Nature of Infinity

A question from Steve Puetz:

I'm trying to decide if infinity can exist in more than one way. I've narrowed the possibilities to the following:

1) Infinity as defined in The Scientific Worldview -- there is no smallest particle or no largest particle. The universe is infinite in both directions. As a consequence of this assumption, there must be an infinite number of particles in the universe. This assumes infinity in smallest size, largest size, and in space.

2) A smallest particle exists; however, an infinite number of these smallest particles could fill an infinite universe. This assumes infinity in largest size and in space, but not in smallest size. Some proponents of standard particle theory believe this.


3) A smallest particle exists, and a largest collection of mass exists; however, the particles fill an infinite volume of space. This assumes infinity in space, but not in size.


Obviously, you agree with 1. My question is this.... Do you see logical flaws (contradictions) in the other two definitions of infinity?


Regards,


Steve

Answer:

Numbers 2 and 3 have several logical flaws:

1. No smallest particle could exist. Such a “particle” would no longer be a “part” icle. It would not be a “part” of the universe. It could only be imagined. INFINITY assumes that every xyz portion of the universe can be infinitely subdivided, much in the way it is modeled in calculus. There can be no partless parts. A smallest particle would have to contain either empty space or solid matter, neither of which has ever been found. The existence of a smallest particle would remove the most essential part of the INFINITY assumption: the question begging. This is the most important element in the univironmental “definition” of matter: Matter is that which contains still other matter. Furthermore, without microcosmic infinity no evolution could occur. The fundamental “particles” or atoms of the atomists were filled with solid matter. Each was identical to all the others. Any variation would have meant that one atom had a “part” or portion that was different from the others. Thus it could not be considered fundamental (this is what happened when real atoms were found to have varying numbers of neutrons, protons, and electrons). A universe containing identical fundamental particles doesn’t evolve because the collisions of the particles only take on the ideal form envisioned in Newton’s laws of motion. There can be no internal absorption of matter or motion (see neomechanics in TSW) and the fundamental particles therefore remain the same forever. With infinite subdividability, however, each particle is unique, forming combinations with other unique particles upon convergence and the resulting exchange of matter and motion. There is no other way of constructing a universe.

2. Consupponible with microcosmic infinity is macrocosmic infinity, the combination of the two being the UD assumption of INFINITY. This likewise means that there can be no largest agglomeration of matter. Indeed, galaxies, galactic clusters, and superclusters are a necessarily partial confirmation of this assumption. Such a “hierarchal” universe is a logical consequence of INFINITY and our definition of matter. None of this is especially surprising when viewed in a practical sense from our position in the “middle” of it all: everything we know consists of other things and is part of still other things.

All of this is why I am so impressed with your “Unified Cycle Theory.” It clearly shows that the universe is interconnected at all scales, from what we can assume to be the infinitely small to the infinitely large.