Here is my current model of existence based on logic for your discussion.
Hope you enjoy it:
…1 Existence is all there is.
Existence can’t come from anything else…there is nothing else.
By definition and concept, non-existence doesn’t exist.
…2 Existence is ‘always present’ (always existing).
There is no place to create it or for it to go. (see #1) Since existence is/was not derived from anything else it never has/had a beginning and won’t have an ending…it is beyond our concept of ‘time’…(counting and comparing repetitive or predictable astronomical movements).IF it could end, that means something besides existence is real and that’s impossible (see #1).
…3 Existence creates temporal patterns, forms, objects, and beings and ultimately intelligence and personalities. Somehow it creates temporary images in this continuous/eternal setting. Things which are not ‘always present’ appear in eternity…
how is this possible??
…4 The ability to express creation and realities must be an eternal aspect of existence’s nature or else it couldn’t and wouldn’t ever happen.
Why?..existence is the only thing/non-thing that is real/exists; and any temporal thing or non-thing appearing in it must be a result of it’s congruent behavior (it’s nature/instinct)
Since existence is continuous this behavior of expression must be cyclical or part of a larger cycle…like a huge vibration that moves from a simple beat and expands to a complex series of vibrations and back to a primal beat abd so on ‘always happening’…‘always present’…‘eternally’…‘forever’.
If we could draw an image of it…existence and it’s moving might look something like the image at the top of this page.
CONCLUSION:
All things and non-things including temporal patterns, images, patterns, forms, universes, dimensions are part of the cyclical vibrational dance ofexistence within itself.
Existence is the ultimate recycler!
I see that despite such important advances in technology and growth of knowledge especially in the past century, not much has changed in the logic of many people such as yourself. You logically deify nature by ascribing to it the attributes of eternity and purpose. You are a modern idolater and nature worshiper. Forgive me for neglecting to pay the same homage to your god as you do.
For me, it’s not nature per se,
as nature is a phenomenon/subset of existence,
but rather a characteristic of existence to be continuous…and ‘eternity’ is a well understood word/concept.
What exactly is it in my model which seems to you to be illogical as the use of logic is the philosopher’s standard.
So what in your opinion is existence? For example, is it physical, logical, or something else? What manifestations are you considering, and what do you call those?
To claim that existence is “all there is” is tautologically obvious. That is, it is circular. Although this is petty, you might as well have claimed that “existence ‘is’” (Do not consider the latter sentence important).
To make such a claim is to also conflate and make equivalent corporeity and the very concept of “existence” you are attempting to distinguish - even though you later espouse a version of existence that is clearly above-corporeity and therefore deviant to the way you use the word in premise 1. The latter assumption is the result of some conjecture, although said conjecture is contingent on the ambiguity of the word “is” as it is used within your rhetoric.
By permitting premise 1, even if it is not a referent to corporeity alone, the notion of anything existing, even as an extension of “existence” is meaningless. For if “existence” is all there is, then even the temporal objects that are created by “existence” are merely “existence” itself. Nothing, then, can be separate of the identity of existence.
Further, in permitting premise 1, nothing can be created. If all things are equivalent to “existence” (premise 1), and existence cannot be created (premise 2), then “existence” cannot have the capacity to create extant things, contradicting at least premise 3, and acting as a contrary to premise 4.
Your conclusion: "All things and non-things including temporal patterns, images, patterns, forms, universes, dimensions are part of the cyclical vibrational dance ofexistence (sic) within itself. " becomes rather meaningless. Literally, if existence exists as you purport, then nothing can happen. Moreover, even if we are not to take all of what I have written into account, there is a non-sequitur between your conclusion and premises.
The ‘obvious’ is a good foundation to establish certainty when linked with the logical inferences that follow.
My initial point about ‘existence’ is to establish there is no other arena for reality.
You are correct as step 3 would be better stated as: …3 The activity within existence creates temporal patterns, forms, objects, and beings and ultimately intelligence and personalities.
Very good. I agree with all of it. Question: which image? Also, I think “moving” is ill-chosen: existence does not move, as there is nothing in which it can move. I suggest “The process that is existence” or something of the sort.
To attack the arguments of this OP as nature worship or religious pandering is to see the OP through a very limited, limiting personal agenda. It appears to have no such ideas.
It is every thing and non-thing (not to be confused with nothing or nonexistent) in this field.
I call those images formed by the repetitious activity of the whole from thoughts to galaxies.
But what is existence? I don’t think you defined it yet, and seem to use a meaning of it not familliar to me. My definition is that to exist is to affect my survival. That is, for something to exist, it must affect my survival, and if it doesn’t affect my survival, it doesn’t exist.
Except if this movement is, if these entities are figments of the imagination. What is certain, however, is that there is change (if everything is a big hallucination, this hallucination is changing).
I don’t understand. All entities must move to change (because movement is inherent in the definition of change) except those that exist in the mind. This is what you have said. But imagined objects (those that exist in the mind) are just patterns of binary values (ones and zeroes), the values of which are dependent on the number of electrons present (electricity). So imagination is just an expression of the position of electrons in the brain, and if the movement of these electrons is not possible, no change in imagined objects, no imagination period, can occur.[/i]