Absolute infinite

Template:Short description The absolute infinite (symbol: Ω), in context often called "absolute", is an extension of the idea of infinity proposed by mathematician Georg Cantor. Cantor linked the absolute infinite with God,<ref>§3.2, Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="Cantor.1932">Template:Cite book Cited as Cantor 1883b by Jané; with biography by Adolf Fraenkel; reprinted Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1962, and Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1980, Template:ISBN.</ref>Template:Rp<ref name="Cantor.1883b">Template:Cite journal Original article.</ref>Template:Rp and believed that it had various mathematical properties, including the reflection principle: every property of the absolute infinite is also held by some smaller object.<ref>Infinity: New Research and Frontiers by Michael Heller and W. Hugh Woodin (2011), p. 11.</ref>Template:Clarify

Cantor's view

Cantor said:

The actual infinite was distinguished by three relations: first, as it is realized in the supreme perfection, in the completely independent, extra worldly existence, in Deo, where I call it absolute infinite or simply absolute; second to the extent that it is represented in the dependent, creatural world; third as it can be conceived in abstracto in thought as a mathematical magnitude, number or order type. In the latter two relations, where it obviously reveals itself as limited and capable for further proliferation and hence familiar to the finite, I call it Transfinitum and strongly contrast it with the absolute.<ref>https://www.uni-siegen.de/fb6/phima/lehre/phima10/quellentexte/handout-phima-teil4b.pdf
Translated quote from German:

Es wurde das Aktual-Unendliche (A-U.) nach drei Beziehungen unterschieden: erstens, sofern es in der höchsten Vollkommenheit, im völlig unabhängigen außerweltlichen Sein, in Deo realisiert ist, wo ich es Absolut Unendliches oder kurzweg Absolutes nenne; zweitens, sofern es in der abhängigen, kreatürlichen Welt vertreten ist; drittens, sofern es als mathematische Größe, Zahl oder Ordnungstypus vom Denken in abstracto aufgefaßt werden kann. In den beiden letzten Beziehungen, wo es offenbar als beschränktes, noch weiterer Vermehrung fähiges und insofern dem Endlichen verwandtes A.-U. sich darstellt, nenne ich es Transfinitum und setze es dem Absoluten strengstens entgegen.{{#if:|{{#if:|}}

— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries

}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}[Ca-a,<ref name="Cantor.1932"/> p. 378].</ref>{{#if:|{{#if:|}}

— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries

}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

While using the Latin expression in Deo (in God), Cantor identifies absolute infinity with God (GA 175–176, 376, 378, 386, 399). According to Cantor, Absolute Infinity is beyond mathematical comprehension and shall be interpreted in terms of negative theology.<ref>Template:Cite journal (peer-reviewed, Open Access). Also available on KOPS Universität Konstanz website.</ref>

Cantor also mentioned the idea in his letters to Richard Dedekind (text in square brackets not present in original):Template:Refn

The Burali-Forti paradox

{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} The idea that the collection of all ordinal numbers cannot logically exist seems paradoxical to many. This is related to the Burali-Forti's paradox which implies that there can be no greatest ordinal number. All of these problems can be traced back to the idea that, for every property that can be logically defined, there exists a set of all objects that have that property. However, as in Cantor's argument (above), this idea leads to difficulties.

More generally, as noted by A. W. Moore, there can be no end to the process of set formation, and thus no such thing as the totality of all sets, or the set hierarchy. Any such totality would itself have to be a set, thus lying somewhere within the hierarchy and thus failing to contain every set.

A standard solution to this problem is found in Zermelo set theory, which does not allow the unrestricted formation of sets from arbitrary properties. Rather, we may form the set of all objects that have a given property and lie in some given set (Zermelo's Axiom of Separation). This allows for the formation of sets based on properties, in a limited sense, while (hopefully) preserving the consistency of the theory.

While this solves the logical problem, one could argue that the philosophical problem remains. It seems natural that a set of individuals ought to exist, so long as the individuals exist. Indeed, naive set theory might be said to be based on this notion. Although Zermelo's fix allows a class to describe arbitrary (possibly "large") entities, these predicates of the metalanguage may have no formal existence (i.e., as a set) within the theory. For example, the class of all sets would be a proper class. This is philosophically unsatisfying to some and has motivated additional work in set theory and other methods of formalizing the foundations of mathematics such as New Foundations by Willard Van Orman Quine.

See also

• Actual infinity
• Limitation of size
• Monadology
• Reflection principle
• Absolute (philosophy)
• Ineffability

Bibliography

• The role of the absolute infinite in Cantor's conception of set
• Infinity and the Mind, Rudy Rucker, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995, Template:ISBN; orig. pub. Boston: Birkhäuser, 1982, Template:ISBN.
• The Infinite, A. W. Moore, London, New York: Routledge, 1990, Template:ISBN.
• Set Theory, Skolem's Paradox and the Tractatus, A. W. Moore, Analysis 45, #1 (January 1985), pp. 13–20.