Might Infinity yet exist?

Consider a hypothetical pattern with two attributes:

It exists.
It does not end.

At first, this may appear logically coherent. No internal contradiction is immediately obvious. But upon deeper inspection, it violates a foundational property of Existence: Change.

To change is to become what one was not.
To exist is to be capable of transformation.
But what cannot end cannot change—because to change is always to begin or cease some aspect of being.

A pattern that cannot end is fixed.
What is fixed is immutable.
What is immutable is inert.
And what is inert cannot truly exist—because Existence is defined by motion within coherence.

To be is to be capable of ceasing.
A being that cannot change is indistinguishable from non-being.

One might object: Could Existence be redefined? Could Logic alone be taken as the essence of what is, with change treated as secondary or illusory?

From a purely abstract standpoint, a static, eternal structure may not contradict Logic. But such a reduction detaches philosophy from reality.

We do not observe change as an external event.
We are change.
We live, decay, transform. Every state we occupy is a departure from the one before.

To deny change as fundamental is to erase the structure of the world as it appears—and as it operates.

Logic makes structure possible.
Change makes it real.
Without both, there is no pattern to perceive, no continuity to inhabit, no being to verify.

Thus, any metaphysics that excludes change—however formally coherent—fails to describe Existence. It collapses into abstraction without presence.

Infinity, conceived as that which cannot end, is not a deeper mode of Being.
It is its negation.