Before you delve into this, it’s imperative to note that I do NOT subscribe to this position. In the past, I did, when I was in the initial stages of the mystic archetype, but I longer hold to this position now. I simply want to see how people can refute this position.
Existence: that which is located within the limited and subjective framework of an awareness. In order for something to be said to “exist”, it must be located within this framework. If the universe is finite, then it has boundaries - that can be delineated. What contains the universe, then? what is its context? " It’s contained by nothing" you say. Welcome to no-thing-ness ; that which contains is greater than that which IS contained - the contained would be just an emanation of the original.
You say " The universe is infinite ". If it’s infinite, then it has no boundaries, context, or framework and, therefore, does not exist - as for something to be said, or purported to “exist”, it must exist within the context of a framework.
Another consideration: The ontology of experience is entirely subjective; all five senses are privy only to the awareness - other entities don’t have the same numerical experience, as you. Experiences may be correlated, consistent, but not identical.
Since our experiences are not the corollaries of direct-realism, they are projections - like dreams, which have no known/proven substantial reality underlying them. And for those, who claim that there is an objective reality, the onus is on them to demonstrate this.
Well if nothing exists then this thread doesn’t exist either so there’s nothing to refute.
Unless you admit something (namely, this thread) exists, we can’t even begin the discussion, and if we do begin the discussion you’ve already lost it since it means something exists.
What we call " reality " or " the universe " is an illusion, and as we know, illusions are not real.
So - yeah - this thread doesn’t, actually, exist - just like that flying pink elephant in Timmy’s dream was not, actually, real - real in the sense of having an indivisible substantial/material reality beyond the framework of awareness.
It may exist, but the onus is on the direct-realist, or whoever else, to prove this. Everything that we say exists, like a pencil for example, is located within the framework of perception.
Try to imagine something existing without this context - it’s impossible; even your imaginary perception of it existing objectively, is still located with the context of your imagination.
You do realize that existence of illusions IMPLIES existence of reality, since something being illusory means it is deceiving and misleading you from the truth(reality)?
So yes, in a sense, dreams (like the pink elephant) are illusions, but illusions are still nonetheless based on reality, just like concepts in fantasy stories are.
Are you sure about that? I mean, don’t get me wrong, duality/binary is everywhere, but not for everything necessarily. If that were the case, then that necessarily entails, say, that there is a realm of the eternal now, which is the qualitative negation of this becoming universe.
If you are going to claim that this universe is really " real ", the onus is on you.
You missed the point. An illusion by definition is something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality. You’re assuming there is a reality which is either being wrongly or rightly perceived.
Yes, the orthodox definition IS what you stated and implies what you wrote, butttt lets be more flexible, yeah? Perform some linguistic acrobatics, yeah?
Also, qualitative negation of this universe = static, eternal, immaterial, etc.
To analyze the position: Of course the conclusion “nothing exists” is false - it should be as you have noted, “context exists”. Thus there is no “the universe”. “Existence as a whole” is a contradiction. But “real existence” is not. Its just not properly delimited other than conceptually, as a delimitation of our notion of it.
Yes- existence as a totality, or whole, is incoherent. Also, my position is that “context” is, ultimately, an illusion, as it breaks down into immateriality, or ZERO.
I like using dream analogies, as they hit the sweet spot, like a son of a bitch.
Just apply the same impression you have about dreams, unto the " real world ". That’s what I mean, basically, about " nothing exists ".
My impression about dreams corresponds with my logical certainty, that only valuing properly exists. Nothing does not exist. That sentence applies in all ways it can be read.
Perhaps you are still holding on with a few toes to the objectivist position. From that view indeed what is ultimately seen as real is nothing. Death is the only objective state.
I’m not trying to say that " No-thing-ness " exists, in some positive sense, but rather that, the orthodox notion of " thingness " is a falsity. Atomism is dead.
Of course, I’m playing Devil’s advocate here, but let’s see how far the rabbit hole goes.
Bro, I know these concepts are difficult for you to understand, so take your time with it and come back when you have something to contribute to the thread, as opposed to girly passive-agressive questions, yeah?
