Existence Is Infinite

[Eodnhoj7]

Relative nothingness exists.

This has been addressed:

Relative nothingness is nonsensical. A concept, a thing, but nonsensical.

Although relative nothingness may be a nonsensical concept and may not necessarily apply it’s nevertheless a thing, a part of existence.

No, there are covered up paradoxes because the thesis has incoherencies.

So a car moves from point A to B and can only move if there are things absent in its course (ie, no tree, no car, no horse, etc.), and this relative absences of things is not a relative no-thing?

The absence of certain things is not non-sense. Nothingness is relative, it exists as the absence(s) of a thing or things.

[Eodnhoj7]

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, existence is unlimited. 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.

How about locating “emptiness” rather than “nonexistence” ?

Emptiness is the space between two things. So emptiness is easily located by association to things.

You concede in your first sentence that emptiness is not nonexistence.

Emptiness refers to a thing, a part of existence; a quality, an area or volume.

Space is existence, by definition. Existence is defined as that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way. Space is perceived. Thus space qualifies as existence. Emptiness, as it is perceived, also qualifies as existence.

Nonexistence has not been located.

Evidence of the infinitude of existence is maintained.

Non existence is located at any postion where other things are lacking beyond what is present in that position.

A car is the localized non-existence of a tree.

[Fairy]

Relative nothingness exists.

This has been addressed:

Relative nothingness is nonsensical. A concept, a thing, but nonsensical.

Although relative nothingness may be a nonsensical concept and may not necessarily apply it’s nevertheless a thing, a part of existence.

No, there are covered up paradoxes because the thesis has incoherencies.

So a car moves from point A to B and can only move if there are things absent in its course (ie, no tree, no car, no horse, etc.), and this relative absences of things is not a relative no-thing?

The absence of certain things is not non-sense. Nothingness is relative, it exists as the absence(s) of a thing or things.

Every known concept ( idea) is relative, relative to the absolute. Relative ideas about the absolute are absurd because the absolute is all there is.

The absolute never exists as a nonexistent. There’s no distinction there, except as a nonexistent existent.

[daniel j lavender]

10.8.2025 Essay Revisions

Abstract Revision

Former

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. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.

Revised

Existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.


Existence Definition Revision

Former

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way. In context of this essay existence in the general sense.

Revised

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


Nonexistence Definition Revision

Former

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.

Revised

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 paradoxical concept and term.


Removed Eternity Term And Definition


Not Created Paragraph Revision

Former

Existence is eternal, it was not created and therefore was not intelligently designed. However existence does concern intelligence as we possess it. At least to a certain degree.

Revised

Existence was not created and therefore was not intelligently designed. However existence does concern intelligence as we possess it. At least to a certain degree.


Purpose Paragraph Revision

Former

Existence did not begin and existence will not end. Existence was not created, it was not intelligently designed, it is not needed and it has no purpose. Existence just is. We, as conscious individuals, create purpose. Much like we create good and bad, right and left, up and down.

Revised

Existence did not begin and existence will not end. Existence was not created, it was not intelligently designed and it is not needed. Existence just is. We, as biological beings, create need. As conscious individuals we create purpose. Much like we create good and bad, right and left, up and down.


Note Revision

Former

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

Revised

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


The Significance Of Perception Section Addition

All inquiries, including those in science, involve perception and interaction. The line between a semantic test and a truly empirical test is blurred. Scientific tests are not independent of observers. Scientists observing experiments are conscious beings using perceptive tools to interpret data. The data itself is a result of interaction between phenomena. Thus science operates within the definition of existence provided.

Perception is a parametric base allowing us to ground existence in practical, concrete ways. Perception is not necessarily presupposed in the definition of existence, hence the key qualifier "at least in part". Not all of existence must be perceived. However, all doesn’t need to be perceived in order to realize any supposed boundary or limiting factor would itself be, the act of limitation a form of interaction, indicative of existence.


Nonexistence Cannot Be Section Revision

Former

The words "nothing", "nonexistence" and "nothingness" are obvious contradictions…

Revised

The words "nothing", "nonexistence" and "nothingness" are obvious paradoxes…


Removed Eternal Life Section


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

[Fairy]

“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. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.”


—————
Response: The only reason you can tell yourself that existence is infinite is because there’s nothing restricting it. Nonexistent is impossible because again, there’s nothing that could make nonexistent possible. So nonexistent wouldn’t limit existence, even though you’ve announced Only nonexistence Could actually limit infinite existence.

You are making a distinction that is not actually there and is impossible to make.

[Eodnhoj7]

10.8.2025 Essay Revisions

Abstract Revision

Former

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. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.

Revised

Existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence; however, nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.


Existence Definition Revision

Former

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way. In context of this essay existence in the general sense.

Revised

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


Nonexistence Definition Revision

Former

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.

Revised

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 paradoxical concept and term.


Removed Eternity Term And Definition


Not Created Paragraph Revision

Former

Existence is eternal, it was not created and therefore was not intelligently designed. However existence does concern intelligence as we possess it. At least to a certain degree.

Revised

Existence was not created and therefore was not intelligently designed. However existence does concern intelligence as we possess it. At least to a certain degree.


Purpose Paragraph Revision

Former

Existence did not begin and existence will not end. Existence was not created, it was not intelligently designed, it is not needed and it has no purpose. Existence just is. We, as conscious individuals, create purpose. Much like we create good and bad, right and left, up and down.

Revised

Existence did not begin and existence will not end. Existence was not created, it was not intelligently designed and it is not needed. Existence just is. We, as biological beings, create need. As conscious individuals we create purpose. Much like we create good and bad, right and left, up and down.


Note Revision

Former

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

Revised

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


The Significance Of Perception Section Addition

All inquiries, including those in science, involve perception and interaction. The line between a semantic test and a truly empirical test is blurred. Scientific tests are not independent of observers. Scientists observing experiments are conscious beings using perceptive tools to interpret data. The data itself is a result of interaction between phenomena. Thus science operates within the definition of existence provided.

Perception is a parametric base allowing us to ground existence in practical, concrete ways. Perception is not necessarily presupposed in the definition of existence, hence the key qualifier "at least in part". Not all of existence must be perceived. However, all doesn’t need to be perceived in order to realize any supposed boundary or limiting factor would itself be, the act of limitation a form of interaction, indicative of existence.


Nonexistence Cannot Be Section Revision

Former

The words "nothing", "nonexistence" and "nothingness" are obvious contradictions…

Revised

The words "nothing", "nonexistence" and "nothingness" are obvious paradoxes…


Removed Eternal Life Section


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

Nothing is not a contradiction if relative. The relative absence of a tree or bear where a car is is a relative absence of things...a relative nothing as a relative absence of specific things.

In each localized space there are an infinite absence of specific things where a specific thing occurs.

Nothingness as absence is a term for potentiality, for the absence of a thing is the potential for a thing to exist.

[Eodnhoj7]

This has been addressed:

Relative nothingness is nonsensical. A concept, a thing, but nonsensical.

Although relative nothingness may be a nonsensical concept and may not necessarily apply it’s nevertheless a thing, a part of existence.

No, there are covered up paradoxes because the thesis has incoherencies.

So a car moves from point A to B and can only move if there are things absent in its course (ie, no tree, no car, no horse, etc.), and this relative absences of things is not a relative no-thing?

The absence of certain things is not non-sense. Nothingness is relative, it exists as the absence(s) of a thing or things.

Every known concept ( idea) is relative, relative to the absolute. Relative ideas about the absolute are absurd because the absolute is all there is.

The absolute never exists as a nonexistent. There’s no distinction there, except as a nonexistent existent.

All truths are absolute within a specific context.

[Fairy]

No, there are covered up paradoxes because the thesis has incoherencies.

So a car moves from point A to B and can only move if there are things absent in its course (ie, no tree, no car, no horse, etc.), and this relative absences of things is not a relative no-thing?

The absence of certain things is not non-sense. Nothingness is relative, it exists as the absence(s) of a thing or things.

Every known concept ( idea) is relative, relative to the absolute. Relative ideas about the absolute are absurd because the absolute is all there is.

The absolute never exists as a nonexistent. There’s no distinction there, except as a nonexistent existent.

All truths are absolute within a specific context.

Absolute truth is such a kind that it cannot be validated by any other.

[Eodnhoj7]

Every known concept ( idea) is relative, relative to the absolute. Relative ideas about the absolute are absurd because the absolute is all there is.

The absolute never exists as a nonexistent. There’s no distinction there, except as a nonexistent existent.

All truths are absolute within a specific context.

Absolute truth is such a kind that it cannot be validated by any other.

1+1=2 is absolute and can be validated within a specific context. Context determines absolute truths for context determines the nature of things by degree of the distinction of the context itself.

Absolute absolutes exist.
Absolute relatives exist.
Relative relatives exist.
Relative a absolutes exist.

It is a fourfold paradigm.

[Fairy]

All truths are absolute within a specific context.

Absolute truth is such a kind that it cannot be validated by any other.

1+1=2 is absolute and can be validated within a specific context. Context determines absolute truths for context determines the nature of things by degree of the distinction of the context itself.

Absolute absolutes exist.
Absolute relatives exist.
Relative relatives exist.
Relative a absolutes exist.

It is a fourfold paradigm.

It is whatever you say it is, absolutely. There, is the knowing.

[Fairy]

Nothing gets to experience infinity so therfore nothing is actually infinite.

No experiencer = No infinity

The word infinity and what it attempts to point out, is completely meaningless.

[daniel j lavender]

Non-existence is an extremely difficult thing to prove, even for ordinary things. It can be done, but it's very hard.

Feel free to demonstrate.

[daniel j lavender]

I think the thread fails to realize the conceptual dynamic of the existence/non-existence dichotomy, needed for existence to gain contrastual meaning, by negating the concept of nothingness as an absence of things.

That is complexity concerning conscious beings. Existence simply is. Conscious beings, such as humans, employ conceptual mechanisms or distinctions for purposes of orientation and understanding.

This is articulated in the essay:

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

Nothingness is a conceptual mechanism employed by conscious beings, specifically advanced organisms like human beings, to help process information.

Nonexistence is not needed to discern existence. As illustrated with the ontology and definition, existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part, in some way. This is apparent by the definition of existence alone. There is no need to reference nonexistence to discern existence. Nonexistence is not and cannot be anyway.

Without contrast the word 'existence' is meaningless and the corresponding text can have any meaning applied to fill the vacuum.

The term existence is not meaningless, nor is the definition merely a label. The term is explicitly defined. The definition is operational as illustrated above and in the essay. It provides parameters to substantiate and identify existence. It’s actionable; it actually shows what existence is.

Not only is the term not meaningless, rejection of the definition would essentially be rejection of observable, everyday things as existence.

[Eodnhoj7]

I think the thread fails to realize the conceptual dynamic of the existence/non-existence dichotomy, needed for existence to gain contrastual meaning, by negating the concept of nothingness as an absence of things.

That is complexity concerning conscious beings. Existence simply is. Conscious beings, such as humans, employ conceptual mechanisms or distinctions for purposes of orientation and understanding.

This is articulated in the essay:

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

Nothingness is a conceptual mechanism employed by conscious beings, specifically advanced organisms like human beings, to help process information.

Nonexistence is not needed to discern existence. As illustrated with the ontology and definition, existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part, in some way. This is apparent by the definition of existence alone. There is no need to reference nonexistence to discern existence. Nonexistence is not and cannot be anyway.

Without contrast the word 'existence' is meaningless and the corresponding text can have any meaning applied to fill the vacuum.

The term existence is not meaningless, nor is the definition merely a label. The term is explicitly defined. The definition is operational as illustrated above and in the essay. It provides parameters to substantiate and identify existence. It’s actionable; it actually shows what existence is.

Not only is the term not meaningless, rejection of the definition would essentially be rejection of observable, everyday things as existence.

And "what is" is paradox as contrast is part of existence. We know a thing by "what is" and "what is not".

Existence ceases to be a distinction without non-existence, for existence requires contrast. This is basic eastern Taoism or western Hegelian dialectics.

If existence is infinite then there are infinite definitions of it by degree of the reality that unfolds as it. The unfolding of existence unfolds paradox as paradox is a part of existence.

Your thesis is severely limited for how much you claim it is infinite.

Observable existence observes change, change requires potentiality, this potential is the absence of the actual, the absence of the actual is a relative void.

For every one thing there are infinite things that are absent in its place. Void exists.

[Eodnhoj7]

Non-existence is an extremely difficult thing to prove, even for ordinary things. It can be done, but it's very hard.

Feel free to demonstrate.

I can, empirically.

Here are two examples:

1. The device you are using to write this is not your living quarters. It is absent of being your living quarters. There is a relative void in this respect emergent as the device itself.

2. This device changes. Programs and apps come and go, writings come and go, it will come and go. The change of your device necessitates the potentiality to do so, there must be a space by which it can change, this space is a void as the absence of specific things in its place.