**Infinity cannot possibly mean what it
suggests.**

I often see people speaking of tangible things
has having the quality of 'infinity.'

Such as the universe, God..

Obviously I have no argument for infinity used in
a strictly mathematical context or for infinity used figuratively,
as an expression of incomprehensible enormity.

But infinity as used to quantify some physical
measurement? Impossible.

First of all to even observe something infinite in order to measure it, you need an infinite amount of time. So assuming that you would be able to measure something as being infinite is necessarily presumptuous. Not only because the lifespan of a human construct is very small in comparison to eternity (infinitely small, actually), but because the point at which you finish measuring and can thus say "this measurement comes out to infinity" logically cannot come. I guess this is an ontological argument against the ontological validity of infinity.

Sure you can say, e.g., that an ohm meter
may measure infinite resistance. But it's only
reporting infinity because it's dividing the voltage it's trying
to push through by 0. It's expressed not directly as a
physical quantity, but in terms of a mathematical loophole.

Obviously this loophole arises only when we take
zero to infinite precision. But can zero really *be*
zero, as a physical quantity, to infinite precision? If it
were truly zero then it *couldn't *be quantifying anything
physical because that thing would not exist. This
contradiction is probably incidental and circumventable, but not
when you consider that measuring *any* value to infinite
precision would not only require infinite time if it's supposed
to correspond to something physical (and thus presuppose the
existence of infinity in that respect), but also must presuppose
that infinite precision even exists within the universe
objectively. Sounds rather circular to me.. but hey, that's
what infinity is, an infinite paradox. (As if there were
any other kind.) Without a value to infinite precision (which
is needed to mathematically derive an infinite quantity) being
extracted directly from physical reality (as opposed to being
constructed and originated *within* the context of a
calculation, such as during division by zero) and *plugged into*
a mathematical calculation, it is not justified to *spit out *an
infinite quantity or a quantity to infinite precision and
correlate it directly to physical reality as such.

When someone tries to prove infinity to me by
telling me to graph an equation approaching infinity, I lay the
burden of proof upon him and tell *him* to start graphing
and let me know when he reaches infinity.

Some people defend infinity by speculating that,
wherever the edge of the universe is, there *must* be space
around it, thus expanding the universe, and so on.. But
this shows nothing other than an circular progression within the
mind of the person making the argument. If such a person
could just keep on speculating until he actually reaches infinite
iterations, *then* I'd accept his logic..

Of course there are at least three other reasons
this is invalid. 1. it's self-contradictory. Theyre
projecting an absolute edge of space somewhere, and then saying
it's not *really* the edge because there's *got *to be
something outside of it. 2. Space is *nothing *in and
of itself. it is merely a way of looking at things; a
relationship among objects. Without objects to measure the
'space' between, one wouldn't even *conceive* of space.
If you were an eye in an otherwise empty universe that saw
blackness, you wouldn't think "I see space", you would
think, "I see nothing." It's meaningless to say there's
space outside the universe unless something occupies that space.
So if the universe is infinite then it contains infinite
mass, ergo infinite gravity. Or if not then at least
it's logically impossible for us to know of it. And it's *not*
possible to actually *become* directly aware of the universe
from an outside perspective so as to justifiably conceive of
space outside of the universe, because whatever is observing the
universe from that point of view *must* be physical and part
of the closed system and thus is *itself* an extension of
the universe to that particular distance. 3. It's
very possible that the universe is closed in four dimensions so
that, in a sense, thinking you can travel to or beyond the edge
of the universe is analogous to thinking you can walk to or
beyond the edge of the earth. It just doesn't apply.
This principle can apply in the time dimension too, in
contradiction to those who extrapolate that time must have always
existed or will always exist. Of course, so can the *space is nothing* principle. Time and space are analogous in that
sense.

If an object of infinite mass existed, it would create a field of infinite gravity that would perpetuate infinitely throughout the universe and thus nothing could exist as it does.

If an object of infinite length or volume existed, we could logically never determine that it's infinite and speaking of the possibility of its infinity is about as relevant as speaking of another universe outside of this closed system, or of a nonphysical entity that is 100% disjoint with the physical and therefore cannot affect physical reality in any way.

If infinite precision existed, then Zeno's
paradox would be completely valid and we would not be able to get
from Point A to Point B in a limited timespan. People
say one can get around that problem with calculus, but the
fundamental logic behind it is undeniably valid. Math has
simply been given ways to deal with its own inevitable
construction of infinities. But plugging an
infinite precision or quantity into math directly from physical
reality and then spitting out a non-infinite quantity of non-infinite
precision and correlating it to physical reality as such is just
as invalid as the reverse. Therefore, since motion is
possible, it must be invalid to presume that the infinity, or
value of infinite precision used to derive an infinity, plugged *into*
the calculation in order to collapse it, *itself* correlates
with reality as such in the *first* place.

Richard A. Nichols III

see also: zErO, more on infinity and zero (brief/concise).