Now you're trying to confuse me with technical
No
involving deceleration breaks down at Planck's length and Planck's time, if not before. Mathematical infinity, yes; physical infinity, no.
Hmm well yea I suppose it wouldn't continue moving as the classical mathematical description says. But that means this whole infinity philosophy depends on QM and would have been impossible to consider 100 years ago. Seems strange for philosophical possibilites to change so fast.
Anyway, here's another way. Have a wave, say EM. Reduce its frequency all the way to zero. What happens to its wavelength or period?
By the way, we can cancel this whole discussion if you reckon an object moving 'backwards' at 3m/s doesn't have a physical velocity of -3m/s. Pretty much any measurable quantity can be measured in different ways to give different numbers representing the same thing. We could make up new units to give all sorts of numbers - even complex numbers to represent physical things.
Back to way back. If numbers aren't physical things then what did you mean about all that infinity business? It should all be invalid because there's no physical infinity, just as there's no physical -3.
I have a feeling you just invented a new concept which nothing is known to comply with, gave it some properties, called it 'infinity', then made some deductions based on all this made-up stuff, and using some assumptions, made a conclusion about the possibility of multiple universes.
Reminds me of the guy who builds his castle higher by taking bricks out of the bottom and putting them on the top
