The world is the totality of all things; it includes by definition absolutely everything. Nothing lies outside it, and nothing escapes its scope. It is the ultimate whole, the totality that is not part of anything else.

This leads to a paradox: if the world truly is everything, then the statement “the world is everything” must itself be part of everything. This, in turn, means that ‘the statement “the world is everything” must itself be part of everything’ is also part of everything. And so on and so forth, ad infinitum! In other words, if the world truly includes all things, it must also include itself as one of its own constituents. The world, as a single, all-encompassing whole, would have to be part of itself.

As Russell famously observed, the set of all sets that are not members of themselves leads to a contradiction: if it is a member of itself, then by definition it should not be; if it is not a member of itself, then by definition it should be. Either assumption implies its negation. Here is how he described it:

The comprehensive class we are considering, which is to embrace everything, must embrace itself as one of its members. In other words, if there is such a thing as “everything,” then, “everything” is something, and is a member of the class “everything.” But normally a class is not a member of itself. Mankind, for example, is not a man. Form now the assemblage of all classes which are not members of themselves. This is a class: is it a member of itself or not? If it is, it is one of those classes that are not members of themselves, i.e., it is not a member of itself. If it is not, it is not one of those classes that are not members of themselves, i.e. it is a member of itself. Thus of the two hypotheses – that it is, and that it is not, a member of itself – each implies its contradictory. This is a contradiction. -Introduction to mathematical philosophy, p.136, Chapter 13 (1919)

Russell introduced this paradox to show that unrestricted totalities generate inconsistency, and the paradox of the world as everything can be seen as an instance of the same underlying structure, applied not to sets, but to reality itself.

The paradox can also be expressed in epistemic terms: the world cannot be known as a whole, because all knowledge is necessarily situated within the world. The very idea of the world is incoherent, for the very act of speaking or thinking about it amounts to implicitely place oneself outside of it, to observe it from the outside. But this is logically impossible since the world includes by definition absolutely everything. There can be no external, omniscient, divine standpoint from which the world could be grasped in its totality, since any such standpoint would itself be part of it. Every description, theory, or image of the world is necessarily produced from within, from a particular position, perspective, or context. There is no absolute or total description of the world; only partial, situated, and limited perspectives.

*

The world, or the totality of everything, both has and has no limits. To draw a line between what is real and what is not, both sides of that line must in some sense be given. This requires that what is not real—i.e. non-being or nothingness—to stand as the limit of reality. Nothingness therefore both exists, insofar as it functions as the boundary of what is, and does not exist, insofar as it is nothing. The limit of the world as a whole is dialetheic: being and non-being coincide.

.

.

.

The world is the single, absolute, unrestricted, all-encompassing totality; it includes absolutely everything. Nothing lies outside it, and nothing escapes its scope. It is the ultimate whole, the totality that is not part of anything else.

However, this leads to a paradox: if the proposition « the world is everything » is true, then, by self-reference, it must itself be part of everything, which in turn renders the proposition false. Thus the statement “the world is everything” is both true and false.

So if the world truly exists, it must also include itself as one of its own constituents.

However, this leads to a paradox: if the world truly is everything, then, by self-reference, the statement “the world is everything” must itself be part of everything. This, in turn, means that ‘the statement must itself be part of everything’ is also part of everything. And so on and so forth, ad infinitum.

In other words, the very idea of the world as the single, all-encompassing whole is incoherent, for the very act of speaking or thinking about it amounts to implicitly place oneself outside of it, to observe it from the outside. But this is logically impossible since the world includes by definition absolutely everything.

Furthermore, the world cannot be bounded, for the very notion of a boundary logically implies something beyond it. Since a boundary separates an inside from an outside, anything bounded must have something on both sides. Yet the world is the totality of all that exists, and by definition, nothing lies outside it. Therefore, the world cannot have a boundary and must be infinite.

« No-world view » (metametaphysical nihilism): In order to solve this paradox, one might claim that there is no such thing as a single, all-encompassing totality. On this account, the world does not exist; there is no absolute whole that contains everything. The concept of “the world” is meaningless; it fails to refer to anything at all.

However, this leads to self-refutation: to say « the world does not exist » is to make a statement about the world, thereby implying the existence of the world. Conceivability implies actuality: one cannot claim that something does not exist without thereby committing to its existence.

In other words, if the world does not exist, than « the world does not exist » does not exist neither.

One cannot express the truth of such a view. If the world does not exist, then « the world does not exist » must itself not exist.

The world is ineffable/INCONCEIVABLE (including here (… $\infty$)). One cannot speak of the world without thereby stepping outside of it (including here (… $\infty$)).

The world is a dialetheia.

Absolute dialetheism: « The world is not a being » is a true contradiction

$\infty$-order metametaphysical nihilism (no-world view): the world does not exist (including « the world does not exist » does not exist (… $\infty$)). The world is not a being (including « the world is not a being » is not a being (… $\infty$)).