You mean existence itself, not the philosophy presented.
In a sense you are correct, each thing is part of existence. Including conceptions and misconceptions.
And the correct term would be incomplete, not meaningless.
This approaches the subject from a position of limitation conflating time and sequence which are constructs of conscious beings.
In a sense there is no time, sequence or motion. Existence is all. Existence does not move because existence is the next position. Existence is what we perceive as the past, present and future. Existence does not need to expand or progress. It is.
Nor is nothingness needed for expansion.
Things can move, parts of existence can experience motion. Nothingness is still not present, however. When material systems expand they are not interacting with nothingness. Nothingness is not and cannot be to be interacted with. When material systems expand they are simply integrating additional immaterial space into the system.
Things develop and flow into other things, not no things or nothingness.
Regardless relative size the two things, reality and nothingness, would limit each other. Neither would be infinite. By definition infinite means unlimited. Existence is infinite, existence is not limited to any particular aspect.
The terms you use are confusing and undefined.
You claim nothingness is absolute yet rely on reality or other aspects of existence for justification. There is no reconciliation of terms.
THere is no such thing as a multiverse outside science fiction and maths imagination.
If there were then what ever the Multiverse is would have to be a sub-set of the universe - again, by definition…
For “existence” to have any valid meaning, it would have to be personal, since we can only infer existence in another, but experience it in ourselves.
Since we know that we seemed to have a starting point called birth, and all the evidence points to an end point called death; we can conclude that existence is finite.
Existence is personal and impersonal. As defined existence involves perception which concerns each perceptive, conscious individual. Existence also involves interaction beyond conscious entities.
However that cycle rests upon the everlasting infrastructure of existence. It is part of existence. As articulated in the essay:
Clearly, one (the nothingness) is truly infinite, while the other (“reality”) is not.
So, your assertion that “…neither would be infinite…” is wrong.
However, if you worded that to mean that neither “reality” or “nothingness” – in and of themselves – (as in separately) could represent the totality of existence, then that would make more sense.
Forgive me for being so repetitive, but, again, comparing the sum-total of everything we think of as being “reality” (be it mind or matter / immanent or transcendent) to that of the infinite nothingness that “reality” is expanding into,…
…is even less significant than comparing the tiny dot between these two brackets [ . ] to that of the entire 93-billion-light-year diameter of the visible universe.
In which case, I’m having trouble understanding how you can come to the conclusion that something the size of this dot [ . ] somehow represents a “limitation” on what, in essence, is “infinity” itself – (again, the infinite nothingness).
A part being construed as greater than or equivalent to that of which it is part.
It’s similar to claiming an apple is equivalent to the tree from which it hangs. It’s disproportionate.
Additionally you claim nothingness is absolute yet relate it to reality as justification. Such negates the idea of being absolute as absolute exceeds relation.
Further I contend that what you present as nothingness is not actually nothingness as nothingness cannot have quality nor extent.
The scientific community could present a detailed model of the universe and its function however philosophical insight and investigation would remain. The model would be an interpretation, a conscious construct, a contrivance of conscious beings.
Existence transcends conscious models and constructs. Existence simply is. Each part of any model, as interpreted and conveyed by conscious individuals, is being, is simply existence. Models and distinctions are constructs of conscious beings employed for purposes of orientation, interaction and survival. Such models often obfuscate that being simply is.
…metaphorically represented in that image by the blackened area that is forever making-room (relenting, giving-way) to the ever-expanding bubble of reality we call a universe.
We’re talking about a bubble of reality that, allegedly, (as mentioned earlier) was once smaller than the dot between these two brackets [ . ], but is now estimated to be 93 billion light-years in diameter.
Again, it is obvious that something is “making-room” (relenting, giving-way) to the expanding bubble of reality.
Indeed, you could add 10^500 (or even 10^500,000,000) more of those same sized bubbles into the mix, and the infinite nothingness will never – ever – run out of room for more.
Earlier you said this…
To which I responded with…
Please try to make a better effort in clarifying for me how the “infinite nothingness” is somehow limited by the “finite” substance that comprises that which we call “reality”?
I agree and said this here over a decade ago.
It was also one of my stated beliefs upon joining this site.
For what it’s worth,
these ideas go back millennia.
So we were both beaten to the punch.
2012:
Nothing doesn’t exist.
[…]
Nothing is the lack of existence. Therefore, in existence, nothing can’t reside.
The application of nothing can also describe the absence of relevance or interest.
The problem here is that the description must be applied to something.
[…]
To apply nothing to anything, is to inaccurately portray something.
To dismiss it’s properties and values.
If we describe Y as nothing, Y isn’t truly nothing,
we’re just saying it is for the sake of X.
Nothing doesn’t exist and can’t be accurately applied to anything that does exist. Conceptual or tangible.
=
2013:
We are aware, therefore, awareness is a possible state of reality.
Reality will continually alter it’s state, realizing new possibilities.
Eventually, any given state, will be repeated.
Time is infinite, therefore, all states of reality will be repeated infinitely.
We will follow the path of all possible states and in those states that determine our awareness, we will be aware.
So, once we die, we will be dispersed, go on our path,
and then eventually be aware once more in a state that permits it,
probably without any awareness of the path that led to the present.
‘Being aware once more’.
And upon saying this, I got this reply:
Orbie:
Upon reading your thoughts strangely, it. Is as if you were reading my mind or vica versa.
This is exactly the argument which crossed my mind.
Specifically, your thought that awareness is, and not isn’t.
So if one would follow up on this, the suicide really can’t die, because~ even if,
another recurrance of his exact mental content comes up,
the temporal space between one and another recurrence is non existent.
[…]
So is it conceivable that death (not physical death) is impossible,
resulting in an infinite series of lives?
This seems to be a reasonable consclusion of this scenario.
Perhaps I read your mind too?
=
2014:
All dimensions are infinite. There’s no beginning or end, in reality.
The beginning is merely a point where all dimensions intersect.
This is no true start, for before they intersected, they were apart.
If they were never apart, we couldn’t possibly be as we are. We couldn’t possibly be.
Therefore, I put it to you, time is infinite.
If time is infinite, and all reality is just affect : A pendulum being pushed back and forth due to the prior momentum,
then we will once again emerge. Life will once again emerge, for it has infinite opportunity to.
And with infinite opportunity, comes determinism. Life is determined to emerge and re-emerge.
[…] We will never know a moment of death. Death, is nothingness. And nothingness can’t connect to reality, for it is not part of reality.
We are only energy, and energy fluctuates, but never truly dissipates.
Energy just dances from one form, to another.
We will die, and as soon as we’re aware once more, it will be because we are alive once more.
[…]
The only thing that exists is space.
All dimensions are arbitrary division of space,
based on our illusion that space isn’t static and one.
=
Time does not cause change, it measures it.
Time is not an effect.
Dimensions are a construction of man, projected onto reality.
It serves our interests very well, but they are abstract.
They are not a true account of reality.
Confusion is caused when expect reality to obey by our projections.
The confusion is highlighted by a question like, ‘How big is the universe?’
It’s inconceivable that there’s an edge to universe. Because, what’s beyond that edge?
Nothing doesn’t exist.
To attribute nothing to something, is to disregard it’s relevance.
That something is still there, you’re just ignoring it.
‘What’s that in your pocket?’ - ‘Oh, nothing. Don’t worry about it.’
Same goes for dimensions.
‘These are the dimensions of the table’ - ‘What’s beyond the table?’ - ‘Not relevant. Focus on the bloody table.’
Existence is eternal.
Life dies.
It may be recurring, as I believe,
but that doesn’t mean it’s without end and beginning.
Or you could just say that it isn’t “nothingness” making room, but an ever-decreasing reality asymptotically approaching 0 but never to reach it.
This can be framed mathematically. Primary reality, where the stuff like planets and atoms and such are, can still be the sphere you envision with the image you posted. That is 99.99999999999999999999999999999999…% of everything, because that is where all of that ‘everything’ stuff is. But the blackness beyond it, is not really extended out like that, more like a bubble or skin wrapping loosely around primary reality. This beyond is not “nothing” but a reduction to near-zero. The mathematically remaining 0.000000000000000000000000000000…1%. No organized matter, no structures, just a very basic low-level energetic field not even strong enough to carry a photon.
What we call the infinite nothingness could just be this mathematically most-reduced energy field that cannot actually produce or hold anything except itself at the most minimal level. Even space and time cannot exist in this most-reduced field. So it is more like that kind of bubble or skin wrapped around primary reality, which “stretches” (gets pushed back) to make room for primary reality to get larger.
Or you could envision the bubble/skin going on forever, like the blackness in your image. That could be the result of the same mathematical asymptotic approach to 0. Always getting closer, never arriving. Just like this “near-nothing”. It is still technically a part of existence, but there is ‘nothing there’ except an ever-reducing near-zero-ness most basic energy field so minimal that it is always regressing to nothing but never quite getting there. Or it could be a procedural generation thing too. It exists for a while, then fades into a pure probability mathematics, a pure metaphysics that exists but not in any physical way we are familiar with. At some point this occurs due to the ever-approaching-zero thing getting so small that the extant field at that point can only function to continue its approach to zero, and nothing else. Not even space, time, physicality, those all fade away in the decline with the approach to zero.
So this way you can have your nothingness cake and eat it too
That is precisely what substantiates it as a thing, as part of existence; that it is perceived. You are metaphorically representing something claimed to have actual presence. That is not nothingness regardless the label applied to it.
Additionally it is claimed reality expands into it. That is interaction, further substantiation of it as a thing, as part of existence. By definition that is a thing.
Furthermore you are approaching the subject from a position of limitation conflating time and sequence, constructs associated with particulars, with existence in its general sense.
In a sense there is no time, sequence or motion. Existence is all. Existence does not move or expand because existence is the next position. Existence is what we perceive as the past, present and future. Existence does not need to expand or progress. It is.
You have not explicitly defined “reality” thus I cannot concur regarding definition.
“Infinite” is defined as “unlimited, unrestricted”. (Also “immeasurable” which naturally indicates “vast”.)
You proclaim reality and nothingness distinguishing one from the other. That indicates boundary or distinction. That indicates two things.
Let A be reality and B nothingness.
If A is 25% and B 75%, B is limited by A. (A also limited by B.)
If A is 0.01% and B 99.99%, B is still limited by A. (A also limited by B.)
In other words B, or your concept of nothingness, is limited, not infinite. Any amount of any other thing limits the other.
A is not B; A is limited to A. B is not A; B is limited to B.
However existence, being unlimited, is both A and B. And all else.
In essence you are declaring a boundary while claiming otherwise.
Existence is infinite. We agree the conceptual framework of “nothingness” you present is indeed part of existence:
However you continue to suggest part of the infinite, your concept of nothingness, is also infinite.
Again you are metaphorically representing something claimed to have presence or extent. That is not nothingness regardless the label applied to it.
I thought I had made it clear earlier in the thread that the “nothingness” into which what we call “reality” is expanding, is indeed a part of “overall existence,” as was stated in the following quote…
And as a further clarification, I pretty much view the nothingness in a way that is somewhat similar to the Kantian noumenon.
In other words, the nothingness into which “reality” is expanding is there and exists as an integral aspect of, again, “overall existence,”…
…however, it can only be apprehended by way of the intellect and intuition, and never by any sort of direct or empirical means.
The problem I am having with your argument is incapsulated in the bolded part of this statement…
Which is wrong, because the nothingness (and only the nothingness) would be infinite regardless of the status of “finite” reality as it was described earlier,…
…which brings us to this next false assertion on your part…
Your assertion is false because I most certainly did make an effort to “define reality” when I stated the following…
Now granted, it may have been a lame effort at defining what I mean by “reality,” but you cannot say that I didn’t at least give it “the old college try.”
No, daniel, not “also” infinite.
The word “also” implies the existence of something else other than the nothingness is infinite, when, in fact, the nothingness is the only thing in all of existence that is truly infinite.
“Only the nothingness” is the key statement there.
“Only” implies one among others. That itself is limitation.
It acknowledges another yet selects only one. That is a limited selection. That is limitation.
Again, let A be reality and B nothingness.
B is B, not A. B is limited to B.
Are you suggesting B is also A? B is not A.
Thus, B is limited to B.
B, or your concept of nothingness, is limited. Not infinite.
So you are essentially defining “reality” as all things?
That appears to be the case, and from that it appears you acknowledge another something, the “nothingness”, which you claim to be nothingness.
However that would not be nothingness as you ironically concede by acknowledging it as something here:
That is somethingness, not nothingness.
Again, “only” implies one among other things. That itself is limitation. Existence is not limited to any particular thing.
To clarify you are claiming only part of existence, “nothingness”, is infinite, yet existence, which includes “nothingness” and all other things, is not infinite?
As stated you are metaphorically representing something claimed to have presence or extent. That is not nothingness regardless the label applied to it.
That nothingness is claimed to be absolute yet related to reality remains unaddressed. Nothingness is directly related with reality to distinguish extent, for example. Such negates the idea of being absolute as absolute exceeds relation.
Obviously nothing doesn’t exist. It is a figment of the imagination. Existentially speaking, it is a product of fear. Fear, in turn, is a product of desire for some state in the phenomenal world.
…that doesn’t cease it to be so, in being a conundrum… for me.
.
…and yet… these multiple universes would all exist, so all be part of existence, no?
Then again… I don’t hold the thought of multiverses to be true, and the only evidence for them existing being:
The Cold Spot" and other CMB anomalies:
Some researchers have pointed to anomalies in the CMB, such as the “Cold Spot,” as potential evidence of a multiverse, suggesting that these could be imprints of collisions between universes.
Like I suggested earlier, it is best to think of the infinite nothingness in a way that is somewhat similar to how one would imagine the Kantian noumenon, in that it (the nothingness) does indeed exist, but it can only be apprehended by way of the intellect and intuition.
Btw, don’t be afraid to entertain the possibility that the interior reality of the entire universe may, in fact, be “…a figment of the imagination…” of a higher Being in whose image we (our eternal souls) have been created…
This is famously associated with Parmenides, the pre-Socratic philosopher. It asserts a fundamental metaphysical truth: being is, and non-being cannot be. In his view, change, becoming, and multiplicity are illusions, because they imply the transition from non-being to being—which he thought impossible.
This is a realist metaphysical stance, affirming the primacy of being as an absolute. It is objective, in the sense that it posits a reality that exists independently of perception or mind.
The Opening of the Dhammapada states:
“Mind precedes all things;
Mind is their chief;
They are impelled by mind.” (Dhp. 1–2)
This is a Buddhist phenomenological perspective, rooted in experience and the workings of consciousness. It says that all things we perceive, think, say, or do are conditioned by the mind—that is, constructed, not absolute. It speaks not of what “is” in some final sense, but of how experience arises. This is subjective and dynamic, not static. It focuses on causality, impermanence, and perception, not fixed metaphysical being.
Where Parmenides says: “Only being is; non-being is not.”
The Dhammapada might reply: “Whatever being or non-being you perceive, is shaped and led by mind.”
If one says, “Existence is,” the Buddha might ask, “Whose existence? Perceived how? Under what conditions?” The Dhammapada opens by highlighting that perception, thought, and karma all arise from the mind. Therefore, the statement “existence is” becomes provisional—it depends on the operations of the mind.
So, in a poetic and philosophical sense, the Dhammapada’s beginning could be seen as a gentle but radical answer: It invites us to move from a metaphysics of being to a psychology of becoming, and from an abstract absolute to the lived, ethical experience of mind.
It’s easy to become entangled in complexity as conscious beings.
Yes. Existence isn’t necessarily confined to the universe.
There are also creator-creation systems and theological frameworks to consider.
Universe is an inclusive term however existence is more comprehensive. More practical as well.
With the terms and definitions provided one could point to a palm tree, or any other item, and easily claim existence. However one could not point to a palm tree and easily claim universe. Universe is a relatively restrictive term.
