So you are just making up your own definitions for existing already defined words.
And you expect that to cause anyone to believe in God? 
It is confusing to say that infinity is a set if at the same time you’re claiming that it is a quantity. You might want to say that infinity is a number equal to the number of elements contained within the set of all things (albeit the concept of a set of all things isn’t entirely clear and requires further clarification.)
If there is no quantity greater than infinity then what you mean by infinity is perhaps “the largest number”. That, however, would raise the question whether the cardinality of the set of all things is equal to this number.
Ultimately, your definition of infinity is non-standard and I don’t see why we should adopt it. More importantly, I don’t see how any of this answers the question posed in the OP. It looks very much off-topic.
“The largest number” isn’t anywhere close to being the largest quantity. That is what the Cantor set theories were about. That is how we got cardinalities. And as Cantor stated - “there can be no highest cardinality” - no largest quantity.
You might want to consider presenting an argument in favor of that claim but somewhere else (:
Right now, I am trying to understand Certainly real’s claims. Though, it might be better for me to first do a check on whether what he’s saying is relevant to this thread or not. So far, it does not seem to be the case.
It is a discussion about infinity but it really does belong on one of his threads.
I gave my reasoning for why I distinguish between the semi-infinite and the infinite. If someone wants to make a distinction between these two semantics by calling one infinite whilst calling the other truly infinite, that’s also fine in my opinion. But when no distinction is made between the truly infinite and that which is not truly infinite, then I think confusion can occur.
Existence is the set of all existents. It is also a meaning. It is also an existent. Its quantitative capacity is infinite, and by this I mean, the quantity of things it encompasses is infinite. So as a set it encompasses an infinity of things, hence why it semantically qualifies as being the infinite set, and why it is also a number. Alternatively you can put it this way:
Infinity = a number
The infinite set = the set that encompasses an infinity of things (the set of all sets: Existence).
Yes I think that’s what I meant. Maybe I should say the set of all existents instead of the set of all sets. But they both amount to the same thing. Existence, the infinite set. The universal set.
Yes, I see it as the largest number. And yes, I see the cardinality of the set of all things as being equal to infinity.
To be fair, I did not focus on the OP beyond the fact that it is about infinity. So to that end, I will stop discussing infinity and semi-infinity here.
Infinity is not a noun. It’s a verb. It’s a process. If infinity were a thing it’d have borders.
CR,
Your need for god to exist is clouding your judgement.
Who are you talking to? If you’re talking to me, you are needlessly repeating yourself. That’s not welcome.
I see.
Whether it should be a noun or not - whether their definition is precise or not - is totally irrelevant to the fact that in English “infinity” is a noun.
Actually, proofs are made through definitional logic that is self evident.
Since the computer doesn’t know what self evident is, it runs in vague circles.
Ask the computer if it is ambiguous for beings whether their consent is being violated in a visceral manner… (self evident to each being)
There are also inferential proofs, say, the counting numbers… even though we can’t count them all, we still know it’s a well ordered set through deduction and inferential proof (we infer evident proofs)
lol @ the consent stuff
That is pretty fucking funny.
The math stuff was gibberish too.
It literally tried to explain infinitely adding 3 to something forever and gave this as an example:
2+1=3, 2+2=4
This AI has been short circuited many times now.
That isn’t what it was doing. It only said 3 because it started with that and then immediately went to four. It was just writing an infinite series while talking about sets
" 3= 1+2… 4=2+2" [You can continue it: 5=3 + 2, 6= 3+3, etc)
[b]
1 and 2 does make 3, you know that right? 2 and 2 do make four. So it was correct…
So how was it short circuited?
[/b]
I already said it!!!
Before it added that set, it set up its example as adding 3 forever …
That example has NOTHING to do with adding 3 forever!!!
It short circuited.
It doesn’t know what it’s talking about.
Everyone knows what an inferential well ordered set means, even if they don’t know the TERM.
The part where the machine stated something like “that’s besides the point” was actually the WHOLE point.
Again, a malfunction.
Well technically it can’t malfunction because it is not following a program. It’s simply producing thoughts in an open-ended way. If I ask it the same thing again, it gives a different response; it doesn’t repeat itself. (Also you seem a little defensive of your human superiority)
Maybe I should mention that I have it configured to spit out a paragraph or two at a time. If I want more response, I just re-input the same prompt again. So there was a cut-off between
The axioms of math can be inferred, but that’s not the point of this discussion, because it is also well-ordered (like anything, it is an ordered, finite set of axioms. But again, that’s not the point of this discussion). In an infinite mental model where we can imagine what it means to add 3 to a number…
And
3= 1+2… 4=2+2… and so on. It goes on forever.
Those are two different trains of the thought it was having.
So I will re-enter and let it continue that first train of thought to prove it to you:
We have laws though.
These are immutable.
The law of otherness (in order for something to distinguish itself, there must be something besides it that exist).
That never changes in existence.
Or the self evident law of consent violation… if any being in all existence is having their consent violated, the work is not done.
I have a couple more laws, but I’ll leave it there.
I don’t want to get into a long mathematical debate about “we don’t know what the rules are but we can still do it”. That’s insightful but also hand waving.
^ pretty sure it just inferred how perspective works