a “thing” is that which is equal to itself
X=X
this is the fundamental tautology upon which all logic rests
the tautological nature of “oneness” means that distinguishing single objects from one another is an arbitrary process
there is no singularity, except as an explanatory convenience
“God” works nicely as a shorthand term for “everything that exists all rolled theoretically into one” - a posited singularity - another explanatory convenience
that’s a great question jj, ‘what is one?’, even infinity is not one, it is comparative to whatever dwells within e.g. singularity/universe. We are never allowed the comfort of an absolute definition of oneness even when we expand reality to the infinite.
We could say that reality is one and everything in it is a division of that. If we attempt at any further definition I feel it will fail, so my feelings on the matter are that we simply have to leave it at the simplest level of description, it is after all ’the simplest thing’ and that is what oneness is?
If we tied a string from any and all points in existence, and at the end of that the string is of infinite dimension, would that be a singular object?
My psychoanalyst tells me that it is important to know who says something and why. An example would be the big bang singularity. A physicist came up with the idea and that physicist had no interest in before a big bang. But the people that come after think that the singularity concept is something profound. I like my psychoanalyst.
Maybe.
But try imagining, hypothetically, Aristotle among us again. Try to imagine just how astonished he would be by the extraordinary achievments of science over the centuries. Then imagine the grimace on his face when he realized that philosophers were still squabbling about the very same things.
Now imagine what science will have discovered 2,000 additional years into the future. And I suspect that philosophers will still be going around and around in the same circles they are going around now.
Nice one. The god bit, though, relied on a yah-boo version of reality. Otherwise, quite right.
It is strange that - and I think you have shown this incidentally - infinity is as problematic as one!
It’s "old mother wit "that a psychiatrist employs when he says that it is important to know who says something and why. And old mother is in us.
But one of my main points, if not the main point, was that maths and science can’t deal with a singularity because they cannot count it. And counting is the very basis of arithmetic, mathematics, and academic science.
Thanks, I am starting to think that within the oneness or more the ‘allness’ there are irresolvable differences, infinity and the particular [finite] are such. Thence you don’t ever arrive at a oneness [the multiple as the singular?] and that is why we have the universe, reality itself cannot resolve the vast chasm of difference within it and so it is forever doomed to divide.
Infinity then cannot fully exist as a whole, and it seams that nothing can be entirely itself, so we have a situation where objects and even meanings are never absolute no matter what their scale.
Here ends philosophy 
And here philosophy begins 
This would be true if divisions were not an illusionary thought construct.
Divisions cannot be absolute either and so do not exist, both the one and the dual can never be fully themselves and can only compose transience, this too cannot be absolutely itself and so begins the intransient.
Reality is philosophy. 
Interesting thought string. It vibrates with a resonance of truth. Yeats wrote: “How can we tell the dancer from the dance?” Similarly, how can we tell the transient from the intransient?
Lol. I will take that under consideration with all the due seriousness that it deserves, meaning all or none or both.
Only ever partially, the dancer is performing the dance thus they are integral aspects of one another ~ even though the dance [the method/idea] can be written down and not part of the dancer, in order to be itself it must have the dancer to act it out.
That reality is philosophy is of utmost seriousness. 
e.g. problem; 1/∞=0
Resolution; Its like a drop in an ocean except where this particular ocean has no edges, so the 1 droplet of water is dispersed infinitely. Presumably it works the same in reverse so you can get 0*∞=1
if you spread 1 over an infinity you take away is cardinal limits which first defined it as one. The drop in an infinite ocean would thus have no edges left afterwards [see also below].
Also consider it in reverse, we have to arrive at the singular [singularity] from nothing [0] and you cannot do that unless you make such an operation. it’s a bit like magic, put the lady in the box open the door and she’s gone, do it again and she is there.
Problem 1b [ignore this math its just there to show the problem]; In the case of f(x)=1/x as limit x ->∞, f(x) becomes a REALLY small number, therefore f(x) 0 (is approximately 0) for practical reasons. For the sake of sanity, just imagine ∞ to be a very large number.
Here we are breaking things up into very small and also into the very big, we attempt to break 1 into ∞ and think of this as a process of breaking it up into incremental parts. However is it not similar to how we arrive at sets I.e. {rule} you cannot build up to an infinity, so we just jump straight to the infinite set, thus here we jump straight from 1 to ∞ without taking incremental steps?
Do we need a creator to perform such operations or do they work alone? Does the magic need a magician?
I think it would be safe to say that the choreography is not the dance itself. As you say, the dance only exists in the dancing, hence the metaphysical realization that the dancer and the dance are one.
Also, if reality is philosophy, then I say it is vastly over-rated.
agreed.
Ha yup, in terms of the world put against reality yes, mind you its quite incredible to even imagine how we can arrive at principles and the very notion of a philosophical essence of reality. Perhaps I am reading philosophy into it where it is presented as such, though ultimately there is that something which is always beyond or original to the given.
Maybe reality is meant to be lived and experienced first hand, not philosophized into something it isn’t. Just my two bits . . . .
Indeed, that’s most fascinating actually, its as if there is no reality until it exists and is experienced! So here we are trying to resolve the deeper meaning when all the time it wasn’t there but here [not in the deep but on the surface]. The purpose of existence is to exist ‘n’ all that.
perhaps this is something of what is mean by the ancients believing true reality is in the ‘now’.
Are physics actually the description of the partly real? …and Infinity doesn’t exist.
what is most real? most actual and non partial.
Well said. This is a perfect answer, in my opinion. There may be a ‘singularity’ at the base of it all, I suppose; but the notion truly is conceptual and nothing more.
I disagree here, but only slightly. I do agree that ‘God’ is a term of convenience, denoting singularity, but of all possible existence. There are also connotations of ‘perfection’ and morality associated with ‘God’ that lead to contradiction (though most theists don’t seem to realize it). If ‘God’ is the indwelling of all, and thus singular, by what measure could he possibly be “perfect”, “good”, or "moral’? What can a thing which is singular and all-encompassing be compared, or held in reference, to, aside from that which it already contains?
Until we can definitively define a “singularity”…determine precisely what it is, if it is…how far “in” can these speculations go? Was there an “existence” before the singularity? How can something come out of nothing at all? What can that possibly mean?
But if All There Is now came out of a singularity that came into existence out nothing at all many, many times the mind is simply boggled.
Or to borrow a nugget from Donald Rumsfeld:
There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know.
But there are also unknown unknowns; there are things we do not know we don’t know
With respect to “singularity”, this sounds about right.
right, exactly - i wouldn’t use “God” to connote that which is perfect, good, or moral in any conventional religious sense - insofar as there is a god, god just is
god may be awesome by most human standards, but s/he/it is probably not ideally good by most human standards.