disproving infinity paradoxes; Hilbert’s Hotel?

[cyberpi]

It would seem that there should be some differentiation in terms between intrinsic infinity: infinity of itself, cyclical infinity, and apparent infinity. A self-perpetuating closed system has an aspect of infinity, as does the output of a randomly generated effect.

Chris

There is no known self-perpetuating closed system. If there was something in a perpetual cycle and someone knew about it, then it was not a closed system.

An allegedly randomly generated effect has a finite number of outputs. Flip a coin... there are a finite number of ways and places that it can land. While there may be many outputs, non-caused or of an unkown cause (random)... they are simply not infinite.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Math is a language and languages have flaws. A flaw in math is infinity. The only thing infinite is nothing. Nothing is infinite. The moment anything is something... it is not infinite. Don't believe me? Infinity is realized by dividing something by nothing. Take a finite pie in your hands and divide it into pieces of nothing (zero). What do you get? Infinite PIE? Infinite pieces of PIE? Or... infinite pieces of nothing. As I said truthfully, the only thing infinite is nothing.

Perhaps it looks good on paper or appears sensible in mind (Western education) to say that there are an infinite number of primes, or an infinite number of odds, or an infinite number of evens; however, the reality is that to positively check something (as opposed to nothing) for prime, or odd, or even, requires dividing it... and the whacked out mathmetician already maintains that you have to divide something into pieces of nothing to get infinity. For example to find out if a number is even or odd requires dividing it by two. What is infinity divided by two? Uh-huh. Ok, so a pick a very large number and divide it by two. The number picked is not infinite. Infinity is neither even, nor odd, nor a number. Sorry, there are NOT an infinite number of evens, or odds, or primes, or numbers. It is a LIE to say that there is. It is a real, tangible, finite FALSEHOOD to say that numbers are infinite. Numbers are NOT infinite.

I'm sorry to ruin the math, but there are a finite number of numbers. You think I am wrong? Try writing down digits for the rest of your life. The number that you will have written down is finite. The only thing infinite is nothing, so the moment the very first digit was written down it was all over. The moment that there is any definition whatsoever to anything wherein it becomes something in this world, then it is finite. Nothing is infinite... the only thing infinite is nothing. Under no mathematically, scientifically, or humanly known circumstance has there EVER been something infinite, except in the whacked out minds of the followers of mathematics... and maybe a few other religions. The overwhelming majority in schools who oppressively learn the language will surely disagree with me. Fine... so name one thing that is composed or even potentially composed of something... that is infinite. Sorry... wrong. Zilch... nada... nothing. The only thing infinite is nothing.

A lot of people tend to relate God and infinity. Infinite wisdom, power, sight, potential, etc... but I find that God is something, whereas nothing is not.

Nicely put. Clever. But....
We cannot count very fast. Set a supercomputer the task to count for an infinite amount of time and it will count infinitely. A number is something and the potential of consecutive numbers is infinite. Is potential something? I believe it is. So while I admire the logic you express and agree with it on the basis you present it it is dependent on a closed system that is not in harmony with my beliefs on reality. A closed system cannot exist in nothing.

Regards

Tao

 

[seattlegal]

Math is a language and languages have flaws. A flaw in math is infinity. The only thing infinite is nothing. Nothing is infinite. The moment anything is something... it is not infinite. Don't believe me? Infinity is realized by dividing something by nothing. Take a finite pie in your hands and divide it into pieces of nothing (zero). What do you get? Infinite PIE? Infinite pieces of PIE? Or... infinite pieces of nothing. As I said truthfully, the only thing infinite is nothing.

Perhaps it looks good on paper or appears sensible in mind (Western education) to say that there are an infinite number of primes, or an infinite number of odds, or an infinite number of evens; however, the reality is that to positively check something (as opposed to nothing) for prime, or odd, or even, requires dividing it... and the whacked out mathmetician already maintains that you have to divide something into pieces of nothing to get infinity. For example to find out if a number is even or odd requires dividing it by two. What is infinity divided by two? Uh-huh. Ok, so a pick a very large number and divide it by two. The number picked is not infinite. Infinity is neither even, nor odd, nor a number. Sorry, there are NOT an infinite number of evens, or odds, or primes, or numbers. It is a LIE to say that there is. It is a real, tangible, finite FALSEHOOD to say that numbers are infinite. Numbers are NOT infinite.

I'm sorry to ruin the math, but there are a finite number of numbers. You think I am wrong? Try writing down digits for the rest of your life. The number that you will have written down is finite. The only thing infinite is nothing, so the moment the very first digit was written down it was all over. The moment that there is any definition whatsoever to anything wherein it becomes something in this world, then it is finite. Nothing is infinite... the only thing infinite is nothing. Under no mathematically, scientifically, or humanly known circumstance has there EVER been something infinite, except in the whacked out minds of the followers of mathematics... and maybe a few other religions. The overwhelming majority in schools who oppressively learn the language will surely disagree with me. Fine... so name one thing that is composed or even potentially composed of something... that is infinite. Sorry... wrong. Zilch... nada... nothing. The only thing infinite is nothing.

A lot of people tend to relate God and infinity. Infinite wisdom, power, sight, potential, etc... but I find that God is something, whereas nothing is not.

Infinity comes from Latin, meaning 'unbound.' Just because you cannot wrap your head around it doesn't mean that it does not exist. (Unless, of course, you believe there is nothing that exists that you cannot wrap your head around.)

 

[cyberpi]

Nicely put. Clever. But....
We cannot count very fast. Set a supercomputer the task to count for an infinite amount of time and it will count infinitely. A number is something and the potential of consecutive numbers is infinite. Is potential something? I believe it is. So while I admire the logic you express and agree with it on the basis you present it it is dependent on a closed system that is not in harmony with my beliefs on reality. A closed system cannot exist in nothing.

Regards

Tao

Well thanks, but the lifetime of a supercomputer is so finite that the average human has outlived every single one of them. The moon orbiting the planet is on far more of an infinite loop than any supercomputer or any man made object; however, even that moon is not in an infinite loop. There simply is no infinite loop. If supercomputers ran infinite loops then they would defy thermodynamics, the fallacy of a closed system, everlasting existance outside of time, and a perpetual closed system outside of time. Software programmers have indoctrinated some of the same whacked out concepts that mathematicians have had, and the term 'infinite loop' is one of them.

In computers the term 'infinite loop' means that its trajectory through its memory gets stuck into a loop without branches or method of input to stop it or alter it... which is a LIE. There are always at least two. The computer is like a wheel being pushed down an extremely long but finite hill, often bumped side to side onto a finite number of trajectories. An infinite loop simply means that it appears stuck rolling down one trajectory. Appears. The wheel is a crystal oscillator and whatever phase locked loops (geared wheels) that are attached to it and set up on a rolling cycle through time. Those components have a finite lifetime that is presently less than a human heart. They will fail... if you purchase a computer it is not a matter of IF, but WHEN. The trajectory of the wheel is bounced around by the pattern on the hard drive, memory, and many switches. Most of the switches are called transistors, which are finite in number and do not multiply on their own. There are at least two major switches though that are extremely key. 1. Input power switch. 2. Cooling switch. The cooling switch, venting port, or other means is often hidden but easily used to stop the loop whereas the input power switch will ALWAYS be there and accessible for one simple reason... the loop had to be started (wheel down the hill) and it always starts with the power switch.

The next problem is basic thermodynamics... that computer is fed a diet of electrons that have to come from somewhere and it has to poop heat / infra-red in order to survive. The two switches... if whatever they are switched to fails to supply electrons or a means to cool, then the alleged infinite loop is going to reveal itself as finite. In the analogy of a wheel rolling down the hill that hill may be very long... but it is finite. If the cycle of the Earth around the Sun is finite... that computer's supply of electrons is definitely finite.

But lets just say that time were infinite and that a cycle or a loop of something were somehow encapsulated into a closed system where nothing could touch it, interact with it, measure it, resist it, diminish it, stop it, or otherwise alter it for an infinite length of time. Lets just throw the thermodynamics out as a worldly rule that someone or something might alter or completely void out someday. This way the computer would be running on its own infinite power source and pooping electrons into an infinite reservoir. STILL, there is a major problem. What came before the allegedly infinite loop was started? An infinite loop has no start. The loop has to have been running the whole time for an incountable (infinite) number of times. If it was just started last week, last year, or in the last millenium, then it is NOT an infinite loop. The loop was finite upon existance and at every count of the loop since then it has been finite. At no time will that loop ever be infinite. At every moment of its existance the loop will be finite regardless of how long it carries on for. There will always exist a number in math for the number of times the cycle has turned. Add as many digits or decimal places to the count of the number of loops or the number of cycles as you like... it will always be finite. It was finite the moment it came into existance for the mere fact that it came into existance... and it will thus forever be finite.

Infinity is such an extreme concept that absolutely nothing is infinite. Seriously... the only thing infinite is NOTHING.

 

[cyberpi]

Infinity comes from Latin, meaning 'unbound.' Just because you cannot wrap your head around it doesn't mean that it does not exist. (Unless, of course, you believe there is nothing that exists that you cannot wrap your head around.)

Cheers Seattlegal. I am essentially stating that Infinity exists in the same manner that Santa Claus exists. I am futher stating that the only thing truly 'unbound' is nothing.

I am comfortable with an extremely large, separate, distant, and non-understood world (or person, soul, God) without resorting to being an extremist in declaring that it can be 'unbound' from everything... and yet, I understand the extremist viewpoint of a thing 'unbound'. I am associating it with a proper name... that unbound thing is called 'nothing'. Nothing is unbound because the only thing completely unbounded is nothing.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Thanks Cyberpi,

I love your point. So nothing is infinity and something is finite. Yes? If so everything that is something has some boundary and what is beyond that is in what something exists. Or do you propose that something can exist within nothing?

Regards

Tao

 

[juantoo3]

It is an interesting perspective...but it seems to make sense. Everything created has a beginning, and because it has a beginning it cannot truly be considered infinite. Hmmm, so what existed beyond that teaspoonful of mass / energy at the moment of the Big Bang? The eternal nothingness? Is that what lies beyond our universe today? It that where black holes vent to? Are black holes the "cooling vents" for the cycle of the universe?

Of course, if something is vented into nothing, is nothing still nothing...or does it become something?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Exactly..

I cannot believe there is such a thing as nothing. Every beginning is the product of the end of one or more other things. You just cannot get something from nothing. Nothing has never existed because there is something. So it is not only nothing that it infinite it is everything is a part of the infinite.
As for fundamental laws (thermodynamics is not one) they are to theoretical physicists, with the exception of Gravity, strictly limited to 3d space/time. Something they believe to be an illusion. Electro-magnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces all break down in the expanded theoretical multi-dimensional infinity. So I do not think the concept of infinity to be a logic experiment in thinking yourself up your own jacksie, but a fact that given the existence of one nano-partical is the only logical assumption that can be drawn. If there was indeed 'nothing' that too would be infinite. In that sense nothing is the twin of something.

Tao

 

[seattlegal]

Exactly..

I cannot believe there is such a thing as nothing. Every beginning is the product of the end of one or more other things. You just cannot get something from nothing. Nothing has never existed because there is something. So it is not only nothing that it infinite it is everything is a part of the infinite.
As for fundamental laws (thermodynamics is not one) they are to theoretical physicists, with the exception of Gravity, strictly limited to 3d space/time. Something they believe to be an illusion. Electro-magnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces all break down in the expanded theoretical multi-dimensional infinity. So I do not think the concept of infinity to be a logic experiment in thinking yourself up your own jacksie, but a fact that given the existence of one nano-partical is the only logical assumption that can be drawn. If there was indeed 'nothing' that too would be infinite. In that sense nothing is the twin of something.

Tao

Tao, the last part of your statement reminded me of Tao Te Ching 1 and Chuang Tzu's Discourse on Making All Things Equal!

Actually, a physicist said that if you add up all of the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and subtract the gravitational force, you wind up very close to zero--which might suggest creation from nothing.

Also, the idea of zero serves as a reference point from which to measure things relative to each other. {Ever notice how computers will refer to themselves as 0, or zero?}

One other thing--can thoughts and understanding be considered something? Do they not arise from incomprehension? Does that also make incomprehension something? How about noncomprehension? Just where do our thoughts come from? Where do they do after they pass? How about our novel, 'out of the blue' ideas and inspirations? Where do they come from?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Seattlegal,

Also, the idea of zero serves as a reference point from which to measure things relative to each other. {Ever notice how computers will refer to themselves as 0, or zero?}

0 (zero) is an artificial arbitrarily imposed point of reference. In an Infinite system zero can be anywhere and measurement both up and down from that point is still infinite and thus gives balance. However that point zero is artificial and for convenience. Hmmm I see a problem tho with one notable zero. The temperature Absolute Zero, Zero Kelvin. OOOOps what do we think about that one? I think the experimental physicists have taken artificially produced temperature readings to within 450 billionths of a degree of absolute zero but that actually getting there is considered impossible. Is this impossibility a confirmation of the infinite? That the harder we try the longer the fractions?

One other thing--can thoughts and understanding be considered something? Do they not arise from incomprehension? Does that also make incomprehension something? How about noncomprehension? Just where do our thoughts come from? Where do they do after they pass? How about our novel, 'out of the blue' ideas and inspirations? Where do they come from?

Well this is where my beliefs seem to diverge from many here. I think this concept of self is in large part an illusion. If you look at yourself as a composite part of a larger organism, life as a whole on Earth at a minimum, then these out of the blue thoughts are easily understood. There are many many instances recorded in history of synchronicity of thought taking place in several places round the world more or less simultaneously. It is the idea/illusion we have of this independence of thought that allows your question. Remove that notion and substitute a collective subconsciousness and it clear to see where.


regards

tao

 

[cyberpi]

So nothing is infinity and something is finite. Yes?

No. I said that nothing is infinite and I said the only thing infinite is nothing. I did not say that nothing is infinity. Zero is nothing.

I cannot believe there is such a thing as nothing.

So then Zero is suspect too as claiming to be a thing that it is not.

Every beginning is the product of the end of one or more other things.

Oh my... another atheist believer of determinism.

You just cannot get something from nothing.

Whereas I was noting that the whacked out mathematicians and the derived followers believe the opposite... that you can get an infinite amount of nothing from something.

Nothing has never existed because there is something.

So, because you exist then ZERO does not? Are you negative on negative numbers too?

So it is not only nothing that it infinite it is everything is a part of the infinite.

Infinity has no parts because if it did then it would not be infinite. The moment that a digit (a part) exists, the whole thing is finite (NOT infinite). For example you would probably think of 2 as a part of 4 whether by division or subtraction. Whereas infinity has no parts. You can not divide infinity by two or subtract two from it. Infinity is without digits, without parts, and without start or end. I know it is tempting to think of infinity as an extremely large number composed of parts... but its not. Therein exists the fallacy that numbers are infinite. Numbers themselves are symbols and those symbols are NOT infinite in number.

As for fundamental laws (thermodynamics is not one) they are to theoretical physicists, with the exception of Gravity, strictly limited to 3d space/time.

Thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental laws that there is in every field of science and at every scale. If you can think of a place where it has not been applied then it soon will be.

 

[Tao_Equus]

No. I said that nothing is infinite and I said the only thing infinite is nothing. I did not say that nothing is infinity. Zero is nothing.

Zero is not nothing. It is a point of reference or a point of potential. To say you have zero oranges you still have to have potential oranges. Otherwise the question of zero would never have arisen. This potential is a product of infinity. For once you have this potential you can always have potentially one more or minus one more, ad-infinitum.

Oh my... another atheist believer of determinism.

Ohhhh Atheist determinist am I!!! How theisticly determinist of you to say so

Whereas I was noting that the whacked out mathematicians and the derived followers believe the opposite... that you can get an infinite amount of nothing from something.

And you can!! However pointless the idea it is as soon as you conceive it the potential is infinite.

Infinity has no parts because if it did then it would not be infinite. The moment that a digit (a part) exists, the whole thing is finite (NOT infinite). For example you would probably think of 2 as a part of 4 whether by division or subtraction. Whereas infinity has no parts. You can not divide infinity by two or subtract two from it. Infinity is without digits, without parts, and without start or end. I know it is tempting to think of infinity as an extremely large number composed of parts... but its not. Therein exists the fallacy that numbers are infinite. Numbers are symbols and they are NOT infinite.

For what you say to be true you would have to invoke a closed system, something that does not exist except by artificial imposition. Give me a number, any one, that is not on an infinite chain of numbers if you are so confident. Just because we can dissect infinite systems for study or use does not remove their true potential.

Thermodynamics is one of the most fundamental laws that there is in every field of science and at every scale. If you can think of a place where it has not been applied then it soon will be.

lol, soon will be gives you an infinite get out clause, a real santa you are

Regards

Tao

 

[seattlegal]

Zero is not nothing. It is a point of reference or a point of potential. To say you have zero oranges you still have to have potential oranges. Otherwise the question of zero would never have arisen. This potential is a product of infinity. For once you have this potential you can always have potentially one more or minus one more, ad-infinitum.

Oh, so nothing is something {relative to oranges, in this case} if you think about it {oranges, that is.} Does that mean that is you don't think about oranges, you actually have {or would it be lack?} nothing?

For what you say to be true you would have to invoke a closed system, something that does not exist except by artificial imposition.

Hmm, it makes me suspect that a closed system might be the product of closed mind.

Give me a number, any one, that is not on an infinite chain of numbers if you are so confident. Just because we can dissect infinite systems for study or use does not remove their true potential.

Agreed. The more we study, the more we understand that there is a heck of a lot that we simply don't know, and our potential for further study increases, rather than decreases. {I wonder if Thermodynamics has been applied to that, yet.}

 

[cyberpi]

Zero is not nothing. It is a point of reference or a point of potential. To say you have zero oranges you still have to have potential oranges. Otherwise the question of zero would never have arisen. This potential is a product of infinity. For once you have this potential you can always have potentially one more or minus one more, ad-infinitum.

If there are zero things then there is nothing. I assumed units of things: Zero things is nothing. Zero oranges is no oranges.

And you can!! However pointless the idea it is as soon as you conceive it the potential is infinite.

I think you missed the point that the 'something' is allegedly equivalent to an infinite amount of nothing. Not only do you get infinite 'nothing' from the something, but that the something IS an infinite amount of 'nothing'. It is Gestalt on steroids: the whole (something) is both greater and yet composed of the sum of many (infinite) nothings.

For what you say to be true you would have to invoke a closed system, something that does not exist except by artificial imposition.

Your understanding of a closed system appears different than this: closed system

Give me a number, any one, that is not on an infinite chain of numbers if you are so confident.

There is no such thing as an infinite chain of numbers except in the tales taught by mathematicians.

Just because we can dissect infinite systems for study or use does not remove their true potential.

What infinite system is there to dissect?!

Here is a bit of trivia for the recovering math follower: If all of the energy and particles in this Universe were used to somehow write or represent the largest number possible, then there are allegedly still more numbers that are greater to it than there are lesser to it... in the belief system of mathematics.

 

[Tao_Equus]

If there are zero things then there is nothing. I assumed units of things: Zero things is nothing. Zero oranges is no oranges.

But look!! You have had to use 2 oranges to get zero!!

Your understanding of a closed system appears different than this: closed system

Well to be honest I aint a whizz at thermodynamics, tho I can make an effective Molotov cocktail, (yes I had a miss-spent youth). I perceived what you were saying to be a closed system in the quantum sense at the end of that wiki link. Something that is still a scientific model and never a reality in our infinite multiverse.

There is no such thing as an infinite chain of numbers except in the tales taught by mathematicians.

Well then you are able to provide me with the first and last number then I take it?

Here is a bit of trivia for the recovering math follower: If all of the energy and particles in this Universe were used to somehow write or represent the largest number possible, then there are allegedly still more numbers that are greater to it than there are lesser to it... in the belief system of mathematics.

There is the problem, all is the misleading bit, since the universe is infinite there is no all.

Regards

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Oh, so nothing is something {relative to oranges, in this case} if you think about it {oranges, that is.} Does that mean that is you don't think about oranges, you actually have {or would it be lack?} nothing?

Not there, because you thought about not thinking about oranges you still conjured up oranges

Hmm, it makes me suspect that a closed system might be the product of closed mind.
Agreed. The more we study, the more we understand that there is a heck of a lot that we simply don't know, and our potential for further study increases, rather than decreases. {I wonder if Thermodynamics has been applied to that, yet.}

Well I know nothing to start with, and I will die knowing nothing, but hey the fun is in playing the game

Tao

 

[cyberpi]

Well then you are able to provide me with the first and last number then I take it?

If it were possible do you think you would be able to receive it?

There is the problem, all is the misleading bit, since the universe is infinite there is no all.

What percentage of this allegedly infinite Universe do we occupy?

 

[Tao_Equus]

If it were possible do you think you would be able to receive it?

Fudge fudge and more fudge!!

What percentage of this allegedly infinite Universe do we occupy?

Percentage of infinity? As we observe both out into the universe and deep into the microverse there is always more to see, a hint of something smaller, or something further away. You cannot give me a first and last number and we will never see the smallest nor the most distant object.

Tao

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

If all of the energy and particles in this Universe were used to ...

since the universe is infinite there is no all.

(this) then raises the quandary of more and more space filled by an unchanging amount of matter and energy...

While the universe is generally accepted to be expanding, it is also generally accepted that there is no new matter or energy being created. There is no "infinite amount" of energy / matter. Every expression of matter or energy is resultant from a change in state of another form of energy or matter with no loss. No energy, or matter, is ever "used up," it merely converts form. For example, to burn a piece of paper consumes a piece of wood pulp into ash by "rapid oxidation." However, the sum total of the weight of the ash, the carbon released as smoke, and the energy released as fire total (equal) the sum total weight of the sheet of paper at rest, the wood pulp carbon and oxygen. In other words, matter and energy are not created or destroyed. This then means there is finite amount of matter / energy available in the universe. It also suggests, as far as anything on a universal scale can be considered infinite, that the matter-energy cycle is infinite and dynamic. The cycle as a whole can be brought to an end if the universe ever "ended." But as long as the universe exists in anything like the present form the matter-energy cycle will continue.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Juantoo

Kindest Regards, all!







While the universe is generally accepted to be expanding, it is also generally accepted that there is no new matter or energy being created. There is no "infinite amount" of energy / matter. Every expression of matter or energy is resultant from a change in state of another form of energy or matter with no loss. No energy, or matter, is ever "used up," it merely converts form. For example, to burn a piece of paper consumes a piece of wood pulp into ash by "rapid oxidation." However, the sum total of the weight of the ash, the carbon released as smoke, and the energy released as fire total (equal) the sum total weight of the sheet of paper at rest, the wood pulp carbon and oxygen. In other words, matter and energy are not created or destroyed. This then means there is finite amount of matter / energy available in the universe. It also suggests, as far as anything on a universal scale can be considered infinite, that the matter-energy cycle is infinite and dynamic. The cycle as a whole can be brought to an end if the universe ever "ended." But as long as the universe exists in anything like the present form the matter-energy cycle will continue.

I have a bit of trouble with this big bang derived theory of limited matter/energy. Basicly the figure used in measuring the mass of the universe is a guess. And we are only able to detect a small fraction of what is supposed to be there. Take this as an example:

Question: How old is the oldest star?
shannon m connolly

Answer: That's an interesting question. From what we know of the
evolution of stars (that is, how they change as they get
older) there seem to be some stars around that are roughly
15 billion years old. However, recent measurements of the
age of the universe suggest that the entire universe is
younger than that (maybe 10 billion years). The answer is
probably somewhere between those two numbers.
asmith (taken from the "ask a scientist" website)

I have read about stars now dated at at 18 million years where as most physicists tend to agree the big bang took place 13.8 billion years ago. There are huge holes and inconsistencies in current models. What we do know is that whatever devices of measurement we build we keep seeing further and further or more and more. And everywhere we look we find things that fit our perceptions but more importantly many that do not. To say that there is a finite amount of matter is a bit of a leap of faith in theories that are as watertight as colanders. Over on another thread Flow left a link to a harvard scientist working on branes. In her mathematics we see that the expression of matter on our brane is not necessarily a universal expression. Gravity is entirely dependent on what we perceive as mass, for example, but on an adjacent brane this almost negligibly weak force is massive. Can you imagine living in a universe where each person weighs billions of tons? Or another one where we to a people there seem just as heavy to them? The exchange of matter between branes can take place and if there are an infinite number of those then there could indeed be an infinite amount of matter. Its like a chain of numbers, which despite cyberpi's protestations is potentially infinite in either direction. Say we live on a brane arbitrarily numbered 42. Well branes 41 and 43 will find ways to exchange mass with our brane as ours will with them. Perhaps big bangs and black holes are the big dramatic examples of this. Anyhow my point is that front line physics is far from certain about there being a finite mass. And thus it is not really a very good case for arguing a finite universe.

Regards

Tao