No, I’m only pointing out the obvious: that existence is a profound mystery whether construed from the perspective of science, from the perspective of philosophy or from the perspective of “I”. The stuff just fascinates me. I don’t imagine anyone has yet figured it all out. But I always admire those who keep trying to.
Science may consider it like that, but the ancient Indians did not. It was the origin of the number 0 if I remember correctly = emptiness.
Whilst there may be locations in existence, infinity cannot have them, and infinitely small volume is meaningless to me ~ you don’t have any volume if there is no volume within.
Perhaps we are attempting to ensnare something profound by attempting to confine it in math and science.
We should - if I may, be looking to find a proper scientific definition of the infinite ‘object’ or the ultimate nature of reality as an empty thing, a true space, its own dimension.
Infinity the mathematical abstraction may have cardinality, but then it is not limitless [a carninal point, line or mathematical entity is a defined limit], or at least it is not the infinite object [wholeness] we are attempting to define here.
True, it depends how we think about that, it could be like the difference between the Tao and the word 
. What kind of oneness is the reality, after we have put everything up against it and found them to be wanting? That every thing are abstractions, if a piece of string they would all make a mark upon it at distance, but reality is the whole string without end or beginning.
Fair enough. it’s the concept of distinction that all important here, yet equally I would think there has to follow a different kind of real/actual distinction?
If there is physics, then infinity is a physical object of some kind, I know emptiness doesn’t seem like such, but you cant have a physical bit of something non-physical, or at least a part non-real of real in that context.
_
There are no infinite objects or properties unless you count the entirety of it all.
That makes perfect logical sense, however an empty object may contain any number of other objects ~ just like an empty box may contain and number of contents until the box is filled, only here there is no way to fill the cavity of the ‘box’.
The entirety of all can be within the emptiness of reality as entire, so what we need to do now is find a way of thinking about that emptiness scientifically?
I assume there would be a relationship between the emptiness and its contents, but I could be wrong ~ seems like there are a great many emergent properties out there though, and an emptiness as base gives us the necessary flexibility to arrive at that.
So now we are left with two things to discover…
- What is the definition of the real infinite ‘object’?
- How does it relate to other objects. What is the medium.
Well, now you have jumped into Rational Metaphysics.
…a very, very long story.
But one little bit concerning it;
To me that sounds like lines drawn on an elastic band, as we stretch it to and fro there are no definite limits, yet there are variable limits, hence it is not a description of infinity proper.
We have to get past spatial locations, points and lines, there is no way to describe reality as a whole by them, infinity definitively has no x,y,z, positions in three dimensions, it is its own dimension.
You don’t have powers of infinity, only powers of assumed infinities. Infinite time is surely timelessness = when you don’t measure by any cardinal points nor objects, there are no comparatives here. Time is in the metaphysical and physical, when such transient abstract entities are measured against one another. Maybe ‘all-time’ is something else? The collection of things ~ if we could ever arrive at such. Problem is that I don’t think we can, and that is why we have to go beyond all that in order to assess infinity proper.
I do believe there is a way, I just don’t think we know it yet, and we always seem to get bogged down in our limited thinking.
I think we need to rewrite the book on metaphysics here [in this specific issue], instead of thinking about physical things with physical attributes and dimension, we need instead to think about empty and massless objects and illusory dimensions to them? I mean a dimension is not a thing, and if a thing is empty at base, then the measure is an abstract reality.
So reality then is the non abstract, all other things are the abstractions of that ~ and for me we never reach any absolute values of those abstractions.
Well when “you-all” get that worked out, let me know. I will compare and contrast it to what I already have. 
Th reason it nags at Western rationality is for the same reasons that the modern version of Occam’s Razor is so often touted. The minimum is seen as more likely. Nothing is the ultimate minimum, so existence itself is seen as needing justification, AS IF nothingness was more likely.
This is generally thought of as a choice between N entities and N-1 entities. But at root is a kind of presumption of less/nothing until proven otherwise.
That this may contain a fundamental ontological error is beyond most Western rationalists’ ability to consider.
.
[size=50]…[/size]
.