For EoD, Define: Existence

[Tesla]

You are not attempting to define existence. Your desire is to state that is is whatever it is believed to be by the individual.

You so believe that the mind dictates reality, you refuse to acknowledge that any reality is real.

You first have to admit that reality has an 'ultimate reality' despite what your mind desires to define it as before this discussion has any potential value.

I am saying your question is neither right nor wrong as one cannot define existence without existing through definition.

It is a loop and we are left with existence being form alone as it becomes strict context nothing more or less. Some contexts are more abstract. Other's, such a a daily morning coffee, are more concrete. But there recursive nature, and the instrinsic looping form, manifests a constant nature.

If I say the mind defines reality, and what we sense empirically manifests in the mind, I am saying even the shallowest any percievably emptiest of realities are "real". To fail to take account for how the mind manifests reality, as in we measure and form what is empirical through the mind, is to fail to take into account the vitality of any and all thoughts be it they are good or bad, rational or insane, beautiful or down right terrifying.

The question of reality is a question of aligning one dimension, the empirical, with another, abstractness.

wow. beautifully stated and clear.
I agree to a degree. The point I wish to make concerning defining existence is that nothing outside of its physical reality is real. all thoughts are contained within the mass, and the mass is always a part of the thought. Individually, we can make our own world, and debate whether red is red, or green green, by the perceptions we cannot gauge. but on a measuring scale of many, some truths have been ascertainable about the reality we see only a glimpse of, and that is what we can rely on most. The answers of the many can confirm or deny the ability of an individual to distinguish reality the way others do, red being perceived as its wavelength, or a person to be color blind. Identification of the form of the form so to speak. for form it is, but is it? for the color blind they perceive form but not uniformly, and so what is to be said, except the idea of red cannot exist for the one who cannot see it.

So when I look for the definition of existence within the limited capability of the mind who sees form and forms, I look to establish first the idea the word will represent, and then get to the base of it in idea, without knowing the base itself, because mankind has not discovered the utility of consciousness, not its base form, but ideas of its form, and space time, the fabric of existence, can only be said that in all appearance, there is never true absence, but always 'something' that can be measured by all senses our consciousness can 'see' through our 'form'.

So I argue: existence is substantial, and without that substance, no thing can exist, so all that exists exists within that form, which is never without form or property, but has measurable form, which is to say, energetic, in that movement is recordable by all sensory or perception of the tools of the species. Though our minds all record in agreement, it is not only the idea of one, but 'real' to all who measure.

or more simply: existence is the basis of all exists, there is no place "empty" of existence, or it cannot exist. existence is a measurable form, and no place is empty of a measurable property that exists.

The basis of form.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are not attempting to define existence. Your desire is to state that is is whatever it is believed to be by the individual.

You so believe that the mind dictates reality, you refuse to acknowledge that any reality is real.

You first have to admit that reality has an 'ultimate reality' despite what your mind desires to define it as before this discussion has any potential value.

I am saying your question is neither right nor wrong as one cannot define existence without existing through definition.

It is a loop and we are left with existence being form alone as it becomes strict context nothing more or less. Some contexts are more abstract. Other's, such a a daily morning coffee, are more concrete. But there recursive nature, and the instrinsic looping form, manifests a constant nature.

If I say the mind defines reality, and what we sense empirically manifests in the mind, I am saying even the shallowest any percievably emptiest of realities are "real". To fail to take account for how the mind manifests reality, as in we measure and form what is empirical through the mind, is to fail to take into account the vitality of any and all thoughts be it they are good or bad, rational or insane, beautiful or down right terrifying.

The question of reality is a question of aligning one dimension, the empirical, with another, abstractness.

wow. beautifully stated and clear.
I agree to a degree. The point I wish to make concerning defining existence is that nothing outside of its physical reality is real. all thoughts are contained within the mass, and the mass is always a part of the thought. Individually, we can make our own world, and debate whether red is red, or green green, by the perceptions we cannot gauge. but on a measuring scale of many, some truths have been ascertainable about the reality we see only a glimpse of, and that is what we can rely on most. The answers of the many can confirm or deny the ability of an individual to distinguish reality the way others do, red being perceived as its wavelength, or a person to be color blind. Identification of the form of the form so to speak. for form it is, but is it? for the color blind they perceive form but not uniformly, and so what is to be said, except the idea of red cannot exist for the one who cannot see it.

Mass is formless. Thought is form. Mass as potential thought is mass as potential form. We see this in the subconsciousness as formlessness giving birth to spontaneous images. We see this in physics as empirical reality projected from formless mass to volume as form.

The interplay of a form and formlessness is density. A thought dividing obscure mass of knowledge into further knowledge is considered "depth" or "density of knowledge". Volume (form) dividing mass (formlessness) results in the density of phenomena as multilayered forms.

It is all space. With space being form and formless. Form as boundaries. Formless as no boundaries. Both exist through eachother as the same thing.

Thus existence is space, and space is axiomatic for what it is...even to a person who is absent of sense.

So when I look for the definition of existence within the limited capability of the mind who sees form and forms, I look to establish first the idea the word will represent, and then get to the base of it in idea, without knowing the base itself, because mankind has not discovered the utility of consciousness, not its base form, but ideas of its form, and space time, the fabric of existence, can only be said that in all appearance, there is never true absence, but always 'something' that can be measured by all senses our consciousness can 'see' through our 'form'.

All knowledge is assumed. Assumptions are empty. Emptiness is formlessness.
The assumption of assumption is definition, just as the formlessness or formlessness is form. Both are double negation as the foundation for knowledge.

So when looking at the nature of assumption as void, and mass itself being void, we are left with space as the unifying principle of a priori and a posteriori knowledge.

So I argue: existence is substantial, and without that substance, no thing can exist, so all that exists exists within that form, which is never without form or property, but has measurable form, which is to say, energetic, in that movement is recordable by all sensory or perception of the tools of the species. Though our minds all record in agreement, it is not only the idea of one, but 'real' to all who measure.

Substance is form, it is the projection of formless as the negation of formlessness. We see this with a 0d point. It is formless. It projects, and it becomes a line.
We see this in the atom. It is 99.999 empty (formless), its "substance" is the form itself.

The pscyhe is strictly forms. Physics is strictly forms.

Plato was right about his emphasis on geometry and this reflects into the eastern thought as well where reality is strictly images. We see this with the western version of buddhism/taoism with the pyrhonist "dogma".

or more simply: existence is the basis of all exists, there is no place "empty" of existence, or it cannot exist. existence is a measurable form, and no place is empty of a measurable property that exists.

The basis of form.

1=0, pure being would look no different from nothingness.

[Tesla]

it is apparently empty, the reality is, it is not.

0 is not 1.

reality is ultimately beyond the grasp of the human mind. The first step will be recognizing that existence is the base. it is not empty, and no area is without it.

[Eodnhoj7]

it is apparently empty, the reality is, it is not.

0 is not 1.

reality is ultimately beyond the grasp of the human mind. The first step will be recognizing that existence is the base. it is not empty, and no area is without it.

It's the cup the space or the clay?

Considering we use number to count, and we count forms instrinsically empty (such as the atom), we are counting empty loops and thus equating one to zero.

Take for further example the most basic form we count....a simple number line. What is the line (segment) composed of? Infinite zeros according to the mathematicians, one cannot quantify the number of zeros without equating it to 1n.

[Tesla]

your assuming the zero. zero is a number to define an idea.

When I was four years old. I sat on a swing at a park. I had just learned how to whistle. it was the whooper will. not a good version but my first whistle. As i sat on the swing looking around, listening to birds a realization hit me. I looked at the trees, the building near the swings, the sky, smelled the cool but clean sharp air..and thought to myself: This is all really real. really really real.

it was a point of realization for me, in that I knew reality was beyond my mind. I was a part of something bigger. it was really real.

The problem with realizations is that the mind has at that point chosen a lens. Now our species has some very difficult times ahead without global cooperation. And cooperation is being hindered by different 'realizations'. Those beliefs guide actions. or non action.

I do not believe I can speak your language. So I'm hoping you can understand enough of mine to see why I'm throwing these pebbles down the mountain. Maybe your strong enough to lob a boulder, maybe you don't care. But the whole reason I'm talking to you about this is to try to find a basic truth and allow mankind to build on it.

a pleasure discussing these things with you. *tosses a beer*

[Eodnhoj7]

your assuming the zero. zero is a number to define an idea.

Assumption is empty, and as empty it is zero quantitatively. Any symbol which observes nothing is not nothingness but an observation of relations between many things. We cannot observe Nothingness without manyness and to say "nothing" is to contradict oneself.

When I was four years old. I sat on a swing at a park. I had just learned how to whistle. it was the whooper will. not a good version but my first whistle. As i sat on the swing looking around, listening to birds a realization hit me. I looked at the trees, the building near the swings, the sky, smelled the cool but clean sharp air..and thought to myself: This is all really real. really really real.

When I was a young boy I had two dragons.

One to play with. One to use as a model.

I thought, knowing they would break, if I could somehow have two I would own it.

Then I held them both in my hand and realized they are just plastic and the only thing that was real was the idea that they where dragons.

Owning the dragon figure would never help me to reach the center of that form, to "become" the dragon, it was merely empty space.

it was a point of realization for me, in that I knew reality was beyond my mind. I was a part of something bigger. it was really real.

I am not argue solipsism. All can be mind, with mind beyond one's own mind.

The problem with realizations is that the mind has at that point chosen a lens. Now our species has some very difficult times ahead without global cooperation. And cooperation is being hindered by different 'realizations'. Those beliefs guide actions. or non action.

Those realizations are grounded in the idea that "this is it"....what is perceive is the "realest" real.

I do not believe I can speak your language. So I'm hoping you can understand enough of mine to see why I'm throwing these pebbles down the mountain. Maybe your strong enough to lob a boulder, maybe you don't care. But the whole reason I'm talking to you about this is to try to find a basic truth and allow mankind to build on it.

a pleasure discussing these things with you. *tosses a beer*

Language games. That is the problem. Look up wittgenstein and do some research in the Buddhist interpretation of language.