Existence Is Infinite

[daniel j lavender]

Discussion Topic Index

Perfection Defined
What does “perfection” mean?

Not Invention
No one would have contrived or invented this philosophy.

Philosophy In Scripture
These concepts are fundamentally philosophical, not religious.

Intelligence Elaboration
Intelligence is intelligence. However there are subtleties.

The Observable Universe, Alternate Universes
These laws extend from our observation and understanding of the observable universe.

Universe As A System
The universe is simply a system. (Video Game Example)

Perceive Defined
Sense, mentally apprehend.

Existence Is Not Inherently Mapped Or Modeled
Those are contrivances resulting from our conscious interactions and sensory experiences.

Purpose, Supernatural Being/Conscious Being
That supernatural being could be viewed as a conscious being.

Reason, Why
Reason and why concern conscious beings and particular or specific things.

Reason is an aspect of existence, not a cause of existence or something beyond existence.

Existence is not devoid of reason nor is life devoid of meaning. The point is conscious, living beings construct those things.

Reason is a construct concerning particular things often conflated with existence in its general sense.

Attempting to apply chronological order to reason and existence struggles because reason is existence.

The Human Condition
The human condition will always be an issue as long as humans are around.

Immateriality, Immaterial Space/Expanse
Immaterial expanse is a rather basic aspect of existence…

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

Those things, including immaterial expanse, are components which determine density.

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

Physical space consists of atoms, molecules, etc. Immaterial space lacks physical or material components such as atoms.

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

Thus the vacuum of outer space is considered immaterial.

There are insufficient atomic and molecular structures to form matter.

Pure immaterial space would concern no atoms, no molecules, no radiation, etc.

Ideas And Truth
Ideas and truth are immaterial things.

Nonexistence Cannot Be
That is not nonexistence.

Yet more evidence for existence.

Nonexistence does not exist. In any form.

One cannot effectively reference or metaphor nonexistence as there is only existence.

Nonexistence, nothing is such an absurd concept it contradicts itself in plain sight.

Unicorn Example
Yes, a unicorn is a thing.

Conceptual Counterparts
Parts can have counterparts.

Concepts are not the totality of existence and thus can have counterparts.

All Variance Balances As Simply Being
All difference, all variation, all opposition, all contradiction ultimately balances as simply being, as simply existence.

Nothingness Is An Abstraction Of The Mind Projected Outward
Nothingness is not some ambiguous, mysterious remoteness revealed through the term or concept nonexistence.

Nothingness and nonexistence are conceptual mechanisms employed by conscious beings to help process information.

“Thingness” An Intrinsic Aspect Of Existence
The whole can’t be without parts, without things; thingness is implicitly acknowledged in the balance of being.

Existence Is Infinite
This is evident in two ways; existence is not limited to any particular and nonexistence cannot be substantiated.

Existence is not limited to any particular or any specific thing, this is self-evident.

How would existence “just end”?

You are imposing boundaries while claiming otherwise…

You sense it, you observe it, you acknowledge it, you utilize it else you could not successfully interact.

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

The term infinite, in context of the ontology, primarily applies to existence in the sense of being unlimited or unrestricted.

Infinite, being unlimited, implicitly encompasses various conceptions of time, timelessness, eternal and eternity.

The term “infinite” is flexible. It can mean unlimited or unrestricted and it can also mean immeasurable.

Something can be immeasurable, something can be vast whilst still being restricted or limited.

Existence Is Formless
It isn’t defined as “no form” it is defined as “no definite form”.

Form concerns shape and shape concerns particulars; form and shape concern limitation.

Mathematics
It is similar to the mathematical concept pi.

In mathematical set theory an infinite set can contain finite sets.

Regardless how deep one claims a line segment to be it would still observably be only part of existence.

Existence transcends mere mathematics.

Existence All The Way Down
All things are parts of existence, all constituent parts of things are parts of existence.

That existence references itself is not contradiction but further evidence existence is all.

No Immaterial Space (For Sake Of Argument)
Even if immaterial expanse did not actually exist in the environment…

Existence Is
Whatever it is, it is existence.

Sand is. Water is. Dark is. Light is. All is existence.

Things need other things. A plant needs water. A human needs air. Existence does not need. Existence is.

Distinction occurs among elements of existence, not beyond existence.

Infinite Includes Finite
Such is evident in the term itself.

The unlimitedness of existence is not limited to unlimitedness.

This example illustrates both the limitedness (tree, one thing) and the unlimitedness (all things) of existence.

That existence is each thing is what illustrates its unlimitedness.

“I Have Nothing In My Pocket”
Use of the term “nothing” is often indicative of sloppy language.

Congruent Contradiction
Yes, certain aspects of existence are contradictory.

Paradoxes are not always fallacious or false. (Orange Example)

Arbitrary Beginnings
Any beginning point would be arbitrary. (Stone Wheels Example)

Any point could be viewed as a beginning. (Stone Atoms Example)

Verifiability
Certain subject matter by nature cannot actually be proven however substantial evidence can be provided.

It is verifiable, at least to a degree. (Color Example)

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

Existence Explained By What Is
Being is explained by what is, not by what is not.

Things are utilized to distinguish other things.

Existence Simpler Than Occurrence
Existence simply is; existence is simpler, existence is more basic than occurrence as occurrence indicates action.

Existence Extends Beyond Concepts And Terms
Existence is not limited to any particular, including any concept.

The philosophy, existence is not simply abstraction confined to concept. (Observable Example)

Infinite Existence Is Self-Evident
You sense it, you observe it, you acknowledge it, you utilize it else you could not successfully interact here.

Logical Integrity
Two core principles of the ontology logically linked. This illustrates the integrity of the ontology.

Addressing Relative Nothingness
Nothingness is not relative. Nothingness is not and cannot be to any degree.

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

Relative nothingness is a thing. It is a nonsensical concept which doesn’t actually apply.

Absence and nothingness are not the same.

Its own terminology implicitly acknowledges other things thus indicating no actual absence or lack.

Relative nothingness references multiple things in attempt to introduce no thing.

Existence is not limited to only one thing or only one location thus there is no excuse for introducing nothingness.

Things are relative. Relative nothingness is nonsensical.

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

Relative nothingness is a misnomer. It does not involve that which does not exist rather that which is located or identified elsewhere.

Relative nothingness is an awkward, forced concept. Nothing is forced into the equation although only things are involved.

The term nothingness is needlessly and inappropriately attached to an already sufficient concept of relativity.

Although relative nothingness may be a nonsensical concept and may not necessarily apply it’s nevertheless a thing, a part of existence.

In its strongest case relative nothingness still concerns things including the concept of nothingness which is also a thing.

There are no gradients or levels of nothingness. There are only gradients or levels of concepts and qualities.

Time And Sequence Are Constructs Of Conscious Beings
Time is a construct, a quality associated with particular things and often confounded with existence or being in its general sense.

In a sense there is no time, sequence or motion.

Existence is all, existence does not need to progress or unfold and as such has no need for time.

Definitions And Explanations Of Time
Regardless the definition time is part of existence. However existence also transcends time; existence transcends temporal measurement.

The Term Existence
Standard definitions of existence are convoluted and circular. They provide no means of substantiation.

The standard terms, being and existence, form a vacuous loop of abstraction with no substantiation in concrete, real world instances.

The philosophy presented offers clearer, more practical and more coherent definitions of key terms.

The definition serves to link the philosophically abstract to the obvious and the tangible.

Thus even science operates within the definition of existence presented.

It seems only appropriate to employ the means by which we engage with the world as a means to define existence.

Illusory Is Illusory Not Nonexistent
Illusions are perceived, they are acknowledged, they are discussed and debated.

The Beauty Of Philosophy
That’s the beauty of philosophy…

General Summary
Existence Simply Is


Essay Revision History

1. December 1, 2024

2. January 4, 2025

3. January 15, 2025

4. March 24, 2025

5. August 1, 2025

6. October 8, 2025

[Age]

Existence is a thing in part. A thing is finite.

However existence is not limited to only a thing or only a part, existence is all. Existence is infinite.

Therefore, according to your 'logic', 'existence' is NOT A 'thing'. Again, BECAUSE 'things' are finite.

Again, review the Existence Both Part And Whole section of the essay. This is also explained here:

BUT, 'existence' IS 'existence'. AND, just like A 'tree' is NOT an 'orange', a 'grove', a 'farm', a 'town', a 'nation', NOR a 'planet', so to is 'existence', itself, NOT ANY of those things AS WELL.

A tree, part of existence, is part of a grove, a larger part of existence, which is part of a planet, a larger part of existence. All is existence.

Just because a tree isn’t a grove or a town doesn’t mean all aren’t [parts of] existence.

I do not know what you said and write,here, has to do with what I said and write, which you are responding to, here. But, anyway, if 'things' are finite, like you say and claim they are, then, if you also claim that 'existence', itself, is not finite, which you did, then, logically, you will also have to admit that, to you, 'existence', itself, is not a 'thing'.

[Eodnhoj7]

Discussion Topic Index

Perfection Defined
What does “perfection” mean?

Not Invention
No one would have contrived or invented this philosophy.

Philosophy In Scripture
These concepts are fundamentally philosophical, not religious.

Intelligence Elaboration
Intelligence is intelligence. However there are subtleties.

The Observable Universe, Alternate Universes
These laws extend from our observation and understanding of the observable universe.

Universe As A System
The universe is simply a system. (Video Game Example)

Purpose, Supernatural Being/Conscious Being
That supernatural being could be viewed as a conscious being.

The Human Condition
The human condition will always be an issue as long as humans are around.

Immateriality, Immaterial Space/Expanse
Immaterial expanse is a rather basic aspect of existence…

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

Those things, including immaterial expanse, are components which determine density.

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

Physical space consists of atoms, molecules, etc. Immaterial space lacks physical or material components such as atoms.

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

Thus the vacuum of outer space is considered immaterial.

There are insufficient atomic and molecular structures to form matter.

Pure immaterial space would concern no atoms, no molecules, no radiation, etc.

Ideas And Truth
Ideas and truth are immaterial things.

Nonexistence Cannot Be
That is not nonexistence.

Yet more evidence for existence.

Nonexistence does not exist. In any form.

One cannot effectively reference or metaphor nonexistence as there is only existence.

Nonexistence, nothing is such an absurd concept it contradicts itself in plain sight.

Unicorn Example
Yes, a unicorn is a thing.

Conceptual Counterparts
Parts can have counterparts.

Concepts are not the totality of existence and thus can have counterparts.

All Variance Balances As Simply Being
All difference, all variation, all opposition, all contradiction ultimately balances as simply being, as simply existence.

Nothingness Is An Abstraction Of The Mind Projected Outward
Nothingness is not some ambiguous, mysterious remoteness revealed through the term or concept nonexistence.

“Thingness” An Intrinsic Aspect Of Existence
The whole can’t be without parts, without things; thingness is implicitly acknowledged in the balance of being.

Existence Is Infinite
Existence is not limited to any particular or any specific thing, this is self-evident.

How would existence “just end”?

You are imposing boundaries while claiming otherwise…

You sense it, you observe it, you acknowledge it, you utilize it else you could not successfully interact.

Existence Is Formless
It isn’t defined as “no form” it is defined as “no definite form”.

Form concerns shape and shape concerns particulars; form and shape concern limitation.

Mathematics
It is similar to the mathematical concept pi.

In mathematical set theory an infinite set can contain finite sets.

Regardless how deep one claims a line segment to be it would still observably be only part of existence.

Existence transcends mere mathematics.

Existence All The Way Down
All things are parts of existence, all constituent parts of things are parts of existence.

No Immaterial Space (For Sake Of Argument)
Even if immaterial expanse did not actually exist in the environment…

Existence Is
Whatever it is, it is existence.

Infinite Includes Finite
Such is evident in the term itself.

“I Have Nothing In My Pocket”
Use of the term “nothing” is often indicative of sloppy language.

Congruent Contradiction
Yes, certain aspects of existence are contradictory.

Paradoxes are not always fallacious or false. (Orange Example)

“Eternity Is Not The Same Idea As Infinity”
Eternal, eternity concerns duration or time. Infinite concerns extent, range or spatial scope.

Arbitrary Beginnings
Any beginning point would be arbitrary. (Stone Wheels Example)

Any point could be viewed as a beginning. (Stone Atoms Example)

Verifiability
Certain subject matter by nature cannot actually be proven however substantial evidence can be provided.

It is verifiable, at least to a degree. (Color Example)

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

Existence Explained By What Is
Being is explained by what is, not by what is not.

Things are utilized to distinguish other things.

Existence Simpler Than Occurrence
Existence simply is; existence is simpler, existence is more basic than occurrence as occurrence indicates action.

Existence Extends Beyond Concepts And Terms
Existence is not limited to any particular, including any concept.

The philosophy, existence is not simply abstraction confined to concept. (Observable Example)

Infinite Existence Is Self-Evident
You sense it, you observe it, you acknowledge it, you utilize it else you could not successfully interact here.

Addressing Relative Nothingness
Nothingness is not relative. Nothingness is not and cannot be to any degree.

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

Relative nothingness is a thing. It is a nonsensical concept which doesn’t actually apply.

Absence and nothingness are not the same.

Its own terminology implicitly acknowledges other things thus indicating no actual absence or lack.

Relative nothingness references multiple things in attempt to introduce no thing.

Existence is not limited to only one thing or only one location thus there is no excuse for introducing nothingness.

Things are relative. Relative nothingness is nonsensical.

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

Relative nothingness is a misnomer. It does not involve that which does not exist rather that which is located or identified elsewhere.

Relative nothingness is an awkward, forced concept. Nothing is forced into the equation although only things are involved.

The term nothingness is needlessly and inappropriately attached to an already sufficient concept of relativity.

Although relative nothingness may be a nonsensical concept and may not necessarily apply it’s nevertheless a thing, a part of existence.

Time And Sequence Are Constructs Of Conscious Beings
Time is a construct, a quality associated with particular things and often confounded with existence or being in its general sense.

In a sense there is no time, sequence or motion.

The Beauty Of Philosophy
That’s the beauty of philosophy…


Essay Revision History

1. December 1, 2024

2. January 4, 2025

3. January 15, 2025

"The use of nothing is sloppy language" is a subjectively oriented interpretation and subjective opinion. You are making an emotional argument...and that is just one example.

Now to the obvious:

I don't think you are taking into account that the nature of existence you are arguing for has resulted in a myriad of people who either disagree or think your argument is nonsensical. All these antithetical perspectives to your argument exist. It is almost as if the existence you are trying to put into sensical concepts is breaking the box you created.

Anyhow:

And absence is a lack of a thing. This lack is a thing. One thing is not the other thus not only is a thing an absence of absence, which is a self negation, but a thing is defined by not being another thing. A thing is defined as 'not another thing'.

[Eodnhoj7]

Existence is a thing in part. A thing is finite.

However existence is not limited to only a thing or only a part, existence is all. Existence is infinite.

Therefore, according to your 'logic', 'existence' is NOT A 'thing'. Again, BECAUSE 'things' are finite.

Again, review the Existence Both Part And Whole section of the essay. This is also explained here:

BUT, 'existence' IS 'existence'. AND, just like A 'tree' is NOT an 'orange', a 'grove', a 'farm', a 'town', a 'nation', NOR a 'planet', so to is 'existence', itself, NOT ANY of those things AS WELL.

A tree, part of existence, is part of a grove, a larger part of existence, which is part of a planet, a larger part of existence. All is existence.

Just because a tree isn’t a grove or a town doesn’t mean all aren’t [parts of] existence.

And one part is defined by its absence of being another part...

[Fairy]

Existence is both part and whole however part is still part and whole is still whole.

Existence is infinite.

“Whole”implies a complete steady state, meaning nothing more to add or achieve.


“Infinite” implies that without end, that which never completes, meaning never ending potential.

[daniel j lavender]

....the thing of a tree lacks the thing of a car....unless you are arguing a tree is a car...

The thing of a tree does not lack a thing. It is a thing.

I am stating a tree is a thing and a car is a thing. All things utilized to distinguish other things.

You are attempting to limit existence to one thing or one location then using that as excuse to introduce nothing or a “relative no-thing”. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to only one thing or only one location thus there is no excuse to introduce nothing.

Again with your own example you can’t help but acknowledge a thing to acknowledge another indicating presence while also indicating multiplicity of things. Your own example reflects infinite existence.

You are referencing multiple things in attempt to introduce no thing.

You are attempting to explain existence through nonexistence. That does not clarify understanding that convolutes understanding. Existence is explained by what is, not by what is not.

Relative nothingness is an awkward, silly concept. There isn’t really relative nothingness. There are simply relative qualities and relative things.

If a thing such as a tree does not lack a thing than it does not lack the thing of a car.

A tree is a thing. That is thingness. Not nothingness.

A car is a thing. That is thingness. Not nothingness.

In comparison and in contrast both remain things. They are simply other things. Not no things.

Therefore, according to your 'logic', 'existence' is NOT A 'thing'. Again, BECAUSE 'things' are finite.

…BUT, 'existence' IS 'existence'. AND, just like A 'tree' is NOT an 'orange', a 'grove', a 'farm', a 'town', a 'nation', NOR a 'planet', so to is 'existence', itself, NOT ANY of those things AS WELL.

A tree, part of existence, is part of a grove, a larger part of existence, which is part of a planet, a larger part of existence. All is existence.

Just because a tree isn’t a grove or a town doesn’t mean all aren’t [parts of] existence.

I do not know what you said and write,here, has to do with what I said and write, which you are responding to, here. But, anyway, if 'things' are finite, like you say and claim they are, then, if you also claim that 'existence', itself, is not finite, which you did, then, logically, you will also have to admit that, to you, 'existence', itself, is not a 'thing'.

Existence is a thing. And all other things.

Existence is a term, a concept. A term or concept indicating itself and all other things.

The unlimitedness of existence includes the limitedness of a thing.

"The use of nothing is sloppy language" is a subjectively oriented interpretation and subjective opinion. You are making an emotional argument...and that is just one example.

Address the arguments linked and not merely the subtitle: viewtopic.php?p=742705#p742705

Additionally the subtitle is misquoted and should read “Use of the term ‘nothing’ is often indicative of sloppy language”. The words “term”, “often” and “indicative of” make a difference.

And absence is a lack of a thing. This lack is a thing. One thing is not the other thus not only is a thing an absence of absence, which is a self negation, but a thing is defined by not being another thing. A thing is defined as 'not another thing'.

This has already been addressed:

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.

Thing (n.): An existing, material or immaterial; a part of existence. That which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part, in some way. E.g. a word, an object, matter, energy, consciousness, a concept, an event, a process, etc.

Therefore, according to your 'logic', 'existence' is NOT A 'thing'. Again, BECAUSE 'things' are finite.

…BUT, 'existence' IS 'existence'. AND, just like A 'tree' is NOT an 'orange', a 'grove', a 'farm', a 'town', a 'nation', NOR a 'planet', so to is 'existence', itself, NOT ANY of those things AS WELL.

A tree, part of existence, is part of a grove, a larger part of existence, which is part of a planet, a larger part of existence. All is existence.

Just because a tree isn’t a grove or a town doesn’t mean all aren’t [parts of] existence.

And one part is defined by its absence of being another part...

Parts are distinguished by their qualities in relation to other parts and their qualities. Hence relative.

There are things and other things. Simply things and other things. They are relative. They are relative things. They are not relative no-things. They are not relative nothingness.

Such concepts and notions can be entertained and even have claimed context however as illustrated nothingness is not actually involved. That such a concept is simply acknowledged indicates it is not actually nothingness.

“Infinite” implies that without end, that which never completes, meaning never ending potential.

Infinite is defined in the original text.

[Age]

The thing of a tree does not lack a thing. It is a thing.

I am stating a tree is a thing and a car is a thing. All things utilized to distinguish other things.

You are attempting to limit existence to one thing or one location then using that as excuse to introduce nothing or a “relative no-thing”. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to only one thing or only one location thus there is no excuse to introduce nothing.

Again with your own example you can’t help but acknowledge a thing to acknowledge another indicating presence while also indicating multiplicity of things. Your own example reflects infinite existence.

You are referencing multiple things in attempt to introduce no thing.

You are attempting to explain existence through nonexistence. That does not clarify understanding that convolutes understanding. Existence is explained by what is, not by what is not.

Relative nothingness is an awkward, silly concept. There isn’t really relative nothingness. There are simply relative qualities and relative things.

If a thing such as a tree does not lack a thing than it does not lack the thing of a car.

A tree is a thing. That is thingness. Not nothingness.

A car is a thing. That is thingness. Not nothingness.

In comparison and in contrast both remain things. They are simply other things. Not no things.

AND, you ALSO SAY and CLAIM 'things' are finite, while ALSO CLAIMING that 'existence' is NOT finite. Therefore, MEANING and MAKING 'existence' NOT A 'thing'.

So, 'this' hare now been RESOLVED, ONCE MORE.

A tree, part of existence, is part of a grove, a larger part of existence, which is part of a planet, a larger part of existence. All is existence.

Just because a tree isn’t a grove or a town doesn’t mean all aren’t [parts of] existence.

I do not know what you said and write,here, has to do with what I said and write, which you are responding to, here. But, anyway, if 'things' are finite, like you say and claim they are, then, if you also claim that 'existence', itself, is not finite, which you did, then, logically, you will also have to admit that, to you, 'existence', itself, is not a 'thing'.

Existence is a thing. And all other things.

If 'things' are finite. And,
'Existence' is a 'thing'. Then,
'Existence' is finite, and NOT infinite.

End of story.

Existence is a term, a concept. A term or concept indicating itself and all other things.

Who cares?

The unlimitedness of existence includes the limitedness of a thing.

Expressing an oxymoron or a self-contradiction is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT going to help you, here.

[accelafine]

If a thing such as a tree does not lack a thing than it does not lack the thing of a car.

A tree is a thing. That is thingness. Not nothingness.

A car is a thing. That is thingness. Not nothingness.

In comparison and in contrast both remain things. They are simply other things. Not no things.

AND, you ALSO SAY and CLAIM 'things' are finite, while ALSO CLAIMING that 'existence' is NOT finite. Therefore, MEANING and MAKING 'existence' NOT A 'thing'.

So, 'this' hare now been RESOLVED, ONCE MORE.

I do not know what you said and write,here, has to do with what I said and write, which you are responding to, here. But, anyway, if 'things' are finite, like you say and claim they are, then, if you also claim that 'existence', itself, is not finite, which you did, then, logically, you will also have to admit that, to you, 'existence', itself, is not a 'thing'.

Existence is a thing. And all other things.

If 'things' are finite. And,
'Existence' is a 'thing'. Then,
'Existence' is finite, and NOT infinite.

End of story.

Existence is a term, a concept. A term or concept indicating itself and all other things.

Who cares?

The unlimitedness of existence includes the limitedness of a thing.

Expressing an oxymoron or a self-contradiction is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT going to help you, here.

[accelafine]

Was it 'you' who informed 'us', previously, that so-called 'tangible, solid material' is made up of atoms, which themselves are made up of 'molecules'?

No. Molecules are comprised of atoms.

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

Some people also say and claim that 'an ocean' is made up of water, whereas they would NOT say and claim that 'space', itself, is made of water.

Some people also say that 'an ocean' is NOT 'space' and say that 'space' is NOT 'an ocean'.

Hence the terms physical space and immaterial space.

Terms you SAY and USE, but WHEN you were QUESTIONED OVER those terms, of yours, you also CLAIMED that 'immaterial space' is actually composed of 'material', itself. Just less dense than, say, 'water'.

Although the so-called 'vacuum of outer space' is, here, considered 'immaterial', or what you call 'immaterial space', the 'vacuum of outer space', STILL, consists of matter, molecules and atoms, just what you call 'minimal', correct?

…But, and just TO CLARIFY, there IS 'matter' in what you call the 'vacuum of outer space', right?

Again, the vacuum of outer space does not involve matter in the terrestrial sense.

OBVIOUSLY, and OF COURSE, HOWEVER you are ACTUALLY SAYING and STATING that what you CALLED 'vacuum of outer space', STILL, CONSISTS OF 'matter', itself, ANYWAY.

So, what you have been ESSENTIALLY SAYING and MEANING, here, is 'your term', 'immaterial space' consists of ACTUAL 'material'.

Atoms and molecules constitute matter. However if there are insufficient amounts of atoms and molecules there isn’t matter. That is the case with the vacuum of outer space.

AND. LOL, that is THE CASE at the 'sub-atomic level' of things AS WELL as within the structure of a 'table' ALSO.

ONCE MORE, the Universe, Itself, is, FUNDAMENTALLY, made up of two things. They are 'matter' AND 'space'.

The 'matter' word, here, obviously referring to 'material substance', while the 'space' word is just referring to the distance between and around 'matter', itself. The visible part of the Universe, that is; 'matter', being ALLOWED TO MOVE FREELY because of the invisible part of the Universe, which is; 'space'.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HARD NOR COMPLEX TO COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND, here.

BOTH 'matter' AND 'space' have CO-EXISTED ALWAYS, and WILL FOREVER. And, because BOTH 'matter' AND 'space' exist together 'NOW' this means, IRREFUTABLY, that they have BOTH CO-EXIST ALWAYS. Which ALSO MEANS, IRREFUTABLY, the Life, Itself, and the Universe, Itself, ARE 'eternal' AS WELL AS 'infinite'.

Now, although the Universe, Itself, COULD exist either as:

'Infinitely compressed matter' with ABSOLUTELY NO 'space' within, NOR external to 'it', OR
An 'infiniteness of NO matter'.

But, as the Universe does NOT NOW exist in either of those forms this MEANS the Universe could NEVER have been one in one of those ways, which therefore MEANS that the Universe has ALWAYS consisted of BOTH 'matter' AND 'space', and thus has been ETERNALLY.

The Universe, although being able to EXIST in either form of 'ALL matter' OR 'ALL space'. ALL 'life', itself, NEEDS BOTH 'matter' AND 'space'. And, when there is 'matter' AND 'space' there IS 'Life', Itself. The two TOGETHER Create 'Life', which is WHY the Universe, Itself, IS ALIVE, and LIVING. Now, because both 'matter' AND 'space' have ALWAYS EXISTED, then so too has 'Life', itself, ALWAYS EXISTED.

And, it is the Fact that the LIVING Universe is INFINITE in size, and has ALWAYS EXISTED, the reason WHY 'Existence', Itself, IS 'infinite' AND 'eternal', AS WELL.

[Fairy]

“Existence extends beyond creation because existence had no beginning point or point of creation.”


Response: The knowledge that Existence had no beginning is nonsensical. The mere idea/thought of an Existence that has no beginning; simultaneously actualises “Existences” beginning. ( Nonsensical Exists)

Identification with “Thought” is the phenomenon known as ‘verbs noun-ing’ or, ‘noumena phenomening’ or ‘brain braining’
Existence known is a brains hallucination, so to speak.


Thoughts are things. And things are finite, not infinite.
The thought “Existence is infinite “ is a finite thought.

Thought cannot know existence is infinite, because the knower that thinks it knows, is a finite thought.

Nobody knows this.

If somebody does know this, then by definition this knowing somebody, has no beginning , being infinite existence itself.

[Fairy]

Spoiler alert

If the words “Existence is Infinite” had never been created in our vocabulary, would we even have a concept of what they refer to?

Reality, as we perceive it, is largely constructed from words and ideas we’ve accepted as real. While these words and concepts can serve as initial tools, ultimately, we must transcend the knowledge we’ve gained and go beyond all words, beyond mind.

When you look at your hand. Immediately, you know you’re looking at your hand. What if you take away the words “your” and “hand”, what are you left with? You can’t really say, can you?

You can also do that with everything else in your experience. So what are we left with?

Everything is _______ (blank) or, Everything is made out of Awareness, right?

The moment we try to put words or knowledge into what (blank) is, we’ve already gone one word or even one letter too far.

[Gary Childress]

Spoiler alert

If the words “Existence is Infinite” had never been created in our vocabulary, would we even have a concept of what they refer to?

Reality, as we perceive it, is largely constructed from words and ideas we’ve accepted as real. While these words and concepts can serve as initial tools, ultimately, we must transcend the knowledge we’ve gained and go beyond all words, beyond mind.

When you look at your hand. Immediately, you know you’re looking at your hand. What if you take away the words “your” and “hand”, what are you left with? You can’t really say, can you?

You can also do that with everything else in your experience. So what are we left with?

Everything is _______ (blank) or, Everything is made out of Awareness, right?

The moment we try to put words or knowledge into what (blank) is, we’ve already gone one word or even one letter too far.

OK. But aren't you using words and knowledge to construct this picture that you are constructing? Or are you constructing nothing at all?

[Fairy]

Spoiler alert

If the words “Existence is Infinite” had never been created in our vocabulary, would we even have a concept of what they refer to?

Reality, as we perceive it, is largely constructed from words and ideas we’ve accepted as real. While these words and concepts can serve as initial tools, ultimately, we must transcend the knowledge we’ve gained and go beyond all words, beyond mind.

When you look at your hand. Immediately, you know you’re looking at your hand. What if you take away the words “your” and “hand”, what are you left with? You can’t really say, can you?

You can also do that with everything else in your experience. So what are we left with?

Everything is _______ (blank) or, Everything is made out of Awareness, right?

The moment we try to put words or knowledge into what (blank) is, we’ve already gone one word or even one letter too far.

OK. But aren't you using words and knowledge to construct this picture that you are constructing? Or are you constructing nothing at all?

What is knowledge but sound heard as words.
The construction of a picture painted by words that are believed to be real, are likened to a model or a map, which is an artificial illusory secondary photocopy of an original picture superimposed upon the blank screen of awareness.

A photocopy isn’t actually there. What’s actually there, is not what the paintbrush of thought has constructed.The secondary imposed construction is likened to a phantom signature written by a ghostwriter.

[Age]

Spoiler alert

If the words “Existence is Infinite” had never been created in our vocabulary, would we even have a concept of what they refer to?

Reality, as we perceive it, is largely constructed from words and ideas we’ve accepted as real. While these words and concepts can serve as initial tools, ultimately, we must transcend the knowledge we’ve gained and go beyond all words, beyond mind.

When you look at your hand. Immediately, you know you’re looking at your hand. What if you take away the words “your” and “hand”, what are you left with? You can’t really say, can you?

You can also do that with everything else in your experience. So what are we left with?

Everything is _______ (blank) or, Everything is made out of Awareness, right?

The moment we try to put words or knowledge into what (blank) is, we’ve already gone one word or even one letter too far.

OK. But aren't you using words and knowledge to construct this picture that you are constructing? Or are you constructing nothing at all?

What is knowledge but sound heard as words.

Or, symbols seen as words.

Or, a construct of said words held in thought as a conceptualized depiction of 'what is'.

The construction of a picture painted by words that are believed to be real,

ONLY IF one CHOOSES TO BELIEVE that their own PERSONAL VIEW is the REAL one. See, there are others who, like me, CHOSE TO NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY 'view' 'we' have. 'We', instead, just KEEP LOOKING, and just KEEP REMAINING AWARE OF, 'what IS' 'layed out' BEFORE 'us', ONLY.

are likened to a model or a map, which is an artificial illusory secondary photocopy of an original picture superimposed upon the blank screen of awareness.

How are you defining the 'illusory' word, here?

To most people because they CAN see, feel, and/or smell models, maps, paintings, and/or the secondary copies of the so-called 'original picture', those models, maps, et cetera are NOT 'illusory' NOR 'illusions' but are ACTUAL 'real things', in and of themselves.

A photocopy isn’t actually there.

A photocopy may not be a 100% Accurate copy, but to most people if an actual photocopy exists, then 'it' IS THERE.

WHY do you KEEP SAYING and CLAIMING that an actual photocopy is NOT 'actually there'

What’s actually there, is not what the paintbrush of thought has constructed.

BUT, if the so-called 'paintbrush of thought's has, ACTUALLY, constructed or created some thing, then 'that thing' IS THERE.

WHY do you INSIST an 'ACTUAL thing' is NOT THERE FOR, EXACTLY?

Again, and obviously, 'the constructed paintbrush of thought' might not be an Accurate interpretation, but 'it' IS THERE, or IS HERE, in this Only and ONLY place called the Universe.

The secondary imposed construction is likened to a phantom signature written by a ghostwriter.

Is the so-called 'phantom signature', written by a 'ghost writer' THERE, or HERE?

[Gary Childress]

Spoiler alert

If the words “Existence is Infinite” had never been created in our vocabulary, would we even have a concept of what they refer to?

Reality, as we perceive it, is largely constructed from words and ideas we’ve accepted as real. While these words and concepts can serve as initial tools, ultimately, we must transcend the knowledge we’ve gained and go beyond all words, beyond mind.

When you look at your hand. Immediately, you know you’re looking at your hand. What if you take away the words “your” and “hand”, what are you left with? You can’t really say, can you?

You can also do that with everything else in your experience. So what are we left with?

Everything is _______ (blank) or, Everything is made out of Awareness, right?

The moment we try to put words or knowledge into what (blank) is, we’ve already gone one word or even one letter too far.

OK. But aren't you using words and knowledge to construct this picture that you are constructing? Or are you constructing nothing at all?

What is knowledge but sound heard as words.
The construction of a picture painted by words that are believed to be real, are likened to a model or a map, which is an artificial illusory secondary photocopy of an original picture superimposed upon the blank screen of awareness.

A photocopy isn’t actually there. What’s actually there, is not what the paintbrush of thought has constructed.The secondary imposed construction is likened to a phantom signature written by a ghostwriter.

So

knowledge = "sound heard as words"

Does knowledge = knowledge?