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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
the very immanent property of the infinite universe, which governed by Logos, that is, by the
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
The whole of infinite spacenamely the infinite sphere, remains to our finite
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
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
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
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
14