Existence Is Infinite

[Eodnhoj7]

“All things” is also a phrase. But in that sense a phrase, a thing included as part of all things.

A phrase is a phrase. A thing. A distinction is a distinction. A thing.

All things are still all things, including such a phrase and such a distinction.




As stated earlier you are attempting to present all things as only a thing. That is fallacious. All things are all things. You begin with a fallacious premise therefore everything that follows is also fallacious.

Existence requires no comparison to stand apart. That is your claim.

Existence is all. Existence requires no comparison to stand apart for it stands on its own; there is no other to stand apart from.

Existence requires no comparison. Existence just is.




The term infinity carries certain connotations relegating its use in relation to the philosophy. Infinite is the preferred term.

Existence is the subject matter, the focus. The term infinite is simply a descriptor.

Infinity is a noun, infinite an adjective. The term infinity often involves flimsy notions and other baggage thus infinite is the preferred term.

Infinite is defined as unlimited or unrestricted. Existence, being unlimited, is not limited to the whole or limited to a thing. Existence is a thing, and every other thing, each thing and all things as the whole. Review the Existence Both Part And Whole section of the original essay.




The opposite of infinite is finite, not void.

There is not much to understand about void, assuming void is another term for nonexistence, as it does not actually exist beyond the term and concept. Anything understood, anything not understood concerns some thing or some things, not nothingness or nonexistence.

There is no added depth with void, with nonexistence because it does not exist to add any.

Existence is infinite. The depth is unfathomable.

If existence is infinite, not finite, than it is not a thing.

How could some thing, like existence, itself, not be a thing, under any circumstances like, for example, whether it was finite or infinite?

Obviously if 'it' is a thing, which 'it' obviously is, then 'it' is a thing, no matter for how long 'it' is around for.

By the way, Existence, Itself, is infinite, and eternal, just like Life, Itself, and the Universe, Itself, are infinite, and eternal. Which are each also Things, let 'us' NOT forget.

Question posed to DeepAI:

If there is only one everything and this everything has no comparison to allow it to be a distinct 1 does it thus necessitate it as nothing or rather 0?

Answer:

Your question dives into deep philosophical territory concerning the nature of existence, identity, and the implications of singularity. Let’s break it down step by step.
1. Understanding "One Everything"

When you refer to "one everything," you're positing a concept of totality—a singular, unified existence that encompasses all that is. This totality lacks parts, components, or distinctions that would allow it to be understood as a separate entity or as having unique characteristics.
2. Distinctions and Comparison

You point to the notion that this "everything" has “no comparison” to allow it to be distinct:

Comparison: For something to be perceived as a distinct entity (like "1"), there must be a framework of differentiation. We typically perceive things in relation to others—light exists because there's darkness, hot is understood in relation to cold, etc. Without distinctions, it becomes challenging to assert that something is "one" because the concept of "one" relies on identifying it against "other" or "more."

3. Implications: Necessitating "Nothing" or "0"

When you suggest that a lack of distinction might lead to the conclusion of "nothing or rather 0," you are raising a critical point about identity and existence:

Nothing and 0: In many philosophical and mathematical discussions, "0" can represent the absence of quantity or a placeholder for a null state. If "one everything" lacks distinguishable qualities or boundaries, it could theoretically be seen as indistinguishable from "nothing" or "0" because we cannot identify it as having any unique attributes—it does not contrast with anything.

4. Philosophical Perspectives

Here are some philosophical perspectives that relate to your proposition:

Monism: This view suggests that everything is fundamentally one and that apparent distinctions are illusory. Under monism, the idea of "one everything" is quite fitting; however, monists might argue that this unity doesn't necessarily mean it equates to "nothing" but rather indicates a holistic synthesis of existence.

Buddhism: In some Buddhist philosophies, the concept of "emptiness" (śūnyatā) teaches that all things lack inherent existence or essence. This does not mean they do not exist but that their existence is relational, contextual, and dependent on other factors.

Paradoxes of Identity: Considerations in identity theory might argue that if something cannot be distinguished, it raises questions about its existence or identity. This has implications in metaphysics, especially concerning universal vs. particular entities.

5. Conclusion

Thus, your assertion that an "everything" without distinctions could lead to the conclusion of it being "nothing" or "0" is quite thought-provoking. It challenges the very foundations of identity and existence as we understand them.

While "one everything" suggests a totality, the absence of distinguishable features (comparison) could imply an indistinguishable state, leading us to grapple with the paradox of existence versus non-existence.





In simpler terms your framework results in a paradox.

The totality of existence is not a thing for there is no comparison to allow it to be a thing, as things require comparison in order for them to be distinct as a thing.

The totality, all, Existence, is without comparison for if there was comparison it would not be the totality, or all, or Existence (with a capital E to represent everything) as something would be beyond it thus nullifies the relatively absolute meaning of these terms.

Basically the totality, Existence, is inseparable from the dualism of paradox and contradiction and as such is a concept or word that acts as a transitional means of experience or awareness.

[daniel j lavender]

"Existence Is Infinite" is meaningless.

Existence, being infinite, encompasses meaninglessness. Existence also encompasses meaningfulness.

Existence is not a predicate.
The statement 'X exists' is meaningless, there must be a predicate P that exists.
As such, what is valid is 'X exists as P'
where 'X' is the subject and 'P' is the predicate.
Thus for any claim 'X exists' it must be accompanied with a 'P' i.e. 'X exists as P'

Hence the statement “existence is infinite”.

To ensure 'X exists as P' is not false or illusory, that it is really real, it must be verifiable, justifiable, credible and objective to be real.

It is verifiable, at least to a degree.

Existence is not limited to red. Existence is also orange. This is easily observed. Existence is also blue. Existence is not limited to red, orange or blue. Existence is all other colors as well.

Existence is not limited to colors, existence is also every other thing. Existence is an apple. Existence is all apples. Existence is a zebra. Existence is all zebras and all other things. Existence is unlimited. Existence is infinite.

Once we can establish the credibility and objectivity of 'X exists as P', the question of 'infinite' is not critical because infiniteness itself can be tested and verified as illusory albeit a useful fiction.

See above.

Surely the apple existing as a fruit cannot be infinite.

Correct.

The apple is observably only part of existence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Existence Is Infinite" is meaningless.

Existence, being infinite, encompasses meaninglessness. Existence also encompasses meaningfulness.

Existence is not a predicate.
The statement 'X exists' is meaningless, there must be a predicate P that exists.
As such, what is valid is 'X exists as P'
where 'X' is the subject and 'P' is the predicate.
Thus for any claim 'X exists' it must be accompanied with a 'P' i.e. 'X exists as P'

Hence the statement “existence is infinite”.

To ensure 'X exists as P' is not false or illusory, that it is really real, it must be verifiable, justifiable, credible and objective to be real.

It is verifiable, at least to a degree.

Existence is not limited to red. Existence is also orange. This is easily observed. Existence is also blue. Existence is not limited to red, orange or blue. Existence is all other colors as well.

Existence is not limited to colors, existence is also every other thing. Existence is an apple. Existence is all apples. Existence is a zebra. Existence is all zebras and all other things. Existence is unlimited. Existence is infinite.

Once we can establish the credibility and objectivity of 'X exists as P', the question of 'infinite' is not critical because infiniteness itself can be tested and verified as illusory albeit a useful fiction.

See above.

Surely the apple existing as a fruit cannot be infinite.

Correct.
The apple is observably only part of existence.

How can you verify and justifiable 'whole-existence' itself as real?

The principle of reality is 'X exists as P';
So infinite exists as what [P]?

As stated above, if you cannot predicate infinite, the idea of infinite is illusory
thus
“existence is infinite” means existence is illusory.

Infinite or infinity is just a thought, an ideal or an abstract which is empty.
If you reify something empty, you are merely chasing an illusion.

[Age]

If existence is infinite, not finite, than it is not a thing.

How could some thing, like existence, itself, not be a thing, under any circumstances like, for example, whether it was finite or infinite?

Obviously if 'it' is a thing, which 'it' obviously is, then 'it' is a thing, no matter for how long 'it' is around for.

By the way, Existence, Itself, is infinite, and eternal, just like Life, Itself, and the Universe, Itself, are infinite, and eternal. Which are each also Things, let 'us' NOT forget.

Question posed to DeepAI:

If there is only one everything and this everything has no comparison to allow it to be a distinct 1 does it thus necessitate it as nothing or rather 0?

Answer:

Your question dives into deep philosophical territory concerning the nature of existence, identity, and the implications of singularity. Let’s break it down step by step.
1. Understanding "One Everything"

When you refer to "one everything," you're positing a concept of totality—a singular, unified existence that encompasses all that is. This totality lacks parts, components, or distinctions that would allow it to be understood as a separate entity or as having unique characteristics.
2. Distinctions and Comparison

You point to the notion that this "everything" has “no comparison” to allow it to be distinct:

Comparison: For something to be perceived as a distinct entity (like "1"), there must be a framework of differentiation. We typically perceive things in relation to others—light exists because there's darkness, hot is understood in relation to cold, etc. Without distinctions, it becomes challenging to assert that something is "one" because the concept of "one" relies on identifying it against "other" or "more."

3. Implications: Necessitating "Nothing" or "0"

When you suggest that a lack of distinction might lead to the conclusion of "nothing or rather 0," you are raising a critical point about identity and existence:

Nothing and 0: In many philosophical and mathematical discussions, "0" can represent the absence of quantity or a placeholder for a null state. If "one everything" lacks distinguishable qualities or boundaries, it could theoretically be seen as indistinguishable from "nothing" or "0" because we cannot identify it as having any unique attributes—it does not contrast with anything.

4. Philosophical Perspectives

Here are some philosophical perspectives that relate to your proposition:

Monism: This view suggests that everything is fundamentally one and that apparent distinctions are illusory. Under monism, the idea of "one everything" is quite fitting; however, monists might argue that this unity doesn't necessarily mean it equates to "nothing" but rather indicates a holistic synthesis of existence.

Buddhism: In some Buddhist philosophies, the concept of "emptiness" (śūnyatā) teaches that all things lack inherent existence or essence. This does not mean they do not exist but that their existence is relational, contextual, and dependent on other factors.

Paradoxes of Identity: Considerations in identity theory might argue that if something cannot be distinguished, it raises questions about its existence or identity. This has implications in metaphysics, especially concerning universal vs. particular entities.

5. Conclusion

Thus, your assertion that an "everything" without distinctions could lead to the conclusion of it being "nothing" or "0" is quite thought-provoking. It challenges the very foundations of identity and existence as we understand them.

While "one everything" suggests a totality, the absence of distinguishable features (comparison) could imply an indistinguishable state, leading us to grapple with the paradox of existence versus non-existence.





In simpler terms your framework results in a paradox.

The totality of existence is not a thing for there is no comparison to allow it to be a thing, as things require comparison in order for them to be distinct as a thing.

BUT, you NEVER mentioned ANY thing about 'distinction'.

you just made the Truly ABSURD, NONSENSICAL, ILLOGICAL, and RIDICULOUS CLAIM that if A 'thing' is infinite, then 'that thing' is NOT 'A thing'.

Which is even MORE INSANE A CLAIM the MORE I POINT OUT the ABSURDITY of it.

The totality, all, Existence, is without comparison

"eodnhoj7" is A 'thing', without comparison, AS WELL. Therefore, to 'you', anyway, 'this' SOMEHOW links into and with your ABSOLUTE BELIEF, here.

for if there was comparison it would not be the totality, or all, or Existence (with a capital E to represent everything) as something would be beyond it thus nullifies the relatively absolute meaning of these terms.

Basically the totality, Existence, is inseparable from the dualism of paradox and contradiction and as such is a concept or word that acts as a transitional means of experience or awareness.

BUT, NOT A 'thing', right?

[daniel j lavender]

How can you verify and justifiable 'whole-existence' itself as real?

Begin with the definition of existence, that which is perceived. Observe the text on the screen. The text is part of existence. Existence is the text. Existence flows as the text, as the background of the forum, as the background border, as the edge of the screen of the device. It continues as air, the environment currently occupied then a wall, flowing as wind through towns, as cities, as continents, as the jungle of the Amazon, the stratosphere, as space, the moon, the solar system, the galaxy and beyond.

All this is existence. It’s all connected. All parts are connected and share the commonality of being, of existence. That connection, that unity of parts indicates the whole. Whole is simply unification of parts.

It’s analogous to planet Earth. We may not be able to observe the entire Earth at once, however that does not negate the entire Earth or that the entire Earth is. One may be unable to observe the whole however that does not negate the whole.

As expressed in the original essay we operate with limited perspective. That perspective inclines us to limit existence.

The principle of reality is 'X exists as P';
So infinite exists as what [P]?

Infinite is existence. Existence is infinite. Every thing mentioned in the example above is obviously a thing; things flow seamlessly into other things existence being all things. No gap of nonexistence is ever present to limit existence. That is how existence is infinite.

As stated above, if you cannot predicate infinite, the idea of infinite is illusory
thus
“existence is infinite” means existence is illusory.

Infinite or infinity is just a thought, an ideal or an abstract which is empty.
If you reify something empty, you are merely chasing an illusion.

Infinite and existence being infinite are not illusory ideas. Infinite existence is reality. The term, the idea has been clearly defined and illustrated here using concrete, real world examples.

[Belinda]

This denies the interactions of photons and electrons, all the elements and activities which occurred to allow living entities and their environment. Things are and were present during the development of lifeforms and other systems. By your own contention consciousness confirms this if only retrospectively.

However the contention itself somewhat eludes the premise.

Existence is eternal. Existence being eternal there would be no beginning or starting point. Things could be at any level of development at any given time. This would indicate neither conscious entities nor nonconscious elements actually precede each other. They just are. Existence just is. Time and sequence issues are complexities concerning conscious beings as expressed previously:




Further the original text defines existence, including things, as that which is interacted with, at least in part. Photons, electrons, protons, etcetera, all interact substantiating them as things, as existence. By definition. Review the Significance of Perception section beneath Additional Notes.

It’s common and understandable to approach things from a conscious or observer-biased perspective. We are conscious beings after all. However the basis is not consciousness or observation. The basis is existence.

To elaborate:

There is no actual beginning point to establish sequence. Any beginning point would be arbitrary. Thus would any resulting sequence.

The stone comes before the wheel. In System B, anyway. System A formed prior to System B and generated wheels long before the stones of System B.

Do wheels come from stones, or stones from wheels? Are wheels simply reformed stones, or stones simply disintegrated wheels? With no actual beginning thus no delineated sequence either could come after the other leading to the neutral conclusion they just are.

What are stones? What are wheels? Matter, physical material. Existence. Essentially the same stuff. The same stuff need not come before or after itself. It is itself.

To elaborate further:

It may be argued, and legitimately so, that stones come from interactions and arrangements of protons, electrons, photons, etcetera. Stones come from arrangements of subatomic particles. However disintegrate a stone sufficiently and what results? Subatomic particles. The same premise applies.

Wheels come from stones and stones come from wheels. Stones come from subatomic particles and subatomic particles come from stones. Any point of the process could be arbitrarily viewed as a beginning.

A "beginning"! Do you mean a beginning in time, or a beginning in space, or a beginning in the process of human ideas? Or all three? The idea of subatomic particles has a beginning in the human past somewhere in Greece however history and the recording of history are human endeavours.

Do all wheels have 1. a common essence of wheel ?

Or 2. does each wheel have it own essence?

Or 3. is there no essence concerning both particulars and universals?

[daniel j lavender]

A "beginning"! Do you mean a beginning in time, or a beginning in space, or a beginning in the process of human ideas? Or all three?

Any.

Do all wheels have 1. a common essence of wheel ?

Or 2. does each wheel have it own essence?

What exactly is meant by essence?

A wheel is a wheel. Wheels are wheels. Beyond the term the actual structure is rather invariable. The concept could be considered eternal.

Or 3. is there no essence concerning both particulars and universals?

As stated explicitly in the essay and here in discussion the basis of any thing is existence. The thing is. The basis of universals is existence. Universals are. They would be. That is existence. That is being.

[Belinda]

A "beginning"! Do you mean a beginning in time, or a beginning in space, or a beginning in the process of human ideas? Or all three?

Any.

Do all wheels have 1. a common essence of wheel ?

Or 2. does each wheel have it own essence?

What exactly is meant by essence?

A wheel is a wheel. Wheels are wheels. Beyond the term the actual structure is rather invariable. The concept could be considered eternal.

Or 3. is there no essence concerning both particulars and universals?

As stated explicitly in the essay and here in discussion the basis of any thing is existence. The thing is. The basis of universals is existence. Universals are. They would be. That is existence. That is being.

But not every being by a long chalk has any concept of universals!

[daniel j lavender]

Your premise is infinity.

It is a variable that can be applied infinitely by the context of its own nature. It can be applied to anything, even a finite line segment.

Incorrect.

A finite line segment is a finite line segment.

Regardless how deep one claims the line segment to be it would still observably be only part of existence. The line segment would not be a coconut or a palm tree, for example.

Finite things are, by definition, finite or limited. They are only parts of existence.

Because of its variability , due to an absence of limit, it can be seen as relatively formless and meaningless.

Because of its variability it is formless and meaningless, and also structured and meaningful.

Tie in the second premise of "existence" and this term is empty as it equivocates to all things...even the occurence of contradiction you seek to ignore.

Existence is not an empty term. Existence is the ultimate term. Existence is all things. Existence is all.

I do not seek to ignore occurrence of contradiction. Contradiction is identified and addressed in the third entry of the Terms and Definitions section of the original essay.

Additionally I addressed your claim of contradiction, or paradox, here: viewtopic.php?p=745919#p745919

As concluded, contradictions or paradoxes can be congruent and in this case are.

The infinite nature of existence results in infinite contradiction as contradiction is an occurence within the totality. With infinite contradiction anything can be justified, even infinite contradiction, as existence is justification by the nature of occurence alone.

Contradiction is not infinite. Existence is infinite. Contradiction is limited by noncontradiction. As water limits sand noncontradiction limits contradiction.

Contradiction is limited to contradiction. Existence is both contradiction and noncontradiction along with every other thing. Contradiction is limited. Existence is unlimited.

[Belinda]

A "beginning"! Do you mean a beginning in time, or a beginning in space, or a beginning in the process of human ideas? Or all three?

Any.

Do all wheels have 1. a common essence of wheel ?

Or 2. does each wheel have it own essence?

What exactly is meant by essence?

A wheel is a wheel. Wheels are wheels. Beyond the term the actual structure is rather invariable. The concept could be considered eternal.

Or 3. is there no essence concerning both particulars and universals?

As stated explicitly in the essay and here in discussion the basis of any thing is existence. The thing is. The basis of universals is existence. Universals are. They would be. That is existence. That is being.

Essence is the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, which determines its character. Please contrast essence as defined with Wittgenstein's " "The meaning of a word is its use".

[Veritas Aequitas]

How can you verify and justifiable 'whole-existence' itself as real?

Begin with the definition of existence, that which is perceived. Observe the text on the screen. The text is part of existence. Existence is the text. Existence flows as the text, as the background of the forum, as the background border, as the edge of the screen of the device. It continues as air, the environment currently occupied then a wall, flowing as wind through towns, as cities, as continents, as the jungle of the Amazon, the stratosphere, as space, the moon, the solar system, the galaxy and beyond.

All this is existence. It’s all connected. All parts are connected and share the commonality of being, of existence. That connection, that unity of parts indicates the whole. Whole is simply unification of parts.

It’s analogous to planet Earth. We may not be able to observe the entire Earth at once, however that does not negate the entire Earth or that the entire Earth is. One may be unable to observe the whole however that does not negate the whole.

As expressed in the original essay we operate with limited perspective. That perspective inclines us to limit existence.

Your above "existence, that which is perceived" is rhetorical.

'X exists as P'
X's existence is as P.
X is P.

Existence or "is" is merely a copula that join the subject to the predicate.

"Text is [exists] on the screen"
Texts are [exist] strings of words,
The existence of texts on the screen.
The texts exist as patterns of pixels on a screen.
The existence of texts on the screen is realized only by humans.
and so on.

As you can see what is critical are the things that exist and in existence.
Existence is not the thing.
What is a thing is some thing that can be verified and justified as real and is not illusory.
The gold standard of credibility and objective of what is real is the scientific framework and system [FS].
The term 'existence' cannot be verified and justified as a real thing, it is merely something semantic.

Someone can claim for the existence of a square-circle; but the existence is not real unless it can be verified and justified as real.
So, 'existence' is not the critical thing but what is critical and be considered real is the thing with its predicate that is claimed to be real.

The existence of an apple as a fruit, i.e. an apple is [exist as] a fruit can be verified and justified by the science-biology FS.
The term "Existence" is not critical but rather what is critical is whether the apple is really real as justified and verified by the science-biology FS.

One can just assert, here or there is an apple or whatever-real-thing; there is no need to delve into the term 'existence' so seriously in this case.
If one is doubtful, then just send it for testing, verification and justification that it is really real as conditioned upon the accepted methodology.

Why you are so concerned with the term 'existence' and 'existence is infinite' is purely psychological. There is a psychological drive within you in your insistence with the term 'existence' as a thing and it is infinite.

The principle of reality is 'X exists as P';
So infinite exists as what [P]?

Infinite is existence. Existence is infinite. Every thing mentioned in the example above is obviously a thing; things flow seamlessly into other things existence being all things. No gap of nonexistence is ever present to limit existence. That is how existence is infinite.

How can all things be existence.
The proper representation is all things are in existence, where all things must be verified and justified as real.
If all things can be verified and justified as real, the term 'existence' is not critical.

As stated above, if you cannot predicate infinite, the idea of infinite is illusory
thus
“existence is infinite” means existence is illusory.

Infinite or infinity is just a thought, an ideal or an abstract which is empty.
If you reify something empty, you are merely chasing an illusion.

Infinite and existence being infinite are not illusory ideas. Infinite existence is reality. The term, the idea has been clearly defined and illustrated here using concrete, real world examples.

The gold standard of credibility and objectivity of reality is the human-based [collective of subjects] scientific framework and system of knowledge.
The term 'existence' and 'infinity' are not things that can be verified and justified as real within the scientific FS.
Since it cannot be verified and justified as real, then, it merely a thought thus is false and illusory.

The term, the idea has been clearly defined and illustrated here using concrete, real world examples.

One can have a real 'concrete' apple in existence in one hand, then eat it.
After it is eaten, one can only have an idea of the eaten-apple without a corresponding real apple. The idea is illusory.
Whatever is concrete in the real world must be verified and justified as real within the scientific FS, else, at the extreme end it is illusory.

The term 'existence' is merely an idea as a copula which join the subject with the predicate.
The term 'existence' is an idea not supported by anything real, thus it is illusory if one insist it is real.
It is the same with the term 'infinite'.

Your above "existence, that which is perceived" is rhetorical.
You need to add, "Existence Is Infinite is Real"
then demonstrate with valid argument how it is real.
also define 'what is real'.
Otherwise your OP is merely a falsehood.

[Eodnhoj7]

Your premise is infinity.

It is a variable that can be applied infinitely by the context of its own nature. It can be applied to anything, even a finite line segment.

Incorrect.

A finite line segment is a finite line segment.

Regardless how deep one claims the line segment to be it would still observably be only part of existence. The line segment would not be a coconut or a palm tree, for example.

Finite things are, by definition, finite or limited. They are only parts of existence.

Because of its variability , due to an absence of limit, it can be seen as relatively formless and meaningless.

Because of its variability it is formless and meaningless, and also structured and meaningful.

Tie in the second premise of "existence" and this term is empty as it equivocates to all things...even the occurence of contradiction you seek to ignore.

Existence is not an empty term. Existence is the ultimate term. Existence is all things. Existence is all.

I do not seek to ignore occurrence of contradiction. Contradiction is identified and addressed in the third entry of the Terms and Definitions section of the original essay.

Additionally I addressed your claim of contradiction, or paradox, here: viewtopic.php?p=745919#p745919

As concluded, contradictions or paradoxes can be congruent and in this case are.

The infinite nature of existence results in infinite contradiction as contradiction is an occurence within the totality. With infinite contradiction anything can be justified, even infinite contradiction, as existence is justification by the nature of occurence alone.

Contradiction is not infinite. Existence is infinite. Contradiction is limited by noncontradiction. As water limits sand noncontradiction limits contradiction.

Contradiction is limited to contradiction. Existence is both contradiction and noncontradiction along with every other thing. Contradiction is limited. Existence is unlimited.

A finite line segment is composed of infinite points and can be divided onto infinite line segments. Infinity and Finiteness exist through eachother.

The meaningful/meaningless dichotomy of existence results in existence as paradoxical.

All is effectively nothing as it has no comparison to allow it to be a distinct thing. It is an empty term.

Contradictions can be congruent but not necessarily are and incongruent contradictions are a part of existence, the very act of distinction creates a seperation, an opposition, that by default makes existence incongruent as distinction is an infinite aspect of existence given existence is an opposition to nothing. Contradiction is infinite by nature of the infinite distinctions of existence that allow one thing to stand apart from another.

If existence is unlimited than what is finite has infinite variations to allow existence to be unlimited as the infinite depends on the finite, infinite variations is infinite distinctions and infinite distinctions is infinite things as standing apart (by being finite) thus infinite contradiction occurs.

[daniel j lavender]

How can you verify and justifiable 'whole-existence' itself as real?

Begin with the definition of existence, that which is perceived. Observe the text on the screen. The text is part of existence. Existence is the text. Existence flows as the text, as the background of the forum, as the background border, as the edge of the screen of the device. It continues as air, the environment currently occupied then a wall, flowing as wind through towns, as cities, as continents, as the jungle of the Amazon, the stratosphere, as space, the moon, the solar system, the galaxy and beyond.

All this is existence. It’s all connected. All parts are connected and share the commonality of being, of existence. That connection, that unity of parts indicates the whole. Whole is simply unification of parts.

It’s analogous to planet Earth. We may not be able to observe the entire Earth at once, however that does not negate the entire Earth or that the entire Earth is. One may be unable to observe the whole however that does not negate the whole.

As expressed in the original essay we operate with limited perspective. That perspective inclines us to limit existence.

Your above "existence, that which is perceived" is rhetorical.

'X exists as P'
X's existence is as P.
X is P.

Existence or "is" is merely a copula that join the subject to the predicate.

The idea and terms are grounded and have been linked to tangible, real world examples as illustrated above.

If any position is confined to rhetoric it is yours with such unwavering fixation on linguistic formality as exhibited here.

There is a psychological drive within you in your insistence with the term 'existence' as a thing and it is infinite.

Existence, the term, is a term and thus a thing. However what the term represents is infinite.

How can all things be existence.

By being.

The proper representation is all things are in existence, where all things must be verified and justified as real.

The expression “are in existence” is superfluous and confounding. It fashions some ambiguous overarching entity “existence” containing the things. The things are not contained in existence. The things are existence.

After it is eaten, one can only have an idea of the eaten-apple without a corresponding real apple. The idea is illusory.

The idea is not illusory. The idea is conceptual, abstract and part of existence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Begin with the definition of existence, that which is perceived. Observe the text on the screen. The text is part of existence. Existence is the text. Existence flows as the text, as the background of the forum, as the background border, as the edge of the screen of the device. It continues as air, the environment currently occupied then a wall, flowing as wind through towns, as cities, as continents, as the jungle of the Amazon, the stratosphere, as space, the moon, the solar system, the galaxy and beyond.

All this is existence. It’s all connected. All parts are connected and share the commonality of being, of existence. That connection, that unity of parts indicates the whole. Whole is simply unification of parts.

It’s analogous to planet Earth. We may not be able to observe the entire Earth at once, however that does not negate the entire Earth or that the entire Earth is. One may be unable to observe the whole however that does not negate the whole.

As expressed in the original essay we operate with limited perspective. That perspective inclines us to limit existence.

Your above "existence, that which is perceived" is rhetorical.

'X exists as P'
X's existence is as P.
X is P.

Existence or "is" is merely a copula that join the subject to the predicate.

The idea and terms are grounded and have been linked to tangible, real world examples as illustrated above.
If any position is confined to rhetoric it is yours with such unwavering fixation on linguistic formality as exhibited here.

My focus is on what is really real.
This is a discussion, thus linguistic is inevitable.

The idea and terms are real in terms of the mental process of thinking and generating idea.
What is really real in this case are merely the same fundamental neural activities in the brain of generating ideas and thinking while the million of ideas, terms and words can vary and they can represent real facts or false fictions.

One can observe a real or think of an apple or any physical things, but to confirm they are really real or potentially real, there is need to verify and justified them as real via a credible and objective framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

The problem is, ideas like 'existence' and 'infinite' are merely mental ideas which are not tangible and cannot be verified nor justified as real via the scientific FS.
Space, time, gravity and certain forces are intangible but they can be verified and justified via the science-physics FS.

Which FS can verify and justify the credibility and objectivity of 'existence' and 'infinite' as really real?

There is a psychological drive within you in your insistence with the term 'existence' as a thing and it is infinite.

Existence, the term, is a term and thus a thing. However what the term represents is infinite.

Which Framework and System can verify and justify the credibility and objectivity of 'existence' and 'infinite' as really real?
There is no credible and objective framework and system that can do that.

How can all things be existence.

By being.

Being = Existence = Isness, they do not represent any thing substantial at all.

The proper representation is all things are in existence, where all things must be verified and justified as real.

The expression “are in existence” is superfluous and confounding. It fashions some ambiguous overarching entity “existence” containing the things. The things are not contained in existence. The things are existence.

I did not state 'things are contained in existence'.
All things are in existence simply means they are existing.
What is critical to claim a thing is in existence is to claim they are real and thus must be verified via a credible and objective FS to be real.

It is ridiculous to claim "the apple is existence itself or part thereof".
If I say the apple out there is in existence, means it is existing as real which can be verified and justified via the science-biology FS.
We can rely on common sense, but common sense is not reliable and credible for things of higher precisions.

After it is eaten, one can only have an idea of the eaten-apple without a corresponding real apple. The idea is illusory.

The idea is not illusory. The idea is conceptual, abstract and part of existence.

The idea is just mental activities in the brain brought forth to conscious awareness.
All ideas are produced by the same mechanisms in the brain.
As such the idea itself is illusory if it is claimed to be the thing in represent.
For the thing that the idea represent to be really real, it must be verified and justified to be real via a credible and objective FS, i.e. the gold standard being the scientific FS.

For example, Santa Claus is an idea generated by the brain.
The idea in the brain as a mental process exists as real but there is nothing real that is represented by the term Santa Claus [defined in the idea] in reality.
If anyone were to insist there is a really real Santa Claus, then the onus is on him to bring the empirical evidence of a 'Santa Claus' to be verified and justified by the science-biology FS.

The terms 'existence' and 'infinite' [abstract] are similar to the term supposedly concrete 'Santa Claus'.

The typical meaning of existence is:
"the fact or state of living or having objective reality."
your whole posting ignored the above all the above terms which I had emphasized.
Whatever is in existence, i.e. existing must be verified and justified to be objectively real, i.e. via a credible and objective FS.

[Eodnhoj7]

Begin with the definition of existence, that which is perceived. Observe the text on the screen. The text is part of existence. Existence is the text. Existence flows as the text, as the background of the forum, as the background border, as the edge of the screen of the device. It continues as air, the environment currently occupied then a wall, flowing as wind through towns, as cities, as continents, as the jungle of the Amazon, the stratosphere, as space, the moon, the solar system, the galaxy and beyond.

All this is existence. It’s all connected. All parts are connected and share the commonality of being, of existence. That connection, that unity of parts indicates the whole. Whole is simply unification of parts.

It’s analogous to planet Earth. We may not be able to observe the entire Earth at once, however that does not negate the entire Earth or that the entire Earth is. One may be unable to observe the whole however that does not negate the whole.

As expressed in the original essay we operate with limited perspective. That perspective inclines us to limit existence.

Your above "existence, that which is perceived" is rhetorical.

'X exists as P'
X's existence is as P.
X is P.

Existence or "is" is merely a copula that join the subject to the predicate.

The idea and terms are grounded and have been linked to tangible, real world examples as illustrated above.

If any position is confined to rhetoric it is yours with such unwavering fixation on linguistic formality as exhibited here.

There is a psychological drive within you in your insistence with the term 'existence' as a thing and it is infinite.

Existence, the term, is a term and thus a thing. However what the term represents is infinite.

How can all things be existence.

By being.

The proper representation is all things are in existence, where all things must be verified and justified as real.

The expression “are in existence” is superfluous and confounding. It fashions some ambiguous overarching entity “existence” containing the things. The things are not contained in existence. The things are existence.

After it is eaten, one can only have an idea of the eaten-apple without a corresponding real apple. The idea is illusory.

The idea is not illusory. The idea is conceptual, abstract and part of existence.

While your stance is detailed, I believe it is only a partial truth and existence can be viewed at fundamentally a deeper and simpler level.

How so? Existence is occurence.

Currently I am aware of four foundational laws of identity with identity being synonymous to existence:

1. Occurence

2. The relation of one occurence to another.

3. The relation of occurences as an occurence.

4. The transitional transitory nature of occurence where occurence is fundamentally empty.

This necessitates occurence occurring through and as recursion and through and as the alternation in and out of states of existence.

The dualism of finiteness and infinite can be reduced to occurence.

Perspective can be reduced to occurence, experience too and so on an so forth.

Simply put all things cab be reduced to occurence and to even reduce these things to nothing would still be an occurence as reduction is occurence.