Originally posted by howardgee
You wrote that:
"Consider the following state of affairs (call it X):
'God cannot cause X to attain.'"
Are you defining "X" to mean "God cannot cause X to attain."?
If so, then this is invalid as you are using "X" i ...[text shortened]... meetings at the office", or indeed at any point in time. ;-)
Welcome to the party. Bbarr's already raised your objection (read over the thread) and, I believe, I have answered.
Are you defining "X" to mean "God cannot cause X to attain."?
Yes.
To be more precise, I am defining X to be a fixed point of the relation M where
M(x,y) when y is a state of affairs such that God cannot cause x to attain.
The concept of a
fixed point for a mathematical relation/function is itself quite simple. e.g. If f(x) = x^2 for any real number x, then 0 and 1 are fixed points of f; i.e.
x = f(x) for x = 0,1
Here, I'm defining X to be a solution of
x = M(x) where M is a functional form of the relation described above.
If so, then this is invalid as you are using "X" in the definition of "X". Within any Predicate Calculus, a variable, "X" can mean anything, but only any ONE thing at a time!
Not necessarily. (I presume you meant any
constant X can mean only one thing at a time).
For instance, I can define the number "2" in any number of ways:
- The smallest positive prime
- The smallest positive even number
- The successor of 1
- A positive solution of x^2 = 4
etc.
The entire basis of theorems such as Cantor's theorem on cardinality of sets and Godel's theorem of Incompleteness is that you can have self-referential constants in a sufficiently complex mathematical system (or, to be more precise, that certain classes of functions are guaranteed to have fixed points over certain classes of sets).
There is nothing wrong with the reasoning - the problem is with the logic itself.