Q: “YOU CAN’T CRITICIZE ABSTRACT IDEAS LIKE INFINITY!” I understand your positio

Q: “YOU CAN’T CRITICIZE ABSTRACT IDEAS LIKE INFINITY!”
I understand your position. But you’re wrong. And you’re wrong because no infinities are existentially possible. The error originates like many errors in philosophy from a failure to understand mathematics. As such infinity is a mathematical concept (mathematical platonism) given that mathematics is context(reference), scale and operation(time, sequence) independent, (we remove the constraint of correspondence from mathematical language), and a logic of positional names (we remove scale and limits from correspondence), and time and operationally independent (no sequence of operations in time) and as a consequence requires arbitrary definition of limits. For example, we are conscious of the minimum scale of the quantum background, and as such, there is a relatively simple limit of 1.6x-10^35 or so (I might be mis-remembering) for scale. (at least until we get into the dipoles and polarity of the quantum background.). So for example, in Cantor’s ‘infinities,’ this is just a fantasy. Instead of infinities of different sizes, any set of operations will produce results at different rates – thus restoring time and sequence. So whenever we discuss reality we must ask ourselves what dimensions are we removing from limiting us to identity, consistency, constructability, correspondence, limits, full accounting, and coherence. all the fictionalisms (pseudoscience so to speak) whether supernatural-theological, sophistry-philosophy, magic-pseudoscience, and textualism-innumeracy, all require we subtract dimensions of reality and tests of possibility in order to construct our analogies – or our lies.