ydoaPs

Moderators
  • Content Count

    10546
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1594 Glorious Leader

1 Follower

About ydoaPs

  • Rank
    The Oncoming Storm
  • Birthday 04/21/1988

Profile Information

  • Location
    Local Group
  • College Major/Degree
    BA in Philosophy, pursuing MA in History and Philosophy of Physics
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics
  • Biography
    ...
  • Occupation
    Former Nuclear Mechanic; Current Philosopher

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    ydoaPs

Recent Profile Visitors

82390 profile views
  1. That's a good point. This is an important distinction and one that technically makes the proof incorrect. A is an element of P(Z), not a subset. A is a subset of Z. The elements of P(Z) are the subsets of Z.
  2. ! Moderator Note Question is also found in the thread Reflexivity, so I am closing this thread.
  3. Reflexivity and transitivity look good, but "obviously" won't cut it for symmetry. You should cite that set intersection is commutative for (b).
  4. This argument came up again recently, and I realized that appealing to proper classes or conglomerates won't actually help. See, the argument itself is a proof of negation, so it works in any nondegenerate topos. And it came to my attention that Cantor's Theorem generalizes from Set to an arbitrary topos. For any object Y in an arbitrary nondegenerate topos, there is no surjection f: Y -> 2Y. So you can run the exact same argument swapping out talk of sets with talk of objects and talk of subsets and members with talk of subobjects. So, the argument can be formulated for an arbitrary topos.
  5. Because He explicitly OKed the practice all the way including sex slavery and beating slaves to within an inch of their lives. Then, in the New Testament, slavery is *still* condoned, so it's not an Old vs New thing
  6. This an example of a pastor lying and hoping you won't actually research it. Pastors and apologists have financial incentives to lie about things like this. As pointed out below, Pastor Doug is conflating two different sets of rules for two different groups of people. The Bible actually does condone slavery as practiced in the US. It even explicitly says you can beat a slave within an inch of their lives so long as they live until morning, because they are your property.
  7. ydoaPs

    Oh Em Jibbers

    Sayo has returned
  8. I think part of the problem here is that you've got the relation between logic and ontology backwards. It's rationality that follows nature, not the other way around. For the true description of nature to have logic at all, it has to form something called a "topos". The thing about roses, though, is most of them are intuitionistic. That is, LEM is a fairly unusual property of logics. So, the fact that the topos formed by QM is intuitionistic instead of Boolean shouldn't be that surprising. But this isn't "violating" logic in any way. It's just that the logic that falls out of QM is different than the logic that falls out of classical mechanics
  9. The topos describing QM, like most toposes, is not Boolean; LEM does not hold in QM. It has an intuitionistic logic
  10. ! Moderator Note As this thread serves no purpose other than to denigrate religious people, it is now closed.
  11. That's the reason for set B. It takes the sets and transforms them into truths