Logic, like science, serves as a useful model. Models of the world are part of the world they seek to model, and are thus constrained by that world, not the other way around. The proof is bounded by the model.

Also, infinity ‘exists’ as a concept, not a thing’ itself.’ Things need boundaries to exist. We can bound the idea, model the idea, we can confuse the idea for the ‘thing,’ but to experience the ‘thing’ there must be a boundary. To experience a thing of no boundaries is to experience no single ‘thing’ at all. ‘Infinity’ (the boundaryless nothing) collides with ‘zero’ (the boundaryless nothing)—another ‘thing’ that can only ‘exist’ as a concept.

And yet, where would science be without the ‘existence’ of zero? And if zero, then infinity. (Kind of a yin and yang ‘thing,’ each feeding the other.)

Thanks for the read!