Infinite must exist

The electron ... I am sure nuetrinos are smaller.. so small in fact that scientists say they can pass through the ENTIRE Earth many thousands of times without coming Remotely close to any other part of energy..

And if u agree that there is no PArtless part then there is in fact no smallest of abything.. it means thta any form on manifestation is also built of parts and their parts also of parts.


Scientific method is the procedure of Proving a theory or logic with nature and experiments that can be repeated and observed and conclude the feasability of the findings with these elements vs other solutions known to exist.

Originally posted by Tony_Poremba
As for MR Harte... Do you know the name of the set which contains all other sets? Who said there were sets? What about a set being contained by a single volume? My Axiom does follow. As what you said to be hypocritical are actually the same statemnets with a couple words added.

The "name of the set which contains all sets" is this - [all sets], or, in English, "The set of all sets." This "uberset" is contained only by itself (of course, every set "contains itself" - especially the set which contains all sets, itself being, after all, a set.)
My point was, there is no other set which contains the set of all sets, other than [all sets] itself. So here we have a set that is not contained within some other set (other than itself). This would seem to show that what you said about how every space must be contained within another space cannot possibly be true.
Now, if you wish to argue that set theory cannot be applied to the concept of the universe, you are welcome to do so. In fact, this was my stated wish in my previous post, that you would so argue. That would be your logical argument. Making statements like:

Originally posted by Tony_Poremba All spaces must contain a space and must be contained by more space...

is just, as I said, jibberjabber. The first part (okay, I'll give it to you) is true - at least mathematically speaking. The fact is, it's probably not true at all physically (see Planck length). The second part absolutely does not follow from the first part. Hence my example of the set of all sets not being a subset of any other set than itself. In other words, I'm willing to posit that the universe contains itself. However, there is absolutely no logical reason (that I can find, or that you have stated) to go further by stating that the universe must be contained within some other space than itself.

Originally posted by Tony_PorembaTHat is the arguement for multi verse and or boundary theorists. And still there is not 1 example that shows this presumption false. A feeble attempt to pick apart words is all I sense from that.

Words are the method of communication used in a discussion forum. My lack of keyboard skills prevents me from spelling it out mathematically. Though, based on your "logic," I have to assume you wouldn't understand it if I did.

Anyway, in conversation, word usage is only "somewhat" important. In mathematics, if words are going to be used, they must be used in exactly, precisely the correct way, or the result cannot be mathematically comprehended. I submit that both of my posts in this thread meet the necessary criteria, albeit the subject being discussed is rather elementary, so the criteria aren't exactly difficult to meet.

On the other hand, just looking at your last statement above reveals that you are innocent of logical thought, considering that you think it is logical to demand a presumption be shown to be false before it is to be dismissed, rather than that presumption be shown true before it can be utilized. The latter is the way logic, and mathematics, actually works. The former is how pseudoscience works.

Harte

[edit on 5/4/2006 by Harte]

Mr. Harte.. The COnatinig theory is to show that even if Bounadaries exist that something would contain it. BAsed on your elementary logic I figured I laid it down pretty simply that that is the reason For that Hypothesis.

And if the universe contains itself... it would be infinte. A subject so elementary??? Tell that to the astrophysicists and quantum scholars.

And also... your set of sets theory fails. The so called "Uber-set" or whatever u made up would not be a set as a set is comprised of many things which themselves would also be contained.

Also.. Logic. YOu can base all the whack ass theroies you want that have no evidence and no logic in them being true( I bet your one of the Reptlian Government people) but when I think about something I take the views that are most established within what LOGICALLY can happen and exist. If an idea fails to be true and ligically inept I throw it away. What the # do u think philosophers do? They deduce common theories and take wild thoughts and deduce by logic if they are infact feasible.


I think infact that maybe you should step back and reread a biy. As you are having trouble comprehending things.


I never said the UNiverse must be contained... That was my reply or arguments towards the responses I recieved stating Multiverses or the Universe having a boundary.

And the sey theory... whatever the Hell taht is is based off of what observances and Logic? The universe is seperated by nothing more than matter , energy, and things in between. There are no Boundaries to be called sets? Where are they? THe solar system? We just made that boundary... just as the Invisible lines that seperate countries. Where are the physicall boundaries on you "Set theory"?


Your basis has no support of logic other than u stating it to bes o with no arguement other than you explaining some sets that you have not corresponded with any physicall traits in relation to the universe. Nice theory. Next!...

[edit on 4-5-2006 by Tony_Poremba]

Originally posted by Tony_Poremba
And also... your set of sets theory fails. The so called "Uber-set" or whatever u made up would not be a set as a set is comprised of many things which themselves would also be contained.

Assuming that Harte came up with Set Theory shows the level of intelligence that you lack to support your argument. Try a little research before claiming to know more than you do: www.google.com.au...

Originally posted by Tony_Poremba
Also.. Logic. YOu can base all the whack ass theroies you want that have no evidence and no logic in them being true( I bet your one of the Reptlian Government people) but when I think about something I take the views that are most established within what LOGICALLY can happen and exist. If an idea fails to be true and ligically inept I throw it away. What the # do u think philosophers do? They deduce common theories and take wild thoughts and deduce by logic if they are infact feasible.

How old are you? Resorting to profanity is immature, not to mention that it doesn't do your case any favours.

Originally posted by Tony_Poremba
And the sey theory... whatever the Hell taht is is based off of what observances and Logic? The universe is seperated by nothing more than matter , energy, and things in between. There are no Boundaries to be called sets? Where are they? THe solar system? We just made that boundary... just as the Invisible lines that seperate countries. Where are the physicall boundaries on you "Set theory"?

Again, Set Theory is not something that some-one just made up to support their argument against you, its a well understood and accepted theory.

You started this thread trying to put an end to an age old debate, that cannot be resolved by you or anyone else with simple logic. If it was that easy, why do you think the paradox still stands? You can provide your ideas and theories, but trying to pass them off as proof, while trash talking others is a selfish and ignorant thing to do.

To say that infinity MUST exist because of simple logic is a very human minded thing to do. Things are only logical to us, because we can't comprehend them to be any different. Why must something be, just because to a puny insignificant race on a speck of a planet believes it to be logical?

Profanity is good.. i am not name calling.. And this set theory Which I just read ... sucks.

I think im gonna havto go with you on this one mr Harte, Tony has stated on more than one occasion his profound acceptance of eastern scientific and philisophical methods and reasoning. in my humble opinion, it seems this has led him to come to conclussions that are in fact not based on "modern scientific methodology", but prone to lean towards the more "pseudo-scientific" and religious science deductions of traditional eastern methodology. from my experience, eastern science is based moreso on human intuition than physical proof. and even if there is physical proof, its interpreted in a different way than modern scientific proccesses. traditional eastern science anyways: )