Is there a collection of things which equate as the complete set of ‘all-things’ in all-time? Yet where there is transience one cannot form individual ‘things’ alone. Ergo reality has a problem and has to manifest the answer, somehow. When all things are played out, then it would be left with everything, a collection of all-things.
Then the problem becomes; some things are ‘doing things’, they have to be acting such to be what they are e.g. A human Vs a statue of a human [analogy of non acting human].
It seams that ‘everything’ is impossible. There can only be transience.
at least that, a collection of things cannot properly include something in a state of change, or a thing which is change in it’s form [like humans/life].
No i meant that transient things cannot belong to ‘everything’ in ‘all-time’, as that would be a complete set. Something in a state of change cannot be complete.
How about historical things, are they included even though they don’t exist any more? There is a [if they don’t exist] problem where things are coming into and moving out of existence; how do we classify the fade? Less existent ~ then degrading, so you get existent {moving into history} things, which are ‘less existent’ than current fully formed/existent things?
What about the subset of the everything that’s changing? Why couldn’t that be a part of the the larger set of everything there is?
Like I want to be a guy who makes quilts. And in this closet is everything that’s related to my making quilts. Some boxes of red quilts, some boxes of blue ones, some that are halfway done in another box over here, some boxes with nothing but yarn and thread. Everything that isn’t a complete quilt is some part of a quilt that’s in a process of change, but they still exist. They’re just in smaller boxes in the closet that holds everything having to do with my quilting.
How does that change what ‘everything’ is? philosophically, how can we have ‘things’ [the specific] + things in transience [the unspecific]. you can only have both where there is room for an interchange between them, so yes a subset but not a complete aleph omega set [everything].
Surely those are in the class of things and part of all-things. You can have a complete set of things [a group/class], but not the complete set of all things - I state.
I guess what I am saying is that there can be subsets but ultimately they don’t belong to a complete set of everything [aleph omega of things], and this is why existentially there is the universe and not an infiniverse.
Infiniverse? If there was one of those it would be by definition part of the universe. I think we’re getting into some tricky language here, but if universe is to mean the set of everything, then everything exists in the universe.
If the universe is a set of everything then can it also be a set of itself? Afterall the Universe is a thing. So if the universe contains everything then can it also contain itself?
The set of all infinite series is an infinite series.
The set of all occupied sets is an occupied set.
The set of all collections is a collection.
All things are a collection.
The set of all things is a collection.
The universe is a collection … of all collections … which is a collection.
Thus the universe is a member of itself … a “thing” (albeit an infinite thing).
I mean it’s not a ‘thing’ as in not an object. A collection is not an object, a ‘thing’, it’s a group of things.
The question asked was whether the set of all things is a set of itself? The question you answered is whether the set of all things is a set itself.
The set of all sets is of course a set, so it contains itself because it is a set. So, yeah, I suppose that does make sense.
However, the set of all objects is not a set containing itself because the set is not an object. Of course, one could say the universe is composed of more than just objects.
Lots of people do, that’s why I clarified what I meant. However, I think it causes confusion to talk about concepts as ‘things’ the same way you’d talk about objects as ‘things’. It’s easy to reify concepts that way.
Also, I think what Lev was asking is whether the universe, the set of all things, contains itself. If we take concepts to be things, then the answer would be yes methinks. If you consider the concept of the universe, the set of all things, to be a thing, then the set would contain that concept. But I don’t know what it could mean to say in plain language that the universe contains itself.
Universe does not contain everything because it doesn’t contain it’s future in all-time and isn’t infinite, hence there is that which is beyond/outside/before it.
How can something with a beginning [a limit] be infinite [has no limits], that’s just illogical. Calculus is only maths and useful for working out denumerable things/collections, but that it has cardinality [limits] means it cannot truly be representative of the infinite. One could potentially count all the galaxies in the universe = a limit, an amount [finiteness].
This leaves no doubt that nothingness/emptiness is what lies beyond things/universe.
The set of all sets isn’t ‘everything’ ~ is what i am stating [see also thread below]. The set of all existent things in the universe, does not include some historical things [which are no longer present] and all future things also not present. That’s without even comparing it to an infinite reality. So the set of all sets = universe, is not an aleph omega set of all sets.
Is it? Well that’s another big debate, physical information is not the same as a thought even though thought contains that utility. Experiential information or other mental qualia don’t show up when you look at the nature and behaviour of their constituent physical components. I mean ‘constituent’ in the context of being the physical vehicle which carries mental qualia. Here we have the same problem, where our very thoughts have the same existential problem as universe/reality in terms of thingness/non-thingness.
Same problem as here [thread; what is the greatest thing], and i think that thread helps define the limitedness of universe and a set of sets. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=188256
edit; If the universe could conceptualise itself on an infinite scale, then it would be infinite and far easier to understand. I think the whole problem is one the universe also has/had. the universe has philosophical issues it cannot resolve.
_
Who said all sets can only contain that which is currently extant or known? I didn’t say the universe is the set of all sets. I’d have to think more about what “set of all sets” even means before I made a claim like that.
I was only pointing out that the set/s of existent physical ‘things’ is not the complete set of things.
A limited distance. A light ray if that’s what you meant, is as finite and limited as the universe. The big bang was the beginning of this universe, and if that is cyclic then it too must have had a beginning ultimately. Can you imagine how powerful a single photonic wave/particle would be if of infinite value. How does one define it’s cardinality [e.g. Edges of a wave/particle] if it’s infinite [without limit], and how could we even call it a thing ~ a finiteness?
Of course it is. Is a car a thing? It’s s thing even though it comprises of many other things. The universe is the same type of thing. As a car is the set of all its components, so too is the universe a set of all things.
