In reflecting upon this quote, one can appreciate the pragmatic approach physicists take when dealing with the concept of infinity. Rather than treating infinity as an abstract, unattainable concept, physics employs it as a practical tool — a shorthand notation representing values that are extraordinarily large, often beyond realistic measurement. This pragmatic usage underscores the fact that infinity in mathematics and philosophy might imply an actual endlessness or boundlessness, but in the physical sciences, it is a convenient approximation for dealing with entities or values so immense they approach theoretical limits.

This practical approach also reflects the empirical nature of physics: it demands observability, measurement, and application. Using infinity as a stand-in for very large numbers acknowledges the limitations of experimentation and numerical precision while also allowing theoretical models to function without getting bogged down by the impossibility of actual infinite measurements. This reminds us of the essential difference between mathematical purity and physical applicability.

Additionally, this perspective subtly challenges certain metaphysical or theological interpretations of the infinite. For instance, in the context of Victor J. Stenger's arguments in "God: The Failed Hypothesis," the reinterpretation of infinity as a practical tool rather than a metaphysical absolute aligns with scientific skepticism towards metaphysical claims that invoke infinity as proof or descriptor of divinity or cosmic absolutes. Overall, this quote invites readers to think critically about how language and concepts from abstract mathematics are recontextualized when confronted with the gritty realities of physical experimentation, measurement, and theory.