Russell's Paradox

[protheory]

Hi Lodestar, you've made some truly interesting points here for which I'm grateful, after all I put Pro theory online for just such an appraisal didn't I so I'm really pleased you've brought this up here.


Right, to answer your post here I will have to become a pedant I'm afraid but before I start to explain myself I want to let you know that I am defending my idea and not myself, it's not a personal battle I'm having with you and I'm a positive person in real life therefore I mean no offence to you whatsoever.


Now we've got that out of the way I'll begin my answers to you

This right here shows what is wrong with your theory PRO. You say you think of three potentials when you think of the "true" TOE. Well what makes it the "true" TOE then if it's supposed to be about 3 potentials? If it's simultaneously false and neutral, then it's not really the "true" TOE now is it???

I think what you're doing is trying to impart meaning to your theory by calling it true even though the theory itself proves that it is false and neutral at the same time. A theory that is simultaneously true, false, and neutral is by definition undefined.

The first thing you say implies something singular "This right here shows what is wrong with your theory PRO" to which I reply that my theory is simultaneously right, wrong and neutral.


I do say that I think of three potentials when I think of the "true" TOE, but what I mean to communicate by saying that is that in my opinion the true TOE should be able to answer everything, nothing and neutrality otherwise it leaves the option open for someone else to state the opposite and neutral to my idea.


My personal definition of the TOE and everything included everything, nothing and neutral simultaneously, perhaps I should have tried to make this clearer before, when I say "everything" or TOE I actually include all three potentials within the word everything, although it might seem that on a technicality I am somehow missing the concepts of nothing and neutral here I'm actually including them all under the umbrella term "everything."


When you say "What makes it the 'true' TOE then if it's supposed to be about three potentials" I refer back to what I've just said about my personal definition of "everything" including nothing and neutrality within the definition of everything, this is how I can claim this to be a true TOE as in my opinion it answers everything (including under this term (everything) the two other potentials).


When you say "A theory that is simultaneously true, false, and neutral is by definition undefined" I have to point out here that technically speaking if my theory is actually true, false and neutral then by definition it is actually defined, not defined and neutral, rather than just "undefined" as you stated.

Now often times you might say stuff like "...therefore my theory is true (and false, and neutral, just to cover mysefl)" but even in that case you put the false and neutral parts inside of the parantheses, as if they are just tacked on to the larger conclusion which is that the theory is primarily true. So it is very apparent to anyone looking at your theory that you are always trying to give it a positive slant even though it should have no slant at all.

I can see what you mean here actually, about how it seems as though I'm trying to give it a positive slant even though it should have no slant at all but I use parentheses and write a certain way for a few different reasons to be honest, not least of which is that when I first unveiled Pro theory it seemed to be extremely difficult for folks to understand my point because where usually there might be one point with me there's actually three points in a loop.


People usually try very hard to pin me down as in "so you're saying this then..." and when I say "well actually I'm saying this, that and neutral" the common assumption of many people is to either avoid Pro theory all together, or just to say something like "but how can we possibly (singularly) know anything though..."


This is the reason why it seems like I'm often trying to claim a triple argument when it actually reads like I'm slanting it singularly, I'd love to go round and round in a loop but I also wouldn't blah blah blah but I've noticed that over the years I have to concede some of this triple looping approach for the sake of being able to communicate anything at all, I hope you realise what I'm trying to express here, it gets very difficult to state three things to people who are expecting only one thing and so like I say, sometimes I have to concede slightly.


My method of overcoming this obstacle for purposes of effective communication is to use the parentheses after the fact and my logic for using this approach was that I could cover myself by stating three potentials (albeit within parentheses) and also appear to be getting somewhere singular in my communication.


Lastly, when you say that "it is very apparent to anyone looking at your theory that you are always trying to give it a positive slant even though it should have no slant at all" I would say that your point has been explained above but that when we get technical about this rather than saying that Pro theory should have no slant at all, I think that it would be more accurate to say it should have a slant but it simultaneously shouldn't have a slant plus neutral ad infinitum, this is what Pro theory proposes but hopefully now you can see that if I were to constantly state three arguments people eventually become confused (myself included ) and start saying "but you're not saying anything" to which I reply "but I am, and I'm not plus neutral" and eventually I feel forced to use the parentheses and the old "just to cover myself" approach.


I use this approach only to aid in effective communication rather than trying to trick myself into claiming three potentials and trying to secretly slant Pro theory towards one potential.

But your attempt to ascribe meaning to the theory by labeling it true even though it is simultaneously false and neutral goes to show that my theory of the optimistic principle is indeed true. The optimistic principle guides destiny and all life and it is what caused you to discover a true/neutral/false theory and label it as simply true. This proves that even in your theory you accepted the axiom of choice and chose to choose truth, instead of false, or neutral. And this is the same reason that mankind has named the positive direction as the direction in which our time flows. It is the positive direction, the direction of optimism, of valor, of justification for all. That is the optimistic principle which you try obscure within your theory, even though IT is the overriding principle, which your true nature brings out without you even realizing it. I think that's really why it ended up being called pro theory, instead of anti theory, or neutral theory, or pro/anti/neutral theory.

I think I see what you mean here, and I think that I understand what you're trying to communicate to me.


I have indeed described my theory as true even though my own theory claims to be simultaneously true, false and neutral but again I think this comes back to my difficulty in describing my theory to everybody on here.


I actually believe in the axiom of choice in an everyday sense, my own life and the choices I make from within my three potential choices, I do choose singularly every day but only in an everyday (non-TOE) sense so to speak, I think that we have different views on both what a true TOE is, and also what importance to ascribe to the axiom of choice.


In a human (non-TOE) sense I think that you are right in what you say about the positivity choice being the most sought after choice, the only reason that I don't accept this singular choice in this context is because according to my theory a singular choice appears to ignore the two other theoretical potentials and this board deals with the theory of everything which means to me that I must answer literally everything at all relative times and points of observation.


As I've said before, when I describe Pro theory as a "true" TOE I actually mean that by my own definition of "everything" which includes three potentials, that is what I think Pro theory is.


The reason I didn't state the other two theoretical potentials to that last statement is becuase we end up going round in circles when I state things like that but we also don't plus neutral plus the opposite to this plus neutral plus........ad infinitum, which I think is accurate but unfortunately confusing and awkward for me to explain to people on here as they can't necessarily pin me down as saying something singular, or being subject to the axiom of choice or whatever it is.


And the reason that I named my idea Pro theory was because I'm called "Pro" really, I've been called this for about 18 years now I think and I formed my idea then needed a name for it so I called it Pro theory as my name is Pro and I had written a theory, it was as simple as that to be honest, I just figured that I needed a name and it became Pro theory.


I made up the name as Positive Reacting Opposites at first but then I changed it to simply Pro theory as I wasn't sure on the title, perhaps it would have been better if I had named it something different like you suggested, perhaps a name implying three simultaneous things rather than a theory of everything which is usually viewed as singular, even though my own definition of everything includes nothing and neutral too perhaps I haven't made this clear enough before now, I do have quite a habit of changing dictionary definitions to suit my own purposes so it's no wonder that my TOE seems somewhat contradictory when I claim it to be a theory of everything rather than a theory of everything, nothing and neutral which is what I actually mean when I use the word everything to describe Pro theory.

sorry if I took your quote out of context but I just had to because what you said right there solves Russell's paradox once and for all. You said specifically "everything is everything" which means that everything is part of everything which means that there is not anything which is not part of everything. Now let's translate all of what I just said into set theory terms. All sets contains all sets. That's what we mean when we say everything is everything. So all sets that contains no sets is the no-set. That is the empty set. The no set contains nothing and thus it is nothing. So the set of all sets that do not contain themselves is nothing and it is simply nothing. The set of all sets that does contain all sets, is simply everything which is also part of everything. So that is the answer to Russell's paradox. It is as complex and simple as that. 1/0=1/0 and 0=0, or rather, 0 is unequal to anything and 1/0 is equal to everything. That is the contents of the set of all sets and the set of no sets.

No problem with taking my quote out of context, no problem at all
The reason that I said "everything is everything" was to try and show that I believe all things and non-things etcetera share a common root and/or pattern within them, I wasn't meaning to state something singular there, I was just trying to agree with Canute on his comment.


I understand your points that "everything is part of everything which means that there is not anything which is not part of everything" but I would say also that though it might seem as though there is not anything that is not a part of everything, I refer back to my statement earlier in this reply that in my own mind "everything" symbolises (for me anyway) everything, nothing and also neutral, this is literally what I mean when I use the word "everything."




Russell's Paradox Specific

When you say "All sets contains all sets. That's what we mean when we say everything is everything" I see your point perfectly I think but I don't hold exactly the same opinion on this.


If I were to say that all sets contain all sets I would be missing the two other potential answers, and when you say that this is what we mean when we say everything is everything I again state that my definition of "everything" (which includes nothing and neutral) seems to be different to your own opinion and definition of this word and what we mean by it.

I actually admire your logic regarding Russell's Paradox and your set theories too a great deal, I don't think you're "wrong" either so to speak, logically you're totally correct but this is me talking in a non-TOE sense here rather than me using Pro theory to state the theoretical opposite and neutral potentials to your conclusions which appear to be singular to me.

I hope this post makes at least some sense to you anyway, right now I'm feeling exhausted from thinking too much so I'll get back to you on this later on.

I've actually had a new idea yesterday that might just hold the key to all of these communication problems I'm having but I just need to let it all sink in for a day or two, I think I'm onto something new here but I can't explain quite yet as I only realised this new idea yesterday

Thanks for your post and positive input Lodestar, I appreciate it.

Pro

[protheory]

Right, I think I'm going to have to go to some local woodland and think about this new idea for a long while, I'm really quite excited but sort of confused as well.

I think I can do it, I want to include the axiom of choice in my new idea, I want to include Russell's Paradox (just to get this post back on topic ) and all other theories too but I need time to think.

I can't really believe I didn't think of this idea before but to be honest I doubt that I could have understood without the input of the members on here...I thank you all for your input

I'm deciding how to communicate this new idea and where to post about it, my instinct is telling me to post in my Pro theory thread as this is the most on topic thread for it but I'll go and think for a bit and get back to you all about this.

Pro

[lodestar]

Thanks for the good conversation and the good reply protheory. I really like discussing your theory and it amazes me because your theory is basically contained inside of my theory, the only difference between us is that that my theory incorporates the "human aspect" as you call it. We incorporate the "human spiritual aspect" by employing the optimistic principle which then gives everything it's true definition, instead of an ambiguous definition that is true, false, and neutral. As you said, the theory of everything should describe everything, and by saying everything you are saying something which is singularly everything, because that is the true definition of everything, not the true/false/neutral definition. And to ignore the optimistic principle is to ignore the principle of life itself, and the principle of life is the spirit of the theory of everything. The scientific part leads to an infinite contradiction, an irony of truth, like you discovered. The spiritual part turns this irony into the absolute greatest beauty. The theory of everything is not without absolute great beauty.

But anyway, if your theory proposes that it is a theory of everything, nothing, and anything, then why can you simply turn around and say this is everything? Why wouldn't it equally be just nothing, or anything for that matter? I know, it is because you say that everything contains anything and nothing. But if you say everything contains anything and nothing then that also means that nothing can contain anything and everything. So when you say that everything contains anything and nothing then we cannot deside if everything is really anything at all. Therefore your theory is just the same as a theory of nothing, or at least we cannot tell if it is a theory about anything at all. That is, until you employ the optimistic principle...

Well anyway, that's what I know due to optimism. I'm anxious to see what new thought you've thought about. If I give you ideas I hope they are only natural to you. You seem like a really positive person to me and it shows in the way you describe things. I know that you have given me a lot of reflection back on my own theory, and I really appreciate the fact. I always love taking a good trip through nature to resolve my ideas. Besides which, nature shows us everything via definition.

peace bro

Right, I think I'm going to have to go to some local woodland and think about this new idea for a long while, I'm really quite excited but sort of confused as well.

I think I can do it, I want to include the axiom of choice in my new idea, I want to include Russell's Paradox (just to get this post back on topic ) and all other theories too but I need time to think.

I can't really believe I didn't think of this idea before but to be honest I doubt that I could have understood without the input of the members on here...I thank you all for your input

I'm deciding how to communicate this new idea and where to post about it, my instinct is telling me to post in my Pro theory thread as this is the most on topic thread for it but I'll go and think for a bit and get back to you all about this.

Pro

[Nobody]

I think Russell's logic is faulty because a set that doesn't contain itself can't represent the set of all sets that don't contain themselves. It's like calling a circle a square.

Nothing canbe the absolute set of all relative sets that don't contain themselves because nothing is a set of no set - like the Eastern "mind of no mind" or "thinking without thinking" or "doing without doing."

The moment we propose a set that doesn't contain itself as being the set of all sets, is the moment that we are referring to a larger set ad infinitum. The absolute greatest extent, as opposed to the infinite, is the only accurate representation of the above set, and it just so happens to be nothing.

[lodestar]

I think Russell's logic is faulty because a set that doesn't contain itself can't represent the set of all sets that don't contain themselves. It's like calling a circle a square.

Nothing canbe the absolute set of all relative sets that don't contain themselves because nothing is a set of no set - like the Eastern "mind of no mind" or "thinking without thinking" or "doing without doing."

The moment we propose a set that doesn't contain itself as being the set of all sets, is the moment that we are referring to a larger set ad infinitum. The absolute greatest extent, as opposed to the infinite, is the only accurate representation of the above set, and it just so happens to be nothing.

So all set contain all and no set contain none. Everything is and Nothing is not. Right? Otherwise I don't understand what you just said.

[Canute]

Now let's translate all of what I just said into set theory terms. All sets contains all sets. That's what we mean when we say everything is everything. So all sets that contains no sets is the no-set. That is the empty set. The no set contains nothing and thus it is nothing. So the set of all sets that do not contain themselves is nothing and it is simply nothing. The set of all sets that does contain all sets, is simply everything which is also part of everything. So that is the answer to Russell's paradox.

I agree. This is why I suggested Pro was using a less than paradoxical version of R's paradox.

If we say that everything is everything, which I take to mean 'all is one', then we have abandoned set theory, for any set we might conceive of would then be a human creation, not a feature of the world. This would be my answer to R's paradox, that it is an artefact of a false assumption.

The philosopher Francis Bradley tried to prove, and succeeeded imho, that all ideas of plurality give rise to contradictions. Reality is One, he shows, (a particular kind of Unity, he was not a monist) so of course set theory gives rise to contradictions. It's worth noting that Bradley is considered too 'mystical' for most academic philosophers.

What is missing from set theory is the idea of 'nonduality' as proposed by Schrodinger, and as found in the esoteric literature as early as the Hindu Upanishads. Without this idea set theory has to be paradoxical. As we usually think of the universe in set theoretic terms the universe also appears to paradoxical.

I share Bradley's view, and so would argue that the paradoxes of metaphysics have the same source as those of set theory, viz. all ideas of plurality.

Canute

[lodestar]

I totally agree Canute. So when you think about it, the only set which really exists at all is the set of all sets. I would add that this set is reality, all of existence, and it is indeed one thing, that is completely undivided. So this means it must be divided by nothing. SO would you agree with me that the set of all sets is simply one thing divided by nothing, i.e. 1/0?

I agree. This is why I suggested Pro was using a less than paradoxical version of R's paradox.

If we say that everything is everything, which I take to mean 'all is one', then we have abandoned set theory, for any set we might conceive of would then be a human creation, not a feature of the world. This would be my answer to R's paradox, that it is an artefact of a false assumption.

The philosopher Francis Bradley tried to prove, and succeeeded imho, that all ideas of plurality give rise to contradictions. Reality is One, he shows, (a particular kind of Unity, he was not a monist) so of course set theory gives rise to contradictions. It's worth noting that Bradley is considered too 'mystical' for most academic philosophers.

What is missing from set theory is the idea of 'nonduality' as proposed by Schrodinger, and as found in the esoteric literature as early as the Hindu Upanishads. Without this idea set theory has to be paradoxical. As we usually think of the universe in set theoretic terms the universe also appears to paradoxical.

I share Bradley's view, and so would argue that the paradoxes of metaphysics have the same source as those of set theory, viz. all ideas of plurality.

Canute

[protheory]

I totally agree Canute. So when you think about it, the only set which really exists at all is the set of all sets. I would add that this set is reality, all of existence, and it is indeed one thing, that is completely undivided. So this means it must be divided by nothing. SO would you agree with me that the set of all sets is simply one thing divided by nothing, i.e. 1/0?

I haven't quite had time enough to post a proper reply above Lodestar but I just understood your symbol 1/0.

One divided by zero, that's good stuff that is, I can't believe I didn't see what you meant before but now I finally understand your theory.

I like the idea a lot actually, it's similar to an idea I've got about the Riemann Hypothesis and the formation of numbers, but I'm just finding the concept a bit difficult to describe.

I'll keep thinking and reply properly soon.

Regards.

Pro

[lodestar]

I haven't quite had time enough to post a proper reply above Lodestar but I just understood your symbol 1/0.

One divided by zero, that's good stuff that is, I can't believe I didn't see what you meant before but now I finally understand your theory.

Excellent! So now you have appreciated and understood the greatest absolute value, the epitome of all mathematics, the point of everything, which is everything itself, where positive infinity melds with negative infinity, and the arrow of time flows in both directions at once. Now that you have understood this point of everything's culmination, others will begin to understand as well. You are helping pave the way to the heightening of mankind's awareness. This understanding is the very unfolding of mankind's destiny.

So if you think about it, 1/0 is like the amount of time in eternity, or you could say the amount of energy in all of existence. So this is a marvelous discovery, because now we know that the laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant in a sense, for afterall, the amount of energy that exists in entirety is 1/0, and this amount is limitless. With limitless energy this would imply that literally everything is possible and indeed everything will come to be in time. So you can predict everything, for everything will come to be in time!

Also think about this, if 1/0 can be thought of as the limit of limitlessness, or as the timelessness of time, then it would seem that time and energy are but a pretense, to everything. THat means that the amount of energy contained in time is beyond infinite, which means we can exceed the speed of light if we can draw the energy of time, whose limitless reserve is 1/0. These are just some of the revelations you will gain the more you understand this most important, misunderstood, and ultimately empowering number.

I like the idea a lot actually, it's similar to an idea I've got about the Riemann Hypothesis and the formation of numbers, but I'm just finding the concept a bit difficult to describe.

I'll keep thinking and reply properly soon.

Regards.

Pro

Good, keep on thinking. You have impressed me very much with your ability to perceive raw understanding and the implicate irony of truth. I just thought of a new idea the other day actually which relates to your theory. Imagine there are three versions of everything, and each version has a different meaning unto itself. There is everything that is nothing, everything that is anything, and everything that is everything. Everything that is everything is everything, the number 1/0. Everything that is anything is anything, the number 0/0. And everything that is nothing is nothing, the number 0. So you see, we can have your three potentials and have them each hold a different meaning so that all meanings are true. So 0 is meaningless, 1/0 is meaningfull, and 0/0 is both and/or neither. Ok, well I'm going to go now. I'm super psyched that you really understand my theory. You can see that it is very much like your theory and so both of us have discovered the same thing essentially. The only difference is that my theory breaks up the three potentials so that each one has a true meaning, and this is called employing the optimistic principle, which is a true physical principle that causes the arrow of time to move forward instead of backward (based on our definition). It's the same thing as choosing the axiom of choice. Remember that. Keep up the good work and tell me whatever you end up finding out. I'm excited to see.

sincerely, lodestar

[Nobody]

"where positive infinity melds with negative infinity, and the arrow of time flows in both directions at once."

The central point between positive and negative infinity is one? That's like saying that 1-1=1...