I made the assumption that you would treat that which is contradictory (hypothetically impossible) as contradictory (hypothetically impossible). What you’re actually doing is treating that which is contradictory (hypothetically impossible) as unknown (I don’t know if it’s meaningful or not). This is like treating that which is round, like it is triangular because it is treating one meaning as though it means another meaning. Hence the semantical inconsistency on your part (belief about the nature of Reality/Existence) I keep highlighting.
Compare the following:
‘10th sense’ ‘100th sense’
‘Round square’ ‘non-existent existence’
1, 2, and 3 are all meaningless. 1 is pure gibberish. 2 is meaningless but is made up of meaningful words. 3 is meaningless but is made up of meaningful words.
Compare 2 and 3. What difference do you see between them?
3 is contradictory, 2 is not. Contradictions are contradictions because they contradict a certain/definite truth. Falsification in science or any thing else for that matter, is rooted in this principle. It is not rooted in empirical observation. Empirical observations are used to support this principle, otherwise science would not be science at all.
For example, it is definitely true that measure means measure, or that a measure really is a measure, or that a triangle means triangle, or that a triangle really is a triangle, or that infinity means infinity, or that that which is infinite, really is infinite, or that Reality means Reality, or that Reality is Reality.
Unknowns are unknowns because they are unknowns. As in we don’t 100% know if a word, theory, or story is contradictory in meaning, or consistent in meaning, or not. You are treating 3s like 2s. This is an inconsistency on your part that you need to address.
Do you see the difference between that which is contradictory/hypothetically impossible (irrationalities) and that which is unknown (neither rational or irrational, neither contradictory nor meaningful, just simply unknown)?
With the above being said, do you now see why we know for certain, that abb is not real/true? Do you see how necessarily either abb is the reality/truth about Existence/Reality (Reality/Existence came from non-existence/0 reality) or
‘abf field’ is real/true. As in ‘abf field’ is the reality/truth about Existence/Reality. As in the nature of Existence/Reality is that it is infinite.
Again, either Reality/Existence has always been real/existed (abf field), or it hasn’t (abb). There is no other option. It’s one or the other. We KNOW it’s not abb. So…
Again, if a theory, word, or belief is contradictory, then it is certainly not true of Reality/Existence. Saying Reality/Existence is finite, is contradictory for reasons shown above. Agree or disagree?