Existence Is Infinite

[Martin Peter Clarke]

What is one to do? One comes to have ones tyres kicked. Socratically. One desires to do this in a spirit of... mutuality. Love. But one finds oneself tilting at windmills in the same old way. Direct. So, one blocks each as they whack-a-moly pop up. And the landscape gets sparser and sparser. The internet is a chaos sink, or is it a saddle? Both. It draws one in. And one falls off. Site after site after site. BioLogos. Richard Dawkins site, which has rid itself of its forum. Ship of Fools. When will one wise up?

Sancho will be hard to discover -

-Imp

Aye, he's got more sense.

[daniel j lavender]

The Term Existence

Terms and definitions are crucial for any topic of discussion.

I contend the terms and definitions presented within this philosophy are more practical and more coherent than standard terms and definitions, specifically the term “existence”.

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

Existence is commonly defined as:

Existence (noun)
1 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence
(Existence. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existence)

Existence (noun)
1. The fact or state of existing; being
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/existence)

Existence (noun)
1. the fact or state of existing; being
(Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/existence)


Existence is defined as being.

Being is defined as existence:

Being (noun)
1 a : the quality or state of having existence
(Being. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being)

Being (noun)
1. The state or quality of having existence
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/being)

Being (noun)
1. the state or fact of existing; existence
(Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/being)


The terms and definitions are circular. Existence is being, being is existence. The terms form a circular loop.

If existence is being, and being existence, what is being or existence? They are undefined.

The philosophy presented, however, precisely defines what existence is:

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

There is no circular loop. Existence is explicitly defined with a practical, coherent definition.

With the standard terms existence is ambiguous; existence is being which is existence.

With the term provided existence is defined; existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part.

Not only are the standard terms circular, they also fail to provide any substantiation of existence as the term presented here.

With the definition provided one could point to a tree, or any other item, and easily declare existence. The tree would be perceived or interacted with substantiating it as existence. With the standard definition one would likely be rather perplexed.

The dual-natured definition, involving both perception and interaction, frees the philosophy from a purely biological, conscious perspective of perception.

The philosophy presented not only offers a comprehensive, comprehensible ontology it also offers clearer, more practical and more coherent definitions of key terms as illustrated here.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Existence isn't dependent on perception or interaction.

[Age]

Existence isn't dependent on perception or interaction.

Is 'Existence', Itself, dependant upon any thing?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly?

[Age]

The Term Existence

Terms and definitions are crucial for any topic of discussion.

Not necessarily so at all. Just look at the very vast majority of the so-called 'discussions' throughout this forum, for example. The terms and definitions, on just about every 'discussion', here, are not even know by the writer/speaker, let alone by the reader/listener.

However, what is crucial for Truly open, honest, peaceful, and productive goal orientated discussions are not just the introducing of the terms and definitions, for this type of discussion, but also the volunteered agreeing and accepting of all of the terms and definitions by absolutely every one who is involved in the discussion is crucial, as well.

I contend the terms and definitions presented within this philosophy are more practical and more coherent than standard terms and definitions, specifically the term “existence”.

How come it has changed from 'discussion' to 'philosophy' so quickly?

How, exactly, are you defining these two words, here, 'now'?

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

If a word has definitions, which, supposedly, have no means of be substituted in any way at all, then why introduce 'that word, from the outset, or at any time at all for that matter?

Like always, your clear, concise, and precise answer and clarification, here, will be very much appreciated.

Existence is commonly defined as:

Existence (noun)
1 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence
(Existence. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existence)

Existence (noun)
1. The fact or state of existing; being
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/existence)

Existence (noun)
1. the fact or state of existing; being
(Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/existence)


Existence is defined as being.

Being is defined as existence:

Being (noun)
1 a : the quality or state of having existence
(Being. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being)

Being (noun)
1. The state or quality of having existence
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/being)

Being (noun)
1. the state or fact of existing; existence
(Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/being)

The fact that there are countless other dictionaries that you could have sourced why are you using only those dictionaries that produce what you call and label 'convoluted and circular' definitions, only?

The terms and definitions are circular. Existence is being, being is existence. The terms form a circular loop.

If existence is being, and being existence, what is being or existence? They are undefined.

What do you mean by 'they' are undefined.

I suggest you 'look up' those words in other dictionaries. See, there you will find that those words are actually defined.

The philosophy presented, however, precisely defines what existence is:

Did you define the 'philosophy' word above, here?

If no, then why not? And will you 'now'?

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

There is no circular loop.

you appear to seemingly presume that there is some thing, inherently, wrong with 'circular loops', here.

Do you think that there is some thing wrong, inherently or not, with 'circular loops', here?

If yes, then what and why is 'that', exactly?

And, whether you provide answers and clarity, here, or not, I will forewarn you that I will e questioning you over if there is any thing wrong, to you, in regard to 'circular loops', within terms and/ or definitions, then how are human beings ever going to come up with and reach the G.U.T.O.E. with IT being resolved in a full 'circular loops' anyway?

'This' is just some thing to wonder, and ponder over, as 'we' move along and progress, here.

Existence is explicitly defined with a practical, coherent definition.

How about 'you' allow 'us' to decide 'this', instead of 'you' telling 'us' what is 'the case', here, or anywhere for that matter?

With the standard terms existence is ambiguous; existence is being which is existence.

But, just picking 'one term or definition' out of countless other ones never necessarily means that you have chosen, nor presented, the so-called 'standard one/s', at all.

With the term provided existence is defined; existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part.

Not only are the standard terms circular, they also fail to provide any substantiation of existence as the term presented here.

With the definition provided one could point to a tree, or any other item, and easily declare existence. The tree would be perceived or interacted with substantiating it as existence. With the standard definition one would likely be rather perplexed.[/quote]

Really?

If yes, then why do 'you' presume and/or believe that 'you' are Accurately able to 'speak for' absolutely every one, here?

The dual-natured definition, involving both perception and interaction, frees the philosophy from a purely biological, conscious perspective of perception.

Why do so many people, in the days when this is being written, assume or believe that if and when they use the 'philosophy' or 'philosophical' words in their terms, definitions, and/or writings, then by so doing so will give their views or ideas so-called 'more weight'?

The answer/s are fairly obvious, but how many others, here, already know why?

The philosophy presented not only offers a comprehensive, comprehensible ontology it also offers clearer, more practical and more coherent definitions of key terms as illustrated here.

Again, why do 'you' believe that 'you' can Accurately, and 'now' Correctly, speak for all of 'us', here?

Also, the definition/s for the 'existence' word, here, was one of the least issues that you had to be worried or concerned about, anyway, well at least to me anyway.

What would be far more 'pressing' of an issue, here, for me, if 'I: was 'you', would be 'working out' how 'I' can get human beings who believe, absolutely, that 'infinity', itself, does not actual exist, to just become open and remain open human beings, first.

Once 'this' is done, then explaining how 'Existence', Itself, is both infinite and eternal is, really, just very simple and easy process, indeed.

[daniel j lavender]

Existence isn't dependent on perception or interaction.

This is expressed in the essay:

- Existence is that which can, at least partially, be perceived, but it does not necessarily need to be perceived. Things can be without being perceived. Likewise things can interact without awareness, such as waves crashing onto the shore.

- Existence is not needed. Existence is not needed as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to need or require it. Alternatively phrased, there isn't any thing beyond existence to need existence because every thing is part of existence. Existence is not needed, existence just is.

The Significance Of Perception

Perception or consciousness is part of the basis of defining existence because conscious entities, such as ourselves, are who this issue matters to. Existence, things can be without consciousness or awareness, but consciousness or awareness must be included because that's what we are. For our purposes existence is that which is, or can, at least partially, be perceived. It involves perception both because perception or consciousness is part of existence and because the issue intimately concerns conscious entities. It implicitly involves perception or consciousness because that is the process used for such inquiry and exchange.

Interactivity, or the ability of things to interact, or the fact that things or phenomena interact, also plays a significant role in the definition of existence. It frees the philosophy from a purely biological, conscious perspective. Chemicals interact. Atoms interact. Protons, electrons all interact on nonconscious, nonbiological levels.

Existence just is. We, as conscious individuals, create purpose. Much like we create good and bad, right and left, up and down.

Existence simply is.

Existence does not depend on any definition.

Existence does not depend on any thing.

Existence is all things. There is no other upon which to depend.

The commonality of all things, the metaphorical fabric of all things is existence.

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

Existence is not dependent on perception, interaction or definitions however perception, interaction and definitions are significant tools for conscious beings to substantiate and understand existence.

[daniel j lavender]

The fact that there are countless other dictionaries that you could have sourced why are you using only those dictionaries that produce what you call and label 'convoluted and circular' definitions, only?

Provide the terms of which you refer so we may evaluate them.

you appear to seemingly presume that there is some thing, inherently, wrong with 'circular loops', here.

Do you think that there is some thing wrong, inherently or not, with 'circular loops', here?

If yes, then what and why is 'that', exactly?

Language is part of existence. Any term, definition, concept or thing is [part of] existence so in that sense existence references itself. That circularity is unavoidable and rather trivial.

However the standard terms, being and existence, form a vacuous loop of abstraction with no substantiation in concrete, real world instances. The standard terms and definitions fail to substantiate, or provide any means of substantiation, for existence.

The definition provided resolves that issue. The definition is functional and operational.

With the definition provided one could see a tree, touch a leaf, hear a bird, smell a flower and easily declare existence. With the standard terms one would likely be rather perplexed.

The standard terms are stuck in a vacuous loop of abstraction. They serve to relate some distant ambiguity.

The definition provided maintains abstraction while also breaking free of the circularity of standard terms by grounding itself in concrete, real world examples through practical means of substantiation.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

tl;dr the OP daniel. The summary above is OK.

[Age]

The fact that there are countless other dictionaries that you could have sourced why are you using only those dictionaries that produce what you call and label 'convoluted and circular' definitions, only?

Provide the terms of which you refer so we may evaluate them.

I asked you why you picked and used only the definitions that you have, here.

Why do you not answer 'this question'?

you appear to seemingly presume that there is some thing, inherently, wrong with 'circular loops', here.

Do you think that there is some thing wrong, inherently or not, with 'circular loops', here?

If yes, then what and why is 'that', exactly?

Language is part of existence. Any term, definition, concept or thing is [part of] existence so in that sense existence references itself. That circularity is unavoidable and rather trivial.

Great.yiu acknowledge that in 'the end' circularity is, exactly, 'where' 'we' all will end up, anyway.

That you, personally, find this Fact trivial is perfectly fine and okay with 'me'. But, the Fact that Existence, Itself, is just a 'circular loops', then you will be aware that through language, and thus definitions and explanations, an inevitable 'circular loops' is going to happen and occur.

However the standard terms, being and existence, form a vacuous loop of abstraction with no substantiation in concrete, real world instances. The standard terms and definitions fail to substantiate, or provide any means of substantiation, for existence.

The definition provided resolves that issue. The definition is functional and operational.

With the definition provided one could see a tree, touch a leaf, hear a bird, smell a flower and easily declare existence. With the standard terms one would likely be rather perplexed.

The standard terms are stuck in a vacuous loop of abstraction. They serve to relate some distant ambiguity.

The definition provided maintains abstraction while also breaking free of the circularity of standard terms by grounding itself in concrete, real world examples through practical means of substantiation.

1. Why are you stuck on 'them' being so-called and so-claimed 'standard definitions'?

2. Why do you believe that your personal provided definition resolves some thing, here?

3. What you appear to believe is some thing, needing a resolution, here, does anyone else, here, have 'that view'?

If yes, then who is that, exactly?

Now, 'Existence', Itself, is infinite, and eternal, and 'this' can not be refuted. Also, because there are 'thoughts', themselves, there is 'Existence', Itself.

No 'new definitions' are needed, here. So, why do you keep trying to argue for what is just irrefutable, anyway?

[Age]

tl;dr the OP daniel. The summary above is OK.

But, the summary above is, supposedly, so-called 'ok' in relation to who and/or what exactly?

[daniel j lavender]

The fact that there are countless other dictionaries that you could have sourced why are you using only those dictionaries that produce what you call and label 'convoluted and circular' definitions, only?

Provide the terms of which you refer so we may evaluate them.

I asked you why you picked and used only the definitions that you have, here.

Why do you not answer 'this question'?

I provided three definitions from three recognized, reputable dictionaries because those are accepted definitions.

I did not claim it to be an exhaustive list. However it is representative of standard terms.

Again, provide the terms of which you refer so we may evaluate them.

However the standard terms, being and existence, form a vacuous loop of abstraction with no substantiation in concrete, real world instances. The standard terms and definitions fail to substantiate, or provide any means of substantiation, for existence.

The definition provided resolves that issue. The definition is functional and operational.

With the definition provided one could see a tree, touch a leaf, hear a bird, smell a flower and easily declare existence. With the standard terms one would likely be rather perplexed.

The standard terms are stuck in a vacuous loop of abstraction. They serve to relate some distant ambiguity.

The definition provided maintains abstraction while also breaking free of the circularity of standard terms by grounding itself in concrete, real world examples through practical means of substantiation.

1. Why are you stuck on 'them' being so-called and so-claimed 'standard definitions'?

2. Why do you believe that your personal provided definition resolves some thing, here?

3. What you appear to believe is some thing, needing a resolution, here, does anyone else, here, have 'that view'?

1. See above.

2. See above.

3. They likely do now. As illustrated, the standard terms “existence” and “being” form a vacuous loop of abstraction with no substantiation in concrete, real world examples.

How do the standard terms relate to typical, everyday things? With the standard terms how does one bridge the gap between abstraction and tangibility?

Existence is being. Being is existence. What is that? Where is that? The loop of abstraction provides no substantiation or explanatory power.

[Age]

Provide the terms of which you refer so we may evaluate them.

I asked you why you picked and used only the definitions that you have, here.

Why do you not answer 'this question'?

I provided three definitions from three recognized, reputable dictionaries because those are accepted definitions.

I did not claim it to be an exhaustive list. However it is representative of standard terms.

Again, provide the terms of which you refer so we may evaluate them.

What are 'you' going to evaluate them in relation to, exactly?

Again, I have just been pointing out that you keep calling those very minute number of definitions that you supply 'standard definitions', when in fact there are a countless number of other sources of definitions for those words, which to others would also be so-called 'the standard definitions', as well, to them.

However the standard terms, being and existence, form a vacuous loop of abstraction with no substantiation in concrete, real world instances. The standard terms and definitions fail to substantiate, or provide any means of substantiation, for existence.

The definition provided resolves that issue. The definition is functional and operational.

With the definition provided one could see a tree, touch a leaf, hear a bird, smell a flower and easily declare existence. With the standard terms one would likely be rather perplexed.

The standard terms are stuck in a vacuous loop of abstraction. They serve to relate some distant ambiguity.

The definition provided maintains abstraction while also breaking free of the circularity of standard terms by grounding itself in concrete, real world examples through practical means of substantiation.

1. Why are you stuck on 'them' being so-called and so-claimed 'standard definitions'?

2. Why do you believe that your personal provided definition resolves some thing, here?

3. What you appear to believe is some thing, needing a resolution, here, does anyone else, here, have 'that view'?

1. See above.

So, just because you call a definition, then this, in and itself itself, makes that definition so-call 'the standard definitions'.

2. See above.

But, there is nothing above that explains why you keep believing what you are, here.

3. They likely do now. As illustrated, the standard terms “existence” and “being” form a vacuous loop of abstraction with no substantiation in concrete, real world examples.

Again, you are absolutely fixed and stuck in your own personally chosen definition being the so-called 'standard definition', when it obviously is not.

And, there is 'likely' some one, here, who sees or believes that a resolution is needed, here. Well to anyway. I wonder if there is, actually, then if they would like to present "them" 'self', here, 'now'? Until then no one else has acknowledged that any resolution at all was nor is needed, here.


How do the standard terms relate to typical, everyday things? With the standard terms how does one bridge the gap between abstraction and tangibility?

Existence is being. Being is existence. What is that? Where is that? The loop of abstraction provides no substantiation or explanatory power.

But, no ever says nor states and claims that 'Existence is being', nor, 'Being is existence', besides you of course.

And, if absolutely anyone else says it states this most ridiculous of claims, then why, exactly?

The only 'issue' is some made up one, which exists in 'that head's, only.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Just out of curiosity, where does this...

...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...

...fit into your philosophy above?

Noticed this was conveyed here as well: viewtopic.php?p=620660&sid=fb5d8fb4bee5 ... 03#p620660

Not completely sure of the context but yes, things we may perceive as negative events or even catastrophes are indeed parts of existence.

Given my frame of mind, whenever I encounter another "philosophy of life", I'm always curious how it accounts for the sheer horrors that are built right into the "human condition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

You note that...

"Existence is eternal. Existence is constant. Things, parts may change; they may transform, they may shift around or reform, they may break apart or break away. But existence always is, existence is constant. The foundation of any thing, the basis of substance itself concerns being, concerns existence. The thing is. Substance is. It always concerns existence. Matter or energy, things may morph or shift around but no matter the form or arrangement it always is an expression of existence."

"Nonexistence cannot be referenced because nonexistence is not and cannot be."

"Life, in the sense of being eternal, would not have been created nor would it have originated from a specific starting point."

I'm curious as to how your philosophy is construed by you in a religious sense. With many religions human life is eternal because God made it that way. It's just a question of going up or down. But then God Himself created the conditions that sustain all of the horrors above. So most believers subsume that in His mysterious ways.

How does your own philosophy above encompass all of this?

Far be it from me, but there's nothing to encompass is there? Religion is folk belief. The OP title is correct. It's simple uniformitarianism. And?

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

Infinite existence is existence as non-finite. What is not finite has no limits. What has no limits is not a thing. Infinite existence is existence as not a thing.

The absence of one thing relative to another is relative nothingness as there is a relative absence of a thing. A tree lacks being a car...the thing of the car is absent.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Existence isn't dependent on perception or interaction.

This is expressed in the essay:

- Existence is that which can, at least partially, be perceived, but it does not necessarily need to be perceived. Things can be without being perceived. Likewise things can interact without awareness, such as waves crashing onto the shore.

- Existence is not needed. Existence is not needed as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to need or require it. Alternatively phrased, there isn't any thing beyond existence to need existence because every thing is part of existence. Existence is not needed, existence just is.

The Significance Of Perception

Perception or consciousness is part of the basis of defining existence because conscious entities, such as ourselves, are who this issue matters to. Existence, things can be without consciousness or awareness, but consciousness or awareness must be included because that's what we are. For our purposes existence is that which is, or can, at least partially, be perceived. It involves perception both because perception or consciousness is part of existence and because the issue intimately concerns conscious entities. It implicitly involves perception or consciousness because that is the process used for such inquiry and exchange.

Interactivity, or the ability of things to interact, or the fact that things or phenomena interact, also plays a significant role in the definition of existence. It frees the philosophy from a purely biological, conscious perspective. Chemicals interact. Atoms interact. Protons, electrons all interact on nonconscious, nonbiological levels.

Existence just is. We, as conscious individuals, create purpose. Much like we create good and bad, right and left, up and down.

Existence simply is.

Existence does not depend on any definition.

Existence does not depend on any thing.

Existence is all things. There is no other upon which to depend.

The commonality of all things, the metaphorical fabric of all things is existence.

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

Existence is not dependent on perception, interaction or definitions however perception, interaction and definitions are significant tools for conscious beings to substantiate and understand existence.

What isn't metaphor? Things in themselves I suppose. Whatever that is. The hierarchy of emergent complexity from the ineffably complex meaningless dimensionless points of mandatory existence.