Theory of Everything - View Single Post

Guille · 01-12-2006, 03:15 PM

Sub,

Thanks for your mature words, I feel for once that we are constructing. Abotu your question to dave, there is no paradox in nature, but that doesn't impply that we should invent any solution to the paradoxes. For example, the paradoxes of Zeno are the probably the strongest ones (by the way, I propose you to try and solve them) developed by humans ever. The solution that has beeen doen of it is absurd: that an infinite amount of space can be covered in a finite amount of time.
In your reply you come again to a circular discussion. The thing is that there is from the start a mistake. I agree with your idea that a set must ALWAYS contain itself, as it contain all it members, and all it's members is what it is. So basically if something is itself (and if something is, neccesarilyl something is itself for itself is it) then neccesarilly it contains itself, for these tow mean the same really.

But the thing is that the idea of containing itself in set theory is not this containing. The idea of containing itself in set theory is that a set is part of the members of itself, is itself a member.

The basic thing is that your solution doesn't match the set theory problem which is russell's paradox. But it is interesting, as it shows how the logical idea of contention is not the same as the real thing that contention means in the world. And this shows that logic is not neccesarilly true.

	(#18 (permalink))
Guille The Thinker Status: Offline Posts: 3,278 Thanks Given: 14 Thanked 9x in 9 Posts Join Date: Mar 2005 Rep Power: 48	01-12-2006, 03:15 PM Sub, Thanks for your mature words, I feel for once that we are constructing. Abotu your question to dave, there is no paradox in nature, but that doesn't impply that we should invent any solution to the paradoxes. For example, the paradoxes of Zeno are the probably the strongest ones (by the way, I propose you to try and solve them) developed by humans ever. The solution that has beeen doen of it is absurd: that an infinite amount of space can be covered in a finite amount of time. In your reply you come again to a circular discussion. The thing is that there is from the start a mistake. I agree with your idea that a set must ALWAYS contain itself, as it contain all it members, and all it's members is what it is. So basically if something is itself (and if something is, neccesarilyl something is itself for itself is it) then neccesarilly it contains itself, for these tow mean the same really. But the thing is that the idea of containing itself in set theory is not this containing. The idea of containing itself in set theory is that a set is part of the members of itself, is itself a member. The basic thing is that your solution doesn't match the set theory problem which is russell's paradox. But it is interesting, as it shows how the logical idea of contention is not the same as the real thing that contention means in the world. And this shows that logic is not neccesarilly true.