# The Persistent Universe (Part 2) — Infinity

After more than 3 decades of contemplating infinity, I can say with confidence, infinity is one of the least understood concepts of mankind. What it means precisely depends entirely on who you ask. No one has cornered the market on the definition of infinity, contrary to what anyone believes. It is wide open for interpretation. As it sits currently, it is undefined, scientifically speaking.

Cantor was wrong, not that set theory is wrong or bogus math, but it has absolutely nothing to do with infinity, or God. Set theory is just a mathematical process for handling large unknown numbers of objects. By all modern day standards Georg Cantor was a religious fanatic. He believed God assigned him math homework. He also believed his Omega Infinity to be God. Cantor was looking for heaven or God in the numbers. To say Georg Cantor was bias in his conclusions would be a gross understatement. Sorry Georg, man invented numbers, and that’s well documented. Infinity is no more God than a toaster.

Understand, I am not taking away from Georg Cantor’s mathematical productivity. And I am not disparaging religious beliefs. All I’m saying is that Georg Cantor developed “Set Theory”, not “Infinite Set Theory”. There is no such thing as an infinity of infinities. Infinity has one meaning, as finite has one meaning.

The only solution is to wipe the slate clean, and start over. Forget about everything you think you understand about infinity.

Numbers are a creation of mankind. We created our base-10 numbering system using a redundant logic designed to extend forever in either direction, depending on the designation we choose. Positive or negative. Applying finite and infinite to the numbering system came later. Simply put, infinity is not a specific number, any more than finite is a specific number. We should know, because we invented numbers. Understanding that simple fact rules out any definition describing infinity as a number. There is no “absolute” or “Omega” infinity. That’s absurd.

Infinity is the opposite of finite. That’s all it means numerically. Finite defines static numeric states, so it stands to reason that infinity would describe dynamic numeric states. And that’s about the only correlation finite or infinity has to our numbering system.

Take this definition from Google.

*in·fin·i·ty*

*Mathematics — a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).*

First of all, any number that is defined in static terms is finite. To suggest that infinity is “a number” contradicts the meaning of infinity. Next, our numbering system was designed using redundant logic. There’s no such thing as a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number. To suggest there is would be to reject the fundamental mechanics of our base-10 numbering system. Personally, I think our numbering system works pretty well. It is quite ingenious. Call me an optimist, but I don’t see our base-10 numbering system breaking down in the umpteenth decimal place where it can no longer describe a countable number. Seems to be pretty sound and irrefutable logic to me.

To suggest infinity is a number greater than any other number, is like suggesting finite is a number more equal to itself than any other number. Ludicrous.

The mathematical definition of infinity is baseless nonsense. It is meaningless garbage. Word salad. It’s baffling no one questions it.

The only thing that makes sense is that numbers evolved to some greater ethereal or supernatural meaning well beyond their original purpose or intent. It’s as if some believe numbers exist independently of mankind, and that we didn’t invent them, we discovered them. Oddly enough that makes a certain amount of sense, considering something like numerology.

Numbers were developed by mankind for commerce. We chose a base-10 numbering system because we had 10 fingers or **digits**. We could do basic counting and math with our hands, something we were most likely doing long before the development of our full base-10 numbering system. 3 seashells for 1 fish.

To suggest that an incomprehensible or undefinable number exists beyond our comprehensible numbering system is pure fantasy. It wreaks of magic and the supernatural.

What became clear to me is that infinity has nothing to do with counting objects. There is no such thing as an infinite quantity. And I’m not convinced we can define quantities in the real world as finite either. And I know that might sound a little strange and hard to buy into. But…

Can we claim there is a finite number of apples in the universe?

The answer I arrived at is no, we cannot. Even if apples only exist on the planet Earth, there is still no way to claim that the number of apples existing on Earth can be represented with a static value. The issue is, apples are eaten and used to make things like apple juice. They also rot, and are destroyed by other events. So, we have apple farms where we grow lots of apples on a continuous basis to replace the ones that are used up or destroyed. The apple quantity on Earth is in a continual state of flux. Its value is dynamic. The only way to describe the number of apples on Earth as static would be to add an element of time to an equation. We literally have to stop time to count the apples so we can arrive at a static or finite value. At 3:00:00pm EST on September 16th, 2022, there were X apples on the planet Earth. One second later and that value is no longer a certainty or fact.

This is pretty much the way everything in the universe works. There are no finite quantities to be had anywhere in the universe without introducing an element of time to the problem. All quantities are in a state of flux or change, which is also why there can never be an infinite quantity of anything in the universe at any given moment in time. Once you stop time to perform the act of counting something, everything becomes a finite value.

In the active universe, quantities are only definable by a rate of change over time. Quantities are either in a rising state, or falling state, and those states are defined by the rate of change over time. And even that rate of change is a dynamic value.

Keep in mind, there are those that claim infinity is merely a concept in one breath, then claim the universe is finite in the next breath. However, you cannot claim one exists without the other, because a finite universe must be falsifiable by an infinite universe, and vice versa.

The current mathematical definition of infinity is ill conceived and catastrophically flawed. It is meaningless nonsense. And I think the reason it’s erroneously written like it is dates back hundreds of years. Academia back in those days considered the universe to be a static infinity. Even today some believe this to be the case. Naturally they needed a number to describe that vast endless distance. Hence, the incomprehensible mathematical numeric infinity was born. Hence, according to Georg Cantor, Omega infinity was God. Infinity in their minds was an incomprehensible number greater than all other numbers. And no one has questioned the logic or validity of that definition since.

The only limitation we have in describing a static numeric value is time.

It is a fact that Einstein believed the universe to be infinitely static and unchanging over time. That was the way Academia saw the universe for several hundred years. To Einstein’s astonishment, as I stated in a previous writing, his own math told him differently. Our universe must expand and contract. And that’s when he created the infamous Lambda to steady the universe. As I will plainly define, static and infinity cannot be used in the same sentence. It is two entirely different concepts. Static can only describe finite values. To describe infinity as a static state is to describe the universe as finitely infinite, which makes about as much sense as tits on a bull.

To clearly demonstrate the common sentiment back in history, you need look no further than Olbers’ Paradox.

*The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.*

There is so many flaws in the reasoning that it’s astonishing it’s still considered relevant.

First, describing an infinite universe as static negates the whole concept of an infinite universe. Next, how can something with no beginning be thought of as old? And then, as I explained, there is no such thing as an infinite quantity. And lastly, there is no such thing as an infinitely large space, because distance is a measure of quantities.

Ironically, Olber wasn’t wrong. Olber is describing a flawed concept of an infinite universe. Of course it doesn’t make sense and wouldn’t work as a definition of our reality. However, that’s not the only choice for an infinite universe, and that certainly doesn’t lead one to the ultimate conclusion that the universe is finite. Olber is describing a non-existent version of an infinite universe, which happened to be the commonly accepted version of an infinite universe back in those days.

So, I come to a different conclusion where finite and infinite are concerned in relation to the universe.

**Finite = Absence of Change**

**Infinity = Constant of Change**

Keep in mind, mainstream science claims the universe to be finite by the colloquial definition. It’s limited in time. It has a beginning according to popular consensus or belief, and will some day come to an end. Maybe that’s true, maybe it’s not. Who knows, right? That’s an entirely different question which doesn’t necessarily define the past or current observable state of the universe. By all measure and observation of the current universe, what we observe at every turn is continual change. Our past is also defined by change. I imagine that change has been constant throughout history, and will soldier on continually well beyond our existence.

Think about it.

That’s enough writing for now. I will continue this line of thought in my next post.