Logic is technical, logic is industrial, logic is concrete.
The classical picture of logic isn't enough any more. The old
rules are patched to keep out paradox. Paradoxes are cute and
clever entertainments, which show that your logic is broken
somewhere. Usually you can't see where, because it's too
subtle, until your logical rules are reviewed by a future
generation, who can pin down some slippery ambiguity in the
meaning of some rule you used to create your paradox.

So what rules did I break to show infinity doesn't exist?
I had the help of a lot of logicians, who have been trying
to prove that infinity doesn't exist for over a century.
I had the help of our common material consensus on reality,
and the big bang physical theory. The observation I explained
is the lack of infinity. No logical tools will have to be
warped to handle the case of infinity, because there's none
around. There can't be any infinity around because we exist,
and reality is inconsistent with infinity. I showed this
was true for the instant of the Big Bang, so the universe
can have no resident infinity. There's no such thing as
infinity, the word is without referent. There's no infinite
god in sight, so we're safe to be human.

Logic is how we exclude lunacy. Logic is shared rules. As
a rule of thumb, anyone who states a conclusion bizarrely
different from our commonly agreed reality has broken the
rules of logic to reach that conclusion. Logic which can
prove "anything" is broken logic, and a useless tool. I try
to use the standard tools so people will accept my
conclusions. I proved that something we can't see, doesn't
exist, because it can't. That should be reassuring.