Intelligent Infinity, has no polarization

[Ali Quadir]

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.

This is indeed the core.

But this line you describe IS in fact infinite according to all the philosophers, mathematicians physicists and well basically to all people who know this stuff on this planet.

I've been referring to totality. The line as you say isn't totality. This is what I believe unity means and in this regard he is correct as I've stated.

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.

You are correct a line or graph or anything with any definition at all is limited. It is not totality.

But that it is therefore not infinite isn't true, infinity can still be limited. Look it up, it's true. Water has two hydrogen molecules, pi is 3.1415 and infinity can be limited. Totality (what you call infinity) cannot be limited. I do understand what you guys are talking about. But you're basically calling a cat a dog. We should not redefine words when the correct words like in this case totality are readily available.

Why is this a problem? I don't understand this...

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.

Nassim Haramein knows the correct words. He uses the term infinity correctly. Nassim Haramein is demonstrating my point. His infinity within limits IS the same as infinity This is a correct use of the word. Why would Haramein not know his stuff?

When he says the infinitely small he uses the word infinite. Why would that be? Because it isn't really infinity? Or because it IS really infinity?

Again you guys mean totality. Simply replace infinity with totality, use the correct word, and most everything if not all that unity has been saying is correct.

Words are conventions. We do not have the luxury to redefine them at will. This will only cause chaos in our heads. Because before you know it we will be calling everything with four legs a cat. Even a table.

I have referred to the wikipedia where the concept of infinity is explained. I have asked for examples of your interpretation of the word. None were given.

Unity you even said that there is nothing to link to.. Why do you not want to use the word totality which is correct and makes your whole argument work? I must admit, I am really baffled by this.