Existence Is Infinite

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Existence Is Infinite
Daniel J. Lavender

Abstract

Existence is infinite in extent and eternal in duration. 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. In context of this essay existence in the general sense.

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 contradictory 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.

Eternity (n.): Synonymous with existence; that which is not limited by duration.

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 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 limit existence, we are inclined to create measurements of existence although existence is essentially immeasurable.

Existence is infinite, existence is not limited to any particular or any specific thing. Existence is innumerable things in innumerable places in innumerable ways; things bursting and flying, floating and flowing, flipping and flopping, beating and bouncing, whizzing and whirling around. Life, consciousness is simply part of that and isn’t necessarily perpetuated or eternal. Nor was it necessarily deliberately created. After all we’re beating, pumping hearts, flowing blood, blinking eyes, waving hair and bouncing feet.

We are parts of eternity.

We are parts of existence.

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 also have to be addressed which would involve perception. The matter implicitly involves perception and interaction.

  • 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 is eternal and did not begin. There was no reason initiating existence as existence is eternal. There is no reason for existence. Existence simply is.

  • 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.

Existence Is Eternal

Existence is eternal. Existence is constant. Things, parts may change; they may transform, they may shift around or reform, they may break apart or break away. But existence always is, existence is constant. The foundation of any thing, the basis of substance itself concerns being, concerns existence. The thing is. Substance is. It always concerns existence. Matter or energy, things may morph or shift around but no matter the form or arrangement it always is an expression of existence.

Existence Both Part And Whole

Existence is both part and whole. Existence as a 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 contradictions as they are all observably things. Every reference is to some existent thing; nonexistence is not and cannot be.

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 or consciousness 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.

Interactivity, 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.

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. Existence is eternal. However becoming, as a process or 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, which in essence is volume, can 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 considered 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.

Eternal Life

As existence never began, as existence had no starting point things wouldn’t need to advance or develop from a beginning. There wouldn’t be a beginning to need to develop from. Things would always be existent and could exist at any level of development at any given time. This essentially means life, or consciousness, could be eternal. This also relates to the premise that life may not have been [deliberately] created. Life, in the sense of being eternal, would not have been created nor would it have originated from a specific starting point.

This philosophy also accommodates ideas concerning abiogenesis, in which case life isn’t deliberately or intelligently created but rather develops gradually as a result of environmental circumstances and events. It also accommodates ideas concerning panspermia, in which case life, or its required components, are distributed by comets, meteorites and other celestial bodies amidst their interactions.

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.

1 Like
2

.
Existence is a.. conundrum, it seems^

3

Topic Index from a previous discussion: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=753415#p753415

4

Yes, existence is indeed a conundrum, in part.

A conundrum is a concept or circumstance, a thing, and would be part of existence.

The philosophy seeks to resolve conundrum and resolution alike.

Existence transcends conundrum. Existence simply is.

5

The is, is. No one knows why there is something and rather not nothing, although the best explanation I saw was something Fixed said, something like how non-existence would logically refute its own existence by definition, therefore could not be the case, therefore existence must be the case.

6

At this high conceptual level, things must be understood and grasped in terms of pure logic, not a reduction to experiential things or forms or science or even mathematics. Math flows from logic as a consequence of logic applied in discrete packets interacting with each other, even and especially in the pure metaphysical, but situated prior to math is logic itself. Logic can and should be used to explain abstractions at the highest levels, like when we try to understand existence-as-such and the question of why something and rather not nothing. Forms and geometries and linguistic definitions will only get us so far, and as we can see when we try to use that sort of approach to understanding what is existence-as-such we only get fuzzy answers. The picture is unclear. But with pure logic we can at least try for a picture that is clear.

Now, having a sufficient understanding of why existence is the case, we can try to approach the question of whether existence is finite or infinite.

We posit that existence is the case because its contrary and only other alternative possibility, non-existence, is logically impossible due to containing its own perfect self-refutation. So existence exists, or rather “something is the case, and it is not the case that nothing is the case”. Does this mean that everything exists, if nothing is not the case? Not necessarily, because we need to properly understand what nothing means in this context. Nothing in the usage here means non-existence in the most absolute sense, the notion that nothing anywhere, ever, at all, would be. But we know that is not the case, and we therefore know too that when we reference the impossibility of nothingness in this argument we are not talking about any specific things in existence, not any specific existents but rather existence ITSELF.

Are limited nothings or nothingnesses possible? Of course. If we want to talk about elephants, there is nothing in my room. No elephants in my room. So using a specific existent as our meaning it is true that nothing is in my room right now. But that is a specific reference to a specific thing, not meant to reference all things. Therefore we can see that the notion of nothing can be meaningfully used with reference to specific things, but not when attempted to be used with reference to all things.

If there is no such thing as nothingness itself, then existence is ‘everywhere’. There must be no meaning at all in the idea that there are places where existence isn’t, for example we might think about the universe and posit a space of pure nothingness beyond the universe, but that pure nothingness cannot be a pure nothingness, it must exist somehow as some existent thing/s. Perhaps the sheer number of things that are not there is so great, relative to the tiny number of things that are there, that it could appear as if nothing was there, yet we know logically that something is still there. This also does away with the notion of purely empty space, requiring a medial aether of sorts between all things observed to be separated by so-called empty space. Or with modern physics we might say there is no mediating-receded aether but rather just fields overlapping and creating what we experience as physical space. Either way, something is there.

Now we arrive at one possible argument for existence being infinite: the fact that existence cannot have anything beyond itself. Yet does that not also look like an argument for the finitude of existence? It appears to establish a boundary, and yet no such boundary is logically possible since the boundary would be up against something that was not-existence and yet limiting existence. To limit existence would mean that something is there to do the limiting. But whatever that something doing the limiting is, the fact that it exists means it is already part of existence, regardless of what it happens to be.

So we might say that because existence-as-such cannot have an absolutely limiting boundary, it cannot be called finite; and because it cannot be called finite, it must therefore be called infinite since the only two choices are either finite or infinite. Then again, perhaps trying to apply concepts of finite and infinite to something so highly abstract and conceptually totalizing as existence-as-such is already a mistake. Can these concepts of finite and infinite, themselves essentially physical-geometric concepts already supposing the meaningfulness of limitation-as-such, really correctly be applied to something like existence-as-such?

We probably need to create a new word and concept to capture the fact of how existence-as-such is logically unable to be limited in any absolute sense because it already includes everything that exists in any way whatsoever, therefore nothing can be beyond it, therefore nothing can serve as an absolute limit other than nothingness-as-such which has already been logically ruled out as a possibility. Kant understood this difficulty too, he used it as a way to criticize human thought at these high levels. For me, I think we need to come up with a new concept to explain this aspect of existence, something more than finite vs infinite, and we need to really conceptually grasp the logic involved here. This is a nearly perfect pure logical phenomena we are attempting to discuss, it moves beyond spatial-geometric and it moves even beyond the mathematical. So concepts like finite and infinite, inherently spatial-geometric and mathematical as they are, would be insufficiently meaningful when applied to something like existence-as-such.

Does that mean existence-as-such is everywhere, forever, without end or limit? Why not just say “existence is everything” and leave it there. Of course that isn’t satisfying. We are still trying to apply these notions of place, time, extension, duration, form, limit, boundary, here and there, because our minds naturally think in those ways and want to categorize existence in these terms. Maybe Kant is correct and the human mind is really incapable at this level because of how we are formed and naturally cannot think beyond these sort of categorizing attributes. Or maybe we simply have not yet discovered the new ways of thinking correctly at this higher level.

1 Like
7

Nothing of the sort may ever be said, because the only way to verify it would be to wait till the end of time to prove it.
Sadly that would be the moment that proof of the converse were to be true.
So you would have to wait an infinite length of time to establish this, and so it would never be resolved

8

Excellent post, HumAnIze.

Yes, the “pure nothingness,” which is represented by the blackened area surrounding this fanciful depiction of the universe,…

image
image500×500 51.1 KB

…does indeed exist.

It exists, not only as that which is forever making room for the ever-expanding reality of the universe, but also as the only existent “something” that is truly infinite.

For no matter how many new universes are added to the mix of reality, the “pure (and infinite) nothingness” will never run out of room for more.

9

What is that? What does that mean? What is “is”?

Any attempt to address “is”, the very acknowledgement of “is” concerns perception.

The declaration itself is not explanatory.

As articulated in the essay, by definition, nonexistence is a contradictory concept or term. Largely for the very reason identified here. A concept, even the concept nonexistence, is a thing, is existence.

10

Regardless the topic of discussion your room is still filled with things. Furniture, clothes, air, etcetera. Further there are elephants in your room; the conceptual topic of discussion, elephants, resides within your mind, within the conceptual plane. Therefore elephants conceptually exist within your room which you occupy with such thoughts in mind. This can be asserted largely because you did not explicitly define elephants.

However your room is still completely filled with things. By such an example you are attempting to limit existence, you are attempting to willfully ignore a room completely comprised of things using yet another thing or things. Nothing is not present anywhere within your example. Even the idea of nothing is a thing, a conceptual mechanism.

“Existence cannot have anything beyond itself” is an awkward statement. It paints existence as a sort of closed system. That can be misleading.

Correct. This is expressed in the Variance Of Existence section of the essay.

The premise also alludes to the aforementioned contradictory nature of nonexistence.

Not a mistake as much as a mechanism of conscious beings orienting within their environment. Conscious beings create models of their environments for successful interaction and survival. They conceptualize distinctions like hot and cold, left and right, etcetera. Existence simply is. All the maps and models are contrivances layered upon the fundamentality of being.

Disagree. That’s what Heidegger attempted to do, create new words. However new words are always defined by old words so the approach is rather redundant.

Not even pure logic. It simply is.

However we as conscious beings will always be entangled in all the additional layers so reaching such purity will be difficult if not nearly impossible.

11

It is said here.

12

So by your own statements there really is no true nothingness.

Existence is infinite.

13

I wonder about that. How can there be an infinite potential ‘nothingness’ thingy outside of existence into which existence is expanding? This appears to be a logical contradiction.

14

Sure, the concept of nonexistence exists. No one is disputing that. But nonexistence itself cannot exist, at least not nonexistence-as-such as I outlined it to mean the nonexistence of ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. Only relative nonexistences can exist. And, as you point out, the concept of nonexistence-as-such can and does exist.

But that is easy to understand. There does not need to be a literally existing thing out in reality perfectly corresponding to every concept we have. We can create and combine concepts in weird ways that have no existent corrolary. For example, I can form the concept of a flying purple elephant made of cheese that is 100 stories tall and poops out mint cookies. Just because there now exists a conceptual space for this doesn’t mean it must somehow actually exist in reality.

As for “is is”, this just means as a reference to reality. We know something exists, even if we don’t know for sure the hows or whys of that existing something. There is zero chance that nothing exists, because WE exist to ask the question. Even Descartes radical skepticism cannot question here. Is is, for me, is a direct reference to the fact that existence is undeniably the case and no one can reasonably argue that nothing exists, that there is no “is”. Is really is just another linguistic way to refer to: existence, truth, reality, being, fact, the case. All of these, to me anyway, mean basically the same thing.

Reality = truth = existence = is = fact = the case = being (although being is technically more expansive as a concept, but here we can use it in a simplified manner).

15

Thanks for your responses, I don’t think we necessarily disagree. At least our disagreements are somewhat marginal to the core issues here, and I believe more an issue of semantics and our own personal ways of defining and using some of the key concepts here. And I see no merit in trying to nitpick on that level.

One thing you did say that I don’t agree with, is that we don’t need to create new words. New words (really, new ways of linguistically referring to concepts, new concepts or old concepts in new ways) is going to happen naturally no matter what we want or what we do. When we come to new insights and understandings, sometimes the linguistic terminology available to us as inherited from the past may prove insufficient to truly capture the meaning. That is obvious, since we are talking about NEW meanings that did not formerly exist. How could it be the case that new meanings are necessarily always able to be sufficiently expressed and captured meaningfully in the linguistic usages that preceded that new meaning?

And if you disagree with the idea of new meaning then you must think progress in thought and understanding are impossible, which I assume you are not claiming.

Heidegger was into meaning, not into language and mere words. That is something I see often misunderstood about him. Phenomenology is about meaning, concepts as such and for their own sake and the fact that language/words only matter and only exist insofar as they refer to a meaning. And on that note, I should add that it is critical to understand that there is a difference between talking about something and talking about the way we talk about something. If you can grasp the meaning of that difference and distinction, not confounding the two and apply this understanding to our discussion here, I believe things will go a lot more smoothly.

16

Sure, I can agree with that.

However, we must both ask ourselves the following question:

“So what?”

Or perhaps:

“Now what?” – Chop wood, carry water?

In other words, besides the fun challenge of trying to convince our forum interlocutors of, in your case, the veracity of the idea of “existence” being “infinite,”…

…or, in my case, “absolute nothingness” being a real and existing aspect of the “All-That-Is,”…

…what good (or how useful) is any of this information?

17

The problem comes with thinking that “absolute nothingness” resides “outside” of existence, when, in fact, it is a part of existence.

In other words, if the “absolute (and infinite) nothingness” did not exist, then the ever-expanding “somethingness” of the universe would not be able to expand.

For example, if it is true that the universe was once (allegedly) smaller than the tiny dot between these two brackets [ . ] but is now approximately 93 billion light years in diameter, then “something” outside the boundary of that initial dot…

(outside the boundary of the ever-expanding universe)

…is forever “making room” for that expansion.

Otherwise, not even the initial dot [ . ] could have come into existence.

Acknowledging that this is all just fun philosophical speculation,…

…I nevertheless suggest that we need to approach this issue in a manner that is similar to the Kantian view of the noumenon.

In other words, if the “absolute (and infinite) nothingness” into which the universe is expanding does indeed exist as an integral aspect of the “All-That-Is,”…

…then just like Kant’s noumenon, it can only be apprehended by way of the “intellect and intuition” and never by any sort of direct or empirical means.

18

No.
Read carefully.
You might be able to tell that there was a beginning, and you might be able to tell if there shall be an end.
But what can never be established is that the universe might be infinite, as such a thing is imposible, since at any time an end could come, what you can never know is that there is never an end. THere is simply no point in time that can ever be verified.
Because it is a thing that never happens by definition.
I dd not think this was a hard thing to graps.

To put it plainly…You can verify a beginning or an end because they are events that can be observed. But you can never prove infinity because no matter how long you check, an end could always come later. Since you can never reach a point where you confirm “there is no end,” infinity is unprovable.

19

Relative nonexistence is a conceptual mechanism. Nonexistence is contradictory.

Every thing is something. There are no gradients or levels of nonexistence. There are only gradients or levels of concepts or qualities.

Relative nonexistence is a misnomer like relative nothingness. Parts of existence are relative, things are relative, qualities are relative. Things are discerned by other things, not no things or nonexistence. The notions of nothing or nonexistence themselves are things, they are conceptual mechanisms employed by conscious beings.

Consider your flying cheese elephant example:

The example does not illustrate gradients of nonexistence but rather gradients of reality and fantasy. Both the fictional aspects and the realistic aspects exist. Further any claimed result of nonexistence would itself be a concept, a thing. All things, all existence.

20

I am not claiming to convey a new meaning.

What the philosophy conveys is eternal truth.

However this is not to deny “new meanings” which are parts of existence.

I agree with your agreement.