A completed theory of everything!

...if it does not know forming a set its merely theoretical hypothesis.

.., without being in speculation...

I am not saying there is a reason for one or another, but there is a reason for one to be true !

So I suppose the sentence, the set of sets, makes no sense for you ? right...

did I said any different ??? Both are worlds remember ?

How did * implies two worlds need to be coordinate for a purpose? Are you tired of making up stuff?

Who does not know?

Can disjointed worlds talk to one another? What the hell are you smoking?

What don` t i get? Your ignorance? According to you, worlds can talk, and can work together to achieve some goal. No wonder you have problems understand, because the universe is distracting you.

Each world would have the property of being a world. If all you are saying is that all the disjointed worlds have the property of being a world, then i can concede to that. What i do not concede is this common property( ie: property of being a world) is a "function". That is just crazy to me.

Makes no sense at all.

You are saying that two worlds share the common property of being a world. This does not at all tell us anything about *.

The fact of the matter is that you don` t know much of anything you talk about. I am telling you what you already know.

Do you have problem understanding what i write? Set theory do not allow universal set to exist. There is no "set of all sets", and thus, it is not part of set theory.

You bring in set theory. In set theory, each element of a set is a set. Is a set a world? How the hell do i know? Remember, you bring in set theory. I am just telling you how ridiculous it is.

I wonder why your are obsessed with things forming sets. Why is it so hard for you to imagine a bunch of things that do not share any common property?

Just don` t write about things you don` t know.

.
"...in fact they form a bigger World...

A "World" has or has not information on other "World

This kind of approach on a metaphorical use of a word does not make go away the fact that 2 entities may share information on each other condition, including knowing that any can carry properties, thus being an acknowledgeable world,

Do you have an argument or have you run out of ideas ?

So I guess what you are saying is that being a set its not sufficient criteria to belong to a bigger set,

...if it can carry properties, yes it is !!! Do you really find it ridiculous ?!?
...uhum, I wonder...

Because if so, they would be so largely transcendent to each other, to the point they could not be a bunch of things in a sentence on them...its actually, quite easy to get, seriously !

Where does * implies 2 worlds form a third world? More of you irrational thinking.



You seem to imply that worlds can talk with one another. now, that is funny.



This is mystical thinking. You think disjointed worlds can "communicate". What is the matter with you?



You are saying disjointed worlds can communicate with one another, but this is a contradiction. disjointed world cannot by definition have any causal contact with one another. It is not a "low comment". I am telling you that you are logically contradicting yourself. Yes, everyone is laugh at you. How the hell can you make such mistakes?





You know nothing about set theory. If x, and y are elements of S. How exactly does x communicate information with y ?




Are you inventing your own set theory? How does elements in a set communicate with one another? I guess i don` t have that much ideas, because unlike you, i don` t invent new math.




A "function" is has a explicit meaning in mathematics. A function is a mapping between domain, and co-domain. It is also used to identify isomorphic structures in mathematics.


I concede that a world has the property of being a world, but not the property of being a "function".





A "world" is not a "function". For god sake, check the dictionary. I am speechless by how you use words.



Wrong. A set can be an element of a larger set.



A set of cats is not a element of itself, since it is not a cat, but a set.





You wonder about how it ridiculous it is? If so, then i agree.



This makes no sense at all. "bunch of things in a sentence on them" is not readable. It is easy to write in non-complete sentences. Yes.



From what it appears, you have nothing to say anymore.

and yes it makes him a function in the Whole, instead of a true singular...actually introduces the concept of perspective in set Theory...But

you are just to dumb to get it !!! Its your problem not mine .

Actually this is the centre of my entire hard deterministic meta-dialectical thinking, and there are clues to it in almost all of my posts in this Forum...

....oh, and the itself that you were referring to is being a set of cats...notions of plural and singular have to change... as everything can be a plural, and every plural can turn to be a singular depending on axis perspective direction, (function) to the Whole !!!

..next time look at the comas when you read worlds, there is A WORLD, an that was the point of the whole thread reply that I have been giving you.........
Let me just ad this, you are indeed as mediocre as they come !

...stop making poor comment and read my last post...and no, I am not shamed by trying to solve a problem on my own terms !

So you honestly think theres nothing worth looking into my perspective to what set theory should look at ?

Unlike you, i don` t make up words to express what i like. I don ` t make up areas of mathematics just to prove a point. Do you know how crazy it is to make up math to prove a point? It is like reinventing multiplication so that 1+3=3 so that you don ` t have to pay a dollar more for parking. It is ridiculous. If you want to revise set theory, then publish a paper in mathematics. I am beginning to think there is something wrong with you.

No! the idea that the whole is responsible for the nature of its parts is quite logical. if you think that the reason was to proof something to you check in previous tthreads were I express the same idea.

"whole is responsible for the nature of its parts is quite logical" does not make sense in set theory, if it make sense at all. If you want to change set theory to fit your purpose, then write a research paper. Don` t bother me with it.

it certainly is pointeless to continue with someone like you.
Point made, point taken, goodbye!

I bet it is not as pointless as talking to a person that would change mathematics to prove a point.

Are you a frustrated complete idiot ?

..I am done with you, actually seen you for who you are, I should have long time ago !

..You could not even fill the place of a book keeper, a guardian of knowledge, imagine a think tank...

No, but i bet you are.

You write: "whole is responsible for the nature of its parts is quite logical"

This shows either how little you know set theory, or it shows how you would revise set theory to suit your needs. It both case, you prove my point about you.

you are unreadable, overly vague, and never focus on the main thesis. You ought to give me some credit for being with you this long.

You make no sense here. I don` t think i want to be a book keeper, but i am sure to be better than you in philosophy.

wrong! For X to be the referent of 'X' do not require X be in some "common space/time frame"




This is horrible writing. If you are suggesting that there need to be a "space-time structure" to refer, than you are mistaken. It is a known fact among academic philosophy that if abstract objects exist, then they are not in space-time. This is enough to show that not everything need to be in space-time. Similarly, examples are given by David lewis` s modal realism. Counterfactual statements are made true by referring to worlds that are disjointed.

perhaps no real reference to abstract objects is made:

- fictional discourse
- pretend reference
- referential terms are used only within the system (Carnap), need not necessarily refer
- 'referential' terms are in fact not referential
- referential terms do not in fact refer to abstract objects, but to concrete ones (e.g. the number of
planets)