The term “is” is a word, it concerns language, and language only has significance to perceptive beings.
If someone claims existence “is” they would have to explain what “is” means which would unavoidably involve perception.
It doesn’t really matter what one thinks the term means. The point is perception is required to attribute that meaning.
“Is” has no meaning by itself. “Is” is abstract and provides no actual explanation.
The ontology resolves this issue by tying existence to perception, at least epistemologically. This grounds the abstraction in real world examples showing what existence is.
Existence doesn’t need us to function. Ocean waves surge whether humans document them or not. However when we talk about it we are using language, a tool of perceptive beings. Existence doesn’t need perception to be, but the term “is” needs perception to have meaning.
Existence could easily have a “finite” size, without having a boundary. If the spacetime manifold happens to be closed in all dimensions, including time.
Analogous to a sphere, correct? In which case one could travel around the sphere continuously without encountering an edge. In that sense finite but unbounded?
However in that case the model itself is limited, the model is bounded, particularly to a spherical shape and a circular path.
That arrangement is a system, a thing. Any purported limit would thus be a limit of that system, not necessarily existence.
To claim existence is finite suggests a possible outside or suggests nonexistence beyond which is incoherent. If there is no nonexistence then no external contrast can define existence as finite.
If you people don’t stop not existing to claim you don’t exist, you’re gonna give this Jupiter guy a heart attack. He’s been asking you nicely to stop for months now.
Umm you seem to be confusing a 2D closed surface, with a 3D sphere in 3D open space, with going around on a 3D sphere in 3D open space in the open 4th dimension, time. And you seem to confuse infinite as in having no boundary, with infinite as in going on forever.
A biological machine claims that it doesn’t exist in its existence because it doesn’t possess life…..also you are confusing non existence with the metaphysical…..you can claim that you don’t exist in the metaphysical but you need to exist to claim it.
NN and SS interactions repel and NS and SN interactions attract as you know.None of these interactions cancel out in the cosmos between any of the spinning magnets which make up all matter so mainstream science is BS.
The only way that binary data is created in the cosmos is if you balance out these 4 off force interactions that exist between all spinning particles that make up all matter.Thus is how all matter is held together.
The question is are you ok? If they are one and the same interaction, then there is only one force, not two different ones to cancel or not cancel each other out. So prove that NN and SS are different.
Your original statement referenced the spacetime manifold:
The spacetime manifold is understood to be four dimensional, not two dimensional.
Additionally, returning to your original statement, your entire argument rests on an if premise:
Furthermore you did not address the final paragraph.
If existence is finite, what is limiting it?
To claim existence is finite suggests a possible outside or suggests nonexistence beyond which is incoherent. If there is no nonexistence then no external contrast can define existence as finite.
An N pole of a magnet interacting with an N pole of a different magnetic causes both magnets to repel.The same for S poles of two opposing magnets.Are you ok Atla?
If you don’t know then NS and SN poles of opposing magnets attract…..
If you take 2 magnets the 4 off possible interactions are NN,NS,SN,SS.
You can balance out these interactions by the formula N/S=N/S but you can’t cancel any of these interactions out.
Yes, and I don’t think your reply was about 4 closed dimensions.
Of course it does. I’m not claiming omniscience.
I did address it, you’re confusing infinite as in going on forever (infinite size) with infinite as in having no boundary. So your question makes no sense.
Nothing is limiting a 4d closed manifold. It has no limit, no boundary. It’s all of existence.
So in that case there’s nothing incoherent about saying that the size is finite. Unless you insist that for example a human or any object has infinite size.
Proving it? ….lol……are you serious? …lol……you deluded psychotics are taking stupidity to another level now….oh it’s so much fun showing the world what utter idiots you lot are.
Fun fact: so a magnet having N and S poles is shrot for the fact that there is a closed loop of electromagnetism present. Another magnet has another loop. These two loops are two loops of the same electromagnetic force. That’s why NN is exactly the same thing as SS and NS is exactly same thing and SN.
So there is no balancing act, there never was one, you’re simply high. Unless of course you can prove your fantasy.
