On her Cambridge days astrophysicist **Janna Levin** was in a muse to think about the universe finite or not. It was late 90, the University of Cambridge offered Levin an esteemed position, and she had decided to stay there for a year and a half. Those days were gracious for the young physicist in several contexts. **It gave her space so that she can play with one of the most abstract ideas of astrophysics.** Comment is needless, we can say now Janna Levin utilized her time for doing this job pretty well, and with pleasure and plausible insight.

During her Cambridge years, Janna drowned her mind to recapitulate the waning part of the expanding universe theorem. It said, our universe is expanding at a rapid acceleration and no boundary has seen over there which can help us to consider it finite. The telescopic observation of dying stars and statistical proportion of CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) radiation, thereto the mathematical model and theorem, **all sources flamboyantly pointing the possibility of ‘infinite universe’ is more realistic than any other presumptions.** No doubt, an expansion is happening at predominated force and galaxies are moving far away because of that.

**Ket.org: Janna Levin: Questions for the Novelist **

**Ket.org: Janna Levin: Questions for the Novelist**

**… The declaration is simple and enthusiastic but indicates powerful realism behind it. Not intended to make any contradiction with the weird pragmatic pieces of evidence, despite this, unwilling to jump on the river where the universe is infinitely infinite so that we cannot understand it by applying our finite restriction to it.
… … …**

The ground was fertile to consider the ‘infinite universe theorem’ a convincing fact for modern physics. If we desired to understand the nature of reality and sought to get an answer about this, an ‘infinite universe’ with realistic evidence might be the best-fitted option for physicists. **The whole notion of ‘infinity dispute’ gained pace when Edwin Hubble came with his presumption of an expanding universe.** The universe has expanded at a rapid pace due to the distance and velocity among galactic objects. Hubble’s telescopic annunciation was might be the starter for considers boundary problem of the expanding universe in all possible ways.

The finite-infinite debate was a perturbing part of that trajectory and Janna Levin tried to toddle there in her early days. She was toddling there with insightful intellect and tried to convince her that, **at first she needs to think about the finite womb of a mother from where this animated world once come out and maybe it will sink down in thereafter.** She was ready to justify the finite universe only eternal source of all objects instead of the blurry ‘infinite’, which universe nobody has seen ever.

Janna Levin not mentioned directly but the essence of her work might address this: the infinite universe actually exists in Hubble’s telescope and physicist’s mind; it exists on mathematical abstraction; besides, none is there who can say this that he sees the infinite with open eyes or feel its presence underneath his skin. Thus, the young researcher reached to the decision: **she will consider a ‘finite universe’ as the first proposal of her thought before moved forward to deal with the infinite.** It indicates her reluctance to goes further abstraction depends on some telescopic observation of dying stars and mathematical equations. Not bad, if we remind **Ludwig Wittgenstein**‘s maxim in Tractatus where he said:

“Everything that can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be said can be said clearly.”… “… and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.” [**See:** **Ludwig Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus**]

Wittgenstein’s maxim indicates the problem of structuralism where a prepositional statement cannot be valid until it clearly said something about the logic behind it. In his world, ‘facts’ are independent to proposition we’ve expressed through language. Suppose atomic facts are independent-logic. They do not depend on the laws of physics or something like this, which might have expressed through scientific (or whatever it is) observation of humans. **Atom per se contained facts and logic inside it; they told an atom to perform, to make ‘pictures’ (means the appearance of things in the world) and atom constructs the world by following this.** Therefore, we can say this visible real world is the representation of facts instead of things.

*Deviantart.com: Ludwig Wittgenstein’s quote*

*Deviantart.com: Ludwig Wittgenstein’s quote*

*… Whereof the limits thereof the world. True, but it doesn’t denote which we’ve yet not seen it cannot be included in there in future. Suppose, the imagination about parallel universe could be added in the ‘whereof’ state as a ‘proposition’ of… reality beyond over the ‘observable’ world.
… … …*

It doesn’t mean things are separate from acts. Wittgenstein treated things an integral part of ‘facts’. They are the accumulation of facts; for instance, an agent is the logical consequence of some atomic facts, whereas atomic facts are responsible to contain the consequences what we mentioned in the earlier paragraph of this article.

An object cannot exist without facts and facts cannot exist without logic. In that sense, things appeared in the world with some inbuilt logic, **that’s why the presence of things in a spacetime is logical in all extent.** However, when we observe and make contacts with things we then apply our own sense of logic for explained it correctly. Our definition and interpretation of things make a different picture; consequently, it makes a different world in our mind; this pictured world might have a difference to the self-operated appearance of things in the world. **Our application represents the individual statement about things; therefore, it can differ to the inbuilt logic that things have carried inside as ‘facts’ for making their appearance true or real.** As Wittgenstein mentioned:

“**Every thing is, as it were, in a space of possible atomic facts**. I can think of this space as empty, but not of the thing without the space.” [**See:** **Ludwig Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus**]

This problem makes reality complicated for comprehension and critical for defined its real state. Wittgenstein considers ‘**logic within facts**‘ a ‘**substance**‘ of the world, for saying this:

“If the world had no substance, then whether a proposition had sense would depend on whether another proposition was true.”… “It would then be impossible to form a picture of the world (true or false).” [**See:** **Ludwig Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus**]

The statement is essential to realize the fact that the world cannot make without any ‘substance’. This trait (substance) is essential as essential to comprehend this that the world is not possible without any presence of *a priori* real things. **‘Facts’ are treated as ‘substance’ of things in Wittgenstein’s world.** Something has to present as for alternative which might have ‘**logical facts inside**‘, for making the statement true that is, —**a ‘real world’ somehow exists in the reality with all kind of possible affairs**.

**Quote tank: Ludwig Wittgenstein Quotes**

**Quote tank: Ludwig Wittgenstein Quotes**

**… Observation disguises universe but it doesn’t mean the universe is infinite or to what extent we see the world, it is unreal. Unreal is relative to the limit of real. The universe is so far looking limitless as far our tiny galaxy seemed unreal, but it doesn’t mean we are staying in unreal. Unreal is the part of ‘real’ as well.
… … …**

The problem of structuralism is there, and Wittgenstein addressed this in his famous axiom: “**The limits of my language mean the limit of my world**.” Meaning is clear; Wittgenstein clears his imposition about reality, means so far language permit as far the world is real to the person who uses his language to explain the reality of the world.

The question is inevitable here, —what world? What world could it be which we confirmed by language? The real one; where we are living now? Which is unalterable and which contained its own ability to appear in the reality? Or else the imaginative world, which is alterable and could be constructed by applying our language performance? **In both extents, something is necessary which has a permanent trait to contain ‘logical facts’ within it.** Wittgenstein mentioned in his book:

“It is clear that however different from the real one an imagined world may be, **it must have something—a form—in common with the real world.**” [**See:** **Ludwig Wittgenstein: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus**]

He made his arguments in this context of logical structuralism, agreeing with the statement that the ‘real world’ has to be a ‘substance’ if it wants to appear in reality as real. Means it must have ‘form’ and ‘form’ must contain ‘logical facts’ inside it so that it can make the appearance of a ‘real world’ traceable. The problem of structuralism is unavoidable there, that is, —**what we have proposed through the language it brings some reality to us, and we cannot deny the proposition by saying it ‘irrational’**.

**Phys.org: NASA/GSFC: Geometry of the Universe **

**Phys.org: NASA/GSFC: Geometry of the Universe**

**… The problem is related to the calculation and relevant with observation. So ‘infinite’ is a finite term in the sense of the argument. Which is measured it must be finite, which is not measured yet, for argument’s sake we can say it infinite. Actually, the term depends on to the limit of observation, alongside the language also.
… … …**

However, the value of this propositional reality (and its logical validity) depends on precondition, and that is, —**in which extent it matches to the real world where we are living now?** In this world, things have existed beyond our approval. They are autonomous to their inbuilt ‘substance’, means they contain **intrinsic logical facts** to make their appearance true. We appeared here as a ‘**factual part**‘ of that ‘**beyond approved intrinsic things**‘ and now watch it or expressed it through language.

It denotes, we watch our own presence in a space by using the ‘beyond approved things’ (which have made us and sent this world to perform), and we interpret their traits through language. Anyway, **there is no guaranty that our interpretation is actually able to interpret the ‘original logical facts’ of ‘beyond approved intrinsic things’, that’s because, we are not present on the moment when the ‘beyond approved’ things’ were causing the incident (means facts) which made us real.** Because of the absent problem to the beginning, our interpretation of reality is our own representation of the world; and maybe it different to the real ‘facts of things’, Wittgenstein highlighted the problem in structuralism context.

This ambiguity makes reality difficult for understanding. It creates division among ‘imaginative’ and ‘real’ world. Janna Levin started her journey from this point, which Wittgenstein tried to hold in his book (obviously in a different context) to defend **Bertrand Russell**‘s proposition about logic. Then what we said about Janna Levin? The answer might be this: she can talk about the finite space because it is present in a ‘form’; it has structure and contained viewable or clearly inferable patterns; above all, it can ‘acts’ logical and talk with her which a human can understand. Fine, then what we can say about ‘infinite’? The answer might be this: **an infinite means it has no recognizable ‘form’; if it has a ‘form’, then it must be finite; if it is finite due to the ‘form’, the question is inevitable, -how it could stay in the ‘infinite’ (?). **

Thus, the problem of ‘infinity’ is the problem of common sense. Infinity might be the abstraction of mathematics. **The ‘formless’ anything is unable to relate how things have appeared repeatedly in a finite space** where we claimed the universe is expanding at infinite pace. This was the critical beginning of her journey into the cosmic realm. Cambridge days appeared a boon to her because of that. She got some strength to defending her logic stands on insight. Janna mentioned this in her book: “The simpler the insight, the more profound the conclusion.” We are now there, to see how she made this.

**… … …**

**Newyorker.com: Time Bandits: Godel and Einstein **

**Newyorker.com: Time Bandits: Godel and Einstein**

**… nothing can exceed the maximum energy limit of the universe. The limit of energy is the limit of the universe. If we concern about the finite amount of energy that is our universe has contained now, then if the parallel universe exists for the sake of argument, we cannot be said this their energy is unlimited.
… … …**

It was the self-recognition what she mentioned later in her novel “**A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines**”. The book was amazing for its artistry. In the book where science meets poetry, touches magic realism bit, and kisses the inner beauty of mind-blowing genius **Kurt Gödel** and** Alan Turing**‘s life with deep polyphonic glorification. **Gödel and Turing both have such kind of artistry that has the vigorous insight to change our traditional perception of reality and truth forever.** Levin depicted them with magical hypnosis. True, their insightful ideas about the world-reality really deserve this praise.

She narrated Gödel’s mind-shaking appearance in **Vienna Circle** and illustrated how the inner vision of a man can change the world by using his insightful ideas. Her poetic narration assists us to understand how Kurt Gödel once burst out with his **Incompleteness Theorem** despite his ill-health and self-imprisonment in the sanatorium due to the inner madness of his mind. Janna tried to mention it: **madness is boon when Kurt Gödel grazes this**.

Why it is important for us to read Gödel? Janna Levin answered the question with cordial poesis: Gödel is important because he invites us again to think about the limits of logic. He was the man who poked our mind to reconsider the fact over again that mathematics has its own limitation of logic. **Gödel reminds us mathematics has its own inaccuracy when it declares one state of reality true and another false**. Thus, we have to think how much reality a mathematician can carry on his shoulder for making our logical sense better, and, for comprehending the reality as a better substance of abstraction.

**Gosint.wordpress.com: Alan Turing**

**Gosint.wordpress.com: Alan Turing**

**… Anyway, the question is inevitable, that is, —-where they can go? The answer might be that: it is impossible for the cells to go ‘nowhere’; rather they have must exist in somewhere by taking space. Our observation is limited unto the board. Conway defined the limit for us to play the game, means he defines the limit of the algorithm as well.
… … …**

Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem reminds: something might remain out of our insight which we lame to comprehend by applied our logic-sense, and this ‘something’ is reality; this is the real face of truth which we’ve might inept to solving it through the mathematical equation. For example, when we are talking about ‘simulated universe’ or imagine the universe a ‘Turing Machine’, the questions are inevitable in there:

How a computer (which is finite by itself due to its ‘form’ and algorithm-power) calculate the maximum ‘infinite?

The irrational Pi (“π”) could use there to make the algorithm which denotes ‘infinite’; anyway, how it overcomes the problem of energy consumption and conservation principle for making this algorithm true?

Rational to think, how will the machine manage its massive ‘entropy’ problem during its calculation of infinite?

Moreover, how the intelligent machine makes equilibrium between its finite energy capacity to measure and handle the infinite volume of energy during algorithm?

Aforementioned questions sound nerd but our simple insight thinks a finite device can measure the maximum range of infinite that must present within the finite. Meaning: **it can calculate the maximum limit of this expanding universe that must be equal to the maximum amount of energy exists in that universe.** Moral: we are not able to measure infinite by the finite.

What a finite device can do that is, set itself in the **Infinite Monkey Theorem **position where the monkey started hitting typewriter’s key randomly for an infinite amount of time, theorem suggests, reaching some point the monkey will able to type the complete work of Shakespeare. A finite device might be doing almost such thing; **it can use its capacity for going through the random algorithm of the expanding universe but oblige to back in the finite level, from where the algorithm begins. **

Even Conway’s ‘**Game of life**‘ indicates cell can move-out to the game-board if condition not met (See; **the rules of Conway’s game**). Anyway, the question is inevitable, that is, —-where they can go? The answer might be that: **it is impossible for the cells to go ‘nowhere’**; rather they have must exist in somewhere by taking space. Our observation is limited unto the board. Conway defined the limit for us to play the game, means he defines the limit of the algorithm as well.

**NASA Image: Our Universe **

**NASA Image: Our Universe**

**… A finite device might be doing almost such thing; it can use its capacity for going through the random algorithm of the expanding universe but oblige to back in the finite level, from where the algorithm begins.
… … …**

Our observation provoked us to think, cells are gone out to unknown and perhaps they are traveling now in the infinite for an infinite time. Janna Levin might oppose the proposition for saying this: no, the discharged cells must exist in the infinite-looking finite space; they exist within the expanding universe, and maybe they can come back to the board. Reason: **nothing can exceed the maximum energy limit of the universe. The limit of energy is the limit of the universe. If we concern about the finite amount of energy that is our universe has contained now, then if the parallel universe exists for the sake of argument, we cannot be said this their energy is unlimited. **

The problem is related to the calculation and relevant with observation. So ‘infinite’ is a finite term in the sense of the argument. **Which is measured it must be finite, which is not measured yet, for argument’s sake we can say it infinite.** Actually, the term depends on to the limit of observation, alongside the language also. Moral: bit rectification of Wittgenstein’s axiom can add new value:

I. The limits of my observation mean the limit of my universe.

II. Observation disguises universe but it doesn’t mean the universe is infinite or to what extent we see the world, it is unreal. **Unreal is relative to the limit of real. **The universe is so far looking limitless as far our tiny galaxy seemed unreal, but it doesn’t mean we are staying in unreal. Unreal is the part of ‘real’ as well.

For example, if we consider this universe infinite for argument’s sake, we can say as **Max Tegmark **said, our universe could be created by “corner cutting” technique. Means, stars appeared in the universe in different ages looking similar (like floor tiles) to one another, our galaxy might be one of the similar-looking galaxy, which might stand beyond our sight; maybe it is now staying in another universe; this tiles puzzle might make the universe infinite.

Janna Levin said different, “Maybe one of the ancient galaxies we see in the distance is really our own galaxy at an earlier age.” Indicates, **the similar looking galaxy can be created and tiled without simulation. **

III. Whereof the limits thereof the world. True, but it doesn’t denote which we’ve yet not seen it cannot be included in there in future. Suppose, the imagination about parallel universe could be added in the ‘whereof’ state as a ‘proposition’ of… reality beyond over the ‘observable’ world.

**Brookhaven National Laboratory: artist’s concept of Infinite Universe**

**Brookhaven National Laboratory: artist’s concept of Infinite Universe**

**… Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem reminds: something might remain out of our insight which we lame to comprehend by applied our logic-sense, and this ‘something’ is reality; this is the real face of truth which we’ve might inept to solving it through the mathematical equation.
… … …**

All this enigma indicate the problem of logic and mathematical equation. Then, why we consider mathematics as de facto? **The main advantage of mathematics maybe this, it helps us not to take over much metaphysical burden in our shoulder, help to construct language with a better sensibility so that we can avoid nonsense as best we could.** Janna Levin shortened it in her book, for said: “from a contradiction, you may deduce everything”. **[See: Janna Levin, A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines] **

**Fact is that Janna Levin tried to apply her sensibility in both recognition of philosophy and mathematics before justifying the factual truth of ‘infinite universe’.** There was some pragmatic evidence and as well strong mathematics behind this which rousing the possibility that an ‘infinite universe’ is not a bad idea to handle the problem of ‘uncertainly expanded universe’; since it gives comfort to the theorist for molding new hypothesis by wringing the observed evidence as far possible. Maybe this is fair enough on comparing to the state of a theorist who is trying hard to stands on the ground that the universe is finite but his observed data forced him to think the opposite. Janna Levin took over a double standard before moves forward.

**Amazon: Janna Levin’s Book Cover: How the universe got its spots **

**Amazon: Janna Levin’s Book Cover: How the universe got its spots**

**… Thus, the problem of ‘infinity’ is the problem of common sense. Infinity might be the abstraction of mathematics. The ‘formless’ anything is unable to relate how things have appeared repeatedly in a finite space where we claimed the universe is expanding at infinite pace. Janna mentioned this in her book: “The simpler the insight, the more profound the conclusion.” We are now there, to see how she made this.
… … …**

She was concern about the pragmatic consequences where astronomers frequently observe the dying stars from the observatory; as well, she was sentient to the last updates of cosmological hypothesis and mathematical models; reversely, her mind tried to touch the topology with strong philosophical ground, that is: **if all these seeable could make to serve the finite purpose of life then why not the universe?** This simple insight led the young physicist wrote an interesting book with layman’s approach where she declared her stance with lucid proclivity:

“No infinity has ever been observed in nature. Nor is infinity tolerated in a scientific theory — e**xcept we keep assuming the universe itself is infinite**… The fabric of the universe is just a coherent weave from the same threads that make our bodies. How much more absurd it becomes to believe that the universe, space and time could possibly be infinite when all of us are finite.” **[See: Janna Levin, How the Universe Got Its Spots: Diary of a Finite Time in a Finite] **

The declaration is simple and enthusiastic but indicates powerful realism behind it. Not intended to make any contradiction with the weird pragmatic pieces of evidence, despite this, **unwilling to jump on the river where the universe is infinitely infinite so that we cannot understand it by applying our finite restriction to it.** However, it might be necessary to make a short travel in the evidentiary findings before going further to Janna Levin’s finite stance.

**… … …**

**… The problem of structuralism is unavoidable there, that is, —what we have proposed through the language it brings some reality to us, and we cannot deny the proposition by saying it ‘irrational’…**

**… The problem of structuralism is unavoidable there, that is, —what we have proposed through the language it brings some reality to us, and we cannot deny the proposition by saying it ‘irrational’…**

*Jirirezac.photoshelter.com: Janna Levin *

*Jirirezac.photoshelter.com: Janna Levin*