Existence Is Infinite

[daniel j lavender]

Obviously the Universe, Itself, is NOT just ONE SOLID 'piece of matter'. Which therefore MEANS there IS EXISTING a 'distance', or a 'space' between and around 'matter', at the smallest of perspectives or levels, and at the largest of perspectives or levels, for example, there is a distance or space between 'quarks' and 'leptons', as well as between and around 'stars' and 'galaxies'.

Now, this space, or distance, can be said or can be called an area of 'nothing', however, and obviously, 'this area of nothing' is ALSO A 'something'. It is JUST an area of apparent 'nothing' or 'no thing', which is in CONTRAST of an area of 'obvious matter'. But, and OBVIOUSLY, BOTH HAVE TO EXIST, or CO-EXIST WITH 'each other', FOR the Universe to BE 'the way' that It IS.

And, BECAUSE the Universe IS IN 'this way' HERE-NOW, then the Universe HAS TO BE IN 'this way' ALWAYS, or ETERNALLY.

Which, like WITH ALL of what I SAY and CLAIM, here, CAN BE and WILL BE PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, True, that is; IF absolutely ANY one IS Truly INTERESTED IN HAVING A FULLY OPEN and Honest DISCUSSION, here.

You are leaping from physicality, from materiality directly to nothingness, to nothing. You are discounting immateriality. Such an approach lacks gradient, it lacks subtlety, it lacks nuance and depth. One might as well take the position of something resulting from nothing.

This is philosophy, not physics.

Immateriality is part of what makes philosophy what philosophy is. The capacity, the liberty to explore beyond physics, to venture beyond the physical while incorporating such to gain a broader view of being. That’s the beauty of philosophy.

[Age]

The contrast of matter, of materiality is immateriality. Not nothingness.

If the first sentence, here, is true, then it could be said and argued that:

The contrast of some thing, of something is nothing. So, nothingness.

And, if so-called 'materiality' is also, literally, known by and called 'some thing', or 'something', then the contrast of 'some thing' is 'no thing', and the contrast of 'something' is, literally, 'nothing', which is also known by and called as 'nothingness'.

That this Fact does NOT FIT IN WITH your 'current' BELIEF/S, here, has NOT ACTUAL BEARING on what IS PROVABLE and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct, here.

[Age]

Obviously the Universe, Itself, is NOT just ONE SOLID 'piece of matter'. Which therefore MEANS there IS EXISTING a 'distance', or a 'space' between and around 'matter', at the smallest of perspectives or levels, and at the largest of perspectives or levels, for example, there is a distance or space between 'quarks' and 'leptons', as well as between and around 'stars' and 'galaxies'.

Now, this space, or distance, can be said or can be called an area of 'nothing', however, and obviously, 'this area of nothing' is ALSO A 'something'. It is JUST an area of apparent 'nothing' or 'no thing', which is in CONTRAST of an area of 'obvious matter'. But, and OBVIOUSLY, BOTH HAVE TO EXIST, or CO-EXIST WITH 'each other', FOR the Universe to BE 'the way' that It IS.

And, BECAUSE the Universe IS IN 'this way' HERE-NOW, then the Universe HAS TO BE IN 'this way' ALWAYS, or ETERNALLY.

Which, like WITH ALL of what I SAY and CLAIM, here, CAN BE and WILL BE PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, True, that is; IF absolutely ANY one IS Truly INTERESTED IN HAVING A FULLY OPEN and Honest DISCUSSION, here.

You are leaping from physicality, from materiality directly to nothingness, to nothing.

Have you been LEAPING FROM 'material' DIRECTLY TO 'immateriality'?

You are discounting immateriality.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This, here, is A PRIME example of WHY I KEEP SUGGESTING to these posters, here, to SEEK OUT and OBTAIN and GAIN ACTUAL CLARIFICATION BEFORE they ASSUME ABSOLUTELY ANY thing AT ALL.

I HAVE NEVER EVER DISCOUNTED so-called 'immateriality' AT ALL.

So, WHY DID you LEAP and JUMP TO SUCH AN ABSOLUTELY False AND Wrong CONCLUSION AS 'this' ONE IS?

Such an approach lacks gradient, it lacks subtlety, it lacks nuance and depth. One might as well take the position of something resulting from nothing.

And, it is this KIND OF ABSOLUTELY SKEWED, ILLOGICAL, AND ABSURD VIEWS, which FOLLOW OF FROM False AND Wrong CONCLUSIONS.

This is philosophy, not physics.

Well CONSIDERING THE IRREFUTABLE Fact that you are the ONLY ONE who INTRODUCED 'this', here, what you are SAYING 'now' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH me'.

Immateriality is part of what makes philosophy what philosophy is. The capacity, the liberty to explore beyond physics, to venture beyond the physical while incorporating such to gain a broader view of being. That’s the beauty of philosophy.

What?

you have FORGOTTEN what you PREVIOUSLY BELIEVED IS TRUE, and which you WERE 'TRYING TO' ARGUE and FIGHT FOR.

[daniel j lavender]

The contrast of matter, of materiality is immateriality. Not nothingness.

If the first sentence, here, is true, then it could be said and argued that:

The contrast of some thing, of something is nothing. So, nothingness.

And, if so-called 'materiality' is also, literally, known by and called 'some thing', or 'something', then the contrast of 'some thing' is 'no thing', and the contrast of 'something' is, literally, 'nothing', which is also known by and called as 'nothingness'.

Such could be said. Such wouldn’t necessarily be accurate.

The sentence differentiated between two contrasting things or categories. Materiality and immateriality. Material things and immaterial things.

Nothing cannot contrast anything because nothing does not exist.

Conceptually, at most, nothing may contrast something but both are concepts, they are conceptual counterparts. Both are things, both are existence thus not actually counterparts. Nor are they actually nothing.

Existence is all there is. Nothing is not and cannot be.

This has already been discussed: viewtopic.php?p=653553#p653553

[Age]

The contrast of matter, of materiality is immateriality. Not nothingness.

If the first sentence, here, is true, then it could be said and argued that:

The contrast of some thing, of something is nothing. So, nothingness.

And, if so-called 'materiality' is also, literally, known by and called 'some thing', or 'something', then the contrast of 'some thing' is 'no thing', and the contrast of 'something' is, literally, 'nothing', which is also known by and called as 'nothingness'.

Such could be said. Such wouldn’t necessarily be accurate.

The sentence differentiated between two contrasting things or categories. Materiality and immateriality. Material things and immaterial things.

Nothing cannot contrast anything because nothing does not exist.

LOL

you KEEP ON RE-REPEATING that 'nothing does not exist', ALTHOUGH I HAVE NEVER EVER SAID that 'nothing does exist'.

you KEEP 'TRYING TO' ARGUE AGAINST ONLY what you ARE SAYING, ALONE.

Conceptually, at most, nothing may contrast something but both are concepts, they are conceptual counterparts. Both are things, both are existence thus not actually counterparts. Nor are they actually nothing.

Existence is all there is. Nothing is not and cannot be.

So, to "daniel j lavender" anyway, there is NO 'matter', as 'existence' is ALL there is.

This has already been discussed: viewtopic.php?p=653553#p653553

LOL you, STILL, are FIGHTING AGAINST ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that I HAVE SAID and MEANT.

LOL you are, literally, here, FIGHTING AGAINST your OWN words, ALONE.

[Age]

Existence, like Life, like the Universe are infinite AND eternal.

The Universe, fundamentally, is made up of 'matter' AND 'space', which BOTH exist, and which BOTH have 'co-existed' ETERNALLY.

'Existence', Itself, is JUST the 'co-existence' of BOTH 'matter' AND 'space', which TOGETHER are the Universe. The Universe IS ALWAYS EXISTING and/or thus IN Existence, Itself. The Universe is ALSO ALIVE, and thus Life, Itself, which ALSO IS infinite AND eternal.

The Universe, Itself, like Life, Itself, and like Existence, Itself, are infinite AND eternal.

If there is ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that is HARD or COMPLEX to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, then I, REALLY, am COMPLETELY NOT SURE what that IS nor COULD BE, AT ALL.

[daniel j lavender]

Okay. And, what does this 'space', [volume, area, or a region of existence], consist of, exactly, and/or made up of, EXACTLY?

Space can be considered physical or immaterial depending on what is being discussed.

Also, and by the way, you may NOT YET HAVE NOTICED but what 'we' HAD ALREADY DISCUSSED, in those links what NOT 'material space' NOR 'immaterial space' AT ALL. What 'we' ACTUALLY DISCUSSED, in those posts, was 'immaterial expanse', INSTEAD.

Immaterial space and immaterial expanse are synonymous terms. Space and expanse are synonymous.

So, to "daniel j lavender" anyway, the WHOLE INFINITE Universe is made up of ONE, infinitely compressed, piece of material, or matter, ONLY. Or, in other words, OF ONE 'something', ALONE.

No.

Well this ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTS what you have STATED and CLAIMED, here, PREVIOUSLY.

False. You cannot provide any statement supporting your claim.

So, 'now', what are these, supposed, DIFFERENT 'various elements', EXACTLY, AND, what are these, supposed, DIFFERENT 'various components', EXACTLY?

Elements and components are used as synonymous terms.

To start we could list material things and immaterial things.

And, HOW are 'they' ALL SEPARATED FROM 'each other', EXACTLY? Namely, what IS the ACTUAL 'thing', itself, which SEPARATES ALL OF 'these things' FROM 'each other'.

In a sense all things are connected. However things can be differentiated by their perceived properties or qualities.

Now, AGAIN, if what you are SAYING and CLAIMING, here, WAS TRUE, then the WHOLE AREA, or the WHOLE EXPANSE, OF THE UNIVERSE IS OF SOME 'thing', and NOT 'NO thing'. Which, AGAIN, MEANS that the WHOLE EXPANSE and WHOLE AREA OF THE UNIVERSE IS OF ONE 'thing' ONLY, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO ACTUAL 'space' ANYWHERE.

The whole is existence. The whole is not “of some thing”. Whole is comprised of multiple parts or components. Space, volume, area, materiality and immateriality are present.

YES, 'we' CAN CONSIDER the areas of NO 'matter' AT ALL 'empty'. And, what are 'those areas' EMPTY OF, EXACTLY?

And, if 'those areas' are EMPTY OF 'matter', which IS OBVIOUSLY 'some thing', then 'those areas' may be considered 'free of matter', or 'free of some thing', which OBVIOUSLY correlates TO 'areas of NO thing'. Or, what some may consider 'areas of A nothingness'.

The immaterial space would be immaterial space, space free of matter or material composition. That would be a thing. Not no thing.

[Age]

Okay. And, what does this 'space', [volume, area, or a region of existence], consist of, exactly, and/or made up of, EXACTLY?

Space can be considered physical or immaterial depending on what is being discussed.

WHO CARES?

'Space' can ALSO be considered other things, depending on what is being discussed, AS WELL.

I ASKED you, What does this 'space' consist of, EXACTLY, and/or IS MADE UP OF, EXACTLY?

Let 'us' NOT FORGET that 'we' WERE talking ABOUT 'this space'.

Also, and by the way, you may NOT YET HAVE NOTICED but what 'we' HAD ALREADY DISCUSSED, in those links what NOT 'material space' NOR 'immaterial space' AT ALL. What 'we' ACTUALLY DISCUSSED, in those posts, was 'immaterial expanse', INSTEAD.

Immaterial space and immaterial expanse are synonymous terms. Space and expanse are synonymous.

GREAT. So, what IS 'space' and/or 'expanse' MADE UP OF, EXACTLY?

No.

Well this ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTS what you have STATED and CLAIMED, here, PREVIOUSLY.

False. You cannot provide any statement supporting your claim.

WHY do you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that I can NOT provide ANY statement of yours, supporting my CLAIM?

So, 'now', what are these, supposed, DIFFERENT 'various elements', EXACTLY, AND, what are these, supposed, DIFFERENT 'various components', EXACTLY?

Elements and components are used as synonymous terms.

To start we could list material things and immaterial things.

GREAT. Will you EVER START LISTING the VERY things that I ASKED you TO?

If no, then WHY NOT?

But, if yes, then WHEN will you, exactly?

you STALLING, here, is NOT HELPING you in ANY WAY, AT ALL.

And, HOW are 'they' ALL SEPARATED FROM 'each other', EXACTLY? Namely, what IS the ACTUAL 'thing', itself, which SEPARATES ALL OF 'these things' FROM 'each other'.

In a sense all things are connected.

YES, IN A SENSE they ARE.

But, UNTIL you ALSO KNOW HOW, EXACTLY, AND, ALSO KNOW HOW they are SEPARATED AS WELL, you are NOT ACTUALLY MOVING FORWARD and PROCEEDING, here.

However things can be differentiated by their perceived properties or qualities.

Like 'what', EXACTLY?

REMEMBER you are 'TRYING TO' CLAIM that what you BELIEVE, here, IS TRUE and RIGHT. So, AGAIN, I WILL SUGGEST that BEFORE you come here and 'TRY TO' CLAIM things, you OBTAIN ACTUAL PROOF and KNOWLEDGE that WILL back up and support what you BELIEVE TO BE ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Now, AGAIN, if what you are SAYING and CLAIMING, here, WAS TRUE, then the WHOLE AREA, or the WHOLE EXPANSE, OF THE UNIVERSE IS OF SOME 'thing', and NOT 'NO thing'. Which, AGAIN, MEANS that the WHOLE EXPANSE and WHOLE AREA OF THE UNIVERSE IS OF ONE 'thing' ONLY, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO ACTUAL 'space' ANYWHERE.

The whole is existence. The whole is not “of some thing”.

So, now AGAIN, you want to CLAIM that 'the whole', (of the Universe, for example), is NOT of 'some thing'.

Because 'the whole' can OBVIOUSLY being REFERRING TO the Universe, Itself. And, if you do NOT WANT TO RESPOND TO the ACTUAL WORDS that I SAY and USE, here, then 'you' are, literally, ON your OWN, here.

Whole is comprised of multiple parts or components.

The WHOLE OF 'what', EXACTLY?

Space, volume, area, materiality and immateriality are present.

WHERE and WHEN, EXACTLY?

YES, 'we' CAN CONSIDER the areas of NO 'matter' AT ALL 'empty'. And, what are 'those areas' EMPTY OF, EXACTLY?

And, if 'those areas' are EMPTY OF 'matter', which IS OBVIOUSLY 'some thing', then 'those areas' may be considered 'free of matter', or 'free of some thing', which OBVIOUSLY correlates TO 'areas of NO thing'. Or, what some may consider 'areas of A nothingness'.

The immaterial space would be immaterial space, space free of matter or material composition.

GREAT. So, you DO AGREE WITH what I have been SAYING, and CLAIMING, here.

That would be a thing. Not no thing.

What would be a 'thing', EXACTLY?

Also, HOW do you KNOW, FOR IRREFUTABLY SURE, that there EXISTS so-called 'immaterial space', EXACTLY?

[daniel j lavender]

So, to "daniel j lavender" anyway, there is NO 'matter', as 'existence' is ALL there is.

Existence includes matter. Matter is part of existence as conveyed in the original essay.

Existence, like Life, like the Universe are infinite AND eternal.

The Universe, fundamentally, is made up of 'matter' AND 'space', which BOTH exist, and which BOTH have 'co-existed' ETERNALLY.

'Existence', Itself, is JUST the 'co-existence' of BOTH 'matter' AND 'space', which TOGETHER are the Universe. The Universe IS ALWAYS EXISTING and/or thus IN Existence, Itself. The Universe is ALSO ALIVE, and thus Life, Itself, which ALSO IS infinite AND eternal.

The Universe, Itself, like Life, Itself, and like Existence, Itself, are infinite AND eternal.

If there is ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that is HARD or COMPLEX to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, then I, REALLY, am COMPLETELY NOT SURE what that IS nor COULD BE, AT ALL.

This is fairly accurate.

However life is not necessarily infinite. A soda can is not life, for example. Nor is the universe necessarily infinite or eternal.

[daniel j lavender]

I ASKED you, What does this 'space' consist of, EXACTLY, and/or IS MADE UP OF, EXACTLY?

Physical space, or a physical volume, or a physical object consists of atoms, molecules, etcetera. Physical or material is tangible.

Immaterial space, or an immaterial volume is immaterial or nonphysical and lacks physical components such as atoms. Immaterial space does not consist of parts in the same way. Immaterial is intangible.

Well this ABSOLUTELY CONTRADICTS what you have STATED and CLAIMED, here, PREVIOUSLY.

False. You cannot provide any statement supporting your claim.

WHY do you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that I can NOT provide ANY statement of yours, supporting my CLAIM?

Because you have not and will not.

Also, HOW do you KNOW, FOR IRREFUTABLY SURE, that there EXISTS so-called 'immaterial space', EXACTLY?

It is perceived. It is discussed here in conversation. It’s apparent in the density variance of things. Air is less dense than quartz. Different objects, different regions of existence exhibit various densities due to various amounts of immaterial space.

It’s observed in the distance among planetary and celestial bodies. It can be observed in the motion, in the interactions of things. Some things glide elegantly, effortlessly through low density air. Others dig violently into unforgiving, dense terrain.

[Age]

So, to "daniel j lavender" anyway, there is NO 'matter', as 'existence' is ALL there is.

Existence includes matter. Matter is part of existence as conveyed in the original essay.

Existence, like Life, like the Universe are infinite AND eternal.

The Universe, fundamentally, is made up of 'matter' AND 'space', which BOTH exist, and which BOTH have 'co-existed' ETERNALLY.

'Existence', Itself, is JUST the 'co-existence' of BOTH 'matter' AND 'space', which TOGETHER are the Universe. The Universe IS ALWAYS EXISTING and/or thus IN Existence, Itself. The Universe is ALSO ALIVE, and thus Life, Itself, which ALSO IS infinite AND eternal.

The Universe, Itself, like Life, Itself, and like Existence, Itself, are infinite AND eternal.

If there is ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that is HARD or COMPLEX to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, then I, REALLY, am COMPLETELY NOT SURE what that IS nor COULD BE, AT ALL.

This is fairly accurate.

However life is not necessarily infinite. A soda can is not life, for example. Nor is the universe necessarily infinite or eternal.

ONCE AGAIN, the Universe, Itself, and Life, Itself, are infinite AND eternal. This has ALREADY BEEN PROVED True, and therefore can NOT be refuted.

A soda can, like EVERY thing ELSE is ALIVE, and LIVING, and therefore IS 'life'. you human beings tend to ONLY 'look at' and 'see' things from a VERY NARROWED perspective and so do NOT 'see' things for what they REALLY ARE.

And, ONCE MORE, if ABSOLUTELY ANY one is Truly INTERESTED, here, and would like to have A DISCUSSION, then let 'us' PROCEED.

[Age]

I ASKED you, What does this 'space' consist of, EXACTLY, and/or IS MADE UP OF, EXACTLY?

Physical space, or a physical volume, or a physical object consists of atoms, molecules, etcetera. Physical or material is tangible.

And, what are 'atoms' and 'molecules', and whatever the 'etcetera' word is referring to, MADE UP OF, EXACTLY?

And, is so-called 'physical space' MADE UP the EXACT SAME 'thing' that ALL 'physicality' is MADE UP OF?

Immaterial space, or an immaterial volume is immaterial or nonphysical and lacks physical components such as atoms. Immaterial space does not consist of parts in the same way. Immaterial is intangible.

Are you AWARE of just HOW RIDICULOUS you are BEING, here?

POINT TO, with words, or LIST, WHERE, EXACTLY, there IS 'space' that is 'physical' AND WHERE there IS 'space' that is NOT 'physical'.

False. You cannot provide any statement supporting your claim.

WHY do you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that I can NOT provide ANY statement of yours, supporting my CLAIM?

Because you have not and will not.

LOL What 'we' have, here, is ANOTHER PRIME example of HOW and WHERE when one BELIEVES some thing is true, they are NOT OPEN to ANY thing CONTRARY nor OPPOSING.

OBVIOUSLY I HAVE NOT, but 'this' NEVER EVER MEANS that I CAN NOT NOR WILL NOT.

Also, HOW do you KNOW, FOR IRREFUTABLY SURE, that there EXISTS so-called 'immaterial space', EXACTLY?

It is perceived.

LOL you human beings used to PERCEIVE the world is flat, the earth is at the center of the Universe, the sun revolves around the earth, the Universe began, and the Universe expands. What is PERCEIVED is NEVER EVER necessarily True, Right, Accurate, NOR Correct.

It is discussed here in conversation.

Are you some kind of ABSOLUTELY IDIOT?

I ASKED you, HOW do you KNOW, FOR IRREFUTABLY SURE, ABOUT some thing, and you respond WITH, 'It is perceived', and, 'it is discussed here in conversation'.

FOR your INFORMATION, JUST BECAUSE some thing is perceived and/or discussed, anywhere, NEVER EVER means that 'that thing' EXISTS NOR IS TRUE.

For example God IS PERCEIVED TO BE A 'man', and, God IS A 'man' IS DISCUSSED. So, to you, does this MEAN, and MAKE, God A 'man', for example?

It’s apparent in the density variance of things. Air is less dense than quartz. Different objects, different regions of existence exhibit various densities due to various amounts of immaterial space.

SO WHAT?

WHERE IS THE IRREFUTABLE PROOF that 'space', itself, IS IMMATERIAL?

you REALLY DO HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE JUST ANSWERING and CLARIFYING the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTIONS THAT I ASK you, here.

It’s observed in the distance among planetary and celestial bodies.

The earth is OBSERVED to be flat. The sun is OBSERVED to be going around the earth. So, doe this MEAN that what IS OBSERVED is ACTUALLY True AND Right, and EVEN IRREFUTABLE?

It can be observed in the motion, in the interactions of things.

AGAIN, so what you OBSERVE MUST BE TRUE, RIGHT, ACCURATE, and CORRECT, correct?

Some things glide elegantly, effortlessly through low density air. Others dig violently into unforgiving, dense terrain.

you appear to have NOT understood the ACTUAL CLARIFYING QUESTION that I ASKED you, above here. Here, I WILL REPEAT it FOR you.
HOW do you KNOW, FOR IRREFUTABLY SURE, that there EXISTS so-called 'immaterial space', EXACTLY?

Or, in other words, do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF that 'space' IS 'immaterial'?

If yes, then GREAT, WILL you PROVIDE 'that proof', here, in this thread?

Also, and while 'we' are DISCUSSING 'space', itself. HOW do you DIFFERENTIATE between what you call 'material space' AND 'immaterial space', EXACTLY?

And, WILL you PROVIDE ACTUAL examples of the so-claimed DIFFERENT 'spaces', and EXPLAIN WHERE the so-claimed DIFFERENT 'spaces' ARE, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?

[daniel j lavender]

So, to "daniel j lavender" anyway, there is NO 'matter', as 'existence' is ALL there is.

Existence includes matter. Matter is part of existence as conveyed in the original essay.

Existence, like Life, like the Universe are infinite AND eternal.

The Universe, fundamentally, is made up of 'matter' AND 'space', which BOTH exist, and which BOTH have 'co-existed' ETERNALLY.

'Existence', Itself, is JUST the 'co-existence' of BOTH 'matter' AND 'space', which TOGETHER are the Universe. The Universe IS ALWAYS EXISTING and/or thus IN Existence, Itself. The Universe is ALSO ALIVE, and thus Life, Itself, which ALSO IS infinite AND eternal.

The Universe, Itself, like Life, Itself, and like Existence, Itself, are infinite AND eternal.

If there is ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that is HARD or COMPLEX to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, then I, REALLY, am COMPLETELY NOT SURE what that IS nor COULD BE, AT ALL.

This is fairly accurate.

However life is not necessarily infinite. A soda can is not life, for example. Nor is the universe necessarily infinite or eternal.

ONCE AGAIN, the Universe, Itself, and Life, Itself, are infinite AND eternal. This has ALREADY BEEN PROVED True, and therefore can NOT be refuted.

Where has this been proven true? How has this been proven true?

It’s difficult discussing these subjects with you because you do not explicitly define terms.

What is the universe? What is life?

The universe is simply a system. Similar to a video game universe. Like Super Mario 64. A developer could exist beyond the system as a developer exists beyond the video game console. Existence allows and encompasses such an arrangement. The limited term “universe” does not.

A soda can, like EVERY thing ELSE is ALIVE, and LIVING, and therefore IS 'life'. you human beings tend to ONLY 'look at' and 'see' things from a VERY NARROWED perspective and so do NOT 'see' things for what they REALLY ARE.

A soda can exhibits no vital signs or characteristics of a living organism.

A fingernail is part of a living being yet the fingernail is not alive.

To claim the universe is alive does not reconcile this issue. Life is not infinite. This is apparent by the presence of death.

I ASKED you, What does this 'space' consist of, EXACTLY, and/or IS MADE UP OF, EXACTLY?

Physical space, or a physical volume, or a physical object consists of atoms, molecules, etcetera. Physical or material is tangible.

And, what are 'atoms' and 'molecules', and whatever the 'etcetera' word is referring to, MADE UP OF, EXACTLY?

Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are comprised of protons, electrons and neutrons. One may continue dissecting. There is no point at which nonexistence is reached. Existence is not limited due to limitations of an observer.

Immaterial space, or an immaterial volume is immaterial or nonphysical and lacks physical components such as atoms. Immaterial space does not consist of parts in the same way. Immaterial is intangible.

POINT TO, with words, or LIST, WHERE, EXACTLY, there IS 'space' that is 'physical' AND WHERE there IS 'space' that is NOT 'physical'.

Physical space: an ocean. Immaterial space: outer space.

[Age]

Existence includes matter. Matter is part of existence as conveyed in the original essay.




This is fairly accurate.

However life is not necessarily infinite. A soda can is not life, for example. Nor is the universe necessarily infinite or eternal.

ONCE AGAIN, the Universe, Itself, and Life, Itself, are infinite AND eternal. This has ALREADY BEEN PROVED True, and therefore can NOT be refuted.

Where has this been proven true? How has this been proven true?

In 'causality', or 'cause and effect'. It is IMPOSSIBLE for ANY thing to come FROM NO thing, or FROM nothing. Even you keep TELLING 'us' that 'nothing', 'nothingness', or 'no thing' does NOT even exist. Therefore, there WAS and IS ALWAYS some thing PRIOR, or BEFORE, EVERY other thing. Therefore, the Universe, which is ALIVE, and thus 'Life', Itself, and which is EXISTING, MEANS that the Universe, Itself, like Life, Itself, and like Existence, Itself, are eternal.

For when one 'looks out', as far as one can SEE, it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to be ANY ACTUAL 'boundary' or 'edge' at ANY 'distance' AT ALL. In fact if one was to imagine a line between the most other perceived planets, stars, or other objects, then what is obviously between and around those objects is 'space', itself. Which;

1. Obviously does NOT have ANY 'edge' NOR 'boundary' to 'i't (besides of course the particles or objects of 'matter', themselves. So, forever extending IS 'space', itself.

2. Because light diminishes over distance, even if one could see the perceived the out most stars, planets, or other objects, then that is NOT known to be the 'edge' NOR 'boundary' of the Universe, Itself. The Universe IS therefore infinite, AS WELL AS eternal.

And, because the 'Universe', Itself, is infinite, and ALIVE, and EXISTING, then so to is 'Life', Itself, AND 'Existence', Itself, ALSO infinite.

Now, if these are NOT 'proof', to you, then WHY NOT, EXACTLY?

It’s difficult discussing these subjects with you because you do not explicitly define terms.

Have you EVER ASKED me for defined terms or even EXPLICITLY DEFINED terms?

if no, then WHY NOT?

What is the universe? What is life?

FINALLY. To me,

The word 'Universe' refers to, 'Everything'; 'TOTALITY; ALL-THERE-IS

The word 'Life' refers to, living; being alive.

In fact, 'The meaning of life', LITERALLY IS and MEANS, 'living; being alive'.

The universe is simply a system.

LOL you criticize your discussions, with me, because I, supposedly, do NOT explicitly define terms, EVEN WHEN NEVER ASKED TO. THEN you ASKED me what is the universe, and, what is life, but THEN STRAIGHTAWAY you go and TELL 'us' what the universe is.

OBVIOUSLY you DID NOT WANT TO HEAR my 'defined terms', anyway.

Similar to a video game universe. Like Super Mario 64. A developer could exist beyond the system as a developer exists beyond the video game console.

BUT, NOT WHEN the Universe IS, and MEANS, 'ALL' AND 'Everything'.

Also, you human beings COULD BE living within a 'computer game', which was developed and Created by some 'one/thing' ELSE. HOWEVER, 'this', STILL, ALL PLAYS OUT WITHIN the Universe, Itself, OBVIOUSLY.

Existence allows and encompasses such an arrangement.

So, to does the Fact that the word 'Universe', literally MEANS, ALL 'things', as the TOTALITY OF EVERY 'thing', and OF ALL-there is, as One Thing. The word 'Uni' REFERRING TO One. Meaning the Universe IS the One 'Everything', when and after EVERY 'thing' has, literally, come-together, as One.

The limited term “universe” does not.

Since when has the term 'Universe' EVER BEEN 'limited'. And, WHY do you SEE that term as BEING 'limited'.

By the way, I AGREE, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, that the term 'universe' IS 'limited'. But, the term 'Universe' is CERTAINLY NOT 'limited' AT ALL NOR IN ABSOLUTELY ANY WAY WHATSOEVER.

A soda can, like EVERY thing ELSE is ALIVE, and LIVING, and therefore IS 'life'. you human beings tend to ONLY 'look at' and 'see' things from a VERY NARROWED perspective and so do NOT 'see' things for what they REALLY ARE.

A soda can exhibits no vital signs or characteristics of a living organism.

And, what are the, EXACTLY, so-called and so-claimed 'vital signs or characteristics of what is called A 'living organism'?

And, to you, are ONLY 'organisms' ALIVE?

A fingernail is part of a living being yet the fingernail is not alive.

Do finger nails GROW and CHANGE?

If yes, then why, EXACTLY, are finger nails NOT 'alive', TO you?

To claim the universe is alive does not reconcile this issue. Life is not infinite. This is apparent by the presence of death.

LOL OBVIOUSLY you have, ALSO, NOT YET DELVED INTO and LOOKED INTO, FULLY, what 'death', itself, ACTUALLY IS, EXACTLY?

Physical space, or a physical volume, or a physical object consists of atoms, molecules, etcetera. Physical or material is tangible.

And, what are 'atoms' and 'molecules', and whatever the 'etcetera' word is referring to, MADE UP OF, EXACTLY?

Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are comprised of protons, electrons and neutrons.

AND, what are 'these things' MADE UP, EXACTLY?

One may continue dissecting.

you MAY. But, some of 'us' have ALREADY DONE this.

Now, if you would like to DELVE INTO and LOOK INTO 'this' FURTHER and DEEPER, then, and ONLY THEN, will you become WISER.

There is no point at which nonexistence is reached.

This IS A TYPICAL RESPONSE, FROM one WITH AN ALREADY EXISTING BELIEF and/or PRESUMPTION.

And, what 'we' can CLEARLY SEE, here, is ANOTHER PRIME example of just HOW CLOSED and/or NARROWED 'these ones' VIEWS and PERSPECTIVES REALLY ARE.

Existence is not limited due to limitations of an observer.

LOOK "daniel j lavender", if you REALLY WANT TO BELIEVE what you OBVIOUSLY DO, here, then, BY ALL MEANS, KEEP ON BELIEVING what you DO.

I have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST AT ALL in WANTING TO MAKE you CHANGE your BELIEFS nor PRESUMPTIONS. So, you are, LITERALLY, ABSOLUTELY FREE TO PRESUME AND BELIEF WHATEVER YOU WANT TO, here.

Immaterial space, or an immaterial volume is immaterial or nonphysical and lacks physical components such as atoms. Immaterial space does not consist of parts in the same way. Immaterial is intangible.

POINT TO, with words, or LIST, WHERE, EXACTLY, there IS 'space' that is 'physical' AND WHERE there IS 'space' that is NOT 'physical'.

Physical space: an ocean. Immaterial space: outer space.

GREAT. 'We', FINALLY, 'got here'.

Now, just so you BECOME AWARE, some might SAY and CLAIM that so-called 'outer space' IS 'physical'.

And, HOW FAR does one have to ACTUALLY TRAVEL TO REACH what you have called and labelled 'outer space', EXACTLY?

[Eodnhoj7]

If a thing occurs through not being another thing than this absence is a relative no-thing.

The thing is a thing. That is a thing, not absence of a thing.

Nothingness as absence is a thing, nothingness exists.

Absence and nothingness are not the same. Absence is a circumstance or condition and can be observed. Bob’s absence from class Tuesday was acknowledged or observed by students, for example. Still only things occupied the room, students, desks, books, air, etcetera. All people and items referenced, Bob, class, the students, etcetera, are things, are existence. Nothingness, nonexistence, nothing is not and cannot be to be observed or referenced.

Relative nothingness is nonsensical, it is contradictory. It is relative meaning it involves other things. Its own terminology implicitly acknowledges other things thus indicating no actual absence or lack.

Your own example illustrates this. The chair example, for instance. You claim relative nothingness because the chair is not a table. However in that very claim another thing, a table, is acknowledged as a point of identification for the chair. Other things are included thus they are not lacking. Relative nothingness negates itselfthinness?



____________________

Relative Nothingness is a thing as it is a relative absence. If it is a thing it is relative, an absence is relative as it is a thing.

.....an absence is a thing, all things exist, nothingness is an absence, nothingness is a thing, nothingness exists....

Are you going to argue nothingness is not an absence of thingness?


Dude....your thesis contains contradictions that it does not want, get over it. Nothingness exists as there is an absence in all things that allows them to occur as distinct.