# Existence Is Infinite (2025)
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857
**Category:** Philosophy
**Created:** [October 1, 2025, 9:58am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857 "2025-10-01T09:58:20Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 16
### Author:  [@Atla](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Atla)
#### Post date: [March 14, 2026, 6:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/307 "2026-03-14T18:55:53Z")
Lavender’s 26th banned account said something about observation. Wonder what that was about, we can’t observe that existence is infinite.
Unless “existence is infinite” just means that everything is existence and there is no non-existence. In which case we already knew that, because that’s literally what these words mean by default. Yes, existence is existence.
I wonder how existence being infinite (or existence being existence) would suffice for creating a foundational ontology. Wouldn’t we need more stuff for that?
> [@anon51310602](#):
>
> **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.
Maybe he really was just saying that existence is existence?
---
### Author:  [@ProfessorX](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/ProfessorX)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2026, 12:26am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/308 "2026-03-15T00:26:14Z")
Nobody knows if existence is infinite or not, or even if the question makes sense. But since it seems absurd to think of existence as being finite, we can just assume it is infinite somehow 👍
---
### Author:  [@abc1231](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/abc1231)
#### Post date: [March 15, 2026, 6:16am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/309 "2026-03-15T06:16:10Z")
Existence is infinite but existence is not life……..Existence and Non Existence are binary, so separate yourself from both existence and non existence.
A binary processing biological machine exists because its needs to exist to claim that it doesn’t exist.It doesn’t exist because it doesn’t possess life.
I exist/I don’t exist (I am) I exist/I don’t exist
The “I am” is separate from binary because the “I am” interprets varying frequency electromagnetic binary energy waves emitted from vibrating matter (which are converted into sounds,visions and sensations) which is held together by balanced attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes.
Balancing attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes is the only way that binary data can be produced in the cosmos.
---
### Author:  [@anon51310602](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon51310602)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 7:16am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/310 "2026-04-02T07:16:56Z")
> [@Atla](#):
>
> Look, I’ll help you out with your Magnum Opus: existence is infinite. There are at least two reasons why we can’t know that, the first one is obvious to anyone with half a brain so I skipped that. I was talking about the less obvious second one. As I said just ask an AI:
It isn’t claimed to be known. The text is presenting a philosophical framework, a foundational ontology. It is based on observation and argumentation, it isn’t merely asserted knowledge.
---
### Author:  [@anon51310602](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon51310602)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 7:44am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/311 "2026-04-02T07:44:34Z")
> [@Atla](#):
>
> Unless “existence is infinite” just means that everything is existence and there is no non-existence. In which case we already knew that, because that’s literally what these words mean by default. Yes, existence is existence.
>
> I wonder how existence being infinite (or existence being existence) would suffice for creating a foundational ontology. Wouldn’t we need more stuff for that?
>
> > [@anon51310602](#):
> >
> > **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.
>
> Maybe he really was just saying that existence is existence?
It’s a foundational ontology. It isn’t intended to be prescriptive.
It’s a philosophical framework from which specifics can emerge and of which systems can be integrated.
To illustrate let’s take theism for example.
Theism is a theological system in which deity creates the universe. In this case deity is part of existence, the most significant part of existence, and the universe is part of existence. Both are existence.
Both deity and the universe are substantiated as existence because they are perceived or interacted with, at least in part. The system is seamlessly integrated.
It’s a functional ontology. The terms are operational and grounded in real world phenomena providing practical means of substantiation. It isn’t trapped in abstraction like many philosophical frameworks.
The specific phrase you mention, “existence is existence”, is circular for reasons identified in the Definition Of Existence section of the essay. “Existence is existence” is vacuous abstraction, it provides no insight, explanation or means of substantiation.
---
### Author:  [@Atla](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Atla)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 7:50am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/312 "2026-04-02T07:50:15Z")
> [@anon51310602](#):
>
> To illustrate let’s take theism for example.
>
> Theism is a theological system in which deity creates the universe. In this case deity is part of existence, the most significant part of existence, and the universe is part of existence. Both are existence.
>
> Both deity and the universe are substantiated as existence because they are perceived or interacted with, at least in part. The system is seamlessly integrated.
>
> It’s a functional ontology. The terms are operational and grounded in real world phenomena providing practical means of substantiation. It isn’t trapped in abstraction like many philosophical frameworks.
Illustrate what? Of course both deity and the universe are substantiated as existence, that’s literally just the dictionary definition of existence. We all know that existence is existence. You’ve spent years stretching the dictionary definition of existence to multiple pages and claim to have become famous. Where is the functional ontology?
---
### Author:  [@abc1231](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/abc1231)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 7:57am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/313 "2026-04-02T07:57:22Z")
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
---
### Author:  [@anon51310602](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon51310602)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 8:09am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/314 "2026-04-02T08:09:26Z")
> [@Atla](#):
>
> > [@anon51310602](#):
> >
> > To illustrate let’s take theism for example.
> >
> > Theism is a theological system in which deity creates the universe. In this case deity is part of existence, the most significant part of existence, and the universe is part of existence. Both are existence.
> >
> > Both deity and the universe are substantiated as existence because they are perceived or interacted with, at least in part. The system is seamlessly integrated.
> >
> > It’s a functional ontology. The terms are operational and grounded in real world phenomena providing practical means of substantiation. It isn’t trapped in abstraction like many philosophical frameworks.
>
> Illustrate what?
How a particular system is integrated.
> [@Atla](#):
>
> Of course both deity and the universe are substantiated as existence, that’s literally just the dictionary definition of existence.
No, standard definitions are often trapped in abstraction as expressed in the Definition Of Existence section of the original essay.
This is also illustrated in this post of this thread:
> [@Existence Is Infinite (2025)](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/11):
>
> 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) The fact or state of existing; being (American Heritage Dictionary of the Englis…
.
> [@Atla](#):
>
> Where is the functional ontology?
Found here:
> [@Existence Is Infinite (2025)](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857):
>
> 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.)…
The terms are operational providing practical means of substantiation.
---
### Author:  [@Atla](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Atla)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 8:11am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/315 "2026-04-02T08:11:32Z")
> [@anon51310602](#):
>
> No, standard definitions are often trapped in abstraction as expressed in the Definition Of Existence section of the original essay.
At best you’ve only discovered how anyone who is any good at philosophy already uses the word ‘existence’.
I can’t believe that’s what you really meant by existence being infinite. That’s not how the word ‘infinite’ is used.
---
### Author:  [@anon51310602](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon51310602)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 8:15am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/316 "2026-04-02T08:15:09Z")
.
> [@Atla](#):
>
> At best you’ve only discovered how anyone who is any good at philosophy already uses the word ‘existence’.
>
> I can’t believe that’s what you really meant by existence being infinite. That’s not how the word ‘infinite’ is used.
I recommend reading the entire essay and the forthcoming response.
---
### Author:  [@Atla](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Atla)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 8:15am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/317 "2026-04-02T08:15:45Z")
> [@anon51310602](#):
>
> I recommend reading the entire essay and the forthcoming response.
I read it once, it’s just the definition of existence stretched to multiple pages.
---
### Author:  [@anon51310602](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon51310602)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 8:16am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/318 "2026-04-02T08:16:50Z")
.
> [@Atla](#):
>
> I read it once, it’s just the definition of existence stretched to multiple pages.
And, in essence, that’s what foundational ontology is.
---
### Author:  [@Atla](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Atla)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 8:18am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/319 "2026-04-02T08:18:54Z")
> [@anon51310602](#):
>
> And, in essence, that’s what foundational ontology is.
No it isn’t. A foundational ontology would have some categories. The females will be so disappointed heh-heh
---
### Author:  [@abc1231](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/abc1231)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 8:33am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/320 "2026-04-02T08:33:31Z")
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
---
### Author:  [@anon51310602](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon51310602)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 8:36am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/321 "2026-04-02T08:36:43Z")
> [@Atla](#):
>
> > [@anon51310602](#):
> >
> > And, in essence, that’s what foundational ontology is.
>
> No it isn’t. A foundational ontology would have some categories.
Yes, it is. Hence _in essence_.
The ontology does include categories, for example, material and immaterial:
> [@anon51310602](#):
>
> _Thing (n.): An existing, material or immaterial_
---
### Author:  [@Atla](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Atla)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 8:51am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/322 "2026-04-02T08:51:24Z")
> [@anon51310602](#):
>
> > [@Atla](#):
> >
> > > [@anon51310602](#):
> > >
> > > And, in essence, that’s what foundational ontology is.
> >
> > No it isn’t. A foundational ontology would have some categories.
>
> Yes, it is. Hence _in essence_.
>
> The ontology does include categories, for example, material and immaterial:
>
> > [@anon51310602](#):
> >
> > _Thing (n.): An existing, material or immaterial_
Ok we have material and immaterial. I was wrong the females are going to go wild.
---
### Author:  [@anon51310602](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon51310602)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 9:05am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/323 "2026-04-02T09:05:07Z")
> [@Atla](#):
>
> You’ve spent years stretching the dictionary definition of existence to multiple pages and claim to have become famous.
I got Taylor into philosophy.
In 2022 I began sharing my material on Philosophy Now forums:
> **[The Rich And The Poor - The Philosophy Discussion Forum](https://canzookia.com/viewtopic.php?t=34717)**
[https://canzookia.com/viewtopic.php?t=34717](https://canzookia.com/viewtopic.php?t=34717)
Then, in 2023:
[ ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8DLofLM7No)
And then, in 2024:
> **[Taylor Swift: A Philosopher For Our Times | Issue 164 | Philosophy Now](https://philosophynow.org/issues/164/Taylor_Swift_A_Philosopher_For_Our_Times)**
>
> Susan Andrews parallels Taylor Swift with Aristotle and Socrates.
[https://philosophynow.org/issues/164/Taylor\_Swift\_A\_Philosopher\_For\_Our\_Times](https://philosophynow.org/issues/164/Taylor_Swift_A_Philosopher_For_Our_Times)
---
### Author:  [@anon51310602](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon51310602)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 9:08am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/324 "2026-04-02T09:08:02Z")
> [@Atla](#):
>
> > [@anon51310602](#):
> >
> > The ontology does include categories, for example, material and immaterial:
> >
> > > [@anon51310602](#):
> > >
> > > _Thing (n.): An existing, material or immaterial_
>
> Ok we have material and immaterial.
Don’t forget epistemic and ontological, as expressed in the Epistemic Ontological Distinction section of the essay.
As stated, any particular, any specific, any system, any category integrates into the ontology.
---
### Author:  [@Atla](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Atla)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 9:16am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/325 "2026-04-02T09:16:59Z")
> [@anon51310602](#):
>
> Don’t forget epistemic and ontological
Groundbreaking! Have you tried contacting Taylor Swift? She must be your biggest fan.
---
### Author:  [@anon51310602](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/anon51310602)
#### Post date: [April 2, 2026, 9:31am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857/326 "2026-04-02T09:31:19Z")
> [@ProfessorX](#):
>
> Nobody knows if existence is infinite or not, or even if the question makes sense. But since it seems absurd to think of existence as being finite, we can just assume it is infinite somehow 👍
It’s a sensible inquiry. It’s simply asking “Is existence limited?”
The ontology presents observation and argumentation illustrating existence is _unlimited_.
As articulated:
> [@anon51310602](#):
>
> Existence is not limited in extent; existence is not limited to any particular
For example, existence, defined as:
> [@anon51310602](#):
>
> _Existence (n.): Being; that which is perceived, at least in part; that which is interacted with, at least in part, in some way._
…is observably an automobile.
However existence is not limited to just one automobile as observably there are other automobiles. But existence is not limited to only automobiles as existence is observably every other thing as well, including roads and buildings.
Existence doesn’t end there. Existence is also the trees, the forest, the air, the wind, the sky, the solar system, the galaxy. Existence is the text on the screen. Existence is the table in the corner of the room. Existence is all. Existence is both part and whole, a tiny little piece and the totality of things.
Only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence, however, at no point is nothing or nonexistence present. By principle of interaction any limiting factor would itself be, indicative of existence. Nonexistence is not and cannot be. Existence is infinite.
[Previous page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857.md?page=15)
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/existence-is-infinite-2025/83857.md?page=17)