Rumi was right.
First, a little easy peasy machinery.
Cardinality:it refers to the size or number of elements in a set — where set is a well-defined collection of objects/ entities or anything.
For example, consider the set A={●,□,■} .
It has a cardinality of three because it contains three distinct elements.
We can construct sets of any size.
Some are finite, like the one above. Others are infinite — such as the set of all natural numbers, whose cardinality is called aleph-null ().
The set of all real numbers has a greater cardinality, denoted by c (the continuum).
Both are infinite, yet one is bigger than the other - yes, some infinities are bigger than others.
(This is for someother day).
We are done.
Now, here’s the question: this entire machinery is a product of the human mind (right).
Human knowledge itself arises within time, space, and the laws that govern the universe.
So even when math feels like discovery, it is an invention — bound by the limits of human cognition.
We count, measure, and classify to make sense of reality.
But it gets tricky when we extend this language to metaphysics,to something divine.
When people say God is One, I dont get what that truly means in essence.
If God exists beyond space, beyond time, beyond all limitations, then He must also exist beyond the math structures we use to describe existence.
Cardinality, after all, is a human framework for comparing the sizes of sets within our own universe in discourse.
Even when we speak of infinity — countable or uncountable -we remain within the boundaries of our own definitions.
This limitation is not a thing at all;when it’s already present within math itself ,within the math of cardinality itself.
Consider the Lord russell’s Paradox* “set of all sets.”
In naïve set theory,consider a set that contains all possible sets.
this leads to a contradiction:
If such a set exists, what about the set of all sets that do not contain themselves?
Does it contain itself?/ what is cardinality of it ,?
Either answer breaks the system.
or roughly consider for example A={x :such that
x ∉ A}
/∉ means not contained/(if it contains anything, then according to how its defined it must not contain that thing, and if it doesnt contain that thing/object, then again according to how its defined the said thing must be in it.
basically framework collapses here.Modern math resolves this by saying the 'collection of all sets' is not a set at all.And renames it from set theory to naïve set theory.
It’s defined as a proper class-meaning something too vast to fit inside the very framework that defines sets and cardinality for them.
It’s a meta-concept: the system can point to it, but can't include it.
Even the purest logic therefore collapses when it tries to contain its own totality.how come God and his attributes.
So when we say God is One, we are already reducing the divine to mere math language/to numerical scale ,trying to contain the uncontainable.
Maybe One isn’t a number at all, but a metaphor for something idk, something beyond all measure or division or in a way to dismiss the other existing claimed gods .
If God truly transcends what is measurable or conceivable, then to assign Him even the number makes no sense to me (atleast).
To ask, What is the cardinality of set containing God? would be like asking, How heavy is God.(God forbid) or How old is God, or asking cardinality of above set A- questions that lose meaning the moment they are asked.
But it also tells not every systematically correct question is correct always.Maybe the above one too.
Comments