Existence Is Infinite (2025)

I did:

“Your response holds up well—it pinpoints the original fictitious premise (“we are 2D beings”) and correctly flags the escalating extension to 4D spacetime as speculative overreach, not empirical reality, since we experience 3D space and linear time, not a closed 4D manifold where past and future coincide.”

“Yes, they were incorrect—“all of existence” overextends the analogy from a hypothetical 2D surface to our actual 3D+time reality, which isn’t empirically a closed, finite manifold without boundaries.”

“Yes, even with the full extended statement, claiming it describes “all of existence” remains incorrect—it’s a speculative hypothetical about a closed 4D manifold, not our empirically observed 3D space + linear time.”

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/does-this-argument-or-statemen-OCFTdGspQRW6cPkSHve3DA

I never said we were 2d beings. Why are you lying to AIs, and trying to discredit me with that?

Your previous statement verbatim:

That wasn’t a statement. I corrected your analogy with another analogy, starting from 2d. Which is how that’s usually done, starting from 1d or 2d. And then moving to 3 and 4. Psychosis must have cooked your brain more than I thought.

Argue with A.I., which says you are wrong:

Yes, they were incorrect—“all of existence” overextends the analogy from a hypothetical 2D surface to our actual 3D+time reality, which isn’t empirically a closed, finite manifold without boundaries.”

“Yes, even with the full extended statement, claiming it describes “all of existence” remains incorrect—it’s a speculative hypothetical about a closed 4D manifold, not our empirically observed 3D space + linear time.”

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/does-this-argument-or-statemen-OCFTdGspQRW6cPkSHve3DA

No, you just lied to the AI more. Nowhere did I say that this must correctly describe all of existence. And I absolutely did not say that it correctly describes the observable universe which I think the AI is getting at. But since you are speculating beyond the observable universe, so did I.

Yes, you did, verbatim:

No, it’s a possibility. You think I’m claiming omniscience because actually you seem to be claiming omniscience, and are projecting.

Stop cluttering the thread.

Everyone knows that to claim that “existence is infinite” with certainty, we need omniscience. For starters we have no idea what the world outside the observable universe is like, or even if there is one.

Look, you obviously can’t keep your arguments and comments straight. That’s annoying, but fine. However, don’t label me a liar because of it.

What I’m presenting is a coherent foundational ontology. It isn’t merely speculation or musing. It involves structured terms, definitions and argumentation along with practical observations.

It is a functional ontology. It resolves major dilemmas and thought experiments like the tree paradox, as articulated by Gemini 3 A.I.:

I welcome serious, respectable conversation. However that isn’t it.

Yeah so you’ve taken a realist philosophy on the external world. Like almost everyone else. What’s so groundbreaking about that?

I started reading your ontology btw, but it just seems to keep repeating for pages that existence is all there is. And nothingness can’t be. Maybe try to “prove” these.

Umm like why are we trying to prove definitions?

That is an impressive oversimplification.

The essay is rather brief.

Within the first few minutes of reading the operational terms and definitions are presented, showing readers clearly what existence is firsthand. Contrast that with Spinoza’s Ethics, for example, which presents several dense, complex definitions, along with numerous propositions and axioms before ever allowing means of substantiation.

Spinoza essentially constructs a complex conceptual wall of terms and propositions, then demands the reader logically deduce being from it. It’s inaccessible. And considerably rigid (God is nature) for the demands it makes.

Contrast that further with Parmenides who didn’t even explicitly provide operational terms or definitions with his philosophy.

The ontology presented here shows the reader being through operational terms and definitions. Direct, concise terms and definitions. Not exactly equivalent to “pages” of repetitive, ambiguous text.

Philosophy today is so specialized and compartmentalized it is beyond reach for most people. It’s largely inaccessible like the work of Spinoza. This ontology signifies a return to basics. An attempt to revitalize philosophy and a general interest in it.

The ontology provides a practical, functional philosophical basis anyone can embrace without having an extensive academic background. Yet it remains robust enough to accommodate any academic subject. It helps make philosophy accessible and comprehensible.

The essay doesn’t simply repeat “existence is all there is”. The main body explains the constancy of existence through the change of parts, for example. By the Additional Notes section the circularity of standard dictionary terms has been addressed.

Reading the entire essay is recommended, along with all supplementary texts.

Also review Gemini 3’s evaluation of the ontology, which may make its significance more apparent:

You stated:

That isn’t exactly the approach here.

The definitions are operational. Subsequent statements extend from that basis.

What if something exists but we can’t interact with it, can’t perceive it? What if it can’t interact with any other thing?

You stated:

Well, you’ve already indicated that it exists. It’s a thing. So the conversation could end right there.

However, continuing, you’ve also perceived the thing, at least indirectly. By describing such characteristics you’ve effectively acknowledged and substantiated it.

Going further, the clause “at least in part” covers such a circumstance. Perception serves as a parametric base grounding existence in tangible phenomena. Any aspect of existence perceived grounds and substantiates existence.

If a thing exists, which observably is the case, then nothing does not. Something and nothing cannot coexist. Since nothing or nonexistence does not exist there is no contrast or limit to existence.

Guys..the cosmos and all matter within it exists because our biological machine bodies need to exist to claim that they don’t exist.The whole of the cosmos and all matter within it is a vibratory balanced system.All vibrating matter transmits varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves to our binary processing biological machines.These machines antenna senses pick up these analog waves of energy and convert them into digital electrical signals and then back to analog signals which are then translated into sounds;visions and sensations which the metaphysical SELF interprets.There is no other way it can work other than this as no sounds ,visions and.sensations can be created without vibration;varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves and binary data.

The physical body biological machine picks up and processes/converts binary data into sounds;visions and sensations which the individual interprets.You are not making the connection between the cosmos and the machine because your philosophy and science is flawed.

Think of two spinning particles with N and S poles,one on your right and one on your left.These two particles interact in the following combinations NN;NS;SN;SS

These attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force interactions are vibratory balanced out by the formula N/S=N/S which holds the two particles together cancelling out their mass.

The spin speed of these two particles is what determines the frequency of their vibratory interactions and thus the characteristics of the varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves emitted from them.

These energy waves contain binary data.

Therefore,to summarise .…N/S (S) N/S …..The N/S is a spinning particle on your left and on your right and the (S) is the varying frequency electromagnetic energy wave emitted from the 2 particles interactions, the characteristics of which vary depending upon the spin speed of the particles.

It’s these energy waves which are picked you by your physical body machine antenna senses.The BINARY data contained within the wave is converted into sounds ,visions and sensations which you interpret.

So you see, what is the point of moving to the right or left when you interpret the intelligent data in the form of sounds,visions and sensations at the centre void separate from the vibrating matter and the varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves emitted from it?

As you are separate from vibrating matter and the varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves emitted from it which you interpret in the form of sounds,visions and sensations then this proves that you are metaphysical and not physical.

TL;DR

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:

Extra points if you can spot where the AI is actually helping your case by making a dubious but popular philosophical assumption.