metaphors to set of all sets would be other models of infitinity, all, and wholeness.
Good points however... though I can't get over that Lakoff has proven our very idea of "set" has no basis with reality. There are no sets with clear boundaries in nature.
Joni Mitchell "Both sides now" 'I've looked at clouds from both sides now, from up and down, and still somehow, it's clouds illusions I recal. I really don't know clouds...at all'. I've looked at love from both sides now, from give and take, and still somehow it's love's illusions I recall. I really don't know love at all. I've looked at life from both sides now, from win and lose, and still somehow it's life's illusions I recall. I really don't know life at all. A highlight in a song..
@F4llenEvil A solution is non-intellectual: seeing language limits and thus power, the need, addiction for uncovering meaning, dissolves in covering silence. An academic will formally not accept this answer. They've interest to increase the power (grow) of language (symbols). Mathematicians are, with help of computers, creative and always searching for infinite symbolic forms. My believe is: they will transform our world but not catch the solution for final meaning of the cosmological sting...
Alfred Korzybski .He is remembered most for developing the theory of general semantics. Korzybski's work maintained that human beings are limited in what they know by (1) the structure of their nervous systems, and (2) the structure of their languages. Human beings cannot experience the world directly, but only through their "abstractions" (nonverbal impressions or "gleanings" derived from the nervous system, and verbal indicators expressed and derived from language
Loved this video. One of these days I'd like to make a video about this, when I have more to say- I think I could take a good hike through this subject.
How are we to get around the limitations of our metaphors, and the limitations that necessarily must follow when we engage in what Lakoff and Johnson call "imaginative reasoning," which is thinking with those metaphors? I don't know. I can imagine a Zen Buddhist responding to that question by asking a Koan.
@seechanin Koan is another 'gift' to imprison our thoughts. Silence of the hide master can be a key to set the thoughts free. Metaphor has a sphere or set of meanings like: to dislocate, to transfer, to translate. Interval is important: reading between lines, gab between printed words or breathe. The art of speech and the art of listening are related. Good listeners are quiet and have a silence inner speech. Limitations set two sides.
Greece phor from pharein means: to carry. Ironical: to bear.
An open mind: cultural code meets nature. A set only exist when there is a limit. Symbols set limits. Set of al sets, 'total context', is limitless. Set of all sets is an open set. An open set contains everything a closed set something. And symbols set it in existence. Most words contain always a set of meanings. Vocabularies (or symbols) are an open set, growing every time. Metaphors speed up grow of meaning: making sentences. Words tend to hide context: limit of meaning closing the mind.
Brilliant explanation Corey. Taking it a step further, we can point out that all language is a metaphor. The symbol "life" is but a metaphor for what it represents, and surely does not encompass the entirety. Perhaps this goes too far, but it's a point worth making.
'The set of all sets'. I see how I can't compare this huge set with ANOTHER SPECIFIC set, which is necessarily inside it. But the 'set of all set' still contains itself. So I can still say...
I'm sure you know this, but when you speak of the "set of all sets" & "coming at it using mathematical language"--that's the problem, isn't it? It's very difficult to use that example for the larger world when it belongs strictly to mathematical systems. A lot of people try, but it really doesn't work.
You allude to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, but part of the problems is mixing two categories, mathematics and ontology. It's a non-starter, right?
Gödel mistrusted our ability to communicate. Natural language, he thought, was imprecise, & we usually don't understand each other. He wanted to prove a mathematical theorem that would have all the precision of mathematics—the only precise language—but with the sweep of philosophy. He wanted a mathematical theorem that would address meta-mathematics.
1. Amazingly, he actually did produce such theorems (the incompleteness theorems).
2. His ground breaking meta-mathematics was interpreted by parts of intellectual culture as saying, philosophically exactly the opposite of what he had intended.
I think you had a nice explanation of the set of all sets being the medium that allows possibilities to arise or not arise. This subject also reminds me of the problem with the cosmological Kalam argument. Proponents of the argument often try and use conditions that were created within this universe maybe unique to it to try and explain the creation of this universe. Trying to use things from this set to explain the external origin of the set. Nice thought provoking video man ^^
I have to watch this video again, but not tonight. I have to "digest it" first. I liked how you used mathematical language with the topic of metaphor.
It's kind of like making an estimation. The larger the scale of the value you're estimating, the greater the margin of error. It seems like this concept of metaphor is similar. Applying something from within the set of all sets, to describe the set of all sets, results in that greater margin of error, that seems inherent. It's just like the levels of language adage you like: "No communication can be properly defined or understood at the level of which it occurs: this sentence is in English." : )
IMO humans aren't evolutionarily equipped to truly comprehend the "set of all sets" - it wud take an experiential state of being to do so, which means living in 10th (or 11th) dimension whilst simultaneously living within all the preceding dimensions. A feat only possible by what I understand "god" to be.
The best us lowly Homosapiensapiens can aspire to is to bask in it's glow by achieving what is colloquially termed a state of "Spiritual Enlightenment"
You have rghtly described the shortcoming in describing the set as a whole in relation to one of its members. In highlighting one truth of a set through metaphor, we do obscure other realities of the set. However, when we consider the greatest set itself, the set of all sets: being, existence or better yet the groundwork for all being (i.e. God), it is important to consider that we are members of the set. We find ourselves positioned within the set itself. And therefore it is profitable
(cont) to use other intelligible members of the set to which we are better acquainted with by reason of our senses and experience to describe the set as a whole. While we need to recognize the limitations of metaphor, we must ultimately recognize the necessity. Despite our attempts, we are not disembodied minds contemplating the whole of existence.
Nice vid. I would agree, but doesn't it depend more on the analogy, example, metaphor, whatever and the degree of subjectivity versus objectivity in it. Even a really basic one can lend itself to comprehensive and overarching concepts. An example might be "love is empathy" versus "love is sympathy" and even those could be expounded upon greatly in both subjective or objective terms. Maybe that's coherent; idk. Good vid.
True, insofar as we try to make our words fit the whole of reality and do not engage in a challenging application of what we are talking about, then the more we try to talk our way into conveying the truth the more we may conceal it or just confuse the bejesus out of ourselves. Yet, if I say it is raining kittens outside and you look outside and notice the rain and kittens falling out of a tree, THEN you could move more into the experience and humor of the moment -- until you feel guilty.
Hmmm, mathematics is the only language capable of dealing with the set of all sets. Chomsky really did us all the service of using discrete mathematics to formulate a general framework for generative grammar and syntactic structure. Ultimately language is completely describable using discrete math
Nietzsches perspectivism posits that one is always coming from a perspective or an interpretation and that the most one can really do is to get as many "angles" on the thing as many "eyes" on the thing as one can get and through that one may know the the a bit more holistically.
No God is not inherent (or something) I just hear that Jahve is something shiny and four angel whit six-wing ferry circles around him and those angels singin also ool time.
For that reason when we go beyond limitations of the senses, and investigate with totally inadequate language, stuff like metaphysics, tradition uses negative language such as "not this, not that".
i.e: the word infinite is negation of finite, typical in metaphysics.The problem is when people want to use ordinary language for stuff where it does not applies. At best things like negative language, symbolism or poetry, though not appropriate, are still more capable of communicating some concepts
the set of all sets is a member of the set of things which are not france. just saying.
pyrrho314 7 months ago
metaphors to set of all sets would be other models of infitinity, all, and wholeness.
Good points however... though I can't get over that Lakoff has proven our very idea of "set" has no basis with reality. There are no sets with clear boundaries in nature.
pyrrho314 7 months ago
the set of all sets cannot be discussed or spoken of. so incoherent. it makes me happy. it makes me mad.
bluetoebeing 7 months ago
@bluetoebeing : the set of all sets will likely not be a valid concept in the mathematics is coming, because it belongs to itself.
pyrrho314 7 months ago
A metaphor, in present time, for set of all sets: the logistics of symbols, language as a package deal...
Contextcatcher 7 months ago
Contextcatcher 7 months ago
what is the solution?
F4llenEvil 7 months ago
@F4llenEvil A solution is non-intellectual: seeing language limits and thus power, the need, addiction for uncovering meaning, dissolves in covering silence. An academic will formally not accept this answer. They've interest to increase the power (grow) of language (symbols). Mathematicians are, with help of computers, creative and always searching for infinite symbolic forms. My believe is: they will transform our world but not catch the solution for final meaning of the cosmological sting...
Contextcatcher 7 months ago
Alfred Korzybski .He is remembered most for developing the theory of general semantics. Korzybski's work maintained that human beings are limited in what they know by (1) the structure of their nervous systems, and (2) the structure of their languages. Human beings cannot experience the world directly, but only through their "abstractions" (nonverbal impressions or "gleanings" derived from the nervous system, and verbal indicators expressed and derived from language
m8kzardoz 7 months ago
@m8kzardoz That's quite far fetched, a simple Wittgensteinian 'can't talk about it nope sorry' would do aswell I guess.
LibertyWaxlips 7 months ago
Loved this video. One of these days I'd like to make a video about this, when I have more to say- I think I could take a good hike through this subject.
Yamikaiba123 7 months ago
How are we to get around the limitations of our metaphors, and the limitations that necessarily must follow when we engage in what Lakoff and Johnson call "imaginative reasoning," which is thinking with those metaphors? I don't know. I can imagine a Zen Buddhist responding to that question by asking a Koan.
seechanin 7 months ago
@seechanin Koan is another 'gift' to imprison our thoughts. Silence of the hide master can be a key to set the thoughts free. Metaphor has a sphere or set of meanings like: to dislocate, to transfer, to translate. Interval is important: reading between lines, gab between printed words or breathe. The art of speech and the art of listening are related. Good listeners are quiet and have a silence inner speech. Limitations set two sides.
Greece phor from pharein means: to carry. Ironical: to bear.
Contextcatcher 7 months ago
It's like those Jesus bumper stickers: "Life is ______"
columbia999 7 months ago
A good discussion of one of many elementary logical blunders that antinatalists make.
DanaGarrett 7 months ago
An open mind: cultural code meets nature. A set only exist when there is a limit. Symbols set limits. Set of al sets, 'total context', is limitless. Set of all sets is an open set. An open set contains everything a closed set something. And symbols set it in existence. Most words contain always a set of meanings. Vocabularies (or symbols) are an open set, growing every time. Metaphors speed up grow of meaning: making sentences. Words tend to hide context: limit of meaning closing the mind.
Contextcatcher 7 months ago
Brilliant explanation Corey. Taking it a step further, we can point out that all language is a metaphor. The symbol "life" is but a metaphor for what it represents, and surely does not encompass the entirety. Perhaps this goes too far, but it's a point worth making.
SonofNewo 7 months ago
Very interesting video.
'The set of all sets'. I see how I can't compare this huge set with ANOTHER SPECIFIC set, which is necessarily inside it. But the 'set of all set' still contains itself. So I can still say...
Life is Life, nanananana.
treegraph 7 months ago
I'm sure you know this, but when you speak of the "set of all sets" & "coming at it using mathematical language"--that's the problem, isn't it? It's very difficult to use that example for the larger world when it belongs strictly to mathematical systems. A lot of people try, but it really doesn't work.
You allude to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, but part of the problems is mixing two categories, mathematics and ontology. It's a non-starter, right?
A good vid on this: Being Conscious-bliptv.
2bsirius 7 months ago
(2)
Google being conscious roger penrose
Gödel mistrusted our ability to communicate. Natural language, he thought, was imprecise, & we usually don't understand each other. He wanted to prove a mathematical theorem that would have all the precision of mathematics—the only precise language—but with the sweep of philosophy. He wanted a mathematical theorem that would address meta-mathematics.
2bsirius 7 months ago
(3)
What happened?
1. Amazingly, he actually did produce such theorems (the incompleteness theorems).
2. His ground breaking meta-mathematics was interpreted by parts of intellectual culture as saying, philosophically exactly the opposite of what he had intended.
2bsirius 7 months ago
I think you had a nice explanation of the set of all sets being the medium that allows possibilities to arise or not arise. This subject also reminds me of the problem with the cosmological Kalam argument. Proponents of the argument often try and use conditions that were created within this universe maybe unique to it to try and explain the creation of this universe. Trying to use things from this set to explain the external origin of the set. Nice thought provoking video man ^^
Baldmother 7 months ago
Thank you Professor Anton for another great video.
TheFaceMeIter 7 months ago
I have to watch this video again, but not tonight. I have to "digest it" first. I liked how you used mathematical language with the topic of metaphor.
someThinkingApe 7 months ago
It's kind of like making an estimation. The larger the scale of the value you're estimating, the greater the margin of error. It seems like this concept of metaphor is similar. Applying something from within the set of all sets, to describe the set of all sets, results in that greater margin of error, that seems inherent. It's just like the levels of language adage you like: "No communication can be properly defined or understood at the level of which it occurs: this sentence is in English." : )
specialmike140 7 months ago
1:09 ~ School is like a factory =P
~
IMO humans aren't evolutionarily equipped to truly comprehend the "set of all sets" - it wud take an experiential state of being to do so, which means living in 10th (or 11th) dimension whilst simultaneously living within all the preceding dimensions. A feat only possible by what I understand "god" to be.
The best us lowly Homosapiensapiens can aspire to is to bask in it's glow by achieving what is colloquially termed a state of "Spiritual Enlightenment"
LazarusCato 7 months ago
@LazarusCato Just to add to that:
We currently live in the 4th Dimension.
1. Length, 2. Width, 3. Depth, 4. Linear Time
Even though we know the 5th Dimension to be Non-Linear time - to live in such a Dimension is very hard to imagine.
Heres a cool video to check out:
watch?v=uY_ZgAvXsuw
^ The Dimensions Explained ^
LazarusCato 7 months ago
You have rghtly described the shortcoming in describing the set as a whole in relation to one of its members. In highlighting one truth of a set through metaphor, we do obscure other realities of the set. However, when we consider the greatest set itself, the set of all sets: being, existence or better yet the groundwork for all being (i.e. God), it is important to consider that we are members of the set. We find ourselves positioned within the set itself. And therefore it is profitable
kerplunk288 7 months ago
(cont) to use other intelligible members of the set to which we are better acquainted with by reason of our senses and experience to describe the set as a whole. While we need to recognize the limitations of metaphor, we must ultimately recognize the necessity. Despite our attempts, we are not disembodied minds contemplating the whole of existence.
kerplunk288 7 months ago
Nice vid. I would agree, but doesn't it depend more on the analogy, example, metaphor, whatever and the degree of subjectivity versus objectivity in it. Even a really basic one can lend itself to comprehensive and overarching concepts. An example might be "love is empathy" versus "love is sympathy" and even those could be expounded upon greatly in both subjective or objective terms. Maybe that's coherent; idk. Good vid.
PawnBACM 7 months ago
True, insofar as we try to make our words fit the whole of reality and do not engage in a challenging application of what we are talking about, then the more we try to talk our way into conveying the truth the more we may conceal it or just confuse the bejesus out of ourselves. Yet, if I say it is raining kittens outside and you look outside and notice the rain and kittens falling out of a tree, THEN you could move more into the experience and humor of the moment -- until you feel guilty.
gedgetips 7 months ago
Hmmm, mathematics is the only language capable of dealing with the set of all sets. Chomsky really did us all the service of using discrete mathematics to formulate a general framework for generative grammar and syntactic structure. Ultimately language is completely describable using discrete math
JRHartly1984 7 months ago
Comment removed
TWITfromURANUS 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you believe anything you say?!
theDracoIX 7 months ago
Nietzsches perspectivism posits that one is always coming from a perspective or an interpretation and that the most one can really do is to get as many "angles" on the thing as many "eyes" on the thing as one can get and through that one may know the the a bit more holistically.
F1ghtclub2k11 7 months ago
No God is not inherent (or something) I just hear that Jahve is something shiny and four angel whit six-wing ferry circles around him and those angels singin also ool time.
Engravingsful 7 months ago
LMAO difficulty doing communications. Try your hand at some real academics like chemistry or physics for once professor.
japanezeboi 7 months ago
For that reason when we go beyond limitations of the senses, and investigate with totally inadequate language, stuff like metaphysics, tradition uses negative language such as "not this, not that".
i.e: the word infinite is negation of finite, typical in metaphysics.The problem is when people want to use ordinary language for stuff where it does not applies. At best things like negative language, symbolism or poetry, though not appropriate, are still more capable of communicating some concepts
cacahouetech 7 months ago
(Had trouble posting so the responses below are to be read from bottom up!(
Ozrielos 7 months ago
And is this such a difficult idea for even an atheist to feel?
The company computer network - the smallest unit in the huge computer network that is the internet
The family unit - the smallest unit in the huge social unit that is society, with its
"founding fathers", etc
Ozrielos 7 months ago
For me, coming from a religious perspective (and I am aware that this may be distasteful to you) this is less difficult to understand...
Remember Blake talking about "seeing the universe in a grain of sand"?
The idea was obviously not unique to him, and is found as a principle across
theologies and faiths; of elements within the universe
acting as miniature versions of the whole.
Ozrielos 7 months ago
Professor, your implication seems to be that things can only be defined in relation to
other things on the same plain of existence - tests to rollercoasters,
love to a game, etc
Ozrielos 7 months ago