ION SOTEROPOULOS

THE WHOLE OF INFINITE SPACE

Of What Size and Shape Is the Infinite Universe?

Courtsey of Setareh Korkchi

And Nature is but the name that men give to the mixture.
Empedocles

Abstract
One of the unsolved problems of cosmology, defined as the science of the whole of infinite
space, is to determine the size and shape of the infinite universe or infinite whole. As a matter of
fact, this cosmological problem has become the hot topic of contemporary astronomy and lies at
the center of discussions within the American Astronomical Society (for example, see AAS
LinkedIn).That is the question this paper will address: Of what size and shape is the infinite
universe?
At first glance, it seems logical that the infinite universe has an infinite radius and therefore
a flat surface without a boundary or with an imaginary boundary (curvature) at infinity. We will
show why this infinite radius is not the real and true radius of the infinite universe and why the
flat surface is not its real and true surface.
What, then, is the form of the infinite whole, which we assume exists out there, despite the
fact that we cannot observe it with our finite individual senses? If the concept of an infinite
whole means the joining of two opposite partsthe infinite, which implies the open and

1
unboundedand the whole, which implies the closed and boundedhow can we reconcile the
closed with the open, the bounded with the unbounded with respect to extent?
Key words: infinite universe, infinite whole, infinite sphere, synthetic logos, unity of opposites,
unity of the infinitely many, natural religion, Aristotelian cosmology, Einsteinian cosmology.

The global uniformity of infinite space

If space is an indefinitely expanding (or dividing) quantity, how then is it possible to explain the

unity and constancy of this indefinite space, for instance the uniformity of its temperature

(roughly 3 Kelvins), the homogeneous distribution of its matter (on the scale of cluster of

galaxies), the constancy of its mass-energy density and the universality of its laws immediately

communicating their action in all directions throughout the indefinitely increasing vastness?

The existence of a common and universal limiting point, which transcends the indefinitely

expanding space provides the answer. This limiting point works as a comprehensive whole which

envelops indefinite space and assigns limit, unity and constancy to the unlimited series of its

changing and isolated parts. The enveloped indefinite space, which we designate by the variable

an and define as the partial sum of its parts , is now transformed into a constant infinite whole or

universe, which we number by the real 1 and define as the sum total of its infinite number of

parts.

The infinite universe governed by synthetic Logos

Uni-verse is the composition of the latin words unus or one and versus or inverse. If the inverse

of one is the infinitely many, the word uni-verse means the composition of the one and the

infinitely many. Taken as a universal principle, the universe becomes the synthetic principle of

the unity of opposites (coincidentia oppositorum), which the ancient Ionian Greeks (see

2
Heraclitus) called Logos and whose geometric materialization is the transcendental limiting point

enveloping the indefinitely expanding space in order to transform it into an infinite whole.

The synthetic principle of the unity of opposites transforms the principle of external

causality (heteronomous causality, which stipulates that anything that happens has the cause of its

existence outside itself and anterior to itself) into the principle of immanent causality or self-

causality (autonomous causality, integral causality) according to which the external cause is

integrated into the existing effect and anything that happens has the cause of its existence within

itself. Thus, according to the synthetic principle of self-causality , which is the correlative

principle of the unity of opposites, the infinite universe is both a cause and an effect of itself, a

synthetic principle of Logos and a being governed by the synthetic principle of Logos. If the one

is continuous, then the synthetic principle of the unity of opposites becomes the principle of the

continuity of extremes, which is the very definition of the geometric continuum given by

Aristotle in his Physics (V) and which the mathematicians numbered by the real 1. 1

When one of the extreme opposites is absent the balanced state of Logos becomes

unbalanced and Alogosthat is, deprived of Logosand hence of the continuity and unity of the

extremes. We obtain then the Alogos (unintelligible) conflicting state in which either the infinite

multiplicity is deprived of unity or unity is deprived of the infinite multiplicity.

The continuous unity of the infinitely many via the enveloping limiting point allows the

multiple parts of infinite space to touch each other and immediately communicate their properties

regardless of their distance and difference. Everything is enveloped by an objective universal

now. Moreover the continuous unity of the infinitely many holds the infinite universe together

into one continuous and constant piece that determines the present state of the universe (of

3
everything) despite the disruptive action of its stretching force of expansion. Indeed, if I am still

one piece despite the accelerating expansion of space, it is because ultimately the indefinitely

accelerating space is a permanent infinite whole balanced by the unity of its opposite stretching

and contracting forces. Mutually neutralized these equal and opposite cosmic forces produce

ultimately and globally a continuous, timeless and permanently bright universe of constant mass

density equal to 1 and free of force by virtue of comprising the totality of forces. This cosmic

permanence, which originates from symmetric change, induces in my mind the feeling of

sublime. Since I am still one piece this must be sublime(Kant, Analytic of the Sublime).

If we regard the infinite universe the Being of all beingsas an individual being capable

of thinking and perceiving the whole of infinite space, that is to say, infinite space in one instant,

we conclude that the universe is a universal observerthat is, a universal brain which we

name God (or the Divine). Ultimately, the infinite universe is a self-perceiving being which is

both a universal observer and an objectthat is, a container of all observationsto be observed

uniformly, in all its parts, in all its directions, in one instant. We can then affirm together with

Newton that the universe is the sensorium of God.

We have asserted that the infinite universe governed by Logos is God and God is the

infinite universe governed by Logos. Now belief in Logos, that is, in the unity of opposites and

therefore in the infinite universe and God, we call natural religion, which is a synthetic concept

expressing the marriage of natural philosophy with religion.

4
What is the form of the infinite universe?

Having argued that the unifying wholeness of infinite space is ontologically necessary for our

continuous existence in space, for the constancy, reversibility and universality of the physical

laws, for the immediate communication of their action, and for the global uniform distribution of

its matter, light, heat and information, we proceed next to present geometrically in our

transcendental imagination this whole of infinite space.

Let us draw from any arbitrary point a straight lines to infinity in every conceivable

direction, and let us assume that every point m we can think in the whole of infinite space must

lie on one and only one of these lines. Taking as center the point a and as radius r, any of the

infinite straight lines, we design the boundary of the infinite sphere of which all the points are at

the same distance r from the center a. This infinite sphere represents geometrically the whole of

infinite space in two dimensionsthat is, infinite space in one instant, which we call universal or

absolute space, absolute infinite, actual infinite, infinite whole, or infinite universe (see Figure 1).

If all places are within the infinite universe, where then, is the place of the infinite

universe? The place of the infinite universe is within itself. Thus the infinite universe is the

whole enveloped by the most external circumference which is the universe, in other words the

infinite universe is self-enveloped or self-contained.2 This is not a contradiction or a paradox but

the very immanent property of the infinite universe, which governed by Logos, that is, by the

unity of opposites, is both an enveloping whole and an enveloped part.

5
What is the magnitude of the infinite universe?

If the radius r of the infinite universe or infinite sphere is infinite, then its surface S must have an

infinite magnitude:

S= 4r2 = 42 = .

Is this infinite magnitude the real and true magnitude of the surface of the infinite sphere? The

answer is no. In fact, when the radius r of the sphere is extended to infinity, then the surface of

the sphere whose curvature k is the inverse of the square of its radius becomes flat and the

infinitely extended sphere is not an infinite sphere but an infinite Euclidean plane that has no

boundary (no curvature), or to put it differently, an imaginary boundary (imaginary curvature) at

infinity. Hermes of Trismegistus ( , Hellenistic period, i.e., third-second

century BCE), Nicholas of Cusa (AD fifteenth century) and subsequently Pascal (AD seventeenth

century) defined this infinite sphere as the intelligible sphere the center of which is everywhere

and the boundary of which is nowhere. However, this Hermetic infinite sphere represents

geometrically infinite space without a boundarywhich is indefinite space, but in no way the

whole of infinite space, which is infinite space with a boundary.

If the infinite sphere, taken as the figure of the infinite whole, cannot have an infinite

radius, let us assume that it has a finite radius, say the radius r = 1. We conclude then that its

surface S must have the finite magnitude:

S= 4r2 = 4.

Is this finite magnitude the real and true magnitude of the surface of the infinite sphere? The

answer is no. In fact, a sphere with a finite radius and a finite surface is not an infinite sphere but

6
a finite sphere. It is not an unbounded sphere but a bounded sphere whose surface has a finite,

positive and constant curvature k equal to 1.

Let us examine a third alternative in which the radius r of the infinite sphere is according to

the synthetic principle of the included third neither finite nor infinite. We then deduce that the

infinite sphere is neither finite nor infinite with respect to magnitude, and that in consequence the

infinite sphere has no magnitude at all. We also deduce that the infinite sphere is neither bounded

nor unbounded, neither curved nor flat, and that in consequence the infinite sphere is deprived of

shape. We conclude then that the infinite sphere or universe is an extensionless and shapeless

pointan indeterminate nothing having no existence or reality whatsoever. The ontological

doctrine affirming the impossibility or unreality of the infinite universe, we call irrealism.

We may also take the skeptical standpoint of the Neo-Platonist Nicholas of Cusa and assert

that the infinite sphere or the infinite universe exists, but that it is impossible to formulate a

univocal determinate representation of its real form and magnitude. It follows that the infinite

universe is indeterminate, and that this indetermination is negative since it indicates our absolute

ignorance and incapacity to transcend the limitations of our individual sensibility and analytic

understanding. This negative interpretation of the indeterminate nature of the infinite universe in

which what we know is our absolute impossibility to know, and, which he called De Docta

Ignorantia (Learned Ignorance), constitutes the ground of modern epistemological skepticism. 3

The self-contradictory nature of the infinite sphere

The infinite sphere is not only a geometric impossibility, it is also a logical impossibility. Indeed,

if it is assumed that the sphere is simple and its surface is undivided (Aristotelian hypothesis that

we find in On the Heavens, II 4, 30), then how is it possible to have an infinite sphere of infinite

7
and boundless surface, which is simultaneously finite and bounded? How is it possible to have an

infinite sphere whose stars on its boundary are observable and yet are infinitely away from us? If

by construction the radius of the sphere is finite, dont we have here a contradiction between the

finite radius and the requirement to be infinite? How can we reconcile the finite with the infinite

with respect to the radius? What size and surface should we assign to the infinite universe?

An attempt to reconcile the finite with the infinite was undertaken by Aristotle himself.

According to the Aristotelian cosmology the infinite universe is both finite and infinite without

absurdity: It is finite with respect to space represented by the horizontal axis, and infinite with

respect to time represented by the vertical axis. In this cosmological model the infinite universe is

not an infinite sphere but an infinite vertical cylinder in which finite space is represented one-

dimensionally by a circle and infinite time, i.e., infinite duration is represented one-dimensionally

by a straight line (see Figure 2). Here we have the reconciliation of the finite with the infinite

with respect to the universe, which is itself divisible into space and time dimensions. But how can

we reconcile the finite and the infinite, the closed and the open, the curved and the straight with

respect to the individual dimension?

In the Einsteinian cosmology the reconciliation of the finite and the infinite takes place as

follows: The infinite universe is finite with respect to space and infinite with respect to motion.

Thus a busy bee can move around on the finite surface of the sphere in an endless manner during

an infinite time retracing her steps with respect to finite space and not retracing her steps with

respect to infinite time. We remark here that the Einsteinian finite sphere is in reality Aristotles

infinite vertical cylinder, which is finite and closed relative to space and infinite or open relative

to time.

8
 The negative model of Aristotles cosmos is the infinite horizontal cylinder in which

horizontal space is infinite and is represented one-dimensionally by a straight line, whereas

vertical time is finite, i.e., has a finite duration and is represented one-dimensionally by a circular

line. (see Figure 3). In both models however, the problem of reconciling the finite and the

infinite, the closed and the open, the curved and the straight with respect to one dimension is

reposed.

Because it is the whole of infinite space, that is to say, the infinite universe, which is the

necessary condition of the continuous existence and communication of all things, the study of our

foundation must come before the study of anything else. In fact, infinitely many things continue

to exist in indefinitely accelerating space, obey common universal laws and interchange their

properties such as matter, heat, light and information, because they are connected (united) by a

universal limiting point that makes a continuous whole of them, namely a geometric continuum.

If the entire information contained in a specific spatial volume of radius r is according to

the holographic principle proportional to its enveloping surface area (G.tHooft, L. Susskind, etc),

and if the spatial volume is that of the infinite sphere, then how many bits of information does the

infinite sphere contain? How many bits of information does it take to describe the infinite

universe? Is this amount of bits finite or infinite? Can we describe with a finite amount of bits the

infinite universe containing an infinite amount of bits?

The whole of infinite spacenamely the infinite sphere, remains to our finite

understanding incomprehensible, because we do not know how to reconcile its contradictory

properties, the finite with the infinite, the curved with the straight with respect to one dimension

9
or with respect to its limiting surface. According to Wittgenstein what we cannot speak we must

pass over in silence.

But the Logos of the infinite universe, which is simultaneously the Logos of our synthetic

reason, accomplishes precisely the inverse: Grounded in the unity of opposites, it speaks the

unspeakable, limits the unlimited and comprehends the incomprehensible without absurdity. And

this constitutes the very extensive power of synthetic Logos, namely the power of knowing

(intellectually and sensuously) the unknown, which breaks the Kantian wall between what can be

known and what cannot.

This means that the self-contradictory nature of the whole of infinite space is apparent and

not real, and that one day we will succeed not only to think of the whole of infinite space

consistently but also to perceive it through our senses once they are elevated to a superior order.4

Paris 2014,

Ion Soteropoulos,

Apeiron Centre

contact@apeironcentre.org

10
 m
a

r

Figure 1. Here we have a 2-D representation of the infinite sphere whose radius r is infinite but

has a boundary which is at a finite distance r from the center a. How do we reconcile the infinite

and the finite with respect to the radius r?

11
 time

space

Figure 2. The finite and the infinite are reconciled in Aristotles vertical cylinder, which is

divisible into two dimensions: the horizontal space dimension relative to which the universe is

finite and the vertical time dimension relative to which the universe is infinite.

12
 time

space

Figure 3. In this inverse model the universe is an horizontal cylinder, which is infinite or linear

with respect to the horizontal spatial dimension, and finite or circular with respect to the vertical

time dimension.

13
 NOTES

1
For the definition of the continuum we refer to the French translation, which we find as being
more complete than the English one. Thus, we have: Le continu est ce dont les extrmits font
un. (Physique V (4) 228 a) Also: Je dis quil y a continuit quand les limites par o les deux
choses se touchent ne sont quune seule et mme chose et, comme lindique le nom tiennent
ensemble () ; or cela ne peut se produire quand les extrmits sont deux. Une telle dfinition
montre que le continu se trouve dans les choses dont la nature est de ne faire quune lorsquelles
sont en contact. (Aristotle, Physique V (4) 227a, translated by H. Carteron, Paris : Editions Belles
Lettres, Paris, 1983)
2
Aristotle, On the Heavens, I, 9, 278b, 20, translated by J. Tricot, (Paris: Librairie Philosophique
J.Vrin, 1986)
3
Nicholas of Cusa, On Learned Ignorance, Book1 edited by Paul Wilpert (Minneapolis,
Minnesota: The Arthur J. Banning Press, 1990)
4
In my recent book Metaphysics of Infinity: The Problem of Motion and the Infinite Brain
(Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2013), I proposed an intuitive solution of the
contradiction infinite/finite with respect to extension (one dimension) or limiting surface of the
sphere.

REFERENCES

Aristotle, Physics, translated by H. Carteron ( Paris: Editions Belles Lettres, 1983)

Aristotle, On the Heavens, translated by J. Tricot (Paris: Librairie Philosophique J.Vrin, 1986)
Nicholas of Cusa, On Learned Ignorance, Book 1 edited by Paul Wilpert (Minneapolis,
Minnesota: The Arthur J. Banning Press, 1990)
Gerard t Hooft, The Holographic Principle, arXiv:hep-th/0003004V2, 16 May 2000
Leonard Susskind, LUnivers est un hologramme, La Recherche, lactualit des sciences, 11May,
2012
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, translated by D.F Pears B. F.
McGuinness (London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1974)

14