The Continuum Hypothesis

This chapter is for those who would like to get a more precise answer to why the
term rich universe is borrowed from set-theory. I have used rich universe in a
much broader sense in relation to infinities as active agents that shape reality. In
set-theory a more narrow meaning is given to this, but the notion of an active infinite
agent also emerges if we study the continuum hypothesis.
The reader might be aware of countable sets and uncountable sets. Lots can be
found on the internet on this subject, but for the sake of self-containment I will
repeat it here but not to rigorous. The difference is that elements of countable sets
can be listed in such a way that no element is left out, that is you can count them.
Clearly positive whole numbers (natural numbers) can be counted, since they were
developed for that reason. So 1, 2, 3, is countable. If we take now the number
line and endow it with a decimal scale and choose a point on it, then some decimal
expression belongs to this point. There are three possibilities. To the point belongs
a finite decimal expression (a finite amount of digits are used), a repetitive infinite
sequence (not only zeros) of digits or a not repetitive infinite sequence of digits. The
first two are rational expressions and the third is an irrational expression. Whether
irrational expressions are good numbers or not is still debated, but most
mathematicians believe (or are made to believe) it to be proven that irrationals are
good numbers. I will not get into the details why this is still debated, because that is
not the purpose of this chapter. Why all the decimal expressions that belong to
points on the number line can not be listed is shown easily. Simply try to make such
a list. We only will take expressions that belong to points between 0 and 1.

1 0. 12 3 65 7 0 0 9 5 3 4 2 5 6 ...
2 0. 3 46 7 89 4 3 2 5 0 5 6 5 4 ...
3 0. 6 5 73 8 09 1 1 2 3 7 7 8 3 ...
4 0. 5 6 4 82 2 07 4 5 1 2 1 3 5 ...
5 0. 5 7 6 3 89 2 35 6 0 9 8 6 8 ...
6 0. 6 4 3 2 9 70 68 1 2 3 6 7 7 ...
7 0. 5 2 3 4 7 8 65 3 89 3 5 6 7 ...
8 0. 1 7 3 1 7 3 1 73 1 73 1 7 3 ...
9 0. 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 010 1 01 0 1 ...
... etc.

Take now the red digits. The expression 0. 2 3 6 5 5 9 9 9 0 cannot be on this list,
since it is different from the first to the ninth expression, because it differs at the
place of the red digit. From the blue digits we get that 0. 3 4 3 4 5 3 4 4 4 also
cannot be on this list. Clearly we can expand any decimal expression with infinitely
many digits by adding zeros to the right if need be. Besides of the red and blue
expressions we can thus come up with infinitely many expressions that are not on
this list. This is the so called diagonal argument of Cantor, which he used to show
that the real numbers (rational and irrational expressions) are uncountable. Cantor
didnt stop here and tried to proof whether there is or is not a kind of infinity
between countable and uncountable. He allegedly believed that there was no kind
of infinity between countable and uncountable, a belief which since then has
become known as the continuum hypothesis (CH). Cantor failed miserably and
could not proof CH. Some claim that his mental health suffered greatly from this. At
last Paul Cohen proved that CH was independent from the assumptions that were
made in set-theory. So the validity of CH could not be proven or disproven from
what was known. Actually one can choose CH to be true or to be false. The former
gives a neat controllable universe and the latter a rich universe. If one dives into the
mathematical details the whole subject becomes complex and abstract which is
rather discouraging. We will proceed in a more simple way.

Countable and uncountable are not strong enough to compare infinities, thus we
have to develope a new apparatus which can be used to invent infinites between
countable and uncountable. The main trick is to allow for infinite magnification of
sequences of points on the number line. Take for example the points belonging to 0,
0.5, 0.75, 0.875, , 1. So we put a point on 0, on the place between 0 and 1, a
point between these last two points etc. We generated thus an infinite sequence of
points and also a point at 1 to which this sequence of points converges. The point
at 1 is the so called limit point of the sequence. Note that if the limit point is
excluded we still have countably many points, we just dont have a last point.

. . . . . . ....
0 0.5 1

The points that we chose are so called material points. The points on the number
line we did not choose are immaterial. Note that a point can thus have several
properties. It can possess the property of material or immaterial, but not both. On
top of that a point can be a limit point or not. With sequences of points we always
mean sequences of material points, unless stated explicitly otherwise. As a rule we
invoke that if the environment of an immaterial point, that is not a limit point, is
magnified we only will see immaterial points, that is an emptiness. If a point is a limit
point it always has material points in its environment if we magnify finite many
times. How the environment of a limit point looks like if we magnify infinitely is
undecided. The question is what will be revealed if we magnify the environment
around a material point infinitely many times. With suitable rules this will distinguish
material points from immaterial points. To understand the gravity of the situation we
will do the reverse first. In this we will assume that every point on a segment is a
material point. For example take a segment of length 3. If we reduce its length
infinitely many times it shrinks to a material point, a segment with zero length. This
is the case for a segment of any length. But also if we shrink a material point itself
infinitely many times we state as a rule that we will end up with a material point.
Also if a finite sequence of material points is taken with a finite distance between
them all material points will coincide at one point, if we contract the sequence
infinitely many times. So the reverse of infinite shrinking, that is magnifying infinitely
around a material point can give different results. If now the magnification gives a
line segment then we ended up with a result that contains uncountably many points.
It might also be that after magnifications around a material point we again have a
countable large sequence of points with a limit point. At last we also might end up
with finitely many material points. So some countable sets of points yield locally
finite many points after infinite magnification, others may yield locally countably
many points, and some yield uncountably many points. If we magnify a sequence of
material points infinitely many times, we mean that we magnify the environment of
every material point and every limit point infinitely many times. We now state that
two point sequences are overall equally large if they contain the same amount of
material points before and after infinite magnification. A point sequence is stated to
be overall smaller if it contains less material points before magnification. If two
sequences are equally large before magnification, then the one that contains less
material points after infinite magnification is overall smaller. With the notion of
overall smaller and overall equally large, we have created infinities that are smaller
than uncountable and larger than countable. Take for example the point sequence
we started with. Before magnification the sequence contains countably many
material points, but after infinite magnification the third point from the left turned
into a segment. Clearly this is larger than countable. Because before magnification
we had less than uncountable many material points it is less than all points on the
number line, so smaller than the continuum.
We of course could repeat magnification and with our ordering of smallness could
go on indefinitely with creating sequences with a different order of infinite largeness.
This illustrates that if CH is false we have no meaningful ordering of infinities
between countable and uncountable. This in opposition to if CH is true, then we
have a neat well ordering of infinities.

Infinite magnification gives more surprising results. Our point sequence was up till
now in one dimension, but there is no reason that after magnification the sequence
was extended in another direction, say perpendicular to the direction of the original
sequence, so intrinsic dimension may change after infinite magnification. Actually
we might get something like a driving car, because any finite moving entity and the
finite universe it moves in will reduce to a material point after infinite shrinking. We
assumed without stating explicitly that infinite magnification of the same sequence
gives the same result always. But we could abandon that if we make magnification
time dependent. Actually change of nature and behavior may not be dismissed. This
all illustrates the soul like qualities of a rich universe, hence the reason I borrowed it
from set-theory. Clearly a rich universe does contain a neat controllable one. So
mathematics can exist within it. Since a rich universe overall is less suited for
mathematics, math as a tool is not enough to understand everything if one takes a
rich universe to be foundational in a worldview. Some think that those realms can
be understood with or revealed by math, but that is to no avail. Those who try so
only express their sad imprisonment in emptiness. They are in terms of a Rich
Universe in the broader sense in the death-grip of dark archontic forces from the
void and risk the danger that all life will be quenched from their soules. So I cant
help wondering what influence the wish for a Neat & Controllable universe had on
Cantors final fate.