Existence Is Infinite

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 27841
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by Age »

daniel j lavender wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 6:41 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 4:48 pm…if you are focused in on the laws of nature…
Existence transcends all we know and all we understand. That includes said laws of nature.
I really wish these human beings would speak for "themselves" ALONE, and INDIVIDUALLY, instead of 'TRYING TO' speak for 'us' and 'me'.

If they did, then they would NOT be SO Wrong, SO OFTEN.
daniel j lavender wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 6:41 pm What are laws of nature? They are principles based on events and phenomena we’ve observed within the observable universe which appear to be consistent.

These laws extend from our observation and understanding of the observable universe. In other words these laws extend from a limited perspective. These laws are based on limited observation and on limited understanding.

With theoretical physics and applied sciences we know certain aspects of existence can be manipulated. This relates to some of the basic principles and core tenets of these laws. With advances in both technology and understanding do these “laws of nature” actually hold?

Are such laws really ubiquitous?

As mentioned earlier some claim there are alternate universes
Age wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 9:42 amthere are SOME human beings who SAY and CLAIM there are MORE than one Universe
so perhaps they are not.


iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 4:48 pmAnd we may or may not be able to close that gap.
There is no gap. There is no separation, anywhere. To assert separation is futile as that between connects that separated.

See “gap of nonexistence”: viewtopic.php?t=40269

This may be of interest: viewtopic.php?t=39651
User avatar
daniel j lavender
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2022 3:20 pm
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by daniel j lavender »

Age wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 5:36 am
daniel j lavender wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 6:41 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 4:48 pm…if you are focused in on the laws of nature…
Existence transcends all we know and all we understand. That includes said laws of nature.
I really wish these human beings would speak for "themselves" ALONE, and INDIVIDUALLY, instead of 'TRYING TO' speak for 'us' and 'me'.
Are you claiming omniscience? Are you implying there are no unknowns?

Existence includes the known and the unknown. The unknown, by definition, is not known.

Do you know the unknown? Do you understand that not understood?

Existence exceeds all your wisdom, existence exceeds all your knowledge whether you acknowledge it or not.


You alluded to other universes earlier…
Age wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 9:42 amthere are SOME human beings who SAY and CLAIM there are MORE than one Universe
Would our “laws of nature” apply there as well? If not would they still be “laws of nature” or just “laws of our universe”?

Age wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:54 amAs I said, 'Existence' was NOT 'created', once upon a time, nor ALL at once. But, 'It' is in a never-ending continual state of CHANGE, and thus in a continual state of CREATING, and CREATION AS WELL.

AND, EVERY moment IN and OF 'Existence' can be seen as A 'beginning point', right? Or, do you DISAGREE?
Existence, generally speaking, does not change.

For existence to change existence would need to become something other than itself. Something other than existence would be nonexistence. Nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence, being, generally speaking, is constant, is eternal. It always is.

Things, parts of existence can change, however, and this could be considered a sort of continual state of change, of beginnings and endings. Things, parts of existence may change however existence is constant through the process of change.

Age wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:54 amBUT the 'things' called 'life' and 'Universe', among other 'things' do NOT begin NOR end, NEITHER.
As stated earlier life is finite. Life is limited. While life may be eternal life is not infinite. Not every aspect of existence is living. Not every aspect of existence is biological. Not every aspect of existence concerns life. The lifeless sidewalk ends where the lively grass lawn begins. Life is limited, it does have beginnings and endings of sorts, at least in that sense.

The same could be said of the universe. You alluded to other universes previously in this discussion and the theories are fairly well known around the world. If there are indeed other universes there would be a beginning and end to our universe. It would end roughly where the other universe(s) roughly began.

Age wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:54 am
daniel j lavender wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 6:03 pm Ultimately purpose is something we create. Something that involves us, that extends from us as conscious beings.
Okay, if 'this' is what 'you' HAVE CREATED, then so be it.

But for "others" there is an INNER, UNDERLYING, ETERNAL, or INSTINCTUAL 'purpose' for 'them' being HERE, in Life, Existence, and the Universe, Itself. Which they, OBVIOUSLY, did NOT 'create', "themselves".
Yes, in a sense they do create it themselves.

Note the “inner”, “underlying”, “instinctual” part.

That purpose, whatever it is, extends from them. It’s within them. That person. That individual. Even if unintentionally. Even if instinctually. It extends from them. It comes from them. No them, no purpose. Essentially they create it.

One could present a spiritual, religious or otherwise supernatural argument, that a supernatural being created purpose, but then the purpose still extends from a being, a supernatural being, a spiritual being or so forth. That supernatural or spiritual being could certainly be viewed as a conscious, aware being.

In other words the purpose would still stem from a conscious being; some sort of conscious being created the purpose.

Age wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:54 amIf you can NOT YET SEE the CONTRADICTION, in your OWN writings, then the CONTRADICTION IS CLAIMING:

immaterial expanse is part of the structure of existence. Immateriality helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences.

And then CLAIMING:

Something and nothing cannot coexist.
Something and nothing cannot coexist.

Again, immateriality is not nothing or nonexistence.

There are physical things and nonphysical things; material things and immaterial things.

The spaces between the words are perceived else you couldn’t read and respond to such statements as efficiently. The spaces exist; the spaces are. Immaterial aspects of existence are perceived and interacted with constantly. Immateriality exists; immateriality is.

Nothing, nonexistence is not the contrast of materiality. Immateriality is the contrast of materiality.
Age
Posts: 27841
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by Age »

daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 5:36 am
daniel j lavender wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 6:41 pm

Existence transcends all we know and all we understand. That includes said laws of nature.
I really wish these human beings would speak for "themselves" ALONE, and INDIVIDUALLY, instead of 'TRYING TO' speak for 'us' and 'me'.
Are you claiming omniscience?
That all depends WHERE and WHEN, EXACTLY?
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm Are you implying there are no unknowns?
NO, WHY would you even ASSUME such a thing?
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm Existence includes the known and the unknown. The unknown, by definition, is not known.
Okay, and are you SAYING this here as though it was NOT YET ALREADY KNOWN?
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm Do you know the unknown?
OBVIOUSLY that would all depend upon on what 'the unknown' IS, EXACTLY, AND who 'it' is unknown TO, EXACTLY.
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm Do you understand that not understood?
Is there a word or two MISSING here in this sentence?
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm Existence exceeds all your wisdom, existence exceeds all your knowledge whether you acknowledge it or not.
Does 'existence’ exceed ALL of your wisdom and exceed ALL of your knowledge also, or just mine?
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm You alluded to other universes earlier…
Age wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 9:42 amthere are SOME human beings who SAY and CLAIM there are MORE than one Universe
Would our “laws of nature” apply there as well?
There are NO, and I will repeat, NO other universes. AND, by definition, there NEVER EVER could be. That is; UNTIL the definition gets CHANGED

I ONLY earlier alluded to other universes to SHOW that just because you, or "another", says some 'thing', then 'this' by itself does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT, make 'it' true.
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm If not would they still be “laws of nature” or just “laws of our universe”?
Redundant AND moot, for reason ALREADY GIVEN.
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:54 amAs I said, 'Existence' was NOT 'created', once upon a time, nor ALL at once. But, 'It' is in a never-ending continual state of CHANGE, and thus in a continual state of CREATING, and CREATION AS WELL.

AND, EVERY moment IN and OF 'Existence' can be seen as A 'beginning point', right? Or, do you DISAGREE?
Existence, generally speaking, does not change.

For existence to change existence would need to become something other than itself. Something other than existence would be nonexistence. Nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence, being, generally speaking, is constant, is eternal. It always is.

Things, parts of existence can change, however, and this could be considered a sort of continual state of change, of beginnings and endings. Things, parts of existence may change however existence is constant through the process of change.
you are continually MISSING what I am ACTUALLY SAYING and MEANING here. But first off, considering you did NOT answer the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS here, what your ACTUAL VIEW IS here, regarding those QUESTIONS, WILL REMAIN a complete and utter MYSTERY, well to us anyway..

Now, I NEVER SAID that 'Existence', Itself CHANGES.

What I ACTUALLY SAID, and MEANT, was that 'Existence' is in a continual 'state of CHANGE'. OBVIOUSLY what WAS existing 'yesterday’ is NOT the EXACT SAME as what IS existing 'today', right? Although and just AS OBVIOUS is that 'Existence', Itself, IS STILL here
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:54 amBUT the 'things' called 'life' and 'Universe', among other 'things' do NOT begin NOR end, NEITHER.
As stated earlier life is finite. Life is limited.
This is TO you ALONE here.
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm While life may be eternal life is not infinite. Not every aspect of existence is living.
Name one aspect of 'Existence' which you SAY and CLAIM is NOT living.
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm Not every aspect of existence is biological.
OF COURSE, but then again this would all depend on how you are defining words here.
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm Not every aspect of existence concerns life.
REALLY?

Like 'what' for example?
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm The lifeless sidewalk ends where the lively grass lawn begins.
Are you SAYING and CLAIMING here that the so-called 'sidewalk' does NOT CHANGE, and thus WILL REMAIN THE EXACT SAME FOREVER MORE?

Either way how do you define the word 'life' here?
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm Life is limited, it does have beginnings and endings of sorts, at least in that sense.
But NOT in ALL senses, right?

By the way, if you just want to be STUCK in what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, then that is PERFECTLY FINE WITH me.

But if you would like to have A DISCUSSION and BECOME MOTE LEARNED and WISER, then that is PERFECTLY FINE WITH me, ALSO.
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm The same could be said of the universe. You alluded to other universes previously in this discussion and the theories are fairly well known around the world.
you seriously NEED to LEARN TO READ FROM and OPEN perspective and NOT FROM your ALREADY OBTAINED perspective. It would also be MUCH BETTER FOR you here if you read FROM a NON ASSUMING and NON BELIEVING perspective AS WELL.

you have COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISSED the POINT I WAS MAKING in regards to “other universes".
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm If there are indeed other universes there would be a beginning and end to our universe. It would end roughly where the other universe(s) roughly began.
That is a HUGE 'IF'. Which, by the way, could NOT even exist, in theory, let alone IN ACTUALITY.
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:54 am

Okay, if 'this' is what 'you' HAVE CREATED, then so be it.

But for "others" there is an INNER, UNDERLYING, ETERNAL, or INSTINCTUAL 'purpose' for 'them' being HERE, in Life, Existence, and the Universe, Itself. Which they, OBVIOUSLY, did NOT 'create', "themselves".
Yes, in a sense they do create it themselves.

LOL'

Note the “inner”, “underlying”, “instinctual” part.

That purpose, whatever it is, extends from them. It’s within them. That person. That individual. Even if unintentionally. Even if instinctually. It extends from them. It comes from them. No them, no purpose. Essentially they create it.
I MUST OF NOT made it CLEAR ENOUGH, for you, that 'it' IS the EXACT SAME, WITHIN EVERY one.
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm One could present a spiritual, religious or otherwise supernatural argument, that a supernatural being created purpose, but then the purpose still extends from a being, a supernatural being, a spiritual being or so forth. That supernatural or spiritual being could certainly be viewed as a conscious, aware being.

In other words the purpose would still stem from a conscious being; some sort of conscious being created the purpose.
So, when 'you' USED the 'we' word above here, what were 'you' ACTUALLY referring TO, EXACTLY?
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:54 amIf you can NOT YET SEE the CONTRADICTION, in your OWN writings, then the CONTRADICTION IS CLAIMING:

immaterial expanse is part of the structure of existence. Immateriality helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences.

And then CLAIMING:

Something and nothing cannot coexist.
Something and nothing cannot coexist.

Again, immateriality is not nothing or nonexistence.

There are physical things and nonphysical things; material things and immaterial things.

The spaces between the words are perceived else you couldn’t read and respond to such statements as efficiently. The spaces exist; the spaces are. Immaterial aspects of existence are perceived and interacted with constantly. Immateriality exists; immateriality is.

Nothing, nonexistence is not the contrast of materiality. Immateriality is the contrast of materiality.
What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is "ANOTHER" one who BELIEVES that 'its' views and ASSUMPTIONS are ABSOLUTELY TRUE and RIGHT, and thus is so COMPLETELY CLOSED now, that 'it' has absolutely NO interest AT ALL in what the could even be talking about and saying.

"daniel j lavender" BELIEVES that 'its' views here are SO RIGHT and CORRECT that 'it' ALSO BELIEVES that there is absolutely NO use in even DISCUSSING absolutely ANY 'thing' ELSE here.
User avatar
daniel j lavender
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2022 3:20 pm
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by daniel j lavender »

Age wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 3:59 am
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm
Age wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 4:54 amIf you can NOT YET SEE the CONTRADICTION, in your OWN writings, then the CONTRADICTION IS CLAIMING:

immaterial expanse is part of the structure of existence. Immateriality helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences.

And then CLAIMING:

Something and nothing cannot coexist.
Something and nothing cannot coexist.

Again, immateriality is not nothing or nonexistence.

There are physical things and nonphysical things; material things and immaterial things.

The spaces between the words are perceived else you couldn’t read and respond to such statements as efficiently. The spaces exist; the spaces are. Immaterial aspects of existence are perceived and interacted with constantly. Immateriality exists; immateriality is.

Nothing, nonexistence is not the contrast of materiality. Immateriality is the contrast of materiality.
What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is "ANOTHER" one who BELIEVES that 'its' views and ASSUMPTIONS are ABSOLUTELY TRUE and RIGHT, and thus is so COMPLETELY CLOSED now, that 'it' has absolutely NO interest AT ALL in what the could even be talking about and saying.
Ironically self-referential.

Age wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 3:59 am "daniel j lavender" BELIEVES that 'its' views here are SO RIGHT and CORRECT that 'it' ALSO BELIEVES that there is absolutely NO use in even DISCUSSING absolutely ANY 'thing' ELSE here.
You claim there is a contradiction. Elaborate.

I’m still attempting to decipher what the argument is, exactly.

Quoting statements from the text doesn’t clarify nor communicate what your argument actually is.

Clarify your argument.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 10708
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

daniel j lavender wrote: Fri Jun 16, 2023 5:44 pm Existence Is Infinite
Daniel J. Lavender



Abstract

Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.


Terms and Definitions

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way. In context of this essay, all things, all or everything as the entirety.

Infinite (adj.): Immeasurable; vast; unlimited or unrestricted.

Nonexistence (n.): Non-being; no thing, nothing, nothingness; is never perceived or interacted with other than as a concept or term; it does not and cannot exist. A contradictory concept and term.

Consciousness (n.): Awareness; a chemical-energy process allowing feedback of existence.

Intelligence (n.): Recognition of patterns in existence and their application for some benefit.

Thing (n.): An existing, material or immaterial; a part of existence. That which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part, in some way. E.g. a word, an object, matter, energy, consciousness, a concept, an event, a process, etc.

Eternity (n.): Synonymous with existence; that which is not limited by duration.


---

Existence is and nonexistence is not.

Existence is everywhere. Nonexistence is nowhere. Nonexistence does not exist, it is no thing. Every thing is something, including the concept or term nonexistence.

Existence did not begin as a beginning of existence would imply a previous state of nonexistence, and nonexistence was not, is not and cannot be. As nonexistence never was existence would not require a beginning.

Furthermore existence is not creation. Creation implies a point of being created, a beginning point. Existence would not be creation because existence had no beginning point or point of creation.

Existence is eternal, it was not created and therefore was not intelligently designed. However, existence does concern intelligence as we possess it. At least to a certain degree.

Existence is eternal. Existence did not begin and existence will not end. Existence was not created, it was not intelligently designed, it is not needed and it has no purpose. Existence just is. We, as conscious individuals, create purpose. Much like we create good and bad, right and left, up and down.

Existence is infinite, however, our limited perspective creates an illusion of limitation. From this perspective we are inclined to limit existence, we are inclined to create measurements of existence although existence is essentially immeasurable.

Existence is infinite, existence is not limited to any particular or any specific thing. Existence is innumerable things in innumerable places in innumerable ways; things bursting and flying, floating and flowing, flipping and flopping, beating and bouncing, whizzing and whirling around. Life, consciousness, is simply a result of that and isn't necessarily perpetuated or eternal. Nor was it necessarily deliberately created. After all we're beating, pumping hearts, flowing blood, blinking eyes, waving hair and bouncing feet.

We are parts of eternity.

We are parts of existence.

---

Additional Notes

- Existence is not creation in the sense existence was not created; existence is not creation alone. Existence includes creation. As stated, this essay concerns existence as the entirety or all things as the whole. Existence concerns both creation and destruction, for example.

- Existence is not needed. Existence is not needed as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to need or require it. Alternatively phrased, there isn't any thing beyond existence to need existence because every thing is part of existence. Existence is not needed, existence just is.

- Existence is that which can, at least partially, be perceived, but it does not necessarily need to be perceived. Things can be without being perceived. Likewise things can interact without awareness, such as waves crashing onto the shore.

- Immateriality, immaterial expanse is part of the structure of existence. Immateriality helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences. The contrast of materiality, the contrast of physicality is immateriality, not nonexistence or nothing.

- It may be argued that at some point the universe, or existence, was finite or limited in extent. But as stated that would only be some particular point, that would only be a limited portion of existence. That would not be the totality of existence. Existence is the whole, existence is all; existence is what we perceive as the past, present and future, existence is all aspects or all portions of all things. Existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. Existence is not limited in extent; existence is not limited to any particular area, period, point, portion, quality or thing.

- Something and nothing cannot coexist. If there is something there is not nothing. Anywhere. Nothing or nonexistence exists only as a word, a term, a concept in relation to other things.

- The term "energy" as in "consciousness is a chemical-energy process" refers to energy in the general sense, as in chemical energy, electrical energy, radiant energy, etc., and does not refer to chemical energy exclusively.

- Things have properties, things have qualities. Stars are bright. Icicles are cold. The automobile is aerodynamic. Nothing or nonexistence, beyond the concept or term, has no properties or qualities as it does not actually exist.


---------


Existence Is Eternal

Existence is eternal. Existence is constant. Things, parts may change; they may transform, they may shift around or reform, they may break apart or break away. But existence always is, existence is constant. The foundation of any thing, the basis of substance itself concerns being, concerns existence. The thing is. Substance is. It always concerns existence. Matter or energy, things may morph or shift around but no matter the form or arrangement it always is an expression of existence.


Existence Both Part And Whole

Existence is both part and whole. Existence as a whole is. Parts of existence are. It is. They are. All share the same commonality of existence, of being. Whole is. Parts are. They exist. They are.

Take Earth for example. There are parts of Earth and the whole Earth. Earth, the entire world, exists. However each continent, each body of water also exists. Each continent has its own name, each its own list of regulations. Each body of water has its own name. The continents are acknowledged as distinct things, the bodies of water are acknowledged as distinct things, as pieces or as parts. They also are acknowledged together as a whole, as the world or as the planet Earth. Earth's structure is comprised of several layers which also are viewed as parts or as pieces or together as the entire planet. Both parts and the whole can be and are acknowledged. This same premise applies to existence. Existence concerns both parts and the whole.

"Existence" or "being" is general, and applies to all, including parts, and the whole or entirety. "An existence", "an existing" or "a being" is specific, and applies to a particular. Both are acknowledged. In other words, both are.

A thing, although observably only part of existence, is still existence. A thing is not nonexistence. The fact a thing is [only part of] existence is implicit within context of interaction with said thing.


All Means All

Although both parts and the whole are, a part is not the whole or totality nor is the whole or totality just a part. A part is a part, the totality is the totality. A part cannot be turned into the totality, just as the totality cannot be turned into a part. A part may only represent the whole or totality or be in relation to the whole or totality. Nor can a duplicate of the totality be created. Such would be redundant, not to mention impractical. Any supposed addition to existence would still be part of existence or would still be part of the totality. In other words, there cannot be multiple totalities. Total means total, whole means whole. All means all.


Unlimited In Extent

Existence is not limited to any particular, existence is not limited in range or in scope. Existence isn't just any particular thing, existence is all things. Existence goes on and on and beyond, without limit. There is no edge to existence, no ending or beginning point to specify. There are only edges, there are only beginning and ending points to particulars or to things. To reach an edge is to reach an edge of some thing or some things, not existence entirely.

The edge of the seashore leads to the edge of the ocean; the edge of the ocean to the edge of the seashore. The edge of Earth's atmosphere leads to outer space; the edge of outer space to Earth's atmosphere, etcetera. Materiality edges into immateriality and immateriality edges into materiality. Edges of things always lead to edges of others; things give way to other things, not no things. Edges and boundaries apply only to particular things. Existence as a whole has no edge as existence is all things. Being all, existence flows seamlessly from one thing to another. Without edge, without limit.


Variance Of Existence

Parts of existence both limit and expand or give variety to existence. Parts are limited as observably they are not the entirety of existence, they do not concern the full scope of existence or the qualities of other things. Yet at the same time parts of existence give variety to existence; their uniqueness contributes variance to existence. For example the grittiness, the composition of sand contributes variance to existence as it contrasts the wetness, the composition of water. The water, as part of existence, perpetuates existence beyond just the grittiness or composition of sand. Both give variety to existence with their contrasting qualities. Simultaneously sand limits the extent of water, water limits the extent of sand.


Nonexistence Cannot Be

Nonexistence cannot be referenced because nonexistence is not and cannot be. Only things existent, only existence can be referenced. Absence of a thing or things may be declared, but this still concerns reference in relation to existent things. For example, Bob may be absent from class, but Bob is not nonexistent. Nor does Bob's absence create a gap of nonexistence in the classroom as the room is still completely filled with or comprised of things, be it air, desks, other students, teachers, etcetera. Absence concerns reference to a subject, to an existent thing and its location. The subject of reference is Bob, is the existent thing, along with its location. The subject of reference is not nonexistence or nothing; neither nonexistence nor nothing have location or presence to be referenced in such a way.

The very term "nothing" concerns reference to things. The concept or idea of nothing exists only in its relation to, and is based on, other existent things. "No thing" concerns direct reference to a thing or things. Attempting to reference nothing or nonexistence always fails as something is invariably referenced. The attempt to reference nothing or nonexistence itself results in reference to things: mental constructs or concepts of nothing, of nonexistence, or of nothingness, along with the words or terms nothing, or nonexistence, or nothingness themselves, all of which are things and are indeed existent. The words "nothing", "nonexistence" and "nothingness" are obvious contradictions as they are all observably things. Every reference is to some existent thing; nonexistence is not and cannot be.


The Significance Of Perception

Perception or consciousness is part of the basis of defining existence because conscious entities, such as ourselves, are who this issue matters to. Existence, things can be without consciousness or awareness, but consciousness or awareness must be included because that's what we are. For our purposes existence is that which is, or can, at least partially, be perceived. It involves perception both because perception or consciousness is part of existence and because the issue intimately concerns conscious entities. It implicitly involves perception or consciousness because that is the process used for such inquiry and exchange.

Interactivity, or the ability of things to interact, or the fact that things or phenomena interact, also plays a significant role in the definition of existence. It frees the philosophy from a purely biological, conscious perspective. Chemicals interact. Atoms interact. Protons, electrons all interact on nonconscious, nonbiological levels.


On Becoming

Becoming is a process, becoming is in essence development. Becoming could be viewed as dynamics of things, a process pertaining to things, similar to change.

Becoming is simply a process of existence, a process pertaining to individuals or parts of existence. Individuals, things become, develop or change into other things. A caterpillar, a thing, exists and becomes another, a butterfly. A student becomes a teacher, etcetera.

Existence, that is all things, cannot suddenly vanish into nothing. Nor can they suddenly appear from nothing. Existence cannot suddenly become nonexistence just as nonexistence cannot suddenly become existence. Existence always is. In this sense existence does not become. Existence, generally speaking, is not becoming and did not become. Existence is eternal. However becoming, as a process or development, can pertain to parts of existence.


Smallest Thing

Whether there is a smallest thing or not is rather inconsequential. Even if there were a smallest thing, a smallest object, a smallest particle, etcetera, it would still be a thing, it would still be something, it would still be part of existence. A smallest thing would not create a gap of nonexistence. Existence would still be infinite, existence would still be ubiquitous; existence would still flow seamlessly from one thing to another.

A smallest thing would not necessarily indicate limitation of existence, as in limitation of existence's size or extent; rather it would indicate limitation of that particular thing, limitation of the size or extent of that specific thing. It would indicate limitations of observation or ability of the observer. Existence is infinite in size and extent; existence includes every thing and is not limited to or by size of particulars. Nor is existence actually limited due to limitations of observation or ability.


Eternal Life

As existence never began, as existence had no starting point things wouldn't need to advance or develop from a beginning. There wouldn't be a beginning to need to develop from. Things would always be existent and could exist at any level of development at any given time. This essentially means life, or consciousness, could be eternal. This also relates to the premise that life may not have been [deliberately] created. Life, in the sense of being eternal, would not have been created nor would it have originated from a specific starting point.

This philosophy also accommodates ideas concerning abiogenesis, in which case life isn't deliberately or intelligently created but rather develops gradually as a result of environmental circumstances and events. It also accommodates ideas concerning panspermia, in which case life, or its required components, are distributed by comets, meteorites and other celestial bodies amidst their interactions.


Conclusions

The philosophy presented herein illustrates the commonality we all share. In fact the commonality all things share. As demonstrated throughout centuries past various religions, ideologies and ideologues have served largely to confound, to divide, to stoke the fires of conflict in the world rather than to unite. Optimistically philosophy, such as the one presented here, can serve to clarify, can serve to reconcile these ideas as well as improve understanding and community throughout the world and beyond.


https://linktr.ee/daniellavender
Welcome to the forum; here are some thoughts to ponder:

1. If there is only existence then this results in a monism. This monism is contradictory as if there is only "everything" then everything is without comparison, for it where to have comparison it would not be everything, and this absence of comparison results in everything being nothing, as comparison is necessary for distinction and distinction is necessary for the boundaries that result in thingness.

2. From another angle, if there is only existence and existence occurs through existence then existence distinguishes itself from itself, with this distinguishment being an existence. Existence is self-dividing thus self opposing. This is first observing the fact that an existence can occur through another existence with this distinction of existences being the division of existences (with this division being an existence) as the act of 'occuring through' first requires a distinction between said things which result in a relationship.

3. From another perspective we can argue that existence is contradictory. An example of this is a circle. There is the inner space of a circle which is distinct. There is the outerspace of a circle which is distinct. There is the space between the inner and outer spaces which is the circle itself and this is distinct. Space is dividing space with this division being space itself.
User avatar
daniel j lavender
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2022 3:20 pm
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by daniel j lavender »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 9:01 pm1. If there is only existence then this results in a monism. This monism is contradictory as if there is only "everything" then everything is without comparison, for it where to have comparison it would not be everything, and this absence of comparison results in everything being nothing, as comparison is necessary for distinction and distinction is necessary for the boundaries that result in thingness.
Existence requires no comparison, existence requires no justification. Existence just is.

Everything can be distinguished from and by a thing, from and by some thing, from and by some things. It’s self-evident that a thing is not everything.

“Every” in essence denotes “all”. “A” and “some” denote “a single instance, a limited number or limited extent”.

“Everything” can be viewed as each and every thing and all things altogether. Separation and connection, comparison and contrast.

The differences, the distinctions for comparison are clear. The unlimitedness of existence is distinguished from the limitedness of things. However as stated comparison, justification isn’t necessitated.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 9:01 pm2. From another angle, if there is only existence and existence occurs through existence then existence distinguishes itself from itself, with this distinguishment being an existence.
Existence need not “occur through”. Nor does existence need justification. Existence just is.

What do all things, what do all variations of things have in common? What is their commonality? They all are. They all exist. They all are parts of existence, they all are expressions of existence. All differences, all variations, all opposition, all contradiction ultimately balances as simply being. As simply existence.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 9:01 pmExistence is self-dividing thus self opposing.
Yes, in a sense existence is self-dividing and self-opposing.

This is relevant: https://imgur.com/a/r9MIC8I

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 9:01 pm3. From another perspective we can argue that existence is contradictory. An example of this is a circle. There is the inner space of a circle which is distinct. There is the outerspace of a circle which is distinct. There is the space between the inner and outer spaces which is the circle itself and this is distinct. Space is dividing space with this division being space itself.
Yes, certain aspects of existence are contradictory.

I like to call it congruent contradiction.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 11317
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by iambiguous »

daniel j lavender wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 6:41 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 4:48 pm…if you are focused in on the laws of nature then, perhaps, they are what they are. But once that matter evolves into a human brain that "somehow" acquired autonomy when "somehow" matter acquired biological life here on planet Earth, then over and over and over again given human interactions down through the ages there have been, are now and almost certainly always will be endless gaps between the way things are thought to be and the way others think that they ought to be instead. Human existence as it is here is, in fact, what generates most of the newspaper headlines. And most of the conflicts and most of the wars and much of the human pain and suffering that few are able to just shrug off as "that's just the way it is".
Existence transcends all we know and all we understand. That includes said laws of nature.

What are laws of nature? They are principles based on events and phenomena we’ve observed within the observable universe which appear to be consistent.

These laws extend from our observation and understanding of the observable universe. In other words these laws extend from a limited perspective. These laws are based on limited observation and on limited understanding.

With theoretical physics and applied sciences we know certain aspects of existence can be manipulated. This relates to some of the basic principles and core tenets of these laws. With advances in both technology and understanding do these “laws of nature” actually hold?

Are such laws really ubiquitous?

As mentioned earlier some claim there are alternate universes
Again, in my view, you note what I construe to be entirely abstract things about existence: "existence transcends all we know and all we understand. That includes said laws of nature". But beyond the words defining and defending other words you don't connect them to the world of actual human interactions. Whereas I'm just the opposite. My interest in philosophy is existential. There's what we believe "in our heads" about existence and there's what we can demonstrate is applicable to the lives that we live. The lives that involve interactions with others.

And let me ask you this...

Given this philosophy of existence, do you differentiate the either/or world...the world pertaining to the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical/material world around us and logic...from the is/ought world...a world revolving far more around moral, political and spiritual conflicts?

There's existence as it is grappled with "metaphysically" and existence as it is actually lived by men and women socially, politically and economically.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 4:48 pmAnd we may or may not be able to close that gap.
daniel j lavender wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 6:41 pmThere is no gap. There is no separation, anywhere. To assert separation is futile as that between connects that separated.
On the contrary, you ignored the bulk of the points I raised above. So, from my frame of mind, the gap between is significant.

That's fine though. I was just probing in order to explore the extent to which your philosophy might be applicable to the assumptions that I make about the "human condition" in my signature threads above.

We're just in two completely different exchanges from my frame of mind. Let's just move on to others.
User avatar
daniel j lavender
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2022 3:20 pm
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by daniel j lavender »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2023 5:37 amAnd let me ask you this...

Given this philosophy of existence, do you differentiate the either/or world...the world pertaining to the laws of nature, mathematics, the empirical/material world around us and logic...from the is/ought world...a world revolving far more around moral, political and spiritual conflicts?
Certainly. Differences, differentiations are acknowledged.

There is no dismissal of difference, no denial of differentiation. However all things are connected by commonality of being.

The central idea is that all is existence, all is essentially the same. All essentially is.

iambiguous wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2023 5:37 amAgain, in my view, you note what I construe to be entirely abstract things about existence: "existence transcends all we know and all we understand. That includes said laws of nature". But beyond the words defining and defending other words you don't connect them to the world of actual human interactions. Whereas I'm just the opposite. My interest in philosophy is existential. There's what we believe "in our heads" about existence and there's what we can demonstrate is applicable to the lives that we live. The lives that involve interactions with others.

There's existence as it is grappled with "metaphysically" and existence as it is actually lived by men and women socially, politically and economically.
You seem interested in human interaction, in human morality. As expressed the text is not a moral treatise. It is not political discourse. It isn’t declaring how things are or how things ought to be. It’s declaring what existence is.

Existence concerns more than humans and drama. Many topics concern the abstract, many premises must be conveyed with abstraction as we lack the ability to tangibly investigate certain subject matter.

iambiguous wrote: Sat Jun 24, 2023 5:37 amI was just probing in order to explore the extent to which your philosophy might be applicable to the assumptions that I make about the "human condition" in my signature threads above.
The philosophy illustrates our commonality: being. We all are. We all are expressions of existence. It’s universal. Beyond universal. This is valid for any and all individuals anywhere. On Earth, Mars, the galaxy Andromeda.

As expressed, existence concerns more than just the human condition. Existence exceeds the human condition.

The human condition will always be an issue as long as humans are around to perpetuate it. Politics won’t change that, economic adjustments won’t change that. Only transformation, annihilation or extinction will change that. That’s why it’s called the human condition.
Age
Posts: 27841
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by Age »

daniel j lavender wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 7:14 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 3:59 am
daniel j lavender wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2023 8:49 pm

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

Again, immateriality is not nothing or nonexistence.

There are physical things and nonphysical things; material things and immaterial things.

The spaces between the words are perceived else you couldn’t read and respond to such statements as efficiently. The spaces exist; the spaces are. Immaterial aspects of existence are perceived and interacted with constantly. Immateriality exists; immateriality is.

Nothing, nonexistence is not the contrast of materiality. Immateriality is the contrast of materiality.
What can be CLEARLY SEEN here is "ANOTHER" one who BELIEVES that 'its' views and ASSUMPTIONS are ABSOLUTELY TRUE and RIGHT, and thus is so COMPLETELY CLOSED now, that 'it' has absolutely NO interest AT ALL in what the could even be talking about and saying.
Ironically self-referential.
But I do NOT do such things. So, they could NOT be self-referential, well to me anyway.
daniel j lavender wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 7:14 pm
Age wrote: Fri Jun 23, 2023 3:59 am "daniel j lavender" BELIEVES that 'its' views here are SO RIGHT and CORRECT that 'it' ALSO BELIEVES that there is absolutely NO use in even DISCUSSING absolutely ANY 'thing' ELSE here.
You claim there is a contradiction. Elaborate.

I’m still attempting to decipher what the argument is, exactly.

Quoting statements from the text doesn’t clarify nor communicate what your argument actually is.

Clarify your argument.
Telling me to do things, or demanding that I do things for you, only encourages me to NOT do them.

Now if you would really like to obtain the view/s from "another", and especially me, then I suggest that you just ASK for what 'it' is, EXACTLY, which you would like.

Also, be forewarned that if you really would like me to elaborate on and show where the actual contradiction lies, then you will need to be open and honest in answering some clarifying questions first.
User avatar
daniel j lavender
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2022 3:20 pm
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by daniel j lavender »

Age wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 2:03 amTelling me to do things, or demanding that I do things for you, only encourages me to NOT do them.

Now if you would really like to obtain the view/s from "another", and especially me, then I suggest that you just ASK for what 'it' is, EXACTLY, which you would like.

Also, be forewarned that if you really would like me to elaborate on and show where the actual contradiction lies, then you will need to be open and honest in answering some clarifying questions first.
One would be willing to share if one had solid arguments.

Something and nothing cannot coexist. If there is some thing there is not no thing.
Age
Posts: 27841
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by Age »

daniel j lavender wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 4:23 am
Age wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 2:03 amTelling me to do things, or demanding that I do things for you, only encourages me to NOT do them.

Now if you would really like to obtain the view/s from "another", and especially me, then I suggest that you just ASK for what 'it' is, EXACTLY, which you would like.

Also, be forewarned that if you really would like me to elaborate on and show where the actual contradiction lies, then you will need to be open and honest in answering some clarifying questions first.
One would be willing to share if one had solid arguments.
This IS NOT necessarily True AT ALL.
Therefore, False.

I could, and DO, have NOT just 'solid' arguments but 'sound AND valid arguments', but which I am NO hurry AT ALL to SHARE.

I have OTHER 'things' that I WANT TO DO FIRST.

I also WARNED that you would NEED to be OPEN and Honest to ANSWERING some CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FIRST, but you appear here to NOT want to ACCEPT this CHALLENGE.
daniel j lavender wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 4:23 am Something and nothing cannot coexist.
We KNOW that 'this' is what you BELIEVE is true, and you KEEP SAYING and RE-REPEATING this BELIEF of YOURS as though 'it' is true.

However, you are YET TO LEARN and UNDERSTAND the ACTUAL CONTRADICTION in YOUR CLAIM here.
daniel j lavender wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 4:23 am If there is some thing there is not no thing.
WHERE?

For example, if there is some 'thing' in one part of the Universe does this then, IRREFUTABLY, MEAN that there can be no 'thing' in ANOTHER PART of the Universe?
User avatar
daniel j lavender
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2022 3:20 pm
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by daniel j lavender »

Age wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 11:01 am
daniel j lavender wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 4:23 amIf there is some thing there is not no thing.
WHERE?
Anywhere.

Age wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 11:01 amFor example, if there is some 'thing' in one part of the Universe does this then, IRREFUTABLY, MEAN that there can be no 'thing' in ANOTHER PART of the Universe?
If there is some thing in one part of the universe there cannot be no thing in another. If there is some thing there is not no thing.


Another thing is implicitly identified by your statement:
Age wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 11:01 amANOTHER PART of the Universe
Another part of the universe is identified. That in and of itself is a thing, is some thing, not no thing.
Age
Posts: 27841
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by Age »

daniel j lavender wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 5:49 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 11:01 am
daniel j lavender wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 4:23 amIf there is some thing there is not no thing.
WHERE?
Anywhere.
So, to you, if there are say 'two things', IN the Universe, then there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that there could be NO 'things' between NOR around those two 'things', right?
daniel j lavender wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 5:49 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 11:01 amFor example, if there is some 'thing' in one part of the Universe does this then, IRREFUTABLY, MEAN that there can be no 'thing' in ANOTHER PART of the Universe?
If there is some thing in one part of the universe there cannot be no thing in another. If there is some thing there is not no thing.
Do you KNOW you are referring to the WHOLE, ALONE, and NOTHING ELSE?

If yes, then are you AWARE that you are ONLY looking AT ONE 'thing' ALONE, and NOT AT EVERY 'thing', that is; the WHOLE Picture?

See, the Universe IS, and HAS TO BE, made up of TWO 'things' and NOT just ONE 'thing'.
daniel j lavender wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 5:49 pm Another thing is implicitly identified by your statement:
Age wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2023 11:01 amANOTHER PART of the Universe
Another part of the universe is identified. That in and of itself is a thing, is some thing, not no thing.
While you KEEP 'trying to' FIGHT and ARGUE for what you CURRENTLY BELIEVE IS TRUE, you will KEEP MISSING what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that I HAVE, ALREADY.

See, as long as you want to EXPRESS SHOWING that you BELIEVE that you ALREADY KNOW what the TRUTH IS, EXACTLY, I will continue to let you do so.

As while you are DOING 'this', you ARE PROVING what I have to SAY and CLAIM ABOUT how the Mind and the brain work and HOW the brain, with the BELIEF-system, SHUTS DOWN the ABILITY of 'the person' to COME TO and ARRIVE AT what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

I have INFORMED you that your OWN sentences are CONTRADICTING each other, and thus are REVEALING and SHOWING the INCONSISTENCIES in YOUR CLAIMS here, YET you seem to WANT to IGNORE 'this' and just KEEP RE-PRESENTING your CURRENT BELIEFS and CLAIMS here.

Which, OF COURSE, you ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE TO DO SO.

Even in your last sentence here, by the way, there is an inconsistency and contradiction. So, if you are Truly INTERESTED in becoming AWARE of this one, and/or of the OTHER one, then you WILL let me KNOW, right?
User avatar
daniel j lavender
Posts: 336
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2022 3:20 pm
Location: Tennessee
Contact:

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by daniel j lavender »

Age wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 1:36 amSo, to you, if there are say 'two things', IN the Universe, then there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that there could be NO 'things' between NOR around those two 'things', right?
Correct. If there is some thing, or two things, there is not no thing. To “be around” or “be between” is to itself reference some thing, is to denote being.

It isn’t necessarily limited to just two things or the universe, however, hence existence being infinite.

Age wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 1:36 amDo you KNOW you are referring to the WHOLE, ALONE, and NOTHING ELSE?

If yes, then are you AWARE that you are ONLY looking AT ONE 'thing' ALONE, and NOT AT EVERY 'thing', that is; the WHOLE Picture?

See, the Universe IS, and HAS TO BE, made up of TWO 'things' and NOT just ONE 'thing'.
The philosophy does not preclude the multiplicity of things. See Existence Both Part And Whole of the text, for example.
Age
Posts: 27841
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Existence Is Infinite

Post by Age »

daniel j lavender wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:41 am
Age wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 1:36 amSo, to you, if there are say 'two things', IN the Universe, then there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that there could be NO 'things' between NOR around those two 'things', right?
Correct. If there is some thing, or two things, there is not no thing. To “be around” or “be between” is to itself reference some thing, is to denote being.
Even referencing NO 'thing', or NOTHING, IS, OBVIOUSLY, to reference SOME 'thing'. Even 'nothing' IS 'something'. This has NEVER been in dispute here. you, however, just KEEP MISSING the POINT/s here BECAUSE you do NOT want to DELVE INTO what the "other" IS SAYING, and MEANING, and you do this BECAUSE you BELIEVE that your views here are ABSOLUTELY true, right, AND correct as they are.
daniel j lavender wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:41 am It isn’t necessarily limited to just two things or the universe, however, hence existence being infinite.
Existence being infinite has NEVER been in dispute here. As I KEEP TELLING and INFORMING you.
daniel j lavender wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 2:41 am
Age wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2023 1:36 amDo you KNOW you are referring to the WHOLE, ALONE, and NOTHING ELSE?

If yes, then are you AWARE that you are ONLY looking AT ONE 'thing' ALONE, and NOT AT EVERY 'thing', that is; the WHOLE Picture?

See, the Universe IS, and HAS TO BE, made up of TWO 'things' and NOT just ONE 'thing'.
The philosophy does not preclude the multiplicity of things. See Existence Both Part And Whole of the text, for example.
LOOK there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FALSE, WRONG, INACCURATE, NOR INCORRECT in the so-called 'the philosophy', well FROM YOUR perspective anyway. Therefore, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE, for you, to LOOK AT NOR DISCUSS here.

So I suggest just BE HAPPY with YOUR, to you, 'PERFECT philosophy'.
Post Reply