Do We Live in an Infinite Universe?

It seems to me that if one simply thought that although Homo *may* pass on Earth humanity would continue to follow IN SPACE where he went around the Globe in ever larger circuits thhis permits one to grapple with %infinity% of math beyond that current Solar System used truth.I think that Infinity is real and not just in ones' mind. Granted one would have to answer Frege who questioned if a mound of sand was supposed to be of one cardinality rather than another. Cantor had the suspicion that the cardinality of great music and a good painting might be cardinally equivalent but ordinally different.I feel that the limit that logic can go it descripting various natural forms of creatures binds (infinte)e-numbers to self-similar dimensional defintions but I can show this as it is yet but an emotion.The problem to be handled requires one to think humanity is "smarter" than I. Kant and I can't quite say this even though sometimes I grasp or I think I do this fleeting novelty.I am confident that within the confines of higher US secular educational environments that mathematical infinities supply what is symbolic missing to biological theorizing but I am not able to marshell the relevant translations to assert the ring that connects the various the "geodescics" which would be coincident with some trajectory of human life exploring and surviving (if) beyond the Earth-Moon "system."

I would want to make sure that the place the formula is supposed to cover is not mistakenly taken to be geometric ( a community of articulations organized or not) while it was (if) algebraic instead, as in a rule of thumb derived say from:

quote:

---

(color filled in) Noncommutative Rings by S. Montgomery, and L. Small, Spinger-Verlag 1992

---

.So for instance any biological form in the universe that survived the big bang and exists in present cosmology as related to quantum groups via some algebra of rings (this is the strech that I have not shown justified by current consensus but seems to show that the language used could be in error rather than the math itself (coming in infinite as the out-comes)) as denoted by Gouldian exemplarification with the sentence,

quote:

---

"Thus, even the simplest and universal geometries of filling space must generate a host of spandrels to accompany any basically adaptive style of growth or biomechanical form" by SJ GOULD in THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY page 1259

---

could be a conceptual problem with the USE of the word "spandrel" rather than even the SPAN the place spaces. This might be particularly an error of application rather than an error of math if said binaries "filled" by rule algebraically rather than geometrically as recieved so far cognitively are and were.Of course if the adherent thing was applied instead of a-lacking-deep-inguistic-recognition that this was not the cognitive reality then you could be correct but that is a rather trivial case of slight rather than outright mistake or error even if that was mathematical. To suggest that these things might not live for ever fails to appreciate that there is a symbolic issue that is differnt than a math one... in what Kant for instance sought to find with the word "metaphysics."