Existence Is Infinite

[Eodnhoj7]

A person in an insane asylum might be delusional but these delusions are what manipulated reality in such a manner for the asylum to exist.

Regardless of the degree of the reality an experience is both part of and changes reality. The only thing one knows is experience.

I have not gone that far, but ultimately whatever is reality is grounded on experience, i.e. the a priori experiences of all living things evolving and resulting to what is human, plus whatever is a posteriori will be a priori [if significant] in the future.

So whatever is real must be experienced or possible to be experienced.
One can have an experience say perception of a mirage, the consideration of realness is very critical.
The perception of a mirage exists as real within the person, but that which is perceived need to be verified and justified as real.
In this case, existence is not critical, what is critical is reality because survival is at stake with reference to reality, i.e. not chasing for real water in a mirage in the desert and ending dead. [where the known real alternative is a bit further in the opposite direction ]

The term "God" or "gods" are just terms that mean a deep and or intense experience that guides one's actions, thoughts, and emotions. So God and gods exists, but not in the manner general perceived...and yes this means the war in heaven is an ever present process, metaphorically speaking.

The war of the gods is a war of ideals. If memory serves, and fact check what I say, the ancient Egyptian religious caste claimed we create the gods...again fact check this.

A belief in God is a critical necessity for the majority, but they would be better off for humanity if theists realize the limits that God is illusory but nevertheless a critical useful fiction for therapeutic purposes.

Experience is God and experience is inevitable.

[daniel j lavender]

"Existence' is problematic because it allows anyone to [falsely] claim imaginary and illusory things to exist as real and these cannot be verified and justified as real at all, e.g. God exists, an independent soul exists, ghosts exists, Santa Claus exists, heaven and hell exists, and the like.

Imaginary and illusory things do exist. They are imaginary and illusory. They are not necessarily real depending on use of the term.

By definition that perceived, at least in part, is existence.

Because existence is so problematic, we must narrow 'existence' to what is real, i.e. reality is all-there-is that is verifiable and justified as real so as to differentiate reality from the illusory, fiction and whatever is unreal, e.g. the claim 'existence is infinite'.

Reality as all-there-is encompasses whatever there is, thus including the reality of 'fantasizing or claiming what is supposedly a fantasy as something real', i.e. being insistent on such a false claim is delusional.
One point is, being "delusional" in insisting 'a supposedly fantasy or fiction is real' e.g. "God is real" [theists] or "Santa is real" [toddlers] is a critical necessity for the majority of people at present for therapeutic purposes.

It isn’t problematic. The terminology works.

However your presented premise is problematic.

The premise attempts to merge fantasy, or illusion, with reality. It presents reality as “all-there-is” including fantasy. That is erroneous.

Fantasy is fantasy, reality is reality. Regardless if you construe fantasy as delusion.

While fantasy and reality are different they both are existence. The philosophy presented here allows for that dynamic while remaining congruous. Your premise does not.

Your premise acknowledges fantasy or illusion, dismissing it as delusion, while integrating it into reality as reality. It is confounding, it is fallacious.

Fantasy is fantasy. Reality is reality. However both exist.

Existence is the more comprehensive, coherent term.

So there is a reality of claiming 'existence is infinite' as this claim is delusional because you cannot verify and justify your claim is real, thus it is illusory; to be dogmatic with it is delusional.
Your claiming "Existence Is Infinite" can be empirically verified and justified based on what you posted on this forum as debated by various posters, but what is claimed as "existence is infinite' is not real because you have not provided or it is possible to be verified and justified as real empirically.

Reality is all-there-is.
Whatever is real [not illusory] must be verified and justified empirically and supported with rationality.
The most credible and objective mode of verification and justification of what is real is that of the scientific framework and system; there is not other more credible, if so, which?

The means of substantiation have been conveyed above and in the essay.

The above is a strawman or misunderstanding.

Reality is all-there-is that is real.
A fantasy or illusion is not real, therefore is not part of all-there-is.
What is real is the processes of fantasizing within the brain, but what-is-fantasized [illusory] is not real per se since there is no way a fantasy can be verified as real at all.

Note the consequence where 'existence' is overriding;
Theists will insist their God exists as really or the most real to the extent that their real existing God commanded them to kill believers upon the slightest threats, e.g. blasphemy, drawing cartoon, and the like. This is going on in practice and evident.

However, if the above is constraint by the need to verify and justified what is real [reality] then we could prevent the terrible consequences from happening.

Your terms are questionable.

For example you have not explicitly defined the core term “real”. Nor is that request for definition.

Both the “processes of fantasizing” and “what-is-fantasized” exist else you would not be able to reference them.

As stated, illusory things exist they simply are illusory. Discounting fantasy because it is illusory is fallacious. It still is.

So, 'existence is infinite' is illusory and can lead to terrible consequences to humanity if allowed to prevail over reality.

Existence, being infinite, is reality.

It isn’t an issue of prevailing. It is an issue of realization.

[daniel j lavender]

While your stance is detailed, I believe it is only a partial truth and existence can be viewed at fundamentally a deeper and simpler level.

Existence concerns all truth and all falsity. As expressed many times, existence is all.

How so? Existence is occurence.

Currently I am aware of four foundational laws of identity with identity being synonymous to existence:

1. Occurence

2. The relation of one occurence to another.

3. The relation of occurences as an occurence.

4. The transitional transitory nature of occurence where occurence is fundamentally empty.

This necessitates occurence occurring through and as recursion and through and as the alternation in and out of states of existence.

The dualism of finiteness and infinite can be reduced to occurence.

Perspective can be reduced to occurence, experience too and so on an so forth.

Simply put all things cab be reduced to occurence and to even reduce these things to nothing would still be an occurence as reduction is occurence.

How is occurrence simpler or any more basic than being?

Occurrence indicates action. So not only would there be [being] but being would also act.

It isn’t any more basic nor insightful. It is more complex, more complicated and confusing with little supporting detail.

That is relative as it can be argued saying "existence is infinite" is far more complicated than just saying "occurence".

Existence Is Infinite is the title. Existence is the subject matter as emphasized here: viewtopic.php?p=743676#p743676

It is also emphasized in the original text that existence just is. Existence simply is. Not an action, not activity, not an event. Existence is simpler, existence is more basic than occurrence as occurrence indicates action:

Occurrence (noun)
1 : something that occurs
(Occurrence. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occurrence)

Occur (verb)
1 : to be found or met with : APPEAR
2 : to come into existence : HAPPEN
(Occur. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occur)

Notice the very first definition involves a “something” and an action, “occurs”. Obviously occur(s) is a verb and entails action in addition to said thing. In other words occurrence, by accepted definition, is more complex than existence.

Existence is that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way. Notice existence itself is not necessarily activity but simply that which is perceived or interacted with.

Of course you failed to define any terms with your initial claim so we have no clue what you were really trying to convey and could claim almost anything after the fact.

Occurence is being as being is inseperable from movement as movement allows change and with change the manifestation of distinctions.

Existence transcends movement. As stated existence just is. Occurrence indicates action thus, as illustrated above, is more complex resting upon the basis of being.

It is far more simpler to say "existence is" than saying "existence is x".

This is stated multiple times in the original essay.

The four laws I am arguing are horribly simple and their simplicity allows them to be seen in anything, thus they can go as deep as one desires, or not deep at all, or both, or just ignored entirely. There is no law as to how to see the laws other than the laws itself for these laws are occurences, a transitional process of awareness. They are a conceptual raft to cross a river and once the river is crossed the raft is left behind.

They are not simple. They are confusing. And ill-defined.

This apparently is your justification for the idea:

Question:

If occurence is the grounds of existence does this necessitate occurence as the foundational law of existence, even possible and potential existence of a thing is an occurence, and existence cannot be reduced to nothing other than occurence as to reduce existence to nothing would necessitate reduction an occurence and any absence of occurence is an occurence of absence which furthermore is an occurence, thus occurence is law as occurence is necessary and unavoidable for existence as there is only occurence?

Summary of Ai answer: yes.

Source: viewtopic.php?t=43281

If existence is all, and what I state is thus part of existence, who are you to state what is correct and incorrect when the existence is justification by the act of being...no intentions of being rude, but I have to be frank.

Because while things may be parts of existence not all things are accurate things. Nor are all ideas well-formed. Discussion and argumentation serve to reveal what those may be.

[Eodnhoj7]

Existence concerns all truth and all falsity. As expressed many times, existence is all.




How is occurrence simpler or any more basic than being?

Occurrence indicates action. So not only would there be [being] but being would also act.

It isn’t any more basic nor insightful. It is more complex, more complicated and confusing with little supporting detail.

That is relative as it can be argued saying "existence is infinite" is far more complicated than just saying "occurence".

Existence Is Infinite is the title. Existence is the subject matter as emphasized here: viewtopic.php?p=743676#p743676

It is also emphasized in the original text that existence just is. Existence simply is. Not an action, not activity, not an event. Existence is simpler, existence is more basic than occurrence as occurrence indicates action:

Occurrence (noun)
1 : something that occurs
(Occurrence. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occurrence)

Occur (verb)
1 : to be found or met with : APPEAR
2 : to come into existence : HAPPEN
(Occur. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occur)

Notice the very first definition involves a “something” and an action, “occurs”. Obviously occur(s) is a verb and entails action in addition to said thing. In other words occurrence, by accepted definition, is more complex than existence.

Existence is that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way. Notice existence itself is not necessarily activity but simply that which is perceived or interacted with.

Of course you failed to define any terms with your initial claim so we have no clue what you were really trying to convey and could claim almost anything after the fact.

Occurence is being as being is inseperable from movement as movement allows change and with change the manifestation of distinctions.

Existence transcends movement. As stated existence just is. Occurrence indicates action thus, as illustrated above, is more complex resting upon the basis of being.

It is far more simpler to say "existence is" than saying "existence is x".

This is stated multiple times in the original essay.

The four laws I am arguing are horribly simple and their simplicity allows them to be seen in anything, thus they can go as deep as one desires, or not deep at all, or both, or just ignored entirely. There is no law as to how to see the laws other than the laws itself for these laws are occurences, a transitional process of awareness. They are a conceptual raft to cross a river and once the river is crossed the raft is left behind.

They are not simple. They are confusing. And ill-defined.

This apparently is your justification for the idea:

Question:

If occurence is the grounds of existence does this necessitate occurence as the foundational law of existence, even possible and potential existence of a thing is an occurence, and existence cannot be reduced to nothing other than occurence as to reduce existence to nothing would necessitate reduction an occurence and any absence of occurence is an occurence of absence which furthermore is an occurence, thus occurence is law as occurence is necessary and unavoidable for existence as there is only occurence?

Summary of Ai answer: yes.

Source: viewtopic.php?t=43281

If existence is all, and what I state is thus part of existence, who are you to state what is correct and incorrect when the existence is justification by the act of being...no intentions of being rude, but I have to be frank.

Because while things may be parts of existence not all things are accurate things. Nor are all ideas well-formed. Discussion and argumentation serve to reveal what those may be.

I think you fail to see the paradox of my argument that you are arguing against being a part of the existence you are arguing for. What you claim as "not simple" or "accurate" is a subjective stance on your part and the ambiguity or contradictions you see within my argument are in fact a very part of existence.

The distinct nature of existence results in contradiction as a distinction is a form of seperation where one thing stands apart from another. Take for example a simple circle, the circle is a space between spaces that divides spaces with the division being space....contradiction.


Existence is contradiction as evidenced by our discussion. If you disagree with me a contradiction occurs, if you agree with me a contradiction occurs. You cannot escape paradox.

[daniel j lavender]

I think you fail to see the paradox of my argument that you are arguing against being a part of the existence you are arguing for. What you claim as "not simple" or "accurate" is a subjective stance on your part and the ambiguity or contradictions you see within my argument are in fact a very part of existence.

Your argument and position are acknowledged as parts of existence. That does not mean the argument, in reference to your position advanced earlier in discussion, is sound, correct or replete. Your position or philosophy is not even well developed. Your method consists of a mishmash of threads and comments utilizing various terms under various contexts.

As stated, you have not even explicitly defined core terms. One cannot really know what you are communicating. What is occurrence? What is existence?

You accuse me of rhetoric, viewtopic.php?p=747179#p747179, yet you are the one using rhetoric without having much rhetoric to use.

You have not linked your ideas or arguments to anything tangible in the real world. You haven’t even explicitly defined core terms. There doesn’t appear to be a solid, coherent idea to form much of a subjective stance on.

You are not challenging the philosophy rather attempting to advance your own underdeveloped position much like Veritas Aequitas.

The distinct nature of existence results in contradiction as a distinction is a form of seperation where one thing stands apart from another. Take for example a simple circle, the circle is a space between spaces that divides spaces with the division being space....contradiction.

Existence is contradiction as evidenced by our discussion. If you disagree with me a contradiction occurs, if you agree with me a contradiction occurs. You cannot escape paradox.

This has been discussed.

As concluded paradox can exist while remaining congruent: viewtopic.php?p=745919#p745919

[Eodnhoj7]

I think you fail to see the paradox of my argument that you are arguing against being a part of the existence you are arguing for. What you claim as "not simple" or "accurate" is a subjective stance on your part and the ambiguity or contradictions you see within my argument are in fact a very part of existence.

Your argument and position are acknowledged as parts of existence. That does not mean the argument, in reference to your position advanced earlier in discussion, is sound, correct or replete. Your position or philosophy is not even well developed. Your method consists of a mishmash of threads and comments utilizing various terms under various contexts.

As stated, you have not even explicitly defined core terms. One cannot really know what you are communicating. What is occurrence? What is existence?

You accuse me of rhetoric, viewtopic.php?p=747179#p747179, yet you are the one using rhetoric without having much rhetoric to use.

You have not linked your ideas or arguments to anything tangible in the real world. You haven’t even explicitly defined core terms. There doesn’t appear to be a solid, coherent idea to form much of a subjective stance on.

You are not challenging the philosophy rather attempting to advance your own underdeveloped position much like Veritas Aequitas.

The distinct nature of existence results in contradiction as a distinction is a form of seperation where one thing stands apart from another. Take for example a simple circle, the circle is a space between spaces that divides spaces with the division being space....contradiction.

Existence is contradiction as evidenced by our discussion. If you disagree with me a contradiction occurs, if you agree with me a contradiction occurs. You cannot escape paradox.

This has been discussed.

As concluded paradox can exist while remaining congruent: viewtopic.php?p=745919#p745919

My position is quite simple "relativity of occurence". That is all. It doesn't need developed as it is a transitional process that underlines all being including the act of argumentation. Occurence strictly is. Its very quite subtle.

But my stance of course is not fully expressed, even though that is relative, why should it be when it is your thread? The general position I am stating is your argument is a partial truth. We are addressing your stance, as it is your thread. As to the accusation of me using rhetoric, of course I am using rhetoric as rhetoric negates rhetoric, the rhetoric I am using negates yours and yours negates mine thus leaving nothing of meaning. The void is not even infinite, and that is the logical outcome of philosophy: and empty loop of symbols, ie words.

You claim I am not defining core terms, but are you really defining core terms? If you truly claim to define truth, which quite frankly your claim of definition is subjectively interpreted, you fall under the munchauseen trilemma and that is not a congruent paradox.

You are picking a definition of paradox, which is fine as there is a list of definitions you can pick from, but your argument contains contradiction, if you understand that term better.

And the contradiction it contains is quite simple:

Existence and infinity are terms which are distinct, if they where not distinct you could not define them. So in order to define them you have to observe contrasts. Considering existence requires distinction and existence is infinite than infinite distinction is necessary as infinite existence is an infinite regress.

Infinite distinction is infinite contrast, infinite contrast is infinite standing apart, infinite standing apart is infinite contradiction. You argument is just an infinite spiral in all practicality and a spiral begins and ends in nothing for even an infinite spiral is finite as a spiral.

Ignore everything prior to this sentence if you want for I will put it in even shorter terms: infinite existence is infinite contrast and as such is infinite contradiction.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A person in an insane asylum might be delusional but these delusions are what manipulated reality in such a manner for the asylum to exist.

Regardless of the degree of the reality an experience is both part of and changes reality. The only thing one knows is experience.

I have not gone that far, but ultimately whatever is reality is grounded on experience, i.e. the a priori experiences of all living things evolving and resulting to what is human, plus whatever is a posteriori will be a priori [if significant] in the future.

So whatever is real must be experienced or possible to be experienced.
One can have an experience say perception of a mirage, the consideration of realness is very critical.
The perception of a mirage exists as real within the person, but that which is perceived need to be verified and justified as real.
In this case, existence is not critical, what is critical is reality because survival is at stake with reference to reality, i.e. not chasing for real water in a mirage in the desert and ending dead. [where the known real alternative is a bit further in the opposite direction ]

The term "God" or "gods" are just terms that mean a deep and or intense experience that guides one's actions, thoughts, and emotions. So God and gods exists, but not in the manner general perceived...and yes this means the war in heaven is an ever present process, metaphorically speaking.

The war of the gods is a war of ideals. If memory serves, and fact check what I say, the ancient Egyptian religious caste claimed we create the gods...again fact check this.

A belief in God is a critical necessity for the majority, but they would be better off for humanity if theists realize the limits that God is illusory but nevertheless a critical useful fiction for therapeutic purposes.

Experience is God and experience is inevitable.

"Experience is God" is contradictory.
God in claimed to be infinite and infallible but experience is limited only to humans who are finite and fallible.
Experience = the process of getting knowledge or skill that is obtained from doing, seeing, or feeling things, or something that happens which has an effect on you.
Therefore experience cannot be God.

A human person can claim to have experienced 'God' but
then God as omnipotent and omni-whatever is impossible to exist as real, i.e. illusory.
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229



Try asking your deep AI on the above.

[Eodnhoj7]

I have not gone that far, but ultimately whatever is reality is grounded on experience, i.e. the a priori experiences of all living things evolving and resulting to what is human, plus whatever is a posteriori will be a priori [if significant] in the future.

So whatever is real must be experienced or possible to be experienced.
One can have an experience say perception of a mirage, the consideration of realness is very critical.
The perception of a mirage exists as real within the person, but that which is perceived need to be verified and justified as real.
In this case, existence is not critical, what is critical is reality because survival is at stake with reference to reality, i.e. not chasing for real water in a mirage in the desert and ending dead. [where the known real alternative is a bit further in the opposite direction ]


A belief in God is a critical necessity for the majority, but they would be better off for humanity if theists realize the limits that God is illusory but nevertheless a critical useful fiction for therapeutic purposes.

Experience is God and experience is inevitable.

"Experience is God" is contradictory.
God in claimed to be infinite and infallible but experience is limited only to humans who are finite and fallible.
Experience = the process of getting knowledge or skill that is obtained from doing, seeing, or feeling things, or something that happens which has an effect on you.
Therefore experience cannot be God.

A human person can claim to have experienced 'God' but
then God as omnipotent and omni-whatever is impossible to exist as real, i.e. illusory.
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229



Try asking your deep AI on the above.

Experience is a focal point of awareness and as such shares the same nature of a point, a paradox of finiteness and infinity as the point is both one and many, limit and limitlessness. I covered this with the ai already and it backed me up.


The observation of a simple finite line is the observation of infinite points. Infinity and finiteness exist through eachother.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality is all-there-is that is real.
A fantasy or illusion is not real, therefore is not part of all-there-is.
What is real is the processes of fantasizing within the brain, but what-is-fantasized [illusory] is not real per se since there is no way a fantasy can be verified as real at all.

Note the consequence where 'existence' is overriding;
Theists will insist their God exists as really or the most real to the extent that their real existing God commanded them to kill believers upon the slightest threats, e.g. blasphemy, drawing cartoon, and the like. This is going on in practice and evident.

However, if the above is constraint by the need to verify and justified what is real [reality] then we could prevent the terrible consequences from happening.

Your terms are questionable.
For example you have not explicitly defined the core term “real”. Nor is that request for definition.

Whatever is real is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

What is real is not illusory, fake or "unreal".

An apple that is real can be confirmed to be real by the science-biology FS.
An apple [or /anything] that is hallucinated cannot be a real apple [/thing], it is only an illusion.

Fake honey is now very common and very difficult to detect.
The find out whether honey is really real or fake [unreal], the most credible and objective authority is the science-chemistry FS.

A mirage is a desert is very 'real' to anyone who is ignorant of what a mirage is.
To find out whether the 'oasis' is real or not, we can use common sense, i.e. go to that specific location to verify whether there is a real oasis or not.
The science-physics FS can explain why a mirage is illusory.

Santa Claus is very "real" to a toddler [as conditioned], but when he grows up he can understand there is no real Santa Claus, what he thought as real is merely an illusion.
This can be confirmed via the common-sense-FS and general-science-FS.

So, what is real is not illusory, fake or "unreal".
Whatever is real is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

Both the “processes of fantasizing” and “what-is-fantasized” exist else you would not be able to reference them.

Things that can be referenced do not mean they are real things in the real world.
A person can fantasize anything real or unreal, i.e. even a square-circle, Zeus, superman, a unicorn, fairies, and things that are impossible to exist as real in the practical world.
Thus "what-is-fantasized" are merely real mental thoughts but the square-circle or fairies do no exist as real things.

As stated, illusory things exist they simply are illusory. Discounting fantasy because it is illusory is fallacious. It still is.

To hypostatize or reified an illusion as a real thing is delusional.
If one see a snake in the shadow [actually is a piece of rope] and reacted with real fears then insist it is a real snake without verification and justification [science-biology - FS] or mere plain direct observations, is delusional.

These two terms are critical for this discussion:

• hypostatize = to treat or regard (a concept, idea, etc.) as a distinct substance or reality.
  reify = make (something abstract) more concrete or real.

"Existence" and "infinite" are merely concepts, ideas, and abstract elements; to hypostatize or reify them with insistence is delusional.

So, 'existence is infinite' is illusory and can lead to terrible consequences to humanity if allowed to prevail over reality.

Existence, being infinite, is reality.
It isn’t an issue of prevailing. It is an issue of realization.

Note my definition of 'what is real' and 'reality' above.
'Existence' is fundamentally and merely a copula [a mental process] and not a thing.
"Existence, being infinite" is meaningless and when hypostatized is illusory.

Somehow, you [& others in the same boat] need to turn backward and look at yourself and your psychology, i.e. evolutionary psychology on why you insist 'existence is infinite' without the necessary consideration whether it is real or it is fake and illusory.

[Eodnhoj7]

Reality is all-there-is that is real.
A fantasy or illusion is not real, therefore is not part of all-there-is.
What is real is the processes of fantasizing within the brain, but what-is-fantasized [illusory] is not real per se since there is no way a fantasy can be verified as real at all.

Note the consequence where 'existence' is overriding;
Theists will insist their God exists as really or the most real to the extent that their real existing God commanded them to kill believers upon the slightest threats, e.g. blasphemy, drawing cartoon, and the like. This is going on in practice and evident.

However, if the above is constraint by the need to verify and justified what is real [reality] then we could prevent the terrible consequences from happening.

Your terms are questionable.
For example you have not explicitly defined the core term “real”. Nor is that request for definition.

Whatever is real is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

What is real is not illusory, fake or "unreal".

An apple that is real can be confirmed to be real by the science-biology FS.
An apple [or /anything] that is hallucinated cannot be a real apple [/thing], it is only an illusion.

Fake honey is now very common and very difficult to detect.
The find out whether honey is really real or fake [unreal], the most credible and objective authority is the science-chemistry FS.

A mirage is a desert is very 'real' to anyone who is ignorant of what a mirage is.
To find out whether the 'oasis' is real or not, we can use common sense, i.e. go to that specific location to verify whether there is a real oasis or not.
The science-physics FS can explain why a mirage is illusory.

Santa Claus is very "real" to a toddler [as conditioned], but when he grows up he can understand there is no real Santa Claus, what he thought as real is merely an illusion.
This can be confirmed via the common-sense-FS and general-science-FS.

So, what is real is not illusory, fake or "unreal".
Whatever is real is contingent upon a human-based [collective of subjects] framework and system [FS] of which the scientific FS is the most credible and objective.

Both the “processes of fantasizing” and “what-is-fantasized” exist else you would not be able to reference them.

Things that can be referenced do not mean they are real things in the real world.
A person can fantasize anything real or unreal, i.e. even a square-circle, Zeus, superman, a unicorn, fairies, and things that are impossible to exist as real in the practical world.
Thus "what-is-fantasized" are merely real mental thoughts but the square-circle or fairies do no exist as real things.

As stated, illusory things exist they simply are illusory. Discounting fantasy because it is illusory is fallacious. It still is.

To hypostatize or reified an illusion as a real thing is delusional.
If one see a snake in the shadow [actually is a piece of rope] and reacted with real fears then insist it is a real snake without verification and justification [science-biology - FS] or mere plain direct observations, is delusional.

These two terms are critical for this discussion:

• hypostatize = to treat or regard (a concept, idea, etc.) as a distinct substance or reality.
  reify = make (something abstract) more concrete or real.

"Existence" and "infinite" are merely concepts, ideas, and abstract elements; to hypostatize or reify them with insistence is delusional.

So, 'existence is infinite' is illusory and can lead to terrible consequences to humanity if allowed to prevail over reality.

Existence, being infinite, is reality.
It isn’t an issue of prevailing. It is an issue of realization.

Note my definition of 'what is real' and 'reality' above.
'Existence' is fundamentally and merely a copula [a mental process] and not a thing.
"Existence, being infinite" is meaningless and when hypostatized is illusory.

Somehow, you [& others in the same boat] need to turn backward and look at yourself and your psychology, i.e. evolutionary psychology on why you insist 'existence is infinite' without the necessary consideration whether it is real or it is fake and illusory.

The only way to prove infinity is a simple point, but this proof ends on paradox as the point as composed of infinite points is simultaneously finite. The argument that "existence is infinite" is paradoxical, and it is not necessarily a congruent paradox as infinity and finiteness contrast by the very nature of them being distinctions.

The argument that "existence is infinite" relies on contradiction.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Experience is God and experience is inevitable.

"Experience is God" is contradictory.
God in claimed to be infinite and infallible but experience is limited only to humans who are finite and fallible.
Experience = the process of getting knowledge or skill that is obtained from doing, seeing, or feeling things, or something that happens which has an effect on you.
Therefore experience cannot be God.

A human person can claim to have experienced 'God' but
then God as omnipotent and omni-whatever is impossible to exist as real, i.e. illusory.
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Try asking your deep AI on the above.

Experience is a focal point of awareness and as such shares the same nature of a point, a paradox of finiteness and infinity as the point is both one and many, limit and limitlessness. I covered this with the ai already and it backed me up.

The observation of a simple finite line is the observation of infinite points. Infinity and finiteness exist through each other.

As I had explained AI is very specific to a user, thus it Eodnhoj7-AI, VA-AI, abc-AI which is conditioned to the user's input.
As such, if one bend the meaning of experience to the extreme with AI, AI may agree with you but subject to that bent-conditions.

Ask your Eodnhoj7-AI if experience is taken in the general accepted meaning, i.e.
Experience = the process of getting knowledge or skill that is obtained from doing, seeing, or feeling things, or something that happens which has an effect on you.
then, can "experience is God" tenable?

Also ask AI whether 'experience is God' is tenable from the psychological-science and science-in-general perspective.

[daniel j lavender]

My position is quite simple "relativity of occurence". That is all. It doesn't need developed as it is a transitional process that underlines all being including the act of argumentation. Occurence strictly is. Its very quite subtle.

What does relativity of occurrence mean?

What is relativity?

What is occurrence?

Are you adhering to accepted, standard terms or are you incorporating variants of those terms?

Without those details “relativity of occurrence” is meaningless to me and likely most others.

Occurrence strictly is? What does that mean? And in context of what?

Again, what is occurrence? What is the correct spelling?

But my stance of course is not fully expressed, even though that is relative, why should it be when it is your thread? The general position I am stating is your argument is a partial truth. We are addressing your stance, as it is your thread. As to the accusation of me using rhetoric, of course I am using rhetoric as rhetoric negates rhetoric, the rhetoric I am using negates yours and yours negates mine thus leaving nothing of meaning. The void is not even infinite, and that is the logical outcome of philosophy: and empty loop of symbols, ie words.

Precisely the point.

You seem to possess some overarching idea yet that idea is not completely communicated here. Nor anywhere else in the forum, I’ve checked. Your method consists of a mishmash of threads and comments utilizing various terms under various contexts. A clear and cohesive idea is difficult to find. Likewise producing a sufficient, coherent response to it is just as difficult.

What is the partial truth you reference? You have not clearly articulated it.

You claim I am not defining core terms, but are you really defining core terms?

Yes.

If you truly claim to define truth, which quite frankly your claim of definition is subjectively interpreted, you fall under the munchauseen trilemma and that is not a congruent paradox.

Truth is not explicitly discussed in the original essay. In fact truth nor any related term is even mentioned in the text.

You introduced the issue of truth. Ironically you have not defined that term, either.

Existence and infinity are terms which are distinct, if they where not distinct you could not define them. So in order to define them you have to observe contrasts. Considering existence requires distinction and existence is infinite than infinite distinction is necessary as infinite existence is an infinite regress.

Infinite distinction is infinite contrast, infinite contrast is infinite standing apart, infinite standing apart is infinite contradiction. You argument is just an infinite spiral in all practicality and a spiral begins and ends in nothing for even an infinite spiral is finite as a spiral.

Ignore everything prior to this sentence if you want for I will put it in even shorter terms: infinite existence is infinite contrast and as such is infinite contradiction.

Existence, generally speaking, does not require distinction. Existence just is.

Requirement of distinction is your premise. It is an unnecessary premise.

The issue of paradox, or contradiction, has been addressed here: viewtopic.php?p=745919#p745919

Further, and as argued previously, there is not infinite contradiction. Contradiction is limited by noncontradiction. There are opposites, yes. However opposites do not “infinitely spiral”, whatever that means, as you imply. They simply balance.

Regress, sequencing, ideas of time or duration are complexities encountered by conscious beings. Existence transcends time and sequence. Existence just is.

[Eodnhoj7]

"Experience is God" is contradictory.
God in claimed to be infinite and infallible but experience is limited only to humans who are finite and fallible.
Experience = the process of getting knowledge or skill that is obtained from doing, seeing, or feeling things, or something that happens which has an effect on you.
Therefore experience cannot be God.

A human person can claim to have experienced 'God' but
then God as omnipotent and omni-whatever is impossible to exist as real, i.e. illusory.
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

Try asking your deep AI on the above.

Experience is a focal point of awareness and as such shares the same nature of a point, a paradox of finiteness and infinity as the point is both one and many, limit and limitlessness. I covered this with the ai already and it backed me up.

The observation of a simple finite line is the observation of infinite points. Infinity and finiteness exist through each other.

As I had explained AI is very specific to a user, thus it Eodnhoj7-AI, VA-AI, abc-AI which is conditioned to the user's input.
As such, if one bend the meaning of experience to the extreme with AI, AI may agree with you but subject to that bent-conditions.

Ask your Eodnhoj7-AI if experience is taken in the general accepted meaning, i.e.
Experience = the process of getting knowledge or skill that is obtained from doing, seeing, or feeling things, or something that happens which has an effect on you.
then, can "experience is God" tenable?

Also ask AI whether 'experience is God' is tenable from the psychological-science and science-in-general perspective.

Science is merely consensus axioms tied together to produce a framework and existence has no rule to what axioms to pick within experience and no law to the number. Science quite frankly is a spontaneous occurence of the psyche and as such is grounded in a degree of randomness.

Even the tests it used are a subjective interpretation of how reality occurs and as such is as imaginary as the gods it seeks to discredit.

[Eodnhoj7]

My position is quite simple "relativity of occurence". That is all. It doesn't need developed as it is a transitional process that underlines all being including the act of argumentation. Occurence strictly is. Its very quite subtle.

What does relativity of occurrence mean?

What is relativity?

What is occurrence?

Are you adhering to accepted, standard terms or are you incorporating variants of those terms?

Without those details “relativity of occurrence” is meaningless to me and likely most others.

Occurrence strictly is? What does that mean? And in context of what?

Again, what is occurrence? What is the correct spelling?

But my stance of course is not fully expressed, even though that is relative, why should it be when it is your thread? The general position I am stating is your argument is a partial truth. We are addressing your stance, as it is your thread. As to the accusation of me using rhetoric, of course I am using rhetoric as rhetoric negates rhetoric, the rhetoric I am using negates yours and yours negates mine thus leaving nothing of meaning. The void is not even infinite, and that is the logical outcome of philosophy: and empty loop of symbols, ie words.

Precisely the point.

You seem to possess some overarching idea yet that idea is not completely communicated here. Nor anywhere else in the forum, I’ve checked. Your method consists of a mishmash of threads and comments utilizing various terms under various contexts. A clear and cohesive idea is difficult to find. Likewise producing a sufficient, coherent response to it is just as difficult.

What is the partial truth you reference? You have not clearly articulated it.

You claim I am not defining core terms, but are you really defining core terms?

Yes.

If you truly claim to define truth, which quite frankly your claim of definition is subjectively interpreted, you fall under the munchauseen trilemma and that is not a congruent paradox.

Truth is not explicitly discussed in the original essay. In fact truth nor any related term is even mentioned in the text.

You introduced the issue of truth. Ironically you have not defined that term, either.

Existence and infinity are terms which are distinct, if they where not distinct you could not define them. So in order to define them you have to observe contrasts. Considering existence requires distinction and existence is infinite than infinite distinction is necessary as infinite existence is an infinite regress.

Infinite distinction is infinite contrast, infinite contrast is infinite standing apart, infinite standing apart is infinite contradiction. You argument is just an infinite spiral in all practicality and a spiral begins and ends in nothing for even an infinite spiral is finite as a spiral.

Ignore everything prior to this sentence if you want for I will put it in even shorter terms: infinite existence is infinite contrast and as such is infinite contradiction.

Existence, generally speaking, does not require distinction. Existence just is.

Requirement of distinction is your premise. It is an unnecessary premise.

The issue of paradox, or contradiction, has been addressed here: viewtopic.php?p=745919#p745919

Further, and as argued previously, there is not infinite contradiction. Contradiction is limited by noncontradiction. There are opposites, yes. However opposites do not “infinitely spiral”, whatever that means, as you imply. They simply balance.

Regress, sequencing, ideas of time or duration are complexities encountered by conscious beings. Existence transcends time and sequence. Existence just is.

Define "what" without falling into the munchausseen trillema or a language game of meaning. Even dictionary defintions change over time.

Reality is spontaneous so who am I to be a hypocrite by putting everything in a box with a dogma that explains everything to the T?

From my perspective your core terms are not completely defined without going into an ambiguous regress or without ending in a circle that goes nowhere.

If truth is not connected to the essay, then what is your point in all the labor?

"Existence" is a distinct term so you contradict yourself. However on the other side of the coin if you claim existence does not require distinction than you cannot claim anything meaningful as meaning requires distinction. If existence is indistinct it is meaningless and to talk about it is meaningless too.

If distinction is not necessary than you admit by default you have no definitive argument as distinction is required for definition.





But forget the above:

If contradiction is limited by its opposite and as such is not infinite because of this, then by that logic existence is limited by nonexistence and as such existence is not infinite.

If existence "just is" than what I say "just is" and anything goes.

[daniel j lavender]

But forget the above:

If contradiction is limited by its opposite and as such is not infinite because of this, then by that logic existence is limited by nonexistence and as such existence is not infinite.

You are conflating the concept.

viewtopic.php?p=653691#p653691

Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Existence is infinite.