Existence Is Infinite

[daniel j lavender]

And the term nothing means "absence of anything" or "no thing".

The term is explicitly defined in the essay as illustrated in my comment above.

Once again you intentionally evade statements and arguments presented.

You claimed Wikipedia defines nothing as “complete absence of anything”. Again, can you locate that? Can you locate a “complete absence of anything”? Can anyone locate a “complete absence of anything”? I contend one cannot.

Don’t skip that previous paragraph; it’s a significant point here. I contend no one can successfully locate nothing, as in a “complete absence of anything”.

That premise ties directly into the definition of nothing (or nonexistence) provided with the ontology. Nothing or nonexistence can never be perceived or interacted with. By definition. In other words nothing cannot be located:

Nonexistence (n.): Non-being; no thing, nothing, nothingness; is never perceived or interacted with other than as a concept or term; it does not and cannot exist. A contradictory concept and term.

It isn’t a whimsical definition. It’s based on explicitly established parameters and demonstrable evidence as conveyed with the paragraph above.

Or are you creating your own definition? Is that the case for you thesis?

Many philosophies and philosophers do. Take Heidegger or Spinoza for example. They created their own terms, definitions and axioms. It isn’t that radical.

I am assuming you are defining the terms and not taking general meanings?

As stated, standard terms and definitions are ambiguous and circular, lacking practical means of substantiation…

You claim nothingness is a contradictory term, which I also stated, and yet for existence to be distinct you need nothingness to stand apart from...existence needs contradiction.

However if you claim existence does not need this contradiction to be distinct then by default existence has to be distinct from itself to gain meaning...and this leads it to contradict itself...which again necessitates contradiction.

So which is it so that existence is distinct?

And yet once again you skip the primary argument presented:

You claimed Wikipedia defines nothing as “complete absence of anything”. Again, can you locate that? Can you locate a “complete absence of anything”? Can anyone locate a “complete absence of anything”? I contend one cannot.

Don’t skip that previous paragraph; it’s a significant point here. I contend no one can successfully locate nothing, as in a “complete absence of anything”.

That premise ties directly into the definition of nothing (or nonexistence) provided with the ontology. Nothing or nonexistence can never be perceived or interacted with. By definition. In other words nothing cannot be located:

Nonexistence (n.): Non-being; no thing, nothing, nothingness; is never perceived or interacted with other than as a concept or term; it does not and cannot exist. A contradictory concept and term.

It isn’t a whimsical definition. It’s based on explicitly established parameters and demonstrable evidence as conveyed with the paragraph above.

I’ll leave that up there for emphasis.

You claim nothingness is a contradictory term, which I also stated, and yet for existence to be distinct you need nothingness to stand apart from...existence needs contradiction.

As expressed:

Existence does not need to be distinct. That is a qualification you artificially place upon existence as a conscious individual.

Existence simply is.

Existence does not need to be distinct.

Existence does not need. Existence is.

Existence is all; there is no beyond, no additional aspect to need. As expressed in the essay:

- 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.

However if you claim existence does not need this contradiction to be distinct then by default existence has to be distinct from itself to gain meaning...and this leads it to contradict itself...which again necessitates contradiction.

And meaning (or purpose) really only has significance to conscious beings as implied in the essay:

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

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.

so of course that would concern parts and distinctions. It concerns conscious beings and their interactions with those things.

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

[Eodnhoj7]

The term is explicitly defined in the essay as illustrated in my comment above.

Once again you intentionally evade statements and arguments presented.

You claimed Wikipedia defines nothing as “complete absence of anything”. Again, can you locate that? Can you locate a “complete absence of anything”? Can anyone locate a “complete absence of anything”? I contend one cannot.

Don’t skip that previous paragraph; it’s a significant point here. I contend no one can successfully locate nothing, as in a “complete absence of anything”.

That premise ties directly into the definition of nothing (or nonexistence) provided with the ontology. Nothing or nonexistence can never be perceived or interacted with. By definition. In other words nothing cannot be located:



It isn’t a whimsical definition. It’s based on explicitly established parameters and demonstrable evidence as conveyed with the paragraph above.




Many philosophies and philosophers do. Take Heidegger or Spinoza for example. They created their own terms, definitions and axioms. It isn’t that radical.




As stated, standard terms and definitions are ambiguous and circular, lacking practical means of substantiation…

You claim nothingness is a contradictory term, which I also stated, and yet for existence to be distinct you need nothingness to stand apart from...existence needs contradiction.

However if you claim existence does not need this contradiction to be distinct then by default existence has to be distinct from itself to gain meaning...and this leads it to contradict itself...which again necessitates contradiction.

So which is it so that existence is distinct?

And yet once again you skip the primary argument presented:

You claimed Wikipedia defines nothing as “complete absence of anything”. Again, can you locate that? Can you locate a “complete absence of anything”? Can anyone locate a “complete absence of anything”? I contend one cannot.

Don’t skip that previous paragraph; it’s a significant point here. I contend no one can successfully locate nothing, as in a “complete absence of anything”.

That premise ties directly into the definition of nothing (or nonexistence) provided with the ontology. Nothing or nonexistence can never be perceived or interacted with. By definition. In other words nothing cannot be located:

Nonexistence (n.): Non-being; no thing, nothing, nothingness; is never perceived or interacted with other than as a concept or term; it does not and cannot exist. A contradictory concept and term.

It isn’t a whimsical definition. It’s based on explicitly established parameters and demonstrable evidence as conveyed with the paragraph above.

I’ll leave that up there for emphasis.

You claim nothingness is a contradictory term, which I also stated, and yet for existence to be distinct you need nothingness to stand apart from...existence needs contradiction.

As expressed:

Existence does not need to be distinct. That is a qualification you artificially place upon existence as a conscious individual.

Existence simply is.

Existence does not need to be distinct.

Existence does not need. Existence is.

Existence is all; there is no beyond, no additional aspect to need. As expressed in the essay:

- 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.

However if you claim existence does not need this contradiction to be distinct then by default existence has to be distinct from itself to gain meaning...and this leads it to contradict itself...which again necessitates contradiction.

And meaning (or purpose) really only has significance to conscious beings as implied in the essay:

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

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.

so of course that would concern parts and distinctions. It concerns conscious beings and their interactions with those things.

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

If existence does not need distinction then your premise is an indistinct one by which anything can be derived.

[daniel j lavender]

There is no infinite existence.. That’s what infinity actually means.

“Infinity” means the state of being infinite. “Infinite” means unlimited.

Existence is infinite. Existence is unlimited. That simply means existence is not limited to any particular.

This is readily observable and easily confirmed. Existence is not limited to a tree. Existence is not limited to a single house. Existence is not limited to planet Earth. Things other than these are perceived. Existence is not limited to any particular. It isn’t a farfetched claim.

Infinity is a mental projection, a trickless trick the mind plays with itself.

To further illustrate the previous point and in turn respond to the statement at hand I offer you the following challenge:

Simply locate nothing or nonexistence.

If you cannot, which I contend you can’t, what results is further evidence of the infinitude of existence. Not only is existence not limited to any particular, existence is not limited by nonexistence as nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Infinity is a mental projection

To the contrary. Nothingness is a mental projection, an abstraction, a delusive abstraction constructed in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

[Eodnhoj7]

There is no infinite existence.. That’s what infinity actually means.

“Infinity” means the state of being infinite. “Infinite” means unlimited.

Existence is infinite. Existence is unlimited. That simply means existence is not limited to any particular.

This is readily observable and easily confirmed. Existence is not limited to a tree. Existence is not limited to a single house. Existence is not limited to planet Earth. Things other than these are perceived. Existence is not limited to any particular. It isn’t a farfetched claim.

Infinity is a mental projection, a trickless trick the mind plays with itself.

To further illustrate the previous point and in turn respond to the statement at hand I offer you the following challenge:

Simply locate nothing or nonexistence.

If you cannot, which I contend you can’t, what results is further evidence of the infinitude of existence. Not only is existence not limited to any particular, existence is not limited by nonexistence as nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Infinity is a mental projection

To the contrary. Nothingness is a mental projection, an abstraction, a delusive abstraction constructed in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

Simple, observe a thought and then observe what it observing it....you will see nothing and yet observation of thought occurs nonetheless.

[Fairy]

There is no infinite existence.. That’s what infinity actually means.

“Infinity” means the state of being infinite. “Infinite” means unlimited.

Existence is infinite. Existence is unlimited. That simply means existence is not limited to any particular.

This is readily observable and easily confirmed. Existence is not limited to a tree. Existence is not limited to a single house. Existence is not limited to planet Earth. Things other than these are perceived. Existence is not limited to any particular. It isn’t a farfetched claim.

Infinity is a mental projection, a trickless trick the mind plays with itself.

To further illustrate the previous point and in turn respond to the statement at hand I offer you the following challenge:

Simply locate nothing or nonexistence.

If you cannot, which I contend you can’t, what results is further evidence of the infinitude of existence. Not only is existence not limited to any particular, existence is not limited by nonexistence as nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Infinity is a mental projection

To the contrary. Nothingness is a mental projection, an abstraction, a delusive abstraction constructed in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

There’s no mind.

The illusory mind has no mind to know it exists.

Knowledge or language can only point to the illusory nature of reality existence.

You cannot know the illusion, because you are the illusion.

[Atla]

Simple, observe a thought and then observe what it observing it....you will see nothing and yet observation of thought occurs nonetheless.

Not so simple for you apparently. You can't observe the part of your mind that you are doing the observation with.

[Fairy]

Simple, observe a thought and then observe what it observing it....you will see nothing and yet observation of thought occurs nonetheless.

Not so simple for you apparently. You can't observe the part of your mind that you are doing the observation with.

There is no you.

Only the mind is born, not you.

[Atla]

Simple, observe a thought and then observe what it observing it....you will see nothing and yet observation of thought occurs nonetheless.

Not so simple for you apparently. You can't observe the part of your mind that you are doing the observation with.

There is no you.

Only the mind is born, not you.

Depends on definition. If I define myself as a part of my mind, then there is a me. Ta-taa

[daniel j lavender]

If existence does not need distinction then your premise is an indistinct one by which anything can be derived.

You’re conflating existence and my premise.

Distinction concerns conscious beings and their interactions with things. In other words with conscious beings, particulars and relevant interactions distinction applies.

However existence transcends distinction and indistinction. Existence simply is.

Existence is distinction and exceeds it. Existence is indistinction and exceeds it. Existence is both distinction and indistinction and all other variance and similarity which balances and simplifies as being. Existence.

[daniel j lavender]

There is no infinite existence.. That’s what infinity actually means.

“Infinity” means the state of being infinite. “Infinite” means unlimited.

Existence is infinite. Existence is unlimited. That simply means existence is not limited to any particular.

This is readily observable and easily confirmed. Existence is not limited to a tree. Existence is not limited to a single house. Existence is not limited to planet Earth. Things other than these are perceived. Existence is not limited to any particular. It isn’t a farfetched claim.

Infinity is a mental projection, a trickless trick the mind plays with itself.

To further illustrate the previous point and in turn respond to the statement at hand I offer you the following challenge:

Simply locate nothing or nonexistence.

If you cannot, which I contend you can’t, what results is further evidence of the infinitude of existence. Not only is existence not limited to any particular, existence is not limited by nonexistence as nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Simple, observe a thought and then observe what it observing it....you will see nothing and yet observation of thought occurs nonetheless.

The observer. Which is something, not nothing.

Atla adequately summarized.

Nothing has not been located.

[daniel j lavender]

There is no infinite existence.. That’s what infinity actually means.

“Infinity” means the state of being infinite. “Infinite” means unlimited.

Existence is infinite. Existence is unlimited. That simply means existence is not limited to any particular.

This is readily observable and easily confirmed. Existence is not limited to a tree. Existence is not limited to a single house. Existence is not limited to planet Earth. Things other than these are perceived. Existence is not limited to any particular. It isn’t a farfetched claim.

Infinity is a mental projection, a trickless trick the mind plays with itself.

To further illustrate the previous point and in turn respond to the statement at hand I offer you the following challenge:

Simply locate nothing or nonexistence.

If you cannot, which I contend you can’t, what results is further evidence of the infinitude of existence. Not only is existence not limited to any particular, existence is not limited by nonexistence as nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Infinity is a mental projection

To the contrary. Nothingness is a mental projection, an abstraction, a delusive abstraction constructed in the mind and projected outward through concept and language.

There’s no mind.

Then why refer to the mind:

Only the mind is born

and mental projection:

Infinity is a mental projection

Does “mental” not suggest mind? If such projections do not extend from the mind then from what do they extend?

In your opinion which is more illusory, the mind, or its projections? Would that difference not suggest a certain realness?

The illusory mind has no mind to know it exists.

Then to what do you refer?

And how do you refer to it?

It appears you are not only aware, but also aware of something you claim does not exist. Is that perhaps an example of cognitive dissonance? What does cognitive dissonance involve?

Perhaps “mind” is a mislabeling of the brain? In which case “mind” is still a term, a concept, a thing, just in certain instances misapplied to other things.

Illusions may be illusory yet they still are. Illusions are perceived, they are acknowledged, they are discussed and debated.

If the mind is illusory is that not still a mind to some degree?

Illusory is illusory, not nonexistent.

Knowledge or language can only point to the illusory nature of reality existence.

You cannot know the illusion, because you are the illusion.

Then how do you know that?

To review: Nothing has yet to be located.

References and allusions to illusions, concepts and similar notions have been made, however, all are references to and acknowledgments of things, not nothing. That they are referenced and acknowledged indicates they are things.

Nothing cannot be referenced because nothing is not and cannot be.

[Fairy]

Not so simple for you apparently. You can't observe the part of your mind that you are doing the observation with.

There is no you.

Only the mind is born, not you.

Depends on definition. If I define myself as a part of my mind, then there is a me. Ta-taa

Well yeah, you can construct a 'me' and this 'me' would be a known concept. But has this constructed word 'me' actually been seen? Has this constructed word 'me' ever seen a 'me' ..Can words see?

[Fairy]

To review: Nothing has yet to be located.

Nothing cannot be located because then nothing would have to be seen.

Have you ever seen 'nothing'.

Or maybe you just know 'nothing'. Do you know 'nothing'?

[Atla]

There is no you.

Only the mind is born, not you.

Depends on definition. If I define myself as a part of my mind, then there is a me. Ta-taa

Well yeah, you can construct a 'me' and this 'me' would be a known concept. But has this constructed word 'me' actually been seen? Has this constructed word 'me' ever seen a 'me' ..Can words see?

'me' refers to a part of my mind, not just a word. You can somewhat see that part in action on a brainscan.

[Fairy]

If the mind is illusory is that not still a mind to some degree?

Yes, illusory mind is a known concept.

But have you ever seen an illusory mind?
If you have seen a mind, what does that seen mind look like to you, can you describe the image of this seen mind?