>>11322193A rock is true in the sense we can define it by its bounds. We can't process that (and thus define it) without a harmonic precedent. Its truth is its objectivity.
Maths is not universal, in that it is a subjective language that aims to explain what is true, but as evidenced with irrational numbers it breaks down and is not sufficient for use. We start maths with "1+1=2" and go from there, which means maths is ultimately limited from what its nexus dictates and can't explain the entire truth.
This is why illogical concepts like infinity are used (and have use value -- they in essence mean 'largest possible number'), but it doesn't prove infinity, because of its subjectivity.
As such, there is no viable mathematical proof of infinity, especially when you examine the inertia of geometry that precedes maths, which requires the process of time. 1+1 = 2 is a process, a square is inert.
