I honestly can't see where you're coming from. It appears more to me that you're holding to a definition of each concept as infinite yet somehow separate from each other. For example, imagine some physicists' current description of 11 dimensional space. You could define them as separate and bounded in one sense, as they each have their own characteristics and attributes, like being thought of as individually infinite. Yet it's also possible (necessary) to think of them as being part of a larger whole, whilst still keeping their identity as infinite individual dimensions but related to each other just as anything else is through identifying what it is from what it's not (e.g dimension 5 from dimension 7). In order to conceptualise, it's necessary to think of infinite dimensions (of whatever) as like finite things. Our descriptions, our differentiating and naming is a result of our function of consciousness identifying whatever is presented to it.guest_of_logic wrote:OK, but do you recognise that the concept of a boundary (or lack of a boundary) implies some sort of dimensionality? It might be three dimensional space, in which lack of boundaries means that space extends infinitely in all directions, or it might be the dimension of time, in which lack of boundaries means that time has no beginning and no end, or it might the imaginary "dimension" in which ideas exist, where lack of boundaries means that there are an unlimited number of ideas, etc. Do you see where I'm coming from now? I'm asking you which of these dimensions you intend when you write of the Infinite.
From this, it's not a huge leap of logic to describe the ensemble of all this as the Absolute. But it's a pointer, not a thing. It's the All since it points to all things, yet is the void since "it" isn't all things.