Existence Is Infinite

[Age]

Also, do you 'know' that 'existence is infinite', or do you just 'confidently claim' that 'existence is infinite'?

There is no substantial evidence or substantial argumentation suggesting otherwise.

I WILL REPEAT the QUESTION; Do you KNOW that 'existence is infinite', or do you just 'confidently claim' OR ASSUME that 'existence is infinite'.

An Honest ANSWER to this ACTUAL QUESTION will be VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.

We are operating from a position of limited observation even with advanced technologies. Limited observation is inclined to assume limitation so it is understandable that contention will arise.

1. 'you', human beings, may well operate from a VERY LIMITED position, and thus have a VERY LIMITED field of view or observation point to SEE and LOOK FROM. But 'we' DO NOT.

2. ALSO, just because one's FIELD OF VIEW is LIMITED, this IN NO WAY even SUGGESTS, NOR let alone MEANS, that one should or would ASSUME 'limitation', itself.

3. Has ANY one in this forum even been IN CONTENTION with YOUR CLAIM that 'existence is infinite'?

Existence is infinite in extent. Only nothingness or nonexistence could limit existence however nothingness or nonexistence cannot be.

you could NOT BE MORE Wrong here. AND, it is BECAUSE of these BELIEFS of YOURS WHY you have been and are CONTINUALLY MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING what the ACTUAL Truth of 'thing's IS here, EXACTLY.

Nothing, no thing, nonexistence, nothingness, beyond the concept or term, is not and cannot be. All areas, all places, all thoughts, all concepts, all abstractions, all words are things, are aspects of existence, of being.

Just continually RE-REPEATING the EXACT SAME 'things' OVER and OVER does NOT, and I will repeat DOES NOT, make 'that thing' TRUE, RIGHT, NOR CORRECT.

Nothing itself, no thing itself, nonexistence itself, nothingness itself is nowhere. Nonexistence is not here, nor there, nor anywhere. All realms, all regions, all subjects concern materiality or material things, physical objects for instance, energy in various forms, and/or immaterial things, immaterial expanse for instance. No realm, no region, no subject concerns nonexistence or nothing.

If 'this' IS what you BELIEVE IS TRUE, then so be it. BUT, Do you KNOW 'this', OR, Do you just CONFIDENTLY CLAIM 'this'?

Existence is infinite in extent; existence is not limited to any particular or any specific thing. This is self-evident.

Existence is infinite in extent. Only nothingness or nonexistence could actually limit existence however nothingness or nonexistence is not and cannot be.

AGAIN, just continually repeating 'things' does NOT make those 'things' true.

[daniel j lavender]

Are you saying and claiming here that there is ONLY One 'Thing'?

No.

Okay, so what, EXACTLY, 'separates' the 'different things' from each other?

Perhaps “distinguishes” is a better term.

Various, differing qualities or properties distinguish different things from each other.

But as expressed all things are connected by commonality of being.

HOW can 'one' be what 'it' supposedly 'owns' or 'possesses'?

I am a conscious body, I am a conscious being. I am a body, a unit facilitating consciousness or awareness. I am the body, I am consciousness. I am the body and consciousness realized.

To 'you', 'I' am MANY DIFFERENT 'things'.

As stated I am a conscious being.

I KNOW.

And this is just because I have YET to do so.

Why present additional questions when the supposed contradiction is yet to be identified?

BECAUSE 'you' KEEP CLAIMING TO KNOW the TRUTH here. As such 'you' are NOT CURIOS NOR INTERESTED in LEARNING NOR UNDERSTANDING ANY 'thing' ELSE here. 'you' are just CONTENT on ONLY EXPRESSING what 'you' BELIEVE IS TRUE, ALONE.

Ironically self-referential.

[Age]

No.

Okay, so what, EXACTLY, 'separates' the 'different things' from each other?

Perhaps “distinguishes” is a better term.

Okay, so what, EXACTLY, 'distinguishes' the 'different things' from each other?

Various, differing qualities or properties distinguish different things from each other.

SO, AGAIN, what, EXACTLY, 'distinguishes' the 'different things' from each other?

SAYING or CLAIMING that, 'Various, differing qualities or properties distinguish different things from each other', just PROVES that either:

1. you have NO idea NOR clue as to what, EXACTLY, distinguishes different things from each other. Or,

2. you do NOT want to TELL us what, EXACTLY, distinguishes different things from each other BECAUSE providing the True, Right, AND Correct ANSWER would CONTRADICT your OWN previous CLAIM here.

But as expressed all things are connected by commonality of being.

And what is this so-called 'being' 'thing', EXACTLY, which supposedly and allegedly connects ALL 'things'?

And, is this 'being' even A 'thing' or NOT?

To 'you', 'I' am MANY DIFFERENT 'things'.

As stated I am a conscious being.

'you' have ALSO STATED, 'I' am OTHER 'things' AS WELL.

BECAUSE 'you' KEEP CLAIMING TO KNOW the TRUTH here. As such 'you' are NOT CURIOS NOR INTERESTED in LEARNING NOR UNDERSTANDING ANY 'thing' ELSE here. 'you' are just CONTENT on ONLY EXPRESSING what 'you' BELIEVE IS TRUE, ALONE.

Ironically self-referential.

REALLY?

What have I CLAIMED here IS the Truth of 'things'?

[daniel j lavender]

Okay, so what, EXACTLY, 'separates' the 'different things' from each other?

Perhaps “distinguishes” is a better term.

Okay, so what, EXACTLY, 'distinguishes' the 'different things' from each other?

Various, differing qualities or properties distinguish different things from each other.

SO, AGAIN, what, EXACTLY, 'distinguishes' the 'different things' from each other?

SAYING or CLAIMING that, 'Various, differing qualities or properties distinguish different things from each other', just PROVES that either:

1. you have NO idea NOR clue as to what, EXACTLY, distinguishes different things from each other. Or,

2. you do NOT want to TELL us what, EXACTLY, distinguishes different things from each other BECAUSE providing the True, Right, AND Correct ANSWER would CONTRADICT your OWN previous CLAIM here.

As stated, various or differing qualities or properties distinguish different things from each other.

Of course the observer plays a significant role in observing qualities of things and making distinctions.

But as expressed all things are connected by commonality of being.

And what is this so-called 'being' 'thing', EXACTLY, which supposedly and allegedly connects ALL 'things'?

Being isn’t just a thing.

Being is all. All is being.

This has already been thoroughly defined in the original text and elaborated here in discussion.

And, is this 'being' even A 'thing' or NOT?

Being is a thing in part.

Also, do you 'know' that 'existence is infinite', or do you just 'confidently claim' that 'existence is infinite'?

There is no substantial evidence or substantial argumentation suggesting otherwise.

I WILL REPEAT the QUESTION; Do you KNOW that 'existence is infinite', or do you just 'confidently claim' OR ASSUME that 'existence is infinite'.

I know (“perceive or grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty”, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/know) that existence is infinite. At the very least I can confidently claim that existence is infinite. Infinite meaning unlimited in extent, not limited to any particular or any specific thing by the terms outlined in the original text.

No argument or evidence presented, or the lack thereof, has changed that position.

We are operating from a position of limited observation even with advanced technologies. Limited observation is inclined to assume limitation so it is understandable that contention will arise.

…just because one's FIELD OF VIEW is LIMITED, this IN NO WAY even SUGGESTS, NOR let alone MEANS, that one should or would ASSUME 'limitation', itself.

Run that by the scientific community who, based on scientific analysis of the observable universe, has estimated an approximate age of the universe at 13.7 billion years.

Has ANY one in this forum even been IN CONTENTION with YOUR CLAIM that 'existence is infinite'?

No, not really. Further supporting the point existence is infinite.

Although they have attempted to demonstrate how nothing or nonexistence exists. Unsuccessfully.

Existence is infinite in extent. Only nothingness or nonexistence could limit existence however nothingness or nonexistence cannot be.

you could NOT BE MORE Wrong here. AND, it is BECAUSE of these BELIEFS of YOURS WHY you have been and are CONTINUALLY MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING what the ACTUAL Truth of 'thing's IS here, EXACTLY.

Then demonstrate how that is the case. Otherwise you have no argument.

[Atla]

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.

This again. Existence having no boundary doesn't necessarily mean that it goes on forever. If dimensions are circular, which is in my opinion the Occam's razor assumption, then existence could be finite in extent without any boundary.

That means that if you could theorethically pick a direction in spacetime, and keep going in that direction without ever changing course (not possible for humans in practice), you could eventually end up where and when you started.

If we still want existence to go on forever, we'll probably have to posit more dimensions / an infinite multiverse.

[Age]

Perhaps “distinguishes” is a better term.

Okay, so what, EXACTLY, 'distinguishes' the 'different things' from each other?

Various, differing qualities or properties distinguish different things from each other.

SO, AGAIN, what, EXACTLY, 'distinguishes' the 'different things' from each other?

SAYING or CLAIMING that, 'Various, differing qualities or properties distinguish different things from each other', just PROVES that either:

1. you have NO idea NOR clue as to what, EXACTLY, distinguishes different things from each other. Or,

2. you do NOT want to TELL us what, EXACTLY, distinguishes different things from each other BECAUSE providing the True, Right, AND Correct ANSWER would CONTRADICT your OWN previous CLAIM here.

As stated, various or differing qualities or properties distinguish different things from each other.

Like 'what', for example?

Of course the observer plays a significant role in observing qualities of things and making distinctions.

Okay, but what does the 'observer' here named "daniel j lavender" SEE as being what distinguishes 'different things from each other?

But as expressed all things are connected by commonality of being.

And what is this so-called 'being' 'thing', EXACTLY, which supposedly and allegedly connects ALL 'things'?

Being isn’t just a thing.

Being is all. All is being.

This has already been thoroughly defined in the original text and elaborated here in discussion.

And, is this 'being' even A 'thing' or NOT?

Being is a thing in part.

So, 'being', to you, is One 'Thing', as well as ANOTHER 'thing'. Just like how you CLAIM that 'I' am ONE 'thing' BUT ALSO ANOTHER 'thing'.

There is no substantial evidence or substantial argumentation suggesting otherwise.

I WILL REPEAT the QUESTION; Do you KNOW that 'existence is infinite', or do you just 'confidently claim' OR ASSUME that 'existence is infinite'.

I know (“perceive or grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty”, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/know) that existence is infinite. At the very least I can confidently claim that existence is infinite. Infinite meaning unlimited in extent, not limited to any particular or any specific thing by the terms outlined in the original text.

No argument or evidence presented, or the lack thereof, has changed that position.

To you. AND NONE WILL EVER COME-TO-LIGHT, to you. This is BECAUSE you BELIEVE, absolutely, that NONE could EVER even exist.

We are operating from a position of limited observation even with advanced technologies. Limited observation is inclined to assume limitation so it is understandable that contention will arise.

…just because one's FIELD OF VIEW is LIMITED, this IN NO WAY even SUGGESTS, NOR let alone MEANS, that one should or would ASSUME 'limitation', itself.

Run that by the scientific community who, based on scientific analysis of the observable universe, has estimated an approximate age of the universe at 13.7 billion years.

I do NOT CARE ONE IOTA what 'you', human beings, have 'concluded' BASED on SOME 'things'. What I FOUND TO BE FAR MORE IMPORTANT and SIGNIFICANT here IS what IS ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct, INSTEAD.

Has ANY one in this forum even been IN CONTENTION with YOUR CLAIM that 'existence is infinite'?

No, not really. Further supporting the point existence is infinite.

SO, if NO one has been IN CONTENTION with you on this subject or topic, then WHY do you KEEP RE-REPEATING the SAME 'thing' OVER and OVER AGAIN, here.

It is like you have SOME BELIEF that people ARE DISAGREEING WITH you here. When even you have just STATED NO one is.

Although they have attempted to demonstrate how nothing or nonexistence exists. Unsuccessfully.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you are SO UTTERLY and COMPLETELY BLIND and DEAF here.

Existence is infinite in extent. Only nothingness or nonexistence could limit existence however nothingness or nonexistence cannot be.

you could NOT BE MORE Wrong here. AND, it is BECAUSE of these BELIEFS of YOURS WHY you have been and are CONTINUALLY MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING what the ACTUAL Truth of 'thing's IS here, EXACTLY.

Then demonstrate how that is the case.

DEMONSTRATE HOW 'what' IS 'the case', EXACTLY?

Otherwise you have no argument.

Are you even AWARE that IT IS POSSIBLE to NOT SHOW NOR REVEAL 'arguments' BUT STILL HAVE 'them'?

[Age]

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.

This again. Existence having no boundary doesn't necessarily mean that it goes on forever.

What then COULD 'it' BE, EXACTLY, which WOULD BE stopping the continuation of 'Existence' if there is NO boundary doing 'this'?

If dimensions are circular, which is in my opinion the Occam's razor assumption, then existence could be finite in extent without any boundary.

That means that if you could theorethically pick a direction in spacetime,

How do you define that old term 'spacetime' here in this context?

Would NOT just picking ANY direction do, and be sufficient, and the words 'in spacetime' just be a complete UNNECESSARY ad on?

Also, considering the Fact that that old term 'spacetime' is NOWHERE even NEAR being IN AGREEMENT one could leave 'it' OUT, COMPLETELY, and STILL BE COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD here.

and keep going in that direction without ever changing course (not possible for humans in practice), you could eventually end up where and when you started.

HOW, EXACTLY?

Are you able to at least BEGIN to START to EXPLAIN in an UNAMBIGUOUS way, HOW 'this' could be ACTUALLY theoretically and physically POSSIBLE, let alone would be ACTUALLY theoretically or physically POSSIBLE?

If we still want existence to go on forever, we'll probably have to posit more dimensions / an infinite multiverse.

LOL What an ABSURD and RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTION, and CLAIM to make here. But, this IS, EXACTLY, WHAT HAPPENS while one is BELIEVING some 'things' are true, which OBVIOUSLY could NOT be.

'Confirmation bias' can and does CAUSE people to SAY and CLAIM some of the MOST OUTLANDISH and STRANGEST 'things'.

Now, one could ALSO SAY and CLAIM, if 'we' want 'existence' to not be bounded, but still be limited, then we will HAVE TO posit some 'thing' Truly ABSURD, like above, AND Truly IMPOSSIBLE AS WELL, like above.

But one with ANY REAL Intelligence would NEVER even BEGIN to SAY or CLAIM ANY of these 'things'.

It is sometimes said, 'that truth is stranger than fiction', BUT with some of the 'things' that 'you', human beings, make up, say, and claim here, I SOMETIMES WONDER.

[daniel j lavender]

Okay, so what, EXACTLY, 'distinguishes' the 'different things' from each other?

SO, AGAIN, what, EXACTLY, 'distinguishes' the 'different things' from each other?

SAYING or CLAIMING that, 'Various, differing qualities or properties distinguish different things from each other', just PROVES that either:

1. you have NO idea NOR clue as to what, EXACTLY, distinguishes different things from each other. Or,

2. you do NOT want to TELL us what, EXACTLY, distinguishes different things from each other BECAUSE providing the True, Right, AND Correct ANSWER would CONTRADICT your OWN previous CLAIM here.

As stated, various or differing qualities or properties distinguish different things from each other.

Like 'what', for example?

The light of day is distinguished from the dark of night. The grittiness, the composition of sand contrasts the wetness, the composition of water, etcetera.

This is covered in the original text and should be fairly straightforward.

you could NOT BE MORE Wrong here. AND, it is BECAUSE of these BELIEFS of YOURS WHY you have been and are CONTINUALLY MISSING and MISUNDERSTANDING what the ACTUAL Truth of 'thing's IS here, EXACTLY.

Then demonstrate how that is the case.

DEMONSTRATE HOW 'what' IS 'the case', EXACTLY?

Otherwise you have no argument.

Are you even AWARE that IT IS POSSIBLE to NOT SHOW NOR REVEAL 'arguments' BUT STILL HAVE 'them'?

Certainly.

Demonstrate how the statement is wrong otherwise you have no argument in this discussion.

[daniel j lavender]

Existence having no boundary doesn't necessarily mean that it goes on forever.

Then what would stop the continuance of existence?

How would existence “just end”, how would existence “just stop” if there were no boundary or end point?

If dimensions are circular, which is in my opinion the Occam's razor assumption, then existence could be finite in extent without any boundary.

Let’s concede dimensions are circular. A circular path is a circular, limited path traversing the same area repeatedly. Of course that would be finite. However to travel linearly, to break outside the circular path would be to travel onward indefinitely.

To travel linearly is to travel linearly. To travel circularly is to travel circularly.

By proposing circular dimensions you are essentially imposing boundaries. It imposes a circular area and circular trajectory.

We have satellites in orbit, we have the International Space Station in orbit, those are circular paths. There are numerous planetary bodies in circular orbits in our solar system alone. Those are circular paths. We know those circular trajectories can be surpassed. Who is to say some circular dimension could not be exceeded as well?

But the point isn’t whether we could feasibly travel beyond such a dimension.

The point is there would be no end-boundary with nothingness or nonexistence on the other side.

That means that if you could theorethically pick a direction in spacetime, and keep going in that direction without ever changing course (not possible for humans in practice), you could eventually end up where and when you started.

But from your own statements that wouldn’t really be “any direction”. It wouldn’t be straight or linear even if one claimed it to be straight or linear.

It would be a circular trajectory in a circular dimension, as you stated. That’s how you can claim one would circle back around and “end up where and when they started”.

In essence you are imposing boundaries while purporting not to be.

If one genuinely traveled linearly, in a truly straight path, one could go on and on without circling back around.

You must employ this circular dimension premise, you must impose invisible boundaries in order for your argument of limitation to work.

If we still want existence to go on forever, we'll probably have to posit more dimensions / an infinite multiverse.

As mentioned above we are operating from a position of limited observational ability. Naturally we are inclined to limit existence.

[Atla]

Existence having no boundary doesn't necessarily mean that it goes on forever.

Then what would stop the continuance of existence?

How would existence “just end”, how would existence “just stop” if there were no boundary or end point?

If dimensions are circular, which is in my opinion the Occam's razor assumption, then existence could be finite in extent without any boundary.

Let’s concede dimensions are circular. A circular path is a circular, limited path traversing the same area repeatedly. Of course that would be finite. However to travel linearly, to break outside the circular path would be to travel onward indefinitely.

To travel linearly is to travel linearly. To travel circularly is to travel circularly.

By proposing circular dimensions you are essentially imposing boundaries. It imposes a circular area and circular trajectory.

We have satellites in orbit, we have the International Space Station in orbit, those are circular paths. There are numerous planetary bodies in circular orbits in our solar system alone. Those are circular paths. We know those circular trajectories can be surpassed. Who is to say some circular dimension could not be exceeded as well?

But the point isn’t whether we could feasibly travel beyond such a dimension.

The point is there would be no end-boundary with nothingness or nonexistence on the other side.

That means that if you could theorethically pick a direction in spacetime, and keep going in that direction without ever changing course (not possible for humans in practice), you could eventually end up where and when you started.

But from your own statements that wouldn’t really be “any direction”. It wouldn’t be straight or linear even if one claimed it to be straight or linear.

It would be a circular trajectory in a circular dimension, as you stated. That’s how you can claim one would circle back around and “end up where and when they started”.

In essence you are imposing boundaries while purporting not to be.

If one genuinely traveled linearly, in a truly straight path, one could go on and on without circling back around.

You must employ this circular dimension premise, you must impose invisible boundaries in order for your argument of limitation to work.

If we still want existence to go on forever, we'll probably have to posit more dimensions / an infinite multiverse.

As mentioned above we are operating from a position of limited observational ability. Naturally we are inclined to limit existence.

When you are a 1-dimensional being traveling on a 1-dimensional circular structure, you can only go forwards and backwards, yet you will end up where you started without any boundary present on that 1 dimension. Our world could be the same, just in say 4-dimensional spacetime, so our world could have no boundary but be finite. Curvature isn't actually needed for this.

[daniel j lavender]

When you are a 1-dimensional being traveling on a 1-dimensional circular structure, you can only go forwards and backwards, yet you will end up where you started without any boundary present on that 1 dimension.

The circular structure is the boundary.

Our world could be the same, just in say 4-dimensional spacetime, so our world could have no boundary but be finite.

Again you are imposing limitation, you are imposing boundaries while claiming otherwise. Specifying a certain form, in this case circular, is limitation in and of itself. As expressed existence is omnifarious, existence is formless. Existence has no specific or definite form.

Are you implying existence is some circular structure amidst a backdrop of nothingness? Some circular form surrounded by nonexistence? That is essentially the picture painted by such a premise, by applying specific form to existence and by claiming existence is finite in extent.

Curvature isn't actually needed for this.

Circularity is.

[Atla]

When you are a 1-dimensional being traveling on a 1-dimensional circular structure, you can only go forwards and backwards, yet you will end up where you started without any boundary present on that 1 dimension.

The circular structure is the boundary.

Our world could be the same, just in say 4-dimensional spacetime, so our world could have no boundary but be finite.

Again you are imposing limitation, you are imposing boundaries while claiming otherwise. Specifying a certain form, in this case circular, is limitation in and of itself. As expressed existence is omnifarious, existence is formless. Existence has no specific or definite form.

Are you implying existence is some circular structure amidst a backdrop of nothingness? Some circular form surrounded by nonexistence? That is essentially the picture painted by such a premise, by applying specific form to existence and by claiming existence is finite in extent.

Curvature isn't actually needed for this.

Circularity is.

The 1-dimensional circle has no outside, there is no backdrop of nothingness. The positions of the points on the circle are relative to each other. The ideas of absolute space and time were refuted by Einstein.

[daniel j lavender]

The 1-dimensional circle has no outside, there is no backdrop of nothingness. The positions of the points on the circle are relative to each other. The ideas of absolute space and time were refuted by Einstein.

If it has no outside how is it determined to be circular? We’re not talking about the typical, physical object or a football stadium here. We’re talking about all of existence.

Form or shape requires distinction. It requires some boundary to be defined.

O requires a boundary, a circular boundary, a border, a surrounding environment to be what it is. Otherwise it has no form, it has no distinction to be O. This is observable.

A circle or circular structure would have to exist within, with, or of some other thing or some environment to be a circle or circular structure, to be realized, to be distinguished as a circular structure.

If there is no boundary, if there is no other beyond said “form” such cannot be determined. It wouldn’t be a specific form such as a circle or a circular structure. Without boundary, without border it wouldn’t have form. It would be ubiquitous, formless, ever-pervasive.

This is why it is said existence is formless and infinite.

You are evoking boundaries and limits while claiming otherwise.

[Atla]

The 1-dimensional circle has no outside, there is no backdrop of nothingness. The positions of the points on the circle are relative to each other. The ideas of absolute space and time were refuted by Einstein.

If it has no outside how is it determined to be circular?

Form or shape requires distinction. It requires some boundary to be defined.

O requires a boundary, a circular boundary, a border, a surrounding environment to be what it is. Otherwise it has no form, it has no distinction to be O. This is observable.

A circle or circular structure would have to exist within, with, or of some other thing or some environment to be a circle or circular structure, to be realized, to be distinguished as a circular structure.

If there is no boundary, if there is no other beyond said “form” such cannot be determined. It wouldn’t be a specific form such as a circle or a circular structure. Without boundary, without border it wouldn’t have form. It would be ubiquitous, formless, ever-pervasive.

This is why it is said existence is formless and infinite.

You are evoking boundaries and limits while claiming otherwise.

In the example, the 1-dimensional circular structure was a universe. It's circular in the sense that A is next to B, B is next to C, C is next to D, D is next to A. No shape needed, you're not thinking abstractly enough, you're trying to imagine things as part of a 3D absolute container of space, which is the default mode of how humans picture things.

[daniel j lavender]

In the example, the 1-dimensional circular structure was a universe. It's circular in the sense that A is next to B, B is next to C, C is next to D, D is next to A. No shape needed, you're not thinking abstractly enough, you're trying to imagine things as part of a 3D absolute container of space, which is the default mode of how humans picture things.

Right. It doesn’t exclusively concern form, it concerns repetition as well. You emphasize circularity in both form and sequence. I get it.

However I’m saying that is limitation. That is boundary.

If events, if a sequence such as A, B, C, D; A, B, C, D repeats it does so because it is operating within confines of some boundary, of some limit or closed system. Otherwise it would continue on A, B, C, D, E, etcetera.

A circle is a boundary. A circular structure is a boundary. Outside or no outside.

Repetition is recurrence of events reflective of operation within the confines of some boundary or some limited, closed system. Repetition is boundary.

Existence having no boundary while being finite is the basis of your entire argument:

Existence having no boundary doesn't necessarily mean that it goes on forever.

You are employing boundaries while claiming otherwise. Of course existence would seem finite.