(June 22, 2013 at 10:10 am)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, since you keep asking for specifics, let me point out the obvious. Your proof fails at the definition of mutually exclusive sets. When you do this, arriving at the conclusion that they are mutually exclusive defines (literally) the process of begging the question.

There is no begging of question because we/you defined those terms; if you don't agree then define new ones that I can use.

Quote:You are demanding that Set 1 be finite, and Set 2 be infinite. You then go on with a red herring/strawman about whether Set 1 is infinite (it can't be, because you've defined it not to be). You conclude that since Set 1 is finite, Set 2, which you've defined as infinite, cannot be correct.

I didn't, I assumed that it may be finite, but it is impossible!

Quote:This is not an actual proof. It's just throwing incompatible premises together, and guiding the order of operations to choose which one I want to appear "true."

This is just an assertion from your side, it is a solid proof.

Quote:S1 = all Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by seconds, where S1 must have at least three members (two to establish a timeframe, and one which is being measured).

This irrelevant.

Quote:As an aside: if you have to work this hard to make something seem "true," you might want to consider the likely possibility that it is not.

I don't just say that, I say that my premises are the strongest premises that can ever be used.

bump (my last post was answered while I was complaining it wasn't answered)

Quote:G is outside time,

Quote:when I said outside time it means just a single event that is not related to any other.

Quote: G has actions

If G is a single event outside time then this contradicts G having actions, plural. More than one action is more than one event and is therefore not singular.

(June 23, 2013 at 8:09 am)paulpablo Wrote:

Quote:G is outside time,

Quote:when I said outside time it means just a single event that is not related to any other.

Quote: G has actions

If G is a single event outside time then this contradicts G having actions, plural. More than one action is more than one event and is therefore not singular.

That's the magi-wonderful philosophy box called "Mystery," hard at work for the "truth."

(June 23, 2013 at 7:46 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

Quote:S1 = all Statuses separated from (1/1/2000 00:00:00) by seconds, where S1 must have at least three members (two to establish a timeframe, and one which is being measured).

This irrelevant.

Pretty relevant, man. It is a statement in a set description of your own definition of time, before you start defining imaginary "Sets" which aren't actually sets. I'm not sure why you can't see that saying "S1 can't be infinite, because it is finite by definition" and then arguing that S2 can't be true because it violates S1 is begging the question. Literally.

The problem is that you are trying to treat sets as boolean (empty = false, not-empty = true), and introducing two of three possible set statuses with individual booleans (you've missed "empty set" as one of the possible descriptions of time, though it is a philosophical contender):
1) S1 is infinite (may be true or false)
2) S2 is finite (may be true or false)
3) S3 is an empty set (may be true or false)

But making these boolean is wrong, because that's not what sets are. What you really should have is ST (Set of all Time), a set which may have zero members, finite members, or infinite members. Then you have to argue which of these cases you feel is true. But the reason you haven't done this is you don't get to say, "ST is finite by definition, therefore it cannot be either an empty set or an infinite set." If you did that, it would be even more obvious that your axioms are also your conclusions.

As an aside: I'm not sure why you keeping using the value Φ, aka the Golden Ratio, which is approx. 1.618 and is often used by theosophers to represent a kind of mathematical truth in the universe, when you apparently mean an empty set, Ø. (but which you really mean as "false," since your sets aren't actually sets)

(June 23, 2013 at 8:09 am)paulpablo Wrote: If G is a single event outside time then this contradicts G having actions, plural. More than one action is more than one event and is therefore not singular.

I didn't claim that G have plural actions
This may be true after the first event only.

The first event must be singular from one source, this is the idea

---

(June 23, 2013 at 8:12 am)bennyboy Wrote: 1) S1 is infinite (may be true or false)
2) S2 is finite (may be true or false)
3) S3 is an empty set (may be true or false)

But making these boolean is wrong, because that's not what sets are.

Any expression is either true of false
Can you prove otherwise?

Quote: What you really should have is ST (Set of all Time), a set which may have zero members, finite members, or infinite members.

This is the original assumptions but it can be short cut by assuming that it can be with zero member or more (the other 2 states)

Quote:As an aside: I'm not sure why you keeping using the value Φ, aka the Golden Ratio, which is approx. 1.618 and is often used by theosophers to represent a kind of mathematical truth in the universe, when you apparently mean an empty set, Ø.

Yes this was just typo, I mean the empty set.

Sure, I can give you an expression with multiple answers for the Root

Expression:
2x^3-4x^2-22x+24 = 0

Answers for x are 4, 1, and -3.

I am losing the will to live!!!!!

STOP THE PIGEON CHESS!

Quote:I didn't claim that G have plural actions

Quote:3. G has actions (p)

Quote: God's action are done within time

Yes you did. More than once. With incorrect English the second time, as usual.

(June 26, 2013 at 8:49 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

---

Any expression is either true of false
Can you prove otherwise?

Yes, I can. "This sentence is false." In the case of paradox, both answers are correct and false. In the case of light, "A thing cannot be both a particle and a wave." And yet it is. The universe tends to confound us by showing that answers we believe impossible are correct.

In the issue of the existence of God, there are two possibilities: that there is an infinite regress (for every made thing, there is a system which made it, for ever and ever), which makes us ask "What caused this system of infinite regress to exist?" OR that there is a Prime Cause like your God. But the SAME question still exists: "Why is it that such a God exists?"

So in either perspective, any solution to the problem: "Why is it that the universe exists?" arrives at an unanswerable question.

I don't think the God idea is necessarily wrong; infinite regress seems equally impossible, as does something "coming from nothing." All the answers we can think of lead only to Epic Fail on a logical level. But unfortunately for you, that includes the idea of God.

Quote:Yes this was just typo, I mean the empty set.

The typo was obvious. The important point is this: there is only one set of time, whose nature you are investigating. Forcing conclusions by saying ". . . by definition" isn't acceptable in a logical progression. In essence, you have said "Hmmmm. . . let's find the nature of time. Time is finite in nature-- so obviously infinite time is false- - so time is finite in nature." Trying to force sets to be boolean, when they are referencing the same entity (collection of all possible times) is just a steaming mess right from step one.