Could you expand on the connection to volition?

I wonder too whether there is any limit to this universe. The scales involved, from the atomic to the universe itself, are literally unimaginable.

That coupled with, as you allege, human limitations, leaves a lot of room for mind-boggling possibilities.

However, these constraints notwithstanding, we sometimes have to make definitive pronouncements about this world and ourselves. It is when we reach such a point that we let loose our imaginations and create our very own version of what reality could be.

I think this is what you're doing. There's nothing wrong with that but also there's nothing right in that.

As we are enormous to a unicelular being, we are insignificant compared with the sun, i'm saying that this kind of comparisons are infinite (there will always be something bigger and something smaller), i also like to believe in this because it makes free will something much more real, since there in not a basic structure that supports matter, as i like to see it, there is not such thing as a possible complete predictability of the future based on the observation of the physical behavior of this basic particle, as there is not such thing. — Aucellus

When we do not apprehend the limit, it appears like the sizes may just keep getting bigger and bigger, or smaller and smaller. Therefore the numbers involved go to infinity. When we apprehend the limit, that limit is an end to this process of the numbers getting bigger and bigger, because it serves as a starting point, where the numbers can be applied according to new principles.

I really do not believe that these comparisons you refer to are limitless. That doesn't makes sense, because it would indicate the likelihood that all things are limitless, when in reality what we perceive is boundaries, limits. Once we perceive limits, then we can apply mathematics. But the mathematics is only applicable to the point where it approaches infinity again, then we need to find new limits. If we do not look for the real limits, we will not find them. So if all we want to do is sit around and apply mathematics, instead of seeking the real limits in the world, we'll suffer from the delusion that all is infinite.

There's a theory that states that if all matter is made of the same basic particle, that was created in a specific time in the past (Big Bang), and we could measure the conformation of all these identical particles in that punctual moment, we could apply the laws of physics to know the exact changes that would occur to that conformation, and by knowing the new one, we could go on predicting the future forever. So, this relates to volition because there could not be such thing if the entire behavior and personality of beings was just the consequence of a chain reaction started in the Big Bang, because this beings could never change the course of it.

Of course, i knowingly have chosen to believe something that can not be proven or disproven, just because i like the feel of it, although i remain completely open to newer beliefs, and i actively pursue the knowledge of what we like to call "the truth". It's a way of surrendering myself to my human nature, so it doesn't stand in my way.

You imply that the belief of everything being infinite doesn't make sense because we perceive boundaries, but what about what we can't perceive due to our human nature?
I found what you say about mathematics really interesting, that it's only applicable to the point where it approaches infinity, because it ignores the real limits, you say that we should search for new limits, but how can we find them? do we have to theorize them? how can we know what's the real delusion in that case?

If you ask me I think there's more to this reality than the materialistic interpretation that science is so fond of. Your theory is interesting because it has within it the seeds of infinite possibilities. However, it is still too scientific for the simple reason that you simply expand the range of pre-exisiting concepts e.g. you talk of ''particle''. In defense of your theory I like how you accomodate ''free will'' into it.

Are you saying that without particles, there is no causality?

You're completely right, but i think that there can be more to this reality, even if we use the materialistic interpretation of science, there are more "abstract" and "subjective" (is there really something that's not both of these things?) methods, but in the end, i believe that they're just languages used to talk about the same thing.

You're completely right, but i think that there can be more to this reality, even if we use the materialistic interpretation of science, there are more "abstract" and "subjective" (is there really something that's not both of these things?) methods, but in the end, i believe that they're just languages used to talk about the same thing.

I'm not talking about the absence of particles, i'm talking about the absence of basic and indivisible particles, and even so, i think that causality would exist anyway, at least to a certain level.

You imply that the belief of everything being infinite doesn't make sense because we perceive boundaries, but what about what we can't perceive due to our human nature? — Aucellus

If there is "that which we can perceive", and "that which we cannot perceive", don't you think that there is necessarily a boundary between these two? They are described as opposing, "can" and "cannot" perceive, so surely there must be some sort of boundary between these two. It is when we dissolve these boundaries, such as is the case when we dissolve the boundary between being and not being, to say that all exists as varying degrees of becoming, that the infinite appears to us.

So your example of "what we cannot perceive due to our human nature" can be taken in two ways. We can assume that whatever it is that we cannot perceive, maintains the same type of existence as what we can perceive, and this is boundaries between individual objects. Or, we can assume that what we cannot perceive exists in some completely different way from what we can perceive, in which case we need a boundary between what is perceivable and what is not perceivable. In each case we have boundaries.

I found what you say about mathematics really interesting, that it's only applicable to the point where it approaches infinity, because it ignores the real limits, you say that we should search for new limits, but how can we find them? do we have to theorize them? how can we know what's the real delusion in that case? — Aucellus

It's not so much that the use of mathematics ignores the limits, but certain limits are assumed, taken for granted, prior to applying the mathematics. What is at issue is the relationship between the assumed limits, and the real limits. When these two do not correspond, then we have the appearance of infinity in the mathematics when it is applied to what is real. Reality continues on, where the assumed limits do not allow, or vise versa, the mathematics continues, where reality doesn't allow, and this is where infinities arise.

you say that we should search for new limits, but how can we find them? do we have to theorize them? how can we know what's the real delusion in that case? — Aucellus

Yes, I think we find the limits through theorizing, and confirming through experimentation, the scientific method. But we have to analyze the places where infinities arise in the mathematics because the occurrence of those infinities indicates that our understanding of the boundaries which are assumed to lie there, is inadequate.

the hypothesis of the infinity of the universe outwards and inwards of our level of existence, meaning that there isn't a basic particle of matter or a limit in the total size of the cosmos. — Aucellus

Investigate this book:

The Buddhist Teaching of Totality: The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism
by Garma C.C. Chang
Link: http://a.co/fMUmMjj

It's not necessary to think of space as fixed. It is constantly evolving as it's duration. Thus it is not limitless but it is without limits as it continuously expands.

but in the end, i believe that they're just languages used to talk about the same thing. — Aucellus

Kinda depends on the angle of attack - the perspective chosen. To add there's the possibility that all of what we call ''knowledge'' may actually be just one side of the dice. There could be many different sides to the story.