Existence Is Infinite

[Age]

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.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And, 'what' are 'you' BASING 'this' ASSUMPTION, BELIEF, and CLAIM of 'yours' here ON, EXACTLY, "atla"? Besides, "occam's razor", OF COURSE.

[Age]

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,

BUT just 'thinking' of 'this' does, in NO WAY, mean NOR make 'it' true in ANY way, shape, NOR form.

'you', human beings, are ABLE to 'think' of MANY 'things'. But, AGAIN, just 'thinking' of ANY of 'those things' does NOT make NOR mean ANY of 'them' are ACTUALLY True NOR REAL.

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.

Talk about DRIFTING OFF on a tangent.

Except the entire universe is the closed loop.

Okay, I have 'thought' ABOUT 'this', now what?

By the way I had 'thought' ABOUT 'this' a long while ago now, and 'it' is STILL one of the MANY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect INTERPRETATIONS.

[Age]

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.

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



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.

AND, "atla" is NOT convinced existence is infinite. And this is BECAUSE BOTH of 'you' BELIEVE otherwise. And, while 'you' BOTH BELIEVE otherwise 'you' WILL NOT LISTEN to the "other", NOR ANY 'thing' else OPPOSING your OWN BELIEFS here. And, this is WHY 'you' two are ONLY EXPRESSING your OWN BELIEFS INSTEAD of doing ANY 'thing' ACTUALLY PRODUCTIVE. And, while 'you' BOTH KEEP MAINTAINING 'your' BELIEFS 'you' WILL BOTH KEEP wanting to EXPRESS 'your' OWN ideas and BELIEFS, ONLY. Thus, providing 'us' WITH a PRIME example of WHY 'you', human beings, have been arguing, quarreling, and fighting over the SAME issues for thousands upon thousands of years 'now'. 'you' two are ALSO PROVIDING 'us' WITH GREAT examples of what NOT to do IN Life.

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.

AND, it does NOT really make sense to talk ABOUT an 'existence' of 'things', and thus 'structured form', which is supposedly ALSO FORMLESS. But, YET, here 'you' are doing the SAME "daniel j lavender".

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 STILL WAITING for "atla" to ANSWER the QUESTIONS I posed AS WELL. But which were more or less the same as yours here anyway.

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

'This' is the ONLY way to so-call 'explain' the BELIEF that 'it' is HOLDING. But this is just because the BELIEF "atla" is HOLDING and MAINTAINING here IS as STUPID and NONSENSICAL as the 'explanation' given.

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.

'you' can NOT even be so-called 'convinced' of some 'thing', which WOULD DEMONSTRATE IRREFUTABLY, and thus PROVE 'your' CLAIM here IRREFUTABLE to absolutely ANY and EVERY one. But, AGAIN, this is JUST BECAUSE you have and ARE HOLDING A BELIEF 'otherwise'.

Absolutely NO one can be 'convinced' of ANY 'thing' WHILE they MAINTAIN A BELIEF 'otherwise', and 'you' two here are PROVIDING IRREFUTABLE PROOF of 'this'. So, THANK YOU BOTH.

[Age]

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.

'you' ARE STILL NOT LISTENING.

WHILE 'you' HAVE A BELIEF there IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN the WHOLE Universe, NOR even the WHOLE Universe that could SHOW 'you' otherwise.

Even 'your' BELIEF here that 'If ONLY sufficient argumentation or sufficient evidence was presented to me, then my views would change accordingly, IS A DISTORTED, Wrong, AND Incorrect BELIEF, Itself.

What 'you', human beings, continually FAIL to RECOGNIZE, SEE, and UNDERSTAND is that WHILE 'you' ARE BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, then 'you' are NOT OPEN to having ANY 'thing' OPPOSING 'that BELIEF' being 'presented' TO 'you'.

Therefore, 'you' WILL CONSIST WITH the MOST STUPIDEST of comments or remarks like, 'NO sufficient argument or evidence has been presented to me YET'.

NOT just 'sufficient' BUT 'absolute and irrefutable' arguments and NOT just 'evidence' BUT 'proof' CAN BE 'presented' TO 'you', BUT WHILE 'you' BELIEVE the opposite IS true, 'you' are NOT ABLE TO SEE, NOR HEAR, what IS being 'presented' TO 'you'. Can 'you' YET FATHOM 'this'? Or, do 'you' STILL BELIEVE otherwise?

[daniel j lavender]

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.

That existence is formless and infinite?

Not quite.

Eodnhoj7 seems to agree:

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.

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…

You agree that existence, or “the universe”, is infinite:

'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.

Here you agree again:

And this is JUST BECAUSE the Universe IS 'infinite' AND 'eternal'. The Universe, contrary to some BELIEF is NOT 'circular in nature'.

Here are others discussing and agreeing with the formlessness of existence, including reference to Leibniz and his views of the formlessness of existence:

Surely if there is such a thing as an objective reality it is formless and purely informational in its nature…

Formless and purely informational. Now we are getting something new. What makes you describe it this way?

The idea originally comes from Leibniz, who was arguably the world first true information theorist.

Apparently I’m not in such bad company.

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

Existence is both part and whole. Refer to the Existence Both Part And Whole section beneath Additional Notes of the original text.

Particular things have form, they are limited to some specific shape. Existence as the entirety, existence generally speaking is formless. This should be clear from discussion on the previous pages.

Atla is claiming existence as the entirety, existence generally speaking has some circular form or some specific shape, which concerns boundaries or borders, while claiming it is without boundary or border.

while CLAIMING that 'existence' exists BECAUSE of FORMED 'things'.

Unless, OF COURSE, you WILL SHOW us otherwise.

Not claiming this at all.

Existence does not “exist because of formed things”.

Existence is eternal. Existence does not exist “because of”.

To imply “because”, to imply “cause” or “reason” for existence would be to assume some existing prior to existence. The premise is nonsensical.

Existence does not exist “because of”. Existence is eternal. Existence just is.

[Age]

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.

That existence is formless and infinite?

Not quite.

Eodnhoj7 seems to agree:

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.

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…

BUT "eodhnoj7" WILL CONTRADICT "its" OWN 'self' later on here, BECAUSE 'it' BELIEVES that ABSOLUTELY EVERY 'thing' IS A CONTRADICTION anyway, and so if 'it' does NOT CONTRADICT "its" OWN 'self', then NOT EVERY 'thing' IS A CONTRADICTION, OBVIOUSLY.

You agree that existence, or “the universe”, is infinite:

'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.

Here you agree again:

And this is JUST BECAUSE the Universe IS 'infinite' AND 'eternal'. The Universe, contrary to some BELIEF is NOT 'circular in nature'.

Here are others discussing and agreeing with the formlessness of existence, including reference to Leibniz and his views of the formlessness of existence:

Surely if there is such a thing as an objective reality it is formless and purely informational in its nature…

Formless and purely informational. Now we are getting something new. What makes you describe it this way?

The idea originally comes from Leibniz, who was arguably the world first true information theorist.

Apparently I’m not in such bad company.

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

Existence is both part and whole. Refer to the Existence Both Part And Whole section beneath Additional Notes of the original text.

Particular things have form, they are limited to some specific shape. Existence as the entirety, existence generally speaking is formless. This should be clear from discussion on the previous pages.

Atla is claiming existence as the entirety, existence generally speaking has some circular form or some specific shape, which concerns boundaries or borders, while claiming it is without boundary or border.

ONCE AGAIN, you have completely and utterly DETRACTED FROM the POINT that I was ALLUDING TO, BECAUSE you did NOT SEEK OUT CLARIFICATION FIRST.

you, ONCE AGAIN, ASSUMED some 'thing', JUMPED TO SOME CONCLUSION, and then proceeded FROM there.

while CLAIMING that 'existence' exists BECAUSE of FORMED 'things'.

Unless, OF COURSE, you WILL SHOW us otherwise.

Not claiming this at all.

Existence does not “exist because of formed things”.

Existence is eternal. Existence does not exist “because of”.

So, HOW does one KNOW 'existence is eternal' IF 'existence' is NOT 'because of' SOME 'thing'?

To imply “because”, to imply “cause” or “reason” for existence would be to assume some existing prior to existence.

Well, OBVIOUSLY, 'existence' would HAVE TO BE made up OF some 'thing' to be ABLE TO exist, IN THE BEGINNING.

The premise is nonsensical.

BUT, YOUR premise that 'existence' exists BECAUSE OF 'things', and does NOT exist BECAUSE OF 'nothing' IS NOT nonsensical, TO you, right?

Existence does not exist “because of”. Existence is eternal. Existence just is.

So, WHY GO ON about 'things' ARE NEEDED for 'existence', and that there IS NOT 'no things'?

If 'existence' does NOT exist 'because of' 'things', then 'existence' could exist 'because of' NO 'things'. Or, does 'this' then BECOME nonsensical?

[daniel j lavender]

BUT, YOUR premise that 'existence' exists BECAUSE OF 'things', and does NOT exist BECAUSE OF 'nothing' IS NOT nonsensical, TO you, right?

Again, existence does not exist “because of”. That is not my premise.

Existence does not exist because of things. Existence is all things.

[Atla]

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.

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



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.

I said there was no boundary and no repetition. I already explained why, you didn't understand either. Fine
As I said no one else did on philosophy forums either. Even though it's the only logical way to solve the problem of time.

[Atla]

...

Stop replying to my posts, I don't read them. As usual you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, in too many ways at once.

[Age]

BUT, YOUR premise that 'existence' exists BECAUSE OF 'things', and does NOT exist BECAUSE OF 'nothing' IS NOT nonsensical, TO you, right?

Again, existence does not exist “because of”. That is not my premise.

Existence does not exist because of things. Existence is all things.

So, if it was NOT FOR 'all things', then there would be NO 'existence', right?

Or, if there was ONLY 'NO thing', then there would be NO 'existence', right?

[Age]

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.

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:

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.

I said there was no boundary and no repetition. I already explained why, you didn't understand either. Fine
As I said no one else did on philosophy forums either. Even though it's the only logical way to solve the problem of time.

you are MORE CLOSED, and thus MORE STUPID, than I FIRST RECOGNIZED and SAW.

What you call and say is, 'the only logical way to solve the problem of time', is MORE ABSURD the MORE I READ 'it'.

WHAT ACTUAL so-called 'problem of time' do you even IMAGINE exists?

[Age]

...

Stop replying to my posts, I don't read them.

LOL

1. ASSUMING and/or BELIEVING that I REPLY to the words under the label "atla" is FOR 'you' ALONE IS A VERY FOOLISH and STUPID 'thing' to do.

2. I WILL reply to what I want when I want.

As usual you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, in too many ways at once.

AND, AS USUAL, 'this' is about ALL 'you' can SAY to 'me'. BUT, when one Truly LOOKS INTO what 'you' SAY and CLAIM and INTO what 'I' SAY and CLAIM, then WHO KNOWS what they are talking ABOUT, and WHO does NOT, BECOMES VERY CLEAR.

Now, is there absolutely ANY one who Truly wants to CHALLENGE AND QUESTION 'me' AND "atla" here?

I REALLY HOPE someone WANTS TO.

[daniel j lavender]

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.

AND, it does NOT really make sense to talk ABOUT an 'existence' of 'things', and thus 'structured form', which is supposedly ALSO FORMLESS. But, YET, here 'you' are doing the SAME "daniel j lavender".

Particular things have form.

Existence is all things and thus all forms. Existence is formless.

“Formless”, as defined, means “having no definite form; shapeless” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/formless).

Note it isn’t defined as “no form”. It is defined as “no definite form”.

In other words existence is not limited to any specific or particular form.

Existence, by definition, is formless.

and thus 'structured form'

Where exactly did I use the term “structured form”?

The original text does state “immateriality, immaterial expanse is part of the structure of existence” however that is not equivalent to ascribing definite form to existence.

“Structure” simply means “something made up of a number of parts that are held or put together in a particular way” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/structure).

That pertains to existence.

So, if it was NOT FOR 'all things', then there would be NO 'existence', right?

No.

A thing is [part of] existence.

Not all things are required for there to be existence, however it obviously would not be all things or all of existence.

Or, if there was ONLY 'NO thing', then there would be NO 'existence', right?

This is a “what if” situation. It is not the case, it would not be the case.

No thing, nothingness, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

[Age]

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.

AND, it does NOT really make sense to talk ABOUT an 'existence' of 'things', and thus 'structured form', which is supposedly ALSO FORMLESS. But, YET, here 'you' are doing the SAME "daniel j lavender".

Particular things have form.

AND so to does 'Existence', Itself. That is; if one wants to LOOK FROM a MUCH BIGGER perspective rather than FROM just a VERY SMALL or NARROWED one.

Existence is all things and thus all forms. Existence is formless.

So, to you, 'existence' is ALL 'things', AND THUS ALL 'forms'. BUT, to you, 'existence' is ALSO 'formless', right?

“Formless”, as defined, means “having no definite form; shapeless” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/formless).

Note it isn’t defined as “no form”. It is defined as “no definite form”.

In other words existence is not limited to any specific or particular form.

AND, if you have NOT YET WORK OUT the DEFINITE form of 'Existence', Itself, then that in NO WAY does NOT necessarily mean that 'Existence' IS FORMLESS.

That just MEANS you are YET to SEE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND the DEFINITE FORM of 'Existence', Itself.

Existence, by definition, is formless.

'Existence', TO 'you', by definition, is 'formless'.

Also, are you even AWARE that OTHER 'definitions' EXIST, ALSO?

In other words, the words 'formless' AND 'existence', by definition, mean OTHER 'things' AS WELL.

and thus 'structured form'

Where exactly did I use the term “structured form”?

I did NOT KNOW you had.

The original text does state “immateriality, immaterial expanse is part of the structure of existence” however that is not equivalent to ascribing definite form to existence.

Okay.

Are you even ABLE TO ascribe a definite form to 'existence', itself?

“Structure” simply means “something made up of a number of parts that are held or put together in a particular way” (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/structure).

That pertains to existence.

Okay, great.

So, if it was NOT FOR 'all things', then there would be NO 'existence', right?

No.

A thing is [part of] existence.

Is 'nothing' a 'thing'?

Can there be 'existence' with just 'one thing', or can there only be 'existence' with ALL 'things'?

Not all things are required for there to be existence,

WHY NOT?

And, HOW MANY ACTUAL 'things' are required for there to be 'existence', itself?

however it obviously would not be all things or all of existence.

What is the 'it' word here referring to, EXACTLY?

And, how would one ACTUALLY KNOW WHEN and IF there ARE ALL 'things' or ALL of 'existence', itself?

Or, if there was ONLY 'NO thing', then there would be NO 'existence', right?

This is a “what if” situation. It is not the case, it would not be the case.

Are you NOT ABLE TO IMAGINE here?

No thing, nothingness, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

BUT this is, AGAIN, WHERE you KEEP CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self'.

[daniel j lavender]

Particular things have form.

AND so to does 'Existence', Itself. That is; if one wants to LOOK FROM a MUCH BIGGER perspective rather than FROM just a VERY SMALL or NARROWED one.

AND, if you have NOT YET WORK OUT the DEFINITE form of 'Existence', Itself, then that in NO WAY does NOT necessarily mean that 'Existence' IS FORMLESS.

That just MEANS you are YET to SEE, KNOW, and UNDERSTAND the DEFINITE FORM of 'Existence', Itself.

I’d like to know what you think this “definite form” of existence is.

You use the terms “look” and “see” when discussing the subject as if you have actually observed the form of existence. There would be no way to do so. There would be no way to travel outside of existence or to some point beyond existence to ascertain any definite form of existence. Any point would be part of existence. We are eternally embedded within the image of existence.

Those are not the parameters of existence, that is not the nature of existence anyway. Existence, being just is. It is not inherently mapped or modeled. Those are contrivances resulting from our conscious interactions and sensory experiences. As conscious beings we create models of our environments for our purposes and for our survival. In other words by claiming you see or understand some definite form of existence you are really just projecting some contrivance extending from the model you have created.

Besides, you’ve already agreed that existence is infinite:

And this is JUST BECAUSE the Universe IS 'infinite' AND 'eternal'. The Universe, contrary to some BELIEF is NOT 'circular in nature'.

By ascribing definite form to existence you are essentially limiting existence.

How do you reconcile that?

Can there be 'existence' with just 'one thing', or can there only be 'existence' with ALL 'things'?

One thing is [part of] existence. The point is there is not just one thing.

Not all things are required for there to be existence

WHY NOT?

A part of existence is a part of existence.

All existence is all existence.

Either way it is existence.

No thing, nothingness, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

BUT this is, AGAIN, WHERE you KEEP CONTRADICTING "your" OWN 'self'.

You have yet to identify any contradiction.