Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

ALEXIS KARPOUZOS

INFINITY AND THE MIND


Mathematics and Philosophy of set theory

The Reflection Principle

What is the (Omega) (1) ? is the absolute infinity that is not limited from
any constraint. Equivalently, the is what human beings are thinking when
they speak for the notion of infinity. The nature of infinity does not allow us to
rationally, objectively, and completely understand the Absolute. Therefore, the
Absolute can be comprehended only subjectively. In return, this leads to an
identification of our shelf with the Absolute, which is equivalent with
abandonment of our personal identity, and to a deconstruction of our egoistic
Ego.
To this point, a brief reference on the Reflection Principle will be provided, the
way it is described in Set Theory. In particular, according to this principle, any
property that characterizes the absolute set of Cantor V (the Absolute Infinite,
the class of all sets) characterizes also any set. The equivalent philosophical
version of the principle could be: Any property that can characterize the
Absolute is also a property of a smaller entity. The motivation behind the
Reflection Principle has its roots on the idea that the Absolute has to be totally
inconceivable. Therefore, if there exists a property A that it is only a property
of the Absolute, then we could conceive it as the unique thing with the
property A. But, the Reflection Principle does not allow such a thing. In
particular, it states that any time that someone strongly thinks a very powerful

property A, then the first thing that he can find that is characterized by this
property, will not be the Absolute, but some smaller rational thought that just
reflects this part of the Absolute which is expressed by the property A.

..The Invisible
The Reflection Principle points out the necessary vertical order: finite <
transfinite < infinite. Those who study set theory see V as a fan that opens
and expands above. The several levels of this fan are called individual
universes or Va. Therefore, at the base of the cone (V) there is the empty set
(V0). Moving upwards, the level V6 includes almost googol^200 elements,
that is 10^100^200 since a googol equals 10^100.(2). The set V contains
any finite figure that a human being can conceive. In the set V+ are
objectively included all the standard mathematic theories. Finally, the set V is
the universe of the classic Set Theory. Apart from the above, there exists , ,
until finally we reach Va. Nowadays; those who are occupied with Set
Theory are occupied with a universe of a size (Va) more or less. Upwards and
downwards, like a pick of a cloud, stands proudly the absolute , the Absolute
Infinite. From the above, arises that the complexity of any set x can be
specified by an ordinal number that is called class of x. In general, the set Va
is the set that includes the sum of all the sets with a class smaller than a, and
it is the eminent irrational.

The Exuberant Principle (3)


The question that arises is: What is the relation of the physical universe U with
the universe V? Everyday experience opposes to any suspicion that U is very
large. In traditional (classical) philosophy, there exists the plethoric principle or
Exuberant Principle that suggests that the physical universe is equally rich
with the set- theoretical universe of genuine platonic ideas. To the degree that

only physical frame can be encoded into a set, it is expected that V can be as
large as U or even larger. The Exuberant Principle requires that U is equally
large or larger than V leading to the conclusion that the sets U and V are
equally large.

..The Cyclical principle of the Non-Transitivity


It was previously stated that the vertical order of the infinite sets and the linear
order of finite-transfinite-Absolute infinite awes. At least up to a point, both the
finite and the transfinite are comprehensible notions, on the contrary the
Absolute infinite is (or has to be) entirely incomprehensible and unspeakable.
But the exuberant Principle suggests that the sets U and V are equally large.
If it is so then is larger/stronger than V, and V is equal to U. Therefore,
according to the standard transitivity assumption, U is smaller and weaker
than . This is the simple vertical order from upwards to downwards. Though,
what can be said if the above can be seen as a non-transitive relation?
Meaning that, they could be understood by the unconventional perspective of
a cyclical order, an non-transitive relation that does not follow common sense.
A note on the game rock-scissors-paper combined with the discovery of the
nontransitive dice can be helpful. That would mean that, according to the nontransitive relation, V is equally large and strong as .

The Problem of One/Multiple


This may be the way to solve the Problem of One/Multiple, which occupies
both the philosophical and the Set Theory world. In short terms, can it be
implied that all the different absolutes, i.e. God, Truth, Beauty, Class of All

Sets, Noosphere, Good etc., are different facets of the unique and ultimate
One? (4) Indeed this problem is analogous to Set Theory.
In Set Theory there is a distinction between two different absolutes: a) The
infinite that can be represented with and b) the universe that can be
represented with V. On the one hand, the can be considered as the class of
all ordinals, on the other hand the V is the class of all sets. Since any ordinal
can be represented as a set, then in a simpler level, V can be considered
larger than . Though, the desire is to identify all the absolutes. Therefore, it
can be conjectured that any set is also represented by an ordinal and thus
according with the approach of cardinality this results to V= . That is that the
Absolute Infinite is as equally large as the Universe. The statement that =V
means that there exists one-to-one correspondence between the class of
ordinal numbers and the class of sets. But since such a correspondence is by
itself a proper class it is difficult to be sure it exists. (5)

and the Axiom of Global Choice (6)


If the infinites are considered to be of an absolute and vertical order, then
indeed they cannot be assigned one-to-one, because otherwise there would
be a proper class set. But, if they are considered as a dynamic and a nontransitive relation then this assignment can be done with a non-proper class
outcome. Careful though! This can be achieved only through Conscience,
which participates to this unification as a Global Physical Constant. This is the
way that the assumption of the Set Theory that such a correspondence exists
can be verified. This is the only way that the Axiom of Global choice can be
verified. The aforementioned Axiom is an outcome from the stronger Axiom of
Limitation of Size (7) which in a way is related with continuum hypothesis
problem of Cantor.(8)

..

1. Omega is called the non imaginary Absolute Infinite.


2. A googol is the large number 10^100.
3. This Axiom suggests that the physical universe is equally rich with the settheoretical universe of the platonic Ideas.
4. Noosphere . The same way the physical objects exist and move in a
physical space that is called three-dimensional visible universe, the same way
the thoughts and consciences exist and move in the multi-dimensional mental
space-time that is called Noosphere.
5. In Set Theory the term class declares a collection or a manifold of any
kind. A class either it can or it cannot be unified in a set. If it cannot then it is
called a proper class. Therefore V is a proper class that cannot be considered
as a unity.
6. The hypothesis that there exists one-to-one correspondence between the
class of ordinal numbers and the class of the sets.
7. In class theories, the axiom of limitation of size says that for any class C, if
and only if it can be mapped onto the class V.
8. This hypothesis states that there is no set whose cardinality is strictly
between that of the integers and the real numbers.