I contend existence is not entirely "based on observation". Existence exists, existence is, whether observed or not. In fact, sensory organs, or the ability to observe, could not be without previously existing phenomena to allow its development. Existence is, observation or not. Our observation simply affirms, or realizes, existence to a certain degree. — daniel j lavender

That seems to be in direct contradiction to the definition you provided in your OP:

Existence (n.): Being; that which can be observed or is observed all around, that which can be interacted with in some way. That which allowed the ability to conceive such a concept of such a term. In context of this essay, all that exists, all or everything as a whole. — daniel j lavender

We need to decide whether or not existence is "that which can be or is observed" or "that which exists regardless of observation". We can't just equate objective reality with observed reality unless we have reasons to believe they are one and the same. Do we have such reasons?

For example, if one could not see beyond a mountain range, such does not mean things do not exist beyond the mountain range, rather, it simply means one cannot see beyond the mountain range to affirm other things exist. This does not necessarily negate the existence of those other things, it simply illustrates limited observation and inability to view them. — daniel j lavender

How do you know things exist beyond the mountain range if you cannot see them? It seems to me you could only conclude that via induction from other observations.

I am asserting that existence exists independently of sensory perception. As stated above, sensory perception could not be, sensory perception could not develop without previously existing phenomena to allow such sensory development. This indicates existence sans observation or any other sensory faculty.

Simply put, existence is without observation; information wouldn't need to be attained for existence to be, or for existence to be infinite. But observation certainly allows affirmation of existence and allows subsequent discussion such as this. — daniel j lavender

Sure, something must exist independently of observation. And it could be infinite. But how do we know whether it actually is?

I'm asserting that "observed reality" does have borders, it does have limits, hence our limited perspective. — daniel j lavender

Borders are defined by the change from one attribute to another. What is beyond "observed reality" that serves as it's border?

But we are able to use cognitive processes to postulate beyond such limitations. "Observed reality" is in a way part of objective reality. Individuals form subjective views based on their personal observations; they are able to use cognitive processes to arrive at their own subjective views, which together create objectivity, or an aggregate of impersonal views further supporting the idea of non-limitation if only in that sense. Some view it one way, others view it another; it isn't limited to any single view. Illusory or concrete, both views concern subjectivity which combined flow into objectivity, or an aggregate of views which transcends personal bias reflecting existence's illimitability. Again, I am not claiming to know, I am asserting. — daniel j lavender

I don't necessarily disagree with this description of intersubjective knowledge, but I am not sure how it's related to the infinity of either objective or empirical reality.

That seems to be in direct contradiction to the definition you provided in your OP — Echarmion

It isn't a contradiction.

The original essay clearly states "that which can be observed". There are many things, there are many parts of existence that can be observed, but they do not necessarily need to be observed (although they obviously are presently).

Further, the original essay states "...that which allowed the ability to conceive such a concept of such a term. In context of this essay, all that exists, all or everything as a whole". "All that exists" obviously refers to existing things, it refers to things that are existent regardless of their observability. It is implied in the statement/definition that observation is not absolutely necessary.

We need to decide whether or not existence is "that which can be or is observed" or "that which exists regardless of observation". We can't just equate objective reality with observed reality unless we have reasons to believe they are one and the same. Do we have such reasons? — Echarmion

There really is no need to distinguish further, at least in my opinion, especially after clarifying the above. "Existence" simply is that which "exists", or simply that which "is". Whether certain parts of existence can, or will be, or are, observed, isn't necessarily significant.

In my view, "observed reality" is simply a limited representation of "objective reality". As stated earlier, I assert that existence is objectively infinite, it's just that our limited perspectives are inclined to limit it. That would be our "observed reality".

How do you know things exist beyond the mountain range if you cannot see them? It seems to me you could only conclude that via induction from other observations. — Echarmion

Exactly, it could be concluded by consideration of other observations. It could also be postulated using cognitive processes.

Further, it would be just as easy, perhaps just as erroneous as you imply here, to say "no thing exists beyond the mountain range".

Sure, something must exist independently of observation. And it could be infinite. But how do we know whether it actually is? — Echarmion

As stated at various points in this discussion, I am not claiming to know. I am asserting.

Borders are defined by the change from one attribute to another. What is beyond "observed reality" that serves as it's border? — Echarmion

I view the term "borders" as "boundaries", or as limiting areas. And "observed reality" as referring to observation, or what is actually observed or viewed. We seem to slightly disagree on the definitions here, so our statements may be a bit incongruent.

But proceeding with argumentation, I contend there is no "border" beyond "observed reality". I assert "observed reality" is our "border", or "boundary" or "limit", beyond which there is no boundary as existence is infinite.