The Absolute Infinite is mathematician Georg Cantor's concept of an "infinity" that transcended the transfinite numbers. Cantor equated the Absolute Infinite with God.^{[1]} He held that the Absolute Infinite had various mathematical properties, including that every property of the Absolute Infinite is also held by some smaller object^{[citation needed]}.
Contents
Cantor's view
Cantor is quoted as saying:
Cantor also mentioned the idea in his letters to Richard Dedekind (text in square brackets not present in original):^{[5]}
A multiplicity is called wellordered if it fulfills the condition that every submultiplicity has a first element; such a multiplicity I call for short a "sequence".
...
Now I envisage the system of all [ordinal] numbers and denote it Ω.
...
The system Ω in its natural ordering according to magnitude is a "sequence".
Now let us adjoin 0 as an additional element to this sequence, and place it, obviously, in the first position; then we obtain a sequence Ω′:
0, 1, 2, 3, ... ω_{0}, ω_{0}+1, ..., γ, ...
of which one can readily convince oneself that every number γ occurring in it is the type [i.e., ordertype] of the sequence of all its preceding elements (including 0). (The sequence Ω has this property first for ω_{0}+1. [ω_{0}+1 should be ω_{0}.])
Now Ω′ (and therefore also Ω) cannot be a consistent multiplicity. For if Ω′ were consistent, then as a wellordered set, a number δ would correspond to it which would be greater than all numbers of the system Ω; the number δ, however, also belongs to the system Ω, because it comprises all numbers. Thus δ would be greater than δ, which is a contradiction. Therefore:
The system Ω of all [ordinal] numbers is an inconsistent, absolutely infinite multiplicity.
The BuraliForti paradox
The idea that the collection of all ordinal numbers cannot logically exist seems paradoxical to many. This is related to Cesare BuraliForti's "paradox" 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.
Full article ▸
