Existence Is Infinite

[Eodnhoj7]

So yes.




The referenced is obviously not nothing.

To observe observing is to see nothing…

To perceive, which includes observation, is to substantiate existence. By definition:

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

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

Observing qualifies as an event, act or process. A thing. Not nothing.

So if existence is perceived then you claim to see the infinite and yet if you only see in part then you do not see the infinite.

So a paradox emerges.

[daniel j lavender]

Existence is infinite.

This is evident in two ways:

1.) Existence is infinite or unlimited. This simply means existence is not limited to any particular.

This is readily observed 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; other trees, other houses, the Moon, Mars, etc. Existence is not limited to any particular.


2.) To further illustrate the infinitude of existence I offer the following challenge:

Locate nothing or nonexistence.

Inability to do so 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.

Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence however nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be.

The framework has two strong, functional supports. Existence cannot be restricted to any particular indicating no internal restriction, and nonexistence cannot be substantiated indicating no external restriction.

The essay presented isn’t casual musings. It’s a coherent, expansive, versatile, internally-consistent standalone ontology. Philosophy like this is rare with modern philosophical approaches being more specialized.

[daniel j lavender]

So "is" is not a distinction?

The expression “existence simply is” or “existence is” is perhaps the simplest way to attempt to express such a basic principle or fact.

We are conscious beings using words and language as tools which involve distinction by their very nature. It’s very difficult if not impossible to express that without, on some level, entangling in complexities such as distinction and indistinction.

So the statement "existence is" is a basic principle to you, as a principle it is a distinction. So existence is subject to a principle: "is-ness".

Existence is not subject to. Existence is.

Distinctions matter to conscious beings.

For example, water can be liquid and water can be solid. To a conscious being, like a dehydrated bear, that distinction matters, liquid or solid ice. However both liquid and ice are. Water as liquid is existence. Water as ice is existence. Liquid is. Ice is. It is. Existence simply is.

Distinctions and principles are constructs utilized by conscious beings for effective interaction, orientation and understanding. They introduce otherwise unnecessary complications.

[Eodnhoj7]

The expression “existence simply is” or “existence is” is perhaps the simplest way to attempt to express such a basic principle or fact.

We are conscious beings using words and language as tools which involve distinction by their very nature. It’s very difficult if not impossible to express that without, on some level, entangling in complexities such as distinction and indistinction.

So the statement "existence is" is a basic principle to you, as a principle it is a distinction. So existence is subject to a principle: "is-ness".

Existence is not subject to. Existence is.

Distinctions matter to conscious beings.

For example, water can be liquid and water can be solid. To a conscious being, like a dehydrated bear, that distinction matters, liquid or solid ice. However both liquid and ice are. Water as liquid is existence. Water as ice is existence. Liquid is. Ice is. It is. Existence simply is.

Distinctions and principles are constructs utilized by conscious beings for effective interaction, orientation and understanding. They introduce otherwise unnecessary complications.

You claim distinctions result in complications and yet without distinctions there ceases to be things...and your argument ceases for it is grounded in distinctions.

If "existence is" is not a distinction then it is not a thing...which is fine, but if "existence is" is not a distinction then it is akin to saying nothing.

Your argument cannot avoid paradox.

[daniel j lavender]

If you mean to say that meaning is pouring into the void of a meaningless world, this kind of makes sense, as without consciousness, there is nothing.

Without consciousness there is nonconsciousness, not nothing.

Existence is not dependent on consciousness. Conscious awareness of existence is dependent on consciousness.

Are you suggesting existence springs forth with consciousness? Or are you suggesting consciousness is an eternal component of existence?

Are you suggesting nothing is an ontological reality? If so, locate nothing.

Nothing is a conceptual mechanism, a thing, utilized by conscious beings. With consciousness there is “nothing”.

Nothing is not some ambiguous, mysterious remoteness. Nothing is simply an abstraction of the mind projected outward through concept and language.

Many claim without consciousness, without thought there is nothing. Oddly to the contrary. Consciousness, thought is what actually constructs the abstraction of nothing. Without consciousness nothing is not a worry. Without thought nothing is not a concern.

[Eodnhoj7]

If you mean to say that meaning is pouring into the void of a meaningless world, this kind of makes sense, as without consciousness, there is nothing.

Without consciousness there is nonconsciousness, not nothing.

Existence is not dependent on consciousness. Conscious awareness of existence is dependent on consciousness.

Are you suggesting existence springs forth with consciousness? Or are you suggesting consciousness is an eternal component of existence?

Are you suggesting nothing is an ontological reality? If so, locate nothing.

Nothing is a conceptual mechanism, a thing, utilized by conscious beings. With consciousness there is “nothing”.

Nothing is not some ambiguous, mysterious remoteness. Nothing is simply an abstraction of the mind projected outward through concept and language.

Many claim without consciousness, without thought there is nothing. Oddly to the contrary. Consciousness, thought is what actually constructs the abstraction of nothing. Without consciousness nothing is not a worry. Without thought nothing is not a concern.

Seperate the distinction of existence from consciousness...you cannot for a seperation would negation the negation the statement makes as the seperation is an act of consciousness.

[popeye1945]

If you mean to say that meaning is pouring into the void of a meaningless world, this kind of makes sense, as without consciousness, there is nothing.

Without consciousness there is nonconsciousness, not nothing.

Existence is not dependent on consciousness. Conscious awareness of existence is dependent on consciousness.

Are you suggesting existence springs forth with consciousness? Or are you suggesting consciousness is an eternal component of existence?

Are you suggesting nothing is an ontological reality? If so, locate nothing.

Nothing is a conceptual mechanism, a thing, utilized by conscious beings. With consciousness there is “nothing”.

Nothing is not some ambiguous, mysterious remoteness. Nothing is simply an abstraction of the mind projected outward through concept and language.

Many claim without consciousness, without thought there is nothing. Oddly to the contrary. Consciousness, thought is what actually constructs the abstraction of nothing. Without consciousness nothing is not a worry. Without thought nothing is not a concern.

Seperate the distinction of existence from consciousness...you cannot for a seperation would negation the negation the statement makes as the seperation is an act of consciousness.

Sorry, you've lost me; this is nonsense.

[Age]

Existence is infinite.

This is evident in two ways:

That Existence is infinite, (and eternal), is not just evident but is a proven fact. Thus, no one could refute it.

End of story.

[Eodnhoj7]

Without consciousness there is nonconsciousness, not nothing.

Existence is not dependent on consciousness. Conscious awareness of existence is dependent on consciousness.

Are you suggesting existence springs forth with consciousness? Or are you suggesting consciousness is an eternal component of existence?

Are you suggesting nothing is an ontological reality? If so, locate nothing.

Nothing is a conceptual mechanism, a thing, utilized by conscious beings. With consciousness there is “nothing”.

Nothing is not some ambiguous, mysterious remoteness. Nothing is simply an abstraction of the mind projected outward through concept and language.

Many claim without consciousness, without thought there is nothing. Oddly to the contrary. Consciousness, thought is what actually constructs the abstraction of nothing. Without consciousness nothing is not a worry. Without thought nothing is not a concern.

Seperate the distinction of existence from consciousness...you cannot for a seperation would negation the negation the statement makes as the seperation is an act of consciousness.

Sorry, you've lost me; this is nonsense.

Existence is distinction.

We are conscious of distinction.

Consciousness is a distinction of itself.

Existence is consciousness.

[Age]

Seperate the distinction of existence from consciousness...you cannot for a seperation would negation the negation the statement makes as the seperation is an act of consciousness.

Sorry, you've lost me; this is nonsense.

Existence is distinction.

We are conscious of distinction.

Consciousness is a distinction of itself.

Existence is consciousness.

And, the always existing and distinctive 'I', or Consciousness, Itself, am infinite, and eternal, as well. In other words, in the infinite, and eternal, Existence Consciousness exists always, and everywhere, or infinitely, and is aware of the One and only Self. But, if there was 'a point' you were wanting to make, here, then what is it, exactly?

[Belinda]

Seperate the distinction of existence from consciousness...you cannot for a seperation would negation the negation the statement makes as the seperation is an act of consciousness.

Sorry, you've lost me; this is nonsense.

Existence is distinction.

We are conscious of distinction.

Consciousness is a distinction of itself.

Existence is consciousness.

You put a lot of work into your philosophy. It's a pity you never studied philosophy with the guidance of tutors at some university , as then you could say what you have to say with much less effort.

[Eodnhoj7]

Sorry, you've lost me; this is nonsense.

Existence is distinction.

We are conscious of distinction.

Consciousness is a distinction of itself.

Existence is consciousness.

You put a lot of work into your philosophy. It's a pity you never studied philosophy with the guidance of tutors at some university , as then you could say what you have to say with much less effort.

Honestly the fact that you had to avoid the topic and go after the personal aspect of the writer gives me freedom to do the same for your text and shows your inability to question what you do not understand.

So here I go...

You say such things, but these tutors quote from books much larger than what I write and they read these books on their own. You may need a tutor because you cannot read texts directly.

I have had tutors from the range of general, mid and elite level schools...ranging from a low level school, such as Penn State, to elite level, such as Harvard...it's a pity that they never taught you how to read. In many of my classes I would surpass peers who studied for weeks for tests while I, myself, would spend fifteen minutes of studying tops. I walked that path already.

If I write simply, then you will say it is too general and meaningless.

If I write with complexity, then you will say it is too particular and meaningless.

As a matter of fact if I write anything outside of your own personal coherence you will deem it nonsense.

It is like a 4 year old looking at calculus and calling it nonsense.


I will be blunt...and pardon if I sound rude but the truth is you are not bright. I have worked with bright people, so I am aware of what bright is. You tell yourself you are but you do so because it gives a story, coherent to you, by which to form your identity.

So I will make it simple for you....

Can you seperate the act of existence from the act of distinction without making a distinction that exists?

Now I will repeat myself so to stay on track...

Can you seperate the act of existence from the act of distinction without making a distinction that exists?

[Eodnhoj7]

Given existence is a process that necessitates change, there must be a relative absence of thing if a thing is to change. This relative absence of a thing is the potentiality that allows for said thing to occur.

A car can only move from point A to point B if there is an absence of things in its way. This relative absence of things is relative potentiality, relative nothingness. The car cannot move if there are specific things in its way. Specific things have to be absent, thus there are relative no-things as "no-thing" is an absence of a thing.

Nothingness is potentiality, potentiality is an absence of actualities from which actualties occur, it is the relative absence of specific things

Movement cannot occur without a relative void and without movement a thing ceases to be distinct for movement provides contrast between states.

Relative nothingness exists.

Pure potentiality is all things superimposed at once, a 0d dimensional state of being.

[daniel j lavender]

A car can only move from point A to point B if there is an absence of things in its way. This relative absence of things is relative potentiality, relative nothingness. The car cannot move if there are specific things in its way. Specific things have to be absent, thus there are relative no-things as "no-thing" is an absence of a thing.

Absence of specific things, as you must qualify here.

There certainly is something in the way which is evident by the automobile design. Vehicles are designed to be aerodynamic, that is, contoured to cut through air or atmosphere efficiently.

Air is in the way of the car, thus the aerodynamic design. Other specific things, like a tree or a barricade, are not in the way allowing mobility.

Each is a thing; the car, the air, a tree, a barricade, even the concept of absence itself. Nothingness is not present. Nothingness is not and cannot be.

[Eodnhoj7]

A car can only move from point A to point B if there is an absence of things in its way. This relative absence of things is relative potentiality, relative nothingness. The car cannot move if there are specific things in its way. Specific things have to be absent, thus there are relative no-things as "no-thing" is an absence of a thing.

Absence of specific things, as you must qualify here.

There certainly is something in the way which is evident by the automobile design. Vehicles are designed to be aerodynamic, that is, contoured to cut through air or atmosphere efficiently.

Air is in the way of the car, thus the aerodynamic design. Other specific things, like a tree or a barricade, are not in the way allowing mobility.

Each is a thing; the car, the air, a tree, a barricade, even the concept of absence itself. Nothingness is not present. Nothingness is not and cannot be.

......okay...here is the obvious:

The relative absence of a specific thing is the relative nothingness in regards to the specific thing. Absence of a thing is a specific no-thing.

Nothingness exists as the absence of specific things exists.