ydoaPs

On 11/28/2018 at 2:51 PM, studiot said:

Glad you saw it that way.

 

Pure set theory is not my prime area, but straight thinking certainly is, which is why I said I am not sure.

I am a great fan of Russell.

Russell introduced type theory to cope with/get around sets which were to ornery to fit standard set theory and kept throwing up paradoxes.
So I wondered if there was an underlying paradox similar to the "An all powerful God can set himself the task of finding a task he cannot perform." for an all knowing God.

If wtf is in a good mood perhaps he might have something to say here.
I know that terminology has moved on in this subject.

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 -> 2^Y. 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. 

On 3/4/2019 at 1:54 PM, Vexen said:

What made you stop believing in God?

ScienceForums(dot)Net

On 3/17/2019 at 7:07 AM, swansont said:

I can imagine a perpetual motion machine, entropy spontaneously decreasing in an isolated system, and instantaneous transport over an arbitrarily long distance.

 

Would you like a cookie?

16 minutes ago, Trurl said:

Why is God or how is God responsible? 

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 hours ago, Trurl said:

 

As was explained to me by Pastor Doug, slavery in the Bible is not like slavery that led to civil rights in the U.S.

A person could become a slave to pay a debt or support themselves financially. They wouldn't be treated like the slaves of the United State's South.

But slavery relates to service. It is important to serve. That would be the meaning in the New Testament. But I admit is does sound confusing in certain verses. I cannot interpret them for you. There would be a reason for the wording, but you would have study it verse by verse.

But don't think because it says slavery it means the way we know it. The Bible is difficult to understand without a knowledgeable person to help put it into context. Often you have to know the history.

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.

3 hours ago, Sayonara said:

You go away for five minutes, and when you come back there's a thread like this which hasn't been closed immediately after a single "no" reply.

What happened here? 

You may have misspelled "years"

Sayo has returned

On 3/11/2019 at 12:08 AM, yuanxue60616 said:

 

If nature itself completely follows the rationality, then it is impossible to breed a life with irrational thinking like human being.

Based on this judgment, then nature must have a part beyond rationality. If consciousness is truly unique to life, then life must have something beyond nature.

 

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

On 3/6/2019 at 7:05 PM, yuanxue60616 said:

there is no wave, just act like wave.

I have one article to prove superposition is equal to the law of middle or included the middle.

another one is tell how a thing satisfy the law of middle exist.

Superposition principle and irrationality.docx

Non-real relational values and simultaneity.docx

The topos describing QM, like most toposes, is not Boolean; LEM does not hold in QM. It has an intuitionistic logic

Algebra: Chapter 0

3 hours ago, studiot said:

But your comment goes further since it raises the important fact that the members of the power set are sets, not the original members of the original set.

Perhaps you would like to comment further ?

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

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

In Multiverses and parallel Universes any answer to any question (about state of the Universe, pure mathematics excluded) is true in "infinite" quantity of parallel Universes, and is also false in "infinite" quantity of parallel Universes.

 

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

32 minutes ago, studiot said:

Not always.

For example the power set of the empty set is the empty set.

I am not actually sure that we can create a set of "what God knows" within set theory in any case. We may be in 'type theory country'.

 

 

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?

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.

14 hours ago, Eise said:

Of course he was lying:

That is the lie.

This is what God said:

And this the snake:

So they would only be like God in this aspect: knowing good and evil. It seems that God did not like that.

On a superficial reading it is an interesting story: being able to distinguish good and evil drove us from our paradisaical lives. OTOH, as a first consequence, Adam and Eve shame themselves for their nakedness. But when God already knows about good and evil, why did he create he them naked? Why was he walking in the paradise?

Did he want to peep the naked Adam and Eve, knowingly, so doing evil himself? 

But that's only a lie if you quote it out of context. In context, it's a denial of God's claim that they would die the day they ate the fruit. They ate it and lived throughout the week, so the serpent didn't lie. God did.

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

In physics, time is what we measure with a clock. It is the phase of an oscillation.

Most discussions on "what time is" falls under metaphysics (philosophy), not physics.

I thought clocks measure other clocks.

Energy is conserved, but not invariant. Within a frame, energy in equals energy out, but between frames, energy need not have the same sum.

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Over time it might. Let's say a new member who wants to learn has -10 the first month, but after 6 months is a -15. They have actually improved but the reputation system says otherwise. If you want them to care about rep they would be better off opening a new account.

If I see a good question but know the science is incorrect I never down vote it but some do, especially if the poster has asked a similar question before. I tend to not want to up vote it if the science is incorrect.

If someone is poor mannered they are more likely to get away with it if their science is correct, so a double standard with regard to that seems to be in place.

So yes, ideally they gain it back over time, but I really don't think it happens readily for those just learning. So they can carry negative rep for some time.

 

Theoretically, improved quality means more up votes, so increased quality over time will "get rid of" the negative reputation.

It's not an insurmountable task like it would be were we using the old system where a downvote from somebody with enough positive reputation *cough* swansont *cough* would have such a strong effect that the damage to the reputation would be effectively infinite. 

And we have both natural and artificial buffers to reputation abuse. Posters notice abuse and often upvote to counteract the unnecessary downvote. Also, we have a special user group that habitual rep abusers get put into.

That being said, staff don't read all threads, so we don't notice all abuse. If you think somebody is abusing the reputation system, report a post that was abused and tell us about it.

A great way to help with both issues is to be very generous with positive rep. A post doesn't need to win a Pulitzer prize to deserve some rep.

On 2/20/2018 at 1:52 PM, Ten oz said:

I have seen features on other sites that list who up or down voted a post. Perhaps that feature here would be a good idea? 

The problem there is that it could lead to feuds of reputation abuse. Iirc, we had that sort of problem when you could leave a comment with your rep. Though, that was before I became a demigod.

Just so you know, staff *can* see who reps what posts, and it's not always who you think. For example, a few posts above, one poster got a negative rep and the immediately following post is replying with a snide comment. One might reasonably think that the poster making the snide comment left the rep, but they didn't (I checked).

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

Is this bit at fault?

Yeah, as far as I can tell, it's because x is being treated like a constant instead of a function on the right hand side in the first step.