ydoaPs

Moderators
  • Content Count

    10543
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1592 Glorious Leader

1 Follower

About ydoaPs

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

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    ydoaPs

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

Recent Profile Visitors

81936 profile views
  1. ydoaPs

    Sets vs Omniscience

    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.
  2. ydoaPs

    What made you stop believing in God?

    ScienceForums(dot)Net
  3. ydoaPs

    If I can imagine it, it is possible!

    Would you like a cookie?
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. ydoaPs

    Oh Em Jibbers

    Sayo has returned
  7. ydoaPs

    "Law of middle" (split from De Broglie relation)

    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
  8. ydoaPs

    "Law of middle" (split from De Broglie relation)

    The topos describing QM, like most toposes, is not Boolean; LEM does not hold in QM. It has an intuitionistic logic
  9. ! Moderator Note As this thread serves no purpose other than to denigrate religious people, it is now closed.
  10. ydoaPs

    What are you reading?

    Algebra: Chapter 0
  11. ydoaPs

    Sets vs Omniscience

    That's the reason for set B. It takes the sets and transforms them into truths
  12. ydoaPs

    Sets vs Omniscience

    I'm not sure why you thought that was a relevant response (wrong thread, maybe?), but it's trivially wrong. That would imply that there exist infinitely many universes in which the multiverse theory is false
  13. ydoaPs

    Sets vs Omniscience

    Yes, that should have been "nonempty set from which it is generated". Good catch. I'm not sure how type theory would help here. Could you elaborate?
  14. ydoaPs

    Sets vs Omniscience

    Let A be the set of all things known by God. If God knows it, it's in A. It doesn't matter what it is; if it's a piece of God's knowledge, then it's in A. Now, let's take A and construct what's called the "Power Set" of A [we'll use "P(A)" for short]. The power set is just the set of all subsets of the set. So, if our set is {1, 2, 3}, then it's power set is {∅, {1}, {2}, {3}, {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {2,3}, {1, 2, 3}}, where ∅ is the set of nothing. An important fact to note is that there is a lot more in the power set than there is in the original set. In fact, for any set, its power set has a higher cardinality than it. This is a famous result called "Cantor's Theorem". Power sets are always bigger than the sets from which they are generated. If we take P(A), we can make a new set B = {"x is a subset of A"|x∈P(A)}. So we take an element of P(A) and the statement that this element is a subset of A is an element of B. And we do that for all elements of P(A). Since there is nothing else in B, this relation between P(A) and B is a bijection. So we know B and P(A) have the same size, which means B is bigger than A. Since the power set of A set just is the collection of subsets of the set, and B just is collection of statements asserting that each element of of P(A) is a subset of A, we know that every statement in B is true. Since B is bigger than A, we can conclude that there are truths that God cannot know. If God knows infinitely many things, in fact, there are infinitely many truths that God does not know.