I agree. But do we need to agree on “what is” to agree on what to call the set of all “what is”? I’m thinking we’re always going to have to define such words as we use them; my everything is always going to bump up against someone else’s everything despite or because of what is in it.
And now the idea of a very old case of toenail fungus has somehow gotten into my everything.
How about the “Whole Sort of General Mish-Mash”?
Yes, there is an entire set of ideas that we define ***as if ***they existed, such as unicorns, ghosts and fictional characters (we know what Darth Vader looks like, though he doesn’t exist). In that sense, the ideas (as concepts or abstractions) exist, though there’s no corresponding entity in reality.
If you want a philosophical answer…God. If self-awareness is the definition of senescence then collectively you can extrapolate that we are God. Senescence allows us to create what does not exist therefore the total is greater than the sum.
Senescence is, roughly speaking, aging. I think you mean ‘sentience.’
Now tell me though, how is it that sentience is what allows us to create things that don’t exist? (What exactly do you mean by saying we can do that, anyway?) Also, when you say “The total is greater than the sum,” which total and which sum do you mean? Thirdly, how do you arrive at the conclusion that we are God from the assumption that we can create things that don’t exist? Finally, why do you say that since (as you say) we are God, it follows that the name for everything in the universe including God is “God?”
-FrL-
Fylock, thanks for the spelling correction. It’s difficult enough trying to exchange ideas if the medium is miss-used. As for your questions, I’m not sure I can answer them beyond what I’ve said unless I’ve misspelled something else.
Sentience is self-awareness capable of creating something from nothing (such as music). The objects that produce the music are not aware of the concept of the composition. Conceptually that is different than something like a volcano which randomly spews matter according to the laws of physics. The example of music is something that exists apart from the physical realm. It is something from nothing and thus greater than the sum of the parts (physical life). If God exists it is because the universe is understood, which is self-awareness of everything. The awareness of everything is greater than the sum of the parts.
Best I can do with what I’ve got.
I’ll take your intention to be poetic rather than argumentative. 
-FrL-
I can accept that someone’s idea of everything is God. (Though I can’t quite get a grasp on the recursive definition.) Can you see how, to others, the word God is not an apt synomym for everything? Putting aside the question of “what makes up everything”, can we agree on what to call that set?
We could agree on a name but I’m not capable of understanding what it means. I know the definition of infinity but I can’t comprehend the reality of it. I can’t grasp the idea that something always exists without a beginning as easy as I can understand the concept that once created, something can exist forever from that point on. It’s like believing in 1/2 of infinity. It hurts my brain.
I’m not trying to interject religion but every time I imagine a bigger picture I end up seeing the laws of physics. These laws cover everything from sub-atomic matter to energy in the form of photons. The connectivity of matter and energy (and time?) makes it an ordered structure. I can’t really verbalize the idea that to understand something in total it must be a part of you. I’m not the best wordsmith in manners philosophical.