The infinite can not be defined as a principle because any part of it you take will be also infinite and there are infinitely many divisible parts or interpretations. Example; We come into consciousness and as we go out of consciousness, if we can remember childhood, consciousness was a mistake and accident. Our memories as infants are the brightest and most authentic. If not remembered, they are new experiences.
Example two; Consciousness is a mistake. Memories are bright if they are new experiences, as we remember childhood.
Example 3,4,5,6...................are random interpretations of example one in reference to the primary principle that is laid down. This was discussed previously but never really applied.

At a certain point the process is complete when there is a new set of data to replace it. An accidental decision can not exceed a new form and therefore is impossible to have substantial existence as a principle regarding the subject and theme for each individual part, which is captured and consigned to memory.

An argument for the finite is valid but impossible to predicate because of the nature of the universe. "Either it will be indivisible or it will be divisible into infinities."

Let us consider modern science. A set of whole numbers consist of two infinite parts, a set of even numbers and a set of odd numbers. In extended magnitudes a straight line is infinite in both directions. Hawkins argument: the line is distorted in one direction and in the other it is perfect and straight as 2 opposites that exist simultaneously, divisible in a random fashion. This is a rash statement which could be investigated further.

Each part is no longer a conscious acknowledgement but still maintained as a discipline, adapted and reorganised because actual infinities are quantities, therefore not a substance but a coincidental attribute of things. It is arguable whether this could be a principle, now that science has moved on.