Existence Is Infinite

[Atla]

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.

There is NO repetition.

Though I've never been able to explain this fundamentally important concept to anyone on 2 philosophy forums.

[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.

There is NO repetition.

Though I've never been able to explain this fundamentally important concept to anyone on 2 philosophy forums.

Feel free to elaborate.

[Atla]

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:



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

There is NO repetition.

Though I've never been able to explain this fundamentally important concept to anyone on 2 philosophy forums.

Feel free to elaborate.

Dimensions are circular, not spiralic dimensions, not eternal recurrence, CIRCULAR dimensions.

[Atla]

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:



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

There is NO repetition.

Though I've never been able to explain this fundamentally important concept to anyone on 2 philosophy forums.

Feel free to elaborate.

Think of it as a 4d closed loop of spacetime, where you go back in time, and then apparently change things, but those changes are the ones that make it possible for you to go back in time. Except the entire universe is the closed loop.

[daniel j lavender]

There is NO repetition.

Though I've never been able to explain this fundamentally important concept to anyone on 2 philosophy forums.

Feel free to elaborate.

Dimensions are circular, not spiralic dimensions, not eternal recurrence, CIRCULAR dimensions.

If there is no repetition involved why does your primary example involve repetitive activity:

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.

One follows those steps and ends up back at the beginning.

Is that not reflective of repetition?

[Atla]

Feel free to elaborate.

Dimensions are circular, not spiralic dimensions, not eternal recurrence, CIRCULAR dimensions.

If there is no repetition involved why does your primary example involve repetitive activity:

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.

One follows those steps and ends up back at the beginning.

Is that not reflective of repetition?

No, I wrote: where and when we started. By "when", I didn't mean another "when" in another cycle, but the initial "when".

[daniel j lavender]

Think of it as a 4d closed loop of spacetime, where you go back in time, and then apparently change things, but those changes are the ones that make it possible for you to go back in time. Except the entire universe is the closed loop.

This is what I’ve been saying.

You’re declaring a closed system, a boundary. You’re declaring limitation.

Existence is not just a closed system. Existence is not just an open system. Existence is not limited to any particular. Existence concerns both closed and open systems.

You are imposing boundaries while claiming otherwise. Of course existence will seem finite.

Dimensions are circular, not spiralic dimensions, not eternal recurrence, CIRCULAR dimensions.

If there is no repetition involved why does your primary example involve repetitive activity:

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.

One follows those steps and ends up back at the beginning.

Is that not reflective of repetition?

No, I wrote: where and when we started. By "when", I didn't mean another "when" in another cycle, but the initial "when".

Is that not the definition of repetition? The events occur and occur again.

It does not matter if it’s another cycle or the initial when. At this stage that’s semantics. The point is it started then started.

The sequence of events occur. That is acknowledged.

The sequence then occurs again. That is repetition.

The reset to start does not magically erase the sequence of events which occurred. Again, they were acknowledged to have occurred.

To claim “another” initial start would be to negate any occurrence of any sequence of events thus would be to negate any need for any start to begin with. No sequence, no start. Why have a start only for the resulting sequence to be nullified?

Above you state yourself it is a “closed loop”. What is a loop? Something circular or something curved over and upon itself. Loops are associated with repetition or repetitive cycles. Nearly every point you mention concerns repetition.

You’re claiming a start, then another start, then another. But those are all considered “initial” starts and nonrepetitive.

Just as you employ boundaries while claiming otherwise you employ repetition while claiming otherwise.

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.

I’m not convinced existence is finite.

You haven’t really explained how the parameters of a circular-structure universe would loop or fold back around itself without boundary or why that would even need to be the case. It doesn’t really make sense. A looped, circular structure by definition has boundary or concerns boundary in order to be distinguished as such.

Nor have you offered any satisfactory answer to my first questions:

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?

We are not one-dimensional. We are not living in math. Yet these are the best examples and explanations you can provide.

You suggest this circular-structure dimension or universe somehow funnels us through a certain circularity, that there is some boundary, some invisible ambiguity guiding things and looping around and thus existence is finite. I’m not convinced.

[Age]

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.

Yes it is, it also COMPLETELY DETRACTS FROM YOUR CONTRADICTING STATEMENT and CLAIM above. But you are completely and utterly BLINDED from 'this' anyway.

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.

Have you NOT been LISTENING TO me?

I have been informing you that,
It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate to you how the statement is wrong while you are BELIEVING that the statement could NEVER be wrong.
you currently BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that the statement is NOT wrong, and could NEVER be wrong.
Therefore, it IS IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate, to you, how the statement is wrong.

How much SIMPLER and EASIER could I make this for you?

[daniel j lavender]

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


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.

Have you NOT been LISTENING TO me?

I have been informing you that,
It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate to you how the statement is wrong while you are BELIEVING that the statement could NEVER be wrong.
you currently BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that the statement is NOT wrong, and could NEVER be wrong.
Therefore, it IS IMPOSSIBLE to demonstrate, to you, how the statement is wrong.

How much SIMPLER and EASIER could I make this for you?

If sufficient argumentation or sufficient evidence was presented my views would change accordingly. It has not.

[Age]

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.

Only IF, and WHEN, you DECIDE to LOOK AT 'this' DIFFERENTLY, then you WILL ALSO FIND and SEE the IRREFUTABLE PROOF for what you are so desperately 'trying to' CLAIM here is true.

As for "atla's" so-called 'occam's razor ASSUMPTION' the RIDICULOUSNESS of 'that' speaks for itself.

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.

WHY do you NOT just STOP having and HOLDING 'a position' of 'limited observation'?

That way you ALSO WILL BE ABLE to SEE what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True AS WELL.

Naturally we are inclined to limit existence.

you are ONLY so-called 'naturally inclined to limit existence' because of just how the human brain works exactly. BUT it is ALSO exactly because of the human brain, and the BELIEF-system, WHY 'you', human beings, KEEP TRICKING and FOOLING "your" OWN "selves".

If 'you', adult human beings, just started doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of what 'you' have been doing 'now' for millennia, then 'you' will ASLO start SEEING what the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' IS, EXACTLY.

[Age]

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.

Here we have, ONCE AGAIN, ANOTHER PRIME example of one who will say just about ANY 'thing', no matter how Truly STUPID or RIDICULOUS it is, in the HOPE that it could make its OWN ASSUMPTION seem and appear somewhat BELIEVABLE.

What we SEE here is FURTHER PROOF of WHY it is MUCH BETTER to NEVER ASSUME absolutely ANY 'thing'.

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.

The ONLY 'thing' in regards to talking about ANY so-called 'our world' here, which refers to 'you' human beings ONLY, is that besides being Truly LIMITING IN NATURE is also expressed as though 'it' could or would override the ACTUAL Universe, Itself, or even the ACTUAL Truth Itself as well. So, to speak of 'our world' as though 'it' is somehow DIFFERENT to the One and ONLY so-called 'world' just SHOWS and DEMONSTRATES the ABSURDNESS of human beings, sometimes. This here was also another example of 'anthropomorphism'. For example, 'we' do 'this', so 'our world' is like 'this', so the rest of the whole Universe MUST BE like 'this' ALSO. AGAIN, the ABSURDNESS here SPEAKS VERY LOUDLY and CLEARLY here for itself.

[Age]

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', or ANY, '1-dimensional circle' is in concept alone or is created by human beings alone. So, REALLY has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with the INFINITE and ETERNAL Universe, Itself.

The positions of the points on the circle are relative to each other.

So what?

The positions of the points on 'the', or any, circle were also only put 'there' by 'you', human beings, anyway. And, if 'they' are 'relative' to 'each other', then, AGAIN, SO WHAT?

The ideas of absolute space and time were refuted by Einstein.

LOL

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of 'the religious folk', speaking out AGAIN. That is; If God, "jesus", "mohammad", "einstein", the "dalai lama", "oprah", or the "pope" SAID 'it', then 'it' MUST BE true.

The 'human being', back when this was being written, REALLY would BELIEVE some 'thing' is true JUST BECAUSE 'the one' they IDOLIZED had just SAID 'that thing'.

[Age]

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.

It is ONLY 'you' here who says 'this', "daniel j lavender". AND, you HAVE TO SAY 'this' to keep 'it' aligned WITH what you currently BELIEVE is ABSOLUTELY true.

You are evoking boundaries and limits while claiming otherwise.

And you are CLAIMING that there IS 'existence' BECAUSE of 'things', which ARE distinguishable.

THUS, there IS 'form'. BUT, BECAUSE you have to 'TRY TO' make words here FIT IN WITH your BELIEF ABOUT 'existence being infinite' you HAVE TO ALSO CLAIM that 'existence' IS FORMLESS. you ARE CLAIMING the 'existence' Is FORMLESS while CLAIMING that 'existence' exists BECAUSE of FORMED 'things'.

Unless, OF COURSE, you WILL SHOW us otherwise.

[Age]

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.

Talk ABOUT two people ONLY LOOKING FROM, and thus also ONLY THINKING FROM, a VERY LIMITED FIELD OF VIEW.

[Age]

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.

There is NO repetition.

Though I've never been able to explain this fundamentally important concept to anyone on 2 philosophy forums.

But all 'you' are essentially saying here "atla" is if one heads out from earth in ANY direction, then the way the Universe is 'made up' one might just end up back on earth. Which, OBVIOUSLY, could exist 'theoretically', but, SADLY, NOT in 'actuality'. And this is just because of HOW the Universe ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY.

See if one just 'heads out' in ANY direction, then they just keep getting FURTHER AWAY from earth. And this is JUST BECAUSE the Universe IS 'infinite' AND 'eternal'. The Universe, contrary to some BELIEF is NOT 'circular in nature'.