100%(2)100% au considerat acest document util (2 voturi)

58 vizualizări5 paginiMathematics and Philosophy of set theory

Jan 11, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

Mathematics and Philosophy of set theory

© All Rights Reserved

100%(2)100% au considerat acest document util (2 voturi)

58 vizualizări5 paginiMathematics and Philosophy of set theory

© All Rights Reserved

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 5

Mathematics and Philosophy of set theory

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 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.

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 .

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)

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)

..

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.