mathematicians. They have less affinity with reality than does the square root of minus one. (I know I am going to regret bringing the sqrt of -1 into it).
Hehe regret indeed. -1 itself has no more affinity with reality than sqrt(-1)
still product the whole 3D image. The quality will diminish, but the entire image is still there. It seems that every part of the plate contains the whole image.
I've heard of that. But a diminished quality means it's not the whole image. Perhaps by "all embracing" you mean covers the complete range of space/etc, but may not actually include everything within that range?
The real world isn't all holographic plates, it includes some conventional photographic plates too. I still don't get what's wrong with a finite part of an infinite thing. Imagine the universe was infinite in extent. A single atom is surely a finite part of that, isn't it? Furthermore if there was a distinction we could know if the 'cosmos' was infinite or not simply by observing anything in it - oh look that atom is only finite, so the cosmos must be finite too. Or hey all these atoms are infinite, that means there's other stuff outside our finite universe.
I think it's a good idea not to invent new meanings for old terms. It seems you don't really mean "infinity". Perhaps just call it "all embracing" or something else to avoid confusion by people like me.
