THE NEW, TRUE INFINITY: A New Definition of Infinity puts Some Long-Pondered
Questions in a new Light and Provides a Startling Look at Reality
Written by Peter Francis Dziuban – Paradoxica: Journal of Nondual Psychology, Vol. 5: Spring
2013
Summary
Surprisingly, something extremely important—and revealing—concerning infinity has been
largely overlooked. This article discusses a “new” definition of infinity that has not been
thoroughly investigated by scientists, mathematicians and philosophers.
The term infinity as generally used and understood today, is for the most part derived from, or
related to, finity. Traditionally, infinity has been considered as an endless finity, or as an
indefinite finity, or an unlimited finity. The point is that, in almost every case, this traditional
infinity starts with finity, and infinity is said to be an endless or indefinite version of that.
In contrast, there is another, entirely different definition that can be found in the root or core
meaning of the word itself. In-finity. The prefix “in” means no or not. On this basis, infinity
does not mean an endless or indefinite finity. It means no finity whatsoever.
Perhaps the best way to summarize the distinction is to say that the traditional infinity in some
way always involves or co-exists with number, with measurement, with size, with finity—even if
that finity is extended beyond the capacity of human thought to grasp. In contrast, the “new”
infinity has nothing to do with finity—but is still undeniably present and real, as will be shown.
It is an infinity that is not merely, as the Greek philosopher Plotinus said, “beyond number,” but
preclusive of numbers. It is an infinity that leaves no room for finite mathematics—yet which
may answer some of the deeper mathematical questions.
This article does not attempt to provide an historical analysis, or challenge the utility of the other
“infinities” as they are currently understood in finite human experience, especially in
mathematics. This is simply an examination of infinity when taken to mean no finity
whatsoever. Not only does this infinity not co-exist with any finity; it is preclusive of all finity.
It is an infinity that, itself, is All. It leaves no finite form or quantity—not even any finite mental
forms, thus no finite thinking, or attempts at verbal description—yet we do our best under the
seeming finite limitations of words and thoughts.
While one cannot think or mentally grasp what this infinity is, one most definitely can think
about what such an infinity means, and what its implications are. It provides an entirely new
basis, or platform from which to think about Life’s biggest questions, and offers a startling new
look at what might be called Ultimate Reality.
Peter Francis Dziuban (pronounced Joobin) is an author/lecturer on infinite Consciousness.
His work on infinity has resulted in a new definition, rarely considered in science, math or
philosophy—yet which provides an undeniable mathematical/scientific “glimpse” at nonduality.
Peter first became interested in spirituality and philosophy while attending the University of
2
Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana. His first book, Consciousness Is All, and other writings are
a thorough examination of this subject, with an experiential bias. www.ConsciousnessIsAll.com
His workshops/retreats are concerned primarily with nondual infinity—not as a concept or
theory, but as alive experience. Peter also maintains a Youtube channel, currently featuring the
popular Time Out! series of 23 videos, which challenge mistaken assumptions and beliefs about
time. www.Youtube.com/PeterDziuban. Peter has just completed his second book, Simply
Notice – Book 1, to be published early 2013. Simply Notice is intended to be a series of books,
designed to make the deeper points of nondual awareness clear and accessible to the general
public. Through simple, experiential noticing exercises Book 1 exposes and reverses the age-old
belief of Life being on earth—revealing “earth” to be but mere perceptions in unlimited Life,
Love. For a free excerpt, please go to www.SimplyNotice.com
3
THE NEW, TRUE INFINITY: A New Definition of Infinity puts Some Long-Pondered
Questions in a new Light and Provides a Startling Look at Reality
Generally speaking, it traditionally has been assumed that infinity refers to an extreme
amount. As said above, it has been assumed that infinity is basically an endless finity—a neverending extension of counting or measurement, whether in the direction of bigness, or smallness.
The old concept of infinity typically is explained thus: you start with a finite number, say,
the number 1—and you always can add another 1 to it. So then you have 2, and you can add
another 1, which makes 3, and so on, endlessly. Another example would be the size of the stellar
universe, which, some theorize, may extend endlessly—mile after mile, light year after light
year, into measurable physical space.
At the micro level, we go in the direction of smallness. We say “infinitesimal,” referring
to that which is endlessly divisible. Instead of adding a 1 forever, you divide 1 in half. Then you
take half of one of the halves. Then, at least theoretically, you always can take half of that half,
and so on, endlessly—and that, supposedly, also is infinity.
However, it can just as readily be argued that none of this is true. Strictly speaking,
infinity really is not an endless finity.
To see why, first consider what is meant by finite. Finite comes from the words finire or
finis, meaning finish, or end. If something is finite, it is possible to determine where it ends or
begins. That which is finite has some type of limit or boundary; it has a measurable, observable
form or amount. You can in some way quantify it, or otherwise size it up. Of course, the realm
of finity is the realm of humanity and the physical, material universe, and also the realm of
science. That which is finite, observable and measurable, is the workplace of the scientific
method.
To bring out the contrast, now look closely once more at the word infinity. It has been
staring us in the face the entire time, but we haven’t seen it.
In-finity.
Since the prefix in- means no, or not, then in its most basic root meaning, infinity actually
means no finity. In its purest, simplest meaning, infinity is not a big, endless finity. It is
absolutely no finity. No finity means precisely what it says—no finity whatsoever—and that’s the
all-important distinction that needs more scrutiny.
Infinity is not an endlessly large quantity.
It’s no quantity.
Defined in this way, infinity doesn’t mean endless counting; it means no counting.
Infinity is not extremely long measurement; it is the absence of measurement. Infinity, no-finity,
is the complete absence of amount, size, and all quantifying. Infinity is not even an endlessly
4
repeating loop as often symbolized. Infinity is the utter absence of all finity—having absolutely
no observable, measurable form.
Infinity also is the complete absence of time. Infinity does not mean forever in time.
Infinity, no-finity, can involve no time-processes—for any amount of time would be measurable,
too.
Regardless of what we all may have been taught, there’s no getting around it. This is
what in-finity or no-finity literally means.
Again, we have traditionally always started out with finity, and assumed infinity is an
endless version of that. What if it’s not? What if true infinity is entirely different? We always
have attempted to combine or mix finity, which means measurable—with infinity, which means
measure-less. That’s impossible.
It was said earlier that this new infinity has no relationship to finity—yet there is a
reference to finity in its very definition as “no finity”—which certainly sounds contradictory. It
also could be argued that the designation of infinity as no-finity is a “negative” definition, in that
it uses finity as a reference point and says infinity is not that. It implies infinity only can be
known relatively, and thus requires the existence of finity.
On the other hand, infinity could be called One, All, Wholeness, Absolute, and other
terms, which are not negative. However, even these are still somewhat relative because they are
conceptual and in the realm of words. Unfortunately, the only way infinity can be discussed here
is by using words and thoughts. This is like trying to play the game of the Absolute on a relative
field; attempting to convey the Absolute, but being forced to use words and thoughts, which are
tools of the relative. So we do our best under the seeming limitations of relative words.
Because it has been accepted that infinity is a vast extension of finity, it naturally has
been assumed (particularly in mathematics) that the two states co-mingle—but on this new basis,
they do not. No-finity and finity cannot be mixed. If using the traditional definition of
mathematics, one might assume the finite could be a subset of, or included in, the infinite. Yet
that which has absolutely no finity, cannot be inclusive of finity. They are mutually exclusive.
The earlier examples of infinity as endlessly large or small refer to extremes, yes. And
these may be beyond the capacity of human thought to fully grasp. However, such an endlessly
ongoing finity is vastly different from no finity whatsoever. To endlessly add or endlessly
divide still involves the finite, for these involve at least some degree of finite measurement or
amount. That is not the same as utterly measureless, amount-less. Infinity, no-finity, has no
degrees of finity.
It would be naïve to mentally dismiss this because it seems trivial, or feels like semantic
nit-picking. There may be a reluctance to drop the old notion of infinity because this new
definition takes away a long-accepted concept used in our mathematical, scientific, and
philosophical thinking.
5
But what if the only thing that has been taken away is a misconception, an obstacle in
thought—and now a door has opened to many exciting new insights?
The value and excitement of this new infinity, or un-finity, is that it indicates a sudden
new alternative to endless finity—a new vantage point, or platform, so to speak—from which to
think about big questions. It enables one to step completely outside the box of finity and “see” or
discern from an entirely new perspective. The new infinity also clearly, undeniably, indicates
another realm or reality, one that exists entirely independent of the world of finity.
Sudden insights about stubborn questions
Here are just a few examples of how a definition of infinity as measureless provides a
new way to view some of our toughest, long-pondered questions.
Does this new infinity answer the long-standing question of whether the stellar universe
is finite or infinite? 1 Yes. It does clearly show that the stellar universe is finite, due to its being
partly measurable. It makes no difference that the universe appears to be expanding endlessly in
size; that does not mean it is infinite. Were the universe truly infinite, there would be nothing
that could be measured at all—not even partly (on that basis there wouldn’t even be a stellar
universe). Unceremoniously, this long unyielding question is answered not by making another
dramatic scientific discovery about the universe. The answer comes from an entirely different
direction—simply from an accurate definition of the word infinite.
As infinity has no measurement whatsoever, infinity therefore is size-less.
As infinity is size-less, it cannot be true of a stellar universe that appears to be expanding,
because expansion deals exclusively with an increase in measurable size. The universe may
appear to extend endlessly in space, and perhaps without a border, but that means it would be
endlessly or indefinitely finite—which is a far cry from no finity whatsoever, or infinite. One
always could measure the universe’s extension in finite portions, no matter how far the extension
went, and regardless of the universe’s shape and borders (or lack thereof).
It could be argued that a new definition of infinity merely changes the terminology—but
still doesn’t address the issue—whether the universe extends endlessly or not. Now, rather than
wondering if the universe is infinite, we wonder if it’s endlessly finite. (Infinity actually answers
that question in a new way, too, as will be shown later.)
This brings up an essential distinction. The finite sense of endless and the infinite
meaning of endless are as different as night and day. The finite sense of endless means an
extension or continuum, a partly measurable quantity or size that continues forever, without
ending the extension. In contrast, the infinite meaning of endless is no extension at all. The fact
that infinity has nothing to measure, no measurable extension in the first place, is the same as
saying infinity has no finite beginning. As infinity has no beginning, then it certainly can’t have
an ending. In this sense, infinity is both endless and beginning-less.
1
Janna Levin How the Universe Got Its Spots (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ 2002) pp. 1-15.
6
There is a similar distinction for the infinite meaning of measureless. It does not mean
that which is so large, vast or boundless that it is immeasurable. It means having nothing to
measure in the first place.
When going in the micro direction, the stellar universe is finite and not infinite for the
same reason. The universe is finite because it could be sub-divided into countless portions of
finite size. In contrast, the fact that infinity has no size or amount leaves no size that could be
divided and sub-divided.
Infinity, having absolutely no size, no amount, is by definition, indivisible, irreducible.
That which has no quantity in the first place, simply cannot be divided or reduced—and
this is the true meaning of irreducible. Only in-finity, no-finity, is truly indivisible or irreducible.
The true irreducibility of infinity puts new light on science’s long-sought “last irreducible
particle.” Irreducible really does not mean achieving reduction up to a certain point, beyond
which one can go no further. Why? That still involves some reduction—which is entirely
different from true irreducibility, which means having nothing to reduce in the first place.
As long as one is dealing in the realm of finity, there is no such a thing as a “last”
reduction, because one always could take half of that half—at least theoretically. Whatever
particle or quantity one is speaking of, potentially it could be reduced again. At the current time,
it appears at the quantum level that there are discrete units incapable of further reduction. But
who is to say some subsequent discovery won’t be made? The very fact that one is dealing with
finity would indicate one can go on reducing endlessly.
Infinity is a synonym for being
A new definition for infinity as absolutely measureless may be semantically or
technically correct—but is it really important? Science, for example, deals entirely in numbers
and measurement—of matter, time and space.
So of what value is a new infinity that has nothing to do with measurable matter, time or
space? The new infinity’s value is that it is all that is truly present.
More importantly, only infinity is present.
The world of finity, of measurable matter, time and space, never is present.
Recall the point made earlier—that infinity not only has no physical size or length—
infinity has no length in time. The implications of this are fascinating, the more one sees what it
means.
Again, infinity does not mean forever in time, or unaffected by time—but is the utter
absence of time. Infinity is the preclusion of time, and any time-processes, because any amount
7
of time would be measurable. The fact that infinity is the absence of time, or is time-less, makes
infinity synonymous with being, that which is present, or what could be called the present.
You can conduct your own thought-experiment of sorts as you think this through.
Infinity is identical to being because just as infinity has no time measurement, neither does
being.
Being means having existence, or present. Being means is.
In the definition of being, or the present, or is, there is absolutely no provision for any
passage of time. None. Being, which is a state of pure is, doesn’t involve so much as a
microsecond of was or will be. The word was means no-longer-being, and will be means notyet-being—neither of which even remotely resembles being.
Being is strictly present tense only—wherein time doesn’t occur.
Being is the absence of time, exactly as infinity is the absence of time.
One also notices that, just as being never is time—time never is being.
On the level of the observing human mind, it seems as if time never quits passing,
flowing, moving on. Physics tells us that time functions relative to the one that is observing
time. More recent developments indicate that time may not even flow. Regardless, in the
everyday world, that which the human mind experiences as “time,” by its very definition, is not
the present. Time never seems to stop moving or passing to be, to be what is, to be present.
Time is inseparable from a past, what-is-not-present-anymore—and a future, what-is-notpresent-yet. Time, and everything that appears to occur in its flow, is literally what-is-notpresent.
The point is this: as time itself never is present, all phenomena that supposedly occur and
are observed in time, equally never are present.
It would appear that every last particle of the observable stellar universe, even at its
smallest quantum level, seems to function and have its basis in never-present time. Even at the
level of energy, every bit of the universe appears to be vibrating, moving; it never stops passing
on in time, or not-being, to genuinely be. It means the entire universe never is present. What’s
more, it takes time to observe the universe. The entire functioning of the very human thinking,
sensing mind that claims to observe that universe equally has its basis only in never-present time.
The entire activity of the mind equally never is present.
Only being is present.
A doubting thought may come, “Don’t tell me the things that my mind senses in the
universe aren’t present or aren’t being. I sense this page right now. I sense the planet earth right
now. I see it now, and I even could reach down and touch it now—so don’t tell me the page, the
earth, and all those sensations aren’t genuinely present.”
8
Look closer. For anything in your entire universe, the moment you sense it by way of a
visual image, a tactile feeling, or any other sensation—what’s really happening? Those
particular sensations are constantly shifting, changing and passing on, never to return again. It
seems each sensation is instantly replaced by another new visual or tactile sensation, and another,
and another, non-stop.
They’re like the moving frames of film in a movie projector. The specific image and
sense of touch that you had of this page a few seconds ago are gone, already having been
replaced by the fleeting image and touch being experienced at this moment in passing time, and
on and on. This applies to everything that is sensed in the universe—including the entire
universe itself. None of it ever stops moving on, or not-being, to be. In its essence, it all would
be a state of vibration, always moving or passing on in time. All of it always is fleeting, passing
away, and not being—or being “not.” Shocking as it may sound, the entirety of the “universe”
would be just so much non-presence!
Again, only being is truly present.
Being does not co-exist with time
Interestingly, if one starts out with the typical human presumption that there is time, one
assumes there are both time and being. In contrast, when one starts from the premise of being,
one can see that there are not both being and time!
From the standpoint of being, being does not co-exist with time, non-being.
There is only being. Why?
There is absolutely no point at which being can be said to stop being, and where another
state, one of time or not-being starts. Think it through—how could not-being start? It’s a
contradiction in terms. Not-being can’t start or get its foot in the door because it’s not being. It
literally doesn’t exist; it can’t occur. Only being can be—and it is alone in its presence.
This is clear only when starting from the premise of being, and not time—something that
time-based human thinking never does. And shouldn’t one start from the premise of being and
not time—since only being is being, is present, to be a valid premise?
In response, Post-modern philosophers may cite the binary or dual nature of mind or
thought, wherein every so-called absolute term can be said to have an opposite. It would be
argued that being is not alone, but can be said to have an opposite, non-being. That may seem to
be true conceptually, in the realm of thinking, but not in actuality. Such binary arguments hold
good for many aspects of the dual realm of mind (hot/cold, dark/light, etc.) but not for being. To
say non-being can be some kind of opposite would be a perfect contradiction, because if nonbeing could have such a status, it would exist as such, and thus wouldn’t be non-being.
The Newtonian view of time, which was accepted for centuries, said that time moved at a
fixed, absolute rate. This later was refuted by Einstein, who demonstrated that time doesn’t
9
move at a fixed rate, but seems to move at a speed that is relative to the speed of the one who is
observing time.
From the premise of being, one now can see that time is not relative. Time takes on an
“absolute,” status again, but in a new way. From the standpoint of being, time is absolute in that
it absolutely never is present. From the premise of being, (and, again, only being is present to be
a valid premise) time isn’t relative to anything because in being, time never occurs! Being’s
changeless presence precludes “the arrow of time.”
Another inevitable conclusion this leads to is that, just as infinity has no measurable size,
being has no size. Just as infinity has no spatial measurement, neither does being.
There is absolutely no space or dimension in being, in the present. Being, the present, is
not present at all points in physical space. Being does not “fill” or occupy space. Why?
If there were space in being, it would be possible to move from point A here, to point B,
over there. But movement would involve time—of which there is none in being. The instant
one has movement in time, one has left being. To speak of movement in space, thus time, is to
speak of what-is-not-being, instead of what-is-being.
Being, the present, is the absence of time, which also is the absence of measurable space
or dimension. In other words, being is present as infinity.
This new, true infinity forces us to redefine what is called “the present”—which is
typically assumed to mean “everywhere present” or being present at all points in space, all points
of dimension. The infinity that the present, pure being, is, involves no space, no dimension.
Most emphatically, this infinite-present, pure being, is not the same as “presentism.” Presentism
is described by some philosophers as meaning a sliver of time, a momentary or fleeting “nowinstant,” in time’s flow from past to future. The infinite-present is not sandwiched between past
and future time. As only the infinite-present, pure being, is what is being, and is the absence of
time, then it does not permit or co-exist with any time. Thus the infinite-present is not between
past and future, but is the utter preclusion of past and future, all time.
That which is truly present—being, infinity—involves no time, no space, no matter. As
being is timeless, spaceless, quantity-less—then being, like infinity, is irreducible. So, being
makes clear that the last, truly irreducible “something” we’ve been seeking isn’t a quantum
particle, string, or other form, but is being, itself.
The fact that infinity, being, is measureless and timeless, of course means it is
unobservable and un-test-able—and therefore unacceptable in scientific experimentation. But
infinity undeniably indicates an ever-present state, vastly different from never-present time and
finity. The infinity of being is clean and simple—an eternal absolute standing present outside of
time, cause and effect. Infinite being never wavers or varies, never is random—rather than a
finite state of incessant change and variability in which everything is relative to everything else.
10
Infinity and being are synonyms for reality
The infinity of being also puts new light on what could be called reality.
The un-finite nature of being cannot be dismissed or ignored when it comes to discerning
reality. Ever-elusive as being seems, science should not leave it completely out of consideration
just because being isn’t observable or measurable, and has no form. Where is it written that
reality must have a finite form?
If one ignores being—in fact, if that which truly is being is not one’s starting point or
premise—it can only mean one is dealing with that which is not being. To deal with that which
is not being (that which is time-based), would be dealing with that which never is truly present.
If something never is present (all time-based, finite phenomena) and has no real being—
how could it honestly have any connection to reality? That which has no true presence, no
present-ness, could not be reality.
To be reality, reality at least has to be.
Not to belabor the point, but if something isn’t specifically present, if it isn’t really being,
then it certainly isn’t being real. Whatever the “ultimate reality” of life or existence is, does it
not have to truly exist and be present?
There’s a definite reason why being up until now has had no significance to the human
mind in its conduct of science. It is because science is all about proving, and there is nothing
observable, measurable, knowable or provable about being’s measureless infinity. Being has no
provable finite form. Meanwhile, the thinking, sensing human mind is entirely finite, and deals
only in finite form. So to the sensing mind, in which everything has a form, being’s absence of
form makes being “invisible” to the mind. To the sensing mind, it seems formless being is
“nothing” or non-existent—thus scientifically useless.
Now put the shoe on the other foot. Exactly what is the credibility of the very thinking,
sensing mind itself that declares being to be useless? That very mind itself senses, thinks, and
functions only in time, only in non-being—thus it would be the mind’s entire activity that never
is present. How can a thinking, sensing mind whose activity never really is, legitimately set
itself up as the judge of what really is?
As all mind activity never is present, where does that leave you? It would seem there is
more to you than just finite sensing and thinking that occur in time. Apparently, being must have
something to do with you—as evidenced by the fact that this reality of being can somehow ring
true to you right here, now, as you read these pages. The only one present to whom being can
ring true is being itself—so being must in some way be you.
Time certainly can’t know there is being. If you were nothing but the constant movement
of a sensing, thinking mind in time’s never-present flow—nothing but a time stream—you would
have no awareness, no reference point for being, and this would be unintelligible to you. It is
only against the backdrop of being, or an eternal presence, that all time-phenomena can be seen
11
as non-presence.
It is thanks entirely to being that one is not limited to the level of time and form that
appear to the sensing human mind. The fact that being is infinite, present outside of time and
form, doesn’t “wipe you out.” It indicates there is something about you that is truly eternal,
immortal. Suddenly, the thinking, sensing mind isn’t the only game in town.
It is not possible to take up the discussion in this brief article—but the difference between
being and the mind is the same as the difference between infinity and the mind. All mindactivity and mental phenomena of thinking, sensations, emotions, would be finite. All timeactivity of the mind would be a constantly changing process. The infinity of being is a
changeless presence.
Every experience of the sensing mind—all of its sensations, all its measurements, even
all its thoughts and conclusions—all occur in time and are finite. As all mind activity is finite, it
is in some way potentially quantifiable; thus all mind activity is potentially reducible to data. If
you were limited to only the level of the mind, then you, too, would be part of the data itself!
How can data discern anything about other data? Data doesn’t know anything.
To say pure infinite being is timeless and preclusive of all finity—seems especially
paradoxical. After all, it requires finite time and finite words to even say there is no time, no
finity. It takes time even to come to a realization that there is no time. So how is all this
Absoluteness of infinity, being, “being known” if there is no time, no finity? The answer lies in
where one identifies—with the thoughts and sensations of the would-be time-mind, or infinite
being, sometimes also referred to as pure Awareness. Does one identify merely with the wouldbe thoughts, sensations and other forms one seems to be aware of; or does one identify as pure
Awareness Itself, which is formless? From the standpoint of pure Awareness as It is being, it
doesn’t take any time for Awareness to be Self-aware.
One might also ask: “How is it possible to say with certainty that being is reality? An
‘ultimate reality’ is one of the things science and philosophy are still seeking. We won’t know
what reality is until we’ve found it.”
To say we have not yet found, or do not yet know what reality is, actually is saying
something else. It’s saying we haven’t been able to give reality a form.
We have not been able to observe, measure, or otherwise point to reality as if reality were
something finite, a last irreducible particle, or even a mathematical theory. We have not been
able to say, “Aha, there reality is.” Whether one expects “ultimate reality” should have an
incredibly small subatomic form, a mathematical form, or even a mental, theoretical form—to
say reality has not yet been found, is saying no form has been found.
Is it too radical to ask, “What if reality has no form?”
That certainly would explain why reality hasn’t yet been found in some form.
12
There is no such form to be found!
The more you pursue that seemingly strange thought, the less strange it sounds. While
some may claim we are not yet able to say what reality is, it can be said with certainty that
reality is.
Again, by definition, in order to be reality, reality has to really be. So it can be said
with certainty that reality must be that which is being. It simply is not consistent or intelligent to
say that what-isn’t-being, or what is not truly present, is reality.
The fact that reality must be being—means being itself is literally what reality is. Only
being itself can be that which is being. That means the nature of being is equally the nature of
reality, for they are the same. So, to discern what is true of being is to discern what is true of
reality, since they are the same.
The fact that being has no measurable form, means reality has no form. Being, thus
reality, is the absence of time—and this shows in another way why reality has no form. In
timeless reality, no time passes in which anything could be formed! No time passes in which any
form could be discovered—or ever have been considered un-discovered!
The fact that being, reality, is formless means just that—completely without form—so
being cannot be given even a mental form; one cannot form an idea or concept about it. Do not
feel frustrated because you cannot mentally grasp or conceptualize being. You’re not supposed
to. Yet being remains changelessly present.
One implication of Godel’s famous incompleteness theorem is that it is possible for
something to be un-provable, yet true—and that points directly at the new, true infinity. Infinity,
being, can’t be proven mathematically or by data, for true infinity exists outside of numbers,
formulas and data. Infinity also exists outside of time. Yet un-provable infinity, being, is what
truly is, or what is true. If being were not true, it would not truly be—there would be no such
thing as being—but there is. One simply cannot get around this, for if one attempts to say there
is no being, one first has to be in order to even say that.
Why the new infinity is the true infinity
This article presents a new, or heretofore largely “under-recognized,” infinity. It claims
to refute the traditionally accepted “infinity” (which merely would be ongoing finity). While
both are enormously useful, the new and old are vastly different.
So which of the two is the real or more valid infinity? Why should this new infinity be
the real infinity, the true infinity? Is it just a difference in semantics, or something far deeper
than that?
One cannot intelligently dispute the fact that whichever infinity is going to be the true
one, or be true—that one has to truly be. To be real infinity, infinity has to really be. It certainly
13
is not intelligent to say that an infinity that has no genuine presence is a real, true infinity. True
infinity is one that is invariable and never changes.
Therein lies the rub of the traditional “infinity.” As Cantor showed us, it varies, or comes
in varieties. Also, the traditional “infinity” never is present, as will be shown below. Could a
non-presence be a real infinity?
The new infinity is the only one that truly is present.
As mentioned earlier, as the new infinity is completely measureless, it therefore is timeless; it exists entirely outside of time, independent of time—because any amount of time would
be measurable. The fact that infinity is time-less, or is the absence of time, is what makes
infinity synonymous with the present. In infinity there is no time, just as in the present there is
no time.
What’s more, infinity is not merely synonymous with the present, as if the two were
separate things having the same qualities. Infinity is the present. The present is infinity. They
are the exact same one.
First look at it from the standpoint of the present. The present has to be what infinity is,
because only in the present is there no time, no measurement. Only in the un-dimensional
present is there no movement of time, thus no measurable time-movement through space or
dimension. Infinity is exactly the same as the present—the absence of measurable time or
measurable space, dimension. The present has to be infinity, because if one speaks in terms of
anything not-the-present, one is speaking of finity, time, past or future.
Now look at it from the standpoint of infinity. Infinity has to be the present—for if one is
speaking of infinity’s absolute measurelessness, one can speak only of the
present. Anything other than the pure present (involving time, any amount of counting, or any
space or dimension) of course involves measurement, which is not infinity.
Again, it is this simple: if one speaks of anything other than the present, one is speaking
of that which involves time and dimension, both of which are measurable—and which are not
measureless infinity.
The present isn’t merely when infinity is—the present is what infinity is. They are
inseparable. So not only is the new, true infinity the one that is present—infinity actually is the
present itself. They’re just two different words for what is the same one.
In contrast, the traditional “infinity” never is present.
The traditional “infinity,” or ongoing finity, of course consists of many; having many
involves the potential to endlessly add to, or to endlessly divide, finite amounts. The potential to
add or divide finity always involves time; it invariably is a process that occurs only in time. Any
process that occurs exclusively in time is a process that never is present. The traditional “endless
finity” can be known or utilized only in time; it would be wholly a product of, time—time which
14
never is present.
The only status of the traditional “infinity” is that of non-presence.
An “infinity” that has no changeless present-ness, no presence, cannot truly be—thus
cannot be true.
It must be emphasized that the new infinity does not supplant the old infinity (ongoing
finity) or make it obsolete in present day experience. The point is that the “new” infinity can
provide entirely new insights about our universe and the nature of an ultimate Truth or reality.
Being provides other surprising insights
In infinite being, reality, there is no space-time continuum, for being has no space, no
time.
Where there is no space, there cannot be three dimensions of height, width, depth—in
fact, no dimension at all. As there is no dimension in being, in the present, there equally is no
vibration or frequency, because un-dimensional being permits no space where such could occur.
There are no waves or wavelengths, because in infinite being there is no length that a wave could
have. There is no time for a wave to move, and no energy movement out of which a wave or
frequency could be made.
Being itself has no frequency.
Why?
Being is not frequent.
Being is.
Far more importantly, only being can be.
Sounds simple enough. The staggering truth is that this absoluteness of being utterly,
completely precludes all time, and all matter and energy in reality. It is timeless, eternal,
immutable—incapable of change or decay. Yet it is one, whole, indivisible, irreducible—
absolutely pure. Is this not the true meaning of spirit, or that which is said to be divine?
In being, reality, there are no positive or negatively charged particles, no weak or strong
forces, no mass, and no gravity. There are no differences in material structure, for infinite being
has no material structure.
The fact that infinity, reality, is indivisible means it cannot be divided into a spectrum of
colors. In timeless being, reality, there is no such thing as a speed of light, for there is no
measurable speed, no measurable space for light to cross, and no time passing in which anything
15
could cross!
Is it possible that being, infinity, is synonymous with light itself? Only if light were to be
spoken of from the “viewpoint” of light itself—not how light appears according to finite human
sensory observation or calculation. To the human sensing mind, it appears as if light consists of
electro-magnetic radiation, and traverses space at a fast rate of speed. Light would have to be
“omnipresence” to be synonymous with being. Thus to light itself, there would be only light,
and time would zero out; to light itself there wouldn’t be any human sense of time or spatial
location; nor would light describe itself as electromagnetic radiation. This may be possible,
because in being, reality, there truly is no human sense of time, no sense of spatial location, no
electromagnetic radiation. Those only would be notions that the time-based, finite sensing mind
appears to use to describe its own activity—not reality, being.
The reality of being, infinity, is obviously radically different from the would-be “reality”
of finite forms that the never-present sensing human mind appears to experience in never-present
time. Again, nothing besides timeless being is truly present.
As only being is, being is all-presence, or what some might call omni-presence, the
divine, or “God.” But infinite being is not a divine that functions in time; it is not an omnipresence that occupies physical space.
As being, reality, is time-less, space-less, it also means reality is not a cause. Nor was
reality ever caused, not by a god, not even by a big bang. From the standpoint of timeless being,
time and space never begin. Time and space never began. Being is—preclusive of cause and
effect, time and space. All causes and effects would involve time processes; yet there are none
in being, reality. Cause and effect appear to occur only on the level of the time-based finite
sensing human mind, non-presence.
It is only the would-be finite sensing mind that seems desperate to account for cause, for
time and space. Why? Because the mind really is desperate to account for itself. In the 1700’s,
philosopher David Hume showed us there is no objective or external physical world separate
from the mind, and quantum physics today seems to substantiate it. In other words, there aren’t
both the mind’s sense of time and space, and an independently existing state of time and space—
there is only the mind’s sense of time and space. That means, without the sensing mind’s
activity, there is absolutely no sense of time or space—and without the sensing of time and
space, there is no mind activity. The sensing mind doesn’t know about time and space—the
mind literally is time and space, or what is called space-time.
On this basis, it could be argued that what now appears to the mind as its expanding
stellar universe—actually is the expansion of thought; the seeming expansion of the mind
itself—for the sensing mind and its universe would be one and the same. Space-time and the
mind are inseparable—opposite sides of a coin, the coin of finity. Meanwhile, none of that finity
is the infinity of being.
As said earlier, it would seem there is something about you that is not finite, but is
present beyond the mind and space-time, and is being. This is you as pure infinite
16
Consciousness—distinct from everything finite you appear to be conscious of. Otherwise, you’d
be part of the finite coin, and could not now “stand apart,” seeing both sides of the coin for their
non-presence. Only from a basis of timeless being, infinity, is one “off the coin” of time and
finity.
That which is indivisible need not be unified
When reality is seen to be measureless infinity, it has fascinating implications regarding
science’s long-sought unification theory.
If reality is infinity—that means all that really is, is infinity.
As reality, infinity has no measurable size—then in reality there is nothing that is large as
compared to small. So in reality, what really is, there are neither laws of the large nor laws of
the small that can be unified into a single Theory Of Everything. As reality’s infinity is
irreducible and has no parts into which it ever could be divided, it has no parts that ever could be
unified.
However, the new infinity provides an insight that in one way does appear to unify the
laws of large and small phenomena, and which may be worth much more investigation.
Regardless of whether large or small, the very functioning of all such laws and forces is
inseparable from a sensing mind and its time—all of which never is being. Absolutely all
observable macro and micro time-phenomena are perfectly unified in that they consist entirely of
non-presence.
What would this mean? From the standpoint of being, which is changeless presence, all
such forces, even those heretofore considered as “positive,” might now take on a new status of
“negative” in that they are non-presence.
What’s more, such would-be laws and forces have no existence apart from the would-be
sensing mind that supposedly observes them. It means every calculation concerning those laws
is as much a mathematical description of the mind as it is of a so-called “objective physical
world.” This holds true in other ways, too. What does it mean that cosmic background
radiation, the supposed evidence of a big bang, is as much mental as physical? Is it time to
pursue a Theory Of Everything from the basis of mind; that the laws of the large and small are as
much mental as physical?
What is stated here about being, reality, is not subjective, not merely the opinion or
theory of an author. The fact that being is, is not a personal opinion. As there is no time in
being, reality, there can be nothing subjective or objective in reality—for all subjective and
objective experiences also would involve time, of which there is none. To contrast something as
subjective, with that which supposedly is objective, also would involve a comparison between
two states—and there are not two states in irreducible infinite being—only one.
Infinity is not one in the sense of numerical quantity (for there is no quantity), but
17
because infinity cannot be dual or multiple. Again, infinity, being, is all that is being, and to it,
there is no point where a state unlike itself, one of not-being, starts. Again, a state of not-being
can’t exist or start anywhere because it’s not being. The specific, absolute total presence of
being precludes the possibility of non-being—even as non-being. There is only being. It means
being, reality, has no opposite. Only the would-be, never-present sensing mind seems to deal in
opposites—not reality itself. Reality, then, is not binary—not a yes/no, positive/negative, or
true/false proposition. In reality, there is no opposite known as “false.” Reality only is true—or
what truly is.
Outside the box of finity
To come full circle, the very thing that has obscured much of the foregoing is the old
concept of “infinity.” The traditional “infinity” really was just a huge extension of finity. It’s
not true in-finity, the absence of all form, all size and quantity—a state of complete unlimitation. So any scientific and philosophical thinking done on this basis never has had a
vantage point that is truly unlimited—one that is beyond or outside the limitations of finity.
Why would science or philosophy even want such a vantage point?
Most emphatically, this is not to suggest that science should tolerate experiments outside
the range of finite measurement, for then it wouldn’t be science. But there is no reason why one
cannot sometimes think from outside the realm of finite measurement—and that is the main point
of this paper.
Although it has become a cliché, consider the expression, “Think outside the box.” Say
the box is the measurable universe of space, time, and matter, supposedly experienced by the
sensing mind. The box is finity. And remember, on this basis, a mere endless extension of this
measurable box of finity always has been mistaken for “infinity.”
So, it seemed you had an endlessly extending box, yes. But—you always were stuck on
the level of the box! To the sensing mind which deals exclusively in finity, it would seem there
is only the box, only the realm of measurement, and no other possible state—no other valid
“viewpoint” or basis of knowing. Sure, you might expand the box’s size to unfathomable
amounts of light years in space—or you could shrink the box’s size to equally unfathomable
quantum extremes. But whether macro or micro, if finity is all there is as far as you are
concerned, then no matter how far you go, you still are restricted to the box, finity—and are not
outside it.
Only in the complete absence of finity, or in true infinity, is one free of the box.
How does one think outside the box, or rise above the endless maze of finite form—so as
to better look down inside it and more fully expose its workings? Think or “look out from” the
vantage point of infinity, which is formless, timeless. Only by starting from the infinity of being,
and not finite observations, is one outside the box. That’s nothing unusual, but perfectly normal
when simply starting with, or “looking out from” pure timeless being—and not any time-form in
the finite universe the mind appears to sense.
18
One who perceives from a basis of timeless pure being—instead of thinking only of the
finite forms known to the human sensing mind that functions in time—has an entirely new
vantage point, especially for discerning reality.
In many ways we have been trying to discover reality, or what really is—by looking only
from the viewpoint of physical senses and never-present time, or what really is not. By
definition, what really is cannot be found by way of what really isn’t—and that is why, up until
now, reality hasn’t been found.
One now can see why the sensing mind never has realized that reality is the new, true
infinity. It’s because the limited mind never can know anything but finity. The sensing mind
has nowhere to go besides finity—and that’s not the mind’s fault—that’s just its nature. As said
earlier, even what the mind up until now had assumed was “infinity,” was just an extension of its
same old finity. Since the sensing mind had mistakenly assumed its endless finity was “infinity,”
it mistakenly assumed it had both finity and infinity, and assumed it had all the bases covered. It
could not know there was anywhere else to go as far as discerning reality, so never could look
outside itself for another vantage point.
However, now you can discern that infinity is reality, because now you have a new
vantage point—infinite reality itself—pure being.
It has been assumed that ultimate reality or “the ultimate Truth” requires still more,
deeper, investigation of measurable matter, time and space—of finity. No. We have been
looking in the wrong place. Reality is completely unobservable, yet ever-present pure being.
Reality never has been absent or hidden! But because timeless being, reality, is not finite
and thus cannot be sensed or thought, it is “invisible” to the sensing mind that deals only in finite
form and time.
There is a simple explanation as to why reality—the measureless infinity of being—never
has been “found.” It is because there is absolutely nothing finite or observable about reality that
could be found!
Reality is not supposed to be found—if by that is meant giving reality a finite form or
limit.
Reality is absolutely formless, unlimited—all made irrefutably clear by a simple, correct
definition of infinity.