Philosophy Now Forum

It appears your comment was delayed pending account authorization:

Lionino wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:30 pmOn the definitions

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 5:44 pmExistence (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.

Surely we would agree that not everything that exists is perceived or can be perceived. Not everything that exists is interacted with — that is especially true if we admit of abstract objects.

Hence at least in part.

To merely acknowledge the imperceptible is to perceive the imperceptible, at least to some degree.

For example, here you acknowledge, or perceive, the concept of abstract objects. That very act and declaration indicates existence, by definition.

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. Review the Epistemic Ontological Distinction section of the essay.

Lionino wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:30 pmI usually take existence as being a primitive, existence is existence, and that is all.

A primitive? As a foundation or fundamental? So no other thing or aspect would qualify as existence? Any thing beyond would not exist?

What is the primitive? Where is the primitive? Why restrict existence to only the primitive while implying additional aspects by that very premise?

“Existence is existence” does not express much. It provides no explanation or understanding, no insight. It’s repetition, circularity, abstraction. That’s one issue the ontology seeks to resolve.

Existence is not limited to primitive or elaborate, foundation or extension, necessary or contingent. Existence is all. All can be perceived or interacted with to some degree in some way. These aspects are perceived, to some degree, here in discussion indicating existence.

Lionino wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:30 pmYour "In context of this essay existence in the general sense" may hint that you are going with that, but I am not sure.

I actually plan to remove that sentence from the definition. It’s superfluous. It’s already removed from this revision: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/exist ... ised/83675

Lionino wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:30 pm

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 5:44 pmInfinite (adj.): Immeasurable; vast; unlimited or unrestricted.

Well, not everything that is unmeasurable is infinite.

Correct.

The term “infinite” is flexible. It can mean unlimited or unrestricted and it can also mean immeasurable. Infinite can mean immeasurable but still limited or restricted. Something can be immeasurable, something can be vast whilst still being restricted or limited.

Existence is infinite in the unlimited or unrestricted sense, which is explicitly emphasized in the essay.

Lionino wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:30 pmInfinite is simply that which has no end (in some particular direction), which I guess is what you are getting at. So no issues there presumably.

The term is explicitly defined in the essay. Infinite isn’t merely no end, but rather no limit whatsoever.

The definition offered does not deviate from accepted definitions:

Infinite (adjective)
1. Having no boundaries or limits; impossible to measure or calculate
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company https://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite)

Infinite (adjective)
3 : subject to no limitation or external determination
(Infinite. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infinite)

Lionino wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:30 pmOn nonexistence, what I said about 'existence' applies. I wouldn't say the term is contradictory, the concept perhaps.

Perhaps the best term would be “paradoxical”.

However in context of the essay the general idea is effectively conveyed.

Lionino wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:30 pm

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 5:44 pmConsciousness (n.): Awareness; process allowing feedback of existence.

Consciousness is hard to define, notoriously, but it is rather synonymous with awareness, yes. The process bit however is ambiguous. If any process allowing feedback of existence is consciousness, things such as tides and light are consciousness, unless you want to further specify what you mean by 'feedback'.

That is why awareness is included in the definition.

Standard definitions relate feedback with biology and evaluative response processes, for example:

Feedback (noun)
2. The return of information about the result of a process or activity; evaluative response
3. The process by which a system, often biological or ecological, is modulated, controlled, or changed by the product, output, or response it produces
(American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company https://www.thefreedictionary.com/feedback)

Lionino wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:30 pm

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 5:44 pmEternity (n.): Synonymous with existence; that which is not limited by duration.

Well, it seems then that with this definition your thread guarantees its own success from the get-go without any need for elaboration. Since your definition of infinite is unlimited, and your definition of eternity is 'not limited', and eternity is given as synonymous of existence (I could argue against that setup but I will spare it), this means that "Existence is infinite" is something that follows by definition and not by reasoning.

It isn’t merely definitional but grounded in the inability to substantiate nonexistence. Any attempt to reference or describe nonexistence involves existence. If nonexistence cannot be, if existence cannot come from nothing then existence is infinite and eternal.

The contention then becomes a matter of the definition of existence itself, which I contend is practical, sensible and intuitive. It seems only appropriate to employ the means by which we engage with the world as a means to define existence. As conscious beings perception is unavoidable in such inquiry.

All inquiries, including those in science, involve perception and interaction. The distinction between a semantic test and a truly empirical test is blurred. Scientific tests are not really independent of an observer. A scientist observing experiments is a conscious being using perceptive tools to interpret data. The data itself is a result of interaction between phenomena. Thus even science operates within the definition of existence presented.

Lionino wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:30 pmAlso, duration is in reference only to time.

Yes, duration concerns time. Existence concerns time yet also transcends time. It’s difficult to convey the idea of transcending time without invoking the concept of time.

By acknowledging association of the term eternal with duration, but also defining eternity as not limited by duration, the ontology comprises both temporal and atemporal aspects.

Lionino wrote: ↑Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:30 pmUltimately, I think simply borrowing the definitions from a dictionary would have been better.

Standard terms and definitions are circular and locked in abstraction. They provide no practical means of substantiation. Review the Definition Of Existence section of the essay.

The terms and definitions presented here are operational, they are functional. One can actually see and feel the variation and unlimitedness of existence. The definitions aren’t merely labels; they are functional, testable parameters.

Many philosophers have offered their own terms and definitions. This is not out of the ordinary. In Spinoza’s Ethics he offers his own definitions. Heidegger also introduces his own terms.

This is a standalone foundational ontology. It presents its own terms. That said most definitions do not really deviate from standard definitions as illustrated above. Explanation is provided for ones that do.

Does “INFINITE” mean time?

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 6:41 am Does “INFINITE” mean time?

Infinite means unlimited or unrestricted. Existence is infinite. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to any particular aspect or thing, including time.

Existence concerns time yet also transcends time. By acknowledging duration, but also defining existence as not limited by duration, the ontology comprises both temporal and atemporal or timeless aspects.

As expressed:

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 1:16 amPerhaps the idea of being eternal, of eternity is emphasized too much. The idea itself isn’t quite as significant as it may seem. The idea is concerned with time, with duration. As expressed in the original text existence just is. Existence, being, generally speaking, transcends what we perceive as time. Existence just is. Time is a construct. A quality associated with particulars or particular things and often confounded with existence or being in its general sense.

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 7:29 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 6:41 am Does “INFINITE” mean time?

Infinite means unlimited or unrestricted. Existence is infinite. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to any particular aspect or thing, including time.

Existence concerns time yet also transcends time. By acknowledging duration, but also defining existence as not limited by duration, the ontology comprises both temporal and atemporal or timeless aspects.

As expressed:

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 1:16 amPerhaps the idea of being eternal, of eternity is emphasized too much. The idea itself isn’t quite as significant as it may seem. The idea is concerned with time, with duration. As expressed in the original text existence just is. Existence, being, generally speaking, transcends what we perceive as time. Existence just is. Time is a construct. A quality associated with particulars or particular things and often confounded with existence or being in its general sense.

Thanks for your answer to my question.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 6:41 am Does “INFINITE” mean time?

The word, 'infinite', can be in reference to 'spatially'. Whereas, the word, 'eternal', can be in reference to 'temporally'.

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 7:29 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 6:41 am Does “INFINITE” mean time?

Infinite means unlimited or unrestricted. Existence is infinite. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to any particular aspect or thing, including time.

Existence concerns time yet also transcends time. By acknowledging duration, but also defining existence as not limited by duration, the ontology comprises both temporal and atemporal or timeless aspects.

As expressed:

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 1:16 amPerhaps the idea of being eternal, of eternity is emphasized too much. The idea itself isn’t quite as significant as it may seem. The idea is concerned with time, with duration. As expressed in the original text existence just is. Existence, being, generally speaking, transcends what we perceive as time. Existence just is. Time is a construct. A quality associated with particulars or particular things and often confounded with existence or being in its general sense.

The term infinite, in context of the essay and the ontology, primarily applies to existence in the sense of being unlimited or unrestricted.

Existence is infinite. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to any particular aspect or thing, including time.

By omitting the components of time, eternal and eternity, Existence Is Infinite [more] seamlessly integrates and allows any conception relating to them:



Existence Is Infinite (Eternal/Eternity Revision)
Daniel J. Lavender


Abstract

Existence is infinite. 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.


Terms and Definitions

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

Infinite (adj.): Immeasurable; vast; unlimited or unrestricted.

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.

Consciousness (n.): Awareness; process allowing feedback of existence.

Intelligence (n.): Recognition of patterns in existence and their application for some benefit.

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.

---

Existence is and nonexistence is not.

Existence is everywhere. Nonexistence is nowhere. Nonexistence does not exist, it is no thing. Every thing is something, including the concept or term nonexistence.

Existence did not begin as a beginning of existence would imply a previous state of nonexistence, and nonexistence was not, is not and cannot be. As nonexistence never was existence would not require a beginning.

Existence extends beyond creation. Creation implies a point of being created, a beginning point. Existence extends beyond creation because existence had no beginning point or point of creation.

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.

Any thing, substance itself is being, is existence. The thing is. Substance is. It always concerns existence. Existence is constant. Things, parts may change. Parts may develop, they may transform, they may shift around or reform, they may break apart or break away but existence always is.

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.

Existence is infinite, however, our limited perspective creates an illusion of limitation. From this perspective we are inclined to limit existence, we are inclined to create measurements of existence although existence is essentially immeasurable.

---

Additional Notes

- All variance balances as simply being. All difference, all variation, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence.

- Existence is not merely defined as "that which is" because "is" would have to be addressed which would involve perception. The matter implicitly involves perception and interaction; the term "is" only has significance with perception.

- 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.

- Existence is that which can, at least partially, be perceived, but it does not necessarily need to be perceived. Things can be without being perceived. Likewise things can interact without awareness, such as waves crashing onto the shore.

- Immateriality, immaterial space is part of the structure of existence. Immateriality helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences. The contrast of materiality, the contrast of physicality is immateriality, not nonexistence or nothing.

- It may be argued that at some point existence was finite or limited in extent. But as stated that would only be some particular point, that would only be a limited portion of existence. That would not be the totality of existence. Existence is the whole, existence is all; existence is what we perceive as the past, present and future, existence is all aspects or all portions of all things. Existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. Existence is not limited in extent; existence is not limited to any particular area, period, point, portion, quality or thing.

- 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.

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

- Something and nothing cannot coexist. If there is something there is not nothing. Anywhere. Nothing or nonexistence exists only as a word, a term, a concept in relation to other things.

- Things have properties, things have qualities. Stars are bright. Icicles are cold. The automobile is aerodynamic. Nothing or nonexistence, beyond the concept or term, has no properties or qualities as it does not actually exist.


---------


The Definition Of Existence

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

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

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

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


The Significance Of Perception

Perception or consciousness is part of the basis of defining existence because conscious entities, such as ourselves, are who this issue matters to. Existence, things can be without consciousness or awareness, but consciousness or awareness must be included because that's what we are. For our purposes existence is that which is, or can, at least partially, be perceived. It involves perception both because perception or consciousness is part of existence and because the issue intimately concerns conscious entities. It implicitly involves perception or consciousness because that is the process used for such inquiry and exchange.

Interaction, or the ability of things to interact, or the fact that things or phenomena interact, also plays a significant role in the definition of existence. It frees the philosophy from a purely biological, conscious perspective. Chemicals interact. Atoms interact. Protons, electrons all interact on nonconscious, nonbiological levels.


Epistemic Ontological Distinction

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

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


Existence Both Part And Whole

Existence is both part and whole. Existence as the whole is. Parts of existence are. It is. They are. All share the same commonality of existence, of being. Whole is. Parts are. They exist. They are.

Take Earth for example. There are parts of Earth and the whole Earth. Earth, the entire world, exists. However each continent, each body of water also exists. Each continent has its own name, each its own list of regulations. Each body of water has its own name. The continents are acknowledged as distinct things, the bodies of water are acknowledged as distinct things, as pieces or as parts. They also are acknowledged together as a whole, as the world or as the planet Earth. Earth's structure is comprised of several layers which also are viewed as parts or as pieces or together as the entire planet. Both parts and the whole can be and are acknowledged. This same premise applies to existence. Existence concerns both parts and the whole.

"Existence" or "being" is general, and applies to all, including parts, and the whole or entirety. "An existence", "an existing" or "a being" is specific, and applies to a particular. Both are acknowledged. In other words, both are.

A thing, although observably only part of existence, is still existence. A thing is not nonexistence. The fact a thing is [only part of] existence is implicit within context of interaction with said thing.


All Means All

Although both parts and the whole are, a part is not the whole or totality nor is the whole or totality just a part. A part is a part, the totality is the totality. A part cannot be turned into the totality, just as the totality cannot be turned into a part. A part may only represent the whole or totality or be in relation to the whole or totality. Nor can a duplicate of the totality be created. Such would be redundant, not to mention impractical. Any supposed addition to existence would still be part of existence or would still be part of the totality. In other words, there cannot be multiple totalities. Total means total, whole means whole. All means all.


Unlimited In Extent

Existence is not limited to any particular, existence is not limited in range or in scope. Existence isn't just any particular thing, existence is all things. Existence goes on and on and beyond, without limit. There is no edge to existence, no ending or beginning point to specify. There are only edges, there are only beginning and ending points to particulars or to things. To reach an edge is to reach an edge of some thing or some things, not existence entirely.

The edge of the seashore leads to the edge of the ocean; the edge of the ocean to the edge of the seashore. The edge of Earth's atmosphere leads to outer space; the edge of outer space to Earth's atmosphere, etcetera. Materiality edges into immateriality and immateriality edges into materiality. Edges of things always lead to edges of others; things give way to other things, not no things. Edges and boundaries apply only to particular things. Existence as a whole has no edge as existence is all things. Being all, existence flows seamlessly from one thing to another. Without edge, without limit.


Variance Of Existence

Parts of existence both limit and expand or give variety to existence. Parts are limited as observably they are not the entirety of existence, they do not concern the full scope of existence or the qualities of other things. Yet at the same time parts of existence give variety to existence; their uniqueness contributes variance to existence. For example the grittiness, the composition of sand contributes variance to existence as it contrasts the wetness, the composition of water. The water, as part of existence, perpetuates existence beyond just the grittiness or composition of sand. Both give variety to existence with their contrasting qualities. Simultaneously sand limits the extent of water, water limits the extent of sand.


Nonexistence Cannot Be

Nonexistence cannot be referenced because nonexistence is not and cannot be. Only things existent, only existence can be referenced. Absence of a thing or things may be declared, but this still concerns reference in relation to existent things. For example, Bob may be absent from class, but Bob is not nonexistent. Nor does Bob's absence create a gap of nonexistence in the classroom as the room is still completely filled with or comprised of things, be it air, desks, other students, teachers, etcetera. Absence concerns reference to a subject, to an existent thing and its location. The subject of reference is Bob, is the existent thing, along with its location. The subject of reference is not nonexistence or nothing; neither nonexistence nor nothing have location or presence to be referenced in such a way.

The very term "nothing" concerns reference to things. The concept or idea of nothing exists only in its relation to, and is based on, other existent things. "No thing" concerns direct reference to a thing or things. Attempting to reference nothing or nonexistence always fails as something is invariably referenced. The attempt to reference nothing or nonexistence itself results in reference to things: mental constructs or concepts of nothing, of nonexistence, or of nothingness, along with the words or terms nothing, or nonexistence, or nothingness themselves, all of which are things and are indeed existent. The words "nothing", "nonexistence" and "nothingness" are obvious paradoxes as they are all observably things. Every reference is to some existent thing; nonexistence is not and cannot be.


On Becoming

Becoming is a process, becoming is in essence development. Becoming could be viewed as dynamics of things, a process pertaining to things, similar to change.

Becoming is simply a process of existence, a process pertaining to individuals or parts of existence. Individuals, things become, develop or change into other things. A caterpillar, a thing, exists and becomes another, a butterfly. A student becomes a teacher, etcetera.

Existence, that is all things, cannot suddenly vanish into nothing. Nor can they suddenly appear from nothing. Existence cannot suddenly become nonexistence just as nonexistence cannot suddenly become existence. Existence always is. In this sense existence does not become. Existence, generally speaking, is not becoming and did not become. However becoming, as a process or as development, can pertain to parts of existence.


Immateriality

Immaterial indicates intangible things or impalpable things. Immaterial things cannot be physically touched like typical material objects. Truth and philosophy are examples of immateriality. Space may be considered material or immaterial depending on the subject.

An ocean is an example of material space. An ocean, or at least part of one, can be touched and is obviously tangible. An ocean provides material resistance because it consists of densely arranged molecules and atoms. Relatively the vacuum of outer space is an example of immaterial space. The vacuum provides no resistance as it concerns minimal molecules and atomic arrangements allowing material bodies motion.

The vacuum does not concern matter in the terrestrial sense. The vacuum concerns quantum fields, radiation and sparingly atoms or molecules. Too few molecules are present to form tangible, solid material. Pure immaterial space would theoretically concern no atoms, no molecules and no radiation. The idea or concept of space itself is conceptual and thus immaterial.


Smallest Thing

Whether there is a smallest thing or not is rather inconsequential. Even if there were a smallest thing, a smallest object, a smallest particle, etcetera, it would still be a thing, it would still be something, it would still be part of existence. A smallest thing would not create a gap of nonexistence. Existence would still be infinite, existence would still be ubiquitous; existence would still flow seamlessly from one thing to another.

A smallest thing would not necessarily indicate limitation of existence, as in limitation of existence's size or extent; rather it would indicate limitation of that particular thing, limitation of the size or extent of that specific thing. It would indicate limitations of observation or ability of the observer. Existence is infinite in size and extent; existence includes every thing and is not limited to or by size of particulars. Nor is existence actually limited due to limitations of observation or ability.


Theological Versatility

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

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

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


Conclusions

The philosophy presented herein illustrates the commonality we all share. In fact the commonality all things share. As demonstrated throughout centuries past various religions, ideologies and ideologues have served largely to confound, to divide, to stoke the fires of conflict in the world rather than to unite. Optimistically philosophy, such as the one presented here, can serve to clarify, can serve to reconcile these ideas as well as improve understanding and community throughout the world and beyond.


Revisions
Omitted all eternal/eternity references
Revised Existence definition (removed “In context…” sentence)
Changed contradictory/contradictions to paradoxical/paradoxes
Omitted Eternal Life section

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 10:44 am

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 7:29 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 6:41 am Does “INFINITE” mean time?

Infinite means unlimited or unrestricted. Existence is infinite. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to any particular aspect or thing, including time.

Existence concerns time yet also transcends time. By acknowledging duration, but also defining existence as not limited by duration, the ontology comprises both temporal and atemporal or timeless aspects.

As expressed:

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Tue Jun 20, 2023 1:16 amPerhaps the idea of being eternal, of eternity is emphasized too much. The idea itself isn’t quite as significant as it may seem. The idea is concerned with time, with duration. As expressed in the original text existence just is. Existence, being, generally speaking, transcends what we perceive as time. Existence just is. Time is a construct. A quality associated with particulars or particular things and often confounded with existence or being in its general sense.

The term infinite, in context of the essay and the ontology, primarily applies to existence in the sense of being unlimited or unrestricted.

Existence is infinite.

And, as 'I' have already pointed out, and Corrected,

Existence is, actually, infinite and eternal.

As has already been proved irrefutably so.

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 10:44 am Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to any particular aspect or thing, including time.

Therefore, Existence is 'eternal', as well as 'infinite'.

Why 'this' is so hard for you to just accept and admit only 'you' would really know.

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 10:44 am By omitting the components of time, eternal and eternity, Existence Is Infinite [more] seamlessly integrates and allows any conception relating to them:

Sounds like 'excuses' and not 'actual reasons'.

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 10:44 am
Existence Is Infinite (Eternal/Eternity Revision)
Daniel J. Lavender


Abstract

Existence is infinite. 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.


Terms and Definitions

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

Infinite (adj.): Immeasurable; vast; unlimited or unrestricted.

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.

Consciousness (n.): Awareness; process allowing feedback of existence.

Intelligence (n.): Recognition of patterns in existence and their application for some benefit.

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.

---

Existence is and nonexistence is not.

Existence is everywhere. Nonexistence is nowhere. Nonexistence does not exist, it is no thing. Every thing is something, including the concept or term nonexistence.

Existence did not begin as a beginning of existence would imply a previous state of nonexistence, and nonexistence was not, is not and cannot be. As nonexistence never was existence would not require a beginning.

Existence extends beyond creation. Creation implies a point of being created, a beginning point. Existence extends beyond creation because existence had no beginning point or point of creation.

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.

Any thing, substance itself is being, is existence. The thing is. Substance is. It always concerns existence. Existence is constant. Things, parts may change. Parts may develop, they may transform, they may shift around or reform, they may break apart or break away but existence always is.

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.

Existence is infinite, however, our limited perspective creates an illusion of limitation. From this perspective we are inclined to limit existence, we are inclined to create measurements of existence although existence is essentially immeasurable.

---

Additional Notes

- All variance balances as simply being. All difference, all variation, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence.

- Existence is not merely defined as "that which is" because "is" would have to be addressed which would involve perception. The matter implicitly involves perception and interaction; the term "is" only has significance with perception.

- 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.

- Existence is that which can, at least partially, be perceived, but it does not necessarily need to be perceived. Things can be without being perceived. Likewise things can interact without awareness, such as waves crashing onto the shore.

- Immateriality, immaterial space is part of the structure of existence. Immateriality helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences. The contrast of materiality, the contrast of physicality is immateriality, not nonexistence or nothing.

- It may be argued that at some point existence was finite or limited in extent. But as stated that would only be some particular point, that would only be a limited portion of existence. That would not be the totality of existence. Existence is the whole, existence is all; existence is what we perceive as the past, present and future, existence is all aspects or all portions of all things. Existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. Existence is not limited in extent; existence is not limited to any particular area, period, point, portion, quality or thing.

- 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.

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

- Something and nothing cannot coexist. If there is something there is not nothing. Anywhere. Nothing or nonexistence exists only as a word, a term, a concept in relation to other things.

- Things have properties, things have qualities. Stars are bright. Icicles are cold. The automobile is aerodynamic. Nothing or nonexistence, beyond the concept or term, has no properties or qualities as it does not actually exist.


---------


The Definition Of Existence

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

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

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

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


The Significance Of Perception

Perception or consciousness is part of the basis of defining existence because conscious entities, such as ourselves, are who this issue matters to. Existence, things can be without consciousness or awareness, but consciousness or awareness must be included because that's what we are. For our purposes existence is that which is, or can, at least partially, be perceived. It involves perception both because perception or consciousness is part of existence and because the issue intimately concerns conscious entities. It implicitly involves perception or consciousness because that is the process used for such inquiry and exchange.

Interaction, or the ability of things to interact, or the fact that things or phenomena interact, also plays a significant role in the definition of existence. It frees the philosophy from a purely biological, conscious perspective. Chemicals interact. Atoms interact. Protons, electrons all interact on nonconscious, nonbiological levels.


Epistemic Ontological Distinction

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

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


Existence Both Part And Whole

Existence is both part and whole. Existence as the whole is. Parts of existence are. It is. They are. All share the same commonality of existence, of being. Whole is. Parts are. They exist. They are.

Take Earth for example. There are parts of Earth and the whole Earth. Earth, the entire world, exists. However each continent, each body of water also exists. Each continent has its own name, each its own list of regulations. Each body of water has its own name. The continents are acknowledged as distinct things, the bodies of water are acknowledged as distinct things, as pieces or as parts. They also are acknowledged together as a whole, as the world or as the planet Earth. Earth's structure is comprised of several layers which also are viewed as parts or as pieces or together as the entire planet. Both parts and the whole can be and are acknowledged. This same premise applies to existence. Existence concerns both parts and the whole.

"Existence" or "being" is general, and applies to all, including parts, and the whole or entirety. "An existence", "an existing" or "a being" is specific, and applies to a particular. Both are acknowledged. In other words, both are.

A thing, although observably only part of existence, is still existence. A thing is not nonexistence. The fact a thing is [only part of] existence is implicit within context of interaction with said thing.


All Means All

Although both parts and the whole are, a part is not the whole or totality nor is the whole or totality just a part. A part is a part, the totality is the totality. A part cannot be turned into the totality, just as the totality cannot be turned into a part. A part may only represent the whole or totality or be in relation to the whole or totality. Nor can a duplicate of the totality be created. Such would be redundant, not to mention impractical. Any supposed addition to existence would still be part of existence or would still be part of the totality. In other words, there cannot be multiple totalities. Total means total, whole means whole. All means all.


Unlimited In Extent

Existence is not limited to any particular, existence is not limited in range or in scope. Existence isn't just any particular thing, existence is all things. Existence goes on and on and beyond, without limit. There is no edge to existence, no ending or beginning point to specify. There are only edges, there are only beginning and ending points to particulars or to things. To reach an edge is to reach an edge of some thing or some things, not existence entirely.

The edge of the seashore leads to the edge of the ocean; the edge of the ocean to the edge of the seashore. The edge of Earth's atmosphere leads to outer space; the edge of outer space to Earth's atmosphere, etcetera. Materiality edges into immateriality and immateriality edges into materiality. Edges of things always lead to edges of others; things give way to other things, not no things. Edges and boundaries apply only to particular things. Existence as a whole has no edge as existence is all things. Being all, existence flows seamlessly from one thing to another. Without edge, without limit.


Variance Of Existence

Parts of existence both limit and expand or give variety to existence. Parts are limited as observably they are not the entirety of existence, they do not concern the full scope of existence or the qualities of other things. Yet at the same time parts of existence give variety to existence; their uniqueness contributes variance to existence. For example the grittiness, the composition of sand contributes variance to existence as it contrasts the wetness, the composition of water. The water, as part of existence, perpetuates existence beyond just the grittiness or composition of sand. Both give variety to existence with their contrasting qualities. Simultaneously sand limits the extent of water, water limits the extent of sand.


Nonexistence Cannot Be

Nonexistence cannot be referenced because nonexistence is not and cannot be. Only things existent, only existence can be referenced. Absence of a thing or things may be declared, but this still concerns reference in relation to existent things. For example, Bob may be absent from class, but Bob is not nonexistent. Nor does Bob's absence create a gap of nonexistence in the classroom as the room is still completely filled with or comprised of things, be it air, desks, other students, teachers, etcetera. Absence concerns reference to a subject, to an existent thing and its location. The subject of reference is Bob, is the existent thing, along with its location. The subject of reference is not nonexistence or nothing; neither nonexistence nor nothing have location or presence to be referenced in such a way.

The very term "nothing" concerns reference to things. The concept or idea of nothing exists only in its relation to, and is based on, other existent things. "No thing" concerns direct reference to a thing or things. Attempting to reference nothing or nonexistence always fails as something is invariably referenced. The attempt to reference nothing or nonexistence itself results in reference to things: mental constructs or concepts of nothing, of nonexistence, or of nothingness, along with the words or terms nothing, or nonexistence, or nothingness themselves, all of which are things and are indeed existent. The words "nothing", "nonexistence" and "nothingness" are obvious contradictions as they are all observably things. Every reference is to some existent thing; nonexistence is not and cannot be.


On Becoming

Becoming is a process, becoming is in essence development. Becoming could be viewed as dynamics of things, a process pertaining to things, similar to change.

Becoming is simply a process of existence, a process pertaining to individuals or parts of existence. Individuals, things become, develop or change into other things. A caterpillar, a thing, exists and becomes another, a butterfly. A student becomes a teacher, etcetera.

Existence, that is all things, cannot suddenly vanish into nothing. Nor can they suddenly appear from nothing. Existence cannot suddenly become nonexistence just as nonexistence cannot suddenly become existence. Existence always is. In this sense existence does not become. Existence, generally speaking, is not becoming and did not become. However becoming, as a process or as development, can pertain to parts of existence.


Immateriality

Immaterial indicates intangible things or impalpable things. Immaterial things cannot be physically touched like typical material objects. Truth and philosophy are examples of immateriality. Space may be considered material or immaterial depending on the subject.

An ocean is an example of material space. An ocean, or at least part of one, can be touched and is obviously tangible. An ocean provides material resistance because it consists of densely arranged molecules and atoms. Relatively the vacuum of outer space is an example of immaterial space. The vacuum provides no resistance as it concerns minimal molecules and atomic arrangements allowing material bodies motion.

The vacuum does not concern matter in the terrestrial sense. The vacuum concerns quantum fields, radiation and sparingly atoms or molecules. Too few molecules are present to form tangible, solid material. Pure immaterial space would theoretically concern no atoms, no molecules and no radiation. The idea or concept of space itself is conceptual and thus immaterial.


Smallest Thing

Whether there is a smallest thing or not is rather inconsequential. Even if there were a smallest thing, a smallest object, a smallest particle, etcetera, it would still be a thing, it would still be something, it would still be part of existence. A smallest thing would not create a gap of nonexistence. Existence would still be infinite, existence would still be ubiquitous; existence would still flow seamlessly from one thing to another.

A smallest thing would not necessarily indicate limitation of existence, as in limitation of existence's size or extent; rather it would indicate limitation of that particular thing, limitation of the size or extent of that specific thing. It would indicate limitations of observation or ability of the observer. Existence is infinite in size and extent; existence includes every thing and is not limited to or by size of particulars. Nor is existence actually limited due to limitations of observation or ability.


Theological Versatility

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

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

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


Conclusions

The philosophy presented herein illustrates the commonality we all share. In fact the commonality all things share. As demonstrated throughout centuries past various religions, ideologies and ideologues have served largely to confound, to divide, to stoke the fires of conflict in the world rather than to unite. Optimistically philosophy, such as the one presented here, can serve to clarify, can serve to reconcile these ideas as well as improve understanding and community throughout the world and beyond.


Revisions
Omitted all eternal/eternity references
Revised Existence definition (removed “In context…” sentence)
Omitted Eternal Life section

you are, once again, 'trying to' argue for some thing that no one could even refute any way.

But, why?

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 9:44 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 6:41 am Does “INFINITE” mean time?

The word, 'infinite', can be in reference to 'spatially'. Whereas, the word, 'eternal', can be in reference to 'temporally'.

Thank you. That’s understandable.

So are our words just like signposts relative to the observer? I’ve heard you say that a few times.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 9:44 am

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 6:41 am Does “INFINITE” mean time?

The word, 'infinite', can be in reference to 'spatially'. Whereas, the word, 'eternal', can be in reference to 'temporally'.

Thank you. That’s understandable.

So are our words just like signposts relative to the observer? I’ve heard you say that a few times.

Actually 'i' have said some thing like,

'Emotions are signs, signals, and/or signposts' in regards to what is going on 'around us', and to help direct 'us' in 'which way' is the Right direction, for 'us', in Life. And,

'Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer'.

But, when 'we' are 'in agreement and voluntary accepting' the 'exact same words', then these are the 'Right words' that can, and do, lead 'us' to the Right T.R.A.C.K., in Life. Which is just 'the path' that holds the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge, in Life, which is what actually guides 'us' to where 'we' all want to be.

That is, when 'we' really do want to follow our One United Goal, in Life, which is to just live in peace and harmony with every one, as One, then 'we' can, and will, when 'we' find and are ON T.R.A.C.K., or in other words, when 'we' are on, and following, the Right T.R.A.C.K., in Life. Which, again, is found in, and with, the Right words.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 4:21 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 9:44 am

The word, 'infinite', can be in reference to 'spatially'. Whereas, the word, 'eternal', can be in reference to 'temporally'.

Thank you. That’s understandable.

So are our words just like signposts relative to the observer? I’ve heard you say that a few times.

Actually 'i' have said some thing like,

'Emotions are signs, signals, and/or signposts' in regards to what is going on 'around us', and to help direct 'us' in 'which way' is the Right direction, for 'us', in Life. And,

'Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer'.

But, when 'we' are 'in agreement and voluntary accepting' the 'exact same words', then these are the 'Right words' that can, and do, lead 'us' to the Right T.R.A.C.K., in Life. Which is just 'the path' that holds the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge, in Life, which is what actually guides 'us' to where 'we' all want to be.

That is, when 'we' really do want to follow our One United Goal, in Life, which is to just live in peace and harmony with every one, as One, then 'we' can, and will, when 'we' find and are ON T.R.A.C.K., or in other words, when 'we' are on, and following, the Right T.R.A.C.K., in Life. Which, again, is found in, and with, the Right words.

This is beautifully explained. I like how you have written this.

It sings to my soul. Thank you Age.

Think I’m beginning to prefer the recent Eternal/Eternity Revision (just above): viewtopic.php?p=789448#p789448

It’s more concise yet arguably more versatile.

Infinite, being unlimited, implicitly encompasses various conceptions of time, timelessness, eternal and eternity.

Note it does not deny eternal life, the eternality of existence or the eternality of things but rather it allows more room for variation concerning those concepts. This revision also eliminates earlier conceptual entanglement; the terms have various meanings which can lead to complications.

It seems the more one writes, the more detail and specificity one provides, the more rigid the philosophy becomes. It’s interesting how such lengthy manuscripts from earlier philosophers often convey rather rigid systems.

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 4:55 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 4:21 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 1:26 pm

Thank you. That’s understandable.

So are our words just like signposts relative to the observer? I’ve heard you say that a few times.

Actually 'i' have said some thing like,

'Emotions are signs, signals, and/or signposts' in regards to what is going on 'around us', and to help direct 'us' in 'which way' is the Right direction, for 'us', in Life. And,

'Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer'.

But, when 'we' are 'in agreement and voluntary accepting' the 'exact same words', then these are the 'Right words' that can, and do, lead 'us' to the Right T.R.A.C.K., in Life. Which is just 'the path' that holds the True, Right, Accurate, and Correct Knowledge, in Life, which is what actually guides 'us' to where 'we' all want to be.

That is, when 'we' really do want to follow our One United Goal, in Life, which is to just live in peace and harmony with every one, as One, then 'we' can, and will, when 'we' find and are ON T.R.A.C.K., or in other words, when 'we' are on, and following, the Right T.R.A.C.K., in Life. Which, again, is found in, and with, the Right words.

This is beautifully explained. I like how you have written this.

It sings to my soul. Thank you Age.

The logic basically is "if everyone agrees" which can be applied to any and everything.

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.

Relatively speaking "nothingness" exists as the absence of one thing in another, and a paradox ensues within the framework.

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

The thesis is good but has nuanced paradoxes that it seems to cover up.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 11:01 am

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 10:44 am By omitting the components of time, eternal and eternity, Existence Is Infinite [more] seamlessly integrates and allows any conception relating to them:

Sounds like 'excuses' and not 'actual reasons'.

Infinite, being unlimited, implicitly encompasses various conceptions of time, timelessness, eternal and eternity.

Note it does not deny eternal life, the eternality of existence or the eternality of things but rather it allows more room for variation concerning those concepts.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 07, 2025 6:09 pmRelative 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.