Existence Is Infinite

[daniel j lavender]

8.1.2025 Essay Revisions

Removed Paragraph

Existence is infinite, existence is not limited to any particular or any specific thing. Existence is innumerable things in innumerable places in innumerable ways; things bursting and flying, floating and flowing…


Integrated Existence Is Eternal Section Into Main Body Text


Rearranged Section Order


Note Addition

- Perception or perceiving, as in the definition of existence, concerns mental apprehension in addition to sensory experience.


The Definition Of Existence Section Addition

Standard definitions of existence are often ambiguous and circular. They provide no means of substantiation. Existence is defined as simply being, being defined as simply existence. The terms form a vacuous loop of abstraction with no substantiation in concrete, real world instances.

The definition presented herein resolves that issue. The definition is functional and operational. Existence is defined; existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part. With the definition provided one could see a tree, touch a leaf, hear a bird or smell a flower and declare existence.

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

The definition establishes testable criteria allowing substantiation of existence and rejection of nonexistence. That which is perceived or interacted with indicates existence. Nonexistence fails because nonexistence cannot be perceived or interacted with. The rejection of nonexistence is not merely definitional but grounded in the inability to substantiate nonexistence.


Epistemic Ontological Distinction Section Addition

Perception is a means of substantiation concerning conscious beings. Perception and interaction are epistemic tools, not ontological requirements.

Existence simply is. Existence is not dependent on perception or definitions however perception and definitions are significant tools for conscious beings to substantiate and understand existence. The definitions concern us, our knowledge and substantiation, not the dependence of existence on them.


Theological Versatility Section Addition

While many philosophical systems offer rigid prescriptions for existence the framework presented herein supports a plethora of theological and metaphysical interpretations.

The framework accommodates theism and deism in which deity, a part of existence, creates the universe, another part of existence. It accommodates pantheism in which all is equated with deity. It accommodates naturalism in which systems and structures develop naturally. It accommodates agnosticism in which knowledge of deity is uncertain. The framework also accommodates atheism in which deity is rejected. All positions are accommodated without compromising the integrity of the ontology.

Not only does the philosophy accommodate various theological positions it also reveals and connects the commonalities among them.


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

[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.

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

Existence is not only a thing. Existence is all things.

Hence infinite, not limited to only a thing.

The absence of one thing relative to another is relative nothingness as there is a relative absence of a thing.

That isn’t nothingness. You reference one thing to reference another. Simply because one thing is located elsewhere does not indicate nothingness. Both are things.

At best this is an example of absence. However absence concerns subjects and locations, absence concerns things, not nothingness or nonexistence.

Your inconsistent wording reveals the conflation. First you refer to it as relative nothingness, then four words later as relative absence.

Relative nothingness is a misnomer. Relative nothingness does not involve that which does not exist but rather that which is located or identified elsewhere. What relative nothingness actually entails is relative absence or contextual absence, terms of which accurately convey the idea.

[Age]

The word 'existence' can be in reference to things like 'Life', and the 'Universe', which are both infinite, and eternal. So, therefore 'Existence' can be very simply easily argued, soundly and validly, is also infinite, and eternal.

Absolutely no one could refute 'this'. So, I am not sure why you are 'struggling' so much, here.

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

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

Existence is not only a thing. Existence is all things.

Hence infinite, not limited to only a thing.

The absence of one thing relative to another is relative nothingness as there is a relative absence of a thing.

That isn’t nothingness. You reference one thing to reference another. Simply because one thing is located elsewhere does not indicate nothingness. Both are things.

At best this is an example of absence. However absence concerns subjects and locations, absence concerns things, not nothingness or nonexistence.

Your inconsistent wording reveals the conflation. First you refer to it as relative nothingness, then four words later as relative absence.

Relative nothingness is a misnomer. Relative nothingness does not involve that which does not exist but rather that which is located or identified elsewhere. What relative nothingness actually entails is relative absence or contextual absence, terms of which accurately convey the idea.

If existence is all things, and as all things has no comparison by which to make it distinct, then existence is not a thing as it is not distinct. If existence is not a thing, it does not exist as only things exist.

Relative nothingness is merely the absence of one thing relative to another thing. The absence of a thing is thus nothing, but a paradox ensues as this absence is a distinction, thus a thing. Nothingness exists and a paradox ensues. To speak of pure existence or pure nothingness results in a paradox.

You are trying to avoid a paradox in your argument and yet fail to see not only is it inevitable but you are trying to limit existence by ignoring certain paradoxes while allowing others. You claim existence is infinite and yet seek to limit this infinity where on one hand you contradict yourself by doing so while in another respect fail to see pure existence, ie only existence, is a contradiction.

How is pure existence a contradiction, "only existence" is a contradiction, because it is a distinction that cannot occur for it would require something beyond it and if something is beyond existence then:

1. Existence is a self referential loop that means nothing in both form and function and even the meaning of the word.

2. Beyond existence would effectively be nothing and yet existence would be distinct by being the opposite of nothing thus nothingness exists as it is a distinction as well. Nothingness and existence thus both exist thus nothingness is the limit of existence making it finite.

3. Pure existence would be indistinct, as indistinct it would cease to exist.

4. Existence compared to itself makes existence inherently in a state of self-contradiction by nature of self opposition, under pure contradiction anything goes.



Now I doubt you will accept this so here is an ai explanation, a neutral party, explaining what I just said in other terms:



Great questions! You've touched on some deep and complex ideas about existence, nothingness, and paradoxes in philosophy. Let's break down these concepts step by step to clarify what's going on.

1. Existence as a Non-Thing & the Problem of Distinction
Your point: If existence encompasses all things, then it has no comparison by which to be distinguished — meaning it isn’t a “thing” in the usual sense because it’s not separate from anything else.

Simplified explanation: Think of existence as the backdrop or the canvas on which all things appear. If everything exists, then existence itself isn’t a thing you can point to or define — it’s just that which is. It’s like asking, “What is the color white without any objects to be white?” It’s a condition, not an object.

Question for thought: Is existence a thing you can have or possess, or is it just the condition for things to be?

2. Nothingness and Its Paradox
Your point: The absence of a thing (nothingness) is a distinction, which makes it a thing, leading to a paradox: nothing is both absence and a kind of thing.

Analogy: Imagine a room with no furniture. The absence of furniture isn’t a thing itself—it’s just the lack of something. But if we define “nothing” as a thing, then nothing becomes something, which seems contradictory.

Paradox: The paradox arises because talking about nothing as if it were something leads to contradiction: nothing both exists (as an idea) and doesn’t exist (as a thing).

3. Pure Existence and Paradox
Your claim: When we try to speak of pure existence (existence without any distinctions or limitations), it leads to a contradiction.

Why? Because:

If pure existence is all there is, then there are no distinctions, no differences—everything is the same. But difference is a distinction, which seems to require something other than pure existence.

If something exists beyond existence, then existence isn’t pure anymore; it’s limited or contrasted by this “beyond.”

If existence and nothingness coexist, then nothingness becomes a limit of existence, making existence finite, which contradicts the idea of infinite existence.

Summary: Trying to define pure existence as completely without distinction creates a paradox because to speak of it, you need distinctions; but if there are no distinctions, you can't speak of it at all.

4. The Self-Referential Loop & Contradiction
Your point: Existence might be a self-referential loop—meaning it refers to itself endlessly, which makes it meaningless or contradictory.

Analogy: Imagine trying to define something by referencing itself repeatedly—"existence exists because it exists." This circular reasoning doesn’t give us any new information.

Implication: This suggests that pure existence might be inherently self-contradictory because it relies on self-reference, which often leads to paradoxes.

[daniel j lavender]

The word 'existence' can be in reference to things like 'Life' which [is] infinite

In what sense?

[daniel j lavender]

If existence is all things, and as all things has no comparison by which to make it distinct, then existence is not a thing as it is not distinct. If existence is not a thing, it does not exist as only things exist.

Existence is not only a thing.

Review the Existence Both Part And Whole section of the essay.

Relative nothingness is merely the absence of one thing relative to another thing.

Relative nothingness is an idea developed largely by Nishida Kitaro.

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.

How is pure existence a contradiction, "only existence" is a contradiction, because it is a distinction that cannot occur for it would require something beyond it and if something is beyond existence then:

You’re claiming existence requires distinction. It doesn’t.

Distinction occurs among elements of existence, not beyond existence.

There is no need for distinction, existence just is. Distinction concerns complexities encountered by conscious individuals, including the conceptual distinctions of existence and nonexistence.

Additionally you use the terms “pure existence” and “only existence”. Those are not my terms.

1. Existence is a self referential loop that means nothing in both form and function and even the meaning of the word.

The term certainly has meaning. It’s explicitly defined in the essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

The definition is not merely a label; it establishes parameters of substantiation.

As stated language is part of existence: viewtopic.php?p=772707#p772707

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

2. Beyond existence would effectively be nothing and yet existence would be distinct by being the opposite of nothing thus nothingness exists as it is a distinction as well. Nothingness and existence thus both exist thus nothingness is the limit of existence making it finite.

As stated above those are conceptual distinctions. Those are concepts, things. Nonexistence is a concept. Existence, the concept, is a concept. Those are conceptual distinctions pertaining to conscious beings. Elements of existence.

As expressed in July 2023:

Existence, as a concept, could indeed have a conceptual counterpart. And that conceptual counterpart would be, it would be part of existence, not nonexistence. Hence the contradictory concept nonexistence.

Again, parts can have counterparts. The word, the term, the concept existence itself is not all things, it is merely a part. However I use the term existence in representation of, in reference to all things including the term and concept itself. Language has limits but to convey the idea that’s the route one must take.

…that is a conceptual counterpart of the concept existence, not a counterpart of existence in its entirety.

As stated, both the concept existence and the concept nonexistence are only concepts. Concepts are not the totality of existence and thus can have counterparts.

The totality of existence, which includes the concept existence and the concept nonexistence along with all other things, does not and cannot have a counterpart as it is all things. It is all existence. It is existence. The Infinite, which has no counterpart, which is not exceeded and which is unlimited.

Nothingness is not some ambiguous, mysterious remoteness revealed through the term or concept nonexistence. Rather nothingness is an abstraction, a delusive abstraction constructed in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

Many claim without consciousness, without thought there is nothingness. Oddly to the contrary. Consciousness, thought is what actually creates this abstraction of nothingness. Without consciousness nonexistence is not a worry. Without thought nonexistence is not a concern.

3. Pure existence would be indistinct, as indistinct it would cease to exist.

“Pure existence” is your term, whatever it means.

Wouldn’t “pure” be distinction itself? The premise seems fallacious.

4. Existence compared to itself makes existence inherently in a state of self-contradiction by nature of self opposition, under pure contradiction anything goes.

That’s the very issue. You attempt to separate existence from existence for purposes of comparison.

Existence is existence. Each part. All opposition, all contradiction balances as simply being. Sand is. Water is. Dark is. Light is. All is existence.

[Eodnhoj7]

If existence is all things, and as all things has no comparison by which to make it distinct, then existence is not a thing as it is not distinct. If existence is not a thing, it does not exist as only things exist.

Existence is not only a thing.

Review the Existence Both Part And Whole section of the essay.

Relative nothingness is merely the absence of one thing relative to another thing.

Relative nothingness is an idea developed largely by Nishida Kitaro.

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.

How is pure existence a contradiction, "only existence" is a contradiction, because it is a distinction that cannot occur for it would require something beyond it and if something is beyond existence then:

You’re claiming existence requires distinction. It doesn’t.

Distinction occurs among elements of existence, not beyond existence.

There is no need for distinction, existence just is. Distinction concerns complexities encountered by conscious individuals, including the conceptual distinctions of existence and nonexistence.

Additionally you use the terms “pure existence” and “only existence”. Those are not my terms.

1. Existence is a self referential loop that means nothing in both form and function and even the meaning of the word.

The term certainly has meaning. It’s explicitly defined in the essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

The definition is not merely a label; it establishes parameters of substantiation.

As stated language is part of existence: viewtopic.php?p=772707#p772707

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

2. Beyond existence would effectively be nothing and yet existence would be distinct by being the opposite of nothing thus nothingness exists as it is a distinction as well. Nothingness and existence thus both exist thus nothingness is the limit of existence making it finite.

As stated above those are conceptual distinctions. Those are concepts, things. Nonexistence is a concept. Existence, the concept, is a concept. Those are conceptual distinctions pertaining to conscious beings. Elements of existence.

As expressed in July 2023:

Existence, as a concept, could indeed have a conceptual counterpart. And that conceptual counterpart would be, it would be part of existence, not nonexistence. Hence the contradictory concept nonexistence.

Again, parts can have counterparts. The word, the term, the concept existence itself is not all things, it is merely a part. However I use the term existence in representation of, in reference to all things including the term and concept itself. Language has limits but to convey the idea that’s the route one must take.

…that is a conceptual counterpart of the concept existence, not a counterpart of existence in its entirety.

As stated, both the concept existence and the concept nonexistence are only concepts. Concepts are not the totality of existence and thus can have counterparts.

The totality of existence, which includes the concept existence and the concept nonexistence along with all other things, does not and cannot have a counterpart as it is all things. It is all existence. It is existence. The Infinite, which has no counterpart, which is not exceeded and which is unlimited.

Nothingness is not some ambiguous, mysterious remoteness revealed through the term or concept nonexistence. Rather nothingness is an abstraction, a delusive abstraction constructed in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

Many claim without consciousness, without thought there is nothingness. Oddly to the contrary. Consciousness, thought is what actually creates this abstraction of nothingness. Without consciousness nonexistence is not a worry. Without thought nonexistence is not a concern.

3. Pure existence would be indistinct, as indistinct it would cease to exist.

“Pure existence” is your term, whatever it means.

Wouldn’t “pure” be distinction itself? The premise seems fallacious.

4. Existence compared to itself makes existence inherently in a state of self-contradiction by nature of self opposition, under pure contradiction anything goes.

That’s the very issue. You attempt to separate existence from existence for purposes of comparison.

Existence is existence. Each part. All opposition, all contradiction balances as simply being. Sand is. Water is. Dark is. Light is. All is existence.

You seem to spend alot of time arguing why I am wrong without realizing that what I state exists by virtue of occuring.

You seem to cherry pick what exists.

If "existence is not only a thing", as in not limited to being a thing, then existence is also not a thing, nothing.

[daniel j lavender]

Now I doubt you will accept this so here is an ai explanation, a neutral party, explaining what I just said in other terms:

A.I. can be less biased, however, it largely depends on the input.

Reviewing the results it’s evident you have conflated concepts and misrepresented statements and terms.

1. Existence as a Non-Thing & the Problem of Distinction
Your point: If existence encompasses all things, then it has no comparison by which to be distinguished — meaning it isn’t a “thing” in the usual sense because it’s not separate from anything else.

Simplified explanation: Think of existence as the backdrop or the canvas on which all things appear. If everything exists, then existence itself isn’t a thing you can point to or define — it’s just that which is. It’s like asking, “What is the color white without any objects to be white?” It’s a condition, not an object.

Immediately this statement illustrates the confusion.

Existence is a thing, and all other things. Existence is both part and whole.

One could point in any direction, at any thing, and identify existence. The tree is. The mountain is. The sky is. The car is. The house is. The grass is. All are [parts of] existence. By definition.

Question for thought: Is existence a thing you can have or possess, or is it just the condition for things to be?

Existence is that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

2. Nothingness and Its Paradox
Your point: The absence of a thing (nothingness) is a distinction, which makes it a thing, leading to a paradox: nothing is both absence and a kind of thing.

Conflation of terms. Absence is not nothing.

Analogy: Imagine a room with no furniture. The absence of furniture isn’t a thing itself—it’s just the lack of something. But if we define “nothing” as a thing, then nothing becomes something, which seems contradictory.

Incorrect. Absence is a condition, a circumstance, a thing. Absence is perceived. Absence concerns only things, locations and subjects.

Paradox: The paradox arises because talking about nothing as if it were something leads to contradiction: nothing both exists (as an idea) and doesn’t exist (as a thing).

Nothing is a thing. A concept or idea. Thus it is contradictory or paradoxical as expressed in the essay.

3. Pure Existence and Paradox
Your claim: When we try to speak of pure existence (existence without any distinctions or limitations), it leads to a contradiction.

What is “pure existence”? You are introducing a new term. I have not used the term “pure existence”.

The very idea of “pure existence” implies distinction. “Pure” is distinct from “impure”. Where is the “impure existence”?

You are establishing distinctions while claiming otherwise. You begin with an erroneous premise and erroneous terminology. Only absurdity could result.

If pure existence is all there is, then there are no distinctions, no differences—everything is the same. But difference is a distinction, which seems to require something other than pure existence.

What is “pure existence”? That is an unknown term.

Additionally you seem to define “pure existence” as all there is, yet place distinction upon that very term using “pure” which is a fallacious premise. It’s distinct yet presented otherwise.

I am not claiming “pure existence is all there is”.

I am claiming existence is all there is.

Existence is variation and commonality, existence is division and unity. Existence is impure and pure. Existence is all.

If something exists beyond existence, then existence isn’t pure anymore; it’s limited or contrasted by this “beyond.”

If something exists it is part of existence, not beyond it.

If existence and nothingness coexist, then nothingness becomes a limit of existence, making existence finite, which contradicts the idea of infinite existence.

Existence and nonexistence do not coexist.

Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Summary: Trying to define pure existence as completely without distinction creates a paradox because to speak of it, you need distinctions; but if there are no distinctions, you can't speak of it at all.

Precisely. That’s user input and thus user error.

You are claiming “pure existence” is not distinction.

“Pure existence” is implicitly distinction. A fallacious premise.

4. The Self-Referential Loop & Contradiction
Your point: Existence might be a self-referential loop—meaning it refers to itself endlessly, which makes it meaningless or contradictory.

As expressed any term, definition, concept or thing is part of existence so in that sense existence is self-referential. That circularity is unavoidable.

Analogy: Imagine trying to define something by referencing itself repeatedly—"existence exists because it exists." This circular reasoning doesn’t give us any new information.

However that is a generalized, generic statement. Details and specifics of existence are discussed which leads to new information. Those details and specifics are aspects of existence.

Both specific and general concepts can be useful.

Implication: This suggests that pure existence might be inherently self-contradictory because it relies on self-reference, which often leads to paradoxes.

Existence is both part and whole, specific and general. Existence is all.

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

[Eodnhoj7]

Now I doubt you will accept this so here is an ai explanation, a neutral party, explaining what I just said in other terms:

A.I. can be less biased, however, it largely depends on the input.

Reviewing the results it’s evident you have conflated concepts and misrepresented statements and terms.

1. Existence as a Non-Thing & the Problem of Distinction
Your point: If existence encompasses all things, then it has no comparison by which to be distinguished — meaning it isn’t a “thing” in the usual sense because it’s not separate from anything else.

Simplified explanation: Think of existence as the backdrop or the canvas on which all things appear. If everything exists, then existence itself isn’t a thing you can point to or define — it’s just that which is. It’s like asking, “What is the color white without any objects to be white?” It’s a condition, not an object.

Immediately this statement illustrates the confusion.

Existence is a thing, and all other things. Existence is both part and whole.

One could point in any direction, at any thing, and identify existence. The tree is. The mountain is. The sky is. The car is. The house is. The grass is. All are [parts of] existence. By definition.

Question for thought: Is existence a thing you can have or possess, or is it just the condition for things to be?

Existence is that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

2. Nothingness and Its Paradox
Your point: The absence of a thing (nothingness) is a distinction, which makes it a thing, leading to a paradox: nothing is both absence and a kind of thing.

Conflation of terms. Absence is not nothing.

Analogy: Imagine a room with no furniture. The absence of furniture isn’t a thing itself—it’s just the lack of something. But if we define “nothing” as a thing, then nothing becomes something, which seems contradictory.

Incorrect. Absence is a condition, a circumstance, a thing. Absence is perceived. Absence concerns only things, locations and subjects.

Paradox: The paradox arises because talking about nothing as if it were something leads to contradiction: nothing both exists (as an idea) and doesn’t exist (as a thing).

Nothing is a thing. A concept or idea. Thus it is contradictory or paradoxical as expressed in the essay.

3. Pure Existence and Paradox
Your claim: When we try to speak of pure existence (existence without any distinctions or limitations), it leads to a contradiction.

What is “pure existence”? You are introducing a new term. I have not used the term “pure existence”.

The very idea of “pure existence” implies distinction. “Pure” is distinct from “impure”. Where is the “impure existence”?

You are establishing distinctions while claiming otherwise. You begin with an erroneous premise and erroneous terminology. Only absurdity could result.

If pure existence is all there is, then there are no distinctions, no differences—everything is the same. But difference is a distinction, which seems to require something other than pure existence.

What is “pure existence”? That is an unknown term.

Additionally you seem to define “pure existence” as all there is, yet place distinction upon that very term using “pure” which is a fallacious premise. It’s distinct yet presented otherwise.

I am not claiming “pure existence is all there is”.

I am claiming existence is all there is.

Existence is variation and commonality, existence is division and unity. Existence is impure and pure. Existence is all.

If something exists beyond existence, then existence isn’t pure anymore; it’s limited or contrasted by this “beyond.”

If something exists it is part of existence, not beyond it.

If existence and nothingness coexist, then nothingness becomes a limit of existence, making existence finite, which contradicts the idea of infinite existence.

Existence and nonexistence do not coexist.

Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Summary: Trying to define pure existence as completely without distinction creates a paradox because to speak of it, you need distinctions; but if there are no distinctions, you can't speak of it at all.

Precisely. That’s user input and thus user error.

You are claiming “pure existence” is not distinction.

“Pure existence” is implicitly distinction. A fallacious premise.

4. The Self-Referential Loop & Contradiction
Your point: Existence might be a self-referential loop—meaning it refers to itself endlessly, which makes it meaningless or contradictory.

As expressed any term, definition, concept or thing is part of existence so in that sense existence is self-referential. That circularity is unavoidable.

Analogy: Imagine trying to define something by referencing itself repeatedly—"existence exists because it exists." This circular reasoning doesn’t give us any new information.

However that is a generalized, generic statement. Details and specifics of existence are discussed which leads to new information. Those details and specifics are aspects of existence.

Both specific and general concepts can be useful.

Implication: This suggests that pure existence might be inherently self-contradictory because it relies on self-reference, which often leads to paradoxes.

Existence is both part and whole, specific and general. Existence is all.

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

You are taking everything out of context by emphasizing some things over others, you are not arguing against what I state but recontextualizing it into fragments over an interrelated whole so to negate it and yet this method is false by your own standards for everything I argue exists and yet you cherry pick what exists and what does not....in simpler terms you fail to see that my argument exists while stating existence as infinite is without limits. If existence is without limits than what I state is perfectly fine.



Anyhow...you can ignore the above as it is over your head...



I can observe your premise and deduce it as a paradox:




Existence is infinite,

what is infinite is not finite,

what is not finite is not a thing as things are finite,

existence is not a thing,

if existence is not a thing it is nothing,

this is a paradox.

[daniel j lavender]

You are taking everything out of context by emphasizing some things over others

Provide specific examples.

you are not arguing against what I state but recontextualizing it into fragments over an interrelated whole so to negate it

I am addressing each point presented, unlike you.

yet this method is false by your own standards for everything I argue exists and yet you cherry pick what exists and what does not....in simpler terms you fail to see that my argument exists while stating existence as infinite is without limits. If existence is without limits than what I state is perfectly fine.

We discussed this December of last year: viewtopic.php?p=745919#p745919

As expressed existence is infinite and finite. The unlimitedness of existence is not limited to unlimitedness. Review the Existence Both Part And Whole section beneath Additional Notes of the original essay.

…potentially anything could occur in which case my argument, as an aspect of existence, is correct.

All things are, yes. But all things are not necessarily correct. Not all aspects of existence are correct simply because they are aspects of existence. All claims are not correct, for example, yet they are still aspects of existence.

As stated above, in a certain sense your claim is correct as paradoxes can exist while remaining congruent. However you seem to claim that existence cannot be both infinite and finite. That is false and explained more thoroughly in the original text.

And, as noted above, the claim may be incorrect but it is still an aspect of existence.

I can observe your premise and deduce it as a paradox:
Existence is infinite,

Existence is infinite, correct.

what is infinite is not finite,

Infinite concerns finite.

Existence is both finite and infinite, both part and whole.

what is not finite is not a thing as things are finite,
existence is not a thing,
if existence is not a thing it is nothing,
this is a paradox.

Existence is a thing. And all other things.

Existence is all.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are taking everything out of context by emphasizing some things over others

Provide specific examples.

you are not arguing against what I state but recontextualizing it into fragments over an interrelated whole so to negate it

I am addressing each point presented, unlike you.

yet this method is false by your own standards for everything I argue exists and yet you cherry pick what exists and what does not....in simpler terms you fail to see that my argument exists while stating existence as infinite is without limits. If existence is without limits than what I state is perfectly fine.

We discussed this December of last year: viewtopic.php?p=745919#p745919

As expressed existence is infinite and finite. The unlimitedness of existence is not limited to unlimitedness. Review the Existence Both Part And Whole section beneath Additional Notes of the original essay.

…potentially anything could occur in which case my argument, as an aspect of existence, is correct.

All things are, yes. But all things are not necessarily correct. Not all aspects of existence are correct simply because they are aspects of existence. All claims are not correct, for example, yet they are still aspects of existence.

As stated above, in a certain sense your claim is correct as paradoxes can exist while remaining congruent. However you seem to claim that existence cannot be both infinite and finite. That is false and explained more thoroughly in the original text.

And, as noted above, the claim may be incorrect but it is still an aspect of existence.

I can observe your premise and deduce it as a paradox:
Existence is infinite,

Existence is infinite, correct.

what is infinite is not finite,

Infinite concerns finite.

Existence is both finite and infinite, both part and whole.

what is not finite is not a thing as things are finite,
existence is not a thing,
if existence is not a thing it is nothing,
this is a paradox.

Existence is a thing. And all other things.

Existence is all.

Example? The conversation before this one where each statement is refuted on its own terms when each statement is dependent upon the other.

My approach is simple: your premises by which you build the argument. And the premise? Existence is infinite.




If existence is a thing it is finite. If existence is simultaneously infinite then a paradox ensues. So that paradox is allowed but existence not being a thing, nothing, is not?

You do understand if existence only occurs, and it is one thing as all things, and yet this one thing has no contrast by which to be defined, it then result in existence not being a thing?




If existence is all then it is a contradiction as contradiction exists.

[daniel j lavender]

Example? The conversation before this one where each statement is refuted on its own terms when each statement is dependent upon the other.

If interdependent there should be no issue. The responses likewise follow.

My approach is simple: your premises by which you build the argument. And the premise? Existence is infinite.

That isn’t entirely how the argument is built.

Parameters are established which allow substantiation and identification of existence. The terms and definitions establish testable criteria.

Nonexistence fails substantiation, nonexistence fails the test. Nonexistence cannot be perceived or interacted with.

From that the subsequent statements follow.

If existence is a thing it is finite. If existence is simultaneously infinite then a paradox ensues. So that paradox is allowed but existence not being a thing, nothing, is not?

Existence is infinite and finite. The unlimitedness of existence is not limited to unlimitedness.

That could be considered paradoxical, however, paradoxical does not necessarily mean incongruent.

We have discussed this as well:

Given existence is infinite and finite, as you just claimed, this results in a paradox where potentially anything could occur in which case my argument, as an aspect of existence, is correct. Basically your stance is a paradox.

Paradoxes are not always fallacious or false.

As defined:

Paradox (noun)
2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
(Paradox. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradox)

“Infinite” is defined as unlimited or not limited. Infinite is not limited, not restricted. Infinite is inclusive, infinite includes finite. Infinite includes finite parts. The extents and variations of those finite parts contribute to or comprise what is infinite.

So that paradox is allowed but existence not being a thing, nothing, is not?

If that is allowed, which it not only is allowed but is the case, then existence wouldn’t “not be a thing”.

You do understand if existence only occurs, and it is one thing as all things, and yet this one thing has no contrast by which to be defined, it then result in existence not being a thing?

“One thing as all things” is misleading, whatever that statement means.

It appears you are attempting to frame all existence as a single object. That is inaccurate.

You seem to spend alot of time arguing why I am wrong without realizing that what I state exists by virtue of occuring.

The idea exists however that does not mean it is accurate or sensible.

As discussed:

…potentially anything could occur in which case my argument, as an aspect of existence, is correct.

All things are, yes. But all things are not necessarily correct. Not all aspects of existence are correct simply because they are aspects of existence. All claims are not correct, for example, yet they are still aspects of existence.

[Age]

The word 'existence' can be in reference to things like 'Life' which [is] infinite

In what sense?

There exists Existence, which is irrefutable by the way.

The exists Life, as well, which is also irrefutable as well.

The Universe, when defined as Everything; Totality; all-there-is, then the Universe is eternal, and infinite, which, again, by the way, is also.irrefutable.

Now, considering that the Universe exists, or is in Existence, is alive, and thus Life, Itself, and infinite, then in the logically reasoned, sound and valid, irrefutable and/or proved sense, then it is in 'this sense' that Existence, Itself, can be in reference to Life, Itself

[Eodnhoj7]

Example? The conversation before this one where each statement is refuted on its own terms when each statement is dependent upon the other.

If interdependent there should be no issue. The responses likewise follow.

My approach is simple: your premises by which you build the argument. And the premise? Existence is infinite.

That isn’t entirely how the argument is built.

Parameters are established which allow substantiation and identification of existence. The terms and definitions establish testable criteria.

Nonexistence fails substantiation, nonexistence fails the test. Nonexistence cannot be perceived or interacted with.

From that the subsequent statements follow.

If existence is a thing it is finite. If existence is simultaneously infinite then a paradox ensues. So that paradox is allowed but existence not being a thing, nothing, is not?

Existence is infinite and finite. The unlimitedness of existence is not limited to unlimitedness.

That could be considered paradoxical, however, paradoxical does not necessarily mean incongruent.

We have discussed this as well:

Given existence is infinite and finite, as you just claimed, this results in a paradox where potentially anything could occur in which case my argument, as an aspect of existence, is correct. Basically your stance is a paradox.

Paradoxes are not always fallacious or false.

As defined:

Paradox (noun)
2 a : a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
(Paradox. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradox)

“Infinite” is defined as unlimited or not limited. Infinite is not limited, not restricted. Infinite is inclusive, infinite includes finite. Infinite includes finite parts. The extents and variations of those finite parts contribute to or comprise what is infinite.

So that paradox is allowed but existence not being a thing, nothing, is not?

If that is allowed, which it not only is allowed but is the case, then existence wouldn’t “not be a thing”.

You do understand if existence only occurs, and it is one thing as all things, and yet this one thing has no contrast by which to be defined, it then result in existence not being a thing?

“One thing as all things” is misleading, whatever that statement means.

It appears you are attempting to frame all existence as a single object. That is inaccurate.

You seem to spend alot of time arguing why I am wrong without realizing that what I state exists by virtue of occuring.

The idea exists however that does not mean it is accurate or sensible.

As discussed:

…potentially anything could occur in which case my argument, as an aspect of existence, is correct.

All things are, yes. But all things are not necessarily correct. Not all aspects of existence are correct simply because they are aspects of existence. All claims are not correct, for example, yet they are still aspects of existence.

If you are deriving truth from testability than the framework determines the answers and truth becomes mere rhetorical assertion. Tests do not necessarily determine the truth of reality, they are expressions of how we percieve reality as the test is a framework of interpretation.


“Infinite” is defined as unlimited or not limited. Infinite is not limited, not restricted. Infinite is inclusive, infinite includes finite. Infinite includes finite parts. The extents and variations of those finite parts contribute to or comprise what is infinite.

If existence is not limited, has no limits, and a thing is only a thing by nature of limits, then existence is not a thing.

The unlimited cannot contain the limited for to contain requires limits by which something exists within and the unlimited is not limited.

[daniel j lavender]

If you are deriving truth from testability than the framework determines the answers and truth becomes mere rhetorical assertion. Tests do not necessarily determine the truth of reality, they are expressions of how we percieve reality as the test is a framework of interpretation.

The ontology establishes parameters for substantiation. It isn’t merely a test. However the parameters do function in that way.

You claim this is merely rhetorical assertion. The terms are grounded in concrete examples dispelling such claims of rhetorical assertion. Is observing a tree rhetorical assertion? Is touching a leaf rhetorical assertion? Is hearing a bird rhetorical assertion?

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

What is a better definition?

What alternative definitions enable substantiation of existence?

The definition provided allows substantiation and identification of existence. It makes existence real for lack of better terms. Alternative definitions do not.

If existence is not limited, has no limits, and a thing is only a thing by nature of limits, then existence is not a thing.

Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to part or to the whole. Existence is both part and whole, limited and unlimited.

The tree is the tree, it is limited. It is [part of] existence. However existence is not limited to the tree. Existence is not limited to any particular. Existence is the tree and all other things. This example illustrates both the limitedness (tree, one thing) and the unlimitedness (all things) of existence.

That which is perceived or interacted with indicates existence. A thing is, by definition, existence.

The unlimited cannot contain the limited for to contain requires limits by which something exists within and the unlimited is not limited.

Existence does not “contain” the parts, existence is the parts.