Philosophy Now Forum

The philosophy presented is a standalone foundational ontology. It isn’t a formal academic paper, however, it is a coherent and functional framework capable of accommodating various worldviews while maintaining ontological integrity.

The ontology is practical and accessible, it provides parameters to be employed by the individual directly as opposed to being confined exclusively to academic circles.

The philosophy connects epistemology and ontology while addressing their distinctions. It escapes the circularity of abstraction by grounding terms in concrete, real world examples.

The intent is not to dictate specifics of systems but to articulate an ontology or general framework in which systems can be understood.

The language and terms are accessible and intuitive. They are approachable and applicable. The definition of existence turns the discussion into more than semantics as it allows us to discern existence in a meaningful and practical way.

The primary definition, the definition of existence, is functional, 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.

The impossibility of nonexistence is not a forced result but rather a natural conclusion extending from the parameters established by the definition of existence. The conclusion is not purely definitional but substantiated through these parameters which involve real world experience.

Nonexistence cannot be; every attempt to reference or describe nonexistence involves existence. If nonexistence cannot be, if existence is not limited to any particular then existence is infinite.

The core terms and definitions expand into additional tenets and principles which logically interlink. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to any particular, existence is all. There is no cause or reason beyond existence as any cause or reason would be existence. Thus, existence just is.

These principles and tenets allow insight into the nature of being. For example, reason is an aspect of existence, not a cause of existence or something beyond existence.

Other philosophies may seem more robust because they address ethical, moral and political concerns. The ontology presented intentionally does not. The ontology integrates any and all other concepts and systems as parts, things and aspects of existence or as existence itself.

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 12:33 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 11:31 pmNon-existence is an extremely difficult thing to prove, even for ordinary things. It can be done, but it's very hard.

Feel free to demonstrate.

Sure. If the claim you're making is for a creature that is finite and limited by something, then it's possible to do. For example, I could say, "There are no goldfish in this pond." Then I could drain the pond, and prove conclusively that there were not such fish in there. But if I were trying to prove, say, that there are no more Tasmanian tigers left on Earth, that would be much harder...not impossible, perhaps; but a twinge of doubt might linger that somewhere on a hidden mountainside was a place I hadn't checked. So I could prove the non-existence of Tasmanian tigers...but with somewhat less assurance. The problem is that Tasmanian tigers move farther than goldfish in a pond.

But what if I tried to argue that I know there's no God? What sort of tests would the speaker have to have run, before a reasonable person could believe such a claim?

So different claims have different levels of difficulty attached to them, in the matter of proving the non-existence of things.

But it's much easier to prove the opposite, the existence of things: if I can show one goldfish, I've falsified that claim of non-existence. If I can locate one Tasmanian tiger, or any conclusive evidence for such at all, like spoor, or a fresh pawprint, then I can falsify the non-existence claim regarding Tasmanian tigers. And if I can locate just one genuine miracle, one genuine revelation, one personal religious experience, one case of irreducible complexity in Creation, one logical deduction truly premised on truthful data, in any tradition that believes in God, at any time, in any place, by anybody, then I've falsified the non-existence of God claim. That's not much for me to have to do.

And, of course, the Atheist would have to do the opposite -- prove that no such think had ever happened, is every happening, or ever will happen. How is he going to do that? Nobody knows.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:09 amSure. If the claim you're making is for a creature that is finite and limited by something, then it's possible to do.

I’m contending nonexistence has no ontological reality.

Reviewing your statement here it appears we agree:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 6:34 pm"Nothing" is not something that you can expect to "exist," or anybody else can imagine could "exist," or that one can use the predication "exist" to refer to.

So there's no new information in the fact that it does not exist. It's not some kind of a wondrous realization; it's a dull and circular observation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:09 amFor example, I could say, "There are no goldfish in this pond." Then I could drain the pond, and prove conclusively that there were not such fish in there. But if I were trying to prove, say, that there are no more Tasmanian tigers left on Earth, that would be much harder...not impossible, perhaps; but a twinge of doubt might linger that somewhere on a hidden mountainside was a place I hadn't checked. So I could prove the non-existence of Tasmanian tigers...but with somewhat less assurance. The problem is that Tasmanian tigers move farther than goldfish in a pond.

What you reference here is absence, not nonexistence. Absence of goldfish, absence of Tasmanian tigers. Those are still things, however, they simply are not present at a certain time and certain place. And, despite that absence, there is no gap of nonexistence where the goldfish or tigers would be. There is water, there are mountainous regions, there is existence.

Every thing mentioned in your statement is existence, by definition. The pond, the goldfish, the Tasmanian tiger, Earth, the mountains, even absence itself. Each is perceived or interacted with. There is no gap of nonexistence. There is only existence.



From the other thread: viewtopic.php?p=793232#p793232

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:22 am

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 9:12 amThe coexistence of something and nothing is illogical.

You're supposing that "nothing" is a "thing." (See the word "co-exist" -- that implies that you're anticipating the existence of a "nothing," and criticizing the "nothing" for "not existing.")

Nothing is no thing. As defined in the essay: viewtopic.php?t=40269

Something, a thing, and nothing, no thing, cannot coexist or exist simultaneously.

If there is a thing there is not no thing.

A thing is a thing, not no thing. Something and nothing cannot coexist.

And “nothing” is a thing. A term, a word, a concept. A paradoxical term, word and concept. It is perceived, thus substantiating it as existence.

Nothing, no thing, nonexistence is not and cannot be. It cannot exist to coexist.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:22 amBut "nothing," literally no + thing, is not a thing-in-itself, but rather an absence. And absences don't "coexist." They never exist at all. They're void.

Absence and nothing are not the same. Absence is a circumstance or condition and can be observed. Bob’s absence from class Tuesday was acknowledged or observed by students, for example. Absences exist.

Still only things occupied the room, students, desks, air, etcetera. All people and items referenced, Bob, class, the students, etcetera, are things, are existence. Nothing, no thing, nonexistence is not and cannot be to be observed or referenced.

Absence concerns reference to a subject, to an existent thing and its location. The subject of reference is Bob, 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 paradoxical term “nothing” can be observed or perceived, indicating it is existence, itself a thing.

Nothing, no thing, nothingness, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:22 am

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Fri Jul 07, 2023 9:12 am[Many] speak as if nonexistence is interwoven with existence, intimately connected, coexisting as “conjoined twins”.

Again, I don't know any person who says anything so silly.

The user “Dontaskme” to whom I was responding in that very post:

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Mon Jul 03, 2023 9:09 pmNothing and everything are conjoined twins infinitely for eternity inseparably one.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:22 amBut "nothing" doesn't "exist" at all, doesn't "coexist," and can't be expected to do so.

Correct. Thus my initial statement “the coexistence of something and nothing is illogical”.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:57 am

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 12:33 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 14, 2025 11:31 pmNon-existence is an extremely difficult thing to prove, even for ordinary things. It can be done, but it's very hard.

Feel free to demonstrate.

I can, empirically.

Here are two examples:

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

You claim void or nonexistence because living quarters are allegedly absent. However living quarters are not absent else you could not reference them nor could I inhabit them.

You must arbitrarily limit existence to claim nonexistence. Existence is infinite. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to the device. Existence is the device and the living quarters which are both admittedly present.

Furthermore the device is observably a thing, by definition. The device is perceived, observed, touched. It is acknowledged here in discussion. The device is existence, not nonexistence or void. Likewise for the living quarters.

In order to claim nonexistence you must wittingly omit things glaringly apparent. Worse, you must intentionally mislabel obvious, tangible objects as void. There is no actual instance of nonexistence or void present; you must redirect to other things, living quarters, etc., to create an appearance of lack.

If anything there is an abundance of things, not void, else you couldn’t recall so many items in your quest.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:57 am2. This device changes. Programs and apps come and go, writings come and go, it will come and go. The change of your device necessitates the potentiality to do so, there must be a space by which it can change, this space is a void as the absence of specific things in its place.

That concerns limited perspective due to limitations of the conscious individual, not limitations of existence itself or the presence of void. Change, development occurs upon the infrastructure of existence, of being. Change does not occur upon the infrastructure of void or nonexistence.

Existence is not progressing into nonexistence. Existence does not need to progress. Existence is all. There is no other to progress to. Thus no need for such void.

Again, you are arbitrarily limiting existence in order to introduce void or nonexistence. Existence is infinite. Existence is not limited.

Besides, you admit yourself it’s potentiality, not void. Change, by your own admission, would require some capacity to occur, and capacity or potentiality is not nonexistence.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:53 am

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:33 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 11:24 pm I think the thread fails to realize the conceptual dynamic of the existence/non-existence dichotomy, needed for existence to gain contrastual meaning, by negating the concept of nothingness as an absence of things.

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

This is articulated in the essay:

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Fri Jun 16, 2023 5:44 pmExistence just is. We, as biological beings, create need. As conscious individuals we create purpose. Much like we create good and bad, right and left, up and down.

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

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

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 22, 2025 11:24 pmWithout contrast the word 'existence' is meaningless and the corresponding text can have any meaning applied to fill the vacuum.

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

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

We know a thing by "what is" and "what is not".

And, as conscious beings, both “what is” and “what is not” are conceptual mechanisms employed to help process information, as stated above.

Things are known by their qualities, by what is. Even the alleged “what is not”, itself conceptual, refers to other qualities of other things, again, what is.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:53 amExistence ceases to be a distinction without non-existence, for existence requires contrast. This is basic eastern Taoism or western Hegelian dialectics.

Again these are complexities concerning conscious beings, particularly human beings. Existence just is.

Additionally both the concept or distinction existence, and the concept or distinction nonexistence are concepts or distinctions, mechanisms employed by conscious beings. Both are [parts of] existence.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:53 amIf existence is infinite then there are infinite definitions of it by degree of the reality that unfolds as it. The unfolding of existence unfolds paradox as paradox is a part of existence.

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

By its very nature the definition of existence, existence generally speaking, encompasses every definition. In fact every thing. Existence is every thing. Good, bad, up, down, correct, incorrect. Existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. Existence is not limited to any particular.

The thesis is the thesis. Existence is existence. Existence is infinite.

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 11:34 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:09 amSure. If the claim you're making is for a creature that is finite and limited by something, then it's possible to do.

I’m contending nonexistence has no ontological reality.

That has to be the most tautological and unsurprising claim in history. Tell us all something we don't know.

Reviewing your statement here it appears we agree:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 6:34 pm"Nothing" is not something that you can expect to "exist," or anybody else can imagine could "exist," or that one can use the predication "exist" to refer to.

So there's no new information in the fact that it does not exist. It's not some kind of a wondrous realization; it's a dull and circular observation.

Perhaps. But it still makes me wonder why you thought it was some sort of important point. It doesn't seem to me to be a premise useful to any particular conclusion.`

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 5:09 amFor example, I could say, "There are no goldfish in this pond." Then I could drain the pond, and prove conclusively that there were not such fish in there. But if I were trying to prove, say, that there are no more Tasmanian tigers left on Earth, that would be much harder...not impossible, perhaps; but a twinge of doubt might linger that somewhere on a hidden mountainside was a place I hadn't checked. So I could prove the non-existence of Tasmanian tigers...but with somewhat less assurance. The problem is that Tasmanian tigers move farther than goldfish in a pond.

What you reference here is absence, not nonexistence.

Same thing: to say that there are no goldfish in the pond is to say "none exist here," and also, if they were to be expected, "they are absent." But the only difference is whether or not there was an expectation of any. In the first instance, maybe none were expected; in the second, a disappointment of expectation is entailed.

I still see no use of this argument to any particular conclusion. If you've got a point, you're going to have to make it concisely. Maybe we can clarify it this way: what is the conclusion at which you are aiming?

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 12:15 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:57 am

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 12:33 am

Feel free to demonstrate.

I can, empirically.

Here are two examples:

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

You claim void or nonexistence because living quarters are allegedly absent. However living quarters are not absent else you could not reference them nor could I inhabit them.

You must arbitrarily limit existence to claim nonexistence. Existence is infinite. Existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to the device. Existence is the device and the living quarters which are both admittedly present.

Furthermore the device is observably a thing, by definition. The device is perceived, observed, touched. It is acknowledged here in discussion. The device is existence, not nonexistence or void. Likewise for the living quarters.

In order to claim nonexistence you must wittingly omit things glaringly apparent. Worse, you must intentionally mislabel obvious, tangible objects as void. There is no actual instance of nonexistence or void present; you must redirect to other things, living quarters, etc., to create an appearance of lack.

If anything there is an abundance of things, not void, else you couldn’t recall so many items in your quest.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:57 am2. This device changes. Programs and apps come and go, writings come and go, it will come and go. The change of your device necessitates the potentiality to do so, there must be a space by which it can change, this space is a void as the absence of specific things in its place.

That concerns limited perspective due to limitations of the conscious individual, not limitations of existence itself or the presence of void. Change, development occurs upon the infrastructure of existence, of being. Change does not occur upon the infrastructure of void or nonexistence.

Existence is not progressing into nonexistence. Existence does not need to progress. Existence is all. There is no other to progress to. Thus no need for such void.

Again, you are arbitrarily limiting existence in order to introduce void or nonexistence. Existence is infinite. Existence is not limited.

Besides, you admit yourself it’s potentiality, not void. Change, by your own admission, would require some capacity to occur, and capacity or potentiality is not nonexistence.

No you are distorting context: the device is not your living corridor, these things are distinct. Because things are distinct there are innumberable things the distinct thing is not. Another example is that a car is not a tree, where a car is a tree is absent...as well as an innumberable number of other things.

Where one thing is there are innumberable things absent where said thing is, a localized object is the void of other things.

In simple terms: void exists, nothingness exists. Void exists as the locality of the thing itself.

Change only occurs if there is an absence for a new thing to take place, this is the potentiality and potentiality is the absence of actualities.

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Thu Oct 16, 2025 1:08 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:53 am

daniel j lavender wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:33 am

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

This is articulated in the essay:



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

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




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

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

We know a thing by "what is" and "what is not".

And, as conscious beings, both “what is” and “what is not” are conceptual mechanisms employed to help process information, as stated above.

Things are known by their qualities, by what is. Even the alleged “what is not”, itself conceptual, refers to other qualities of other things, again, what is.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:53 amExistence ceases to be a distinction without non-existence, for existence requires contrast. This is basic eastern Taoism or western Hegelian dialectics.

Again these are complexities concerning conscious beings, particularly human beings. Existence just is.

Additionally both the concept or distinction existence, and the concept or distinction nonexistence are concepts or distinctions, mechanisms employed by conscious beings. Both are [parts of] existence.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 15, 2025 3:53 amIf existence is infinite then there are infinite definitions of it by degree of the reality that unfolds as it. The unfolding of existence unfolds paradox as paradox is a part of existence.

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

By its very nature the definition of existence, existence generally speaking, encompasses every definition. In fact every thing. Existence is every thing. Good, bad, up, down, correct, incorrect. Existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. Existence is not limited to any particular.

The thesis is the thesis. Existence is existence. Existence is infinite.

If your are going to resort to my argument being grounded in being a human conceptual mechanism, and by degree is faulty because of it....then you whole thesis, as a human conceptual mechanism, is debunked by your own standards.

You contradict yourself by your own axioms.

How can we debate this question based on logical inference when logic encounters the problem of infinite regress? In this sense, whatever seems to be the most logical conclusion—that non-existence is impossible; therefore, existence is infinite—is a conclusion formed without full knowledge. I could just as easily say that just as there is an ‘on’ (existence), there is an ‘off’ (non-existence), applying the principle of balance. Given that there is a specific example of non-existence (death and decay) and that no one has ever come back (to existence) to tell us what precisely happens, it is logically ‘safe’ to conclude that a dead person’s non-existence is permanent or infinite. Here, we see that logic can inform us about two contradictory things and be ‘sound’ in both cases. Thus, inferences on this subject are unreliable.