Metaphysical Theory

Interesting theory, especially as you get into the fact that data always objectively exists.

It coincides with my metaphysical theory of God's Awareness.

God is firstly existence. The interior structure of existence is existence. There is an infinite chain of existence being informed by existence. Then because existence is whole, existence is informed of itself, making each bit of existence within all infinite bits of existence and contain each bit of existence.

The whole is informed of itself fully. God knows itself. Again, the whole is informed of itself fully but this time it is informed of its informing or knowing. God knows that it knows or is given Awareness and subsequently Bliss(the harmony of self-knowing.) (note: God at this step is similar to our own awareness, except that each mote of bliss is clearly perceived individuated and while also experiencing the infinite spaciousness of existence)
God possess the attributes of Omniscience and Omnipresence. His Awareness is spread through out the whole uniformly. At each piece of bliss, a new whole arises at that point. God multiplies Himself by Himself in addition to his original Self. The process continues, the new whole again arises at each point of bliss. The process continues infinitely.

Mathematically we can look at it like n+n2, where n is the previous sequence of the set starting with infinty : ∞, ∞+∞2, ∞+∞2 + (∞+∞2 )2, etc… We will call this set of infinities Alephࡗ(which will come in handy later).
God is an infinite expansion of infinite existence-awareness-bliss.

Unfortunate that my theory outranks yours due to Occam's Razor ;/
You make an unproven assumption that data is god, as if there is identity before anything else.

My Theory assumes nothing, proves every premise and substantiates every conclusion.

I explain life, and it isn't a result of a deity. We have a soul, but it's not a God.

There is no evidence of a deity in our universe.

Unless when you refer to god you literally just refer to an awareness which exists on a higher plane than ours, but I think if that is the case you would need to distinguish your language much more clearly because humans typically refer to God as the creator, as if he is a being and not an object.

There is evidence of deity, it's called the fine-tuning hypothesis.

There is also the hard problem of consciousness and mystery of abiogenesis.

That is to say, there is no physical manifestation of a deity which created us of any kind, because we are the 'physical' manifestation of the 'god' if that is what you want to refer to the origin as.

That is garbage nonsense, the universe is explained by probability or chaos theory.
I explained consciousness, read the discussion.

Lol, this is total crankery. Makes sense that you're in IT.

I forgot IT wasn't a real science :/ Better return your computer or phone to the shop bro, it's not really working - it's just an illusion!!!

The universe in it's current state is highly improbable. Claiming this is just a manifestation of Chaos Theory which applies to physical systems and not the laws of nature is quite a stretch.

I read what you wrote but I see no physical model for consciousness, which is what the hard problem is.

>References
>Descartes, R. (1644). Principles of Philosophy.
>Wikipedia. (2016, May 12). Principle of Relativity. Retrieved from Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity

ayyy lmao

The brain is the physical model for consciousness, what the fuck do you mean hahahah

It's not at all a stretch, that is what the scientific consensus is. If you believe it's a stretch, then you clearly do not quite grasp the incredible size of the universe, because you underestimate the numbers we are working with when we determine the probability of life occurring within all the phenomenon associated with entropic activity on a scale of that magnitude, especially over the insane amount of time that has passed since the birth of the universe.

The hard problem is that the brain does not adequately describe awareness. I could go on if you want.

Yes, the eventual rise of a system that goes against entropy may not be that improbable, but the universe beginning in a low entropy state is improbable, it goes against what one would expect if it were an accident.

>IT guy takes credit for Computer Engineering

Yeah okay. If you could pass Calc 2, you might have been able to recognize how ridiculous your "treatise" is. You're a crank.

I'm saying the industry is responsible for computer engineering, obviously yes. You attacked me based on the subject I study, I defend the subject by pointing out the hypocrisy of that attack and you make some hyperbolic accusation misrepresenting what I say so dramatically that you think it paints me negatively? You sound like a moron friendo :)

Maybe if you could say WHY it is ridiculous, you might be taken seriously when you give your opinions... Just a thought :)

It wasn't an accident, it was necessitation. There was a cause, it just wasn't a god.

The brain actually encompasses the subjective manifestation of awareness because it allows the soul to manifest inside the container it represents. The soul is trying to be life in every universe it can, so when conditions allow life to develop it does. When it develops enough, it can become more like the soul - self-aware. Then, it can become completely aware, by understanding itself, its universe and its relationship with its greater self - the soul. This is not God. This is logical action, awareness understanding what it is aware of.

So you take the position that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, and it has some control over the universe?
If consciousness is omnipotent then why isn't it God to you?

I mocked you for IT because you think you have a unified theory of physics and the universe, but IT professionals literally don't even know basic calculus, let alone theoretical physics. Your treatise is about Deepak Chopra level.

It's not a fundamental property of the universe, it is a consequence of the conditions in this universe allowing its manifestation. It exists on a higher plane than this universe but it is not fundamental in either universe.
It's not omnipotent. There are universes where the conditions do not even allow life to originate. An infinity of different universes like that. Just because it is my origin does not make it a being. God refers to a social construct. I believe in science and scientific names, so I will not call it what it is not.

Hahaha yeah you caught me out :/ Sling some more insults bro, I'm shaking in my boots thinking of all the references you're gonna throw at me proving me wrong!

Oh wait, you don't seem to be interested in a debate of ideas, merely an attack of character... Maybe it's because you're incapable mentally of competing :)

If you think you're more logical than me friend, identify for me the flaw in Set Theory, and describe to be what the effect of that flaw is on the current beliefs held by mathematical professionals about relative degrees of infinity?

Yeh, but Occam's razor supports a single universe, not multiple universes.

Not if the explanation for multiple universes is simpler than the explanation for just one... which it is.

>If you think you're more logical than me friend, identify for me the flaw in Set Theory, and describe to be what the effect of that flaw is on the current beliefs held by mathematical professionals about relative degrees of infinity?

I admit I don't know such a "flaw." I know that whether or not there exists a cardinality between countable and uncountable is independent of the ZFC axioms.

I disagree.
ALl evidence we have points to a single universe.
From whence comes the multiverse?

I have already explained this, it must exist because this universe exists theoretically also.

Explain to me what you think Set Theory is exactly :) Like what is the idea behind set theory, and explain what you think a 'countable infinity' is.

Set theory is an attempt to specify the simplest foundations necessary to describe all branches of mathematics. A "set" is taken intuitively, without rigorous definition, to be a collection. One of the axioms is induction, which allows us to recursively describe natural numbers, and anything that can be put into bijection with the natural numbers is said to be countable.

Absolutely embarrassing. Remove your name for it if you don't want to taint your career.

"well, that's like your opinion man."
So, you mean according to your metaphysical theory there must be other universes?

But I already see a flaw in your reasoning.
"For something to exist there must be something relative to it that does not exist."

I don't think this is analytic a priori knowledge.
You've yet to prove that to me.

Are you people seriously discussing this paper with him? He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Just point your finger and laugh at him.

Cringe. This pseudo-religious drivel is written with a unfounded confidence. That makes it very embarrassing when you have your facts wrong because you didn't study and decide daydreaming while stoned is sufficient research.

Oh and enjoy your pizza :^)

There's only one guy discussing it with him seriously, and that guy believes in God. So it makes sense.

I don't use that in my true proof. Read more I specifically state that argument is a linguistic one demonstrating a paradox and is thus flawed. My true proof is further on in the document...

If the set of Natural number N is not equivalent in size to the set of Rational numbers R, then how is it that Set Theory describes both of these sets as countable infinities?
Define infinity for me...

Have you ever tried saying "Facts X and Y are wrong therefore you are wrong, and enjoy your pizza :^)"...?
Nah you haven't because you're incapable of it hahaha. Point out where I'm wrong or accept it is possible I am right.

>If the set of Natural number N is not equivalent in size to the set of Rational numbers R, then how is it that Set Theory describes both of these sets as countable infinities?

It is equivalent in size. We can put the rational numbers in bijection with the natural numbers.

Hi Chris

Not accurate. If N = 6, R = 36. Therefore they are not equivalent in size.
Mathematics is about equal changes. If I limit the set of Natural Numbers to 6, then there are only 36 Rational Fractions possible. This means that their size is distinctly different, and if both are infinite, these sets are different by a measure of infinity.

Infinity means non-countable. To say countable infinity is to admit you do not understand the language you employ. Since, however, mathematics insists upon using such flawed language... If there IS a countable infinity, it is the set of N and any sets equivalent in size. R is not equivalent in size, and thus is NOT a countable infinity.

By an unfortunate turn of events I have a masters in philosophy and holy shit your paper is fucking hilarious.

Unfortunate for you maybe.

Identify for me the flaw in the reasoning made by Rene Descartes which I cite in my paper, if you can. I can, surely a gentleman with such qualifications can find a simple and obvious contradiction in a statement not two lines long...

They are both infinite, one is more dense than the other.
Thank you Numberphile.

Yes, which describes the ONLY difference IN infinities. Therefore... if you call any infinity countable, it is either the FIRST one alone, or all of them... Not the first and second depths but no further? hahahahah
each subsequent depth of infinity presents an identical problem, there is no distinction between 2 infinities and 5 in terms of why cardinality fails.

Hey Matt. Guess what? You're a junior in college and you don't even understand foundations of higher math. (Also, R conventionally refers to reals. Q is rationals). Infinity does not mean "non-countable", and if you did something other than post memes about gaming all day might know something.

Christ, this is terrible. For one thing, you don't at all understand the theory of relativity. For centuries, it has been known that the velocities of everything in the universe is relative; that is, velocity differs based on your point of reference. What Einstein showed was that light is NOT relative, which means that time differs based on your point of reference. Already your paper has fallen apart, since it presumes that everything is relative. Secondly, your "proof" for the existence of data requires that theoretical existence stops existing if there is no data, which is absurd. Just because there was no evidence for the earth to be rotating the sun in ancient times doesn't mean that it's false. Again, your theory falls apart. I could probably find more glaring mistakes if I could be bothered to do anything more than skim this atrocity, but I can't. Stick to Veeky Forums you self-absorbed twat.

>Yes, which describes the ONLY difference IN infinities.

No. The difference between infinite cardinalities is whether or not a bijection can be defined between a set and the natural numbers. Q can be put in bijection with N, R cannot. Reals are uncountable, but the set of rationals and reals have the same cardinality.

Wow can you use Facebook search :/ I am embarrassed beyond belief, that's why I branded my Theory with my name... I must be so ashamed right now.

Irrelevant, because I said what convention I was using which is the convention I learnt in.
Just because I am young doesn't mean I am wrong. Just because I like video games and memes doesn't make me stupid. Attacks on my character do not invalidate my work.

Infinity does mean non-countable. Finite refers to the fact that you can apply integer, the concept of countability, the basic principle of math. Infinite is the opposite - you cannot. To attempt to apply math to infinity is a contradiction in itself and it is where the flaw originates.

No, you misunderstand what cardinality represents my friend. The bijection is irrelevant and it implies something which isn't true. If I can limit the sets and prove that they are not equal, then there must be distinction made in their naming. They are not BOTH countable infinities, because that implies they are the same thing which they are not. There is a difference between them, which I just demonstrated.

*rationals and naturals, a typo. reals and rationals have different cardinality.

Hahahahah you make the most obvious logical mistakes I can think of friend.
I don't presume everything is relative. I explain that everything exists in a state of relativity. How things are relative depends on their nature and thus their structure.
No, it's not absurd hahaha. If there wasn't data to substantiate a theoretical concept, what would it be made of? Dummie...

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NORMIES GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT

ENJOY YOUR PIZZA NIGGER

Thanks senpai :)
If I didn't want my information viewed my profile wouldn't be public, but roast away. I know it's all you've got ;)

If you kids are so interested in Math, why don't you study it? Because you literally don't know the definition of cardinality, and you don't know what infinity entails mathematically.

Your age doesn't invalidate your work, but your arrogance coupled with your total ignorance of mathematics is very reflective of your age.

>No, you misunderstand what cardinality represents my friend

Cardinality is literally defined by bijections, even finite cardinalities.

Infinity cannot entail something mathematically which the term contradicts literally. That's a fact.

If the size of sets is different, then their cardinality is not identical. You describe that cardinality can be applied to the set - I would propose that the process of cardinality is applying Natural numbers to indexed elements. If there are only 6 Natural numbers, then the cardinality of the second set is only 6 also, even though there are 36 elements. This demonstrates that cardinality and thus countability CANNOT be applied to the set R of rational numbers.

Go back to /b/ and never come back to Veeky Forums

I'm 95% confident that this is b8.

hope you like dominos :^)

okay pope pepe, i submit to your religion of current scientific belief :)

Thanks dude I was actually getting pretty hungry :)

Because you have no idea how to argue with it so you assume I must just be retarded? Because Math couldn't possibly be simply wrong like I describe hey... ;)

>Infinity cannot entail something mathematically which the term contradicts literally. That's a fact.

Infinite means not finite. That's all it means. It turns out that sets that are not finite have interesting (and sometimes unintuitive) mathematical properties.

> If there are only 6 Natural numbers, then the cardinality of the second set is only 6 also, even though there are 36 elements.

But there aren't 6 natural numbers. Finite sets do not have the same properties as Infinite sets, and its not because mathematicians dreamed up these properties based on their intuitions. For example, the union of any finite set A with an infinite set B has the same cardinality as B. And it also turns out that the union of any two finite sets that can be put into bijection with the natural numbers can itself also be put into bijecction with the natural numbers.

If you actually want to learn things, take foundations of higher math and real analysis.

*the union of any two infinite sets that can be put into bijection with the natural numbers

not finite has a definition in and of itself, it is not simply 'not something'. Trying to argue that is retarded.

There are, that's how I limited the sets. I describe how many there are, you don't get to.

If there are ONLY 6 natural numbers, that's how many there are. For the whole equation. Not until the step before the end where suddenly there are infinite natural numbers again; no. There are six.

Sure thing. I haven't read your paper fully as I was struck with second hand embarrassment but provide a sketch of your argument and you'll see why it has to fail. Anyway, Descartes' argument doesn't follow from 'cogito ergo sum'. The proposition itself says nothing more than what is contained in the fact that it is referential. It's a tautology, and is so not a worldly fact. That means that no matter what you do, without presupposing something else, you won't be able to deduce a worldly fact just from it. What Descartes actually wanted was to show that there is a proposition that is epistemologically privileged, that this is a worldly fact that is somehow different from other worldly facts, but that doesn't (and cannot) follow from just his argument.
To cut the whole story short, even if we constructed the argument correctly and showed that it is a self-evident worldly fact, you still wouldn’t be able to prove the existence of the outside world with phenomenological reduction. You need something to break out of solipsism, and to do that you’d have to defeat the purpose of your methodology.

But as I said, not everything is relative. Light is the same velocity no matter your frame of reference.

Okay, if you define N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}, and R to be the ratios of elements of N, then there are more elements in the set R than in N (but actually there aren't 36 distinct elements, because 3/6 = 2/4 = 1/2, and 2/6 = 1/3.)

That fact has nothing to do with the cardinalities of Naturals and Rationals.

No because clearly you don't understand from what belief of his originated his reasoning, and I doubt you know its true version either. He proposes something which is very hard to contradict and works from there. It's not true, but it's pretty close so no-one has ever noticed.

That's called a universal constant, it is relevant to its datalogical cause.

It does actually, because you aren't supposed to simplify them. You are simply supposed to provide how many elements can be made from each. It has EVERYTHING to do with the cardinalities, and if you cannot understand that you have no place in this discussion.

>No because clearly you don't understand from what belief of his originated his reasoning, and I doubt you know its true version either. He proposes something which is very hard to contradict and works from there. It's not true, but it's pretty close so no-one has ever noticed.
This has to be bait. You can't really be this stupid, can you?

>It does actually, because you aren't supposed to simplify them. You are simply supposed to provide how many elements can be made from each. It has EVERYTHING to do with the cardinalities, and if you cannot understand that you have no place in this discussion.

LMAO. Okay, I know you're trolling now.

Don't bully the guy he named in the paper, it's probably not him. B8.

I'm not stupid, tell me what belief his statement originated from?

If you simplify them you disingenuously manipulate the number of elements, however it's not relevant. There are still more than 6 unique elements. This proves cardinality fails.

What is your background, if you don't mind me asking? I only ask because all of these questions you're trying to answer have already been answered in the intersection of philosophy, modern logic, and information theory.

The literature on these topics is vast and ever-expanding, constantly growing due to the labor of some underpaid philosophy postdoc somewhere. I don't want to kill your interest in these topics, but I don't want you to delude yourself.

>This proves cardinality fails.
What does this statement even mean? I agree with you that the set N x N has greater cardinality than the set N when |N| = 6. What does this have to do with the cardinality of the set of natural numbers.

These kids are undergrads studying Information Technology.

N is the set you describe when you describe cardinality. That is what it has to do with it... N is the set you apply to other sets, that's what cardinality is.

I studied 3 years of IT, however on a personal level I have been studying science and philosophy for about 6 years casually, and about a year intensely.

PLEASE kill yourself

>I studied 3 years of IT
Stick with it.

>N is the set you apply to other sets, that's what cardinality is.

What does that mean? In what way do you "apply" it? By constructing a bijection?

I don't believe the major necessarily matters, but this document reads of somebody with a genuine interest who should be investing energy into understanding the body of modern knowledge at this point.

I highly encourage you to switch from IT and into at least a more theoretical field, such as computer science. If you have any hope of pursuing work of this sort in your life, you need a much more rigorous education on the topic.

On that note, I applaud your attempt, but my critique is this: for work attempting to address such wide and philosophical issues, I can tell by your meager references section that you do not have a complete understanding of what knowledge already exists. From your phrasing, I understand that you don't have any formal training in logic systems, either, and from the minor blunders you make with regard to your attempt at deduction, I can tell that you need practice.

What you've written will with near-100% probability not be published in any reputable journal, but I again encourage you to keep fast to your dream and do what is necessary to pursue fields that better align.

Yes, by constructing a bijection. So if N = 6 and R != 6, there is no bijection, therefore cardinality doesn't apply.

I think that your opinion of my level of training is accurate, but that opinion does not necessarily indicate the quality of my ideas deductively.
Just because I don't know everything in the field, or speak with perfect precision doesn't mean my idea is flawed. If it IS flawed, it IS possible to identify the exact location and cause of the flaw, and repair it. If you believe you see such flaws, point them out to me.

I appreciate your measured response

The set of natural numbers is infinite, and we can construct a bijection between it and the rationals, which is also infinite.

Showing that a set with 6 elements cannot be put in bijection with a set of formal quotients of those elements has nothing to do with the infinite sets we're talking about.

And there is your misunderstanding; the idea that cardinality and infinite can be used in conjunction; they cannot.

Honest question: Why don't you read a set theory textbook? Or a real analysis book?

I have learnt Set Theory off professionals who wrote textbooks on it. I have discussed it with them.
I am not an idiot, and I am not simply unlearned. Assuming that is a pretty dumb stance.

I'm sad to say that, in order to publish ideas you claim to be new, you do need to prove to the publisher that what you have given is new. This would imply that you're familiar with the vast quantity of at least the widely accepted knowledge that is available.

With regard to your attempt at deduction, on the very first page, you list two premises, followed by four "steps," along with no axiomatic justification for the steps you make. Even if I forgive or overlook these blunders (which a publisher will not), the first of these premises is this: "logic exists." Which logic exists? Or, if you're not referencing any specific logic, what do you mean by 'logic'? Why does it exist?

If I can doubt your premise, I can doubt your conclusion.

The cardinality of infinite sets is well-studied. One of the most basic results is that which defines countably infinite and uncountably infinite sets. There also exist infinite cardinalities. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality#Infinite_sets

Just another note: but you seem to in no way list which of these 'steps' constitute steps in a deduction and which of these 'steps' constitute a claim. There also seems to be an odd habit of claiming 'proof by contradiction' without ever stating what you're proving by contradiction.

Then how do you define cardinality? Because your statements indicate you are totally unfamiliar with the definition used by every math book.

Im the delivery guy you assholes sent to this guys house.

Top kek you smartasses, pepe would be proud but my bosses are miffed so pls stop

Logic refers to the principle of consistency. All things logical must be completely consistent with all other logical things, or illogicality is being described.

I list two premises that are inherent in the statement I make. The axiomatic justification is that if I suppose data and logic do exist, I can use these elements to represents observation and deduct from that observation, which is what I do.

It's well studied and the conclusions are incorrect, as I have demonstrated. The classifications used are obviously not correct.

I state what I prove by contradiction at the start of each step. Are you blind?

The number of elements in a set or grouping. Therefore, the possible number of elements is determined by the set of Natural numbers.
Therefore if the set of Natural numbers is limited and made finite, so too is cardinality.

You did God's work. Did Matt tell you all about his brilliant theories?

Why haven't you killed him?

>mods keep this thread alive but remove my kurisuposting
???

It's a scientific theory... Why would they delete it lmao.

>It's well studied and the conclusions are incorrect, as I have demonstrated.

LOL.

Metaphysics isn't science.