Existence Is Infinite (2025)

Existence Is Infinite
Daniel J. Lavender

Abstract

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

Terms And Definitions

Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way.

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 paradoxical concept and term.

Consciousness (n.): Awareness; process allowing feedback of existence.

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

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


Existence is and nonexistence is not.

Existence is everywhere. Nonexistence is nowhere. Nonexistence does not exist, it is no thing. Every thing is something, including the concept or term nonexistence.

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.

Existence extends beyond creation. Creation implies a point of being created, a beginning point. Existence extends beyond creation because existence had no beginning point or point of creation.

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

Any thing, substance itself is being, is existence. The thing is. Substance is. It always concerns existence. Existence is constant. Things, parts may change. Parts may develop, they may transform, they may shift around or reform, they may break apart or break away but existence always is.

Existence did not begin and existence will not end. Existence was not created, it was not intelligently designed and it is not needed. Existence just is. We, as biological beings, create need. As conscious individuals we 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.


Additional Notes

  • All variance balances as simply being. All difference, all variation, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence.

  • Existence is not merely defined as “that which is” because “is” would have to be addressed which would involve perception. The matter implicitly involves perception and interaction; the term “is” only has significance with perception.

  • 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.

  • Immateriality, immaterial space is part of the structure of existence. Immateriality helps structure existence as spaces help structure sentences. The contrast of materiality, the contrast of physicality is immateriality, not nonexistence or nothing.

  • It may be argued that at some point 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.

  • It may be questioned why existence is. There is no why or reason. Why would imply a cause or a beginning. Existence did not begin. There was no reason initiating existence. There is no reason for existence. Existence simply is.

  • Perception or perceiving, as in the definition of existence, concerns mental apprehension in addition to sensory experience.

  • Something and nothing cannot coexist. If there is something there is not nothing. Anywhere. Nothing or nonexistence exists only as a word, a term, a concept in relation to other things.

  • Things have properties, things have qualities. Stars are bright. Icicles are cold. The automobile is aerodynamic. Nothing or nonexistence, beyond the concept or term, has no properties or qualities as it does not actually exist.


The Definition Of Existence

Standard definitions of existence are often ambiguous and circular. They provide no means of substantiation. Existence is defined as simply being, being defined as simply existence. The terms form a vacuous loop of abstraction with no substantiation in concrete, real world instances.

The definition presented herein resolves that issue. The definition is functional and operational. Existence is defined; existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part. With the definition provided one could see a tree, touch a leaf, hear a bird or smell a flower and declare existence.

The definition maintains abstraction while also breaking free of the circularity of standard terms by grounding itself in concrete examples through practical means of substantiation.

The definition establishes testable criteria allowing substantiation of existence and rejection of nonexistence. That which is perceived or interacted with indicates existence. Nonexistence fails because nonexistence cannot be perceived or interacted with. The rejection of nonexistence is not merely definitional but grounded in the inability to substantiate nonexistence.

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 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.

All inquiries, including those in science, involve perception and interaction. The line between a semantic test and a truly empirical test is blurred. Scientific tests are not independent of observers. Scientists observing experiments are conscious beings using perceptive tools to interpret data. The data itself is a result of interaction between phenomena. Thus science operates within the definition of existence provided.

Perception is a parametric base allowing us to ground existence in practical, concrete ways. Perception is not necessarily presupposed in the definition of existence, hence the key qualifier “at least in part”. Not all of existence must be perceived. However, all doesn’t need to be perceived in order to realize any supposed boundary or limiting factor would itself be, the act of limitation a form of interaction, indicative of existence.

Interaction, 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.

Epistemic Ontological Distinction

Perception is a means of substantiation concerning conscious beings. Perception and interaction are epistemic tools, not ontological requirements.

Existence simply is. Existence is not dependent on perception or definitions however perception and definitions are significant tools for conscious beings to substantiate and understand existence. The definitions concern us, our knowledge and substantiation, not the dependence of existence on them.

Existence Both Part And Whole

Existence is both part and whole. Existence as the 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. Materiality edges into immateriality and immateriality edges into materiality. 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 paradoxes as they are all observably things. Every reference is to some existent thing; nonexistence is not and cannot be.

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 individuals or parts of existence. Individuals, things become, 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. However becoming, as a process or as development, can pertain to parts of existence.

Immateriality

Immaterial indicates intangible things or impalpable things. Immaterial things cannot be physically touched like typical material objects. Truth and philosophy are examples of immateriality. Space may be considered material or immaterial depending on the subject.

An ocean is an example of material space. An ocean, or at least part of one, can be touched and is obviously tangible. An ocean provides material resistance because it consists of densely arranged molecules and atoms. Relatively the vacuum of outer space is an example of immaterial space. The vacuum provides no resistance as it concerns minimal molecules and atomic arrangements allowing material bodies motion.

The vacuum does not concern matter in the terrestrial sense. The vacuum concerns quantum fields, radiation and sparingly atoms or molecules. Too few molecules are present to form tangible, solid material. Pure immaterial space would theoretically concern no atoms, no molecules and no radiation. The idea or concept of space itself is conceptual and thus immaterial.

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, etcetera, 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.

Theological Versatility

While many philosophical systems offer rigid prescriptions for existence the framework presented herein supports a plethora of theological and metaphysical interpretations.

The framework accommodates theism and deism in which deity, a part of existence, creates the universe, another part of existence. It accommodates pantheism in which all is equated with deity. It accommodates naturalism in which systems and structures develop naturally. It accommodates agnosticism in which knowledge of deity is uncertain. The framework also accommodates atheism in which deity is rejected. All positions are accommodated without compromising the integrity of the ontology.

Not only does the philosophy accommodate various theological positions it also reveals and connects the commonalities among them.

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.

The philosophy presented is a standalone foundational ontology. It isn’t a formal academic paper, however, it is a coherent and functional framework capable of accommodating various worldviews while maintaining ontological integrity.

The ontology is practical and accessible, it provides parameters to be employed by the individual directly as opposed to being confined exclusively to academic circles.

The philosophy connects epistemology and ontology while addressing their distinctions. It escapes the circularity of abstraction by grounding terms in concrete, real world examples.

The intent is not to dictate specifics of systems but to articulate an ontology or general framework in which systems can be understood.

The language and terms are accessible and intuitive. They are approachable and applicable. The definition of existence turns the discussion into more than semantics as it allows us to discern existence in a meaningful and practical way.

The primary definition, the definition of existence, is functional, sensible and intuitive. It seems only appropriate to employ the means by which we engage with the world as a means to define existence. As conscious beings perception is unavoidable in such inquiry.

The impossibility of nonexistence is not a forced result but rather a natural conclusion extending from the parameters established by the definition of existence. The conclusion is not purely definitional but substantiated through these parameters which involve real world experience.

Nonexistence cannot be; every attempt to reference or describe nonexistence involves existence. If nonexistence cannot be, if existence is not limited to any particular then existence is infinite.

The core terms and definitions expand into additional tenets and principles which logically interlink. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited. Existence is not limited to any particular, existence is all. There is no cause or reason beyond existence as any cause or reason would be existence. Thus, existence just is.

These principles and tenets allow insight into the nature of being. For example, reason is an aspect of existence, not a cause of existence or something beyond existence.

Other philosophies may seem more robust because they address ethical and moral concerns. The ontology presented intentionally does not. The ontology integrates any and all other concepts and systems as parts, things and aspects of existence or as existence itself.

Existence is infinite.

This is evident in two ways:

1.) Existence is infinite or unlimited. This simply means existence is not limited to any particular.

This is readily observed and easily confirmed. Existence is not limited to a tree. Existence is not limited to a single house. Existence is not limited to planet Earth. Things other than these are perceived; other trees, other houses, the Moon, Mars, etcetera. Existence is not limited to any particular.

2.) To further illustrate the infinitude of existence I offer the following challenge:

Locate nothing or nonexistence.

Inability to do so is further evidence of the infinitude of existence. Not only is existence not limited to any particular, existence is not limited by nonexistence as nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Existence is infinite, existence is unlimited. Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence however nothing or nonexistence is not and cannot be.

The framework has two strong, functional supports. Existence cannot be restricted to any particular indicating no internal restriction and nonexistence cannot be substantiated indicating no external restriction.

“Nothing” And Sloppy Language

Use of the term “nothing” is often indicative of sloppy language. One such expression is “I have nothing in my pocket”. Is it really an accurate statement?

First let’s establish what a pocket is. A pocket is, in common parlance, typically a compartment or area designed for, designated for, or capable of storage. This considered a pocket would practically always concern space or room for containment. A pocket, such as a pants pocket, almost always contains lint, or tiny fibers, keys, coins or even air. Unless the pocket is vacuum-sealed and airtight, which obviously is quite impractical. A pocket, by definition, concerns storage, it concerns room for some thing or some other thing. For a pocket to contain nothing, for there to be nothing in a pocket including room for containment 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 containment anyway. It would virtually be complete integration. There wouldn’t be anything contained within because there couldn’t be anything contained within. It wouldn’t be a pocket. It would seemingly be some extremely dense fabric or mass incapable of containment. Which of course would be something and not nothing. It’s a fallacious statement all the way around.

A similar statement is “nothing is on the table”. To demonstrate how this is erroneous one simply has to reference the lacquer or the coat of finish on the table. Or the microscopic 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 examined. 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 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 exist to be on anything.

Someone may claim to hear nothing. However nothing is not heard. What is heard, what is perceived is silence. A condition, a circumstance is perceived. Else it could not be discussed or acknowledged. That which is perceived is, by definition, existence. Silence is perceived. Silence is something, not nothing. A word, a sound is perceived. Sound is something, not nothing. In the instance one lacks faculty of hearing one simply wouldn’t hear. Period. One would not “hear nothing”. Nothing is not and cannot be to be heard or sensed.

Someone may claim to smell nothing. However this would be incorrect. The individual would be smelling, they would be perceiving, they would just be smelling or perceiving a neutral environment. They would be smelling, or breathing, neutral atmosphere. They wouldn’t be smelling an unpleasant nor pleasant odor. There would be no distinct, obvious odor or smell to identify. What is smelling? Breathing in particulates and determining certain characteristics such as foul or pleasant odor. The subject would simply be smelling or breathing in a neutral environment, breathing in neither foul nor pleasant but neutral atmosphere.

Use of the term “nothing” is often indicative of sloppy language. “I got it for nothing.” “I have nothing in my bank account.” These are two more 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 some 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, items, 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 itself is a concept, a contradictory concept, an abstraction of the mind and is also a thing. The individual does not have nothing in their bank account. They may have no funds 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 or involved in that particular case.

Summary

Existence simply is.

Existence does not depend on any definition.

Existence does not depend on any thing.

Existence is all things. There is no other upon which to depend.

The commonality of all things, the metaphorical fabric of all things is existence.

All variance, all difference, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence.

Existence is not dependent on perception or definitions however perception and definitions are significant tools for conscious beings to substantiate and understand existence.

Previous draft for reference:

The Term Existence

Terms and definitions are crucial for any topic of discussion.

I contend the terms and definitions presented within this ontology are more practical and more coherent than standard terms and definitions, specifically the term “existence”.

Standard definitions of existence are ambiguous and circular. They provide no means of substantiation.

Existence is commonly defined as:

Existence (noun)

  1. The fact or state of existing; being
    (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition â€Șhttps://www.thefreedictionary.com/existence)

Existence (noun)

  1. the fact or state of existing; being
    (Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition â€Șhttps://www.thefreedictionary.com/existence‬)

Existence (noun)

  1. a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence
    (Existence. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, â€Șhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/existence‬)

Existence is defined as being.

Being is defined as existence:

Being (noun)

  1. The state or quality of having existence
    (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition â€Șhttps://www.thefreedictionary.com/being‬)

Being (noun)

  1. the state or fact of existing; existence
    (Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition â€Șhttps://www.thefreedictionary.com/being‬)

Being (noun)

  1. a : the quality or state of having existence
    (Being. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, â€Șhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/being‬)

The terms and definitions are circular. Existence is being, being is existence. The terms form a circular loop.

If existence is being, and being existence, what is being or existence? They are undefined.

The ontology presented, however, precisely defines what existence is:

There is no circular loop. Existence is explicitly defined with a practical, coherent definition.

With the standard terms existence is ambiguous; existence is being which is existence.

With the term provided existence is defined; existence is that which is perceived or interacted with, at least in part.

Not only are the standard terms circular and ambiguous, they also fail to provide any substantiation of existence as the term presented here.

With the definition provided one could point to a tree, or any other thing, and declare existence. The tree would be perceived or interacted with substantiating it as existence.

One could see an object, touch a texture, hear a sound, smell a fragrance and easily declare existence. With the standard definitions one would likely be rather perplexed.

The dual-nature definition, involving both perception and interaction, frees the philosophy from a purely biological, conscious perspective of perception.

The philosophy presented not only offers a comprehensive foundational ontology it also offers clearer, more practical and more coherent definitions of key terms as illustrated here.

The standard terms are locked in a vacuous loop of abstraction. They serve to relate some distant ambiguity.

The definition provided maintains abstraction while also breaking free of the circularity of standard terms by grounding itself in concrete, real world examples through practical means of substantiation.

Despite dissatisfaction with certain standard definitions others are quite sufficient.

Perception or perceive, for example, not only commonly concerns sensory experience but also mental apprehension:

Perception (noun)

  1. the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or the mind; cognition; awareness
    (Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary https://www.thefreedictionary.com/perception)

Perceive (verb)

  1. to become aware of (something) through the senses, esp the sight; recognize or observe
  2. to come to comprehend; grasp
    (Collins English Dictionary Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition https://www.thefreedictionary.com/perceive)

The I am and the soul exists as well as the binary processing biological machine which claims to exist and not exist Daniel.

The voices said so
so it must be so.

Go and learn about REAL science Silenus and then post.

I heard a voice!!
I must obey


1 Like

You do have choice Silenus.

Believe in misrepresentations of reality or believe in actual reality.

You choose the former.The wise choose the latter.

SCIENTIFICALLY,the only way an individual can interpret the cosmos in which they reside is if their lifeless physical biological machine body receives and converts varying frequency electromagnetic binary energy waves (emitted from vibrating matter) into a meaningful language which they can see/hear/experience/understand.

All matter vibrates because the attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interaction absolutes NN,NS,SN,SS that exist between all spinning matter with N and S poles at both the macro and micro levels are balanced out by the formula N/S=N/S.This is how all matter is held together conserving all energy within it and explains how binary data is produced which is contained within the varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves emitted from vibrating matter.

Kiss goodbye to Einstein’s failed theories because they were cognitively biased meaningless nonsense.

Energy=Spin Speed of Particles x Frequency of Vibratory Interactions of Particles

You don’t cancel out Silenus because NN,NS,SN,SS electromagnetic force interactions don’t cancel out.

You need to exist to claim that you don’t exist.

Your problem is you don’t.understand reality science.

Rejecting The Definition Of Existence

Existence is defined as:

Rejecting the definition of existence results in absurdity.

To reject the definition of existence would be to deny observable, everyday things as existence. To reject the definition of existence would be to deny a tree, water, air or the sensation of touch as existence, as being.

Since denying observable, everyday things is nonsensical rejection of the definition must be irrational. The definition, by necessity, stands.

Any attempt to refute the definition of existence must, by necessity, rely on the very definition it is trying to deny. To challenge or invalidate the definition one must engage in a process that the ontology has already classified as existence.

Defining existence with perception and interaction renders the ontology virtually unassailable because the core axiom is self-validating in every conscious moment.

Existence is dynamic interactivity.
Phenomenon is how this interactivity is interpreted, i.e., perceived.
We only perceive patterns, but existence also includes chaotic energies which life-forms cannot perceive directly, but only through their effect on patterns.

A misrepresentation of reality (an illusion) doesn’t possess life so if you are a misrepresentation of reality (an illusion) you are dead.

So you exist and you are dead and you haven’t cancelled out because you claim things.

A perfect description of a lifeless binary processing biological machine.

The ontology presented echoes principles established by Parmenides of Elea. However Parmenides did not provide explicit, functional definitions for his terms. As a result his philosophy remains rather poetic and abstract.

Furthermore the philosophy of Parmenides dismisses change and multiplicity as illusory. The ontology presented here embraces change and multiplicity while maintaining the constancy of existence. Also lacking in Parmenides’ ontology is theological versatility. Parmenides’ philosophy prescribes a relatively rigid worldview.

The ontology also exhibits similarities to the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza. However the ontology presented is much more concise and accessible without Spinoza’s pantheistic rigidity. Such conciseness, the intentional omission of ethical, moral and political prescription, is precisely what makes the ontology so expansive and fundamental.

The philosophy could roughly be described as updated Parmenides with added functionality comparable to Spinoza with enhanced versatility and accessibility.

The ontology is foundational, not prescriptive. The intent is to provide a general framework from which systems can emerge, not to dictate specifics of systems.

The ontology presented has unlimited application because it expresses the foundation which is unavoidable for any discussion of ethics, morality or politics making it relevant to every imaginable system or idea.

Existence is infinite in that it is eternally active.

Linear time is the experience of increasing, multiplying entropy
.chaos.

All is energy.

There is no indivisible, immutable absolute.

Heraclitus over Parmenides.

To clarify I am not advancing this as Parmenidean or Spinozist philosophy. This ontology was developed independently, however, it has several features in common with their work. I am referencing their work to position this ontology on the philosophical map.

This is addressed here:

Continuing, you stated:

That would be existence, by definition. Existence is defined as:

Energy is perceived; you acknowledge it here. That indicates existence.

Moreover, how do you define “energy”? Is all really energy? Is silence energy? Are numbers energy?

Any given thing is certainly [part of] existence, however, any given thing is not certainly energy. Take the silence example, for instance. Is silence energy? Or emptiness. Is emptiness energy? Or is emptiness a quality of a region of existence lacking energy?

Existence is the term of maximal generality, not energy. The essay and this comment illustrate why.

Whatever you claim “all” is, is existence. Is indicates being. Any thing is. All is. Existence is. Energy is. Life is. Earth is. Silence is. All is existence.