One can have no limits, because if it did it could be divided.
Why can’t one be divided? Because one cannot be separate from itself.
If one cannot be separate from itself, one cannot be separated from itself.
One can be divided, but in being divided, it (each part) becomes something else and is, therefore, not separate from itself.
One represents Infinity or The Infinite. True comprehension of Monism requires an equivalent comprehension of The Infinite.
Monists, in other words, believe the Universe is Infinite, opposed to Dualists and Pluralists, who believe the Universe has “beginnings” or “ends”.
Pluralists (which include Dualism) subscribe to Teleology.
See, I don’t buy that… If one has parts, then one was never singular to begin with… I also don’t think something that is singular can become something else.
what everyone seem to never say is why anything is free and anyone is beyond that fact as freedom source so more free
the answer is from objects matters observations, what makes a still form real, the constancy of present element
that is why what was before or happen after never matter but to confirm what is always, the constancy is the exclusive factor source end of anyone and everything, this the base of truth concept reason, truth of constant fact and not truth of means or wills
Even 2 can be divided into 3 parts…
All numbers are basically representations of conceptual divisions of things… any group of things can be considered to be of any quantification…
What quantification best depends on what sort of calculations or thought experiments are needed to be performed.
you are confusing objective knowledge and knowledge abuse
numbers cannot be divided since absolutely it is always wether one or all constancy fact
the concept of divisions is to creations so fake form of reality in limited terms of time and space, while it would still belong fully to nothing reality fact still space concept in true perspective of it
for a lot of people, one or ones are free creators of things, this is to knowledge abuse reference
objective knowledge is to existence one or ones that keep meaning positive relations with objective fact as it is at least for individual free livings terms and at the maximum for absolute life terms
What is one? It is already known what it is otherwise no question would arise about it.
It’s like saying, ‘tell what you know of what an enlightened person is,’ or, ‘tell what it is you know about reality or living or thought.’ Whatever it is you say is what you experience of it.
What’s asking the question? The question arises from the knowledge that is already there. There is no one there asking the question. The knowledge is being used to give an artificial existence to the subject, who is gathering up knowledge and from there asks the question. Whether the created subject (‘you’) wants an answer or whether ‘you’ has problems with the knowledge, is not of any consequence because the life does not have to know and question does not have to be asked.
I must have missed a memo. When did numerical division become a process rather than a relation?
If you have one puddle, and you divide it by two, you have two puddles. If you clear one of them up, you still have one puddle. What does this prove?
I think playing fast and loose with mathematical axioms has no real purpose. They are conceptual things numbers, they should only be applied to the real world when they have a utility. Can something really be infinitely divided, no, is it useful to do so to prove a mathematical axiom, yes as long as we are careful to contend what limits are.
1 is 1, 1+1 =2, 1 is everything? Well that’s religion. 
1 divided is part of the set of 1, it has conditions placed on it, but none of it’s parts are outside the set. Indeed. The axioms are solid. The OP is stating set theory, an axiom of numbers in the set of 1 that are 1, trivial I think is the word. 1 has limits, the limit is the practicality of dividing one in the subgroup sets of 1 until it becomes nothing more than the sum of all the parts of 1, this happens at infinity and approaches it but never reaches it. It’s limits make things like calculus and proofs useful.
One does not exist indivisibly as far as we know except as a relative integer. We say one hydrogen atom but it is made up of one proton, one neutron and a nucleus. One is a relative quantity.
on the contrary one is the absolute number always, bc only positive is objective, so any point is its peak superiority that justify it as one existing, while in truth the peak is always free, and there absolute is real one out of the most positive objective point superiority fact
freedom is indivisible, so its constancy is same always one
What? Could you clarify how that:
a) makes sense
b) pertains to my comment
?
The meaning of puddle changed, in your example, after the first one was split. You had a puddle, and split it into two, but the result is not two of the original one… but two halves.
One has no parts.
MathIsACircle: Existence is one thing, isn’t it? You can’t divide it. I don’t know what to call it, but when you’re not dealing with quantities anymore, you can use one in it’s non-relative-integer meaning. Like gravity or light, those are both singular and theoretically infinite.
One is an integer greater than zero but less than two?
mmmmm coffee. : )
you misconceive absolute, absolute is always one reality, therefore what is objective is always one thing which become one thing freedom of its constancy add value as a matter of fact existence same one essential value
reality is relations between different relative things of what is relative justification base same, that is how for instance the world we live in is nothing reality fact for nothing freedom rights to exist individually
so one is not the sum of its composites, one is the absolute reality same matters base one, while it become object one value then of its absolute fact known objective so free value constant that would be determined in truth terms of its true free value in relation to all things freedom value
that is why what exist is always one out of all so always one same, where freedom in truth conception is then infinite different ones indivisible entities, for definitive absolute value increase constancy in positive truth objective justification of all what exist truly
now how do i make sense? maybe what is right is to not make sense maybe what is sensible dont make senses, i mean absolute objective freedom constancy mostly where sense mean a will so opposed to objective value inherently
IN order to be finite a thing has to be bounded does it not? but then what is one bounded by? if you say 2 don’t you have to say that 2 is also a finit number but inorderto say that you have to say it is bounded by 1 and 3 which is circular as that relies on one being finite…
what u consider being a thing is actually thing reality, anything is in concept of itself freedom when u mean it in truth existing
you jump apparently to take ur existence for granted in order to get to your living will of it, it is not that simple things are not what they look like, anything is exclusively in absolute terms of itself consistent fact free
so no what is finite is one so what is infinite is noone as all objective wether nothing reality for free existence out or everything reality for free life out
arithmetically what you are saying is wrong, 2 include one so there is no one when there is 2
so two become one concept
you can have One Infinite…
I must say I have a hard time understanding you absolute…
All knowledge is somewhat circular, but that doesn’t make it false.