Existence Is Infinite

[Age]

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

Ok, lets try another way of putting this into words.

Does not a blank empty screen and the moving pictures projected onto it not coexist together in conjunction with the knowing of these two concepts (empty and full) (no thing and some thing)?

The empty blank screen and the projected images upon it both arise at the same time together as existence, one doesn't come first and the other follow after, they both exist as the same time, namely, here NOW
Existence is BOTH the empty screen and the contents on it.

As expressed earlier:

However both the blank screen and the image are things, they are parts of existence whether they exist simultaneously or not. In other words it is all existence. There is always existence.

Even if all these things coexist they are all things, they are all parts of existence. They are not nonexistence.

ACTUAL 'nonexistence' IS NOT even a logical POSSIBILITY to exist, let alone an ACTUAL POSSIBILITY. So, WHY even WRITE as though there could be ANY POSSIBILITY AT ALL that 'nonexistence' could even exist?

OF COURSE ALL 'things' COEXIST IN and WITH 'EXISTENCE', Itself.

From what I can tell absolutely NO one here is even DISAGREEING WITH you on 'this'. "dontaskme" was just POINTING OUT some 'thing' earlier, which you have 'now', finally, come around to AGREEING WITH, ANYWAY.

Every aspect of your premise involves things and qualities of things.

A blank, empty screen is a blank, empty screen. A thing. The moving pictures are moving pictures. Those are things. Knowing them as concepts, that they are concepts. Concepts are things. Empty is a quality or condition of some thing. Empty is a quality or property and is itself a thing. Full is a quality or condition of some thing. Full is a quality or property and is itself a thing.

All referenced are things, are [parts of] existence. Nonexistence is not referenced or alluded to in any way. It can’t be. Nonexistence does not exist.

We HAVE GONE THROUGH 'this' ALREADY. 'nonexistence' DOES EXIST. As an 'idea', 'concept', AND thus 'thing'.

You are attempting to use examples of things to create an analogy to identify nonexistence. It does not and will not work. You only have things to work with as there are only things. You cannot effectively reference or metaphor nonexistence as there is only existence.

As you concede, existence is both the empty screen and the contents on it.

Existence is all. There is only existence.

There is no place for nothingness as existence is infinite. Nothingness is not and cannot be.

False, Wrong, AND Incorrect ONCE AGAIN, and thus STILL.

Or, are you 'now' SAYING and CLAIMING that 'nothingness' is NOT an 'idea' and a 'concept'?

[Age]

No, nonexistence does not exist. In any form.

The word nonexistence indicates the word can only exist in the form of a word. As a symbol (a material object) something that is looked upon.

AND, the concept 'nonexistence' indicates the 'concept' can only exist in the form of a 'concept', this 'logic' also applies with 'idea' also.

Now, obviously 'concepts' and 'ideas' are NOT 'looked upon' as 'material objects'. However, they ARE 'seen', as in UNDERSTOOD.

A symbol in the form of a word, is a concept formed, known by what can never be form.

If an invisible 'thing' like a 'concept' is a 'concept formed', WHY can the 'thing' that a 'concept formed' is KNOWN by can NEVER be 'form'?

If a concept formed is known by form, that implies form is the knower.

And you SAY, BELIEVE, and CLAIM that there can be NO 'knower' right?

Or, are you 'today' SAYING, BELIEVING, and CLAIMING that there can be A 'knower'?

Ask any piece of form that exists a question about whether that piece of form knows it exists or not, and you'll soon realise that the piece of form cannot give you the answer to your question, the form cannot even speak a word, or hear you, or know you exist.

BUT what ABOUT the 'form' in the SHAPE OF a 'human body'?

Is there NO 'human body', 'form', that CAN 'speak a word', NOR 'hear me', NOR KNOW that 'I' NOR 'you' exist?

FROM the FORMS KNOWN as 'human bodies', WHEN I ask 'them' QUESTIONS, SOMETIMES THOSE FORM ANSWER BACK in SPOKEN and in WRITTEN which, 'i' CAN SEE and HEAR, AND some of THOSE FORMS even IN-FORM 'me' that they do ACTUALLY KNOW that 'I', and even 'you', "dontaskme", DO EXIST.

Try it and see for yourself.

I HAVE.

The RESULTS OF 'I' have just IN-FORMED 'you' OF here.

By the way, 'I' USE the 'IN-FORMING' word 'that way' here, and have previously, to POINT OUT that 'I' AM and HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY 'FORMING' 'you' FROM WITH-IN here.

FORMING 'you' 'beings', WITHIN the 'human body' 'form' has been going on for quite a while now, through 'IN-FORMATION', and while 'IN-FORMALLY' 'FORMING' 'you' ALL.

[Dontaskme]

Now, obviously 'concepts' and 'ideas' are NOT 'looked upon' as 'material objects'. However, they ARE 'seen', as in UNDERSTOOD.

I don't agree that concepts formed as symbols (material objects ) are not looked upon. Even the word ''FORM'' is being looked upon right now as it is being read.

A symbol in the form of a word, is a concept formed, known by what can never be form.

If an invisible 'thing' like a 'concept' is a 'concept formed', WHY can the 'thing' that a 'concept formed' is KNOWN by can NEVER be 'form'?

A known concept formed, appears as a word, it appears in form. In the form of a symbol. That can be looked upon, and that which is looking can never be the form it looks upon, why, because form cannot see anything.

If a concept formed is known by form, that implies form is the knower.

And you SAY, BELIEVE, and CLAIM that there can be NO 'knower' right?

Form cannot be the knower, that is right.

Or, are you 'today' SAYING, BELIEVING, and CLAIMING that there can be A 'knower'?

No

Ask any piece of form that exists a question about whether that piece of form knows it exists or not, and you'll soon realise that the piece of form cannot give you the answer to your question, the form cannot even speak a word, or hear you, or know you exist.

BUT what ABOUT the 'form' in the SHAPE OF a 'human body'?

The body cannot speak, hear, or know anything.

Is there NO 'human body', 'form', that CAN 'speak a word', NOR 'hear me', NOR KNOW that 'I' NOR 'you' exist?

No

FROM the FORMS KNOWN as 'human bodies', WHEN I ask 'them' QUESTIONS, SOMETIMES THOSE FORM ANSWER BACK in SPOKEN and in WRITTEN which, 'i' CAN SEE and HEAR, AND some of THOSE FORMS even IN-FORM 'me' that they do ACTUALLY KNOW that 'I', and even 'you', "dontaskme", DO EXIST.

So it seems, but no one has ever questioned how that is so.

Or thought about where is the exact location of this knower that can see, hear, inform, know..etc..

Try it and see for yourself.

I HAVE.

The RESULTS OF 'I' have just IN-FORMED 'you' OF here.

By the way, 'I' USE the 'IN-FORMING' word 'that way' here, and have previously, to POINT OUT that 'I' AM and HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY 'FORMING' 'you' FROM WITH-IN here.

FORMING 'you' 'beings', WITHIN the 'human body' 'form' has been going on for quite a while now, through 'IN-FORMATION', and while 'IN-FORMALLY' 'FORMING' 'you' ALL.

I is form, and form cannot hear, speak, inform, or know anything.
Just ask any piece of form a question and wait to see if it gives you an answer.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

1. Agreed. To put it in other terms: the totality is without compare, otherwise it would not be the totality as something would be beyond it. Without comparison it is without form as form requires comparison. This formless nature to the total is absolute as it is no-thing and this no-thingness is beyond change as there is nothing to change. What we perceive as defined and distinct is only relative and that which is relative is illusory in the respect it is true and/or false depending upon ever changing contexts.

2. All phenomenon are connected to all other phenomenon. In these respects each localized phenomenon, a specified part of the whole, can be observed as a distinct center point. Each center point is all other phenomenon existing through said point as they are connected to it considering all things are connected. Justification as a phenomenon can be observed as a center point in these respects. However there are other center points as well, infinite ones in fact, that can be observed whenever we localize a part of the whole and make it distinct. Given there is no rule on when or what to localize there is a certain element of obscurity and spontaneity in observation.

3. Nothingness generally is viewed negatively given cultural views which emphasize the goodness of distinction and thingness. However there is no contradiction in nothingness as there is no distinction. No distinction is unity as there are no barriers which manifest the phenomenon of separation.

[Age]

Now, obviously 'concepts' and 'ideas' are NOT 'looked upon' as 'material objects'. However, they ARE 'seen', as in UNDERSTOOD.

I don't agree that concepts formed as symbols (material objects ) are not looked upon.

ABSOLUTELY NO one SAID that they do NOT.

Either you are PURPOSELY being DECEITFUL here. Or, you REALLY ARE MISREADING and MISUNDERSTANDING, AGAIN.

Even the word ''FORM'' is being looked upon right now as it is being read.

OBVIOUSLY. AND, COMPLETELY 'BESIDES' the ACTUAL POINT I WAS MAKING.

A symbol in the form of a word, is a concept formed, known by what can never be form.

If an invisible 'thing' like a 'concept' is a 'concept formed', WHY can the 'thing' that a 'concept formed' is KNOWN by can NEVER be 'form'?

A known concept formed, appears as a word, it appears in form.

Are you SAYING here that WHILE a 'concept' exists, ONLY 'in concept', or 'conceptual form', that 'that concept' is NOT 'formed', nor IN 'form'?

And, ONLY when in 'material form' is a 'concept' then 'formed'?

If yes, then what is a 'formed concept', to you, EXACTLY?

In the form of a symbol. That can be looked upon, and that which is looking can never be the form it looks upon, why, because form cannot see anything.

BUT, ONCE AGAIN, the 'human form' IS 'a form', which CAN 'see', and which DOES look upon OTHER 'forms'. Or, do you BELIEVE that 'this' is NOT the case?

If so, then WHY, EXACTLY?

Also, IF one 'human form' is looking upon ANOTHER 'human form', then WHY, supposedly, can 'this form' NEVER be 'the form' that 'it' is looking upon?

SURE 'it' can NEVER BE the EXACT SAME 'form', this is OBVIOUS, but 'it' IS STILL looking upon the 'human form', which 'it', itself, IS, EXACTLY.

If a concept formed is known by form, that implies form is the knower.

Does it imply that 'form', itself, is the knower? Or, that A 'form', itself, is the knower?

And you SAY, BELIEVE, and CLAIM that there can be NO 'knower' right?

Form cannot be the knower, that is right.

Or, are you 'today' SAYING, BELIEVING, and CLAIMING that there can be A 'knower'?

No

So, 'you' KNOW, that for ETERNITY there can NEVER be A 'knower', right?

Ask any piece of form that exists a question about whether that piece of form knows it exists or not, and you'll soon realise that the piece of form cannot give you the answer to your question, the form cannot even speak a word, or hear you, or know you exist.

BUT what ABOUT the 'form' in the SHAPE OF a 'human body'?

The body cannot speak, hear, or know anything.

Is there NO 'human body', 'form', that CAN 'speak a word', NOR 'hear me', NOR KNOW that 'I' NOR 'you' exist?

No

Okay, GREAT.

Who OR what then is the 'thing', or 'form', which CAN 'speak', can 'hear', and can KNOW?

Also, if words, themselves, do NOT come 'through' human bodies, then WHERE do 'they' COME FROM, EXACTLY?

FROM the FORMS KNOWN as 'human bodies', WHEN I ask 'them' QUESTIONS, SOMETIMES THOSE FORM ANSWER BACK in SPOKEN and in WRITTEN which, 'i' CAN SEE and HEAR, AND some of THOSE FORMS even IN-FORM 'me' that they do ACTUALLY KNOW that 'I', and even 'you', "dontaskme", DO EXIST.

So it seems, but no one has ever questioned how that is so.

What do 'you' MEAN by, 'but NO one has EVER QUESTIONED how that is so'?

I HAVE. So what makes 'you' think or BELIEVE that NO one has EVER QUESTIONED HOW 'that is so'?

ALSO, the ACTUAL ANSWER to the QUESTION, 'How that is so?' WAS VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY TO UNCOVER, FIND, and KNOW, AS WELL.

Or thought about where is the exact location of this knower that can see, hear, inform, know..etc..

AS 'I' KEEP IN-FORMING 'you', "dontaskme", 'I' ALREADY KNOW the EXACT 'location' of WHERE 'I', the 'Knower', AM, PRECISELY.

AND ALWAYS HAVE, by the way.

Although 'you' OBVIOUSLY BELIEVE otherwise.

Try it and see for yourself.

I HAVE.

The RESULTS OF 'I' have just IN-FORMED 'you' OF here.

By the way, 'I' USE the 'IN-FORMING' word 'that way' here, and have previously, to POINT OUT that 'I' AM and HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY 'FORMING' 'you' FROM WITH-IN here.

FORMING 'you' 'beings', WITHIN the 'human body' 'form' has been going on for quite a while now, through 'IN-FORMATION', and while 'IN-FORMALLY' 'FORMING' 'you' ALL.

I is form, and form cannot hear, speak, inform, or know anything.

IS, or AM, 'I' REALLY 'form'?

If yes, then HOW, EXACTLY, "dontaskme"?

Just ask any piece of form a question and wait to see if it gives you an answer.

'I' ALREADY HAVE.

'they' ALREADY HAVE, TOO.

WHY do 'you' BELIEVE that 'you', human beings, and 'human bodies' are NOT 'forms', YET, 'I', and EVERY 'thing' ELSE, ARE 'forms'?

[Dontaskme]

Just ask any piece of form a question and wait to see if it gives you an answer.

'I' ALREADY HAVE.

'they' ALREADY HAVE, TOO.

What piece of form did you ask....will you name it in one word?

WHY do 'you' BELIEVE that 'you', human beings, and 'human bodies' are NOT 'forms', YET, 'I', and EVERY 'thing' ELSE, ARE 'forms'?

Any concept known is form. Form appears as an object looked upon. And that which is looked upon, knows, and sees, nothing.

Human/body/being/ I / are all form.

[daniel j lavender]

Nonexistence IS 'logically and actually POSSIBLE'. Although BECAUSE of the Conscious Being Existing, HERE-NOW IN or WITH 'Existence', Itself, 'nonexistence' could NEVER have existed NOR EVER could exist.

Absence of consciousness equals absence of consciousness. Absence of consciousness does not necessarily equal nonexistence.

Even if a conscious being loses consciousness nonexistence is not introduced. Nonconsciousness would be introduced.

I realize this as a conscious being. Existence is perpetuated even if consciousness is not. Certain conditions allow consciousness. Other conditions do not. However all conditions are existence, are being. Existence is present conscious or not.

Existence, things can be without consciousness. Things, existence may not be realized, at least at that point, but they would be. Consciousness cannot be without existence, without things at all.

It isn’t because of some conscious bias. It’s because it is what it is.

As stated, both the concept existence and the concept nonexistence are only concepts.

It does NOT MATTER ONE IOTA IF 'they' are just 'only' 'concepts'. BOTH 'existence' AND 'nonexistence' EXIST. Which you HAVE ALREADY AGREED WITH.

Nonexistence does not and cannot exist.

Those are concepts, those are words, terms. They are perceived and interacted with.

Nonexistence is never perceived or interacted with as it does not and cannot exist.

The Infinite, which has no counterpart, which is not exceeded and which is unlimited.

BUT the 'counterpart' OF 'infinite' IS 'finite', just like the 'counterpart' OF 'existence' IS 'nonexistence'.

Counterpart, n., “One that closely resembles another”
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fifth Edition 2016)
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/counterpart

Existence is infinite. Existence is unlimited. Existence is not limited to any particular. Existence is not just infinite; existence is also finite. To limit existence to either infinitude or finitude would be limitation.

Existence is both part and whole as conveyed in the original text (Existence Both Part And Whole section). Existence is unlimited; existence is the entirety, existence is all things, existence is each and every thing.

Existence is infinite. Existence is all. Existence is all there is. There is no other to closely resemble.

The term nothing or nonexistence is contradictory because it implies no thing while it is a thing.

While 'what' is A 'thing'?

The term.

So, you AGREE that 'nonexistence' exists, in some form and way, YET also STILL want to 'try to' CLAIM that 'nonexistence' actually does NOT exist.

No, nonexistence does not exist. In any form.

BUT, did 'you' or did 'you' NOT just get through TELLING 'us' that 'nonexistence' EXISTS in 'concept'?

No. I said, or perhaps implied, the idea, concept, word or adjective “nonexistent” exists as an idea, concept, word or adjective:

Daniel..nonexistent exists as an idea.

Correct. And a word or term.

Yet more evidence for existence, not nonexistence.

So, you AGREE that 'nonexistence' exists, in some form and way, YET also STILL want to 'try to' CLAIM that 'nonexistence' actually does NOT exist.

It’s self-evident.

That thing is a thing. Not no thing, not nonexistence.

“Nonexistence” is not nonexistence. It is contradictory. “Nonexistence” is a word, a concept, a thing. “Nonexistence” is existence.

Nonexistence does not exist. Only existence exists.

Does 'language', itself, REALLY have 'limits'?

Yes, language has limits. Language is language, it is not the totality of existence. It is limited to that extent.

Only existence is infinite.

But considering the Fact that 'Existence' IS ACTUALLY ETERNAL, and that 'language' can therefore ALSO EXIST FOREVER MORE, then what ACTUAL 'limit' is there to 'language', itself?

Eternal is not the same as infinite.

As conveyed in the essay, existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Existence is both eternal and infinite.

Eternal, eternity concerns duration or time. Infinite concerns extent, range or spatial scope.

Language certainly could be eternal and I presume it is. Language would not be infinite, however, as language is observably not the totality of things.

Language is language. Language is not a stone; language is not the stone itself, what the word or term “stone” represents, anyway. Language is language. It is limited to that extent.

Existence is language, and the stone, and the screen, and all other things and each and every thing. Existence is unlimited. Existence is infinite.

But you just through TELLING us and CLAIMING that 'nonexistence', in some forms, IS an aspect of, or a PART OF, 'Existence', Itself.

Once more that is not nonexistence.

SO, 'what', EXACTLY, is SUPPOSEDLY NOT 'nonexistence'?

Everything.

Existence. Words. Concepts. Ideas. Images. Screens. Blank screens. Each and every thing you see, hear, think. Each and every thing that is perceived, or interacts, or has properties or qualities. All things, everything, all.

If there is something, if there are things there is not nothing. Anywhere.

If 'this' is what you BELIEVE is true, then 'this' HAS TO BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE, right?

There appears to be no adequate refutation against it.

It is a simple, basic and logical principle: If there is some thing there is not no thing.

If there is a thing there is not no thing.

Do you mean to imply otherwise? You mean to declare there is a thing, and not a thing, at the same time? How do you wish an attempt to reconcile that?

We HAVE GONE THROUGH 'this' ALREADY. 'nonexistence' DOES EXIST. As an 'idea', 'concept', AND thus 'thing'.

As you illustrate, “nonexistence” does exist. There it is. Look at it. It is a word. A term. A concept. It is perceived. That is a thing, an existing. Not a nonexisting, not nonexistence.

Nonexistence is never perceived or interacted with as it does not exist.

Only existence, only things are perceived and interacted with.

[daniel j lavender]

3. Nothingness generally is viewed negatively given cultural views which emphasize the goodness of distinction and thingness. However there is no contradiction in nothingness as there is no distinction. No distinction is unity as there are no barriers which manifest the phenomenon of separation.

Neither distinction nor nondistinction may be applied to nothingness as nothingness is not and cannot be.

If there is some thing there is not nothing. There cannot be nothingness in any real sense of the term if there is some thing, if there is anything at all. You are saying there is something and nothingness simultaneously. How do you resolve that?

There is not nothingness nor is there any need for nothingness.

Existence concerns distinction or separation, as you imply, and nondistinction or unity.

We can observe differences in things. We can observe differences, variations. We can observe opposing forces, opposing elements, opposition. We can see contradiction in things. But it all balances as simply being. As expressed earlier:

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 simply is. All things simply are.

We are aspects of being. Being is. That is the commonality, that is the ultimate unity.

There is no real unity in nothingness as there is no thing to unite or be united.

There is not nothingness. Nothingness cannot be. Nor is there any need for nothingness if it could.

Existence is everything. Existence is distinction and nondistinction. Existence is separation and unity. Existence is balance. Existence is.

[Dontaskme]

There is not nothingness. Nothingness cannot be. Nor is there any need for nothingness if it could.

So what is death? Is there no death then?

Like you say, we can observe differences ...for example: someone who has died and someone who has been born.

So how can we define the difference between ALIVE and not-alive? what would be the difference, what would it look and feel like?

We can observe differences in things. We can observe differences, variations. We can observe opposing forces, opposing elements, opposition. We can see contradiction in things. But it all balances as simply being.

How I define nonexistence is to not be in a state of knowing. As in when one is alseep or even in death, the knowing is absent in the knower who knew itself as existing.

So for me, this is about knowledge and the absence of knowledge... who or what it is that knows it is alive, but cannot know it is dead, who or what is this knower while it is alive? Can this question be answered, daniel?

[daniel j lavender]

There is not nothingness. Nothingness cannot be. Nor is there any need for nothingness if it could.

So what is death? Is there no death then?

Death is death.

So how can we define the difference between ALIVE and not-alive? what would be the difference, what would it look and feel like?

Has this not already been fairly well established?

Living and nonliving, biological and nonbiological things.

Living things exhibit vital signs, biological functions such as consumption and metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, etcetera. Nonliving things do not exhibit such signs.

[Dontaskme]

There is not nothingness. Nothingness cannot be. Nor is there any need for nothingness if it could.

So what is death? Is there no death then?

Death is death.

So how can we define the difference between ALIVE and not-alive? what would be the difference, what would it look and feel like?

Has this not already been fairly well established?

Living and nonliving, biological and nonbiological things.

Living things exhibit vital signs, biological functions such as consumption and metabolism, growth, response to stimuli, etcetera. Nonliving things do not exhibit such signs.

Is this is the paradox....

Eternity has to include death if it is to be eternal. The entire universe dies every moment only to be born every moment?

Is death and life just the same one phenomena that simply differs in appearance that's all?

[daniel j lavender]

How I define nonexistence is to not be in a state of knowing. As in when one is alseep or even in death, the knowing is absent in the knower who knew itself as existing.

And that would obviously still be a thing. A state of not knowing. That is not nonexistence, either. That is a state of not knowing.

So for me, this is about knowledge and the absence of knowledge... who or what it is that knows it is alive, but cannot know it is dead, who or what is this knower while it is alive? Can this question be answered, daniel?

The “knower” is simply a complex arrangement of matter and energy facilitating the process of consciousness, among other things. When that particular “knower”, when that particular conscious unit disintegrates consciousness is discontinued for that unit. Existence persists. Other conscious beings persist. Even if they do not existence persists either way.

Eternity has to include death if it is to be eternal.

Existence has to include death if it is to be infinite.

Is death and life just the same one phenomena that simply differs in appearance that's all?

While one is living one is dying. While one is dying one is still living.

Life and death are events, processes. Both aspects of existence.

[Dontaskme]

How I define nonexistence is to not be in a state of knowing. As in when one is alseep or even in death, the knowing is absent in the knower who knew itself as existing.

And that would obviously still be a thing. A state of not knowing. That is not nonexistence, either. That is a state of not knowing.

Ok, that is clear and does make sense.

So for me, this is about knowledge and the absence of knowledge... who or what it is that knows it is alive, but cannot know it is dead, who or what is this knower while it is alive? Can this question be answered, daniel?

The “knower” is simply a complex arrangement of matter and energy facilitating the process of consciousness, among other things. When that particular “knower”, when that particular conscious unit disintegrates consciousness is discontinued for that unit. Existence persists. Other conscious beings persist. Even if they do not existence persists either way.

So the is the ''knower'' constantly dipping in and out of existence, but is never completely severed or separated from infinite existence itself. The ''knower'' is either in a state of being latent or kinetic? ..is that correct to say?

[Dontaskme]

Existence has to include death if it is to be infinite.

Yes, I agree, I understand, thanks.

Is death and life just the same one phenomena that simply differs in appearance that's all?

While one is living one is dying. While one is dying one is still living.

Life and death are events, processes. Both aspects of existence.

Yes, I agree, thanks daniel.

My take...Nonexistence is simply known in it's word, and this word is known in existence, which means nonexistence is a conceptual word known by existence. When the ''knower'' seeks itself, this 'knowing self' is known only in the word, the thing known...is that correct to say?

[daniel j lavender]

The “knower” is simply a complex arrangement of matter and energy facilitating the process of consciousness, among other things. When that particular “knower”, when that particular conscious unit disintegrates consciousness is discontinued for that unit. Existence persists. Other conscious beings persist. Even if they do not existence persists either way.

So the is the ''knower'' constantly dipping in and out of existence, but is never completely severed or separated from infinite existence itself. The ''knower'' is either in a state of being latent or kinetic? ..is that correct to say?

Not necessarily because consciousness isn’t an isolated or anomalous phenomenon. Consider the billions of conscious, living beings on this planet alone at this moment alone.

While there are particular “knowers”, or particular conscious beings, consciousness itself is rather generic.

Consciousness is basically the same. Conscious beings can sense, they can perceive, conscious beings are aware. Through the course of one’s life personal experiences, memories and opinions are layered over that conscious core which are largely what comprise the individual.

In other words when a particular conscious unit is discontinued there are still other conscious units remaining, perpetuating the “knower” as all consciousness is basically the same. Those “others” are basically you and I.

This doesn’t just apply to humans but all organisms, perhaps even artificial intelligence and advanced technologies. Nor does it include only Earth. Consciousness, the knower could be perpetuated in other star systems, in other galaxies. Our entire universe could be part of some superior, conscious living organism surrounded by other conscious living organisms. We could be part of a massive body of consciousness. Or we could be part of its lab experiment. The possibilities, the potentialities are incalculable.

If there were a point of nonconsciousness, of “not knowing”, would there be a “knowing” of it at that point anyway?

The point being in some form, in some way the knower is perpetuated. Just not necessarily memories.

My take...Nonexistence is simply known in it's word, and this word is known in existence, which means nonexistence is a conceptual word known by existence. When the ''knower'' seeks itself, this 'knowing self' is known only in the word, the thing known...is that correct to say?

All that is known and all that could ever be known is existence. Nonexistence is not to be known or unknown. Concepts of nonexistence, of nothing, of nothingness are all concepts of existence, not nonexistence.

Nonexistence cannot be known, nonexistence cannot be perceived directly nor indirectly for nonexistence is not and cannot be.