• daniel j lavender
    47
    Existence Is Infinite


    Abstract

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


    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. In context of this essay, all things, all or everything as the entirety.

    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; a chemical-energy process allowing feedback of existence.

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

    Space (n.): Immaterial medium or expanse; that which matter or energy could occupy or be transmitted through. Absence of space indicates presence of matter or energy.

    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, space, matter, energy, consciousness, a concept, an event, a process, etc.

    Eternity (n.): Synonymous with existence; eternal activity or phenomena, or activity or phenomena not limited by duration.


    ---

    Existence is and nonexistence is not.

    Existence is everywhere. Nothing is nowhere. Nothing does not exist, it is no thing. Every thing is something, including space.

    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.

    Furthermore existence is not creation. Creation implies a point of being created, a beginning point. Existence would not be creation because existence had no beginning point or point of creation.

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

    Existence is eternal. 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.

    Existence is infinite, existence is not limited to any particular or any specific thing. Existence is innumerable things in innumerable places in innumerable ways; things bursting and flying, floating and flowing, flipping and flopping, beating and bouncing, whizzing and whirling around. Life, consciousness, is simply a result of that and isn't necessarily perpetuated or eternal. Nor was it necessarily deliberately created. After all we're beating, pumping hearts, flowing blood, blinking eyes, waving hair and bouncing feet.

    We are parts of eternity.

    We are parts of existence.

    ---

    Additional Notes

    - Existence is not creation in the sense existence was not created; existence is not creation alone. Existence includes creation. As stated, this essay concerns existence as the entirety or all things as the whole. Existence concerns both creation and destruction, for example.

    - 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.

    - It may be argued that at some point the universe, or 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.

    - Nothing/Nonexistence does not actually exist. Nothing has no properties or qualities because it does not exist. Space does exist. Space has properties or qualities, for example, space is voluminous; space has volume. Space is immaterial. Further space can be interacted with. An object simply moving through space is an interaction with space. Nothing cannot be interacted with because it does not actually exist.

    - Space is part of the structure of existence. Space helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences. Space allows for motion, transmission and dynamic interaction; it allows for things to integrate and disperse.

    - Space is both an immaterial medium or immaterial expanse and that which matter or energy could occupy or be transmitted through. In the case that circumstances prevent matter or energy from accessing some region or volume of space it would still be space, it would still be an immaterial medium or expanse, it would still be existent.

    - Space is additionally a concept, a word or a term. It may be claimed that space, that free or empty space, does not actually exist. That all areas of existence are filled with matter or energy. Even if this claim were true, this would not imply that nothing, or nonexistence, or nothingness, actually existed. As suggested, all existence would still concern or extend from either matter or energy. There still would not be nothing. Space would still be a thing. It would still be a word, a concept, idea or thought. Perhaps a faulty concept or idea or thought, in this sense at least, but it would still be a thing. There would be no gap of nonexistence.

    - The term "energy" as in "consciousness is a chemical-energy process" refers to energy in the general sense, as in chemical energy, electrical energy, radiant energy, etc., and does not refer to chemical energy exclusively.


    ---------


    Existence Is Eternal

    Existence is eternal. Existence is constant. Things, substances may change; they may transform, they may shift around or reform, they may break apart or break away. But existence always is, existence is constant. The foundation of any thing, the basis of substance itself concerns being, concerns existence. The thing is. Substance is. It always concerns existence. Matter or energy, things may morph or shift around but no matter the form or arrangement it always is an expression of existence.


    Existence Both Part And Whole

    Existence is both part and whole. Existence as a 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. Matter edges into space and space edges into matter. 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.


    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.

    Interactivity, 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.


    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 parts of existence. Things become or 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. Existence is eternal. However becoming, as a process or development, can pertain to parts of existence.


    Expanding Universe

    Concerning the expanding universe and the idea of spacetime, what is considered to be the expanding universe is, by virtue of alternate systems, only a portion of what is, or only a portion of existence. The idea of space as with spacetime, the idea of expanding space as with the expanding universe theory are components or conceptions of those respective systems; they are not necessarily congruent with the idea of immaterial space or immaterial expanse.

    These ideas of space do not necessarily coincide with, nor discount, the idea of space as presented here. Although these conceptions of space may vary such variation does not evoke nonexistence. They are all still things, they are all still parts of existence, existence is still ubiquitous.


    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, or a smallest pocket of space 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.


    Eternal Life

    As existence never began, as existence had no starting point things wouldn't need to advance or develop from a beginning. There wouldn't be a beginning to need to develop from. Things would always be existent and could exist at any level of development at any given time. This essentially means life, or consciousness, could be eternal. This also relates to the premise that life may not have been [deliberately] created. Life, in the sense of being eternal, would not have been created nor would it have originated from a specific starting point.

    This philosophy also accommodates ideas concerning abiogenesis, in which case life isn't deliberately or intelligently created but rather develops gradually as a result of environmental circumstances and events. It also accommodates ideas concerning panspermia, in which case life, or its required components, are distributed by comets, meteorites and other celestial bodies amidst their interactions.


    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.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    Expanding Universe

    Concerning the expanding universe and the idea of spacetime, what is considered to be the expanding universe is, by virtue of alternate systems, only a portion of what is, or only a portion of existence. The idea of space as with spacetime, the idea of expanding space as with the expanding universe theory are components or conceptions of those respective systems; they are not necessarily congruent with the idea of immaterial space or immaterial expanse.

    These ideas of space do not necessarily coincide with, nor discount, the idea of space as presented here. Although these conceptions of space may vary such variation does not evoke nonexistence. They are all still things, they are all still parts of existence, existence is still ubiquitous.
    daniel j lavender

    Interesting fact. I think our interpretation about universe depends about order. When you see the vast universe is even scary but beautiful at the same time. We can debate here if the existence is something inner us or universe. I mean, are the humans just "temporary" walking through the universe? Or are we as clever humans manipulate by our own?
    When we speak about "time" "existence" or "limitations" are just concepts created by humans but you know? These are even or limits. Humans lives are limited and so it how time passes by. Also we have to admit that we are "flawed" persons with limits we are not perfect this is why it makes us different.
    Nevertheless, put exactly these characteristics inside universe. I guess it is amazing. Universe was and will be always there. We cannot put time into universe because it does not exist there. We cannot put existence in universe beacuse it does not exist there.

    For example: it takes around 30 years to go to Pluto from the Earth. The limitation here is the time. We know Pluto is there but why is difficult for us travel there?
    because universe has a lot of amazing powerful characteristics against us.

    Eternal Life

    As existence never began, as existence had no starting point things wouldn't need to advance or develop from a beginning. There wouldn't be a beginning to need to develop from. Things would always be existent and could exist at any level of development at any given time.
    daniel j lavender

    Another interesting quote. I respect and understand what you try to explain to us. But I think we have to bring here Cogito ergo sum.
    If we have awareness, we exist.

    I guess it is one of the best proofs of human existence.
  • fishfry
    3.4k
    Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration.daniel j lavender

    Would you say that there are countably or uncountably many finite-volume regions of space, and countably or uncountably many finite-duration intervals of time?

    If infinity is physical, would the Continuum hypothesis then become a question of physics? And would not physics postdocs then be applying for grants to study the matter? What do you make of the fact that none have so applied as of yet?

    Asking for a friend.
  • daniel j lavender
    47
    Would you say that there are countably or uncountably many finite-volume regions of space, and countably or uncountably many finite-duration intervals of time?fishfry

    Venture beyond the abstract and you may find out.

    If infinity is physical, would the Continuum hypothesis then become a question of physics? And would not physics postdocs then be applying for grants to study the matter? What do you make of the fact that none have so applied as of yet?fishfry

    The idea is not that existence is completely physical.
  • daniel j lavender
    47
    But I think we have to bring here Cogito ergo sum.
    If we have awareness, we exist.

    I guess it is one of the best proofs of human existence.
    javi2541997

    "I think therefore I am" is a statement made by a conscious, thinking entity. Naturally, obviously, the statement is self-referential.

    The reference, intended or not, concerns the conscious or thinking part. It is not a universal or general declaration as things are without mental capabilities and are without consciousness. It's a rather narrow statement. Minerals, straw heaps are just as well, they just seem to lack the conscious or thinking aspect.

    To imply things cannot be without consciousness, to imply things cannot be without awareness or thought is to essentially say all things instantaneously pop into being with consciousness, is it not? Can we not observe that clearly opposes the evidence?

    Things are without consciousness or the ability to think. When observing the gradual development and growth of embryos, fetuses and eventually infants and children, is it not apparent consciousness, the ability to think develops gradually over time? Thinking obviously expands and matures as the individual grows. These things concern developmental processes which rely on things already existent. Is that not clearly evident?

    Existence is the universal, not consciousness or thinking. Existence is whether conscious or not. Things can be without consciousness, things can be without thinking. Things can be without consciousness or thinking but consciousness nor thinking can be without things. Consciousness and thinking would be things themselves.

    That said, the more accurate statement would seem to be "I am therefore I think".

    Rene was at earlier ages too, he just didn't think to say it sooner.
  • fishfry
    3.4k
    Would you say that there are countably or uncountably many finite-volume regions of space, and countably or uncountably many finite-duration intervals of time?
    — fishfry

    Venture beyond the abstract and you may find out.
    daniel j lavender

    My picky little mind is already plenty abstract as it is. What does it mean to venture beyond the abstract?

    You said that existence is infinite. We already have an extensive mathematical theory of infinity due to the great set theorists from Cantor to the present. I am asking if their ideas and conceptions of infinity apply to existence, in your opinion.


    The idea is not that existence is completely physical.daniel j lavender

    What is the idea? In tl;dr form if that's available. I didn't read your entire post, just grabbed at a couple of bits and pieces.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    Existence is the universal, not consciousness or thinking. Existence is whether conscious or not. Things can be without consciousness, things can be without thinking. Things can be without consciousness or thinking but consciousness nor thinking can be without things. Consciousness and thinking would be things themselvesdaniel j lavender

    It is true that consciousness or awareness could be something that we have to develop through the years. In this point, I didn't say that we cannot exist without awareness but how important this proof is. Imagine, there are people who never will think about this situation. Are they still existing?
    Sure, they existe but do they aware of? I think not...
    This why I guess awareness and the force of develop our consciousness could be a good proof of our existence. Saying both existence and awareness can act separately is even irregular...

    is it not apparent consciousness, the ability to think develops gradually over time?daniel j lavender

    Yes, of course but this is indeed a good example of empiricism. How can we know what is awareness and existence itself if we never been taught of?
  • Banno
    24.9k
    Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration.daniel j lavender

    The best way to approach the growing number of threads is to point out that the logic they are using has been superseded.

    Existence is not a thing.

    Hence, it cannot be subject to the logic reserved for things. It does not have extent, nor duration.
  • daniel j lavender
    47
    Existence is not a thing.

    Hence, it cannot be subject to the logic reserved for things. It does not have extent, nor duration.
    Banno

    Correct, existence is not a thing.

    Existence is all things.
  • daniel j lavender
    47
    How can we know what is awareness and existence itself if we never been taught of?javi2541997

    That's the issue. Does it need to be known? Do we need to know? Isn't that about us? Isn't that our issue as conscious entities? Existence just is. There is no need to know. There is no need to prove. That's an issue born exclusively upon us, upon conscious, thinking beings. It's similar to truth. It's perplexity of our own making. We create need to know, we create issues of validation, we create issues of falsity and truth in our minds and in our conscious interactions. They are issues within and among us.

    To rest the entire basis of existence upon human consciousness, or verification by human consciousness, is quite haughty to say the least. Such an approach is focused on self, is rooted in biological bias and perspective. Existence exceeds biology, existence exceeds consciousness, existence exceeds the human species.

    I look out into the night sky and see countless celestial bodies. I don't know what's going on, I don't know what all is out there. While aware there are things, I haven't a clue of the specificity. But whatever it is, it is existent. And it is happening precisely the way it is happening. Regardless of my knowledge. Existence is, things are whether known or not. If it isn't known it simply isn't known. That isn't the same as nonexistent.
  • javi2541997
    5.8k
    There is no need to know. There is no need to prove. That's an issue born exclusively upon us, upon conscious, thinking beings. It's similar to truth. It's perplexity of our own making. We create need to know, we create issues of validation, we create issues of falsity and truth in our minds and in our conscious interactions.daniel j lavender

    Well... If you open a topic defending that "existence is infinite" I guess you should, at least, prove or argument your criteria. When we make such statements we have to provide good proofs in order to convince others.

    I look out into the night sky and see countless celestial bodies. I don't know what's going on, I don't know what all is out there. While aware there are things, I haven't a clue of the specificity. But whatever it is, it is existent. And it is happening precisely the way it is happening. Regardless of my knowledge. Existence is, things are whether known or not. If it isn'tdaniel j lavender

    True. Agreed with this point but I guess it is important give it a chance too. You pointed out the sky and celestial bodies. We both already know that the science which is specialist in this topic is astrophysics. I guess, all the scientifics working in this aerea are professionals with good reputation who provide with proofs what is going in our universe and celestial bodies.
    What would happen if they never did so? Nothing as you perfectly said. Universe will still be there. But don't you think it's beautiful give a chance and study those phenomenon?
  • daniel j lavender
    47
    You said that existence is infinite. We already have an extensive mathematical theory of infinity due to the great set theorists from Cantor to the present. I am asking if their ideas and conceptions of infinity apply to existence, in your opinion.fishfry

    I wouldn't say their ideas apply to existence as much as their ideas are part of existence.

    While these ideas certainly provide insight they also serve largely to confine usage of the term infinite to mathematics.

    Existence is not limited to mathematics. Mathematics observably is not the entirety of existence. Some will argue that math actually is the universe or existence. While on a certain level that is true, I would lean more toward the statement that math describes the universe or describes existence.

    There is more to existence than math. We have literature, history, music, kiwis, palm trees. In other words, existence isn't confined to mathematics. To attempt to equate or apply something limited, a subject such as mathematics, to the entirety of existence would be to limit existence by that standard.

    Cantor's work is certainly commendable. Infinite sets are certainly fascinating. However infinite sets are not truly infinite. They are not unlimited by definition. They are confined within mathematics. They are confined within themselves as sets.

    Sets are considered distinct objects and thus are limited to that degree. No set is truly infinite for that reason. A distinct object is not the totality of existence. No mathematical set is the totality of existence. These things are limited, including mathematics and mathematical concepts, even if they carry the infinite title.

    The only unlimited is existence, all existence. Mathematics is not infinite. Literature is not infinite. Philosophy is not infinite. The cereal aisle is not infinite. Existence is infinite.

    Infinite is not confined to or by mathematics. Infinite is not an exclusively mathematical term. Infinite can simply be defined as "vast, immeasurable, unlimited or unrestricted" as presented here.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    Again, the logic has a sort of pseudo-Aristotelian feel. The parsing is improper.
  • daniel j lavender
    47
    Again, the logic has a sort of pseudo-Aristotelian feel. The parsing is improper.Banno

    Existence is not a thing.

    Hence, it cannot be subject to the logic reserved for things. It does not have extent, nor duration.
    Banno

    Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way. In context of this essay, all things, all or everything as the entirety.

    entirety
    2. The entire amount or extent
    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/entirety
    American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright 2016

    entire
    b. Constituting the full amount, extent, or duration
    https://www.thefreedictionary.com/entire
    American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright 2016
  • Banno
    24.9k
    SO what? Things that exist may have quantity or extent; but existence does not have quantity or extent. Individual existents may have duration, but existence?

    It makes as much sense as claiming democracy is yellow.
  • fishfry
    3.4k
    However infinite sets are not truly infinite.daniel j lavender

    Ok so when you say "infinite," you mean something other than the mathematical definition.

    What then is your definition of infinite? If you just say "unlimited" that doesn't actually tell me anything.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    The problem with how @daniel j lavender uses "infinity" is much the same as with "existence".
    the logic has a sort of pseudo-Aristotelian feel. The parsing is improper.Banno
  • Deleted User
    0
    True. It can be described as a circle or cycle. And there's a consciousness that permeates everything. Last night in meditation I zoomed out as to perceive the entire cosmos. I thought to myself: now I'm in God's mind. And I realized that most things are illusory. The vastness of space, the utter darkness makes up most of existence. Earth fits a million times into the Sun. That is why Saint Paul said: we walk by faith, not by sight
  • fishfry
    3.4k
    I zoomed out as to perceive the entire cosmos. I thought to myself: now I'm in God's mind. And I realized that most things are illusory. The vastness of space, the utter darkness makes up most of existence. Earth fits a million times into the Sun.TaySan

    It's legal in my jurisdiction too.
  • Daniel
    458


    It does not have extent, nor duration.Banno

    What about space and time? are they not existence (and I meant "existence")? An existence without extent and duration would be necessarily static. Don't you think existence changes?
  • Daniel
    458


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

    What if the limit is intrinsic to existence? what if it limits itself?
  • Banno
    24.9k
    Space and time have properties. Hence they exist.

    Existence does not have properties. It cannot properly be said to exist.
  • Janus
    16.2k
    Correct, existence is not a thing.

    Existence is all things.
    daniel j lavender

    All things exist. From that it does not follow that existence is all things, as though there is an entity "existence" or "all things" over and above all the things that exist.
  • Daniel
    458


    Then "the whole" does not exist, and composites are composites of nothing.
  • Banno
    24.9k
    That does not follow.
  • Janus
    16.2k
    I would agree that the whole does not exist, but not that real composites are composites of nothing. Real entities can be broken down into parts, but there is no real composite entity "existence" which can be broken down into all the things that exist.
  • Daniel
    458


    Existence is the set that has the property of containing all existing things. No?
  • Banno
    24.9k
    Better, it's the set of things that exist. It's not a member of itself. Existence does not have the property of existing.

    Ike red is the set of all things that have the property red, but red is not itself red. Red is not a member of the set of red things.
  • Janus
    16.2k
    A set is an abstract entity; do you think existence is an abstract entity or a concrete one?
  • Daniel
    458


    there is no real composite entity "existence" which can be broken down into all the things that exist.Janus

    It can. When you classify things into categories, I think you are breaking down existence into its composites.



    I would describe existence as the present state of things that exist which is subject to constant change. Thus, existence changes; the present state of things changes. So, I would say it is a concrete entity. That said, I cannot pull myself apart from existence; I am one of those things which its present state changes, and as such I must look at existence as an abstract thing. I can break into parts a grain of sand, but I cannot break into parts (at least physically) a galaxy, for example; but this does not mean the galaxy is not a composite. I think existence is a set that is a part of itself. There are things that exist, and they exist in a particular state; this particular state exists, and it is existence.
  • fishfry
    3.4k
    Space and time have properties. Hence they exist.Banno

    Purple flying elephants have properties. They're purple, they're elephants, and they fly. But they don't exist. Even nonexistent things have properties.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.