George Cantor is
credited with the conceptual construction called transfinite numbers, an endomorphization of the concept of infinite
within the system of the real numbers (ℝ). The tool for the construction was the creation of a
synthetic representation of the infinite as a whole, familiar to the Platonist
Weltanschauung, whose condition of possibility was the natural number, i.e.,
individuation: infinite is then the result of an endless aggregation. Of course
such a representation is not the actual representation of an intuition but the
representation of a continuing iterative process, which by its closed condition
(the finite character of the algorithm of counting), seems to have a meaning.
Once the infinite is an endomorphic concept of the system, any composition with
it will be endomorphic, including the notion of transfinite number.
Infinite
aggregates can be constructed either by endless iterative processes or by the
postulation of properties to which infinite extensions must follow. But the
aggregation of units is a synthesis of a different sort than the one obtained
by the postulation of a property which has some supposed extension of
individuals. In the first case, we proceed inductively, and the whole obtains
its meaning from the finitude of the algorithm, even if it cannot be intuited
in its infinite performance. In the second, we proceed holistically, and the
parts obtain their meaning in relation to the a priori meaning of the whole,
i.e., the property. In the first case, we reificate the whole, in the second,
the units or parts.
When the parts
are themselves processes of aggregation, the reification gets of second order
and all sorts of paradoxes grow, for now we are violating both the intuition of
iteration (iterating infinities), and the intuition of property (the finite
representation of a pairing, for we apply the possibility of the construction
of the concept to infinite extensions). In this framework, we meet all sort of
nonsensical postulates that mathematics forces us to take dogmatically (for
intuitively does not follow) under the disguise of theorems that follow from
ontoteological axioms (axiom of substitution, choice, infinitude, union), such
as: an infinite set has the same cardinality
as one of its subsets, a postulate that can only have meaning under the
reification of the extension of the set, metaphysically, or the reification of
the iterative process in a non-intuitive scale, metaphysically also, beyond all
life experience.
From a
mythopoetical point of view, the concept of infinity is a representation of the
concept of apeiron, whose form is conditioned by the ontoepistemology of the
myths assigned to the space-time intuitions. When space-time is curved,
infinity is bounded, i.e, finitized under a property. When space-time is
linear, infinity is unbounded, finitized under a process of iteration. When
space-time is liminal, infinity is just apeiron.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please write here your comments