I just wanted to either get something more concrete, avoiding vague abstractions, or reveal that such a set might not exist at all.
And I think maths is about quantities.
I don’t see any significant difference between those 2. A “list of all lists” is just as absurd as a folder of all folders.
- Yes
- No
All existing sets are not IN Existence - they ARE existence. They comprise what we call existence. Existence is not something that contains anything. Existence IS everything together. It is not an entity to itself but a collection.
Only in the exclusive sense (not containing itself along with other sets). You have been using Existence as an inclusive set (containing itself along with other sets).
Because Existence is everything, it cannot be contained within anything.
All of that is just improper English and word usage.
Then how can you say that a set can contain itself along with other items?
That would make the set larger than the set.
In that example - (A = {A, x, y, z} ), both A’s must be equal in every respect yet the first is set to be larger than the second by an additional “x, y, and z”. And when you say that the second A has an x, y, and z within it - that just means that the first A has 2 sets of x, y, and z.