Wild West swamp forums

[daniel_j_lavender]

@ProfessorX

I agree with everything at the first part of your first section Existence is Infinite. But the first three points under your Additional Notes I would have some challenges to:

@daniel_j_lavender

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 have to be addressed which would involve perception. The matter implicitly involves perception and interaction; the term “is” only has significance with perception.
• 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.

“All variance balances as simply being. All difference, all variation, all opposition balances as simply being, as simply existence.” —Can you explain what this means? I didn’t understand this part.

Bad and good are opposites, correct? However they both are. Bad is. Good is. “Is” indicating existence. Both bad and good are existence or being.

Imagine bad on the left and good on the right. What is the commonality between them? They are. Bad is. Good is. Again, “is” indicating existence or being. Bad and good balance as simply being:

It’s akin to -3 and +3 balancing or adding to 0.

The variance simplifies as being. All things are. All is. The balance, the equilibrium, the commonality is existence.

@ProfessorX

“Existence is not merely defined as “that which is” because “is” would have to be addressed which would involve perception. The matter implicitly involves perception and interaction; the term “is” only has significance with perception.” —I disagree with this. The term “is” refers simply to existing, to something being the case. It is essentially a tautological concept or a truism. Like you said before and which I agree with, existence simply exists. It is. There is no necessity for anyone to be perceiving it for it to exist. Likewise with “is” there is no reason this need involve any kind of perception of anything. For me the idea of “is” and the idea of “exists” are two different ways of saying the same thing.

The term “is” is a word, it concerns language, and language only has significance to perceptive beings.

If someone claims existence “is” they would have to explain what “is” means which would unavoidably involve perception.

It doesn’t really matter what you think the term means. The point is perception is required to attribute that meaning.

“Is” has no meaning by itself. “Is” is abstract and provides no actual explanation.

The ontology and essay resolve this issue by tying existence to perception, at least epistemologically. This grounds the abstraction in real world examples showing what existence is.

@ProfessorX

“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.” —I kind of agree with this, but I do think existence must have necessity behind it. It must be logically necessary that existence exists. Because if it were not logically necessary then it would not exist and there would be nothing.

You agree as is verbatim then attribute an alternative argument to the statement. That is not congruent with what was stated. You are arguing your own argument.

Additionally you already agreed that existence just is:

@ProfessorX

Like you said before and which I agree with, existence simply exists. It is.

Now you essentially retract that statement to make this argument.

The idea of necessity is just that, an idea. It is complexity encountered by conscious, perceptive beings. It doesn’t necessarily apply to existence itself.