Existence Is Infinite

[Veritas Aequitas]

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

It is still meaningless, i.e.

"Existence, being infinite," which is meaningless encompasses meaninglessness??

That is your opinion. That is your statement. It is confined to your mind, perhaps some minds, the statement confined to the screen, to the forum which is merely part of existence, existence being infinite.

Even if one printed your comment and distributed it to Mars it would still be confined to the solar system, to merely part of existence.

I have provided valid argument to support my assertions above.
However, you have not provided any solid argument to that can verify and justify your claim 'existence is infinite' as real.

How can your 'existence is infinite' contribute to a trend of improvements towards the ideal of perpetual peace?

Review: viewtopic.php?p=747974#p747974

The essay, as expressed, concerns the parameters of existence.

Additional topics are addressed here:

viewtopic.php?t=34999

viewtopic.php?t=39651

https://linktr.ee/daniellavender

How can 'existence is infinite' prevent war and promote peace?

[daniel j lavender]

It is still meaningless, i.e.

"Existence, being infinite," which is meaningless encompasses meaninglessness??

That is your opinion. That is your statement. It is confined to your mind, perhaps some minds, the statement confined to the screen, to the forum which is merely part of existence, existence being infinite.

Even if one printed your comment and distributed it to Mars it would still be confined to the solar system, to merely part of existence.

I have provided valid argument to support my assertions above.
However, you have not provided any solid argument to that can verify and justify your claim 'existence is infinite' as real.

False.

You simply dismiss ideas and terms as meaningless abstractions as you do here and did here:

The idea of 'existence' is at best an abstract idea and to hypostatize it as real persistently is delusional.

The same could be said of “real” or any other term. It’s an easy dismissal.

You fail to sufficiently define “real”, the single term your entire system is based on.

Even if a sufficient definition is offered one can simply reject it as some “abstract idea” by your own premise.

How can 'existence is infinite' prevent war and promote peace?

By circulating the ideas linked and stimulating cognitive activity.

Obviously it is not the sole responsibility of an essay or the philosophy. It is the responsibility of humanity.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is your opinion. That is your statement. It is confined to your mind, perhaps some minds, the statement confined to the screen, to the forum which is merely part of existence, existence being infinite.

Even if one printed your comment and distributed it to Mars it would still be confined to the solar system, to merely part of existence.

I have provided valid argument to support my assertions above.
However, you have not provided any solid argument to that can verify and justify your claim 'existence is infinite' as real.

False.
You simply dismiss ideas and terms as meaningless abstractions as you do here and did here:

The idea of 'existence' is at best an abstract idea and to hypostatize it as real persistently is delusional.

The same could be said of “real” or any other term. It’s an easy dismissal.

You fail to sufficiently define “real”, the single term your entire system is based on.

Even if a sufficient definition is offered one can simply reject it as some “abstract idea” by your own premise.

Definition of reality:

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within the universe, as opposed to that which is only imaginary, nonexistent or nonactual. The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence.[1] In physical terms, reality is the totality of a system, known and unknown.
Epistemology is concerned with what can be known or inferred as likely and how, whereby in the modern world emphasis is put on reason, empirical evidence and science as sources and methods to determine or investigate reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

I have defined what is real is that which is contingent upon a human-based framework and system of reality and knowledge of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

This is in tandem with the modern world on what is real as above.

However, your case, you cannot justify your 'existence is infinite' via rational empirical and scientific methods.

In another perspective your claim is not realistically factual:

A fact is a true datum about one or more aspects of a circumstance.[1] Standard reference works are often used to check facts.
Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means.

For example,
"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact, and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts.
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.

Scientific facts via the science FS are the most credible and objective.

Your 'existence is infinite' is at most a linguistic fact without any credibility and objectivity in terms of objectivity.

How can 'existence is infinite' prevent war and promote peace?

By circulating the ideas linked and stimulating cognitive activity.
Obviously it is not the sole responsibility of an essay or the philosophy. It is the responsibility of humanity.

The claim 'existence is infinite' cannot contribute to prevent war and promote peace.

The claims, "wars exist as fighting between humans" and "sufferings exist in wars" which can be verified and justified as real can contribute to prevent wars and promote peace, i.e. get rid of and prevent real wars.

[daniel j lavender]

1.4.2025 Essay Revision

Creation Paragraph Revision

Former

Furthermore existence is not creation. Creation implies a point of being created, a beginning point. Existence would not be creation because existence had no beginning point or point of creation.

Revised

Existence extends beyond creation. Creation implies a point of being created, a beginning point. Existence extends beyond creation because existence had no beginning point or point of creation.

[daniel j lavender]

…the concept of infinity is neither truly axiomatic

Your conclusion is derived from A.I. using an erroneous premise as illustrated here:

Question to AI:

If a dualism allows the contrast of opposites to result in a finite distinction does the dualism of infinity and finiteness result in a paradoxical finite state for infinity thus infinity effectively becomes a meaningless concept as it cannot be truly conceptualized and conceptuality requires meaning, and mathematical and philosophical frameworks using it do not have a justifiable proof when using it other than finite practicality that is a further paradox to the infinite as only the finite occurs thus infinity is not truly axiomatic?

Summary: Potentially and probably yes it may be meaningless and not truly axiomatic

Copy and paste into "philosophy teacher ai" on Google search for full analysis.

“If a dualism allows the contrast of opposites to result in a finite distinction…”

That’s the key phrase and that which drives the remainder of the premise and the conclusion of A.I.

As previously expressed, user input influences A.I. conclusions. That is the case here.

You are referencing two interrelated concepts, in turn acknowledging at least two distinctions, then presenting the two distinctions as a single distinction, a finite distinction. Then suggesting that single, finite distinction merely limits existence. It is an erroneous premise resulting in an erroneous A.I. conclusion.

…nor meaningful in its own terms.

Hence existence as the subject and infinite as the descriptor as explained earlier:

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.

[daniel j lavender]

infinite existence is quite meaningless in many respects and the concept of infinity is neither truly axiomatic nor meaningful in its own terms.

You can’t seem to decide whether nothingness is the whole or whether nothingness is in the door way:

Yes I am equating the absolute whole to nothingness

Change requires nothingness for movement cannot occur if something is already there.

This has already been discussed:

…a thing cannot change if something is already filling its spot for potential change; one cannot walk through a door way without the door way being empty.

Empty of what? Debris? Other people? Air? Matter? Space? Existence?

Existence is everywhere. A door way is a door way. A thing. Existence. Not nothingness. The area or space within the door way is an area or space within the door way. A thing. Existence. Not nothingness.

The appropriate term here would be unobstructed, not empty. The door way would be unobstructed.

Change, motion always occurs upon the infrastructure of existence, not nonexistence.

If nothingness is equivalent to the whole can the whole fit inside the door way? Nothingness cannot be both. Nothingness cannot be the whole one moment then lodged inside the door way the next. The premises are incompatible. This indicates a major lack of coherence in your position.

Nothingness is not the whole nor is nothingness in the door way.

Nothingness is not and cannot be.

[seeds]

Nothingness is not the whole nor is nothingness in the door way.

Nothingness is not and cannot be.

"Absolute nothingness," which is forever making room for the ever-expanding "somethingness" of what we call reality,...

...is the only thing that can be considered to be truly infinite, for no matter how many new universes (or whatever) get added to the mix, absolute nothingness will never run out of room for more.

So, in that sense, nothingness is indeed a part of existence, thus justifying the thread title.
_______

[daniel j lavender]

Nothingness is not the whole nor is nothingness in the door way.

Nothingness is not and cannot be.

"Absolute nothingness," which is forever making room for the ever-expanding "somethingness" of what we call reality,...

...is the only thing that can be considered to be truly infinite, for no matter how many new universes (or whatever) get added to the mix, absolute nothingness will never run out of room for more.

So, in that sense, nothingness is indeed a part of existence, thus justifying the thread title.
_______

You are approaching the subject from a position of limitation conflating time and sequence which are constructs of conscious beings.

In a sense there is no time, sequence or motion. Existence is all. Existence cannot move because existence is the next position. Existence is what we perceive as the past, present and future. Existence does not need to expand or progress. It is.

Nor is nothingness needed for expansion.

Things can move, parts of existence can experience motion. Nothingness is still not present, however. When physical systems expand they are not interacting with nothingness. Nothingness is not and cannot be to be interacted with. When physical systems expand they are simply integrating additional immaterial space into the system. As a balloon expands when it acquires helium. Things simply shift around amongst each other.

Immaterial space has qualities, it has properties. Immaterial space is immaterial, it is voluminous. Immaterial space can be measured. It can be measured as the area or distance between or among masses or material objects similar to the way other things are measured. It can be measured arbitrarily from one point to another. In the hypothetical case of a single physical object or most-distant object it can be measured from that point beyond and considered to be indefinite from that point.

Nothingness has no qualities or properties, nothingness has no extent or capacity to be measured.

"Absolute nothingness,"…

...is the only thing that can be considered to be truly infinite

A thing, by definition, cannot be unlimited.

If something is X and nothingness Y, Y is limited by the extent of X. Thus Y, or nothingness, would not be infinite even within your own provided example.

We’re basically juggling terms and concepts here. However all are still terms, all are still concepts, all are still things. All is existence. Existence is all.

[Eodnhoj7]

…the concept of infinity is neither truly axiomatic

Your conclusion is derived from A.I. using an erroneous premise as illustrated here:

Question to AI:

If a dualism allows the contrast of opposites to result in a finite distinction does the dualism of infinity and finiteness result in a paradoxical finite state for infinity thus infinity effectively becomes a meaningless concept as it cannot be truly conceptualized and conceptuality requires meaning, and mathematical and philosophical frameworks using it do not have a justifiable proof when using it other than finite practicality that is a further paradox to the infinite as only the finite occurs thus infinity is not truly axiomatic?

Summary: Potentially and probably yes it may be meaningless and not truly axiomatic

Copy and paste into "philosophy teacher ai" on Google search for full analysis.

“If a dualism allows the contrast of opposites to result in a finite distinction…”

That’s the key phrase and that which drives the remainder of the premise and the conclusion of A.I.

As previously expressed, user input influences A.I. conclusions. That is the case here.

You are referencing two interrelated concepts, in turn acknowledging at least two distinctions, then presenting the two distinctions as a single distinction, a finite distinction. Then suggesting that single, finite distinction merely limits existence. It is an erroneous premise resulting in an erroneous A.I. conclusion.

…nor meaningful in its own terms.

Hence existence as the subject and infinite as the descriptor as explained earlier:

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.

Erroneous by what standard? Your own? After reading that I was to bored to read the rest.

Infinity cannot be conceptualized and where is can be it ends in a paradox of being simultaneously finite (ie a line segment of infinite points). Existence as infinite is fundamentally existence as non conceptual and indistinct thus making your argument empty of meaning as it is conceptualization of what cannot be conceptualized.

Abstractions are subjective as one cannot see in another's head, only their own.

Empirically point at pure infinity.

[Eodnhoj7]

infinite existence is quite meaningless in many respects and the concept of infinity is neither truly axiomatic nor meaningful in its own terms.

You can’t seem to decide whether nothingness is the whole or whether nothingness is in the door way:

Yes I am equating the absolute whole to nothingness

Change requires nothingness for movement cannot occur if something is already there.

This has already been discussed:

Empty of what? Debris? Other people? Air? Matter? Space? Existence?

Existence is everywhere. A door way is a door way. A thing. Existence. Not nothingness. The area or space within the door way is an area or space within the door way. A thing. Existence. Not nothingness.

The appropriate term here would be unobstructed, not empty. The door way would be unobstructed.

Change, motion always occurs upon the infrastructure of existence, not nonexistence.

If nothingness is equivalent to the whole can the whole fit inside the door way? Nothingness cannot be both. Nothingness cannot be the whole one moment then lodged inside the door way the next. The premises are incompatible. This indicates a major lack of coherence in your position.

Nothingness is not the whole nor is nothingness in the door way.

Nothingness is not and cannot be.

Absolute nothing is a paradoxical term in one respect, as it is a indistinct distinction, and meaningless in another as it means nothing. Absolute nothingness is a term that highlights the pitfall of language, it's fundamental weakness.

I know pure existence conceptually is lacking for in my advanced yoga training I have had the tranquility of non-experience and know the truth of "it". Conceptualization, like you are doing, is a failure in many respects. It is like the orobos, the eternal self eating snake that goes nowhere.

But to the real elephant in the room to negate your argument:

Relative nothingness is an absence of a specific thing, considering all things are absent of specific other things relative nothingness permeates all things.

[daniel j lavender]

…the concept of infinity is neither truly axiomatic

Your conclusion is derived from A.I. using an erroneous premise as illustrated here:

“If a dualism allows the contrast of opposites to result in a finite distinction…”

That’s the key phrase and that which drives the remainder of the premise and the conclusion of A.I.

As previously expressed, user input influences A.I. conclusions. That is the case here.

You are referencing two interrelated concepts, in turn acknowledging at least two distinctions, then presenting the two distinctions as a single distinction, a finite distinction. Then suggesting that single, finite distinction merely limits existence. It is an erroneous premise resulting in an erroneous A.I. conclusion.

…nor meaningful in its own terms.

Hence existence as the subject and infinite as the descriptor as explained earlier:

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.

Erroneous by what standard? Your own?

Logic.

You acknowledge multiples, acknowledge multiple distinctions, select only one then claim infinite is finite and not truly axiomatic because of that limited selection. You acknowledge multiplicity then conveniently exclude it to suit a biased position.

[daniel j lavender]

infinite existence is quite meaningless in many respects and the concept of infinity is neither truly axiomatic nor meaningful in its own terms.

You can’t seem to decide whether nothingness is the whole or whether nothingness is in the door way:

Yes I am equating the absolute whole to nothingness

This has already been discussed:

If nothingness is equivalent to the whole can the whole fit inside the door way? Nothingness cannot be both. Nothingness cannot be the whole one moment then lodged inside the door way the next. The premises are incompatible. This indicates a major lack of coherence in your position.

Nothingness is not the whole nor is nothingness in the door way.

Nothingness is not and cannot be.

Relative nothingness is an absence of a specific thing, considering all things are absent of specific other things relative nothingness permeates all things.

Relative nothingness is nonsensical. A concept, a thing, but nonsensical.

Absence of a thing is absence of a thing. Absence still concerns subjects and locations. Absence still concerns things. Absence itself is a condition, a thing.

…considering all things are absent of specific other things relative nothingness permeates all things.

That is a nonsensical statement.

Things themselves are things. That is not absence of things or nothingness. Nor are other things magically nullified because of a particular thing. Other things are simply in other locations. They are. That is presence, not absence. Certainly not nothingness.

Besides, all things are all things. There would be no absence of specific other things as it’s all things.

[Eodnhoj7]

Your conclusion is derived from A.I. using an erroneous premise as illustrated here:







Hence existence as the subject and infinite as the descriptor as explained earlier:

Erroneous by what standard? Your own?

Logic.

You acknowledge multiples, acknowledge multiple distinctions, select only one then claim infinite is finite and not truly axiomatic because of that limited selection. You acknowledge multiplicity then conveniently exclude it to suit a biased position.

Which logic? There are so many and not all hold the same axioms.

My system is based upon the full range of paradoxes, should should know this by now. Yours is limited.

Multiplicity requires limits as multiplicity is finite, if it was not finite we would not be able to distingish multiples. Pure infinity has no limits, no distinctions. It is a meaningless term.

[Eodnhoj7]

You can’t seem to decide whether nothingness is the whole or whether nothingness is in the door way:








If nothingness is equivalent to the whole can the whole fit inside the door way? Nothingness cannot be both. Nothingness cannot be the whole one moment then lodged inside the door way the next. The premises are incompatible. This indicates a major lack of coherence in your position.

Nothingness is not the whole nor is nothingness in the door way.

Nothingness is not and cannot be.

Relative nothingness is an absence of a specific thing, considering all things are absent of specific other things relative nothingness permeates all things.

Relative nothingness is nonsensical. A concept, a thing, but nonsensical.

Absence of a thing is absence of a thing. Absence still concerns subjects and locations. Absence still concerns things. Absence itself is a condition, a thing.

…considering all things are absent of specific other things relative nothingness permeates all things.

That is a nonsensical statement.

Things themselves are things. That is not absence of things or nothingness. Nor are other things magically nullified because of a particular thing. Other things are simply in other locations. They are. That is presence, not absence. Certainly not nothingness.

Besides, all things are all things. There would be no absence of specific other things as it’s all things.

Absence of a thing is a relative no-thing, relative nothing.

For a chair to exist it has to not be the table other wise the table would be the chair and there would be no distinction of the two and the chair would cease as something would take its place.

The absence of a specific thing within another thing occurs through every single thing. Occurring through every single thing, relative nothingness permeates all things.

[daniel j lavender]

1.15.2025 Essay Revision

Life Paragraph Revision

Former

Life, consciousness, is simply a result of that…

Revised

Life, consciousness is simply part of that…