As far as I know, current set theory is still in conflict with finitism but neit

As far as I know, current set theory is still in conflict with finitism but neither argument is provable. We can only prove that finitism has no answer to set theory.

As far as I know, infinity is not a measurement, and not rational concept – it is a purely platonic concept.

As far as I know there is nothing that we can knowingly (scientifically) demonstrate is infinite – very large, unmeasurable, inestimable, but not infinite unless we discuss actions.

As far as I understand, most of the problem with these discussion is metaphysical: confusing the platonic INSTRUMENTS, with physical MEASUREMENTS.

For purpose of INSTRUMENTATION, (deduction) we (arguably, foolishly) rely on infinitudes of various kinds. But for purpose of measurement, we cannot actually perform any infinite measure because I cannot take an infinite measure, nor can I infinitely repeat a series of measures.

That mathematical DEDUCTION uses the same symbols as arithmetic measurement is confusing. We must deduce many measurements because direct measurement is impractical. That is largely, the value of both geometry (fixed measurement) and calculus(relative measurement). But there still is a metaphysical difference between measurements (real) and deductions (unreal) despite the fact that mathematical deductions are much more trustworthy than linguistic deductions, because they are less open to variance, because numbers are, more uniquely identifiable, less loaded and more precisely ordered than linguistic statements.

If infinite sets are not possible except platonically, then we are merely engaging yet again in another conversation about the number of angels that may dance on heads of pins. There is quite an argument going on that Cantor is playing a parlor game, and that between Cantor, Marx, Russell and Freud, is an unconscious conspiracy to replace religious mysticism with logical platonism. (I am one of the people who thinks this.)

It is necessary for us to make practical use of infinitudes because in practice, in engineering, in physics, distance from any event reduces all effects to a relative constant. Therefore, in practice, while the .99999… does not equal 1 EVER, we can create no measurement that can distinguish between the two. So the platonic concept .9999…. is equal to the measurement 1. Even if the point on any line represented by .9999… never equals 1. EVER, unless we change the meaning of .999999… (Which is really what set theorists do.)

However, one of the most convenient tricks in any discourse is to confuse the ideal, the platonic, practical, and the real. And unless you know which set of concepts are being used for which purpose its pretty easy to fall into the trap of confusing platonic idealism, with pragmatic platonism, with pragmatic instrumentalism, measurements, and objective reality in real time.

I suspect my suspicions will be confirmed. And that these silly arguments to logical authority are little more than modern scripture.

The only platonic test is articulating something in Operational Language open to observation.

But at least I know why modern scripture is necessary: to preserve moral relativism. (Yes, that’s what I think)