You guys are both right.
There are sub-sets of sets.
My understanding of what Unity is saying is that for something to be truly infinite, it must be infinite is ALL aspects, all directions.
Thus, a line cannot be infinite, because it has dimension...It doesn't go out in all directions infinitely. A line cannot be said to be infinite.
However, there is also the concept of infinite within limits, which is what I think Ali is referring to.
Given the limitation of a line, although the line itself is not infinite, it may continue infinitely in a given direction. In other words, it may be infinitely long. But it isn't infinitely wide in all directions, so it isn't truly infinite. It's just infinitely long.
The use of qualifiers makes all the difference. You guys are talking about 2 different things.
Something can be infinite in one particular aspect, for example length. Its length might be infinite. But length is only one aspect of the whole, so the whole is not infinite.
The way I see it, Unity is looking at the whole, while Ali is referring to an aspect of the whole.
Mathematicians may refer to an infinite line or an infinite graph, but that still is imposing limits, by its very definition. If it's a line, a graph or whatever, it can't be infinite, because it has shape and form. Anything that has shape, form, limitations of any sort isn't infinite.
But a single aspect of it might be infinite, within a defined limitation.
My understanding is that Unity is referring to infinity as in, all that is...without any limitations, without any distortions. Any mathematical construct has, by its very nature, distortion and thus cannot be infinite.
I don't want to speak for either of you, so please correct me if I've misunderstood you. But I really see no conflict in your respective opinions. You are both right in your own way but seeing it in a different way.
A line might be infinitely long. But it isn't infinite.
Nassim Haramein, the brilliant physicist and mathematician, has delved into this. I highly recommend watching his lectures. He explains this very concept you are discussing. He explains that our fractal, holographic UniVerse is built upon the very concept of infinity...but infinity within limits. Not the same as infinity. It sounds paradoxical until you hear him explain it.
There are sub-sets of sets.
My understanding of what Unity is saying is that for something to be truly infinite, it must be infinite is ALL aspects, all directions.
Thus, a line cannot be infinite, because it has dimension...It doesn't go out in all directions infinitely. A line cannot be said to be infinite.
However, there is also the concept of infinite within limits, which is what I think Ali is referring to.
Given the limitation of a line, although the line itself is not infinite, it may continue infinitely in a given direction. In other words, it may be infinitely long. But it isn't infinitely wide in all directions, so it isn't truly infinite. It's just infinitely long.
The use of qualifiers makes all the difference. You guys are talking about 2 different things.
Something can be infinite in one particular aspect, for example length. Its length might be infinite. But length is only one aspect of the whole, so the whole is not infinite.
The way I see it, Unity is looking at the whole, while Ali is referring to an aspect of the whole.
Mathematicians may refer to an infinite line or an infinite graph, but that still is imposing limits, by its very definition. If it's a line, a graph or whatever, it can't be infinite, because it has shape and form. Anything that has shape, form, limitations of any sort isn't infinite.
But a single aspect of it might be infinite, within a defined limitation.
My understanding is that Unity is referring to infinity as in, all that is...without any limitations, without any distortions. Any mathematical construct has, by its very nature, distortion and thus cannot be infinite.
I don't want to speak for either of you, so please correct me if I've misunderstood you. But I really see no conflict in your respective opinions. You are both right in your own way but seeing it in a different way.
A line might be infinitely long. But it isn't infinite.
Nassim Haramein, the brilliant physicist and mathematician, has delved into this. I highly recommend watching his lectures. He explains this very concept you are discussing. He explains that our fractal, holographic UniVerse is built upon the very concept of infinity...but infinity within limits. Not the same as infinity. It sounds paradoxical until you hear him explain it.