Grandpa Harley Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 It's P' since a complement is the set that contains everything except P... but like the relationship of God and man in Christianity... If M is the set humanity then G=M' due to 'sin'; effectively god is incomplete without man... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 It's P' since a complement is the set that contains everything except P... but like the relationship of God and man in Christianity... Not sure what you mean, are you're saying "hate" is P'? If that's what you mean, I'm not sure I agree with that. For instance, considering situations when people feel a love/hate (simultaneous feel both emotions) to something or someone. With emotions, it seems it can be very fuzzy. The dictionary define hate to be that someone detest, feel hostility, dislike or feel animosity, but is the opposite to hate the same as love? H'=L, and L'=H? To not-detest is the same as loving someon? Doesn't it seem love and hate is a sliding scale rather than absolutes, and it depends on several factors then just some few exact measurables? (edit: where would the emotions of indifference and uncaring go? Would it be under hate or love?) If M is the set humanity then G=M' due to 'sin'; effectively god is incomplete without man... Very true. And isn't God=Devil' too? Or is it more like God=not(Devil)? (I'm not sure where I have the negate symbol... or rather, I'm too lazy to find it.) (And damn you Gramps, I had to dust my old brain-shelves to remember formal logic) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeone Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 thank you for sharing My pleasure. Understanding that words are symbols for mostly abstract concepts will make you start thinking about knowledge, the world, science and religion in a completely new way. I thought I knew math and liked it but I am seeing a whole different dimension that I didn't even know existed by reading your thoughts. You guys (gals) didn't learn this stuff in a school of any kind did you. Where do these thoughts and questions arise from? Amazing. Ignorance is not even close to what I am experiencing right now but I like it. js Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 I thought I knew math and liked it but I am seeing a whole different dimension that I didn't even know existed by reading your thoughts. You guys (gals) didn't learn this stuff in a school of any kind did you. Where do these thoughts and questions arise from? You probably won't like the answer... I have experienced an rapid increase in understanding and ability to think and learn after my de-conversion. (IQ went up at least 10 points) It's like a lid, block, or some shackles held my mind back. Now I'm free to think and challenge every single thought or idea. Religion held me back, because I constantly tried to make knowledge fit into the framework of my religion, instead of letting the evidence lead me wherever it would take me. Now, information to me is a guide to knowledge, and I try to be as skeptic I can for every single view, but I also know I'm human and will constantly fail in doing so, but at least I'm aware of it and not stuck in a religious, dogmatic, stubbornness. (edit: but don't take this as some kind of prideful attitude that "I'm smarter than you, ha ha". Because that's not how I see myself or people around me. We have different skills and talents, and I sure do have quite a few limited capabilities that keep on annoying me and cause difficulties in general... my ability - or lack thereof - to remember names, dates, numbers are some of them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sojourner Posted January 21, 2008 Author Share Posted January 21, 2008 I definately feel as if Im getting my mind back. As if it were stuck in a small confining box and now the box is expanding and getting larger and larger and Im learing to think again. Unlike some of you I didnt persue learning and education other than a cosmotology license lol and well hair may be close to the brain but .... sojourner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 When I read a book I try to interpret a book with the book itself. I might be coming in a little late to all this, but I wanted to speak to this point. While this is certaily an acceptable literary technique, it is NOT what you are really doing if you compare the different BOOKS of the bible against each other. Each has a different author, written for a different audience and at a different time. One of the biggest problems I've had with christian theology is the assumption that the Bible is one contiguous entity. It is not. It's a collection of books. To compare the contents of one book with another just isn't an accurate way to go. It would be like comparing several different books on Medicine written over 2 hundred years and assuming the content and references are all the same. Ain't going to happen. Just my 2 cents... please continue with your regularly scheduled debate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 I have experienced an rapid increase in understanding and ability to think and learn after my de-conversion. (IQ went up at least 10 points) It's like a lid, block, or some shackles held my mind back. Now I'm free to think and challenge every single thought or idea. Religion held me back, because I constantly tried to make knowledge fit into the framework of my religion, instead of letting the evidence lead me wherever it would take me. This is why I feel religion is a form of mental illness. Not a chronic incurable one, nor a "devastating" one, not all illnesses are life-threatening and life-altering. But it is "delusion". And we should recognize it for that. I bolded Hans's profound statement above because it embodies the "effect" of religion delusion on us as a species. This deserves a moment of pause, a moment for us to consider: If the whole world experienced an awakening, and IQ levels increased globally by just 10%, how much better off would the world be? IF you think a temperature variation of just a few degrees effects the global climate, how much more so would 10% increased IQ do for our whole world in general? Food for thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeone Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 I thought I knew math and liked it but I am seeing a whole different dimension that I didn't even know existed by reading your thoughts. You guys (gals) didn't learn this stuff in a school of any kind did you. Where do these thoughts and questions arise from? You probably won't like the answer... I have experienced an rapid increase in understanding and ability to think and learn after my de-conversion. (IQ went up at least 10 points) It's like a lid, block, or some shackles held my mind back. Now I'm free to think and challenge every single thought or idea. Religion held me back, because I constantly tried to make knowledge fit into the framework of my religion, instead of letting the evidence lead me wherever it would take me. Now, information to me is a guide to knowledge, and I try to be as skeptic I can for every single view, but I also know I'm human and will constantly fail in doing so, but at least I'm aware of it and not stuck in a religious, dogmatic, stubbornness. (edit: but don't take this as some kind of prideful attitude that "I'm smarter than you, ha ha". Because that's not how I see myself or people around me. We have different skills and talents, and I sure do have quite a few limited capabilities that keep on annoying me and cause difficulties in general... my ability - or lack thereof - to remember names, dates, numbers are some of them.) Actually Hans, It makes complete sense and reading it in your words really nails the coffin so to speak. I have said too how when I finally got so fed up that I quit attending 'church' I felt as free as a bird. I guess I have stayed a bit in the shell so to speak and I am feeling more and more kind of like how it must feel to be a catepillar emerging into a butterfly. Hey how do you put parts of the text in a quote box and divide it up and so on? Dumb question I know but this has always puzzeled me and it looks so efficient. Skank, really good point, never thought of that. Wow, another item to get some Chrsitians I know even more mad at me! I hear ya too, So-J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeone Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Hey how do you put parts of the text in a quote box and divide it up and so on? Hans, forget the question. Think I got it. js Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Hey how do you put parts of the text in a quote box and divide it up and so on? First, you copy this quote name='justsomeone' date='Jan 21 2008, 03:38 PM' post='341988' ADD square brackets to the beginning and end (if I did it here it would quote the example...) then /quote in square brackets too. Dumb question I know but this has always puzzeled me and it looks so efficient. Not a dumb question, fairly common. Skank, really good point, never thought of that. Wow, another item to get some Chrsitians I know even more mad at me! I hear ya too, So-J. so there you have it, quoting 101. BTW would like to see your input in the home schooling thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeone Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 so there you have it, quoting 101. Hey this is cool. Thanks Michael. Need practice. Been on the run. Will get over to homeschool thread real soon. Glad you want me there. js Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 It's P' since a complement is the set that contains everything except P... but like the relationship of God and man in Christianity... Not sure what you mean, are you're saying "hate" is P'? If that's what you mean, I'm not sure I agree with that. For instance, considering situations when people feel a love/hate (simultaneous feel both emotions) to something or someone. With emotions, it seems it can be very fuzzy. The dictionary define hate to be that someone detest, feel hostility, dislike or feel animosity, but is the opposite to hate the same as love? H'=L, and L'=H? To not-detest is the same as loving someon? Doesn't it seem love and hate is a sliding scale rather than absolutes, and it depends on several factors then just some few exact measurables? (edit: where would the emotions of indifference and uncaring go? Would it be under hate or love?) If M is the set humanity then G=M' due to 'sin'; effectively god is incomplete without man... Very true. 'And isn't God=Devil' too? Or is it more like God=not(Devil)? (I'm not sure where I have the negate symbol... or rather, I'm too lazy to find it.) (And damn you Gramps, I had to dust my old brain-shelves to remember formal logic) Red - No Anything in P' is defacto not a part of P, but it's not anti-P so a dog is in P' or a newt or anything that is NOT a painting (sticking to the painting analogy) moving to the set L ('Love') Then you're down to definitons only by virtue of where the boundary is. L' would contain things like 'chair' since it's not even part of the L' superset E ('Emotions') but it's clearly not Love. nor is a house brick, or any other object. If God has an objective existance then, based on the conventional definition of love as an emotion, God is in L' since God is NOT an element of E and I think it's apparent that ¬E=subset of L' Green H' has to contain L but that does not follow that L=¬H but as you say it's a sliding scale, from straight binary L=¬H being equivalent to H=L' which is an insanity; Apathy is not 'hate', but it's not 'love' either. If one can imagine the Venn diagram for this and limiting L and H to subsets of E Hate is thus not the antithesis of Love per se any more than Apathy... it's just part of the continuum of things that are E BTW H' does not equal L', it is the fact there is a limit to the Venn... More correctly L'=E-L and H'=E-H therefore L' is not H' I'll continue this tomorrow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Before I hit the hay... you realise that this is very much the original use of Bool's logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Before I hit the hay... you realise that this is very much the original use of Bool's logic? Gramps, hit the hey knowing you have impressed me greatly, and that's not easy to do! Smart man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Before I hit the hay... you realise that this is very much the original use of Bool's logic? Yup. And I think we actually are in agreement. I just have to read your little "essay" again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Not sure what you mean, are you're saying "hate" is P'? If that's what you mean, I'm not sure I agree with that. ... Red - No Anything in P' is defacto not a part of P, ... Basically we're saying the same thing there, since I stated the question "are you saying" and then I said "I'm not sure I agree" to it. I think we say the same things, just different language. (When I see your illustration it makes me think of GIR...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justsomeone Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Hate is thus not the antithesis of Love per se any more than Apathy... it's just part of the continuum of things that are E BTW H' does not equal L', it is the fact there is a limit to the Venn... More correctly L'=E-L and H'=E-H therefore L' is not H' You've got to be kidding, right? And I thought God was complicated! I am reading. Amazing stuff. Not complimenting, just stating facts. js Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Gramps, Another thing I was thinking of was that when we define love, we would include different things, but not necessarily all of the following expressions: (from the dictionary) A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love. Charity. (and perhaps others) This would mean that your L-set could take several different forms and not necessarily be uniform or have a stable outline. From this, is it even possible to define the anti-L? It would include the negation of the above attributes, but not necessarily all of them, and even possible include other attributes (which you can see from you diagram). Now, in the set E, it can be defined as L + L'. In L' you have H. If we remove H from L', then L + L' is not equal to E anymore, is it? So H would exist, regardless if we have a definition for that set or not, and that's my point. We can't remove a certain set from reality, or hide it by removing the word that defines it; it's there regardless since it is a part of E. (And I seriously think that we both agree and say the same thing, just that I probably use a less stringent or too much of a colloquial use of "opposite" in my arguments. And I'm sorry about that, and thanks for the correction. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Hans, Yes we are saying the same thing... H exists whether or not it's defined in terms of L or otherwise. Same with L... in the end, since it's hard to say what L or H actually is, the bald assertion that L is ¬H or H is ¬L just doesn't work... Extending the logic We know E exists, but there is no objective measure of L or H, other than the opinion either/both exists as a part of E. However, E is pretty clearly not an 'object' (Set O) thus any element of O is not in E, unless it is a state of mind. Since L is a Subset of E it cannot be a subset of O, thus the assertion that 'God IS Love' (G=L) is manifestly false, since God is an object, not state of mind in as stated in most religions... BTW there is the idea that hate is actually a form of fear at it's base... or that it's not the antithesis of love, just love's complete absence (like darkness is to light... darkness doesn't negate light, it's simply an ultra low photon density) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Lovely. I didn't think of that. Very good. E as the set of all emotions, and O as the set of all objects, of course they can't be identified. That's what I've said in other places and threads, but sets are pretty cool. Unless... you consider O and E as two different set dimensions. (I just learned about multidimensional sets) Which means that Object a can intersect with Emotions e (which could be L, part of L, maybe part of H too etc) at a certain time (another set, a 3rd dimension set). But of course for an object a to intersect with all of E and T (a complete union) kind of would be God, but it would mean... tada... God is both Love and Hate at the same time. He can't be just an intersection of E since it would leave out a lot of other emotions that he couldn't have, and were the heck would that come from if he's omni-*? Ah, well of course the Devil is always a good fall guy for everything that is the difference, or complement of the G, O and T, but does that mean the Devil is omni-* too, but of the opposites (complements of E)? Doesn't it also mean that to complete the formula the Devil needs to be a union of T, i.e. he has to be eternal and non-created, just as God?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 you've not defined T, but I'm making an assumption it's Time. Time is not actually a set... it's a function over the sets... Consider the butterfly... it goes from Insects without wings to winged insects based on f(T) thus time t allows a mapping but it does not allow an intersection. Unless you can hand me a lump, bottle or big steaming cup of apathy, I'd move that O and E have no intersection in any meaningful way. This is why I hate Set theory... no damned rigour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 you've not defined T, but I'm making an assumption it's Time. Time is not actually a set... it's a function over the sets... Actually in the example I saw they did. By having T as a set, as one additional dimension, but exactly how, they did not explain. Unless you can hand me a lump, bottle or big steaming cup of apathy, I'd move that O and E have no intersection in any meaningful way. Well, no, not intersection in the same plane, but my understanding of multidimensions is like this: you have separate Venns, each one of them representing one dimension each. The whole set of each Venn (E, or O, or T) always overlap, but the specific sub-sets like G, L, H, etc can intersect through the dimensions, but it doesn't mean for instance that G intersecting with L that G equates L, but only that G got a property of L. If G is all and only love he would only have this interdimensional relationship with L, but never with L'. It's like "G has L in time t", but the complement would be "G does not have L in time t' ". And yes, you could say t is a function over the set, thus T can be the set of all tn. And when a certain object o, feel emotion e, at time tn, that's a dimensional intersection. This is why I hate Set theory... no damned rigour. Agree. But this dimensional set stuff really got me curious. It was on a TV show (one of those crime dramas, Numb3rs), and many times they bring up new and strange theories in math, but they never go into the deep how it works in detail. So far I haven't seen anything they just made up, but this one was totally new to me. Most of the stuff I have some cursory knowledge about, but this was completely new. I saw the re-run yesterday after our talk/discussion here (is that a coincident or what?), and I've been trying to find any information on this new idea, but can only find some Chinese references to multidimensional extension field sets, but that's more in pragmatic science than pure hypothetical, so I'm still of no luck. They represented each set dimension as a different object/shape (sphere, cube etc) and they intersected then based on the data (sub-sets). And now... I think I need some coffee... later. --edit-- Coffee task... check. Did we sidetrack this thread? (My biggest challenge with math today is that I learned most of it 20+ years ago, in Swedish. So not only do I have to try to remember, but I have to translate it too, and I kind of get lost sometimes in how to explain things. I hope you don't mind some unintelligible ramblings at times.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Since L is a Subset of E it cannot be a subset of O, thus the assertion that 'God IS Love' (G=L) is manifestly false, since God is an object, not state of mind in as stated in most religions...This is one thing that confuses me about Christianity. According to most Christians, even though God is all-loving, supposedly one of the reasons he allows evil to exist is to give human beings freewill. Pretending that there really was a sentient omnipotent being that created the universe for a second here, if humans could only have freewill with both good and evil, then does God have freewill if God can only be all-loving? But if God must have the same attritbutes of love and hate that humans have in order to have freewill like how humans need it for freewill and because you can't know love without knowing its antithesis, what makes such a God so special to deserve worship if it's impossible for it to be any more moral than humans are since it couldn't know love without knowing an antithesis to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandpa Harley Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 The multi-dimensional sets really comes in only when you have complex number sets of the type a+bi (where a and b are integers and i2=-1) It's how Fermat's Last Theorem was solved. Basically, in simple sets such as the type we're manipulating, invoking mutli-dimensional sets is a little like using a Cray to calculate the two times table... it's doable, not not sensible. A bit like invoking f(T) over the sets E and O... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 This is one thing that confuses me about Christianity. According to most Christians, even though God is all-loving, supposedly one of the reasons he allows evil to exist is to give human beings freewill. Pretending that there really was a sentient omnipotent being that created the universe for a second here, if humans could only have freewill with both good and evil, then does God have freewill if God can only be all-loving? But if God must have the same attritbutes of love and hate that humans have in order to have freewill like how humans need it for freewill and because you can't know love without knowing its antithesis, what makes such a God so special to deserve worship if it's impossible for it to be any more moral than humans are since it couldn't know love without knowing an antithesis to it? It confuses me too. What is the difference between creating evil and creating a creature capable of evil? I think there is a verse in Isaiah that says God creates evil. That I can understand. But all-loving? No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts