( ),
....2c} Spirit-4, non-quantised ergo Meta-physical Dark Energy )(.
This above primary, trinary subset is valid as presented.
Your spiritual logicism fall into catagory 0}. Simple.
And ive pointed out that your "real" in catagory 2A}. Simple, if you no ego based mental blockages occur.
Ive addressed your statements directly as presented in this thread and others, and expect same from you. Your mind games, driven by your ego, to avoid obvious truths, logic, common sense critical thing is becoming to much of chore, requiring to much time and effort.