You ignored the first point:

First and foremost if one thing exists nothingness does not. Something and nothing cannot coexist. If there is something there is not nothing. — daniel j lavender

This is a fundamental principle.

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

If there is something there is not nothing. So how can there be something, how can there be things and nothing? How can there be something and nothingness?

You have already violated a basic principle. Why go any further?

What is space then? Is it a thing we can touch and measure? No, its not. Space is 'nothing'. — Philosophim

Space is clearly defined in the original essay.

Space is immaterial. It isn’t like a keyboard which we can touch.

Space can be measured by volume. Space can be measured as the area or distance between or among masses or objects (material things) similar to the way other things are measured.

Space can be measured arbitrarily from one point to another. In the hypothetical case of a single object or most-distant object space can be measured from that point beyond and considered to be indefinite from that point.

Nothingness, nonexistence has no capacity to be measured.

The only reason we realize they've dispersed is by observed relation to one other. — Philosophim

Two objects are realized because of space, because of the separation expanse allows.

There is a thing at points, a, b, and c. We can use "things" that we know abstractly to measure a distance. — Philosophim

A, B and C? Where did C come from? I thought there were only two things? At first only one? Now there are three?

As stated, you magically turned nothing into something. Nothingness became C; nonexistence magically became space because distance. Nonexistence, nothing cannot magically become something. Nonexistence, nothing cannot be.

Again, what about the surrounding environment changed? No quality changed. The environment is the same. The object simply split in two. Things simply shifted around. But suddenly, magically, the surrounding nothingness transformed. Suddenly, magically nothingness became something. Suddenly space is perceptible, suddenly space is measurable. Preposterous.

You've simply created an abstraction in your mind, then believe what you created in your mind must exist as "some thing" in reality. It exists as nothing more than an abstraction in your mind. — Philosophim

Precisely the case when nothingness is said to be real or around some thing.

For something to stretch, there must be more space between its molecules that bind it together. — Philosophim

Correct.

More space. Not nothingness or nonexistence. Nor does nothingness or nonexistence magically transform into space.

Due to this, we can safely state that "space" is not a medium when the absense of space indicates the presence of matter or energy. "Nothingness" is the absence of matter or energy. — Philosophim

Nothingness is nonexistence, nothing, no thing. Nothingness is not to have any qualities, properties or extent.

Absence is not the same as nonexistence or nothingness. This is further explained in the Nonexistence Cannot Be section of the original essay and in my response to Yohan above.

To show that "nothing" is "some thing", you would need to demonstrate some existent property that is not matter or energy. No one has been able to do that so far. So until that happens, "nothingness" is real. — Philosophim

“Nothing” is something as illustrated here. A word. A term. A concept. A contradictory concept, word or term as defined in the original essay.

Space is also something and has properties or qualities. Space is immaterial. Space can be measured as illustrated above.

Nothing, nothingness, nonexistence, beyond the concept or term, does not exist and has no qualities, properties or extent.

Space is. Nothing, nothingness, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

There is only one motivation we should care about. Truth. Cold, unfeeling, horrifying truth… — Philosophim

Was that not implied by my statements? Must one not observe, evaluate evidence and consider things carefully to discern truth?

You claim absence of matter and energy indicates presence of nonexistence. However nonexistence is not and cannot be. Nonexistence by definition cannot be. The contrast of matter, of the material or physical is not nothingness or nonexistence. The contrast of matter or of the material is the immaterial, is immateriality.

The material, materiality, physicality is finite, it is limited by immateriality. Immateriality is finite, it is limited by materiality, by physicality. Generally speaking, however, existence is unlimited. Existence is infinite.

You are essentially claiming that existence just stops, that existence somehow just ends. That existence transitions into nothingness. It’s like saying existence ends where the ocean begins.

Returning to the general point and your earlier statement:

nothingness around it exists — Philosophim

Such a statement simply does not make sense.

Nothingness or nonexistence, which by definition cannot be, certainly cannot be around any thing.

If there is some thing there is not nothing or nothingness.

Nothingness, nonexistence cannot be.

There are only things. There is only existence.

Just semantics at that point then. — Philosophim

Not entirely. I’m discussing space, something with qualities, with properties. You’re discussing nonexistence, no properties, no qualities. It isn’t just an issue of word selection. There’s quite a difference.

If you're going the route of, "As long as one thing exists, then nothingness around it exists as well in relation to it," yes, that's fine. But its existence is an identity of nothingness we've created. Around that one thing, there is no actual existence. — Philosophim

First and foremost if one thing exists nothingness does not. Something and nothing cannot coexist. If there is something there is not nothing. As stated nothingness, nonexistence cannot exist at all.

You claim there is nothing or nonexistence around that single thing. To the contrary, I contend existence, I contend space is around it.

Many will suggest space is only distance, that space is simply distance between two masses. That space is nonexistent, or space is imperceptible if there is no other mass or object beyond.

Let’s say the aforementioned single object split into two and those masses dispersed. What allowed that occurrence? Nothingness, nonexistence with no properties, no capacity? Or space, immaterial expanse with capacity to allow such dispersion?

Further, what about the surrounding environment changed when the single thing split into two? No quality changed. The environment is the same. The object just split into two. So before the environment was nothingness. But suddenly, magically, when the object split into two nothingness became space because distance. Preposterous.

Let’s say the single object, rather than splitting, stretches or expands. In that case more material isn’t necessarily added to the object but rather space is shifted, additional space is incorporated into the expanding object covering more area. The material becomes less dense as the object expands. Nothingness doesn’t magically become space. Nothingness doesn’t magically become more matter. Nothingness has no place in the equation whatsoever. Space simply shifts around with matter, with other phenomena and activity.

As for space itself expanding, or the expanding space/expanding universe system that is addressed in the Expanding Universe section in the original essay.

Space has properties or qualities. Space has demonstrable interaction as illustrated here. Nonexistence, nothing does not. Space and nonexistence are not the same. Space is. Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

I suppose the greater question for you is, what is your motivation that "nothing" not be possible? — Philosophim

It isn’t my motivation. Besides, that’s the wrong way to approach things. One shouldn’t just blindly act because one is motivated. One should go where thoughtful consideration and evidence leads them. One observes and then contemplates those observations, one evaluates evidence and arrives at a conclusion or develops an idea. Personal motivation isn’t always sufficient reason to engage such things.

Returning to my previous statement:

There must be some capacity for the particles to appear or disappear. That would be space. If the particles disappear what remains is space, what remains is still existence. — daniel j lavender

Many may argue this to be the quantum field, not space, suggesting particles which appear and disappear are fluctuations in the field. In which case the quantum field and all other activity and phenomena would still be existence, not nonexistence or nothingness.

Purple flying elephants have properties. They're purple, they're elephants, and they fly. But they don't exist. — fishfry

Then to what are you referring? Nothing? That doesn't make sense.

Reference to a thing is acknowledgement of that thing. In this case a conceptual thing or conceptual things, at the least.

Every reference is to existence.

Non-existence doesn't exist by definition therefore existence must always exist?
Ok, I can make the same argument for anything...
Eg. Non-thinking can't exist because by definition it doesn't exist. Therefore there is never non-thinking. — Yohan

Non-thinking is a quality or attribute, a state similar to nonconsciousness. It is attributed to some thing. Shoelaces are considered to be non-thinking, for example. Non-thinking concerns mental constructs and qualities, it concerns thinking or thought or the lack thereof. Non-thinking is itself a thing as it is perceived and acknowledged in discussion here. Non-thinking is, non-thinking exists. Non-thinking is not nonexistent nor is non-thinking nonexistence.

Non-God can't exist, therefore there must be a God. — Yohan

"Non-God" is a quality, a circumstance or condition, a viewpoint, perhaps a position in opposition to a theistic one, and is existent. Non-God, like non-thinking, is not nonexistent. Non-God and non-thinking could also be viewed as absence of those things, of God or of thinking, in which case absence itself is a thing, a circumstance, a condition, a reference to those other things.

So basically, if this argument works to prove existence is always existing, it must also prove that everything that exists always exist, since the existence of their absence is impossible.
Hmm, might actually have some merit. — Yohan

Things are not always in the same place, arrangement or form. Things change. Things shift and move around. Things are still things however, change does not evoke nonexistence. Existence is constant; existence persists through change.

Absence is not impossible. Absence, as illustrated in the original essay and above, certainly is a possibility. However absence is not the same as nonexistence nor does absence evoke nonexistence. Absence of some thing does not concern nonexistence nor does absence equal nonexistence. Absence concerns some particular subject, some particular time and some particular location. Although some thing may seem to be absent any given situation still only concerns things. This is further elaborated in the Nonexistence Cannot Be section beneath Additional Notes.

What you're describing is nothingness. Perhaps what you mean though is that space is an ether.
"ether or aether, in physics and astronomy, a hypothetical medium for transmitting light and heat (radiation), filling all unoccupied space; it is also called luminiferous ether."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Non-standard_interpretations_in_modern_physics

This is an old physics theory that fell out of favor years ago once the theory of relativity was created. — Philosophim

Nothingness (nothing, nonexistence) and space, along with their differences, are clearly defined in the original essay.

Space has properties, volume and immateriality, and is existent.

Your best bet is the Quantum Vacuum theory.
"Quantum mechanics can be used to describe spacetime as being non-empty at extremely small scales, fluctuating and generating particle pairs that appear and disappear incredibly quickly."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Even then, note "appear and disappear incredibly quickly" At the moment of disappearance, there is "nothing". Now, it could be argued that there is something smaller or harder to detect, so perhaps we can't say for sure they really "disappeared", but this leaves another problem we've ignored until now, "space between other things". — Philosophim

There must be some capacity for the particles to appear or disappear. That would be space. If the particles disappear what remains is space, what remains is still existence.

Whether particles or space, both are things, both are existent. Both particles and space are instances of, are parts or aspects of existence. Nothing, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

While yes an atom is composed of neutrons, electrons, and protons, there is space between them. And yes, there are quarks floating in and around, but there is space between those as well. And when we get to the smallest particles appearing and disappearing, there is space there as well. — Philosophim

Space, as you concede, is not nonexistent.

Space, or immaterial expanse, is not the same as nothing or nonexistence.

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. — Janus

Correct. All things exist. All things are. All things are existence. "Are existence" is admittedly a bit redundant; however, "are" does denote "existence". "Are", "is", "am", etc., all mean "exist", they all denote "existence". For purposes of the idea conveyed the language works. Remember, existence is both part and whole. Hence singular and plural verbs and nouns.

There is no "entity existence" "over and above all the things that exist". Nor are "all things over and above all the things that exist". Those statements do not make sense. Existence isn't above all things. Existence is all things. All things are all things. There is no thing, there are no things over and above all things because that too would be part of all things. The entirety or whole is not beyond all things. The entirety or whole is all things. The entirety isn't separate from all things, it simply is all things and the connectedness of them.

What if the limit is intrinsic to existence? what if it limits itself? — Daniel

Existence is unlimited in extent generally speaking. In a sense parts can limit other parts but as expressed they also give variance to existence, they perpetuate existence. This is why it is emphasized that only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence.

Remember existence is both part and whole. Existence is not limited to just part nor is existence limited to just the whole.

I have nothing in my pocket. — Banno

First let's establish what a pocket is. A "pocket" is, in common parlance, usually considered to be a compartment or area designed for, designated for, or capable of storage. This considered, a pocket would practically always contain or concern space. A pocket, such as a pants pocket, almost always contains lint, or tiny fibers, keys, coins or even air. Unless of course the pocket is vacuum-sealed and airtight, which obviously is quite impractical. A pocket, by definition, concerns storage, it concerns space, or room, for some thing or some other thing. For a pocket to contain nothing, for there to be nothing (or no thing) in a pocket, including space, the pocket or compartment material would have to be completely collapsed, completely condensed, sealed and secured with no capacity for storage, in which case, it wouldn't be capable of storage or capable of containing anything anyway. It would virtually be complete integration. There wouldn't be anything "in" it because there couldn't be anything "in" it. It wouldn't even be a "pocket". It would seemingly be some infinitely dense fabric or mass incapable of containment. Which of course would still be something and not nothing. In other words, it's a faulty argument and faulty premise all the way around.

A similar statement may be made that "nothing is on the table". To demonstrate how this is erroneous all one has to do is refer to the lacquer or coat of finish on the table. Or refer to the minute dust particles or fibers upon the table undetectable to the unaided eye. From another perspective perhaps the very implications of "on the table" should be discussed. By "on the table" is it meant "making contact with the table"? In which case air, as well, would be "on the table" as air would be making contact with the object, with the table. In other words, there are things on the table. There is not nothing, there is not no thing, on the table. Nothing, no thing, does not even exist to be on anything.

Use of the term "nothing" is often a telltale sign of sloppy language. "I got it for nothing." "I have nothing in my bank account." These are two examples. Both statements are false and prime examples of sloppy language. The individual did not get whatever item for nothing or for no thing. The individual obtained whatever item for themselves or for someone else or for some purpose or application. In the sense that no money or item of trade was used in the acquisition nothing is still not introduced or present. Rather money nor an item of trade was needed in the process; some particular thing, an existent thing, is simply not involved in that particular case. Still only things are involved: individuals, an item, etc. Nothing or no thing is not introduced or involved because no thing is not and cannot be to be involved. The very notion of nothing or no thing is itself a concept, a contradictory concept, or abstraction of the mind and is also a thing. The individual does not have nothing in their bank account. They may have no funds or money in their account but that does not indicate nothing. At the very least they have digits, they have address and contact details, they have information in their bank account. Nothing, no thing does not actually exist. Nothing, no thing does not actually have presence to be referenced. What actually is referenced is some particular thing which is not present, not involved or not possessed in that particular case.

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? — Banno

Things have quantity, extent and duration as conceded. Existence, as defined, is all things. Existence is all quantities, all extents and all durations.

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

As stated, the idea is not that existence is completely physical. Each time someone applies for or receives a grant they are doing so to study an aspect or aspects of existence.

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. — fishfry

Refer to the fourth note in the Additional Notes section, the last few sentences and also the Unlimited In Extent section beneath Additional Notes.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If existence is based on observation, then the limits of observation are also the limits of existence. These limits are not imposed on existence by us, they are intrinsic to it. — Echarmion

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.

Limitations of observation are limitations of observation, not necessarily limitations of existence itself. Such conflates limitations of observation with limitations of existence. They are not the same.

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.

The premise should be self-evident. Obviously I'm only able to see so far out into the universe, technologies considered. But I am still able to postulate that existence extends beyond that observation.

If existence is not based on observation, I.e. it is " objective", then we would need a way to gain information about it that is not observation. What is this method? — Echarmion

There are other senses beyond vision or observation: touch, smell, taste, etc. But that is beside the point.

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.

This sounds reasonable, but it does not follow. It is not more likely that "objective reality" is infinite because observed reality has no borders. That would imply that observed reality is a part of objective reality, rather than, say, an illusion caused by it. Since we don't know, we cannot draw any inference. — Echarmion

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

Actually, the very idea of being able to view existence as infinite, or being able to view existence as finite, subjectively, further alludes to the objective fact that existence itself is infinite, as all aspects are accounted for and none are excluded (it is unlimited, unrestricted).

We agree that it has no end, for the reaons stated. — Echarmion

The aforementioned premise also applies to a beginning, or an origin concerning existence.

Where did existence begin? How would existence begin?

The premise simply does not make sense. It's a something-from-nothing argument.

Feel free to elaborate on the mechanics of a something-from-nothing event.

Also, feel free to explain why existence would require a beginning when nonexistence never existed to begin with.

But what are we arguing about, exactly? Existence, as constructed by us through observations, or objective reality? — Echarmion

I am arguing that objectively existence is infinite. Existence could be viewed as infinite subjectively as well, however, I am asserting that our limited perspective (the fact that we, as individuals, are born, then die -- we are limited in duration; that we cannot simply reach out and touch Mars or Saturn -- we are limited in our range of interaction; that we can only see so far out into the universe, even with technologies [we can't even see through hillsides or through the palms of our hands] -- we are limited in perspective, etc.) creates an inclination to measure, or limit, existence. Some individuals view existence as being infinite, some obviously do not, hence, subjectivity. But such does not necessarily indicate objective truth.

Existence, as observations, is not limited, it's indefinite. — Echarmion

So in a sense, you agree.

I am asserting it.

Certain things must be discussed, they must be argued, as actual measurement or observation would not be feasible.

Tell me, where does existence end? How would existence end?

Is the smallest thing (to us) really the smallest thing? Or does it appear to be the smallest thing due to our limited abilities and our limited range of interaction?

Is existence really limited, or are we limiting it ourselves?

Hence my statement in the original essay:

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

We may not be able to entirely observe that which is infinite, but that doesn't mean it is not infinite.

"Origin" is often viewed as "beginning" or a "source". Of which I contend there was no origin, there was no beginning, there was no source concerning existence therefore such an inquiry would be erroneous to begin with. As your statements seem to imply.

Is existence a being? — bloodninja

Existence is not a being. Existence is being.

Only beings exist. — bloodninja

"Being" does indeed "exist"; "being" is another term for "existing", and "existing" is defined as "existing" or "having existence or presence". Note the confinements of language.

Being is not a being however so being cannot exist. — bloodninja

Correct, "being" is not "a being".

"Being" is "being", however. As in "existing".

Being exists. Or in other words, existence is. This should be self-evident through observation alone. To deny the existence of things, or to simply deny existence, is to deny everything in front of our faces.

To accept that existence is, or that being is, or that things exist, leads to the question concerning where things, or where existence, originate from, in which I assert there was no origin to "things", or no origin to "existence", as such an origin would imply a state of nonexistence and nonexistence does not exist by definition.

To say "being cannot exist" is essentially to say "existence cannot exist" which is denial of observation and refutation of the implications of the term itself. It is a contradiction.

In other words only entities exist and because being is not itself an entity it cannot be said to exist without an ontological confusion occurring.

Perhaps you're equivocating? — bloodninja

"Being" itself is not necessarily an "entity", however, "being" does describe a state, it describes the state of "existing". I contend "being", or "existing", or "existence", is the only actual state as "nothingness" or "nonexistence" does not actually exist to be considered a state.

Your arguments seem to simply concern semantics.

You bring up some great points.

Matter-energy, or chemical-energy phenomena obviously existed before we were born or before we were conscious in order for consciousness to arise from such interactions. If these things are essentially what comprise consciousness, as we are asserting, and these things existed prior, then it could be said that we, in that form, existed previously. We're basically saying consciousness is just complex (or perhaps not so complex) interactions of chemicals and energy after all.

But there is a much more interesting aspect to this. The implications of eternal, infinite existence are astounding. If existence never began, as I assert, this means there was no starting point to existence, obviously. This means there would be no start, no beginning point for phenomena to "advance" or "develop" from. Phenomena would always be existent and could always exist at any level of advancement or development at any given time. This essentially means life, or consciousness, could be eternal, as there would be no starting point for it to need to develop from. In this way, we would be eternal, and in a conscious sense.

In other words, consciousness, or life, could always be existent. Consciousness could be eternal. Consciousness is basically the same for everyone, would you agree? It is mainly memories, experiences and physical characteristics that distinguish us. If consciousness is basically the same for everyone, it could be said that we are each other, we are the same thing, just experiencing itself subjectively.

We see organisms die only for others to be born. It's a continuous cycle. If existence could generate life or consciousness one time, why could it not generate life or consciousness infinite times?

In a sense perhaps we all have always existed and always will.

Do you mean "everything" as a whole, or "every thing" as individual things?

What we perceive as individual things certainly are limited, they are not infinite, as they are observably not the totality, or not the whole, of existence. Individual things are only parts of the whole. But individual things are certainly significant nonetheless, they are parts of the continuous dynamic that is existence as mentioned in discussion above.

I would contend that everything as a whole is indeed infinite, however. Everything as a whole, or all existence, or just "existence", is not limited to any individual thing, it is all, and there is [not] nothing to restrict it.

we do not have anything substantial to go on for ascertaining why anything exists. You tried making comparisons to thinking things popping into existence being absurd and suggesting it violates conservation of energy. These are facts about things within the existing world, not explanations for why reality exists. — MindForged

That's exactly the issue here; you are seeking a "why" or a purpose.

There is no "why" to existence. Existence just is, as stated in the original essay.

If any such statement were to be made, it could be said that existence is because nonexistence is not, but that isn't exactly a purpose either.

Existence is an eternal, continuous dynamic. There was no "why", there was no purpose setting existence in motion, and there is no "why" or purpose to existence itself generally.

Existence just is, there is no "why" or purpose to it.

So you agree, at least partially.

If existence is not infinite, what is limiting it?

My point, which you didn't even attempt to address, was that you haven't given anything like a useful definition of existence. No one is doubting that there are things which exist, what I'm doubting is how you're going about defining that term. — MindForged

If you have no doubt about it, if you have no doubt things exist, what precisely is the issue?

I have expressed how existent things, how existence, can be and is observed and interacted with on a daily basis. How existence is that which allows us to contrive and discuss such concepts to begin with. Additionally I have linked the term "existence", or "being", with "things" or "parts of existence" such as tangible objects which we undeniably interact with each day. If you have a better definition feel free to share it with us.

It's isn't anything. What I'm saying is that your intimation that people who suggest a first moment of existence are no suggesting there was a state of nothingness from which the first moment popped into being from. Its a contradiction, you know that. You're essentially begging the question in favor of your own position, namely that there was always some kind of state which is the very thing you're supposed to be arguing for. Even here you're attempting this despite thrice telling you that's not what is meant. It's disingenuous. It's not the suggestion that there was a state of non existence, but that there was no state at all because there wasn't anything. — MindForged

If there was never nothing, if there was never nonexistence, if these were never states as you suggest, then why would existence need a beginning?

You are saying nothing never existed but something just came about. Nothingness never existed, yet, somethingness had to begin. Preposterous.

What I am asserting is not really all that complicated. It's comparable to our understanding of energy. Energy is not created or destroyed, it isn't "born" and it doesn't "die". It just changes form. Existence is the same. Things fluctuate. Things interact for a while, then disperse, possibly interacting with other things then they continue on with the process. It's a continuous dynamic. It isn't a difficult concept to comprehend.

Your assertion, on the other hand, makes magical claims. It concerns a spontaneous event with no substance supporting it or even attempting to explain the mechanics of it. Further you claim to assert that nothing, or nonexistence "does not exist", yet the basis of your premise is that something just came about, essentially from nothing.

Again, if there was never nothing or never nonexistence, why would something require a beginning?

It's isn't anything. What I'm saying is that your intimation that people who suggest a first moment of existence are no suggesting there was a state of nothingness from which the first moment popped into being from. Its a contradiction, you know that. You're essentially begging the question in favor of your own position, namely that there was always some kind of state which is the very thing you're supposed to be arguing for. Even here you're attempting this despite thrice telling you that's not what is meant. It's disingenuous. It's not the suggestion that there was a state of non existence, but that there was no state at all because there wasn't anything. — MindForged

If there was never nothing, if there was never nonexistence, if these were never states as you suggest, then why would existence need a beginning?

You are saying nothing never existed but something just came about. Nothingness never existed, yet, somethingness had to begin. Preposterous.

What I am asserting is not really all that complicated. It's comparable to our understanding of energy. Energy is not created or destroyed, it isn't "born" and it doesn't "die". It just changes form. Existence is the same. Things fluctuate. Things interact for a while, then disperse, possibly interacting with other things then they continue on with the process. It's a continuous dynamic. It isn't a difficult concept to comprehend.

Your assertion, on the other hand, makes magical claims. It concerns a spontaneous event with no substance supporting it or even attempting to explain the mechanics of it. Further you claim to assert that nothing, or nonexistence "does not exist", yet the basis of your premise is that something just came about, essentially from nothing.

Again, if there was never nothing or never nonexistence, why would something require a beginning?

Why not?

What if everything is eternity?

It's isn't anything. What I'm saying is that your intimation that people who suggest a first moment of existence are no suggesting there was a state of nothingness from which the first moment popped into being from. Its a contradiction, you know that. You're essentially begging the question in favor of your own position, namely that there was always some kind of state which is the very thing you're supposed to be arguing for. Even here you're attempting this despite thrice telling you that's not what is meant. It's disingenuous. It's not the suggestion that there was a state of non existence, but that there was no state at all because there wasn't anything. — MindForged

If there was never nothing, if there was never nonexistence, if these were never states as you suggest, then why would existence need a beginning?

You are saying nothing never existed but something just came about. Nothingness never existed, yet, somethingness had to begin. Preposterous.

What I am asserting is not really all that complicated. It's comparable to our understanding of energy. Energy is not created or destroyed, it isn't "born" and it doesn't "die". It just changes form. Existence is the same. Things fluctuate. Things interact for a while, then disperse, possibly interacting with other things then they continue on with the process. It's a continuous dynamic. It isn't a difficult concept to comprehend.

Your assertion, on the other hand, makes magical claims. It concerns a spontaneous event with no substance supporting it or even attempting to explain the mechanics of it. Further you claim to assert that nothing, or nonexistence "does not exist", yet the basis of your premise is that something just came about, essentially from nothing.

Again, if there was never nothing or never nonexistence, why would something require a beginning?

Why do you think existence is infinite? — TheMadFool

I assert existence is infinite because I see no evidence of nothing, I see no real evidence of nonexistence.

Only nothing, or nonexistence could limit existence. Thus it is asserted, since nothing or nonexistence does not actually exist, existence is not limited. Existence is infinite.

You are right in the sense that matter and energy follow conservation laws (can neither be created nor destroyed). Is your argument based on this fact? — TheMadFool

Yes, my philosophy is partially based on conservation laws.

But, what if there are a different set of laws governing the beginning of a universe? I'm basing this on the supposed fact that our universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago. Evidently, there was nothing, neither matter nor energy, before the Big Bang. How do you explain this, Or, are scientists wrong on this one? — TheMadFool

How do scientists explain it? To me it simply does not make sense. How can something come from nothing? Seems a little too magical and incomplete.

Scientists are limited due to scientific method. Science strives to measure things, to "handle" things in a more tangible way, if you will. This is why my ideas concern philosophy. This is why I express such ideas in philosophical circles. They are more abstract than scientific ideas, and go beyond certain scientific premises.

Feel free to elaborate.

I do not claim to know. I am asserting. I am sharing these thoughts and ideas here for argument in attempt to demonstrate their validity.

Some things must be conjecture. If existence is infinite, if existence is eternal, we wouldn't possibly be able to measure it all in order to confirm it.

That doesn't explain anything. Is *what*? You're not linking anything to existence here, you're just saying there things which exist and things which don't. You haven't explained what those terms, what those predicates, actually mean. You're simply restating what they entail. — MindForged

I am linking tangible, observable phenomena with existence. We are able to observe and interact with innumerable things and do so on a daily basis. That is undeniable.

You seem uncertain about existence. You seem doubtful that things exist.

To question existence, to question the very being of things we interact with and routinely observe is absurdity; to question that existence is, that things are, that things exist is, to say the least, an irrational extreme.

But there are things which could not be observed in any way. Unobservables are the obvious examples. We don't interact with them, we postulate them to explain certain data in our best theories. — MindForged

By simply acknowledging "there are things which could not be observed in any way" you are giving such things reality. You are recognizing their existence.

In order to postulate something its existence must be acknowledged, its existence must be observed in some way.

You are doing the exact nonsensical thing I mentioned. People who say there is a first moment of time are not saying there was a state before the first moment and that state was nothing. That's the idiotic assessment of their view. There is no *before* the first moment any more than there is a north of the North Pole. It's just a category mistake, there could not be time before time, "before" is a temporal concept that can only be applied to temporal sequences. No one is suggesting there is a "nothing before" the first moment of time because "nothing" is not a state on pain of contradiction, for a state is itself something. It's saying there wasn't anything because there couldn't be.

You are, hilariously enough, treating nothingness as if it were a state of affairs which is a clear contradiction. — MindForged

Declaring "no time", "no matter", "no space", "no motion", etc., is essentially declaring nothing, or nonexistence. What else would such be? Non-existing existence? Your premise simply does not make sense. You are declaring nothing while declaring it is not nothing. You are declaring a state that is not a state. Then declaring something just came about. Nonsense all the way around.

I am claiming nothing, or nonexistence, does not exist, and that it is not a state because it does not exist.

How does stuff persist forever when an infinite past would have long ago reduced the universe to a wasteland? Anyone can play these hypotheticals when we're jacking off about a matter that is poorly understood. You're extrapolating natural laws to explain the existence of the subject described by the natural laws. Not sure that's going to make sense. — MindForged

As stated above, the philosophy advanced here is not limited to the term "universe". This philosophy concerns the term "existence". For a reason.

The universe is likely just a small piece of existence. Its contents could be affected by phenomena external to it, for example, reinvigorating or converting energy and its interactions to refresh its activity.

As indicated in the original essay, our perspective is greatly limited. As you point out yourself, there are many things we can't even observe. To think we are able to estimate the true size of existence, even with advanced technologies, and actually comprehend it is incredibly arrogant.

Begging the question. Asking "what material" and "where did it come from" are just importing the assumption of an infinite past into the framing of your question. Again, we know how things work once we have a universe, you cannot extrapolate that back as an explanation of why anything exists in the first place. — MindForged

Poof! Existence! Is too magical to be taken seriously. Furthermore, you have conveniently failed to adequately refute any of my arguments concerning energy, its dynamics and how they relate to an eternal, infinite existence.

No no, you were giving a definition of existence and then the implications you drew from it seemed incoherent. You quoted a definition saying existence regards things which can be observed and then you said "Existence exists", whatever that means (sounds trivial) and I found any subsequent points to be gibberish. — MindForged

"Existence exists" simply means "existence is". "Nonexistence does not exist" simply means "nonexistence is not".

Think about it, if "that which exists can be observed because it exists" is elucidating anything, it's that things which exist are observable (and indeed, you outright say this in the above quote). But this a borderline untenable position that I hopefully don't need to explain much (just consider so-called "unobservables" in scientific models, or even just extremely distant objects that no observer will ever see). — MindForged

I'm asserting that existence concerns that which can be observed or interacted with in some way, but doesn't necessarily need to be.

Something that exists, anywhere, can hypothetically be observed, or at the very least, interacted with in some way, even if in casual discussion. That which does not exist cannot be observed or interacted with at all (hence nothing/nonexistence as a contradictory concept).

These supposed "unobservables" provide a great example. We cannot observe them, but their existence is known, they exist, and we are able to interact with them, if only in discussion and scientific evaluation.

Explain what? If there was a first moment of time then t1 is the first state to exist and was not preceded by anything on pain of contradiction.

I don't really see how an eternal view of things is somehow more parsimonious. In actual fact, it's infinitely more complicated because it posits an infinite chain of facts to explain one datum (that things exist) and so would in normal circumstances not have the high ground in simplicity. I'm not sure how it's in need of explanation anymore than an infinite past. In fact, the obvious contention against an infinite past is exactly why it is infinite. There's no logical necessity in the past being either finite or infinite specifically. The how question here is framed as if an infinite past is actually understood in full and thus need not explain itself. — MindForged

If something, such as a "first moment", was not preceded by anything then that implies nothing preceded it.

Nothing/Nonexistence couldn't possibly precede anything because it does not exist. In other words, it wouldn't really "be before". Your suggestion of a "no before" is indeed alluding to a "nothing before". That's nonexistence.

To say existence began is to differentiate between existence and "something else". That something else would be nothing, or nonexistence. It's basically alluding to an alternative state and in turn a something-from-nothing premise. It's a magical claim. Something just coming about as if a magician performed some sophisticated magic trick. Poof! A bunny appears! We know such things are nonsensical. The rabbit obviously came from somewhere, it didn't just magically "poof" into existence.

Again, how does stuff just "pop into being"? It's akin to saying energy simply comes about. We know that's nonsense. Energy must be derived from something, it must come from something. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is only converted into different forms. It is the same with existence.

"Existence just coming about" concerns an occurrence, it concerns an event. Where did the material for the physical universe/existence come from? What catalyzed such an event? How does such an event occur without any previous phenomena? You must explain this. Contrarily, if existence is eternal, it is understood that such things, matter and energy for example, have always existed, they simply change from one form to another. No origin, no beginning point is required and no such explanations are needed.

I maintain eternal existence is a much simpler explanation than existence just popping into being like a rabbit at a magic show. Eternal existence is a much less magical explanation as well.

Feel free to elaborate.