• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does Matter Really Exist?

Iacchus said:
And this is assuming you know God doesn't exist? Oh well, I should have guessed! ;)
Click to expand...
Nothing is assumed. If God exists, then there must be evidence for Him. Provide good evidence for God and I will believe He exists. In nearly 8000 posts you've not provided so much as a tiny scrap of evidence. It is the most wishful of thinking to suppose that you might do so now.
 
Tricky said:
Nothing is assumed. If God exists, then there must be evidence for Him. Provide good evidence for God and I will believe He exists. In nearly 8000 posts you've not provided so much as a tiny scrap of evidence. It is the most wishful of thinking to suppose that you might do so now.
Click to expand...

You know what he'll say, Tricky. Something like:

"Ah! But do you assume that its wishful thinking ?"

or

"Monsters from the id!"

He is quite simply wrong.
 
Interesting assertion from one who posted "How do you figure ?" in response to the fine tuning argument.
 
*Jumps in the middle of the thread*

Come on guys. There is no hope for Iacchus, he denies the keyboard he types on.

Just walk away, you are sucking up server space.
 
hammegk said:
Yeah! Then it would be the set of cans-of-soup, empty-soup-cans, and canless-soup!

ROTFLMGDFAO ....
Click to expand...
Of which the empty-soup-cans and the canless-soup are the subset of the cans-of-soup, correct? Have I said anything other than this, except that I was referring to the subsets of a "single" can of soup?
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
Who the hell said anything about "cans" of soup? :con2:
Click to expand...

Are you claiming a semantic issue here, that you said something about "a can of soup?" rather than "cans?"

Remember that a set is unordered by definition. I realize that this slipped by you a time or two, and suspect that you did not understand its implications. A set which contains soup and a can as subsets is the set of soup and a can. It cannot, by definition as a set, imply that the soup is inside the can. The set of soup and a can cannot imply any arrangement of the soup and the can or any relationship between them other than their common membership in the defined set, which is the set of soup and a can. It can be a particular blob of soup and a particular can, but if it is a set, it cannot make any assertion about the relationship of the soup to the can except that the soup is the soup and the can is the can, and since the set contains soup and a can, it has soup and a can in it. It is not the set of "a can of soup" if a can of soup is considered as an entity or an assembly in its own right. The two are different. The components of an ordered assembly are not subsets of the assembly because a set is inherently unordered. By definition. Always. Really. By definition. That's what a set is. If it is ordered it is something else. It is not a set. Got it?
 
Belz... said:
.... if you consider the fine-tuning argument compelling, I have nothing more to say to you.
Click to expand...
Nothing worth saying, anyway, is the conclusion I'm getting to just from reading your posts. Post-whores who can't figure out how to edit and need three replies to post three lines of type are usually not worth talking to.






Iacchus said:
Of which the empty-soup-cans and the canless-soup are the subset of the cans-of-soup, correct? Have I said anything other than this, except that I was referring to the subsets of a "single" can of soup?
Click to expand...
Not unless you carefully define your set to be so. I've not really tried to follow the set theory discussion but doubt it could be appropriate for a "Does Matter Really Exist" thread. And unfamiliar terminology is a problem for all of us.
 
Iacchus said:
Of which the empty-soup-cans and the canless-soup are the subset of the cans-of-soup, correct? Have I said anything other than this, except that I was referring to the subsets of a "single" can of soup?
Click to expand...
No.

Read hammy's post just above; he's got it, or nearly. The empty cans, the canless soup, and the cans of soup are all members of his set, which he defined as:

hammegk said:
Yeah! Then it would be the set of cans-of-soup, empty-soup-cans, and canless-soup!

ROTFLMGDFAO ....
Click to expand...
But those define the members of the set--empty cans, canless soup, and cans of soup. You are saying, in the quote above, that empty cans and canless soup are subsets of the cans-of soup; that is, you are saying that some members of hammy's set are subsets of other members of the set. Logically, your statement is the same as saying that cans of soup are subsets of canless soup; again, both are subsets of hammy's set, but not of one another.

So, once again, you are...(been there, done that, bought the T-shirt...)
 
Mercutio said:
No.

Read hammy's post just above; he's got it, or nearly. The empty cans, the canless soup, and the cans of soup are all members of his set, which he defined as:
Click to expand...
So what exactly do "we" use set theory for, if not to break something down with respect to its constituent parts?

But those define the members of the set--empty cans, canless soup, and cans of soup. You are saying, in the quote above, that empty cans and canless soup are subsets of the cans-of soup; that is, you are saying that some members of hammy's set are subsets of other members of the set. Logically, your statement is the same as saying that cans of soup are subsets of canless soup; again, both are subsets of hammy's set, but not of one another.
Click to expand...
So, what are the subsets then, of "cans-of-soup?"

So, once again, you are...(been there, done that, bought the T-shirt...)
Click to expand...
Considering the fact that I haven't "formally" worked with set theory, I would have to give myself at least a B or a B+ here.
 
hammegk said:
I've not really tried to follow the set theory discussion but doubt it could be appropriate for a "Does Matter Really Exist" thread.
Click to expand...
Well, it would be if it was considered a subset of this greater Universal Mind which I've been referring to. In which case the material reality and the mental/ideal reality (human consciousness) would both be subsets of the same "singularity."
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
So what exactly do "we" use set theory for, if not to break something down with respect to its constituent parts?
Click to expand...
It is quite useful in its proper context. I don't know how others use it, but for myself, set theory is used in calculating probabilities. Not in breaking things down to constituent parts.
So, what are the subsets then, of "cans-of-soup?"
Click to expand...
Of the set "cans of soup", any subset of cans of soup would do--cans of chicken soup, cans of cream of asparagus soup, cans of oxtail soup...broader categories of cans of vegetarian soup or cans of chunky soup... philosophers would probably get into fistfights about whether cans of clam chowder would properly fit (not to mention the fights between real New England Clam Chowder and the blasphemous manhattan clam chowder), or cans of lobster bisque.

Bowls of soup would not be subsets. Kettles of soup would not be subsets. Cans of evaporated milk would not be subsets. Only cans of soups.
Considering the fact that I haven't "formally" worked with set theory, I would have to give myself at least a B or a B+ here.
Click to expand...
Not if you were in my stats class. You have yet to demonstrate that you understand set theory at all. No way does that merit a B. Not even a C. You don't pass until you demonstrate that you have at least a basic understanding of set theory. Back to the books, Iacchus.
 
Iacchus said:
Well, it would be if it was considered a subset of this greater Universal Mind which I've been referring to. In which case the material reality and the mental/ideal reality (human consciousness) would both be subsets of the same "singularity."
Click to expand...
No.

The whole point of the set theory discussion here was to show that it is inappropriate for you to use it that way.

It would be nice if you actually learned from this, and did not attempt the exact same argument in several subsequent threads...
 
And what if in the case with Johnny Pixel's example above (which, is a very good example by the way), you were to substitute "constituent parts of the whole," for the set "mammals," and substitute "constituent parts A" and "constituent parts B," etc., etc., for the various subsets of mammals? How exactly would this vary from what you're saying? Would not the "constituent parts" be a subset of "constituent parts of the whole?" ... i.e., the various "types" of mammals with respect to the "grouping" of mammals in general? I in fact see no difference.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom