Existence Is Infinite
"Existence Is Infinite"
Abstract
Existence is infinite, existence is not bound as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.
Terms and Definitions
[i]Existence (n.): Being; that which can be observed or is observed all around, that which can be interacted with in some way. That which allowed the ability to conceive such a concept of such a term. In context of this essay, all that exists, all or everything as a whole.
Infinite (adj.): Immeasurable; vast; unlimited or unrestricted.
Nonexistence (n.): Non-being; nothing, nothingness; can never be observed or interacted with other than as a term or concept; it itself does not actually exist. An erroneous and contradictory concept.
Consciousness (n.): Awareness; a chemical-energy process allowing feedback of existence. Made possible by existence.
Intelligence (n.): Recognition of patterns in existence and their application for some benefit. Made possible by consciousness/existence.
Space (n.): Immaterial medium; place, area, volume or position which matter or energy could occupy or be transmitted through. Absence of space signifies presence of matter or energy.
Thing (n.): An existing, material or immaterial; a part of existence. That which can be observed or interacted with 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 phenomena or phenomena ultimately not limited by duration. That which is neither created nor destroyed.[/i]
---
Existence exists and nonexistence does not exist.
Existence exists because nonexistence does not exist.
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 does not and did not exist. For example, the Big Bang required some sort of catalyst or environment to facilitate it.
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 create measurements of existence although existence is essentially immeasurable.
Existence is infinite; infinite things in infinite places in infinite 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 sustained or eternal. Nor was it necessarily deliberately created. The "right" things just happened to come together in precisely the "right" way to allow it. After all we're just beating, pumping hearts, flowing blood, blinking eyes, waving hair and bouncing feet.
We are parts of eternity.
We are parts of existence.
---
Further Notes
- Existence is not needed. Existence is not needed as there is nothing beyond existence to need or require it. Existence is not needed, existence just is.
- 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 is accommodating, space is immaterial. Further space can be interacted with. Space can be transferred. When an object is moved into an empty space, the empty space is then transferred to the position said object previously occupied. The space, like the object, was transferred; space was interacted with. Nothing cannot be interacted with because it does not actually exist.
Abstract
Existence is infinite, existence is not bound as there is [not] nothing beyond existence to limit or restrict it.
Terms and Definitions
[i]Existence (n.): Being; that which can be observed or is observed all around, that which can be interacted with in some way. That which allowed the ability to conceive such a concept of such a term. In context of this essay, all that exists, all or everything as a whole.
Infinite (adj.): Immeasurable; vast; unlimited or unrestricted.
Nonexistence (n.): Non-being; nothing, nothingness; can never be observed or interacted with other than as a term or concept; it itself does not actually exist. An erroneous and contradictory concept.
Consciousness (n.): Awareness; a chemical-energy process allowing feedback of existence. Made possible by existence.
Intelligence (n.): Recognition of patterns in existence and their application for some benefit. Made possible by consciousness/existence.
Space (n.): Immaterial medium; place, area, volume or position which matter or energy could occupy or be transmitted through. Absence of space signifies presence of matter or energy.
Thing (n.): An existing, material or immaterial; a part of existence. That which can be observed or interacted with 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 phenomena or phenomena ultimately not limited by duration. That which is neither created nor destroyed.[/i]
---
Existence exists and nonexistence does not exist.
Existence exists because nonexistence does not exist.
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 does not and did not exist. For example, the Big Bang required some sort of catalyst or environment to facilitate it.
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 create measurements of existence although existence is essentially immeasurable.
Existence is infinite; infinite things in infinite places in infinite 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 sustained or eternal. Nor was it necessarily deliberately created. The "right" things just happened to come together in precisely the "right" way to allow it. After all we're just beating, pumping hearts, flowing blood, blinking eyes, waving hair and bouncing feet.
We are parts of eternity.
We are parts of existence.
---
Further Notes
- Existence is not needed. Existence is not needed as there is nothing beyond existence to need or require it. Existence is not needed, existence just is.
- 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 is accommodating, space is immaterial. Further space can be interacted with. Space can be transferred. When an object is moved into an empty space, the empty space is then transferred to the position said object previously occupied. The space, like the object, was transferred; space was interacted with. Nothing cannot be interacted with because it does not actually exist.
Comments (62)
But I have nothing in my back account.
You mean you have no funds in your bank account?
You should still have "$0.00", or zeros, or digits in your bank account representing that you have no funds. In other words your account would still contain information.
Wouldn't that be something rather than nothing?
Often when we use the term "nothing" it's actually in reference to something, we just mean we have none of what is being referenced. But that isn't the same as "nothing", exactly.
The OP is a defense of metaphysics before epistemology. Heidegger was obsessed with 'being' - and considered it a fundamental concept. I don't. I think truth is fundamental. Hence my rebuttal of the idea that 'existence is everywhere' with reference to scientific facts. This example shows clearly how metaphysics is merely parsing language, and not reality.
Empty space is still part of existence, it is still existent just like the atom and does not serve to limit existence.
"96% of the universe is missing" is a rather confounding statement to me. How could it be "missing"? Wouldn't it have to be accounted for before it could go missing? And where did it go? What does this even mean?
Additionally the philosophy put forth here is not limited to the term or idea "universe", thus the use of the term "existence".
Following the premise of your statement, if part of the universe is indeed "missing" it must have went somewhere, and that somewhere would have to be another area of existence.
Quoting daniel j lavender
I mean if you try using the definition of existence given from the seeming dictionary definition OP gave, these assertions are rendered as "That which is observed is observed because that which is not observed is not observed". What this is supposed to communicate about the meaning and implications of existence, I do not know. It's not giving me a real understanfing of what you think existence is. It's like using the word "true" in your definition of truth.
Further, existence having a beginning does not imply there was a state of so called non-existence beforehand. That's a logical doozy because it contradicts itself, but not in the way OP intended. It can easily mean there was a first moment of time. There's no "before" a first moment because "before" is a temporal concept, and clearly someone positing a first moment of existence is not positing a time before time. That's just dumb.
Quoting daniel j lavender
You do not give an arguments for this at all, this reads almost like an ideological affirmation. And I'm someone who thinks some aspects of reality may well be infinite in a sense. But I've no clue why you think anything is infinite, you're just telling us it is.
Actually it was the OP I couldn't make any sense of. The fact that atoms are mostly space, and particles are really transitory events and the missing universe are all very sensible. The purpose of speculative philosophy (metaphysics) as I understand it is to precisely develop concepts to help us talk about and think about our experience of the world.
Death, look into it. It exists.
I am simply asserting that existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration, that there is nothing other than existence, and that we are parts of existence.
Actually the implication is closer to "that which exists can be observed because it exists, and that which does not exist cannot be observed because it does not exist".
That which does not exist cannot be observed (or interacted with). That which does exist can be.
Quoting MindForged
As stated above, my points are fairly straightforward. I am asserting that existence is infinite in extent, and eternal in duration. I am also asserting that we are parts of existence.
Furthermore existence is being. It's difficult to get much simpler than that while remaining coherent. You must keep in mind that human language has its limits. Many things are difficult, some things nearly impossible, to describe with words. This could be viewed as a demonstration of the human brain's limited abilities and the limitations of its concepts.
Quoting MindForged
The idea of a "beginning of existence", or a "first moment of time" suggests that existence just began. How would you explain that? It is essentially a something-from-nothing premise. ("No before" essentially implies nothing.)
How does something, how does time, just come about? This must be explained.
How does existence "just begin"?
Eternal existence requires no such explanation. If existence always existed there would be no event, there would be no occurrence requiring explanation.
Eternal existence is the simpler explanation. Eternal existence always exists, it does not just pop into being. Eternal existence passes Occam's Razor as it is the simpler explanation of the two. Existence "just coming about" requires further explanation, it concerns a more complicated premise and by extension a more complicated explanation to support it.
I'll come out and say what others are thinking: this is nonsense.
Nonexistence is not the same as death. Death is the breaking down of a living organism, it is the cessation of vital faculties. Death could be viewed as a process or event. Nonexistence is not a process or event; nonexistence is non-existing, it does not exist.
Feel free to elaborate.
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.
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).
Quoting daniel j lavender
Oh I know you're [I]saying[/I] this, but you aren't actually arguing for it. Even in your OP you don't really provide a logical throughline for thinking existence is infinite, you just misrepresent the idea of a finite past, as I'll show again in a moment.
Quoting daniel j lavender
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.
But all that aside, as in my earlier objection, the things your deriving from your notion of existence are practically incoherent and poorly phrased (please never again say "Existence exists", it sounds like objectivist nonsense...).
Antigonish.
"Existence exists" simply means "existence is". "Nonexistence does not exist" simply means "nonexistence is not".
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Quoting daniel j lavender
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.
Quoting daniel j lavender
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.
Quoting daniel j lavender
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.
Quoting daniel j lavender
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.
Ok. How do you know that?
Are you from the future or are you clairvoyant?
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
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.
Oh ok.
Why do you think 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?
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?
No. I made no doubts that things exist. 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.
Quoting daniel j lavender
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.
Quoting daniel j lavender
Call it whatever you want. We understand the existing world, 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.
Quoting daniel j lavender
I can play this game too. "Oh, you believe in an infinite past? No explanation for the universe at all! Poof! Infinite regress of past explanations, magic!"
Those are not arguments for an infinite past. This is exactly what I said you were doing. Those are descriptions of the universe, an existing thing. They do not provide an argument for why the universe exists at all.
Feel free to elaborate.
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.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes, my philosophy is partially based on conservation laws.
Quoting 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.
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?
Everything that exists is everything that exists; it doesn't just go on forever.
Why not?
What if everything is eternity?
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?
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.
Quoting 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?
No, it goes on for an eternity. What I'm saying is that existence is not infinite in size.
Speak for yourself. It isn't difficult. Nothing is like unicorns in that they only exist as concepts that don't refer to anything like other concepts do. It is the distinction between what is imaginary and what is real. Nothing is a contradicory term in that nothing is actually something and exists - as a concept.
So you agree, at least partially.
If existence is not infinite, what is limiting it?
Everything that exists does not have an infinite nature. It is what it is. It doesn't go on forever.
Change is infinite, yes.
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.
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.
Yes, it is true that according to the laws of conservation, energy and mass can neither be created or destroyed. This law applies to the universe as a whole and to everything that consists of matter and energy.
However, matter and energy interact at so many different levels. At its most basic we see chemistry and physics and here the law of conservation is applicable but what about biology. Life seems to be a more complex state of matter-energy and we see a lot of different phenomena arising thereof; the most important, in my opinion, being consciousness. If you agree that consciousness that you, I and everybody possesses is also a matter-energy phenomenon then my question is "where were you before you were born?" Weren't you nonexistent? So, while existence seems to be infinite when we speak at the level of matter and energy, it doesn't seem to be true when we consider all levels of matter-energy interactions - case in point being consciousness.
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.
Well I guess no one really knows because no one has observed the entire universe to know if it's infinite or finite.
Is existence a being? Only beings exist. Being is not a being however so being cannot exist.
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?
Existence is not a being. Existence is being.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
What is an "origin"? Things originating from other things is a human concept. Only things within existence can originate, because, as you correctly state, for existance to originate it would have to originate from something, but that something could only be nothing, which is a contradiction.
It's a contradiction of human thinking however, not of existence itself. It all boils down to the tautology that that which cannot be observed cannot be observed.
"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.
That is true. The problem is it doesn't follow that existence is infinite, becasue that is similarly impossible. An infinite existence would require infinite observations. It could never be observed in it's entirety, and hence would always be limited to a finite amount of observations. Existence is neither finite nor infinite, it's indefinite. It expands ad indefinitum.
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.
It also does not mean that it is infinite though. The only logical position is agnosticism. To call it an illusion presupposes that you know existence is infinite, or more accurately based on some infinite objective reality. But you do not know that.
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?
Yes, that is what philosophy is about. But what are we arguing about, exactly? Existence, as constructed by us through observations, or objective reality?
Quoting daniel j lavender
Existence, as constructed by observations, has no end. It cannot have an end.
Quoting daniel j lavender
That is impossible to answer, since by your own terms an answer would imply knowledge beyond our abilities.
Quoting daniel j lavender
Existence, as observations, is not limited, it's indefinite.
So in a sense, you agree.
We agree that it has no end, for the reaons stated.
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.
Quoting 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.
No disagreement here. I should have said "no beginning or end". It has no spatial or temporal border.
Quoting daniel j lavender
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.
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?
Quoting daniel j lavender
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.
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.
Quoting 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.
Quoting 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.
That seems to be in direct contradiction to the definition you provided in your OP:
Quoting daniel j lavender
We need to decide whether or not existence is "that which can be or is observed" or "that which exists regardless of observation". We can't just equate objective reality with observed reality unless we have reasons to believe they are one and the same. Do we have such reasons?
Quoting daniel j lavender
How do you know things exist beyond the mountain range if you cannot see them? It seems to me you could only conclude that via induction from other observations.
Quoting daniel j lavender
Sure, something must exist independently of observation. And it could be infinite. But how do we know whether it actually is?
Quoting daniel j lavender
Borders are defined by the change from one attribute to another. What is beyond "observed reality" that serves as it's border?
Quoting daniel j lavender
I don't necessarily disagree with this description of intersubjective knowledge, but I am not sure how it's related to the infinity of either objective or empirical reality.
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.
Quoting 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".
Quoting 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".
Quoting Echarmion
As stated at various points in this discussion, I am not claiming to know. I am asserting.
Quoting 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.