What is life? (a personal view)

Let me ask you the other way around does the Moon which has no atmosphere has no boundaries with space because it might be losing some atmos now and then?
More do you believe the size of the Sun is equal to the forever increasing span of its light cone on its 10 billion years of expected existence because the photons started with it?
...the Sun is the remnant of a previous supernova...are you saying the sun is still the supernova going on?

I am getting the impression you want to debate Theseus boat here...

The gist of the debate:

Let me ask you the other way around does the Moon which has no atmosphere has no boundaries with space because it might be losing some atoms now and then?
More do you believe the size of the Sun is equal to the span of its light cone on its 10 billion years of expected existence because the photons started with it?
...the Sun is the remnant of a previous supernova...are you saying the sun is still the supernova going on?

I am getting the impression you want to debate Theseus boat here...

Where would the absurd of this talk direction lead us? Oh there are not set of sets because everything is made of quarks and electrons and there are no clear boundaries at that scale...the complexity of the Universe is not real but imagined by the mind...since we never saw an actual quark and they are fuzzy anyways there is no such a thing as a set of quarks...much less a set of sets of quarks and a set of electrons...only the mind makes up these distinctions...its all an illusion, a creation of the mind...never mention that the mind, although unified, is also a collection of SEVERAL personalities, experiments have shown that separating the right hemisphere from the left one can in some cases show more than one agent fighting for dominance...so now we have two minds, a set!
Minds, of course, are brains and have many parts interacting subconsciously amongst themselves, but hey that is perception tricking you...the actual thing the hard problem of consciousness is that you cannot replicate the experience of smelling a flower with information or data...it's a construct! The very experience of you having a brain is an illusion...the observer makes reality by observing what he so freely chose to see...
I have to wonder if "its all minds all the way down" crowd thinks this is how babies are made...perhaps the sex is just an illusion too. (although they never stop practicing)

You see the problem with this argument about the whole reality being minds observing, making up stuff, is that one has to ask them, who did observe the property of minds into existence? Another mind? But if we have another mind then minds as a property could not come into existence before they existed...or are they claiming minds are eternal? I certainly don't remember having a mind before I was born...the problem persists anyway because the claim is that all that you see is brought into existence by observation, and for that matter, one has to fall into solipsism, other minds are faked observations to...there is only one mind imagining all the minds which is eternal...but since itself it was not observed it is not real! What does one say to that???

The point here is not to diminish nor ridicule the emergent property of self-awareness...rather making a point about the inconsistency of the argument that everything that exists must be observed first by a mind, all the while excluding minds from being observed to just like any other stuff...as soon as we do that we see how the argument is erroneous!

It's NOT my argument that "it's minds all the way down".

My point is simply that sets are mental objects. That is to say: we delimitate them mentally, we decide what's in them and what's out them. We draw their line. In reality, there's no physical line out there separating earth from space, or Portugal from Spain. Just a bunch of atoms here and there. But there's a line in our mind separating Spain and Portugal, and it's a useful line to know even, eg when you want to smuggle churos into Portugal.

This point that sets are mental objects is important to understand infinity, which in my experience is more a concept than a thing. It's what happen when we think of sets without ends (eg the space of 'real' numbers, or the phenomena we call 'time'). It's hard to study the infinite in a lab, but it's easy to think of it.

Hmm sooo at the very least you admit there is a set of atoms good...they are not all alike. I expect you to agree there is a distinction between a hydrogen atom and a helium atom (those are the two most common kind among many many others)...you have now a set of sets...

Another set of sets can be composed of: the set of all hydrogen atoms, the set of all helium atom, and the set of all atoms. But if you sum up the mass of it, you're counting helium and hydrogen twice.

If you want to count atoms, or any other things, you start by drawing a mental line around what you want to count (the set of it) then you "cut" mentally this big set in smaller sets (the hydrogen set, the helium set, etc. or you can group then by sets of ten atoms) making sure your sub sets are mutually exclusive so you don't count twice (=don't include in two subsets) any element of the big set. So you're still counting things, and your subsets are just a way to do that.

I am not concerned with the "property ten" but I am concerned with the distinction between Hydrogen, Helium, Carbon and so on...

Please tell me in the draw below wherein the Set of sets of all Hydrogen and Helium am I counting the Atoms twice?

No you aren't, since your subsets are mutually exclusive.

So when you say "set of all sets" you mean the universe?

What?
Let's see:

1 - Set of Hydrogen atoms is a set.
2 - Set of Helium atoms is a set.
3 - Both Hydrogen and Helium are atoms. Check!
4 - To have a Set of sets you only need 2 sets to start with.
5 - The Set of sets or collection of different types of atoms, in the case X and Y only, is a valid set.

6 - Finally, if your Set of sets intends to include all forms of phenomena, all sorts of properties then you must include all possible classes there can potentially be and round em up in a final Set.

If it works for you... I'd rather call that set of all sets "the universe", for simplicity's sake. Also it avoid unnecessary logical contradictions.

I have no problem with that, but I use the more abstract approach because I am including all possible phenomena past present and future.
I know you believe the future is open and eternally new, full of infinite possibilities, this is not what I believe in but I respect our differences.

Yes, I vote for an open universe, as I do for an open society.

That was insulting out of context an unnecessary...Olivier behave!

I like to insult the whole universe once in a while...

On the importance of Qualia...

What is life ? Let s not get positive or negative thinking but only facts .

Life for sure is something it happened to you without you deciding it to happen.
It happend because someone else thought it will be good to create , by mistake , evil thought and many more like jealousy , competition with other couples to look cool and so on.

For sure it s not fair , if it possible we will make it as a right but as far as we can t (because the baby have no voice) we accept things how they are and we go ahead.

But then we say the baby have the right to live without listening what he/she says hahaha funny .

So who could inspire such passion?
Who is he pleading to?