Philosopher19

I think your instincts/intuition is in the right place (or at least trying to get to the right place) I recommend the following: http://godisallthatma...

How does this show there is a meaningful/semantical difference between 1 and 2? Therefore, how has this refuted my claim? It is clear that "not itself...

You agreed with me that a set cannot be both a member of itself and not a member of itself. You said it was an important point in your refutation to m...

And by definition all those members are sets. I get where you're coming from. I believe the issue lies in correctly determining what it is for somethi...

Yes, this is true by definition. I am not skipping. You say: This point implies that a set v can have more than one set that is a member of itself, as...

This post is partly because of the discussion in the other discussion (the one titled "proof that infinity does not come in different sizes"). - We ne...

Yes. The list of lists that list themselves is a member of itself in that list alone. Even though it is also a member of the list of all lists, it is ...

So that this point is not misunderstood: The following must be considered properly:

No, I believe it is a crucial point that is used in an important proof I gave you, which to put it in as short a manner as possible is: An item in a s...

I believe the solution to Russell's paradox is in here: http://godisallthatmatters.com/2021/05/22/the-solution-to-russells-paradox-and-the-absurdity-o...

It is blatantly contradictory for x to be both x and not x. It is blatantly contradictory for a set to be both a member of itself and not a member of ...

I didn't say all others are ignorant. I just said there are people who are like this. I did not specify who.

Did you read anything from the link I gave you? I believe my beliefs are not foundationally incomplete or contradictory in any way from a rational/sem...

I responded to you, you responded me with a refutation, I responded to your refutation with the following: Where is my response? Is it me who ignores ...

All of them are here: godisallthatmatters.com Regarding Russell's paradox, sets and infinity: http://godisallthatmatters.com/2021/05/22/the-solution-t...

Ok. Let me put it this way. I gave you a refutation with the z example. You started with insults, then you eventually said something like this: I deci...

If you look at the posts, I don't think I'm the one that has been showing the disrespect (if I have, it has been in response to disrespect). I wanted ...

I will just say this. That a set cannot be both a member of itself and a member of other than itself is the equivalent of saying that a shape cannot b...

Evidently, there's no point in continuing this discussion. If you believe your mathematics is free from contradictions or paradoxes, then in my opinio...

But all of the above is exactly what I'm saying is contradictory. And my use of infinity which (if I've understood you correctly) you say is not the o...

If I've understood him right, Cantor treats a number sequence that goes on forever as being infinite. But something going on forever does not make it ...

I don't think I'm picturing an object. I think I'm just focused on the semantic of Infinity. I think it is from all that I have seen and heard that I ...

To my understanding, mainstream maths claims: There are infinites of various sizes (or at least infinite sets of various sizes, but that amounts to th...

I would just say if the universe is expanding, then it is expanding in Existence (as opposed to 'space-like-the-space-in-our-universe') If scientists ...

I think Infinity is why something can go on forever. But if something goes on forever (or keeps going without end) it will not become infinite (just a...

It makes no difference. Existence is Infinity (here it is a noun). Existence is Infinite (here it is an adjective). You cannot become Infinite (adject...

I get your point with regards to empirically verifying infinity, but I believe the a priori is superior to the a posteriori in that whatever observati...

I don't mean to use Existence loosely/abstractly. By "Existence" I mean that which encompasses all things physical or otherwise (if otherwise is possi...

Of course, it is possible, for example, for mathematicians to be using the label "infinity" to refer to a semantic that is different to the semantic o...

By Being. Existence just Is. It just is the case that triangles are triangular or that Existence is Infinite or that 1 plus 1 = 2. Or if you're intere...

To my knowledge they don't exist in our universe due to gravity. But I see our universe as just a part of Existence/Nature/Infinity. Something has to ...

Agreed (especially with "Infinity has neither a start or an end"). I don't believe we can talk about different infinite sets because it will lead to c...

Thank you for that clear and easy to understand example. When you say "extend to infinity in time", I assume you mean go on forever. It follows that b...

I think it's clear enough, therefore, I don't want to clarify further.

The angles in a true triangle add up to 180 degrees because that is the nature of Existence. It is not because someone said it or highlighted it.

What you may call a non-euclidian triangle, I call an imperfect triangle. A perfect triangle has perfectly straight lines and its angles add up to 180...

Suppose someone produces an axiom. Will it not be the case that that axiom will either be contradictory in relation to certain truths or consistent in...

Imperfect triangles are imperfect by definition. I'm focused on absolutes.

Compare the following: 1) There are an infinite number of elements between 0 and 1 2) There is no end to the number of elements between 0 and 1 If the...

My belief is that we can't just produce axioms. We can only recognise truths about Existence such as 1 add 1 equals 2 or the angles in a triangle add ...

I don't know what more to say. When I use the label/word "infinity", I'm not sure you're focused on the same semantic that I'm focused on. I'm sorry i...

I am addressing your point. I believe you are not reading all of it. See my last post to you.

I also want to add one more thing to the following Suppose something goes on forever such that it covers more and more distance as it goes on. So it c...

I don't deny that there is such a set, but I deny that the total number of natural numbers in this set reaches infinity. Imagine you have all the natu...

We are in disagreement right there. You say you can have an infinite number of natural numbers. I say this statement will lead to a contradiction. Tha...

My position is now probably best represented by the following: The only reason something like a sequence of numbers can go on forever, is because of I...

It seems to me that you think I'm not paying attention to what you're saying and I think you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. I think we sh...

The benefit to me of what you've posted here is that I now reject the following from the OP and would change the last part of it in the link I provide...

Which is the equivalent of saying beyond the quantity of infinity, there is a greater quantity of infinity (which is contradictory to the semantic of ...

No I think we have a grasp of infinity or an awareness of the semantic. Some are more focused on this awareness than others. Some are more sincere to ...