Originally posted by vistesdThat depends on whether 'everything' is something. If it is, then it must be included. In Set Theory, the set of all subsets includes the whole, and the set of all members of a set is the set itself (but does not necessarily include the whole).
Does the set of everything include itself?
So when you say 'everything' do you include all of:
1. A tree.
2. A cat.
3. The tree with the cat.
Or do you only include 1. and 2. ?
Originally posted by karoly aczelShow we can agree the so called singularity wasn't all things when it
wow! this thread has been really interesting!
The more I follow the various arguements there seems to be only one conclusion I can come up with. There is no such thing as 'nothing'.
'Nothing' is probably a intellectual construct that allows sentient beings to reason better.
came to the universe?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesd…Way before when
Way before when
outside of all space
and beyond all beyond,
was the nothing that wasn’t
and wouldn’t be,
before all beyond
and way outside when—
outside of all space
….
How can there be an “outside of all space”? -if there is an “outside of all space” then that “all space” cannot be ALL of space because there is a place outside of it!
…and beyond all beyond
...
Similarly, how can there be a “beyond all beyond”? -if there is a “beyond all beyond” then that “all beyond” cannot be ALL of beyond because there would be a beyond it!
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSorry -misspelling: “teratology” should have been “tautology”
[b]…So there was what "nothing" BEFORE that,
….(my emphasis)
How can there be "nothing" BEFORE that if there is no “BEFORE that”?
You just haven’t clasped the concept of there being a ‘beginning of time’ -logically there cannot be any “before” a ‘beginning of time’ (that is just a teratology) ........[/b]
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt was a poem so maybe its not best to 'logically anylize' it to fully appreciate its essence.
[b]…Way before when
outside of all space
….
How can there be an “outside of all space”? -if there is an “outside of all space” then that “all space” cannot be ALL of space because there is a place outside of it!
…and beyond all beyond
...
Similarly, how can there be a “beyond all beyond”? -if there is a “beyond all beyond” then that “all beyond” cannot be ALL of beyond because there would be a beyond it![/b]
Originally posted by karoly aczel-don’t like illogic -it must be possible to make a poem that has no illogic (although it could still have metaphors that are not to be taken literally of course)
It was a poem so maybe its not best to 'logically anylize' it to fully appreciate its essence.
Originally posted by karoly aczelAnd as with the best of poems, its 'essence' is different for different people. Andrew clearly sees the essence as 'obvious illogic'.
It was a poem so maybe its not best to 'logically anylize' it to fully appreciate its essence.
I see the message: 'hide the problem behind beautiful words and half the people will fail to notice that the problem has not gone away'.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'll defer to you on set theory, my friend! I had in the back of my mind the cosmological "proofs" of god, that often seem to treat the "universe itself" as something distinct from all that comprises it. Somehow (the strange loops of my mind!) it made me think of Russell's paradox.
That depends on whether 'everything' is something. If it is, then it must be included. In Set Theory, the set of all subsets includes the whole, and the set of all members of a set is the set itself (but does not necessarily include the whole).
So when you say 'everything' do you include all of:
1. A tree.
2. A cat.
3. The tree with the cat.
Or do you only include 1. and 2. ?
In light of that, I would have to say that "everything" is not itself a "something", however...
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAll of which was the precise point of the poem (just a bit of doggerel really)! (And the reason for the “winky-face”!) I responded to your post only because I agreed with your statements about the meaninglessness of such notions.
[b]…Way before when
outside of all space
….
How can there be an “outside of all space”? -if there is an “outside of all space” then that “all space” cannot be ALL of space because there is a place outside of it!
…and beyond all beyond
...
Similarly, how can there be a “beyond all beyond”? -if there is a “beyond all beyond” then that “all beyond” cannot be ALL of beyond because there would be a beyond it![/b]
It was a bit of whimsy, whose only serious purpose was to so condense the contradictions that they might leap out. (Which, at least in your case, they apparently did! 🙂 Sadly, that is only because you are already aware of the contradictions.)