[subversion]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald

I dont' think I agree that something has to belong to itself to exist. However, something can belong to a set where there is only one elemnt and that element is itself.

A= an item with properties
B={A}= the set of elements that have exactly the same properties as A

This is not the same as saying A belongs to itself. Rather it says that A belongs to a set where all the elements have exactly the same properties as A. B is a set or a grouping of elements, it does not equal it's elements.

Good argument Dustin. But I would like you to justify your statement "I don't think that something has to belong to itself." You state your belief but never offer any reasoning for it. For example, my reasoning that something does contain itself and is self-belonging is that something is a real object, because it is full, complete unto itself, and real of it's own substance which is actual substance not nothingness. The actual substance it is full and complete with is it's own substance because if it was made of something else it would be something else. So in short something should, with reason, always be itself. This means it contains itself.

A set can contain just one element, that's true, that would be considered a first element. But the set itself theoretically always contains a zeroth element, itself, in order to exist, because this is how we can theoretically distinguish between a real set and a false set. Any false set is the empty set because it is not real. The zeroth element of the empty set would just be zero, that is why we say it has no zeroth element, and thus it is not a set.

Now we can surely pretend that empty sets, false sets which do not contain themselves as their own self, are real, but this does not apply to the real world because all real objects contain themselves, by the reasoning I gave you, and thus it is a huge theoretical dead end and fallacy to go down the path that makes a bunch of statements which are irrelevant because they are literally about nothing, i.e. the empty set, much the same way as how the math of string theory may be true but that doesn't mean the theory isn't irrelevant and fictitious and a huge dead end.

So in conclusion is there a just reason why you think that something does not belong to itself, because I think this may be a logical fallacy? Also, if the sum of all the elements in a set is (the zeroth element) equal to the whole set which is equal to itself, then why is it not also true that the whole set which is equal to itself (the zeroth element) is equal to all the other elements combined?

just wondering, subversion