Science educators who claim to know the universe is finite are misguided. More significantly, teaching this deficient philosophy has the potential of shutting off debate at the source, on a wide variety of metaphysical issues.

The fundamental premise of science should be predicated on the fundamental premise of knowledge, which is clearly within the domain of philosophy, not science. Only the most objectively minded thinkers should handle the placement of these practical cornerstones.

Case in point, for the past four centuries virtually every time scientists have built larger telescopes, they have found a larger cosmos. Who among us can say that this trend cannot continue ad infinitum? Perhaps in the next millennium, enhanced super telescopes will discover new galaxies and nebulae, which become the new “farthest objects.” There is no evidence that rules out this possibility.

Likewise, the history of the microscope follows a similar trend line towards the smaller atomic level. The word atom comes from the Greek “atomos,” meaning “uncuttable” or “indivisible.” However, we now know that atoms are divisible and comprised of a plethora of new subatomic particles.

Based on these undeniable historical science records, even a nonscientific pragmatist would conclude that perhaps we do not know everything yet—because the universe might be infinite. Perhaps we have only scratched the proverbial surface, in terms of our understanding of nature. It is possible that the empirical realm and the absolute realm are not the same size, despite what some insular science instructors would want you to believe.

If the universe is infinite (topless and/or bottomless), all our collective knowledge (which is finite) would have only an infinitesimal insight into the cosmos. As such, we might be drowning in uncertainties right now and hence unable to determine the probabilities of us drowning in uncertainties. We simply do not know how much we do not know about the absolute realm.

This reality casts large shadows on the veracity of other scientific guesstimations, such as:

1. The grand theory of everything

2. A big bang event

3. The annihilation of matter

4. Evolution

5. Intelligent design

6. Dark matter

7. Dark energy

8. String theory

9. The eleventh dimension

10. etc.

We may never know if any of these theories are true, only if they are false.

The easiest way to address these “scientific” speculations is to ask for the mathematical equation (sample below), because if one of the variables is an infinity, then the whole thing becomes indefinable and of no relevant use. If none of the variables in their equation is infinity, then they are ruling out the possibility that the universe might be infinite by premise—therefore unrealistic. They are stuck either way.

Philosophically speaking, the cosmos does not owe our civilization anything, including finitude or certitude. Unbeknownst to everyone, no physical property in the universe may have a last decimal place. We possess only provisional truths with unknown and perhaps unknowable accuracy, because uncertainty may forever hide its magnitude. The very concept of finitude may be nothing more than another human invention for reasons of practicality and commerce.

Some may ask, “isn’t there empirical evidence for a big bang event?” Well, if the universe is topless, this possible event may have been a faint pop, within our infinitesimal quadrant of empirical space. As such, it might be quintessentially irrelevant to the cosmos as a whole. Bottom line, we do not know if the universe had an origin, what it cannot “start with” or if anything can exist outside of space and matter.

Empiricism is perhaps the worst tool one could use to determine the existence of infinities. As such, scientists should recuse themselves from the absolute realm and focus instead on finding workable solutions to more pertinent problems, within the practical realm.