Daniel

no, of course not. i think there's an important distinction between having no doubt, and lacking doubt in some things. If I scroll up, I think it will be clear that no doubt, absolutely none, was being discussed. bringing an example of the pious doesn't quite fit if they are only partially lacking doubt. but this depends on what you mean by mission and what you mean by "Saint" capital "S". If you mean Christian Saints, then the 72 are relevant for discussion.

No doubts about certain things? That's different than having no doubt unqualified. Is their mission exciting? what is exciting about it? how are you defining their mission? when the 72 were sent, did they know how they would be rec'd? Luke 10?

If there is a distinction between knowing and comprehension ( understanding ), then it can be understood as unknowable. If so infinity is fully comprehensible by a finite being.

Agreed! The question I'm asking is: If there is no doubt, then everything is certain. If everything is certain, there is no motive-to-explore. If there is no motive-to-explore, what is exciting?

There is, but, I'm not sure you will appreciate the advice I'm going to offer. Do you have medical insurance with psychiatric coverage? If so, perhaps, perscribed medication will be less out-of-pocket expense. I'm not judging you in a negative way, I promise. And I'm not saying conventional psychiatirc treatment is "easy". Finding a good psychiatrist, I've been told, can feel like digging for water in a drought. It sounds like you're aware of at least the potential for mental health issues. If you're looking for "control of your energy" I am guessing there is medication that can bring relief for the feelings of "lack of control of your energy". The key, I think, will be finding a Dr. that does not automatically associate your spiritual beliefs with symptoms. Beyond that. And this is important. I think it would be good to ask yourself how you will feel if this "lack of control of your energy" diminishes. Do you actually want that? If this feeling is reduced, will that make you feel as if, your own energy has been reduced or diminshed? It could be, honestly, you're doing everything right, already! But there is a little piece of you that desires the feeling of "lack of control of your energy" because, it feels good to consider that you are in possession of "uncontrolable amounts of energy". If so, I doubt anything will bring substantial relief while this desire is undermining your efforts.

My advice: walk away, cut off communications, and never look back. RED-FLAG. This person is trying to take advantage of you.

Ah yes, I missed that case. Oops, sorry, and thank you. It still doesn't matter. In that case, : A ⊆ B => A ∩ B ≠ {} is still true. If A ⊆ B is false, then "=>" is always true in the above proposal. But, I'll update what I wrote in a bit, to add that case. It seems like we have 3 of the four possibilities covered from the truth table, right? All that's missing is the elusive, P is true and Q is false. P => Q | True/False T | T | True ( example: A:{ 1 } B:{ 1 , 2 } ) T | F | False ????? F | T | True ( example: A:{ 1 ,2 } B:{ 2 , 3 } ) F | F | True ( example: A:{ 1 } B: { 2 } ) And this is honestly an important point. why choose => instead of boolean AND for defintions? It's the weakest of the weak standard for truth? That is just ZFC. The set of all sets exists in other set theories. I know that ZFC works. I never said it didn't. I brought multiple sources. 5 I think. All are showing that {} ... drumroll .... doesn't exist. Senior PHD Physicist from Duke University explained it. It's NOT an empty box. That's a false analogy. I understand it as a box lacking a bottom, or a bag with a hole in the bottom, or a black hole. It's interesting to me that you chose the words "horror story" to describe this. As if this is something to be afraid of. Again, it's like a witch trial. I'm speaking blasphemy. And you're crying out "burn him, burn him" like the The Holy Grail. ( You're aware of the famous scene, right? The witch trial is all about "logic" ) But I've said "everything fits and plays nicely if {} is interpretted properly". So, what's the "horror story"? A change in perspective? Is that really so scary? Really??? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ask yourself this. And maybe let's skip it for now. If {} is a subset of itself, doesn't it suffer from the same paradox as the set of all sets? You've repeatedly asserted "the universal set does not exist". OK. {} ⊆ {} ? Is it {}? or is it { {} }? or is it { { {} } }? or is it { { { {} } } }? or is it { { { { {} } } } }? etc. so how can {} = {} ? it doesn't even exist? If {} exists, and {} = {}, then the set of all sets exists too and russel's paradox is fallacious. Unless. Like I said before.. ⊆ is interpretted in the inverse for {} ⊆ . This is the defintion I brought for disjoint: ( edit: here's a link to that post: LINK ) A & B are disjoint if A ∉ B and B ∉ A. And I don't see why the diagrams I brought are not sufficient.

This sounds like blatant dishonesty, or selection bias. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias I experience souls everyday of the week all day long. I am quite sure you would deny my experience as a product of religious doctrine even though it is easy to prove. Search the thread for hammer, and you will find a post where a hammer's soul is objectively described. Another buddhist tried to deny it and failed. or it makes perfect sense. but it doesn't make sense to you that you are unable to answer. and the only way to make sense of it is to assume that the question is the problem.

👍 Maybe substantiating it requires dharma. Not that the words don't exist or that there is not a way to substantiate it, but without a dharma transmission that is developed over years and years and years of day after day after day 24/7 monastary life with an *actual* enlightened master, a person literally cannot rise to these challenges. 👍 At this point I would expect, you will be directed to the experience. You will be told it cannot be understood or described. I actually doubt that this is true, but, this is a limitation on the teacher. They don't know what they don't know. If they only know an experience, and were never taught anything else, perhaps their own teachers never taught them more, or didn't know any more... I actually think, in this specific case it's more of a hobby. A passion. A serious time-consuming hobby. Yes a form of escape, but not from suffering.

I went back, re-read the questions. Started writing a reply. Then felt that ship had sailed, and, the thread had moved on. I remember you asked about the rear-guard. It's just an idea of being solo and self sufficient. And in context, I was trying to communicate I am not like the crowd. I am a unique self-sufficent individual. The rear guard, is the last team in the field, needs to be able to do it all on their own. Also, they need indigeous knowledge, and, are often medics. Any that have fallen and are not able to keep up with the convoy end up falling back with the rear guard. There's a biblcal story, idea, myth, about the rear guard. Guess who? The tribe of Dan. They were known as the in-gathers, the finders of lost things. If anything, anything at all was dropped along the way in the wilderness, the Tribe of Dan would find it and send it up with Natfali, the runners, who were like a deer. There's other myths of the Tribe of Dan, some good some bad. But all of it is inspiring for me.

what does it mean, to you, to be excited?

Important note! I typo'd. "unless ∩ has a different meaning when used with {}... just like ∩.... " I meant to copy paste subset, not intersection. "unless ∩ has a different meaning when used with {}... just like ⊆..." very important. Remember how I said if {} is interpretted properly everything fits and plays nicely? Consider: 1 + ( +1 ) = 1 + 1 1 + ( - 1 ) = 1 - 1. 1 - ( - 1 ) = 1 + 1. What's happening here? + is intuitive - is the inversion 1 + ( +1 ) is intuitive, it is adding. 1 + ( - 1 ) is an inversion, it is subracting. 1 - ( - 1 ) is an inversion of the inversion, it is adding. A set is a collection of elements. It is **inclusive**. That is it's defintion. What's {}???? It is NOT a collection of elements. It can never ever under any circumstances possess an element. It is the inversion of a set. It is **exclusive**, excluding ( verb ). A set includes, {} excludes. OK, ok, now.... what if the same idea for " 1 + ( -1 ) " is applied to set operators with {}? It's beautiful. Everything fits. {} ∉ {}? What is ∉? Is it inclusive or exclusive? Exclusive, right? It is saying there are no elements in {}. {} is the inverse of a set. it is exclusive. Exclusive agrees and is consistent with ∉. Therefore it is interpretted intuitively. {} IS disjoint from {}. {} ⊆ A? What is ⊆? Is it inclusive or exclusive? Inclusive, right? It is saying there is at least 1 matching element in A. {} is the inverse of a set. It is exclusive. The exclusive {} DISAGREES with the inclusive ⊆, just like the + and - disagree in " 1 + ( -1 ) ". If {} ⊆ A is true, then, what if I invert its interpretation? It's weird, but it works. {} ⊆ A means, in english, "there are **no elements** in A other than A" because {} has no elements. If so, can't this be said of each and every set? If I consider { 1 ,2 , 3 }, it's like I have a glass, and it is just the right size to fit { 1 , 2 , 3 } and nothing more. When I say "nothing more", that IS {}. "nothing more" = {}. Can it be said that {} is a subset of every set? Kind of. It's a subset, but not like any other subset. When I say "nothing more" in english, what does that mean? Doesn't it mean what I said perviously? If I have a set A:{ 1 , 2 , 3 } and nothing more, then, A: { 1 , 2 , 3 , {} }. ( ignore the cardinality ). A: { 1 , 2 , 3 , { ... not-1, not-2, not-3, not-4, not-5, not-6, not-7, not-8, not-9 .... } } and it goes on forever? { ... not-shirt, not-shoes, not-hat, not-gloves, not-aardvark, not-dog, not-sitting, not-flying, not-dreams, not-dreaming, not-milk, not-non-dairy-milk-eventhough-it-doesn't-exsist, ... } So, is {} even a set? Once it is considered as a subset, yeah. That's because it was put in a box. { {} }. Before then, is it a set? { A, B , C } ∩ { 1 , 2 , 3 } = ??? <------ that's not a set. It's not a collection. It's a class, an action. A never ending action. A super simple algorithm which produces a realization of 無. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now the question can be answered If {} is disjoint from itself, {} ⊆ {} is true or false? If it's true then it cannot be disjoint from itself. If it's false it cannot be s subset of every set. {} ∉ {} is true! This can be interpretted naturally. {} is consistent with ∉; both are exclusive. {} IS disjoint from itself. {} ⊆ {} is true, BUT, it must be interpretted in the inverse. {} is inconsistent with ⊆. {} is exclusive, ⊆ is inclusive. {} is NOT a subset of itself or any other set. But, {} ⊆ {} is still true, if the quality of nullification, "nothing more, always nothing more..." is understood about it. This means that any set, always has a subset included, it's partner, a never-ending-negation. Including this faux-subset means "that's it, nothing more is being included". And every set includes this as a consequence of being a collection of elements. Now we can look at the examples of intersections. A ∩ B = {} is disjointed {} ∩ A = {} is ????? {} is inconsistent with ∩. {} is exclusive, ∩ is inclusive. {} ∩ A is true, but, it means that there is NOT an element in {} which is also in A. {} ∩ A = {} is disjointed. {} ∩ {} = {} is also disjointed. Here's a fun one. {} = {} ???? is it true or false?

Nope. Not too bad. Boss calls and says "I only have a few seconds, we can't take in any payments. ~click~" I heard "patients". Not taking in any "payments" is much much less of a problem. However, once I was there, it was a lot of "... oh! while you're here..." "∀A, B: A ⊆ B => A ∩ B ≠ {}." OK! I had time to ponder. And this ^^ doesn't accomplish anything in regards to the question I asked. I asked: If {} is disjoint from itself, {} ⊆ {} is true or false? If it's true then it cannot be disjoint from itself. If it's false it cannot be s subset of every set. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 1: A and B are disjointed. The most important question, due to the truth table for entailment is, can A ∩ B ≠ {} ever be false? Answer: of course!!! Not sure why I didn't realize that immediately, but, anyways. It always false if A and B are disjointed. So... now I need to go back and consider A ⊆ B. If A, and B are disjointed, then, A ⊆ B, is always false. Returning to P and Q from before: Premise 'P': A ⊆ B Premise "Q": A ∩ B ≠ {} Truth Table for P "=>" Q P | Q | True/False T | T | T T | F | F F | T | T F | F | T If A & B are disjointed then, P is false and Q is false. P => Q | True/False F | F | True Case 1: A & B are disjointed: A ⊆ B => A ∩ B ≠ {} is True. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Case 2: A and B are not disjointed. If A & B are not disjointed then A ∩ B ≠ {} is always true AND A ⊆ B is always true. Premise 'P': A ⊆ B Premise "Q": A ∩ B ≠ {} Truth Table for P "=>" Q P | Q | True/False T | T | T T | F | F F | T | T F | F | T If A & B are disjointed then, P is true and Q is true. P => Q | True/False T | T | True Case 2: A & B are NOT disjointed: A ⊆ B => A ∩ B ≠ {} is True. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore "∀A, B: A ⊆ B => A ∩ B ≠ {}." is always and forever true. A and B can be disjoint or not. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I asked: If {} is disjoint from itself, {} ⊆ {} is true or false? If it's true then it cannot be disjoint from itself. If it's false it cannot be s subset of every set. You answered: Please show: Please show that ∀A, B: A ⊆ B => A ∩ B ≠ {}. Your answer is irrelevant to evaluating {} ⊆ {}. Would you please answer my question now? I've been doing all the work here. It's fun, but, throw me a bone here, will 'ya? I do believe it's the standard defintion. Set A and B are disjoint if ( would prefer Iff, but, I don't make the rules ): A ∉ B and B ∉ A. {} ∉ {} means {} is disjoint from itself.

sorry, emergency at the office, I have to run away now....

What I brought was true!

I already posted this, did I miss your reply? A ∩ A = A is not disjointed, B ∩ B = B is not disjointed, C ∩ C = C is not disjointed {} ∩ {} = {} is not disjointed etc.... unless ∩ has a different meaning when used with {}... just like ∩....

Can't be, that contradicts the defintion of 'disjointed'.

Ahhhhh! I missed this reply! No Problem! Per the truth table P => Q, it's only false if A ⊆ B is true AND A ∩ B ≠ {} is false! So, my strategy first would be to prove that A ∩ B ≠ {} canot be false by contradiction, meaning it's always and forever true! A ⊆ B, true/false is completely irrelevant. Like I said => is the weakst stanadard for truth. I can probably do that.

I know!

Fair is fair, I answered your question, please answer my question: If {} is disjoint from itself, {} ⊆ {} is true or false? If it's true then it cannot be disjoint from itself. If it's false it cannot be s subset of every set. Pick one! Is it true or false? Perfectly fine. please answer my question:

This is what you asked ^^. This is an answer: If A = { 1 } AND B = { 1 , 2 , 3 } Then A ⊆ B => A ∩ B ≠ {} is True! Sounds like you wanted to ask: For any A and any B show that A ⊆ B => A ∩ B ≠ {}.

I said Let A = { 1 }. A = { 1 }. { 1 } => { 1 } =/= {} is true. This seemed obvious to me. Path of least resistance... backfired.

If that's true, then I answered your question correctly. All I need is one example which saticfies the condition. "∃A, B: A ⊆ B => A ∩ B ≠ {}" = there exists at least 1 pair of sets, A, B such that A ⊆ B => A ∩ B ≠ {}" Example: A = { 1 } B = { 1 , 2 , 3 ) Fair is fair, please answer my question: If {} is disjoint from itself, {} ⊆ {} is true or false? If it's true then it cannot be disjoint from itself. If it's false it cannot be s subset of every set. Pick one! Is it true or false? OK.. Step-by-Step , no AI assist, no online research, purely from memory ? A ⊆ B => A ∩ B ≠ {} ? Premise 'P': A ⊆ B Premise "Q": A ∩ B ≠ {} Truth Table for P "=>" Q P | Q | True/False T | T | T T | F | F F | T | T F | F | T Let A = { 1 } Let B = { 1 , 2 , 3 } { 1 } ⊆ { 1 , 2 , 3 } is true A ⊆ B is true P is true { 1 } ∩ { 1 , 2 , 3 } = 1 1 ≠ {} { 1 } ∩ { 1 , 2 , 3 } ≠ {} A ∩ B ≠ {} Q is true P is true Q is true P | Q | True/False T | T | T P => Q is true! ? A ⊆ B => A ∩ B ≠ {} ? If A = { 1 } AND B = { 1 , 2 , 3 } Then A ⊆ B => A ∩ B ≠ {} is True!

It's OK to be agressive. It's not OK to be dishonest. This ^^ is dishonest.

Not really sure what you're saying here. You corrected me. I accepted it. But, then I remembered, no... disjuction is OR. This should be a welcome correction, just as I welcomed your correction. Are we allies, or enemies? Do we have a common goal, or are we in some sort of competition? It seems like there is an effort to discredit what I'm saying, but, there is no reason to do so. I *actually* know what I'm taking about. I said disjoint was ideal earlier in the thread. this was 4 hours ago.