Intelligent Infinity, has no polarization

[seejay21]

The only thing that I can think of that goes towards proof is that we have emotions that we can all agree on. We have given words to identify these emotions. We can all agree what each feels like. Fear is a good one. We have all felt fear at some time in our lives, and regardless of the catalyst for the fear, fear feels like fear to me the same it feels to you. It feels like Fear. How is it possible that all of us, each one of us, have this same emotion? Some emotions may be stronger in other people, but the essence of the emotion is unchanged.

Actually, I would disagree with this. Though it may seem obvious to most of us, emotions may be experienced differently by those of different polarities.

STO's generally agree that fear and pain aren't pleasant. But STS entities might find those emotions pleasant. The emotion or sensation itself might be the same, but the perception of it might be totally different.

I do agree with your larger point, however, in that the emotions are shared.

Heck, I had to take a stab at it. It's the impossible question! It's why we are all here on this forum, looking for answer.

It is the sensation that I am refering to. The sensations of the emotions are the same, what we do with them is part of the distortion.

[Ali Quadir]

@Unity
I use the concept of infinity that is in use by the mathematicians in this world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

I don't know where your definition comes from... I don't really care either. I suggest we try to stick to the regular definitions of words for the purpose of our discussions. After all we're also using the other English words correctly. Your redefinition as totality is unfortunate.. The concept of Infinity really has a lot it can teach us that gets lost this way.

Now *I* am going to stop discussing infinity with you... Each of us is as they say entitled to our own opinions. However this does not mean we can begin to invent and redefine concepts just to "prove" a point.

As I said, intelligent infinity is another concept so we're drifting off topic.

[unity100]

use the definition of infinity in its literal, or logic meaning. infinity has to be infinite in every way and aspect. mathematics takes infinity in only contexts that it can manipulate and do operations on.

there is nothing unfortunate about infinity being infinite. to be infinite, something needs to be infinite. if it is one dimensional, then it cannot be infinite. it is simple logic.

[Ali Quadir]

Please link to anything supporting your position unity. I don't know what you're coming from or why. All I know is that your statements do not agree with any reality I know. I linked to evidence supporting my position. You haven't done that yet...

Please do so or we're basically just engaging in pointless bickering. I don't really want to go there with you. I would chalk it up to a difference in opinion. But the meaning of words like basic arithmetic isn't a matter of opinion or debate, it is a matter of convention. So without such a link we better end this discussion.

Could it be that in your native tongue infinity and totality are synonymous? They are not in English. If I point at a dog and call it a cat you'd correct me too.

Namaste

[unity100]

there isnt anything that can be linked to describe the concept of infinity. infinity, needs to be infinite. it cant be one dimensional. it cant be tied to any dimensions either, ie, a 3d infinity is still not infinite.

i see that it is better that we stopped discussing with you. have a nice day.

[Monica]

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.

[unity100]

an aspect can be infinite within itself.

but, an aspect cannot cover whole infinity. that is the main point. because, there are infinite numbers of finites that are infinite inside, outside that particular aspect. hence, there is infinity outside. to be able to cover infinity, that aspect has to be infinity itself. only then it can be truly infinite.

[Monica]

an aspect can be infinite within itself.

but, an aspect cannot cover whole infinity. that is the main point. because, there are infinite numbers of finites that are infinite inside, outside that particular aspect. hence, there is infinity outside. to be able to cover infinity, that aspect has to be infinity itself. only then it can be truly infinite.

I just saw your post in another thread, that overlaps this discussion:

it is quite simple :

the infinity's subset, infinite intelligence, the closest thing to infinity, is discovering finiteness, multiple beingness.

the concept of finity is discovered. and, infinite intelligence set to manifest as infinite numbers of finitenesses.

the concept of finiteness discovered, is the finiteness we know it. it is as finite, as finite can be. there is no other finiteness concept in the existence we know it, for now. so, we know the only finity we know, it is finite as it can be.

in this manifestation, you are one of the infinite numbers of finitenesses that infinite intelligence manifests as. until you leave all your identity, experience (ie finities) behind and gain spiritual mass towards infinity, you will be manifesting as a discrete (as it can be) and finite (finite in proportion to your spiritual mass) entity, even if you are in late 6d, or early 7d.

the sum of infinite parts of finite entities, is infinite. therefore, when looked from the perspective of infinite intelligence, all is still one, ie infinite, etc.

but, when looked from the perspective of any finite manifestation, the entity is finite, because, the very concept of definition infinite intelligence discovered in this octave, is as thus. so, a finite entity, you, as finite as finiteness can happen.

the past, present, future, do exist all at the same time only from the perspective of your future timepoint. they pass valid only at that point. at any points in your continuum, you are as finite as much as we (infinite intelligence) discovered what finiteness can be. it can be, at most, like the one you see and experience now.

from The Harvest > Dual activated bodies

[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.

[unity100]

infinity cannot be limited. if its limited, it is not infinite anymore, it becomes infinite. you cant then call it infinity. see, when you started using the word infinity for something that is limited, you started using the word totality to name infinity instead. you just replaced terms.

i see no such need. there is no point in relegating and forfeiting the word infinity to mathematics, because mathematics needs to have some limits, put up a line then call it infinite in its direction. it is mathematics' own operational needs.

[Monica]

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.

It is only infinite within the context of being a line. It is an infinite line. It is a line first, infinite second.

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.

Ra used the word infinity.

13.5 Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me of the first known thing in the creation?
Ra: I am Ra. The first known thing in the creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.

13.6 Questioner: From this infinity then must come what we experience as creation. What was the next step or the next evolvement?
Ra: I am Ra. Infinity became aware. This was the next step.

13.7 Questioner: After this, what came next?
Ra: I am Ra. Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various vibrational sound complexes, the most common to your ears being “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.

13.8 Questioner: Can you state the next step?
Ra: I am Ra. The next step is still at this space/time nexus in your illusion achieving its progression as you may see it in your illusion. The next step is an infinite reaction to the creative principle following the Law of One in one of its primal distortions, freedom of will. Thus many, many dimensions, infinite in number, are possible. The energy moves from the intelligent infinity due first to the outpouring of randomized creative force, this then creating patterns which in holographic style appear as the entire creation no matter which direction or energy is explored. These patterns of energy begin then to regularize their own local, shall we say, rhythms and fields of energy, thus creating dimensions and universes.

13.9 Questioner: Then can you tell me how the galaxy and planetary systems were formed?
Ra: I am Ra. You must imagine a great leap of thought in this query, for at the last query the physical, as you call, it, universes were not yet born.

The energies moved in increasingly intelligent patterns until the individualization of various energies emanating from the creative principle of intelligent infinity became such as to be co-Creators. Thus the so-called physical matter began. The concept of light is instrumental in grasping this great leap of thought as this vibrational distortion of infinity is the building block of that which is known as matter, the light being intelligent and full of energy, thus being the first distortion of intelligent infinity which was called by the creative principle.

This light of love was made to have in its occurrences of being certain characteristics, among them the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line, as you would call it. This paradox is responsible for the shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies, and planets of revolving and tending towards the lenticular.

13.12 Questioner: Can you tell me how intelligent infinity became, shall we say (I’m having difficulty with the language), how intelligent infinity became individualized from itself?
Ra: I am Ra. This is an appropriate question.

The intelligent infinity discerned a concept. This concept was discerned to be freedom of will of awareness. This concept was finity. This was the first and primal paradox or distortion of the Law of One. Thus the one intelligent infinity invested itself in an exploration of many-ness. Due to the infinite possibilities of intelligent infinity there is no ending to many-ness. The exploration, thus, is free to continue infinitely in an eternal present.

If you do a search on the term totality, you won't find it referenced in this context.

The reason I'm using the term infinity instead of totality is because we're discussing the Law of One, which is beyond mathematics.

[unity100]

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.

It is only infinite within the context of being a line. It is an infinite line. It is a line first, infinite second.

that is better than my description.

also monica's reason for using the word infinity for infinity, and not transplanting the word totality instead of infinity is quite spot on.

[Monica]

But that it is therefore not infinite isn't true, infinity can still be limited.

It can be infinite within a finite structure.

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.

We are using the words Ra used.

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?

Nassim does know his stuff. He is explaining infinity within finite structures, so he is using the term correctly and in alignment with mathematics/physics...and has no conflict with the Law of One in the context he is using.

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?

The key here is the use of a qualifier. He didn't just say infinite. He said infinitely small. Thus, infinite becomes an adjective, a descriptor, a qualifier. Not the same as the term infinity by itself.

[Ali Quadir]

Thank you Monica, I asked for a reference that would make sense of the whole picture. You giving a reference resolves this issue for me. I still have the feeling something is eluding me, I find it strange Ra would change the meaning of these words from the way scientists use it. But there you have it. Black on white, and apparently very clear. If you mistook Ra I cannot see it. I cannot do anything but conclude that Unity correctly used the phrase. And retract my objection.

[Monica]

Thank you Monica, I asked for a reference that would make sense of the whole picture. You giving a reference resolves this issue for me.

Great!

I still have the feeling something is eluding me, I find it strange Ra would change the meaning of these words from the way scientists use it.

Ra uses many terms, such as density, mind/body/spirit complex, distortion, and many others, in ways not recognized by our scientists. Ra is explaining concepts beyond the understanding of our scientists, so I see no reason why Ra would be limited to current scientific thinking or to terms presently in vogue. The use of words changes as society changes. Ra's teachings are timeless.

But there you have it. Black on white, and apparently very clear. If you mistook Ra I cannot see it. I cannot do anything but conclude that Unity correctly used the phrase. And retract my objection.

[unity100]

Actually, it doesnt even need contemplation - for anything to be infinite, it has to be infinite in all regards, aspects, concepts, dimensions, inside, outside, at all points and inwards, outwards ....... just keep adding adjectives and prepositions.

[Confused]

Actually, it doesnt even need contemplation - for anything to be infinite, it has to be infinite in all regards, aspects, concepts, dimensions, inside, outside, at all points and inwards, outwards ....... just keep adding adjectives and prepositions.

I think that is quite a profound statement to make Unity100. As we try to approximate intelligent infinity in conceptual terms, it is well to hold in meditation, Ra's wonderful quote (session 28) -

This concept is incorrect as is any concept of the one intelligent infinity. This concept is correct in the context of one particular Logos, or Love, or focus of this Creator which has chosen Its, shall we say, natural laws and ways of expressing them mathematically and otherwise.

The one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole, is the macrocosm of the mystery-clad being. We are messengers of the Law of One. Unity, at this approximation of understanding, cannot be specified by any physics but only become activated or potentiated intelligent infinity due to the catalyst of free will. This may be difficult to accept. However, the understandings we have to share begin and end in mystery.

Though this may sound cliched, it appears that any attempt to conceptualise intelligent infinity is rendered futile by the finiteness of our understanding. Faith, it appears, is the key to unlocking the experience of intelligent infinity. Please consider the following quote from Ra (session 3) -

The vibratory distortion of sound, faith, is perhaps one of the stumbling blocks between those of what we may call the infinite path and those of the finite proving/understanding.

You are precisely correct in your understanding of the congruency of faith and intelligent infinity; however, one is a spiritual term, the other more acceptable perhaps to the conceptual framework distortions of those who seek with measure and pen.

It appears as if Ra is calling the path of faith as 'the infinite path'. The path of 'proving/understanding' (or conceptualizing through measure and pen) is finite, apart from being arduous. And it can at best probably offer a correct understanding only within a particular context (please see the Ra quote taken from session 28). Intelligent infinity in its fullness is probably only accessible on the 'infinite path' (or the road of faith), as only infinity can fathom infinity. I bow in awed reverence before the mystery of the One Infinite Creator as I wrestle with the mystical shadows with only a simple and yet an infinite spiritual instrument called faith.

Salutations to the ONE in you.

[unity100]

This concept is incorrect as is any concept of the one intelligent infinity. This concept is correct in the context of one particular Logos, or Love, or focus of this Creator which has chosen Its, shall we say, natural laws and ways of expressing them mathematically and otherwise.

The one undifferentiated intelligent infinity, unpolarized, full and whole, is the macrocosm of the mystery-clad being. We are messengers of the Law of One. Unity, at this approximation of understanding, cannot be specified by any physics but only become activated or potentiated intelligent infinity due to the catalyst of free will. This may be difficult to accept. However, the understandings we have to share begin and end in mystery.

Though this may sound cliched, it appears that any attempt to conceptualise intelligent infinity is rendered futile by the finiteness of our understanding. Faith, it appears, is the key to unlocking the experience of intelligent infinity. Please consider the following quote from Ra (session 3) -

finiteness of our understanding doesnt make what we have actually uncovered irrelevant or baseless. what we know, is what we know. there are things which can be concluded with what we understand.

if not, then all the conceptualizations of Law of One, everything being one and so on, would be all balooney talk, and Ra material would be dud and null, because 'any attempt to conceptualize intelligent infinity would be rendered futile with our understanding'.

however, it is not as such. ra is teaching oneness, unifiedness of existence, through the very deduction that they make from the infinity themselves, leave aside any conceptualization of intelligent infinity ; each manifesting entity, anything existent, are results of the same infinite source, therefore, all one in source. all are based on the conceptualization of intelligent infinity, and infinity.

being able to manifest something with full understanding is different from rationalizing something.

It appears as if Ra is calling the path of faith as 'the infinite path'. The path of 'proving/understanding' (or conceptualizing through measure and pen) is finite, apart from being arduous. And it can at best probably offer a correct understanding only within a particular context (please see the Ra quote taken from session 28). Intelligent infinity in its fullness is probably only accessible on the 'infinite path' (or the road of faith), as only infinity can fathom infinity. I bow in awed reverence before the mystery of the One Infinite Creator as I wrestle with the mystical shadows with only a simple and yet an infinite spiritual instrument called faith.

Salutations to the ONE in you.

that logic would make everything we talk here balooney, because, all are results and consequences of infinity itself. as i said, the very 'Law of One' is such a conclusion. 'because there is one, everything is one'. that means, because we cannot fathom infinity in full, and therefore cannot understand it, ra's (which is another finite entity itself) understanding of the infinity is also wrong, therefore, Law of One, which is a deduction of this understanding, also wrong. because, ra wont also be able to fully comprehend infinity, until they become infinite themselves. or, only infinity can fathom infinity. what you say 'salutations to the one in you' would also be fundamentally wrong, because, you can never know whether there is one in me, or not, because you cannot fully comprehend infinity, therefore, know it. you cant know whether there is infinity, or there is 'one'.

however, it is not as such. you are talking about 'one'. therefore, it means, you are making conclusions from the results of a conceptualization of yours, of Ra's, of anything else's. you are saying that all there is is, 'one'. if we take what you say, what you say would be fundamentally wrong, because 'only infinity can fathom infinity, and our attempts would fall short'.

being able to fathom in full, and understanding the core concepts and results of something are totally different.

infinity, is infinity. it needs to be everything that exist, and exists not. this doesnt require being infinite to understand. manifestation of this knowledge, and understanding of all its corollaries, are what require being infinite.

[Confused]

....you can never know whether there is one in me, or not, because you cannot fully comprehend infinity, therefore, know it. you cant know whether there is infinity, or there is 'one'.

however, it is not as such. you are talking about 'one'. therefore, it means, you are making conclusions from the results of a conceptualization of yours, of Ra's, of anything else's. you are saying that all there is is, 'one'. if we take what you say, what you say would be fundamentally wrong....

Great points unity100, though I am not sure I understand everyone of them. I do appreciate the manner in which you bring (or attempt to bring) abstract thought to the level of manifest or tangible practical realization. You are right. I absolutely do not know "whether there is infinity, or there is 'one'" (as you put it). That brings to mind the following quote of Ra from session 1 -

Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

I am only an average student of the spiritual laws who is trying to interpret creation and in that attempt, I find the words of Ra to be of great import. Since I personally respect Ra's teachings, I sort of look up to that entity as my spiritual master, similar to the 'guru' system of the ancient yore. But as you pertinently highlight - "...what you say would be fundamentally wrong..." - I could very completely be in error in terms of my understanding of the spiritual truths and in my attempts at interpretation of the words of Ra. You make a very valid point on that front and I accept it.

[unity100]

Consider, if you will, that the universe is infinite. This has yet to be proven or disproven, but we can assure you that there is no end to your selves, your understanding, what you would call your journey of seeking, or your perceptions of the creation.

please notice, ra says universe is infinite, is yet to be proven or disproven.

it doesnt say infinity there. infinity, is infinite. universe has no direct relevance in this context. we may not be able to know yet that universe may be infinite or finite, but, we do know that infinity, is infinite.

all the corollaries and deductions that come immediately from it, all the laws of one, distortions, are deductions of this. it doesnt have relevance to a particular universe.

"I could very completely be in error in terms of my understanding of the spiritual truths and in my attempts at interpretation of the words of Ra. You make a very valid point on that front and I accept it."

my point is valid only in that, there are direct fundamental concepts we can know to exist, and understand their direct consequences.

infinity is one of them. there is infinity.

[Confused]

please notice, ra says universe is infinite, is yet to be proven or disproven.

it doesnt say infinity there. infinity, is infinite. universe has no direct relevance in this context. we may not be able to know yet that universe may be infinite or finite, but, we do know that infinity, is infinite.

That is an absolutely classic piece of spiritual observation. I never really thought of it that way. Thanks unity100.

In session 13, Ra says -

The first known thing in the creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.

I feel the above quote from Ra closely matches your point that

...there are direct fundamental concepts we can know to exist, and understand their direct consequences.

infinity is one of them. there is infinity.

You are conveying very profound concepts unity100. But my level of spiritual awareness is not yet sufficient to grasp them I suppose. But I am trying. Thanks for sharing your learning on these forums.

[Ali Quadir]

Actually, it doesnt even need contemplation - for anything to be infinite, it has to be infinite in all regards, aspects, concepts, dimensions, inside, outside, at all points and inwards, outwards ....... just keep adding adjectives and prepositions.

Within this context unity. Ra happened to use the word in this manner and we can follow his lead. Monica has shown this. But it goes against the definitions humanity uses as I have shown. No matter how convinced you are, and even if I retracted my objection, the rest of the world still disagrees with you. We are discussing within the context of the Law of One so it is valid to use the terminology Ra used.

What we seem to have is a dichotomy between concepts used by Ra to explain the Law of One, and those concepts as used by human civilization. I think there must be a reason. I doubt Ra would do this by accident.

[unity100]

the rest of the world does not disagree with the definition of infinity. infinity is infinite. you should free your mind from the mandatory modifications of infinity in mathematics, and instead think only logically. like in the infinite line example, the line is infinite in only one direction. not in any others, because if it was, it would not be a line. these are operational needs of mathematics, mandated by the need to be able to do operations.

attempting to fathom the infinite is simple :

infinity has to be infinite. anything that limits infinity, cannot result in something that is infinite. like an infinite line. it is limited to one direction, and it is only infinite in that direction.

[Monica]

What we seem to have is a dichotomy between concepts used by Ra to explain the Law of One, and those concepts as used by human civilization. I think there must be a reason. I doubt Ra would do this by accident.

I don't think there is any dichotomy. The word infinite is used in mathematics as an adjective, to qualify some finite structure such as a line or a graph.

The word infinity is also used in the context of a direction, ie. a line might continue into infinity...the UniVerse might extend into infinity, etc. In these cases, it's still being qualified by the context.

When do you ever see the word infinity used without any context whatsoever? You don't see that in mathematics or science, because they inherently have distortion. They represent the human attempt to define our reality. Yet, THAT is the term Ra is referring to...Infinity without distortion. If it has any finite structure at all, then it has distortion, and if it has distortion, it isn't infinity but a subset of it.

I don't think there is any conflict. But we can't apply the limited definition of distortion to apply to that which is without distortion.

The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.

[Lavazza]

Actually, it doesnt even need contemplation - for anything to be infinite, it has to be infinite in all regards, aspects, concepts, dimensions, inside, outside, at all points and inwards, outwards ....... just keep adding adjectives and prepositions.

Interesting discussion! I believe I understand how you are approaching the term Infinity, unity. Of course by the very definition of the word "infinity" implies that there are no limitations whatsoever, in any way. However Ali and Monica have made the points well that things can have particular characteristics which are infinite. This doesn't mean that whatever is being described then becomes the definition of "infinity", just that one aspect of it is. There is no contradiction there so far as I can see.

For example, physicists consider the gravity at the singularity of a black hole to have infinite gravity. (That this is true or false lets not discuss here but assume it is true for the sake of example). Now then, we know the black hole has boundaries where it's size is concerned, that is from one end to the other. We know it also is finite in the amount of Hawking radiation it sends out. But even though it is finite in those ways, it is still infinite where gravity is concerned.

A straight two dimensional line could again be infinite as far as it's X and Z axis' are concerned, but be limited in it's Y axis. We have never discovered such a line floating out in space of course, these are all thought experiments.

And again we could have an infinite number of kittens, but despite their infinite numbers they will never take on the qualities of a puppy. Unless I suppose if you had enough kittens to match the number of atoms a puppy has, and arranged them in to the right configuration and gave the kitten array second density consciousness, then it could make a puppy. I jest- but since the universe is infinite, surely something like that must exist, no?

[unity100]

anything that is limited and identifiable with a particular nature in any way whatsoever, can only be subset of infinity. hence, they cant be infinite. 'infinite in size' does not bring infinity into the equation. something infinite in length is still something finite, because it is not infinite in every way.

[Peregrinus]

anything that is limited and identifiable with a particular nature in any way whatsoever, can only be subset of infinity. hence, they cant be infinite. 'infinite in size' does not bring infinity into the equation. something infinite in length is still something finite, because it is not infinite in every way.

Well said. Infinity cannot be measured. Anything that can be... is finite.

[Ali Quadir]

Interesting discussion! I believe I understand how you are approaching the term Infinity, unity. Of course by the very definition of the word "infinity" implies that there are no limitations whatsoever, in any way. However Ali and Monica have made the points well that things can have particular characteristics which are infinite. This doesn't mean that whatever is being described then becomes the definition of "infinity", just that one aspect of it is. There is no contradiction there so far as I can see.

This whole thing is really just a matter of semantics. I don't think we're disagreeing in content. I use the dictionary word infinite which simply means it must in some way be unbounded. Infinite space means that there is an infinite amount of space. If it is curled up in a black hole the size of a pea it's still infinite space.

Unity chooses Ra's usage of the word which means it must in all way be unbounded. So the infinite is by definition all that is. As soon as something exists that is not part of that infinite, then the infinite according to unity stops being infinite.

[unity100]

Unity chooses Ra's usage of the word which means it must in all way be unbounded. So the infinite is by definition all that is. As soon as something exists that is not part of that infinite, then the infinite according to unity stops being infinite.

with a nuance

infinity just exists. nothing can stop being part of the infinity. any finite thing in subset of infinity, belong to infinity set. infinity is infinite in all cases.

so technically, there is no way that anything can stop being part of the infinity, and infinity cannot be anything but infinity, infinite in infinite amount of aspects.

[Monica]

This whole thing is really just a matter of semantics. I don't think we're disagreeing in content. I use the dictionary word infinite which simply means it must in some way be unbounded. Infinite space means that there is an infinite amount of space. If it is curled up in a black hole the size of a pea it's still infinite space.

Unity chooses Ra's usage of the word which means it must in all way be unbounded. So the infinite is by definition all that is. As soon as something exists that is not part of that infinite, then the infinite according to unity stops being infinite.

I agree that there is no conflict. It's just semantics.

It also has to do with whether we are using the term as a noun or adjective. The dictionary definition actually agrees with Ra's definition. It just depends on how it's used.

–adjective
1.immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness.
2.indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money.
3.unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space.
4.unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy.
5.Mathematics .
a.not finite.
b.(of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set.
–noun
6.something that is infinite.
7.Mathematics . an infinite quantity or magnitude.
8.the boundless regions of space.
9.the Infinite (Being), God.

The key here is that if the word is used to describe an aspect of something, as in an infinite line, then it's being used as an adjective and is therefore describing a distortion. Whereas Ra's definition is using the word as a noun, which agrees with dictionary.com's definition for the word being used as a noun.

It's really easy to ascertain which it is: If using the word infinite with a noun after it, then that's not Infinity. That's a distortion of Infinity.