With “Avengers: Infinity Wars,” being released, it is a good time to attack the very idea of infinity. This is what I do here. I am grateful to Professor James LaFond for publishing this paper where I open my cloaca and let fly at the mathematicians and physicists, whom I have a pathological hatred for. Stuck up geek cock-suckers, I say. Although this site is a combat survival one, my work can be stretched into its vaginal cavity, being dissenting, resentful and generally pissed off prose. And, in a sense, logic can be a martial art too, so without further masturbation, let’s get down to it.

The Problem of Infinity

In a very interesting paper by Amanda Gefter, “Infinity’s End: Time to Ditch the Never-Ending Story?” New Scientist, August 14, 2013, we are given a concise diagnosis of one of the many things, I believe, wrong with mathematical physics. Infinities abound in mathematics – in set theory, analysis, geometry and the calculus – but infinities cause great problems in physics. As she says: “Trouble is, once unleashed these infinities are wild, unruly beasts. They blow up the equations with which physicists attempt to explain nature’s fundamentals. They obstruct a unified view of the forces that shape the cosmos. Worse of all, add infinities to the explosive mixture that made up the infant universe and they prevent us from making any scientific predictions at all.”

Infinities arose in the early study of the electron, but these problems were dealt with, certainly by the time quantum mechanics was worked out. However, further infinities arose in quantum electrodynamics, the quantum mechanical theory of electromagnetic forces. This was in turn dealt with by “renormalization,” a kind of way of “dividing” out the infinities, which some philosophers of science (e.g. P. K. Feyerabend, gee, we don’t read much about him now do we), believe(d) is problematic. Feyerabend said in Against Method (1975), p. 61: “This procedure consists in crossing out the results of certain calculations and replacing them by a description of what is actually observed. Thus one admits, implicitly, that the theory is in trouble while formulating it in a manner suggesting that a new principle has been discovered.” So, the method is at best, less than rigorous; at worse, invalid, if not delusional.

The infinities arising in the general theory of relativity are not so easily dealt with. Conditions inside a black hole seem to involve an infinite density of matter and an infinite warping of space-time, whatever that means. If the matter inside a black hole is infinitely dense, then it is reasonable to suppose that the black hole itself is infinitely dense, and if this is so, the gravitational attraction between the black hole and the rest of the universe should also be “infinite.” Matter should disappear into the black hole like a giant vacuum cleaner. As black holes, if they exist, are not that powerful, then it is unlikely that matter inside is really “infinitely” dense.

Gefter points out that in the present cosmological theory of inflation, in the first instances after the Big Bang, there was a rapid expansion of matter and space-time. This, however, leads to continuous universe creation, with the inflation of more space-time and the creation of multiple universes. Apparently in these multiverses, anything can happen. Could Dr. Crank sell a Kindle book? No, anything but that is possible. Some of these universes will have radically different laws of nature. All this arises from the assumption that space-time is like the real number line, a continuum infinitely divisible; without that assumption there will be no infinite explosion of universes.

Prolific Writing by Design

Clown or Hyena, It Doesn't Matter to Me

https://www.amazon.com/dp/197635871X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1505344089&sr=8-1&keywords=lili+hun