ydoaPs

Oh, my bad for me and, well, every other philosopher in the past 2000 years for misunderstanding that arguments which call the origin of the universe "God" aren't actually calling the origin of the universe "God". Please, by all means, rid us of this misconception by presenting Aquinas's proofs and Kalaam without it.

That's actually been a pretty standard definition for hundreds of years. It's the very basis for Kalaam and some of Aquinas's "5 proofs". The good ones don't.

Absolute coordinate? Excuse me?

does not follow

What DNA were they testing?

For the Higgs field to have a zero value, it must have energy. So, could one not take advantage of that to alter the mass of a normally massive particle? Control the energy to get rid of the mass and let it zoom at c.

What do sets have to do with collections of things and what is in and what is not in said collections? You got me there! </sarcasm> You are objectively wrong. Every set is a subset of itself. For any set, we can build what is called the set's Power Set. That is, we can make a set of all subsets of the original set. Guess what is always a member of a set's Power Set aside from, of course, the empty set. That's right, the original set! So, let's let set S be {a, b, c}. To build the Power Set, all we have to do is make each and every subset of S into members of a set containing nothing other than those subsets. What are the subsets of S? Well, the empty set is a subset of every set, so we can automatically include Φ as a member. Since a, b, and c are all members of S, that means the sets containing only each of them are proper subsets of S. This lets us write {a}, {b}, and {c}. Now for the harder ones; we need to get all of the combinations: {a,b}, {a,c}, {b,c}, and *wait for it* {a,b,c}. This means our set of all subsets of S is {Φ, {a}, {b}, {c}, {a,b}, {a,c}, {b,c}, {a,b,c}} This is day 1 set theory stuff.

This cartoon reminds me of certain threads on this board.

And here I was under the impression that every set is a subset of itself. It should be noted that that only works with naive set theory. Because of that, no one uses that version of the Axiom of Specification anymore. Then perhaps you should be able to explicate this. It is solved rather easily. All you have to do is modify your Axiom of Specification. A historical note: Russell sent Frege a letter after he proved that naive set theory is inconsistent. Frege has *just* finished a huge work relying on naive set theory. Frege, however, was an honest enough of a person to include an appendix showing why what he just spent years writing was in fact wrong. Indeed.

Again, infinity isn't a number. It's not a quantity on which arithmetic operations can be performed. Infinites can be added, though. For example, we can add Z+ and Z-. All you really know about something when someone says it is infinite is that it is not finite. Infinites come in an infinite number of sizes, so I still don't know what "double infinity" means. It's not as though there's a number infinity that you can multiply by two.

I'm not sure what you mean by "doubly infinite", but this is still wrong as there is no biggest infinity.

FYI, we've been able to sequence DNA for ages now. We know what codons correspond to what acids and what acids make what proteins.

Your relation G(t) is mapping V onto V?

How much set theory do you know?

As I said, there are an infinite amount of sizes of infinites.That means some infinities are bigger than others. No, I didn't.

Infinity is not a number. Also, there are an infinite amount of sizes of infinites.

The goal posts haven't moved an inch; in fact, this was the same question we've been asking you SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD.

You're on a science forum, so yes. No, he didn't. Oh, by the way, I actually get paid to do philosophy in this area. Try actually reading Cantor. There is no "true absolute infinity". In fact, there is at minimum a countably infinitely many sizes of infinity. All of which cardinally dominate 1. Which you'd know, if you'd have read the guy you keep namedropping.

I like how "liberal talking points" means "fact checking FOX 'news' lies".

So, the zero value Higgs field has energy. Is it an energy that is reachable simply by temperature reduction? Could a ferrous asteroid fall low enough in temperature to be accelerated by a magnetic field to the speed of light?

The answer to that question is exceedingly obviously "yes".

In their defense, it's hard to out lie professional liars.

It's not a different output. The table is just a way to visualize the assignment function. All you've done is rearrange the rows.

I am? Sweet! No one told me yet. That's similar to how I got 2nd Class Petty Officer. I kept getting congratulated and I had no idea why.

It's been 15 pages; I doubt we'll ever get an answer from him. He'll give plenty of vague, vacuous innuendo, though.