Existence Is Infinite

[daniel_j_lavender]

@seeds

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?

One of the central tenets communicated is existence simply is.

The notion that upon such realization one must “move along”, one must “chop wood” or merely act for act’s sake is a relevant issue.

Existence simply is. Such realization simplifies understanding, it encourages placidity. It allows a certain contentment, it allows a certain repose in a society intentionally driving people and their activities for profit. To excess and oftentimes madness.

Existence simply is. Such isn’t merely a slogan to read and discard. It is a fundamental truth providing a certain serenity in its application.

[Sculptor]

@daniel_j_lavender

Existence simply is.

Obviously when you are on the ropes, the best thing to do is ignore irrefutable logic and just move on…

reminder.
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.

[seeds]

@daniel_j_lavender

One of the central tenets communicated is existence simply is.

The notion that upon such realization one must “move along”, one must “chop wood” or merely act for act’s sake is a relevant issue.

Existence simply is. Such realization simplifies understanding, it encourages placidity. It allows a certain contentment, it allows a certain repose in a society intentionally driving people and their activities for profit. To excess and oftentimes madness.

Existence simply is. Such isn’t merely a slogan to read and discard. It is a fundamental truth providing a certain serenity in its application.

The phrase (or “slogan”) “…existence simply is…” has a sister slogan in the realm of quantum physics, and that sister slogan is “…shut up and calculate…”

Both “slogans” are nothing more than a metaphorical “white flag” that is waved by those who have given up trying to understand the deeper mysteries of reality.

In quantum physics, the phrase “…shut up and calculate…” is a surrender to the mystery of how and why quantum mechanics works.

While, on the other hand, your phrase “…existence simply is…,” is a surrender to the mystery of how the unfathomable order of the universe came into existence.

So, yeah, you are correct in suggesting that if you live by the motto, “…existence simply is…,” it can help induce placidity, contentment, and serenity,…

…but that’s only because you will no longer allow yourself to be troubled by those pesky, unanswerable mysteries.

However, if you are implying that if one surrenders to such a simplistic vision of reality implicit in the notion that “…existence simply is…,” that it will, in turn, simplify one’s understanding of how this…

…this…

…and this…

…came into existence, then you are dead wrong.

[Jakob]

@Sculptor

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.

The law of conservation of energy indicates that, since there is energy now, it must continue to exist indefinitely. Thus there is infinite duration.

[Sculptor]

Prove it

[Sculptor]

@Jakob

The law of conservation of energy indicates that, since there is energy now, it must continue to exist indefinitely. Thus there is infinite duration.

This is not “proof” it is just a local phenomenon in this time frame.
DO you propose also that this energy has existed for all time previously?

[daniel_j_lavender]

@Jakob

“Existence” is a word, a representation. Buddhists find that it only makes sense when equated with “non-existence”. Neither is exactly what is real.

What is real? You have not defined terms.

Existence is a concept. Nonexistence is a concept, a contradictory concept. They serve as conceptual mechanisms for conscious beings.

Existence is a concept, a term. Concepts and terms indicate things, they mean things. The term “apple” indicates the fruit, for example. This is commonly accepted and understood. Likewise the term existence indicates all things, not only concepts.

The term existence indicates all things, each and every thing including the term itself and the entirety of things as expressed in the essay. The term, the word, the concept itself as a thing is limited. That which the term indicates or represents is unlimited.

Nonexistence is also a concept, a term. A contradictory concept or term. Nonexistence is not some ambiguous, mysterious remoteness revealed through the term or concept. Rather nonexistence is an abstraction, an abstraction constructed in the mind for purposes of conceptual processing and projected outward through language.

Language is used as a tool to convey ideas. Language has limits. Language only goes so far and can only do so much.

@Jakob

That equation is perhaps the only way reality can be infinite. By being “being nor non-being”.

Reality is an exclusive concept, not a comprehensive one. Reality is confined to reality at the exclusion of fantasy.

Existence is infinite. Existence includes both reality and fantasy.

Reality is limited by fantasy as sea is limited by land. Where reality is limited to the shore existence is the shore, and the tide, and the ocean, and the sand and all else.

However as expressed in the essay existence simply is. All variation, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence. This reflects the sentiment you share without confining it to Buddhist thought.

[daniel_j_lavender]

@Sculptor

Obviously when you are on the ropes, the best thing to do is ignore irrefutable logic and just move on…

reminder.
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.

Certain subject matter by its very nature cannot be proven. At least not to the satisfaction of many. However substantial evidence can be provided, insight presented, discussion and argumentation exchanged.

Nor does inability to provide actual proof render such false.

[daniel_j_lavender]

@seeds

The phrase (or “slogan”) “…existence simply is…” has a sister slogan in the realm of quantum physics, and that sister slogan is “…shut up and calculate…”

Both “slogans” are nothing more than a metaphorical “white flag” that is waved by those who have given up trying to understand the deeper mysteries of reality.

As expressed that is only one tenet. Reviewing the entire essay is encouraged.

@seeds

In quantum physics, the phrase “…shut up and calculate…” is a surrender to the mystery of how and why quantum mechanics works.

While, on the other hand, your phrase “…existence simply is…,” is a surrender to the mystery of how the unfathomable order of the universe came into existence.

The universe is not necessarily the totality of existence. Existence encompasses the universe.

The philosophy presented does not deny the universe may have been created nor does it deny the splendor of such events. The universe could have certainly been created. This is articulated in previous discussion here: https://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?p=751373#p751373

However existence transcends the universe and is eternal.

@seeds

So, yeah, you are correct in suggesting that if you live by the motto, “…existence simply is…,” it can help induce placidity, contentment, and serenity,…

…but that’s only because you will no longer allow yourself to be troubled by those pesky, unanswerable mysteries.

Not at all. “Existence simply is” is a general statement, a tenet with practical application. That general statement is not to deny particulars or specifics including their mysteries.

[seeds]

@daniel_j_lavender

The universe is not necessarily the totality of existence.

I never said it was.

In fact, I tried to make it clear that “existence” also includes the “absolute nothingness” that the universe is expanding into,…

…and that the nothingness is the only aspect of existence that can truly be considered to be “infinite,” for it is the only thing in all of reality that doesn’t have an “outer edge” (or boundary) to it.

So, one could argue that a more robust emphasis on the inclusion of the “absolute nothingness” being a part of existence, would be vital to your theory.

In the conclusion of your well-written essay, you stated the following

@daniel_j_lavender

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.

However, once again, I must insist that the acceptance of the tenets…

“…Existence is Infinite…”

…or…

“…existence simply is…”

…does absolutely nothing to “clarify” how this…

…this…

…and this…

…came into existence.

Show me how your theory “logically” resolves those mysteries, and then maybe I’ll be able to find the “…placidity, contentment, and serenity…” you spoke of earlier.

[meno41]

Just got into this forum in a timely manner, to post an after thought, of the question just posed previously. The logical conundrum, as presented either including it’s absolute form, has to pass a test of wether the meaningfullness of Heidegger’s development of concepts linked together in a temporally formed, prioritized sequence of events, or, wether their spatially located focus disclose or not the emptiness yet to be filled to reveal such bounded spaces.

Is the triparted mind a reaction to such a progression which may include it’s absolute inclusion, so that it can in time answer it’s own question, or, has to go through infinitely repeatable tests of the grounds for validity?

The contemporary end game of such test where either a future formation of contradictory senses develop to bring awareness to it’s self, of it’s self so that the beginning of the word can coincide with the beginning of self consciousness of the world, becomes the focus or the domain within which such questions must arise.

The more probable validity to this question, as presupposing a basic unity which includes the the question within its general apprehension is more in line with its exclusion.

Logic it’self is subordinated to a non differentiatiable sense where a cotemporanious apprehension disregards sequential progression, and awareness becomes a tool by which impressed data always express an intended disclosure of a further limit , not necessarily in an up and down (temporal manifestation) or on the spatial horizontal axis of appearances.

Logic is a function by which such appearances can manifest the difference between existence and non existence, and that logic is a device by which the question of the difference begins to be apprehended. Logic is a ‘diluted’ concept which works to set up conditions of differentiability, so that the limits can set the progressive boundaries, which like marks in the desert sand can hold only a virtual temporality.

(This ‘afterthought) is manly an expressive suggestion to the question posed above, and is an exploratory effort)

)()(

@seeds

…this…

…and this…

…came into existence.

Show me how your theory “logically” resolves those mysteries, and then maybe I’ll be able to find the “…placidity, contentment, and serenity…” you spoke of earlier.

[seeds]

@meno41

(This ‘afterthought) is manly an expressive suggestion to the question posed above, and is an exploratory effort)

Thank you, Professor Irwin Corey (the “World’s Foremost Authority”) for addressing the issues I raised in my post to daniel j. lavender.

Perhaps you can do a video lecture on the subject like you did with the subject in this video…

7-Up (Commercial #2) Professor Irwin Corey (1969)

[Sculptor]

@daniel_j_lavender

Nor does inability to provide actual proof render such false.

Wrong.
Infinity is logically false, and empirically dubious

[Sculptor]

@daniel_j_lavender

The universe is not necessarily the totality of existence.

er… yes it is. BY DEFINITION

[daniel_j_lavender]

@seeds

…and that the nothingness is the only aspect of existence that can truly be considered to be “infinite,” for it is the only thing in all of reality that doesn’t have an “outer edge” (or boundary) to it.

“The only aspect of existence” clearly indicates a limited portion of existence. By your own premise and statement a limited part is construed as being infinite. That is erroneous.

Whether it has an edge in this sense is irrelevant as the premise inherently identifies only part (“the only aspect”) of existence. That is limitation. That is not infinite.

Existence is not only one aspect. Existence is all aspects. Existence is infinite.

@seeds

However, once again, I must insist that the acceptance of the tenets…

“…Existence is Infinite…”

…or…

“…existence simply is…”

…does absolutely nothing to “clarify” how this…this…and this…came into existence.

Show me how your theory “logically” resolves those mysteries, and then maybe I’ll be able to find the “…placidity, contentment, and serenity…” you spoke of earlier.

The sentiment expressed here is a bit different from that of your earlier statement which was addressed. The tenet was offered in response to those statements.

The text is philosophical in nature, intended to convey a comprehensive, general explication of existence in comprehensible terms. It is not intended to be a scientifically-rigorous, exhaustive exposition of the cosmos.

Concerning investigation of the universe and related subjects, yes, that could contribute to a sense of contentment and placidity. Or perhaps achievement. Although it could be argued that very pursuit, that very desire to understand such intricate phenomena fosters stress and fatigue or even disappointment when progress seems stagnant. Understanding existence simply is can alleviate such pressure and desire.

This is philosophy, not physics. Even if the scientific community were to present exhaustive details of the universe and its function philosophical insight and investigation would remain.

Your desire for detailed explanation of the origin of the universe does not negate the validity of the philosophy nor the tenet in question. Your discontentment stemming from that desire actually reinforces it.

[daniel_j_lavender]

@Sculptor

@daniel_j_lavender

The universe is not necessarily the totality of existence.

er… yes it is. BY DEFINITION

Not in a multiverse.

Not in creator-creation systems or theological frameworks.

[seeds]

@daniel_j_lavender

“The only aspect of existence” clearly indicates a limited portion of existence. By your own premise and statement a limited part is construed as being infinite. That is erroneous.

Yeah, but it’s the part that, without which, your theory of “existence being infinite” would be rendered meaningless.

I mean, imagine that you could somehow add up all of the tangibly existent features of what we call “reality”; – features such as all of the life, mind, and matter implicit in this image…

…or all of the life, mind, and matter that is implicit in the possibility of there being a multiverse, as depicted in this image…

Furthermore, as you are adding all of that up, don’t forget to include all of the possible existent features of any transcendent realms (e.g., heavens and hells, etc.) that might possibly exist.

Now, after you have somehow accounted for every “tangible” feature of the “ALL-THAT-IS,” do you honestly believe that the sum-total of those tangible and existing features of, again, the “ALL-THAT-IS,” would be “INFINITE” without the inclusion of the “absolute nothingness” that the tangible features of reality are expanding into?

Let me answer that for you.

Comparing the sum-total of everything you added up in the little thought experiment above; – comparing that to the absolute and infinite nothingness that the tangible “somethingness” of reality is expanding into,…

…wouldn’t even rise to the level of insignificance in comparing the tiny dot between these two brackets [ . ] to that of the 93 billion light-year diameter of the universe.

Again, it (the absolute nothingness) is not just a part of existence that is being “construed” as being infinite, no, it is the only part of existence that truly is infinite.

And, again, without which, your theory would be rendered meaningless.

[Jakob]

Does either of you ever take higher dimensionalities into account?

String Theory suggests that there are, I believe, ten dimensions, most of which are ‘rolled up’ for our possible intents and purposes.

[seeds]

@Jakob

Does either of you ever take higher dimensionalities into account?

Well, I felt that “higher dimensionalities” were taken into account with my statement…

@seeds

Now, after you have somehow accounted for every “tangible” feature of the “ALL-THAT-IS,”…

[Jakob]

I think that energy comes into being everywhere throughout infinity, that there is no limit to the ‘omniverse’, that non being doesn’t have the power to enforce itself, thus that being keeps spontaneously occurring - but thats just 4 dimensions.

In my first psychedelic trip I saw 4d turn into one facet of a greater whole, then that whole turn into a facet, and so on until I was about to explode - thankfully there was a friend there in a milder trip who could distract me by talking about a movie. But I think what we see is just a thin sliver of a sliver of a sliver (etc) of the absolute.