Existence Is Infinite

[daniel j lavender]

Your approach attempts to confine existence to formal systems. Existence is not confined to such systems.

You seem to be on the wrong website, This one concerns Philosophy, not mystic bullshit.

Existence concerns formal systems. However existence exceeds formal systems as existence is not confined only to formality. Existence concerns informality as well.

Likewise existence is not limited to rigid linguistic structure. Nor is such required to convey an idea or truth. However such is often preferred and I contend the essay presented along with the subsequent statements are indeed structured and well-defined.

Resorting to the formality of the material is not an actual contention. You have not addressed any actual arguments or details presented.

[Phil8659]

Your approach attempts to confine existence to formal systems. Existence is not confined to such systems.

You seem to be on the wrong website, This one concerns Philosophy, not mystic bullshit.

Existence concerns formal systems. However existence exceeds formal systems as existence is not confined only to formality. Existence concerns informality as well.

Likewise existence is not limited to rigid linguistic structure. Nor is such required to convey an idea or truth. However such is often preferred and I contend the essay presented along with the subsequent statements are indeed structured and well-defined.

Resorting to the formality of the material is not an actual contention. You have not addressed any actual arguments or details presented.

Well shut my eyes and block my ears. You must be in a terminal state of denial.

That is the trick of a child, using grammar to make your statements and then denying standards of grammar claiming you have not been refuted not by me, but by them. Are you even an adult??

LMAO.

[daniel j lavender]

That is the trick of a child, using grammar to make your statements and then denying standards of grammar claiming you have not been refuted not by me, but by them. Are you even an adult??

The significance of linguistics is acknowledged.

However you are pedantically focused on the title and expression without addressing the actual content of the essay.

Titles are intended to be brief while capturing the essence of the work. Additionally language has limits and can seem unusual in certain cases. For purposes of the philosophy the language works.

[daniel j lavender]

3.24.2025 Essay Revisions

Note Revision

Former

It may be argued that at some point the universe, or existence…

Revised

It may be argued that at some point existence…


Note Additions

- All variance balances as simply being. All difference, all variation, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence.

- Existence is not merely defined as "that which is" because "is" would also have to be addressed which would involve perception. The matter implicitly involves perception and interaction.

- It may be questioned why existence is. There is no why or reason. Why would imply a cause or a beginning. Existence is eternal and did not begin. There was no reason initiating existence as existence is eternal. There is no reason for existence. Existence simply is.


Immateriality Section Addition

Immaterial indicates intangible things or impalpable things…


Updated Index: viewtopic.php?p=753415#p753415

[Age]

A tree is thus a car? Or is a tree the absence of the thing of the car, ie "no car"?

I think you fail to see that asserting statements does not necessitate truth, but if it does than everyone is correct thus making you simultaneously wrong and a paradox results.

Is existence justification of a truth value by mere occurence?

A thing is thus a thing.

A tree is a thing. Regardless what a tree is claimed to lack a tree remains a thing. The same applies for a car or any other thing.

Show where nothing actually is in the equation. The tree is a thing. The car is a thing. In comparison and in contrast both remain things.

A tree is not a car and a car is not a tree. However a tree is a tree and a car is a car, both things. “Is not”, “are not”, etcetera, are mechanisms of language and do not actually indicate no thing.

Claiming a tree is not a car thus nothingness arises is nonsensical. As illustrated nothingness is nowhere in the equation. Nothingness is not masquerading as a tree because a tree is a thing.

The idea or concept of nothingness itself is a thing. Attempting to attach such to some situation inevitably invokes something, contradicting the concept altogether.

To demonstrate relative nothingness two things are required. The tree and the car, for example. However two things do not equal no thing. Two things equal two things. This is basic math. Two items would be further from no thing, not closer to no thing much less equal to no thing.

Or is a tree the absence of the thing of the car, ie "no car"?

See how awkward that premise is? That is the type of rigamarole one must employ in the attempt to invoke nothingness.

You acknowledge multiple things in attempt to introduce nothingness through absence. There is no need to do that. Only things are involved. Multiple things are already present yet you seek to add another, the contradictory concept of nothingness, while claiming no thing. It’s convoluted, it’s cluttered. It’s nonsensical all the way around.

The idea or concept of 'nothingness' just exists to contrast the idea or concept of 'something'.

WHY do you have your very strong view about 'nothingness', here?

'Nothingness' is just an idea or concept.

Which, by the way, would obviously be all-there-is if it were not for other things or everything else.

Relative nothingness utilizes nothingness as a concept in the process of comparison of things. In its strongest case relative nothingness still concerns things including the concept of nothingness which is also a thing. Only things are involved. All things being existence. Nothingness, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Maybe so. But, 'nothingness' or 'nonexistence' are still concepts, which is just what puts EVERY thing in 'their place'.

Obviously 'nothingness' and/or 'nonexistence' could never ever be only what is, but the ideas or concepts of 'these things' help in UNDERSTANDING 'all-there-is' or Everything, FULLY, and Correctly.

[Age]

“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.

Whole or complete, in the sense used in relation to the philosophy, simply means all or entirety; whole or complete simply means all things including the connectedness of things.

Existence, generally speaking, is not just an object. Existence as a whole is not an object or thing like a pizza or a pineapple. Although existence will never end, although things will never cease, although things are connected, this does not mean to imply existence as a single thing or a single object.

If you want to keep CLAIMING that 'nonexistence' can NOT be, then you will ALSO have to ADMIT that 'Existence', Itself, is A 'single, eternal, thing'.

Although existence will never end, although things will never cease this does not mean to imply all things are not all things. Nor does it serve to sever the connectedness of things. Although all things may not appear to be present at this moment does not mean all things are not all things.

That existence does not cease, that there is no edge to existence, no gap of nonexistence between things or existence, illustrates the completeness or wholeness of existence.

Which therefore further implies or further means that 'Existence', Itself, IS, in fact, 'A single, infinite and eternal, Thing'.

[Age]

Existence Is Infinite
Daniel J. Lavender

Why do you spend so many words on an illiterate statement?

1. How can three words alone be MANY words, to you "phil8659"?

2. Why do you CLAIM that those three words are an illiterate statement, EXACTLY?

Are you NOT ABLE TO READ 'them'?

You have quoted an equality, of which there are two kinds. Arithmetic and Geometric, aka, literal and metaphorical, etc.

If 'arthimetic and geometric' are, supposedly and allegedly, also known as, 'literal and metaphorical', then which one applies to the other one, or do both apply to both?

Grammar is effected by Binary Recursion, that recursion is of things.

'This' is what you just keep on SAYING and CLAIMING. But, because you will NOT SHOW NOR CLARIFY HOW, EXACTLY, 'this' REMAINS your OPINION, ONLY.

A thing is defined as a binary relative and correlatives.

Will you PROVIDE A link to what SOURCE has 'this definition'?

And, if 'the link' goes to 'your source', ONLY, then, ONCE MORE, 'this definition' is your OPINION, ONLY.

So, if you equate two words, as you demonstrate, does that equation comply with a naming convention?

Are you INCAPABLE of COMPREHENDING and UNDERSTANDING, WITHOUT your OWN 'naming convention'. See, most people, here, in this forum, CAN COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND that the words, 'Existence is infinite', is REFERRING TO just the size of 'Existence', Itself, which goes on forever and/or just does NOT end.

Which, besides being True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, is just A Fact that NO one could REFUTE.

Can you predicate existence? Absolutely not. Can you predicate infinity, absolutely not.

The words 'existence' AND 'infinity' CAN VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY be 'predicated'. But, then again, which DEFINITION OF 'predicate' are you MEANING and/or REFERRING TO, here, EXACTLY?

Can you predicate predicate?

Now, show that you know, of the two parts of speech, how these words, by grammatical fact, can be used in a sentence.

Why are you ASKING ANOTHER TO DO some thing that you are NOT YET AWARE OF?

Did you SHOW that you know, of the two parts of speech, how those words, by grammatical fact, can be used in a sentence?

In fact are you even AWARE that the words, 'by grammatical fact', is not even grammatically correct?

Why do you talk ABOUT 'grammar', when you OBVIOUSLY FAIL, grammatically, "yourself" some times?

I recommend that you study Plato very vigorously.

I recommend that you GET OFF your SUPERIORITY COMPLEX, and LEARN TO SEE WHERE, and WHY, you ARE Wrong, here, and WHERE you, STILL, NEED TO LEARN A LOT MORE ABOUT, here.

Both Plato, and in the Bible, it will recommend that you use the Grammar System of Geometry.

AGAIN, just CONTINUALLY SAYING and STATING the EXACT SAME 'thing/s', WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY ELABORATION, EXPLANATION, NOR CLARIFICATION, literally, can MEAN that you are REALLY SAYING NO THING AT ALL.

Draw this statement. You will find it impossible simply because you do not know what part of speech each is.

Just SAYING and/or WRITING 'that statement' SHOWS JUST HOW NONSENSICAL 'your THINKING' REALLY IS.

A relative is not a correlative and recursion is achieved by assigned a correlative to contain a relative and correlative grouping. Tom is a Cat.

So what? "phil8659 is an idiot", is ALSO A STATEMENT. But, AGAIN, so what?

A descriptive sentence is not definitive, nor is a definitive sentence descriptive.

So what?

If you, REALLY, can NOT COMPREHEND and/or FATHOM what the sentence, 'Existence is infinite', MEANS or IS REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, then I RECOMMEND you GO AND LEARN SOME MORE.

In Theaetetus, you might learn how definition is achieved, for definition exhibits one unit of recursion.

LOL YET you CAN NOT or WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY ACTUAL examples.

ONCE MORE, FOR you "phil8659", just CLAIMING 'things' WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY thing AT ALL that backs up and supports YOUR CLAIM MEANS, LITERALLY, NOTHING.

Obviously you are FREE TO SHARE and EXPRESS your OPINIONS, but WITHOUT ANY thing ELSE your OPINIONS are, literally, just your OPINIONS, ONLY.

If you need a clear pointer into philosophy, make a long study of Confucius's statement about the Rectification of Names.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you OBVIOUSLY do NOT even KNOW what the word 'philosophy' MEANS and/nor IS REFERRING TO, here, EXACTLY.

LOL you have NOT YET DEFINED the 'philosophy' word, AND, SHOW HOW 'that definition' RELATES TO or CORRELATES WITH absolutely ANY thing, here, EXACTLY?

Thus, WHY 'you' "phil8659" could NOT BE MORE OF A HYPOCRITE, here.

[Age]

Your approach attempts to confine existence to formal systems. Existence is not confined to such systems.

You seem to be on the wrong website, This one concerns Philosophy, not mystic bullshit.

If you NEVER DEFINE the 'philosophy' word, here, "phil8659", you have JUST PROVED, IRREFUTABLY, that you REALLY ARE on, and in, the WRONG website, here.

And, if you, STILL, can NOT COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND what the words, 'Existence is finite', AND 'argue' FOR or AGAINST what 'those words' MEAN and/or ARE REFERRING TO, EXACTLY, then you CERTAINLY ARE IN the WRONG website, here.

See, 'Existence IS infinite AND eternal', and IS AN IRREFUTABLE Fact. And, the REASON 'it' is AN IRREFUTABLE Fact is BECAUSE through ARGUING, and/or LOGICAL REASONING 'it' can NOT BE REFUTED BY ANY one.

As 'I' have ALREADY, and CAN and WILL AGAIN, PROVED IRREFUTABLY True.

[Age]

You seem to be on the wrong website, This one concerns Philosophy, not mystic bullshit.

Existence concerns formal systems. However existence exceeds formal systems as existence is not confined only to formality. Existence concerns informality as well.

Likewise existence is not limited to rigid linguistic structure. Nor is such required to convey an idea or truth. However such is often preferred and I contend the essay presented along with the subsequent statements are indeed structured and well-defined.

Resorting to the formality of the material is not an actual contention. You have not addressed any actual arguments or details presented.

Well shut my eyes and block my ears. You must be in a terminal state of denial.

LOL 'This one' SAYS 'this' as though it is NOT IN DENIAL, "itself".

That is the trick of a child, using grammar to make your statements and then denying standards of grammar claiming you have not been refuted not by me, but by them. Are you even an adult??

LMAO.

'This one' has ONCE AGAIN SHOWN and PROVED just HOW Truly STUPID and FOOLISH it REALLY IS BEING, here.

[Age]

That is the trick of a child, using grammar to make your statements and then denying standards of grammar claiming you have not been refuted not by me, but by them. Are you even an adult??

The significance of linguistics is acknowledged.

However you are pedantically focused on the title and expression without addressing the actual content of the essay.

Titles are intended to be brief while capturing the essence of the work. Additionally language has limits and can seem unusual in certain cases. For purposes of the philosophy the language works.

WHY do you BELIEVE that 'language' has LIMITS?

[Age]

3.24.2025 Essay Revisions

Note Revision

Former

It may be argued that at some point the universe, or existence…

Revised

It may be argued that at some point existence…


Note Additions

- All variance balances as simply being. All difference, all variation, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence.

- Existence is not merely defined as "that which is" because "is" would also have to be addressed which would involve perception. The matter implicitly involves perception and interaction.

- It may be questioned why existence is. There is no why or reason.

Why are you CLOSED, here?

The reason, of WHY, 'Existence' IS has ALREADY BEEN ANSWER, and thus IS ALREADY KNOWN.

Why would imply a cause or a beginning.

NOT necessarily SO, AT ALL.

WHY do you BELIEVE that 'why' would imply a cause or a beginning?

Existence is eternal and did not begin. There was no reason initiating existence as existence is eternal. There is no reason for existence. Existence simply is.

AGAIN, WHY are you CLOSED, here, regarding WHY?

WHAT made or CAUSED you to BECOME CLOSED?

Immateriality Section Addition

Immaterial indicates intangible things or impalpable things…


Updated Index: viewtopic.php?p=753415#p753415

[Eodnhoj7]

A tree is thus a car? Or is a tree the absence of the thing of the car, ie "no car"?

I think you fail to see that asserting statements does not necessitate truth, but if it does than everyone is correct thus making you simultaneously wrong and a paradox results.

Is existence justification of a truth value by mere occurence?

A thing is thus a thing.

A tree is a thing. Regardless what a tree is claimed to lack a tree remains a thing. The same applies for a car or any other thing.

Show where nothing actually is in the equation. The tree is a thing. The car is a thing. In comparison and in contrast both remain things.

A tree is not a car and a car is not a tree. However a tree is a tree and a car is a car, both things. “Is not”, “are not”, etcetera, are mechanisms of language and do not actually indicate no thing.

Claiming a tree is not a car thus nothingness arises is nonsensical. As illustrated nothingness is nowhere in the equation. Nothingness is not masquerading as a tree because a tree is a thing.

The idea or concept of nothingness itself is a thing. Attempting to attach such to some situation inevitably invokes something, contradicting the concept altogether.

To demonstrate relative nothingness two things are required. The tree and the car, for example. However two things do not equal no thing. Two things equal two things. This is basic math. Two items would be further from no thing, not closer to no thing much less equal to no thing.

Or is a tree the absence of the thing of the car, ie "no car"?

See how awkward that premise is? That is the type of rigamarole one must employ in the attempt to invoke nothingness.

You acknowledge multiple things in attempt to introduce nothingness through absence. There is no need to do that. Only things are involved. Multiple things are already present yet you seek to add another, the contradictory concept of nothingness, while claiming no thing. It’s convoluted, it’s cluttered. It’s nonsensical all the way around.

Relative nothingness utilizes nothingness as a concept in the process of comparison of things. In its strongest case relative nothingness still concerns things including the concept of nothingness which is also a thing. Only things are involved. All things being existence. Nothingness, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

If a thing has indefinite states than the nature of what constitutes a thing is indefinite. Infinite things makes the quality of a thing not finite...thus not a thing.

[Age]

A tree is thus a car? Or is a tree the absence of the thing of the car, ie "no car"?

I think you fail to see that asserting statements does not necessitate truth, but if it does than everyone is correct thus making you simultaneously wrong and a paradox results.

Is existence justification of a truth value by mere occurence?

A thing is thus a thing.

A tree is a thing. Regardless what a tree is claimed to lack a tree remains a thing. The same applies for a car or any other thing.

Show where nothing actually is in the equation. The tree is a thing. The car is a thing. In comparison and in contrast both remain things.

A tree is not a car and a car is not a tree. However a tree is a tree and a car is a car, both things. “Is not”, “are not”, etcetera, are mechanisms of language and do not actually indicate no thing.

Claiming a tree is not a car thus nothingness arises is nonsensical. As illustrated nothingness is nowhere in the equation. Nothingness is not masquerading as a tree because a tree is a thing.

The idea or concept of nothingness itself is a thing. Attempting to attach such to some situation inevitably invokes something, contradicting the concept altogether.

To demonstrate relative nothingness two things are required. The tree and the car, for example. However two things do not equal no thing. Two things equal two things. This is basic math. Two items would be further from no thing, not closer to no thing much less equal to no thing.

Or is a tree the absence of the thing of the car, ie "no car"?

See how awkward that premise is? That is the type of rigamarole one must employ in the attempt to invoke nothingness.

You acknowledge multiple things in attempt to introduce nothingness through absence. There is no need to do that. Only things are involved. Multiple things are already present yet you seek to add another, the contradictory concept of nothingness, while claiming no thing. It’s convoluted, it’s cluttered. It’s nonsensical all the way around.

Relative nothingness utilizes nothingness as a concept in the process of comparison of things. In its strongest case relative nothingness still concerns things including the concept of nothingness which is also a thing. Only things are involved. All things being existence. Nothingness, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

If a thing has indefinite states than the nature of what constitutes a thing is indefinite.

There is NO thing that has 'indefinite states', so what you said and wrote, here, is MOOT.

Infinite things makes the quality of a thing not finite...thus not a thing.

'This' is NONSENSICAL, and just REVEALS your BELIEF/S.

The infinite Thing, like the Universe, is infinite, and eternal, which are the qualities of the Thing. Which is OBVIOUSLY A 'thing'.

[daniel j lavender]

If a thing has indefinite states than the nature of what constitutes a thing is indefinite. Infinite things makes the quality of a thing not finite...thus not a thing.

The nature or basis of any thing is being, is existence. Things are discerned by their distinct qualities.

A thing is limited to the thing but is still thoroughly existence and still thoroughly thingness.

The vacuum of outer space is not nothingness because it is not a boulder. The vacuum simply concerns more immateriality and less materiality than a boulder which concerns more materiality and less immateriality.

There are no gradients or levels of nothingness. There are only gradients or levels of concepts and qualities. Relative nothingness is a misnomer.

Parts of existence are relative, things are relative, qualities are relative. Things are discerned by other things, not no things or nothingness. The notions of nothing or nothingness themselves are things, they are conceptual mechanisms employed by conscious beings.

[daniel j lavender]

“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.

Whole or complete, in the sense used in relation to the philosophy, simply means all or entirety; whole or complete simply means all things including the connectedness of things.

Existence, generally speaking, is not just an object. Existence as a whole is not an object or thing like a pizza or a pineapple. Although existence will never end, although things will never cease, although things are connected, this does not mean to imply existence as a single thing or a single object.

If you want to keep CLAIMING that 'nonexistence' can NOT be, then you will ALSO have to ADMIT that 'Existence', Itself, is A 'single, eternal, thing'.

Although existence will never end, although things will never cease this does not mean to imply all things are not all things. Nor does it serve to sever the connectedness of things. Although all things may not appear to be present at this moment does not mean all things are not all things.

That existence does not cease, that there is no edge to existence, no gap of nonexistence between things or existence, illustrates the completeness or wholeness of existence.

Which therefore further implies or further means that 'Existence', Itself, IS, in fact, 'A single, infinite and eternal, Thing'.

A thing is among other things. A thing has some environment.

Existence is all things, not simply among things. Existence is all environments, not confined within one.

Existence is infinite and eternal and has no beginning or ending like a thing.