Existence Is Infinite

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

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.

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 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.

Existence 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

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.

Yes, certain aspects of existence are contradictory.

I like to call it congruent contradiction.

1. And what is the form of a unified "is-ness"? If all is unified under the nature of existence what is the form that is existence?

2. If a thing is dependent upon something else then it is empty on its own terms. As empty on its own terms it shares the same nature of everything being without comparison. Comparison is necessary for form...if it is not then what is the singular form of the singular everything?

3. Justification is necessitated otherwise you are making blind assertions. Existence is justification and if 'all there is' is existence then justification justifies itself thus leaving it indefinite.

4. If existence does not occur through anything else then it is self-referential. If self-referential it has no comparison thus is formless (as form requires comparison). If it is formless it is both meaningful (every point is a centerpoint to something else) and meaningless (infinite centerpoints leaves the nature of centerpoint indefinite).

5. I agree to the rest.

[Age]

AND, the reason WHY one can NOT physically touch immaterial expanse IS because 'immaterial expanse' does NOT consist of ...?

Because immaterial expanse is immaterial, it is intangible. Not because “immaterial expanse does not consist of”.

So, to you, does the 'immaterial expanse' consist of 'things', of no 'things', or of some 'thing' else?

Materiality in this sense is a category which includes material things. Material aspects of existence generally speaking.

So, if 'materiality' is made up of, or out of, 'material things', EXACTLY, then what is 'immateriality' or 'immaterial space or expanse' made up of, or out of, EXACTLY?

Again, materiality is not necessarily “made up of” or “out of”. Those are your words. It is sloppy language.[/quote]

LOL

So, to you, when "scientists" inform you of what 'things' consist of, or are made up of, then these people are using so-called 'sloppy language', right?

How about if 'materiality' includes material things, then what does 'immateriality' include, EXACTLY?

Is that 'non sloppy enough language', for you?

As stated, materiality is a category which includes material things. Material aspects of existence generally speaking.

Immateriality is also a category which includes immaterial things. Immaterial aspects of existence generally speaking.

Will you list some of these ALLEGED and so-called 'immaterial things'?

If no, then why not?

Immaterial expanse is immaterial expanse. It is expanse. Asking “what is expanse made up of” is redundant and syntactically erroneous. It’s like asking what the basis of the basis is.

Asking the first question is absolutely nothing like asking the second question?

EITHER 'immaterial expanse' consists of, or includes, some 'thing' or it does not.

you have now said that it does, so now we just wait for you to list what those 'things' are, EXACTLY.

WHEN we GET a reasonable or sensible ANSWER, then we can MOVE ONE MORE STEP CLOSER.

By reasonable or sensible answer you mean an appropriate answer which will help you illustrate some supposed contradiction.

Not necessarily so.

In essence you’ve already revealed your argument concerning the supposed contradiction. It is unconvincing.
[/quote]

LOL SO, what was my ACTUAL 'argument', which you are now CLAIMING that I have ALREADY REVEALED?

[daniel j lavender]

1. And what is the form of a unified "is-ness"? If all is unified under the nature of existence what is the form that is existence?

Formless.

Existence is formless in the sense existence is omnifarious, existence is omniform.

Existence is formless, shapeless. To restrict existence to any form or shape would be to restrict existence, would be to limit existence. It would be restriction, it would be limitation in and of itself. Existence is unlimited. Existence is infinite.

While particular things may have form or shape, and while existence does concern forms and shapes, existence is, generally speaking, without form.

The nature of existence is unlimitedness. Existence is infinite. It isn’t limited to any particular form, any particular shape, any particular.

Existence has no definite form. Existence is no specific shape. Existence just is.

2. If a thing is dependent upon something else then it is empty on its own terms. As empty on its own terms it shares the same nature of everything being without comparison. Comparison is necessary for form...if it is not then what is the singular form of the singular everything?

As expressed above, existence isn’t limited to or by form. Nor does existence require comparison or justification.

Existence is beyond comparison. Existence is beyond form.

The unifying commonality is not form. The unifying commonality is existence, is simply being.

3. Justification is necessitated otherwise you are making blind assertions. Existence is justification and if 'all there is' is existence then justification justifies itself thus leaving it indefinite.

Existence requires no justification.

Existence is all there was, is and will be. What would existence need to justify itself to?

4. If existence does not occur through anything else then it is self-referential. If self-referential it has no comparison thus is formless (as form requires comparison). If it is formless it is both meaningful (every point is a centerpoint to something else) and meaningless (infinite centerpoints leaves the nature of centerpoint indefinite).

Yes.

[Eodnhoj7]

1. And what is the form of a unified "is-ness"? If all is unified under the nature of existence what is the form that is existence?

Formless.

Existence is formless in the sense existence is omnifarious, existence is omniform.

Existence is formless, shapeless. To restrict existence to any form or shape would be to restrict existence, would be to limit existence. It would be restriction, it would be limitation in and of itself. Existence is unlimited. Existence is infinite.

While particular things may have form or shape, and while existence does concern forms and shapes, existence is, generally speaking, without form.

The nature of existence is unlimitedness. Existence is infinite. It isn’t limited to any particular form, any particular shape, any particular.

Existence has no definite form. Existence is no specific shape. Existence just is.

2. If a thing is dependent upon something else then it is empty on its own terms. As empty on its own terms it shares the same nature of everything being without comparison. Comparison is necessary for form...if it is not then what is the singular form of the singular everything?

As expressed above, existence isn’t limited to or by form. Nor does existence require comparison or justification.

Existence is beyond comparison. Existence is beyond form.

The unifying commonality is not form. The unifying commonality is existence, is simply being.

3. Justification is necessitated otherwise you are making blind assertions. Existence is justification and if 'all there is' is existence then justification justifies itself thus leaving it indefinite.

Existence requires no justification.

Existence is all there was, is and will be. What would existence need to justify itself to?

4. If existence does not occur through anything else then it is self-referential. If self-referential it has no comparison thus is formless (as form requires comparison). If it is formless it is both meaningful (every point is a centerpoint to something else) and meaningless (infinite centerpoints leaves the nature of centerpoint indefinite).

Yes.

1. Agreed.

2. Beyond comparison and beyond form makes existence no-thing (not a thing) as a thing requires definition.

3. If all there is is existence then everything is connected by the fact it exists. Thus justification is connected to everything else, through the nature of existence, and as such existence being everything is existence as justification.

4. I think my threads and your thread are arguing the same point.

[daniel j lavender]

So, to you, does the 'immaterial expanse' consist of 'things', of no 'things', or of some 'thing' else?

EITHER 'immaterial expanse' consists of, or includes, some 'thing' or it does not.

Immaterial expanse consists of immaterial expanse. As stated, immaterial expanse is simply immaterial expanse. As with physical material, immaterial expanse can be broken down into or can be measured as smaller units or smaller regions, however it’s still immaterial expanse.

One could ask “What does X consist of?” And receive response “Y”. One could ask “What does Y consist of?” And receive response “Z”. One could ask “What does Z consist of?” and continue down the path of madness. I will not entertain such nonsense here.

Will you list some of these ALLEGED and so-called 'immaterial things'?

Immaterial expanse. Ideas. Love. Truth. Philosophy.

[Age]

So, to you, does the 'immaterial expanse' consist of 'things', of no 'things', or of some 'thing' else?

EITHER 'immaterial expanse' consists of, or includes, some 'thing' or it does not.

Immaterial expanse consists of immaterial expanse. As stated, immaterial expanse is simply immaterial expanse.

And AS ALREADY EXPLAINED TO you, 'tree' is simply 'tree'.

But, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here NOTHING REALLY is being SAID, NOR EXPLAINED.

If you can NOT EXPLAIN your VIEW, then just maybe you do NOT REALLY KNOW 'it'.

As with physical material, immaterial expanse can be broken down into or can be measured as smaller units or smaller regions, however it’s still immaterial expanse.

WHY does 'materially' include some 'thing' BUT 'immerially' does NOT?

One could ask “What does X consist of?” And receive response “Y”. One could ask “What does Y consist of?” And receive response “Z”. One could ask “What does Z consist of?” and continue down the path of madness. I will not entertain such nonsense here.

LOL Talk ABOUT a PRIME example of DEFLECTION, and ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT FOOLING the 'readers' here. But, OF COURSE, this one may well have DECEIVED 'itself' FULLY here, and thus is just FOOLING 'its OWN self' AS WELL.

Now, one COULD ask those questions, BUT I NEVER WOULD. So, 'trying to' USE this so-called "logic" to DETRACT is NOT working.

OBVIOUSLY, you WANT to INFORM us what 'materiality' 'includes', your choice of wording, BUT NOT INFORM us of what 'immateriality' includes', again your choice of wording.

Now, the EXACT REASON WHY you are WILLING to ANSWER 'one' but NOT 'the other', and are 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT here IS EXTREMELY OBVIOUS TO me. Even if you ARE STILL UNAWARE here.

Will you list some of these ALLEGED and so-called 'immaterial things'?

Immaterial expanse. Ideas. Love. Truth. Philosophy.

FINALLY. SO, THANK YOU.

Now, so the 'immaterial expanse', let us say, which exists in ANOTHER galaxy, besides the one earth is in, includes the 'immaterial things' of 'ideas', 'love', 'truth' and/or even 'philosophy', right?

ALSO, WHY do you ONLY answer SOME questions, and NOT ALL of 'them'?

[daniel j lavender]

Now, so the 'immaterial expanse', let us say, which exists in ANOTHER galaxy, besides the one earth is in, includes the 'immaterial things' of 'ideas', 'love', 'truth' and/or even 'philosophy', right?

The category immateriality includes immaterial expanse, ideas, love, truth and philosophy. Immaterial expanse is immaterial expanse, not a category. But yes, another galaxy certainly could concern immaterial things such as immaterial expanse, ideas, truth, etcetera.

ALSO, WHY do you ONLY answer SOME questions, and NOT ALL of 'them'?

Many of the questions are rhetorical while others simply redundant.

[Age]

Now, so the 'immaterial expanse', let us say, which exists in ANOTHER galaxy, besides the one earth is in, includes the 'immaterial things' of 'ideas', 'love', 'truth' and/or even 'philosophy', right?

The category immateriality includes immaterial expanse, ideas, love, truth and philosophy. Immaterial expanse is immaterial expanse, not a category. But yes, another galaxy certainly could concern immaterial things such as immaterial expanse, ideas, truth, etcetera.

ALSO, WHY do you ONLY answer SOME questions, and NOT ALL of 'them'?

Many of the questions are rhetorical while others simply redundant.

LOL I have NEVER written one rhetorical question here. ABSOLUTELY EVERY QUESTION I have ASKED is FROM A TRULY OPEN PERSPECTIVE, and ASKED to OBTAIN CLARITY.

AND, what seems 'redundant' to 'one' is NOT necessarily to "another".

Furthermore, what we have ARRIVED AT here is that, to you, 'immaterial expanse', which is supposed to be like 'spaces in a sentence', in OTHER galaxies could 'concern' 'immaterial things' such as ideas, truth, et cetera. Which then somehow aligns TO and WITH YOUR BELIEF that 'nothing' and 'something' cannot coexist.

[daniel j lavender]

2. Beyond comparison and beyond form makes existence no-thing (not a thing) as a thing requires definition.

Beyond comparison and beyond form makes existence all things, not no-thing.

Remember existence is not a thing in this sense. Existence is all things. Existence is the entirety.

Existence is beyond compare because there is not anything else to compare existence to. Existence is all. There is no other to compare.

Existence is beyond form. Existence cannot be limited to any particular, to any specific form. Existence exceeds any particular form as existence is all other forms too.

“Formless” is typically defined as “having no definite form, having no distinct shape”. Existence, generally speaking, meets this criteria as existence cannot be reduced to any specific form or shape. Existence is omnifarious, or of all forms. In this sense, formless.

3. If all there is is existence then everything is connected by the fact it exists. Thus justification is connected to everything else, through the nature of existence, and as such existence being everything is existence as justification.

Yes, justification is connected to everything else by commonality of being. However justification is only part of existence; justification concerns only parts of existence.

I like your earlier statement:

justification justifies itself

Existence, generally speaking, requires no justification. Existence is all that is. There is no other to justify.

4. I think my threads and your thread are arguing the same point.

Perhaps. Obviously I’m opposed to nothing, or nothingness or nonexistence actually existing. There certainly are similarities and we agree on several points.

It isn’t much surprise though, as mentioned earlier this is eternal knowledge. Many throughout eternity have expressed and will express similar ideas and views because it is what is.

We’re not inventing or contriving this material from thin air. We just happen to be mindful individuals who took the time to realize, to discover, to revitalize this knowledge and subsequently apply ourselves in order to share it with others.

There are certain realms philosophy can endeavor in which physics, math and science cannot. For the past several decades physics, math and science have dominated media, education and public discourse. While physics, math and science are certainly important they do not compel thought, they do not command thought at the level philosophy does. I believe it is time philosophy take center stage. I wish to be part of that philosophical resurgence.

[Gary Childress]

Existence Is Infinite
Daniel J. Lavender

Is non-existence "infinite" also?

[daniel j lavender]

Existence Is Infinite
Daniel J. Lavender

Is non-existence "infinite" also?

Abstract is below the title.

[daniel j lavender]

Furthermore, what we have ARRIVED AT here is that, to you, 'immaterial expanse', which is supposed to be like 'spaces in a sentence', in OTHER galaxies could 'concern' 'immaterial things' such as ideas, truth, et cetera.

It appears you are confused. Immaterial expanse is not the same as nor does it encompass other immaterial things such as ideas, truth, etcetera. However immaterial expanse certainly is related to other immaterial things such as ideas, truth, etcetera.

Immateriality includes immaterial things such as immaterial expanse, ideas and truth. These things are linked under the category immateriality as they share the commonality of being immaterial.

They are immaterial in the sense they are intangible things, they are impalpable things. In other words one cannot reach out and touch immaterial things. Immaterial things cannot be handled or manipulated like typical, physical objects such as stones, footballs or cellular phones.

But yes, other galaxies certainly could concern or contain said immaterial things.

'immaterial expanse', which is supposed to be like 'spaces in a sentence'

Immaterial expanse is like spaces in a sentence.

Immateriality, immaterial expanse helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences. It’s metaphorical. Elegantly metaphorical. Spaces provide distance, they provide spacing, structuring to help convey language efficiently. Just as immaterial expanse allows distance among physical objects and helps perpetuate the structure of existence.

This illustrates both spaces and immaterial expanse are interacted with and perceived demonstrating they are not nonexistence.

Which then somehow aligns TO and WITH YOUR BELIEF that 'nothing' and 'something' cannot coexist.

Those specific statements were not intended to tie directly into the something and nothing cannot coexist premise, however they do obviously relate.

As illustrated with the metaphor above spaces, immaterial expanse, things have qualities, they are interacted with and can be perceived. Nothing or nonexistence has no qualities, cannot be interacted with and cannot be perceived as it does not actually exist.

[Age]

Furthermore, what we have ARRIVED AT here is that, to you, 'immaterial expanse', which is supposed to be like 'spaces in a sentence', in OTHER galaxies could 'concern' 'immaterial things' such as ideas, truth, et cetera.

It appears you are confused. Immaterial expanse is not the same as nor does it encompass other immaterial things such as ideas, truth, etcetera. However immaterial expanse certainly is related to other immaterial things such as ideas, truth, etcetera.

What do 'ideas' and 'truth' consist of and/or are composed up of, EXACTLY?

Also, what is the 'etcetera' word here referencing, EXACTLY?

Immateriality includes immaterial things such as immaterial expanse, ideas and truth. These things are linked under the category immateriality as they share the commonality of being immaterial.

They are immaterial in the sense they are intangible things, they are impalpable things. In other words one cannot reach out and touch immaterial things. Immaterial things cannot be handled or manipulated like typical, physical objects such as stones, footballs or cellular phones.

But yes, other galaxies certainly could concern or contain said immaterial things.

'immaterial expanse', which is supposed to be like 'spaces in a sentence'

Immaterial expanse is like spaces in a sentence.

Immateriality, immaterial expanse helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences. It’s metaphorical. Elegantly metaphorical. Spaces provide distance, they provide spacing, structuring to help convey language efficiently. Just as immaterial expanse allows distance among physical objects and helps perpetuate the structure of existence.

This illustrates both spaces and immaterial expanse are interacted with and perceived demonstrating they are not nonexistence.

Is ANY one here SAYING or CLAIMING 'spaces' or 'immaterial expanse' are nonexistent?

If yes, then who, EXACTLY?

Which then somehow aligns TO and WITH YOUR BELIEF that 'nothing' and 'something' cannot coexist.

Those specific statements were not intended to tie directly into the something and nothing cannot coexist premise, however they do obviously relate.

I talked ABOUT a CONTRADICTION in your opening post. Are we still discussing 'this', or do you just want to completely forget about 'it', and move along?

As illustrated with the metaphor above spaces, immaterial expanse, things have qualities, they are interacted with and can be perceived.

What are the qualities of 'immaterial expanse', EXACTLY?

Nothing or nonexistence has no qualities, cannot be interacted with and cannot be perceived as it does not actually exist.

But this here is NOT true AT ALL to me.

But what 'this' IS, EXACTLY, you do NOT YET KNOW, but you WILL just DISAGREE WITH, ANYWAY.

[Dontaskme]

Is non-existence "infinite" also?

Yes, non-existence is infinite also.

Any known concept must already exist here in this infinite existence.

Therefore, if you say you know, then this knower is infinity knowing.

[daniel j lavender]

Is non-existence "infinite" also?

Yes, non-existence is infinite also.

If nonexistence is infinite show me nonexistence. Identify nonexistence.

Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Nonexistence has no extent so of course is not infinite.

Nonexistence is not finite, either. Nonexistence is not. To any degree.