Scientific Position that our Universe is better considered Bounded and Finite
Invalidation attempt, on 'infinity concept' teachings and usage, as laden with cognitive pitfalls to pre-adults, when taught of 'infinity concept' as possessing validity and applicability.
Fourth Edition. 2025-08-10.
Our Universe considered Bounded and Finite
TITLE, AUTHOR, ADDRESSES
Scientific Position that our Universe is better considered Bounded and Finite
Patrick Lee Cheatham a
a Talon 38 FileMedia, Aurora, Arapahoe, Color’ado, United States
ABSTRACT
In this article, titled ‘Scientific Position that our Universe is better considered Bounded and Finite’, a scientific invalidation attempt is presented on past and contemporary 'infinity concept' teaching and usage. Such pre-adult teaching is presented to the author’s opinion, as being laden with cognitive pitfalls to pre-adults, when taught of 'infinity concept' as possessing validity and applicability, the norm of which is countered against in this invalidation attempt. Boundedness and finite facets are explored and elucidated upon as alternative concepts for possible teaching, and as foundational better presumptions when human experience beyond our solar system is beyond our human scope of experience and abilities, scientifically.
KEYWORDS
Boundedness, Finite, Infinitesimal, Infinity, Natural Causality
REFERENCES
‘Scientific Position that our Universe is better considered Bounded and Finite’. Online publication ‘Renewing and Freshening via Flaw and Decayotic’, section ‘Topics outspoken on natural causality’. Universal resource indicator - https://patricklcheatham.substack.com. Third edition. 07-29-2025.
INTRODUCTION
I propose to readers and especially educators, that astronomically grand in extent and astronomically small in extent are both at limit: bounded and finite. Possessing the traits of limited and bounded is truer to nature. In contrast, the concept of ‘infinity’ is disassociating and unrelating between truly related and relatable facets, in effect, when considered by all persons after such teachings.
By natural association, topics taught in sciences are implicitly related in conjunction with much else, and quickly by younger students, while also taught (as via negation inclusive of exactly that which is not taught) no context nor delimiting features of ‘infinity concept’ as to inapplicability various realms.
Infinity is a concept exacting upon our consciousnesses a great toll of unrelatedness. Repetitive ‘unrelatedness’ is the prime detriment to teachings on the concepts of infinity and infinitesimal. Belonging very exclusively to the ‘infinity concept’, is that concept’s aiming and dissociation “too free” of nature's limiting fold, the limits and traits of which we enjoy as the grounding fount of solidity to our universe.
Performing the mental avid work to note alternative ways to cast concepts — by proceeding through concepts in full sets, and next by negation to notice contrasting features — suggests the better model of all nature is to consider nature as finite and relatable, which is plenty enough partially open in frontiers, yet while not cast ugly with over-stretch via teachings on concepts of infinity not being performed in classroom settings, with countering perspective, and some warning to students.
At our position in our solar system, no model as scientific tool bears any potential for scientific or causality-checked proof or provability as to the nature of physical systems or items at scales and scopes either immensely ‘smaller than our notice’ or immensely ‘beyond range to our moon and nearby asteroid encounters’.
Some consideration of that which is more reasonably adoptable by scientific professionals, as of features more feasible near outer bounds, to which feasibly “there is no other side,” does place better in our tools of working models, than if selecting to cast as valid rather than warn as invalid, the concepts of [1] infinite in expansive vastness extent, and of [2] infinite in re-small-scale refinement in granularity, also conceivable as infinite in texture-holding interior-small-space divisibility-extent. My favored model-tool of extents I worked with does instead default with limitations implicitly following to interior-small-space divisibility and vastness extents. I then select to cast in concepts as finite and non-re-stretchable, ‘bounded’ and ‘boundedness’ at both very small and very far away unexplored and unexplorable realms. This is a ‘bounded’ concept and working model selection, selection in favor of which I base on mentally testing - via negation - against feasibility of other positions.
Both competing selections, of infinite or of bounded, with scientific humility in place, instead of self-unaware hubris, are beyond our ability to prove or disprove, both. Thus, there remains to us decisions as to practical and lasting effects on ourselves, as guidelines for usage or disuse of such concepts, rather than haggle over veracities beyond viable abstractions.
Abstraction from the measured or noticed is a beneficial feature to which all scientific definitions possess. As minimums, abstractions range from mild abstractions, such as the definition of power, which exists in time-duration granularity of one millisecond duration maximum, to grand abstractions, such as the definition of energy, which does not truly exist much in the moment of entropic changing, other than as a very useful abstraction conceivable in approximately 0.75 mental seconds of consideration. Energy is a totaling during an hour for power companies, and a totaling during 24-hours for human and animal kcal quantities. These total accounting definitions are very effective at projections and historical accounting, but do not match existence in human mild-to-moderate msec-to-msec exertions or biological activity. Abstraction we learn to manage well, and to do otherwise goes against some of our best qualitative and quantitative mental accounting tools. Differing, esoteric squabbling we also should learn to manage, as properly marked counterproductive to foster or foment, though productive to counter against.
Esoteric considerations are better relegated as not pertaining except as rare asides, in actual human activity, professions, and the full gamut of human pursuits. The issue for ‘infinity’ and alternative concepts is thus a humanistic scientific effort, at which I position ‘limited’, ‘bounded’, and ‘finite’ in contest with ‘infinite’ and ‘infinitesimal’, for proposed selection of the initially listed three word and concept toolsets, in new teaching methodologies.
Basic pre-adult education teaching on infinity concept as ‘profound yet elusive’, results to all parties in minor to moderate effect, while either aware or unaware, the inclusion of ‘dangling infinity concept as taught’ in personal applied considerations on natural processes in nature. Such exposure to infinity as profound and somehow elusively of great merit or demerit, either, then become concepts-twisting and distorting of other concepts of merit to people in daily activities in realms practical, recreational, and professional: all.
Infinity is a singular-concept among myriad other concepts to which it can be tied to and related with in the sciences, the arts, esoteric mathematics, and more. If much covered in pre-adult essentially compulsory education, then it could be covered newly by way of being cast by teachers as a case study in one among some such similar other concepts, to which attention, regard, consideration, and interpretation by humans, by and of limited yet capable human natures, can and sometimes does concoct concepts which do exist as template models, but which do not ever exhibit such behavior in natural phenomena.
There is some reasonable call for: by scientific requirement ‘infinity concept’ be disqualified, and thus considered unsuitable, and very counterproductive, in many realms of scientific, philosophical, practical, artistic, and recreational application. Such mental concept tools, which when used outside of nature-matching gamut, then become very anti-descriptive of naturally existing effects to be considered in process estimations and can become full of mostly miscue potentials for then proceeding unaware as in the blind, concerning projects and designs, and more. This the ‘infinity’ concept excels at most: miscue potential.
If not of capability to specify the exact details of usage limits in exact cases of concepts for generation by teachers of suitable examples, there remains better capability to mention that limits are existent and of crucial inclusion in all modeling tool applications, as when properly taught, and such teaching can improve. The difference is in listing features or facets of such limits and of surety to such existence, rather than being required as teachers to specify the limits themselves. This is to teach templates, rather than instances.
In our huge listing of concepts in mathematics taught to us before becoming adults, each performs as sometimes valid to natural processes in nature, and as sometimes out of gamut. Mathematics, especially, is thus of potential for miscue in studies, plans and designs. These concepts (such as for a very short list of examples: mathematical series rules, mathematical differentiation rules, and mathematical integration rules) can lead us astray or awry, if the concept nature-modeling tools are applied beyond natural limits to describe accurately.
In many mathematical tool usage teachings, a lack of gamut boundary delimiting indicators is presently by default de facto presumed not worth attempting to teach. With scientific rigor and humility aimed to not lean toward pretense of elegance nor toward pristinely weathered, nor pristinely crisp, then my lean and aim is to partially place some perspective on such non-mention being understandably selected in education, which is somewhat condoning on my part.
Yet also, there is a reality in that ‘indicators’ of likely beyond natural nature-matching validity, which could warn us of miscue hazards, also are being missed by teachers in pre-adult educational mentioning. Ironclad surety is not the goal; and instead “features and qualities listings” that ‘point to’ and ‘indicate’ limits in usage gamut, could provide students awareness which promotes safe and enjoyable ‘concept tool’ selection and tempering, to result in ensuing studies being less potentially laden with hidden miscues. Such listings, if at some detailed length, beyond quick dismissal, were taught, then via such criteria teachers could then provide learners with guidance on self-selection case-by-case ingoing adjustable on the go rules that do not hold value exactitudes, but instead are of nature taught as concept-word sets that point to conceptual areas for student independent consideration when ‘preparatory to selections’ of modeling tools, for then considering while in usage in many forms, from formal to informal, and from the sciences to the arts and the athletic, all.
Infinity concept modeling is exceptionally unique, and features pitfalls and mystique far more than those intrinsic to other mathematical concept modeling tools, of which each but infinity can perform well in naturally limited and personally selected cases.
I conclude that the infinity and infinitesimal concepts never perform well for any of us in material human flesh or human item/object workings, and thus I suggest to all readers – that in education, in professions, and in personal informal considerations, infinity is better listed (or informally, regularly noted in thinking) for deselection and process rejection if initially proposed for inclusion or re-inserted for inclusion in considerations, plans, or application.
I suggest that in the main most all usage of infinity be conducted in case-study modes, safe from material object and item application, design, modification, or even personal home selection of decor – via solely mental study performed by negation of merits testing and contrasting, and with resultants output and listed to students in template and not instance form - to better understand such nearly ‘always pitfall’ concepts and their miscue potentials. Bad performing mathematics does have the exception of performing well, at indicating the bad.
This miscue potential of infinity concept is out of topic of spatial extent and is instead of miscue hazard more so in peripheral effects on other topics and in other issues of consideration, than is the consideration of either spatial same-moment extents, or sequence of time-order repeatability extents. Thus, again, infinity concept issues, secondary to issues of feasible nature of extents inward and outward in this universe, are where and when infinity concepts have entirely too much potential to lead astray.
My stance is that condoning of infinity concept as being scientifically and professionally utilized regularly in modeling tool position of what I know to be untrue as to validity, as performed to support adoption of infinity concept as valuable, from high school level education in my past, by virtue of infinity concept approval or ambivalence toward, must switch to warning of infinity cognitive pitfalls, as such condoned cast hinders qualities of our personal stances with the nature of which our persons are part. This weakens personal options at a self-guiding mindset and natural perspective, active for a person always.
I propose that “finite” in spatial extent, and other than in time process and continuance proceedings, is a better model to educate concerning size-scales none have ever experienced or ever could, as the “finite” model stands against irrelativity in conceptual spin-around. In contrast, upon application of concept in considerations, “infinity spin-around” potentially produces an ugly case of cognitive balk, or worse, an ugly case of non-relatability by way of logically collapsing concept-to-same-concept destructive re-halting.
The concept of infinity to my evaluation and review does fail to meet proof of applicable manifestation or case of existence in nature. More indicative of the concept's intrinsically imbued re-halt and re-collapse pitfalls, to my same evaluative review, the concept fails to meet disproof, as the concept as cast and educated unrelates items, and concepts, such as infinity.
Ostensible yet invalid assessment of 'infinity must follow' results only when spatial/geometric visualization is applied unaware of ingoing or preceding naturally occurring, but rigorously invalid, backdrop.
When considering bounds or limits of farthest outer spaces or zones, the words “beyond” and “outside” are poor conceptual modeling logical selections. For better performance at negation contrast of postulates, as to concepts, words are the way and means by which to conceptualize. That’s instead of graphical exercises while pretending student eyelids are closed. Words of concept merit from language, as related, sequenced, counterpoised, and as co-augmented by way of chaining them together to form a conceptual complete set (or suite) is worth teaching as naturally a process of several re-buildings of word structures. In cases of issues when initial first-instance of consideration by nature does not often at first include very pertinent elements, then this is in the realm of pre-adult educator’s very lucrative to teach topics.
Graphical or visual modeling of infinity, and/or of alternative concepts with which to compare, is invalid by incompleteness to natural reality of manifestation in feasible existence ability. Word usage to assess models in and of nature, does excel at these processes scientifically and in human pursuits, whereas graphical-style visualization performs very poorly. Yet some word sets from which to begin are better to equip students with, surely.
To well provide introduction to other means than graphical, via contrast and comparison, I continue to present some pitfalls of graphical and pretend visual modes, if not on topics of true ‘living spaces.’
This is not to harp but is the better and memorable way to solidify the different approach. Graphical or visual modes of modeling mentally are all somewhat concoctive of faux outer space, or faux inner space; and are better utilized when preparing to interact with, rearrange, or plan out: living spaces three dimensional, or work-screen spaces two dimensional.
Graphical-style visualization on the issue of infinity concept, seemingly to me, maybe always fails to even notice the features of the infinity concept which are very detrimental to personal role and fit in nature, for we who were pre-adult educated in favor of infinity.
The issue of limits or bounds in cosmic outer space or inward cascading miniscule extent is only boggling, or worse misguiding to utter miscue, if continually turning to graphical-style visualization. Graphical-style visualization mentally works exclusively with space and spatial relationships, even when concocting new graphical/spatial relation arrangements, from presumed prepackaged delivery of space from which to again work. This does not increase working screen space, or domicile or vocational working cubic (square footage x 8 or 9 feet, typically) footage of space.
Space cannot be delivered, nor crafted. From my inability to ever experience existence beyond this planet and this planet’s screens and books of depictions, I conclude that we as humans are unable to consider spatial feasible limits using graphical-style visualization as fish are unable to climb or descend mountain footpaths.
If fish only tread water and that nearby above the water, then our graphical visualization mental acuity only presumes space and the spatial, when entering considerations via that means initially. Contemporary miscue usage of the term/word/concept ‘space’ without the preceding preparatory word ‘outer’ is truly at some legacy causality in our word usage miscues. Graphical-style visualization, devoid of words of concepts having ability to model more than the spatial, seemingly always reflexively presumes more space (or extent, mathematically) regardless of whether that space or extent truly exists, when personally posed pretend-visually, concerning far away realms.
Graphical-style visualization of an entire spatial backdrop upon which to pretend to draw a proposed limit to far away galaxies and such, with wonder as to - related by distance - where limited, or of what lies beyond, does feature some caveats and packaged-with conceptual add-ons which tag along, when doing so.
Visualization again, but this time with an entire backdrop imbued with remnant graph paper grid lines throughout, after first mentally beginning in such considerations, by placing pretend graph gridlines therein, and performed as preceding the other feasible limits visually laid out (and thus 'considered') subsequently, shows an add-on that often invalidly presumes more spatial and more space, by the presence of the grid lines (not) “there,” in such far away realms of outer space, thus exhibiting the desired mismatch and disqualification from pertaining, based on demerits of infinity, well and truly.
Summarizing, via returning to warnings on infinity esoteric concept pitfalls, infinity and the infinitesimal are both invalid and ugly concepts to utilize for physically enacted planning, designing, modifying, upgrading, or assessment criteria. A resultant description of infinity well representative and of effective warning not overblown, thus well preparing students for their own re-treatments on such topic, is that: infinity is an ‘unrelater’ (a word and term our English language is lacking, and concerning which hyphenation is counterproductive).
By its conceptual nature, infinity has for centuries promulgated among us, by mystery and elusive conceptual nature, which as belonging to a concept especially apt at ‘unrelating’ most all interrelating qualities and quantities of items, facets, and features - merely repetition-centric re-describes, very unwell. Between multiple items, facets, aspects, or criteria – infinity and the infinitesimal miscue that the several or more are not actually in any way relatable or associable, effecting virtual non-existence in same universe. For singular items, facets, aspects, or criteria, infinity and the infinitesimal miscue as not belonging within or contained in suite, effecting virtual non-involvement with larger backdrop, or expanse within which to pertain.
Infinity is an ‘unrelater’.
Published by Talon 38 FileMedia
Fourth edition - after submission to IJPSE
Edition Log: third edition: pre’par’atory for submission to “International Journal of Physical Sciences and Engineering”
2025-07-29