Theory of Everything - View Single Post

WithoutMe · 07:40 PM

First & foremost, yur statement
"Nothing (i.e. the empty set) on the other hand is not considered to be something and thus either it simultaneously contains AND does not contain itself or it simultaneously neither contains nor does not contain itself OR it simultaneously neither contains itself nor doesn't contain itself while simultaneously containing AND not containing itself."

was initially said by the Buddhist Logician Nagarjuna in his four-fold logic, i.e.,
1. "This" (but not "Not This).
2. Not "This" (but not "This").
3. "This & Not This".
4. Not "This & Not This".

Basically he used it to counter the Nyayayikas (who basically used the "Neti Neti" line of thought for the Ontological proof of the Brahman & the dependene of the Atman in it).

Now going from Logic to Metaphysics, he stated the case as acausal!

Now going from Logic to Psychological, he used the first as the "Sensation", second as "Feeling", third as "thinking" & the fourth as "Intuition" (Ofcourse am using Jungian Psychological terms to translate it from the original Sanskrit). Similar such connotations can be found if you consider the first three as the specific aspects of the "Reptile Brain" (first case), the "Mammalian Brain (2nd case) & the "Human Brain" (3rd case). As I had posted it in the thread starter, "On an Immoral Ethics" at http://www.toequest.com/forum/showth...newpost&t=1666
Only in the case when the 3 brains work in perfect harmony does the individual live in the acuasal world, i.e., he doesnot have Pschological Time, Though the Chronological Time goes on as usual. I will post on this much details, giving the whole detailed structure of the Mind along with the Brain Dynmics in relation to Nirvana & the Acausal Perception in some other post. If u all r very much interested, then I can make it early as soon as possible!

You said:
"So in conclusion I will state that the solution to Russell's paradox is that the set of all sets which do not contain themselves is simply the empty set and whether the empty set contains itself or not is an irrelevant question because the empty set has no value".
I repeat: "whether the empty set contains itself or not is an irrelevant question because the empty set has no value"

Now, u r using the kind of logic which the much mis-interpreted Logican Wittgenstien used, when he basically said:
"What can be said at all, can be said clearly, & what cannot be said at all, must be passed over in silence, for that lies in the range of nonsense"

Note the words "must be passed over in silence", that is, even by considering such propositions, wud lead to paradoxes (he used the word "nonsense").... yep its true, that's the way we go on in life, whenever we find at a paradox, we dont drop dead while reeling back at a paradox, instead we choose to simply avoid or just "let it be", i.e., we humans have the capability to voluntarily step out of an endless loop..... does it point to the much-perplexing (& often scpetical) phenomenon of Free-Will or does it instead speak of our capability to always be able to multitask using multiprocessers, that is when one processers (neurons, as the experts say) hangs (that is, goes in an infinite loop), the other neurons interrupt it & reset the very signal input to that neuron..... Now, how does another neuron "realise" that some other neuron has hanged? Does it have a time out? Can't eb, coz we just seem to understand a paradox even before going in circles with it!!!!
Is it bcoz all paradoxes have a pattern of toggling output, i.e., "yes/no/yes/no/yes"... if so, then how does the mind differentiate a paradox from a clock? Or are all paradoxes actually the clocks which tick us to Infinity??

PS. I need an answer, not that paradoxes have one....lol!

Infact whether a paradox can have an answer refer to my reply-post of "Walstad's Paradox" at http://www.toequest.com/forum/showth...newpost&t=1681

wat say u ?

Subversion dude,
u deparately need to read up on Object Oriented Design.... read the relationships of "is-part-of" vs "is-a"..... u definetely have confused Containment with Being.

I am what I am, however I donot contain myself, infact my relationship with me is that of a "is-a" (Identity) whereas my relationship with say, my tooth, is a "is-part-of" (Containment)!!!! u dig that?

Note very carefully, The relationship of Identity (that is, "me being me just for the sake of me being me", or in Kantian Language, "in-itself") is itself a paradox & runs the high risk of being mistaken for that of Containment (that is, "me being me just for the sake of all the properties & attributes that whoever is positing my existence is in relation with" (so it depends on the person who is positing my existence, whereas the "in-itself" doesnt need anyone to posit, the "in-itself" is infact self-caused, or as Nagarjuna wud conclude, anything that is self-caused, is actually acausal), or in Kantian Language, Containment points to the "for-itself", ie., the Penomenal World)!!

Now one may very well say (as the Logical Positivists had championed) that the "in-itself" even if it exists is full crap coz one can't even say whether its right ot wong ot true or false, coz its beyond any source of inverstigation (acausal).... & thus, what I call "Isolated Existence"!!!

Wat say u all to that ?

Regards,
wM.

	(#19 (permalink))
WithoutMe Green Belt Status: Offline Posts: 67 Thanks Given: 0 Thanked 0x in 0 Posts Join Date: Mar 2006 Rep Power: 10	04-25-2006, 07:56 AM First & foremost, yur statement "Nothing (i.e. the empty set) on the other hand is not considered to be something and thus either it simultaneously contains AND does not contain itself or it simultaneously neither contains nor does not contain itself OR it simultaneously neither contains itself nor doesn't contain itself while simultaneously containing AND not containing itself." was initially said by the Buddhist Logician Nagarjuna in his four-fold logic, i.e., 1. "This" (but not "Not This). 2. Not "This" (but not "This"). 3. "This & Not This". 4. Not "This & Not This". Basically he used it to counter the Nyayayikas (who basically used the "Neti Neti" line of thought for the Ontological proof of the Brahman & the dependene of the Atman in it). Now going from Logic to Metaphysics, he stated the case as acausal! Now going from Logic to Psychological, he used the first as the "Sensation", second as "Feeling", third as "thinking" & the fourth as "Intuition" (Ofcourse am using Jungian Psychological terms to translate it from the original Sanskrit). Similar such connotations can be found if you consider the first three as the specific aspects of the "Reptile Brain" (first case), the "Mammalian Brain (2nd case) & the "Human Brain" (3rd case). As I had posted it in the thread starter, "On an Immoral Ethics" at http://www.toequest.com/forum/showth...newpost&t=1666 Only in the case when the 3 brains work in perfect harmony does the individual live in the acuasal world, i.e., he doesnot have Pschological Time, Though the Chronological Time goes on as usual. I will post on this much details, giving the whole detailed structure of the Mind along with the Brain Dynmics in relation to Nirvana & the Acausal Perception in some other post. If u all r very much interested, then I can make it early as soon as possible! You said: "So in conclusion I will state that the solution to Russell's paradox is that the set of all sets which do not contain themselves is simply the empty set and whether the empty set contains itself or not is an irrelevant question because the empty set has no value". I repeat: "whether the empty set contains itself or not is an irrelevant question because the empty set has no value" Now, u r using the kind of logic which the much mis-interpreted Logican Wittgenstien used, when he basically said: "What can be said at all, can be said clearly, & what cannot be said at all, must be passed over in silence, for that lies in the range of nonsense" Note the words "must be passed over in silence", that is, even by considering such propositions, wud lead to paradoxes (he used the word "nonsense").... yep its true, that's the way we go on in life, whenever we find at a paradox, we dont drop dead while reeling back at a paradox, instead we choose to simply avoid or just "let it be", i.e., we humans have the capability to voluntarily step out of an endless loop..... does it point to the much-perplexing (& often scpetical) phenomenon of Free-Will or does it instead speak of our capability to always be able to multitask using multiprocessers, that is when one processers (neurons, as the experts say) hangs (that is, goes in an infinite loop), the other neurons interrupt it & reset the very signal input to that neuron..... Now, how does another neuron "realise" that some other neuron has hanged? Does it have a time out? Can't eb, coz we just seem to understand a paradox even before going in circles with it!!!! Is it bcoz all paradoxes have a pattern of toggling output, i.e., "yes/no/yes/no/yes"... if so, then how does the mind differentiate a paradox from a clock? Or are all paradoxes actually the clocks which tick us to Infinity?? PS. I need an answer, not that paradoxes have one....lol! Infact whether a paradox can have an answer refer to my reply-post of "Walstad's Paradox" at http://www.toequest.com/forum/showth...newpost&t=1681 wat say u ? Subversion dude, u deparately need to read up on Object Oriented Design.... read the relationships of "is-part-of" vs "is-a"..... u definetely have confused Containment with Being. I am what I am, however I donot contain myself, infact my relationship with me is that of a "is-a" (Identity) whereas my relationship with say, my tooth, is a "is-part-of" (Containment)!!!! u dig that? Note very carefully, The relationship of Identity (that is, "me being me just for the sake of me being me", or in Kantian Language, "in-itself") is itself a paradox & runs the high risk of being mistaken for that of Containment (that is, "me being me just for the sake of all the properties & attributes that whoever is positing my existence is in relation with" (so it depends on the person who is positing my existence, whereas the "in-itself" doesnt need anyone to posit, the "in-itself" is infact self-caused, or as Nagarjuna wud conclude, anything that is self-caused, is actually acausal), or in Kantian Language, Containment points to the "for-itself", ie., the Penomenal World)!! Now one may very well say (as the Logical Positivists had championed) that the "in-itself" even if it exists is full crap coz one can't even say whether its right ot wong ot true or false, coz its beyond any source of inverstigation (acausal).... & thus, what I call "Isolated Existence"!!! Wat say u all to that ? Regards, wM. Last edited by dleviwing : 04-29-2006 at 07:40 PM.