Existence Is Infinite

[daniel j lavender]

The presence of x means an absence of something else for if something else where present than x could not be there an hence absent. Given the infinite number of things there is a corresponding, if not exponential, number of absences of other things.

However all things are all things, including the concept of absence itself, and lack no thing. In other words there is no actual absence.

In simple terms the presence of a tree in a specific time and space is the absence of a car in that specific time and space.

A thing is distinct by standing apart from another thing, this standing apart of the distinct things means the other things are absent in said thing, hence the "standing apart" as seperation, or absence.

As stated you are attempting to limit existence to only one thing or only one location then using that as excuse to introduce nothingness. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to only one thing or only one location thus there is no excuse for introducing nothingness.

An absence is a lack of a thing, a lack of a thing is a relative no-thing or a relative nothing. For example a tree is an absence of the thing known as car, there is a relative no-thing as there is no thing as the car being there.

Absence is not necessarily lack of a thing. Absence concerns a subject, time and location. All things involved are still things and present in some capacity. For example Taylor is absent from class. However Taylor is still present at school.

Relative nothing 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. In your own statement, in the same sentence you acknowledge both the tree and the car indicating the presence of both. Whether the tree or the car, wherever they are, both are things. Neither is no thing. And both are present within your own proclamation.

Or in even simpler terms everything you use the word "nothing" you are making the distinction of "absence of being". Nothingness is a distinction and exists because of this.

However it is only a distinction. A concept. A contradictory concept. A construct of the mind. Nothingness, nonexistence does not actually exist. There is no absence of being.

Distinction, as discussed on the previous page, concerns things or parts of existence. Existence itself requires no distinction.

You are arguing against the very distinction you need to argue against, your argument against nothing is because of and related to nothing.

Nothing is not to argue against.

This is an exposition of existence.

[Eodnhoj7]

The presence of x means an absence of something else for if something else where present than x could not be there an hence absent. Given the infinite number of things there is a corresponding, if not exponential, number of absences of other things.

However all things are all things, including the concept of absence itself, and lack no thing. In other words there is no actual absence.

In simple terms the presence of a tree in a specific time and space is the absence of a car in that specific time and space.

A thing is distinct by standing apart from another thing, this standing apart of the distinct things means the other things are absent in said thing, hence the "standing apart" as seperation, or absence.

As stated you are attempting to limit existence to only one thing or only one location then using that as excuse to introduce nothingness. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to only one thing or only one location thus there is no excuse for introducing nothingness.

An absence is a lack of a thing, a lack of a thing is a relative no-thing or a relative nothing. For example a tree is an absence of the thing known as car, there is a relative no-thing as there is no thing as the car being there.

Absence is not necessarily lack of a thing. Absence concerns a subject, time and location. All things involved are still things and present in some capacity. For example Taylor is absent from class. However Taylor is still present at school.

Relative nothing 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. In your own statement, in the same sentence you acknowledge both the tree and the car indicating the presence of both. Whether the tree or the car, wherever they are, both are things. Neither is no thing. And both are present within your own proclamation.

Or in even simpler terms everything you use the word "nothing" you are making the distinction of "absence of being". Nothingness is a distinction and exists because of this.

However it is only a distinction. A concept. A contradictory concept. A construct of the mind. Nothingness, nonexistence does not actually exist. There is no absence of being.

Distinction, as discussed on the previous page, concerns things or parts of existence. Existence itself requires no distinction.

You are arguing against the very distinction you need to argue against, your argument against nothing is because of and related to nothing.

Nothing is not to argue against.

This is an exposition of existence.

Concepts exist as concepts. Empirical experiences are reduced to concepts given only now occurs. You eating breakfast this morning is merely reduced to a conceptual memory.

Distinctions exist regardless of whether not they are required, if distinctions are not required than by default your thesis s meaningless as it is not required.

The concept of "existence" is a distinction, if it is not a distinction than your thesis is meaningless.

You are not very bright are you? Relative nothingness is the absence of one or more things. A tree exists in a certain time and space as a car or house is absent in that same time and space as the tree. All absences are relative, there is no Taylor swift in class.

Things are relative, existence is relative given it is relational.

[daniel j lavender]

Concepts exist as concepts. Empirical experiences are reduced to concepts given only now occurs. You eating breakfast this morning is merely reduced to a conceptual memory.

Both the empirical experiences and the concepts are. Reduction of one to the other does not result in negation of the first.

An event, such as eating breakfast, is part of existence whether it is perceived to have occurred in the past or perceived as an event of the future. All things are parts of existence.

Distinctions exist regardless of whether not they are required, if distinctions are not required than by default your thesis s meaningless as it is not required.

The concept of "existence" is a distinction, if it is not a distinction than your thesis is meaningless.

Correct. The concept existence is a distinction. The concept nonexistence is a distinction as well. Those are concepts. Those are conceptual counterparts.

However nonexistence does not actually exist. The concept nonexistence is a thing, a concept, not nothing or actual nonexistence.

As explained previously concepts can have counterparts. Existence itself requires no counterpart or distinction. Any counterpart or distinction would be a thing, would be part of existence. This was discussed here: viewtopic.php?p=653691#p653691

Relative nothingness is the absence of one or more things. A tree exists in a certain time and space as a car or house is absent in that same time and space as the tree. All absences are relative, there is no Taylor swift in class.

But as expressed things are not really absent. Things are parts of existence regardless of location and time.

Relative nothingness is nonsensical.

You are claiming absence of things by referencing presence of those very things.

You acknowledge the presence of a car and house to justify the presence of a tree. If the car or house were truly absent one would not be able to reference them. You present such items with your own premise; you substantiate the presence of those very things to substantiate the presence of the other indicating their presence.

Again you are attempting to limit existence in order to introduce nothingness. To say a student is absent from class is one thing. However you are taking that premise and forcing nothingness into the class although the class is still comprised of only things with absence itself being one of those things.

Things are relative, existence is relative given it is relational.

Things are relative. Existence just is.

[Eodnhoj7]

Concepts exist as concepts. Empirical experiences are reduced to concepts given only now occurs. You eating breakfast this morning is merely reduced to a conceptual memory.

Both the empirical experiences and the concepts are. Reduction of one to the other does not result in negation of the first.

An event, such as eating breakfast, is part of existence whether it is perceived to have occurred in the past or perceived as an event of the future. All things are parts of existence.

Distinctions exist regardless of whether not they are required, if distinctions are not required than by default your thesis s meaningless as it is not required.

The concept of "existence" is a distinction, if it is not a distinction than your thesis is meaningless.

Correct. The concept existence is a distinction. The concept nonexistence is a distinction as well. Those are concepts. Those are conceptual counterparts.

However nonexistence does not actually exist. The concept nonexistence is a thing, a concept, not nothing or actual nonexistence.

As explained previously concepts can have counterparts. Existence itself requires no counterpart or distinction. Any counterpart or distinction would be a thing, would be part of existence. This was discussed here: viewtopic.php?p=653691#p653691

Relative nothingness is the absence of one or more things. A tree exists in a certain time and space as a car or house is absent in that same time and space as the tree. All absences are relative, there is no Taylor swift in class.

But as expressed things are not really absent. Things are parts of existence regardless of location and time.

Relative nothingness is nonsensical.

You are claiming absence of things by referencing presence of those very things.

You acknowledge the presence of a car and house to justify the presence of a tree. If the car or house were truly absent one would not be able to reference them. You present such items with your own premise; you substantiate the presence of those very things to substantiate the presence of the other indicating their presence.

Again you are attempting to limit existence in order to introduce nothingness. To say a student is absent from class is one thing. However you are taking that premise and forcing nothingness into the class although the class is still comprised of only things with absence itself being one of those things.

Things are relative, existence is relative given it is relational.

Things are relative. Existence just is.

Your past experience of driving in a car is purely conceptual. All past and future experiences are purely conceptual.

What is actual existence other than experience occuring? The distinction of nothingness occurs, it is experienced, thus it exists. Existence is only distinct by contrast thus necessitate nothingness existing and a paradox results. It is by contrast things exist and contrast embodies all forms of paradox, both congruent and incongruent.

I am trying to find a way in which your these does not involve the various forms of paradox and there is not a way.

Given existence is a thing it is relative as well and this relational element points to the necessity of the relative thing being defined by what it is not.

[daniel j lavender]

Your past experience of driving in a car is purely conceptual. All past and future experiences are purely conceptual.

Driving a car is driving a car. The memory or concept of driving is a memory or concept of driving.

The event, whenever it occurs, is part of existence. The memory or concept is part of existence as well.

Memory of an event does not magically erase the event. Conceptualization of the event does not magically erase the event.

Given existence is a thing it is relative as well and this relational element points to the necessity of the relative thing being defined by what it is not.

Existence is not only a thing. Existence is all things. Including the concept existence which is a thing and does have a conceptual counterpart nonexistence. Those, as things, are relative.

A thing is defined by what it is. Even to argue that a thing is defined by what it is not is to reference said thing and other things and qualities which are. All instances of existence, not nothingness.

Relative nothingness

The better term would be “relative other-thingness”.

[Eodnhoj7]

Your past experience of driving in a car is purely conceptual. All past and future experiences are purely conceptual.

Driving a car is driving a car. The memory or concept of driving is a memory or concept of driving.

The event, whenever it occurs, is part of existence. The memory or concept is part of existence as well.

Memory of an event does not magically erase the event. Conceptualization of the event does not magically erase the event.

Given existence is a thing it is relative as well and this relational element points to the necessity of the relative thing being defined by what it is not.

Existence is not only a thing. Existence is all things. Including the concept existence which is a thing and does have a conceptual counterpart nonexistence. Those, as things, are relative.

A thing is defined by what it is. Even to argue that a thing is defined by what it is not is to reference said thing and other things and qualities which are. All instances of existence, not nothingness.

Relative nothingness

The better term would be “relative other-thingness”.

Conceptualization is reduced from experience as a meta-experience, beyond the current moment all empirical realities are reduced to conception as memory.

Given memories distort or enhance the event what we understand of now is merely a transition of the memory through the current awareness of it.

If existence is all things, than it is all concepts, and the paradoxical nature of changing memories and imagining results in existence being fluid. This fluid nature necessitates a non-fixed state.

The term "other thing-ness" necessitates an absence of a specific thing by which the other occurs. This is a relative absence, a relative "no-thing". Given things are infinite and relational, and all things are distinct through contrast as a form of standing apart, there is infinite relative 'no-things' by default as there are infinite absences of things..there is infinite nothingness.

[daniel j lavender]

Conceptualization is reduced from experience as a meta-experience, beyond the current moment all empirical realities are reduced to conception as memory.

Beyond the current moment is the key phrase. You must qualify, you must limit all involved because beyond the current moment those things are. The events beyond the moment, beyond the memories and concepts are parts of existence.

The term "other thing-ness" necessitates an absence of a specific thing by which the other occurs. This is a relative absence, a relative "no-thing".

Absence is not nothing or no thing. Absence is absence. Nor does absence imply nothing or nothingness.

Recall the car and tree example used earlier. The car is not nothing. The tree is not nothing. Nor are they relatively nothing or relatively nothingness.

The car is relatively expensive relative to the tree. The tree is relatively tall relative to the car. The car is relatively loud relative to the tree. The tree is relatively stationary relative to the car and so forth. In other words all relative characteristics are obtained from things, not from nothing or from no thing.

Only things are involved. Nothing or nothingness must be awkwardly forced into the equation as your argumentation clearly reveals.

Relative nothingness claims lack of things. However it only utilizes, and thus illustrates the presence of things.

Relative nothingness is nonsensical, in fact superfluous. The terms “relative” and “relatively” are sufficient.

Given things are infinite…

Things are finite. Existence is infinite.

[Age]

Not at all..

Why do you say and claim, 'Not at all'?

Are you now 'trying to' tell others what they are seeing, and/or what they are not seeing?

Apparently that was your intent as evident by your comment.

What was my, supposed, apparent intent, exactly, which is evident, by you alone, and, in which one of my comments, exactly?

LOL

I have NEVER EVER even suggested that ANY of them is nothing, let alone SAID or WROTE that.

WHY are you finding things so hard and so complex to FOLLOW, here?

You concede none of it is actually nothing yet refer to it as nothing anyway.

It’s an example of sloppy language as stated.

And, if you REALLY, STILL, can NOT SEE WHERE you have been CONTRADICTING "yourself" above, here, then okay.

Identify the contradiction.

Okay, if you say so. Now, what are 'atoms' comprised of, EXACTLY?

This has been discussed. For a crash course on physics use a search engine.

The point is nothing, or nonexistence, is never reached.

As expressed:

All things are parts of existence. All constituent parts of things are parts of existence.

The statement is valid: It’s existence all the way down.

It’s emphasizing the premise that all there is is existence. Things are parts of existence, the constituent parts of things are parts of existence. There is no point in which nothing, nothingness or nonexistence is reached.

Until you put at least some effort into obtaining clarification, here, you will keep doing what you are, here, which is you keep missing, miscomprehending, and/or misunderstanding what is actually being said, and meant.

[Eodnhoj7]

Conceptualization is reduced from experience as a meta-experience, beyond the current moment all empirical realities are reduced to conception as memory.

Beyond the current moment is the key phrase. You must qualify, you must limit all involved because beyond the current moment those things are. The events beyond the moment, beyond the memories and concepts are parts of existence.

The term "other thing-ness" necessitates an absence of a specific thing by which the other occurs. This is a relative absence, a relative "no-thing".

Absence is not nothing or no thing. Absence is absence. Nor does absence imply nothing or nothingness.

Recall the car and tree example used earlier. The car is not nothing. The tree is not nothing. Nor are they relatively nothing or relatively nothingness.

The car is relatively expensive relative to the tree. The tree is relatively tall relative to the car. The car is relatively loud relative to the tree. The tree is relatively stationary relative to the car and so forth. In other words all relative characteristics are obtained from things, not from nothing or from no thing.

Only things are involved. Nothing or nothingness must be awkwardly forced into the equation as your argumentation clearly reveals.

Relative nothingness claims lack of things. However it only utilizes, and thus illustrates the presence of things.

Relative nothingness is nonsensical, in fact superfluous. The terms “relative” and “relatively” are sufficient.

Given things are infinite…

Things are finite. Existence is infinite.

Facepalm....so is absence the lack of a thing?

There are infinite things and infinite anyone thing as there are infinite variations of it that maintain it.

[Age]

Things are finite. Existence is infinite.

So, if 'things' are finite, and, 'Existence' is infinite, then 'Existence' is NOT A 'thing'. Well to "daniel j lavender" anyway.

[Fairy]

Things are finite. Existence is infinite.

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

If there is something there is not nothing. Anywhere. Nothing or nonexistence exists only as a word, a term, a concept in relation to other things.

If there is only something, then is this something a thing, as in there is some thing existing?

[Eodnhoj7]

Things are finite. Existence is infinite.

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

If there is something there is not nothing. Anywhere. Nothing or nonexistence exists only as a word, a term, a concept in relation to other things.

If there is only something, then is this something a thing, as in there is some thing existing?

He doesn't understand that for a thing to exist there has to be an absence of another thing for a thing to occur. A tree occurs because it is not a car. This absence of a thing is a relative no thing. He argues that absence is a thing, and he is right, but it leads him to a paradox as the absence of a thing is a 'relative nothing' thus nothingness exists.

I am half tempted to pull up and AI explanation of this when I am not on a phone....but even then he would just condemn the AI...even thought it is about as neutral of an observer one can get.

[Fairy]

Things are finite. Existence is infinite.

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

If there is something there is not nothing. Anywhere. Nothing or nonexistence exists only as a word, a term, a concept in relation to other things.

If there is only something, then is this something a thing, as in there is some thing existing?

He doesn't understand that for a thing to exist there has to be an absence of another thing for a thing to occur. A tree occurs because it is not a car. This absence of a thing is a relative no thing. He argues that absence is a thing, and he is right, but it leads him to a paradox as the absence of a thing is a 'relative nothing' thus nothingness exists.

I am half tempted to pull up and AI explanation of this when I am not on a phone....but even then he would just condemn the AI...even thought it is about as neutral of an observer one can get.

The paradox is unavoidable as both nothing and something are both things; which share a dependency on the idea of thing.

[Fairy]

Both something and nothing need each other to exist. They are two things known. The conceptual mind is the illusory divider of the whole. Division is like two things, or, like two halves of the one whole. The division is illusory, because a whole can never become anything less than itself, no matter how many pieces are crafted from the whole. A whole divided, simply crafts another whole, the division is simply illusory, because what is whole can never be divided or the whole wouldn't be a whole.

The way the illusion of separation works is simple: For one thing to exist, the other thing must also exist, but the other thing must stay hidden. Both things cannot be on show at the same time, just as light and darkness cannot coexist at exactly the same time, any yet still need each other to exist.
A paradox indeed.

[daniel j lavender]

....so is absence the lack of a thing?

Absence concerns reference to a subject, to an existent thing and its location. The subject of reference is not nonexistence or nothing; neither nonexistence nor nothing have location or presence to be referenced in such a way.

Absence is not necessarily lack of a thing. Absence concerns a subject, time and location. All things involved are still things and present in some capacity.