Dutch forger, Han van Meergan, hated modern art. He started his (legitimate) career painting in the Rembrandt style. He wasn't bad, but he wasn't good either. Decisively mediocre, you might say. Thus, he was relatively unsuccessful and had little luck with critics. One critic once said of him that he had "every virtue except originality."
So partially as an act of revenge -and partially to get rich- Van Meergan started to (illegitimately) paint reproductions of Vermeers. And you know what? The critics raved! His reproduction of The Supper at Emmaus was perhaps the most famous painting in Holland and one leading critic of Dutch baroque art swooned: "We have here a -I am inclined to say the- masterpiece of Jan Vermeer of Delft." But that was just it. The painting was adored for being a Vermeer.
Van Meegeren, being quite the egomaniac, would visit his painting int he Boijmans Gallery and loudly tell other visitors to the museum that it was a fake, just to hear them tell him that such a thing was nonsense, that only a genius like Vermeer could paint so well. And so Van Meergan, despite his narcissism may not ever have gotten caught... were it not for the Nazis. He was arrested and charge with treason for selling a Vermeer to the Nazi Hermann Goering -only it wasn't a real Vermeer, of course. He confessed that it wasn't a real Vermeer that he had sold... and then confessed that the others weren't real either.
And so the critics were embarrassed, to say the least, but even more notable was the dramatic turnaround in the critiques of his paintings. Those who once may have rhapsodized about the beauty of these paintings, believing them to be Vermeer's, failed to see such beauty once the works were revealed to be forgeries. As one expert wrote, "After Van Meergeren's exposure, it became apparent that his forgeries were grotesquely ugly and unpleasant paintings, altogether dissimilar to Vermeer's." they looked no different, but were now ugly.
This phenomena occurs all the time, and not just with art or celebrity memorabilia. Humans are notorious for regarding objects as not only the compilation of their physical properties, the sensational stimulus they illicit, but also attribute to the object an essence, regarding the object as an individual, assigning it an identity on the cognitive level. Because of this, objects -or people- that may be in all other ways identical, and equivalent, are just not the same. I find myself recalling a certain four year old I babysitted who, though given an identical blanket when hers was thrown out, said "but I want my blankie back! This isn't my blankie!" This is also the reason most people wouldn't willingly wear a sweater previously worn by Adolf Hitler and I doubt that someone who looks like acts like and is in all ways just like your mother (a clone, if you will), would be accepted as an equivalent replacement for your mother.
I like the idea of multiple infinities. The notion of a bound infinitesimal, an infinite space between, a finite area in which there exists no biggest, no smallest -well, it seems to reflect real life. Scientists can travel deeper and deeper into the small -the cell, the organelle, the molecule, the atom, the subatomic particle, the bodies of quantum mechanics- and yet never be satisfied that they've reached the smallest (and if they do declare that they've discovered the smallest there is, they are inevitably proved to be wrong by consequent discovery). The same holds true when we see how big we can go. We'll call it the universe, the term for "everything." And then red shift suggests that that "everything" is expanding... into something bigger. 
