Nothing can be conceived as infinite; it can only be speculated to be if one can’t see that the object without borders is not an object and therefore absurd.
Definition for existence is conveniently missing as are the definitions for the infinite and essence.
Appealing to terms not defined. If existence were defined as relationship, clearly self-causation is impossible since at least 2 things (with illusory distinctness) are required to form a dipole (subject/object) and constitute existence. If existence is not defined as relationship, then I’m at a loss for a definition.
North and south constitute a magnet, but it’s one magnet; not two distinct parts. The magnet exists as a function of the universe, but it’s one universe; not universe + magnet as if the magnet could exist independent of the universe. Beyond that, I don’t know.
Things are defined by boundaries and the size of things are irrelevant. De+finiteness constitutes thingness. And “size” itself is a construct of the spacetime fabric; size isn’t something that intrinsically, timelessly, objectively exists. Time is also an emergent property.
This seems to mean things have borders which stands in opposition to the previous definition. Independence = borders. Nevermind the fact that borders join rather than separate which renders independent things impossible. All borders are held in common.
What is meant by essence? Substance? Substance of substance?
Looks like a good definition of existence: “is conceived through something other than itself”
What does infinite mean? Boundless? In that case, God is not a thing because he has no “skin” (borders). Further, if God has infinite attributes, then nonexistence is one of those attributes. Indeed, it’s his only attribute!
Absolute infinite is a oxymoron. Absolutes have definite boundaries. The number 1 is absolute, definite, and finite. It is not 1.00000000000000000000001 nor 0.9999999999999999999999, but only and absolutely 1.
This contradicts itself saying free things are things determined by themselves, but determined by things external to them.
Eternity = existence? Why limit existence to just a function of 1 of 4 dimensions of a construct that already exists when instead we could define existence as infinite time AND space. Probably because time and space would have to exist before it could engender existence, which doesn’t make sense. No, existence has nothing to do with spacial or temporal constructs (timeless and spaceless as opposed to infinite time and infinite space).
This appears to mean time cannot come about by a process of time, but neither can existence.
No it can’t. No one can conceive of things without beginnings or ends and “continuance” has no meaning nor relevance if there are no beginnings or ends. What’s ubiquitous is irrelevant. Relevant things have beginnings and ends.
He came close to defining existence as relationship here, except that I’m not sure how something can exist in relation to itself. Things exist in relation to what they are not. The north pole of a magnet exists in relation to the south pole and neither could exist independently because they are codependent.
What does “conceived” mean? Thought of as? Conceptualized? So “That which cannot be conceptualized through anything else must be conceptualized through itself.” Nope. Things are conceptualized by contrasting with what it is not.
Well, then does conceived mean “give birth to”? “That which cannot be birthed through anything else must be birthed through itself.” Hmm… That makes no sense. There is a third option: That which cannot be birthed through anything else must not have been birthed.
See how language can obfuscate? I wish people would strive to say what they mean.
How does cause influence effect? No one can answer that because it doesn’t. There is no such thing as cause or effect, but they are the same process and not separate things.
The following is built upon that faulty foundation:
What is knowledge?
A way of saying existence is relative I think.
This seems to be an assertion of objective existence.
Goes without saying.
If he is asserting the infinite, then where do modifications end or begin? It seems the assertion of a substance and essence undermines what he’s attempting to prove.
This is an axiom: things with nothing in common have nothing in common.
Cause and effect doesn’t exist and is an abstraction.
Distinct things are nonexistent to each other.
There cannot exist in the universe two or more substances period. Things are substantive only in relation to something else which makes them one thing. The sun gives no light if there is nothing around to see it (photon can’t leave until they already have a destination, according to Feynman).
Yes, one distinct thing cannot produce another distinct thing or else they would not be distinct, but in fact one thing.
Sure I guess.
We’ve already established the maximum number of things (substances, essences, whatever) to be one, so there is nothing produced and neither is there self-causation.
Every substance is necessarily infinite = Every substance is necessarily without boundaries which makes it not a substance because there is nothing that it’s not.