You can set up a one to one correspondence between all the points on a line (or in a square or in a cube) and all the clock faces a working clock can produce but you cannot do the same with all possible clock faces.

The set of all clock faces a working clock can produce - call this the set of all valid clock faces - has the same topology (and cardinality) as a circle. The set of all possible clock faces has the same topology (and cardinality) as a 2-dimensional torus.

However, the cardinality of a 2-dimensional torus is the same as the cardinality of a square, which is the same as the cardinality of a line (as you yourself recognize), which is the same as the cardinality of a circle.

Therefore the set of all valid clock faces has the same cardinality as the set of all possible clock faces.

the faces a working clock can produce is just ONE way all real numbers can be paired together, the power set is ALL the ways 2 real numbers can be paired together, it has a larger cardinality than the points on a line and is the number of all possible clock faces.

A power set indeed has a larger cardinality than the set it is a power set of. However, the set of all possible clock faces is not the power set of the set of all valid clock faces.

You can set up a one to one correspondence between all the points on a line (or in a square or in a cube) and all the clock faces a working clock can produce but you cannot do the same with all possible clock faces.

Perhaps I can help explain why this is wrong by giving a constructive counter-example. Correct me if I'm wrong, but by "the set of all clock faces" you mean the set of all positions the two hands of a clock could take. You can specify the position of the clock hands by stating the angles they make relative to any fixed position -- say the 12 position for concreteness. Suppose the angles are expressed in radians and take values in the set [0, 2*pi). Multiply each angle by the conversion factor "1 rotation per 2*pi radians" to map the angles into the set [0, 1). Now you can express any specific "clock face" by a point in the unit square. Then you can return to my original point about space-filling curves showing that this has the same cardinality as a line segment.

You can set up a one to one correspondence between all the points on a line (or in a square or in a cube) and all the clock faces a working clock can produce but you cannot do the same with all possible clock faces. And I thought I was clear, I don't know what you mean about me equivocating between a set and it's power set; the faces a working clock can produce is just ONE way all real numbers can be paired together, the power set is ALL the ways 2 real numbers can be paired together, it has a larger cardinality than the points on a line and is the number of all possible clock faces.

Evidently you are more confused than I realized. OK, last attempt at explaining this. The power set of R would be the set of all subsets of R, not just the set of all size-2 subsets of R. (I will ignore for now that you are talking about pairs and what you want here is ordered pairs.) The set of pairs of reals is in bijection with R. And any clock face, valid or not, can be described by an ordered pair of reals; there is no such clock face, valid or not, as {1, 3, 5} or {n in N | 2n+1 is prime}. Your conclusion that the set of clock faces has a higher cardinality than R does not follow, and in fact is false - as I pointed out in a cousin comment, R x R is in bijection with R, and as the set of pairs of reals injects into this, the result follows by Schroeder-Bernstein.

You seem to be equivocating between "the set of all clock faces (valid or not)" and "the set of all ways of pairing up members of R" (which could mean any of several different things, but for now we'll leave it unspecified as the distinction is irrelevant - they'd have the same cardinality). The latter does indeed have cardinality greater than that of R, but this is an entirely different set than the former.

You really need to be more precise with your language. "The set of all ways 2 real numbers can be paired together" would usually be interpreted to mean "the set of all 2-element subsets of R", not the much larger set above.

Earlier you wrote:

The Power Set of C would be the set of all subsets of paired numbers between 0 and 12, all the ways a pair of 2 real numbers can be arranged, all the ways 2 clock hands can be arranged not just the ways a properly operating clock will produce them.

It's really not clear what sets you're referring to here. "All subsets of paired numbers between 0 and 12?" "All the ways a pair of 2 real numbers can be arranged?" I can guess at what you mean but I can't be certain I'm right - especially because you are using these as if they are self-evidently the same, while my best guesses for what you mean by each of them, if they were taken in isolation, would be very different sets! Please go back and learn the standard terminology so people have some idea what you're saying.

You also say an entire paragraph is "simply wrong" but you don't say what you object to other than to note that the laws concerning finite sets are different than those concerning infinite sets and obviously I agree. But what don't you like in my statement?

I did not just say "the laws concerning finite sets and infinite sets are different"; I pointed out specifically which principle you appeared to be attempting to use that is not valid. Downvoted.

You also say an entire paragraph is "simply wrong" but you don't say what you object to other than to note that the laws concerning finite sets are different than those concerning infinite sets and obviously I agree. But what don't you like in my statement?

Sniffnoy's next remark was relevant. What he was saying was simply wrong was the idea that if one set A contains another set B then A must have higher cardinality than B. It seems that you have some confusion about how cardinality of infinite sets behaves. It might help to read the relevant Wikipedia entries starting with the basic one on cardinality or look at a standard textbook on set theory. Some of these issues will also be handled by a real analysis textbook.