Yeah I didn't get all of it either. The chap who was trying to explain that there has to be a 'largest number' and then counting is reset to 0 was something I didn't fully understand.

I liked that part. I think the guy was on to something. He was saying that "infinity" is unhelpful and probably not needed and, as he said, his theory was just as valid any anyone else's:

1. There are numbers with names,

2. There are numbers that are so big that they are inexpressible

[1].

3. There is (x), “any number”, for use in formulae

[2], and

4. there is, separately, infinity, which is not a number.

The concept of infinity starts at the boundary of countable numbers but, by definition, every number is countable. Numbers cannot express infinity.

Infinity is the amount of all possible attributes that are related to the subject of that infinity.

A line that does not end is infinite but nowhere does have a sphere or a cube; it merely, yet eternally,

**possesses the quality** of a line.

In the case of the universe, the universe possesses ‘size’ as a quality: we do not know if this quality is infinite. Worse still, we do not know of any way to know it.

“We do not know if the universe is infinite.” means “We do not know

** the quality of the size** of the universe, but it is very big.”

If we go back to 3 above, we can say, “In terms of the attribute of distance, the universe is x miles wide.” and that is accurate, yet unhelpful, but in fact, it is more helpful than saying “The universe is infinite.”