Parsimoniously and empirically, the/this universe^ (seems) immanent, finite and unbounded (like the surface of a sphere or a torus or a Möbius / strange loop). To the degree this is the gist of your OP, daniel, I agree.

^set of existents

What if the limit is intrinsic to existence? what if it limits itself? — Daniel

Existence is unlimited in extent generally speaking. In a sense parts can limit other parts but as expressed they also give variance to existence, they perpetuate existence. This is why it is emphasized that only nothing or nonexistence could actually limit existence.

Remember existence is both part and whole. Existence is not limited to just part nor is existence limited to just the whole.

All things exist. From that it does not follow that existence is all things, as though there is an entity "existence" or "all things" over and above all the things that exist. — Janus

Correct. All things exist. All things are. All things are existence. "Are existence" is admittedly a bit redundant; however, "are" does denote "existence". "Are", "is", "am", etc., all mean "exist", they all denote "existence". For purposes of the idea conveyed the language works. Remember, existence is both part and whole. Hence singular and plural verbs and nouns.

There is no "entity existence" "over and above all the things that exist". Nor are "all things over and above all the things that exist". Those statements do not make sense. Existence isn't above all things. Existence is all things. All things are all things. There is no thing, there are no things over and above all things because that too would be part of all things. The entirety or whole is not beyond all things. The entirety or whole is all things. The entirety isn't separate from all things, it simply is all things and the connectedness of them.

What you're describing is nothingness. Perhaps what you mean though is that space is an ether.
"ether or aether, in physics and astronomy, a hypothetical medium for transmitting light and heat (radiation), filling all unoccupied space; it is also called luminiferous ether."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Non-standard_interpretations_in_modern_physics

This is an old physics theory that fell out of favor years ago once the theory of relativity was created. — Philosophim

Nothingness (nothing, nonexistence) and space, along with their differences, are clearly defined in the original essay.

Space has properties, volume and immateriality, and is existent.

Your best bet is the Quantum Vacuum theory.
"Quantum mechanics can be used to describe spacetime as being non-empty at extremely small scales, fluctuating and generating particle pairs that appear and disappear incredibly quickly."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Even then, note "appear and disappear incredibly quickly" At the moment of disappearance, there is "nothing". Now, it could be argued that there is something smaller or harder to detect, so perhaps we can't say for sure they really "disappeared", but this leaves another problem we've ignored until now, "space between other things". — Philosophim

There must be some capacity for the particles to appear or disappear. That would be space. If the particles disappear what remains is space, what remains is still existence.

Whether particles or space, both are things, both are existent. Both particles and space are instances of, are parts or aspects of existence. Nothing, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

While yes an atom is composed of neutrons, electrons, and protons, there is space between them. And yes, there are quarks floating in and around, but there is space between those as well. And when we get to the smallest particles appearing and disappearing, there is space there as well. — Philosophim

Space, as you concede, is not nonexistent.

Space, or immaterial expanse, is not the same as nothing or nonexistence.

Space, as you concede, is not nonexistent.

Space, or immaterial expanse, is not the same as nothing or nonexistence. — daniel j lavender

Just semantics at that point then. I think you're confusing our ability to create words and identities as if that makes them "things". If you're going the route of, "As long as one thing exists, then nothingness around it exists as well in relation to it," yes, that's fine. But its existence is an identity of nothingness we've created. Around that one thing, there is no actual existence.

I suppose the greater question for you is, what is your motivation that "nothing" not be possible? I think its the clear norm here, and easily proven. So why are you against it?

Non-existence doesn't exist by definition therefore existence must always exist?
Ok, I can make the same argument for anything...
Eg. Non-thinking can't exist because by definition it doesn't exist. Therefore there is never non-thinking. — Yohan

Non-thinking is a quality or attribute, a state similar to nonconsciousness. It is attributed to some thing. Shoelaces are considered to be non-thinking, for example. Non-thinking concerns mental constructs and qualities, it concerns thinking or thought or the lack thereof. Non-thinking is itself a thing as it is perceived and acknowledged in discussion here. Non-thinking is, non-thinking exists. Non-thinking is not nonexistent nor is non-thinking nonexistence.

Non-God can't exist, therefore there must be a God. — Yohan

"Non-God" is a quality, a circumstance or condition, a viewpoint, perhaps a position in opposition to a theistic one, and is existent. Non-God, like non-thinking, is not nonexistent. Non-God and non-thinking could also be viewed as absence of those things, of God or of thinking, in which case absence itself is a thing, a circumstance, a condition, a reference to those other things.

So basically, if this argument works to prove existence is always existing, it must also prove that everything that exists always exist, since the existence of their absence is impossible.
Hmm, might actually have some merit. — Yohan

Things are not always in the same place, arrangement or form. Things change. Things shift and move around. Things are still things however, change does not evoke nonexistence. Existence is constant; existence persists through change.

Absence is not impossible. Absence, as illustrated in the original essay and above, certainly is a possibility. However absence is not the same as nonexistence nor does absence evoke nonexistence. Absence of some thing does not concern nonexistence nor does absence equal nonexistence. Absence concerns some particular subject, some particular time and some particular location. Although some thing may seem to be absent any given situation still only concerns things. This is further elaborated in the Nonexistence Cannot Be section beneath Additional Notes.

:up: Excellent presentation!
(Well, except maybe its length! :smile:)

It serves as an example of how someone should introduce a topic, esp. the definitions of terms you are giving, which, independenly of whether the reader agrees with or not, they make clear what you mean by them and how you apply them to your description.

You are welcome!

Purple flying elephants have properties. They're purple, they're elephants, and they fly. But they don't exist. — fishfry

Then to what are you referring? Nothing? That doesn't make sense.

Reference to a thing is acknowledgement of that thing. In this case a conceptual thing or conceptual things, at the least.

Every reference is to existence.

Fantasies absolutely exist.

Just semantics at that point then. — Philosophim

Not entirely. I’m discussing space, something with qualities, with properties. You’re discussing nonexistence, no properties, no qualities. It isn’t just an issue of word selection. There’s quite a difference.

If you're going the route of, "As long as one thing exists, then nothingness around it exists as well in relation to it," yes, that's fine. But its existence is an identity of nothingness we've created. Around that one thing, there is no actual existence. — Philosophim

First and foremost if one thing exists nothingness does not. Something and nothing cannot coexist. If there is something there is not nothing. As stated nothingness, nonexistence cannot exist at all.

You claim there is nothing or nonexistence around that single thing. To the contrary, I contend existence, I contend space is around it.

Many will suggest space is only distance, that space is simply distance between two masses. That space is nonexistent, or space is imperceptible if there is no other mass or object beyond.

Let’s say the aforementioned single object split into two and those masses dispersed. What allowed that occurrence? Nothingness, nonexistence with no properties, no capacity? Or space, immaterial expanse with capacity to allow such dispersion?

Further, what about the surrounding environment changed when the single thing split into two? No quality changed. The environment is the same. The object just split into two. So before the environment was nothingness. But suddenly, magically, when the object split into two nothingness became space because distance. Preposterous.

Let’s say the single object, rather than splitting, stretches or expands. In that case more material isn’t necessarily added to the object but rather space is shifted, additional space is incorporated into the expanding object covering more area. The material becomes less dense as the object expands. Nothingness doesn’t magically become space. Nothingness doesn’t magically become more matter. Nothingness has no place in the equation whatsoever. Space simply shifts around with matter, with other phenomena and activity.

As for space itself expanding, or the expanding space/expanding universe system that is addressed in the Expanding Universe section in the original essay.

Space has properties or qualities. Space has demonstrable interaction as illustrated here. Nonexistence, nothing does not. Space and nonexistence are not the same. Space is. Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

I suppose the greater question for you is, what is your motivation that "nothing" not be possible? — Philosophim

It isn’t my motivation. Besides, that’s the wrong way to approach things. One shouldn’t just blindly act because one is motivated. One should go where thoughtful consideration and evidence leads them. One observes and then contemplates those observations, one evaluates evidence and arrives at a conclusion or develops an idea. Personal motivation isn’t always sufficient reason to engage such things.

Returning to my previous statement:

There must be some capacity for the particles to appear or disappear. That would be space. If the particles disappear what remains is space, what remains is still existence. — daniel j lavender

Many may argue this to be the quantum field, not space, suggesting particles which appear and disappear are fluctuations in the field. In which case the quantum field and all other activity and phenomena would still be existence, not nonexistence or nothingness.

Existence is infinite but astathmēta. So ... ?

Space has properties or qualities, for example, space is voluminous; space has volume. Space is immaterial. Further space can be interacted with. An object simply moving through space is an interaction with space. — daniel j lavender

You claim there is nothing or nonexistence around that single thing. To the contrary, I contend existence, I contend space is around it. — daniel j lavender

What is space then? Is it a thing we can touch and measure? No, its not. Space is 'nothing'. Its simply an identity we created to describe the idea of there being a "thing", and then there being "no thing" around it. Your personal identities may or may not represent reality. In the case of space in reality, it is "no thing". You can say its "something", but it is only "some thing" as your personal invented identity. In terms of measurement and reality, it is "no thing".

Let’s say the aforementioned single object split into two and those masses dispersed. What allowed that occurrence? Nothingness, nonexistence with no properties, no capacity? Or space, immaterial expanse with capacity to allow such dispersion? — daniel j lavender

The only reason we realize they've dispersed is by observed relation to one other. There is a thing at points, a, b, and c. We can use "things" that we know abstractly to measure a distance. So we can invent a foot being "this" big. Then note that there are three feet of distance between them. That doesn't mean there is "some thing" between the split. There's just an abstract identity we use in language.

To sum, identity does not equal reality. Our ideas of identity that represent reality, are not guarunteed to match reality. You seem to believe that because you can create an identity in your mind, it must therefore exist apart from your mind in reality. It does not have to at all.

The object just split into two. So before the environment was nothingness. But suddenly, magically, when the object split into two nothingness became space because distance. Preposterous. — daniel j lavender

Not preposterous at all. As I've noted, your ability to create an identity does not mean reality has changed. There is still "no thing" in between them. You've simply created an abstraction in your mind, then believe what you created in your mind must exist as "some thing" in reality. It exists as nothing more than an abstraction in your mind. To show otherwise, try to prove it.

Let’s say the single object, rather than splitting, stretches or expands. In that case more material isn’t necessarily added to the object but rather space is shifted, additional space is incorporated into the expanding object covering more area. The material becomes less dense as the object expands. Nothingness doesn’t magically become space. — daniel j lavender

There's no magic here. For something to stretch, there must be more space between its molecules that bind it together. Its the same as a full 3 split, just at an elemental level.

Space has properties or qualities. Space has demonstrable interaction as illustrated here. Nonexistence, nothing does not. Space and nonexistence are not the same. Space is. Nonexistence is not and cannot be.

Space (n.): Immaterial medium or expanse; that which matter or energy could occupy or be transmitted through. Absence of space indicates presence of matter or energy. — daniel j lavender

What is an "immaterial medium or expance" then? Is it a "thing"? There is an old philosophical and scientific theory of "ether". It was the medium which all things traveled through. That has been disproven. https://www.britannica.com/science/ether-theoretical-substance

Due to this, we can safely state that "space" is not a medium when the absense of space indicates the presence of matter or energy. "Nothingness" is the absence of matter or energy. To show that "nothing" is "some thing", you would need to demonstrate some existent property that is not matter or energy. No one has been able to do that so far. So until that happens, "nothingness" is real.

I suppose the greater question for you is, what is your motivation that "nothing" not be possible?
— Philosophim

It isn’t my motivation. — daniel j lavender

That did not answer my question. That was an evasion because you distrust that admitting your motivation will diminish you in my eyes. It will not. Everyone has a motivation for doing things, and often times I find that people will go to great lengths in inventing and creating ideas that serve that motivation without asking themselves if they're being honest about it.

There is only one motivation we should care about. Truth. Cold, unfeeling, horrifying truth that takes our feelings and stamps them to the ground. Until that is your motivation, everything you think of will be tainted in another direction. Sometimes truth fits our worldview wonderfully, other times it does not.

I hold the viewpoint of scientific and culturally normal conclusions. You do not. Why? That may be more pertinent to examine then attempting to negate commonly held knowledge.

Returning to my previous statement:

There must be some capacity for the particles to appear or disappear. That would be space. If the particles disappear what remains is space, what remains is still existence.
— daniel j lavender

Many may argue this to be the quantum field, not space, suggesting particles which appear and disappear are fluctuations in the field. In which case the quantum field and all other activity and phenomena would still be existence, — daniel j lavender

If particles actually disappear, then nothing is left over. In the case of describing a quantum field, no one would object to this. A quantum field is a mathematical abstraction for measurement however, and has not been proven to exist everywhere without any "nothingness" in between it. If this can be proven, then we return to the ether theory as being scientific knowledge. But until that day arrives, "nothingness" is real.

my issue would be that if conservation of energy rings true, there is finitude to the substance of existence - both in potency/ rate of reaction as well as quantity (as energy is equivalent to matter).

Equations don't deal with infinities, they deal with ratios of discrete entities. You cannot have an "equals/=" in an infinite system. Only a discrete/finite one.

I could be on board with change or the "quality of a system" being infinite as energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore time/action/doing is eternal. But as for quantity (being) , I don't think it is infinite.

If the material was infinite, there'd be no need for change, as we could just have a physics in which matter is continuously added to the system in a stable way where change doesn't occur.

There is only one motivation we should care about. Truth. Cold, unfeeling, horrifying truth that takes our feelings and stamps them to the ground. Until that is your motivation, everything you think of will be tainted in another direction. Sometimes truth fits our worldview wonderfully, other times it does not. — Philosophim

I guess Foucault won’t be on your reading list any time soon.

Reality doesn't care whether you've read Foucault.

↪Joshs Reality doesn't care whether you've read Foucault — Banno

Thank you for that exemplification of how some of us use the word ‘reality’.

You ignored the first point:

First and foremost if one thing exists nothingness does not. Something and nothing cannot coexist. If there is something there is not nothing. — daniel j lavender

This is a fundamental principle.

Something and nothing cannot coexist.

If there is something there is not nothing. So how can there be something, how can there be things and nothing? How can there be something and nothingness?

You have already violated a basic principle. Why go any further?

What is space then? Is it a thing we can touch and measure? No, its not. Space is 'nothing'. — Philosophim

Space is clearly defined in the original essay.

Space is immaterial. It isn’t like a keyboard which we can touch.

Space can be measured by volume. Space can be measured as the area or distance between or among masses or objects (material things) similar to the way other things are measured.

Space can be measured arbitrarily from one point to another. In the hypothetical case of a single object or most-distant object space can be measured from that point beyond and considered to be indefinite from that point.

Nothingness, nonexistence has no capacity to be measured.

The only reason we realize they've dispersed is by observed relation to one other. — Philosophim

Two objects are realized because of space, because of the separation expanse allows.

There is a thing at points, a, b, and c. We can use "things" that we know abstractly to measure a distance. — Philosophim

A, B and C? Where did C come from? I thought there were only two things? At first only one? Now there are three?

As stated, you magically turned nothing into something. Nothingness became C; nonexistence magically became space because distance. Nonexistence, nothing cannot magically become something. Nonexistence, nothing cannot be.

Again, what about the surrounding environment changed? No quality changed. The environment is the same. The object simply split in two. Things simply shifted around. But suddenly, magically, the surrounding nothingness transformed. Suddenly, magically nothingness became something. Suddenly space is perceptible, suddenly space is measurable. Preposterous.

You've simply created an abstraction in your mind, then believe what you created in your mind must exist as "some thing" in reality. It exists as nothing more than an abstraction in your mind. — Philosophim

Precisely the case when nothingness is said to be real or around some thing.

For something to stretch, there must be more space between its molecules that bind it together. — Philosophim

Correct.

More space. Not nothingness or nonexistence. Nor does nothingness or nonexistence magically transform into space.

Due to this, we can safely state that "space" is not a medium when the absense of space indicates the presence of matter or energy. "Nothingness" is the absence of matter or energy. — Philosophim

Nothingness is nonexistence, nothing, no thing. Nothingness is not to have any qualities, properties or extent.

Absence is not the same as nonexistence or nothingness. This is further explained in the Nonexistence Cannot Be section of the original essay and in my response to Yohan above.

To show that "nothing" is "some thing", you would need to demonstrate some existent property that is not matter or energy. No one has been able to do that so far. So until that happens, "nothingness" is real. — Philosophim

“Nothing” is something as illustrated here. A word. A term. A concept. A contradictory concept, word or term as defined in the original essay.

Space is also something and has properties or qualities. Space is immaterial. Space can be measured as illustrated above.

Nothing, nothingness, nonexistence, beyond the concept or term, does not exist and has no qualities, properties or extent.

Space is. Nothing, nothingness, nonexistence is not and cannot be.

There is only one motivation we should care about. Truth. Cold, unfeeling, horrifying truth… — Philosophim

Was that not implied by my statements? Must one not observe, evaluate evidence and consider things carefully to discern truth?

You claim absence of matter and energy indicates presence of nonexistence. However nonexistence is not and cannot be. Nonexistence by definition cannot be. The contrast of matter, of the material or physical is not nothingness or nonexistence. The contrast of matter or of the material is the immaterial, is immateriality.

The material, materiality, physicality is finite, it is limited by immateriality. Immateriality is finite, it is limited by materiality, by physicality. Generally speaking, however, existence is unlimited. Existence is infinite.

You are essentially claiming that existence just stops, that existence somehow just ends. That existence transitions into nothingness. It’s like saying existence ends where the ocean begins.

Returning to the general point and your earlier statement:

nothingness around it exists — Philosophim

Such a statement simply does not make sense.

Nothingness or nonexistence, which by definition cannot be, certainly cannot be around any thing.

If there is some thing there is not nothing or nothingness.

Nothingness, nonexistence cannot be.

There are only things. There is only existence.