On the Nature of Parts and their Whole

It has occurred to me that the relevance of the part is defined by the whole. To make this more clear take, say, the set of real numbers. This must be an uncountable infinite and thus contains the essence of infinity and its attributes. To make this subject clearer proceed to the following example.


Let us say that there exists a person who has no prior knowledge of circles, but encounters a circle segment.
But can the segment lead to the circle, how could the part lead to the whole? The part of the circle is defined as such through the very being of the circle itself. So clearly our example is preposterous we could not call a segment a 'circle segment' unless we had clear knowledge of what a circle was. So the knowledge of the segment of a circle is a part of the its respective whole, complete knowledge of the circle itself.

Coming back to the matter at hand, could numbers being a part of infinity lead to infinity? Would it not be infinity which necessarily dictates the being of numbers by a similar argument; For the numerical infinity must encompass all possible numbers in its being, and we have shown that the substance of a higher level of existence, that is the singularity, gives rise to its form respective forms. We should note that from our definitions it is clear that infinity is a singularity.

It is a surprising result to conclude that numbers cannot exist independent of infinity, and hence infinity necessarily exists for numbers do also exist. This is a paradigm shift in our traditional views on metaphysics, moving away from insistence of analytic construction from the lesser to the greater, but arguing for the greater giving rise to the lesser on its own accord. This now in turn opens up an important analysis into that 'analytic construction'. Clearly it is the work of the human mind, and so some innate epistemological structure must exist within the mind.

Concluding Remarks

To the unlearned mind which insists upon materialism or empiricism, this may seem very surprising as infinity is not a material construct, nor a concept which could be understood by such means. Do not treat this as a formal argument, although I believe there to be great truth in it. In fact I would argue that formalism is a deceptive mode of inquiry, the essence of argument must be in sound logic, but all logic fundamentally reduces to the naive archetypes of intuition which are in built in the human mind. I believe that these fundamental intuitions are represented clearly in my arguments, and that the reader through their own discourse could arrive at similar conclusions, and at the very least I encourage each person to use this method of inquiry to uncover their own understanding and knowledge.