Posted 3 years ago on March 27, 2012, 8:54 p.m. EST by cubedemon
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I wrote this a while back:
I believe I understand now. I have been trying to discover the ultimate absolute(s). I have failed everytime. Everytime I tried to make an ultimate absolute it failed every single time. This is because everytime I attempted to complete it I would have inconsistencies. I kept encountering the problem of this. I kept trying to make a consistent and complete absolute. Everytime I did that it would just fall apart.
Let's say I had the set A. In order for A to be complete it has to have some thing along the lines of B & ~B. There would have to be iterations that fit into the subset B & ~B of set A. This is a contradiction. Nothing can this fit this. I would have to have something that could not be A in order for A to remain consistent. C would contain both set A and ~ A. I tried to complete set C. I encountered the same problem. I would end up with a B & ~ B again. Another contradiction occurs. This process of
- Creating an absolute
- Obtaining a contradiction
- The negation of the absolute had to be formed to resolve the inconsistency.
This was a cyclic step by step process that I went to and what I discovered was this. I could not have an absolute that was complete and consistent. This meant absolutes only existed within certain subsets. This process of discovering absolutes and resolving contradictions is an infinite process. What does this mean? This means the ultimate absolute(s) is an infinite process of reaching the ultimate absolute(s). Since it is infinite it is not completeable and definable. There are absolutes which are inconsistent and complete. The ultimate absolute is an infinite progression of an infinite amount of absolutes which complete, consisting them(resolving contradictions), and making new ones in an infinite in-depth and in-bredth process. The statement "There are no absolutes" eventually becomes falsified as well since there are an infinite amount of ultimate absolutes which are only true within their subsets. Therefore, there are no absolutes which are consistent and complete.
a(1) inc a(all) in superset b >> ~a being an a >> a and ~a >> a or ~a. >>some other set(1)inc to some other set(all) This says as we increase the members of subset of a to the maximum amount we reach a contradiction. The contradiction has to be broken apart so therefore a in superset b can't always hold up. We're back to square one and the process repeats.