Existence Is Infinite
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
[i]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.[/i]
---
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.
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
[i]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.[/i]
---
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.
Comments (78)
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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Venture beyond the abstract and you may find out.
Quoting fishfry
The idea is not that existence is completely physical.
"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.
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.
Quoting 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.
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...
Quoting 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?
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.
Correct, existence is not a thing.
Existence is all things.
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.
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.
Quoting daniel 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?
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.
Quoting 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
It makes as much sense as claiming democracy is yellow.
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.
It's legal in my jurisdiction too.
Quoting 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?
Quoting daniel j lavender
What if the limit is intrinsic to existence? what if it limits itself?
Existence does not have properties. It cannot properly be said to exist.
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.
Then "the whole" does not exist, and composites are composites of nothing.
Existence is the set that has the property of containing all existing things. No?
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.
Quoting 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.
Purple flying elephants have properties. They're purple, they're elephants, and they fly. But they don't exist. Even nonexistent things have properties.
I can't decide if this is deep or shallow. :chin:
No, things change. Your conclusion does not follow. Indeed, if anything it shows the opposite: that things continue to exist despite change.
I glanced at the SEP article on properties. Way above my pay grade, philosophy-wise. I haven't been following this thread, I only glanced at it, noticed your comment, and thought about purple flying elephants. I haven't any thoughts about the matter any deeper than that. But if there's a good argument that I'm wrong, that purple flying elephants don't in fact have properties, I'd be interested to know about it. Does Ahab have a leg made of whalebone? Or not, by virtue of the fact that he doesn't actually exist? That's my only other deep thought about the matter.
Does that commit us to purple flying elephants being actual thingies you might bump into at the pub?
I don't think so. All the existential quantifier - the "there is an x" bit - commits us to is a conversation. Similarly all space and time having properties commits us to is ha conversation about them. That's a seperate issue, seems to me, to our committing ourselves to there actually being space and time in the world.
Lavender wants to use mere logical considerations to commit us to there actually being stuff. That's beyond logic's pay grade. Hence my first post. It's like attempting to use a book of grammar to prove the laws of physics.
Existential quantifiers are completely different. The statement "A purple flying elephant is purple, is an elephant, and flies," is true. It's vacuously true. But "There is a purple flying elephant" is false if the universe of discourse is the world. Huge difference.
In the universe of the positive integers, the statement, "There is an even prime greater than 2" is meaningful, and false. The statement, "All even primes greater than 2 are purple flying elephants," is meaningless and true.
Sure.
SO there is a need to keep track of the domain - universe of discourse - in which our conversation occurs.
And..?
(Edit: Just to be clear... your intention is not to defend the OP, is it? This is a side issue, yes? Or do you think this approach might save "Existence Is Infinite"?)
Of course. The truth value of a proposition always depends on the model. "5 has a multiplicative inverse" is true in the rationals, false in the integers, true in the integers mod 7, false in the integers mod 10.
Quoting Banno
I don't even know which thread this is, I didn't check. I happened to wander by and saw you claim that space and time exist because they have properties. I gave a counterexample. That's as far as it went.
Is this the "existence is infinite" thread? The OP's thesis is "not even false" in my opinion, too full of woo-itude. I gave up after he admitted that he wasn't talking about mathematical infinity but failed to provide an alternative definition. But truly it's not fair for me to take a drive-by potshot at the OP, who seems amiable and sincere and certainly has not provoked me in any way. I only mention the OP to say that I have no interest in the thread at all; but would indeed invite @daniel j lavender to supply his definition of infinity so that I can understand what he means by the word.
Quoting Banno
As General Murray says to Dryden in Lawrence of Arabia: "It's a side show OF a side show."
That wasn't a drive-by shot?
OK. I was using "exists" as it was used in the OP, following on that conversation., You bought something in from another domain. Sure, I might better have said space and time are actual because their properties are actual, but I don't think that would have been understood by Lavender, int he context.
Meh.
It was a drive-by counterexample to a statement that seemed to stand on its own without the need for the surrounding context. There was nothing pejorative about it. Whereas, by way of explaining to you why I lost interest in the thread, I was obliged to cast shade on the OP's thesis when in fact I haven't been engaging him on the subject.
Quoting Banno
Ok, so you are saying that my remark was inapt because there was a particular context, which I had not taken the trouble to find out about. You may be right. But (flogging a long deceased equine) you did say that time and space have properties hence exist, and I did supply a counterexample, albeit a vacuous one. So I don't actually agree that I was wrong. Unless jumping ignorantly into the middle of conversations I haven't been following is wrong, which it probably is, and which I often do. Is that what you're saying? (Flagellates departed nag harder)
Quoting Banno
Guilty as charged I suppose. Should I throw myself on the mercy of the court?
Quoting Banno
In which case you would have defeated my counterexample, negating my need to post it. So it's a good thing I mentioned it.
Quoting Banno
LOL. Ok. I'm all out of steam here. They can bury that horse now.
ps -- You know it occurs to me that when I do make a drive-by comment, I generally say, "I haven't followed the thread, but ..." This time I didn't. I shall put in the necessary correction. I can see that I generated confusion without meaning to.
Imagine you have a box filled with marbles of different colours. If you shake the box (assuming there is enough space for every marble to move around), the position of any given marble relative to other marbles in the box will change, and the marbles will adopt a new configuration once you stop shaking the box. If you shake the box continuously, the position of any given marble relative to other marbles in the box will change continuously. Now, imagine you have two boxes filled with marbles. If you shake both boxes continuously, the pattern of change of all marbles in a box will most likely be different from the pattern of change of all marbles in the other box. Based on this, I assume that the pattern of change of all things in the universe is a particular pattern of change. This pattern of change must depend in the properties of the things that change in position (in the case of the box of marbles, it is the marbles; in the case of the universe, every thing that exists). So, existence would be not just the marbles (or the things that exist), but it should also include their pattern of change. In other words, existence is a pattern of change of things that exist (if there are not things that exist, there is not existence; and if there is not a pattern of change, there is not existence either). This pattern of change has the property of being the pattern of change of the things that exist. The pattern of change is limited by how much things that exist can change relative to one another (assuming things have a limited number of configurations relative to other things). The pattern of change has a rate of change for itself (not all things change at the same rate, but the system containing all things that exist must change constantly). Where do things that exist come from? Are things that exist unlimited in number? And if they are, is their pattern of change infinite or will it repeat at some point? How much things that exist can move relative to one another? And if there is not a limit to how much they can move, is their pattern of change infinite or will it repeat at some point?
If that's intended as a definition, then it is circular.
Moreover, existence is not a pattern of change, since there being a change presupposes that there exists something to change.
Not deep. :roll:
What happens if you lose your marbles?
Yes imaginary, fictive, nonexistent things do have properties: imaginary, fictive, nonexistent properties. They also have real properties; the properties of being imaginery, fictive, and nonexistent.
Well by gosh it's nice to have some agreement around here. :-)
You know that's a great point. Even imaginary entities have real properties. What does @Banno think about that?
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.
Non-God can't exist, therefore there must be a God.
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.
Quoting Janus
Quoting fishfry
You seem to forget that every thing we think is an idea and that as such it exists (as a series of neuronal signals). When you are imagining, you are putting together pieces of information you have experienced in your life; every idea you have is an aggregate of experiences/interactions. No one has experience an unicorn in real life, but they exist as an idea; to negate their existence would be to negate the idea you have of the world (which is not the same as what you are experiencing right now - your idea of the world must be an aggregate of experiences/interactions). No thing that is an object of thought is non-existent, or how could it be an object of thought? How can you give non-existent[i] properties to non-existent[/i] things? Imaginary entities have real properties because they are real things (they are ideas); again, they might not be the thing itself, but they exist (your idea of your computer is as real as your computer). We need to differentiate between things that exist in our minds and those that exist in our minds AND outside of them. Things that exist only in our minds are aggregates of experiences; things that exist in our minds and outside of them are what we experience. I experience existence; and the idea that I have of existence is an aggregate of things I have experienced. How I experience existence? As the present state of all things that exist (in my mind, and in my mind and out of it) which is changing. Existence is a changing thing. You cannot separate change from existence. Now, you must accept that there are things out there we have not experienced (directly or indirectly), and thus they cannot be part of our aggregates of experiences; this does not mean we can negate their existence for we co-exist with a large number of things, and the things we experience are certainly influenced by those we do not. Existence is then a changing aggregate of things that exist. Existence is not just an aggregate of things that occupy a given position relative to each other and which position never changes. Nor is it change without things to change. It must be both.
You and I are connected. This discussion is proof enough. And we are connected to everything else that exists in addition to us, everything. We are existence. Again, we must be part of a whole; there is no denying that. The whole is not the whole if it's missing one of its parts. The parts are not parts if they are not part of a whole. If the parts exist, please explain to me how the whole does not. And if the whole exists, why would we treat it as if it wasn't an object as is everything else that exists. Existence is a thing with a particular configuration in space and time. A thing you and everything else that exists is a part of. Your cells exist and so does your body. Your ideas exist and so does your self. If you treat yourself and your body as individuals, why shouldn't we treat existence as one?
"We are existence" does not follow. "We exist" does.
Refer to the fourth note in the Additional Notes section, the last few sentences and also the Unlimited In Extent section beneath Additional Notes.
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.
Things have quantity, extent and duration as conceded. Existence, as defined, is all things. Existence is all quantities, all extents and all durations.
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.
Quoting daniel j lavender
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.
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".
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.
Meaning, we've never defined the world as not having a bit of "nothingness" in it. As I stated earlier, our definitions and word play of course mean nothing next to reality. But it seems that even at the smallest level of reality, we reach a point where "nothingness" exists, at least for a short time.
So I think until proven otherwise, the identify of "nothingness" does exist. Perhaps we are wrong. Perhaps there is an ether like substance flowing through everything, and the idea of "nothingness" is just an illusion we've constructed for a lack of information. But I don't think we have nearly enough to go on to declare that existence is eternal and infinite either. We have much more evidence for the existence of "nothing" at this point, then eternity.
Quoting daniel j lavender
I think we've seen here that it would. The only way for there not to be a gap is if it flowed and touched another of itself without any gap between them. We have yet to show such a thing exists.
A nice write up though! It is a neat idea that there is essentially an ether, and many great minds have wondered the same. The problem at this point is provability.
^set of existents
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.
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Philosophim
Space, as you concede, is not nonexistent.
Space, or immaterial expanse, is not the same as nothing or nonexistence.
Just semantics at that point then. I think you're confusing our ability to create words and identities as if that makes them "things". 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.
I suppose the greater question for you is, what is your motivation that "nothing" not be possible? I think its the clear norm here, and easily proven. So why are you against it?
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
:up: Excellent presentation!
(Well, except maybe its length! :smile:)
It serves as an example of how someone should introduce a topic, esp. the definitions of terms you are giving, which, independenly of whether the reader agrees with or not, they make clear what you mean by them and how you apply them to your description.
You are welcome!
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.
Fantasies absolutely exist.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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:
Quoting 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.
Quoting daniel j lavender
What is space then? Is it a thing we can touch and measure? No, its not. Space is 'nothing'. Its simply an identity we created to describe the idea of there being a "thing", and then there being "no thing" around it. Your personal identities may or may not represent reality. In the case of space in reality, it is "no thing". You can say its "something", but it is only "some thing" as your personal invented identity. In terms of measurement and reality, it is "no thing".
Quoting daniel j lavender
The only reason we realize they've dispersed is by observed relation to one other. There is a thing at points, a, b, and c. We can use "things" that we know abstractly to measure a distance. So we can invent a foot being "this" big. Then note that there are three feet of distance between them. That doesn't mean there is "some thing" between the split. There's just an abstract identity we use in language.
To sum, identity does not equal reality. Our ideas of identity that represent reality, are not guarunteed to match reality. You seem to believe that because you can create an identity in your mind, it must therefore exist apart from your mind in reality. It does not have to at all.
Quoting daniel j lavender
Not preposterous at all. As I've noted, your ability to create an identity does not mean reality has changed. There is still "no thing" in between them. 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. To show otherwise, try to prove it.
Quoting daniel j lavender
There's no magic here. For something to stretch, there must be more space between its molecules that bind it together. Its the same as a full 3 split, just at an elemental level.
Quoting daniel j lavender
What is an "immaterial medium or expance" then? Is it a "thing"? There is an old philosophical and scientific theory of "ether". It was the medium which all things traveled through. That has been disproven. https://www.britannica.com/science/ether-theoretical-substance
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. 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.
Quoting daniel j lavender
That did not answer my question. That was an evasion because you distrust that admitting your motivation will diminish you in my eyes. It will not. Everyone has a motivation for doing things, and often times I find that people will go to great lengths in inventing and creating ideas that serve that motivation without asking themselves if they're being honest about it.
There is only one motivation we should care about. Truth. Cold, unfeeling, horrifying truth that takes our feelings and stamps them to the ground. Until that is your motivation, everything you think of will be tainted in another direction. Sometimes truth fits our worldview wonderfully, other times it does not.
I hold the viewpoint of scientific and culturally normal conclusions. You do not. Why? That may be more pertinent to examine then attempting to negate commonly held knowledge.
Quoting daniel j lavender
If particles actually disappear, then nothing is left over. In the case of describing a quantum field, no one would object to this. A quantum field is a mathematical abstraction for measurement however, and has not been proven to exist everywhere without any "nothingness" in between it. If this can be proven, then we return to the ether theory as being scientific knowledge. But until that day arrives, "nothingness" is real.
Equations don't deal with infinities, they deal with ratios of discrete entities. You cannot have an "equals/=" in an infinite system. Only a discrete/finite one.
I could be on board with change or the "quality of a system" being infinite as energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore time/action/doing is eternal. But as for quantity (being) , I don't think it is infinite.
If the material was infinite, there'd be no need for change, as we could just have a physics in which matter is continuously added to the system in a stable way where change doesn't occur.
I guess Foucault won’t be on your reading list any time soon.
Quoting Banno
Thank you for that exemplification of how some of us use the word ‘reality’.
You ignored the first point:
Quoting 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?
Quoting 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.
Quoting Philosophim
Two objects are realized because of space, because of the separation expanse allows.
Quoting 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.
Quoting Philosophim
Precisely the case when nothingness is said to be real or around some thing.
Quoting Philosophim
Correct.
More space. Not nothingness or nonexistence. Nor does nothingness or nonexistence magically transform into space.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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:
Quoting 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.