Why something rather than nothing?

[magpies]

Yes facts are just opinions strongly held ones at that.

I do believe this question of why something rather then nothing is a good one but... I don't think anyone can really answer it. Its sort of like the what came before the thing that came before question. It might be better to instead ask what do we do now that we know about its complexity type of thing. In that case I would say learning how to better control ourselfs would be a good start. We would have to make some assumptions about what we are first and ignore the fact that we don't know the truth of what we are fully.

 

[Galteeth]

Yes facts are just opinions strongly held ones at that.

I do believe this question of why something rather then nothing is a good one but... I don't think anyone can really answer it. Its sort of like the what came before the thing that came before question. It might be better to instead ask what do we do now that we know about its complexity type of thing. In that case I would say learning how to better control ourselfs would be a good start. We would have to make some assumptions about what we are first and ignore the fact that we don't know the truth of what we are fully.

I got the "properties of zero thing" from David Pearce's website. The site is primarily about the philosophical impliations of genetic engineering (taken to the extreme of consciousness engneering) but he does have a section on this question, not giving an answer but analyzing the parameters of the question, and various ways in which the universe is related to nothingness by means of the concept of zero. This was written sometime ago, so a few things are a bit out of date (when taking about black holes, he doesn't mention the holographic principle at all)
http://www.hedweb.com/nihilism/nihilfil.htm This is page one, there are nine pages.

 

[Galteeth]

Here is another philosophical paper, linked to at the end of the previous one, that discusses the human dimensions of the question in regards to various suppositions of its validity.

http://www.hedweb.com/witherall/existence.htm

 

[vectorcube]

And what are facts? Do they exist as facts qua a circumstance?

If you taken any courses that introduces your to modern philosophy, they most certainly teachs you what facts is. I have also mention it many times in PF.

 

[apeiron]

If you taken any courses that introduces your to modern philosophy, they most certainly teachs you what facts is. I have also mention it many times in PF.

I was asking for a justification of your position. I realize that is difficult.

 

[vectorcube]

I was asking for a justification of your position. I realize that is difficult.

You ask me what "facts" mean, and i am telling you i am using it in the conventional way by philosophers. It makes no sense to ask for a justification of a definition. If you have problems with it, then your beef is not with me. You beef is with modern analytic philosophy.

 

[apeiron]

It makes no sense to ask for a justification of a definition.

?

If you don't like the conclusion don't you always challenge the premises?

Certainly I agree that the failure to model "facts" correctly - as events in contexts - is a central problem in modern, largely anglo-saxon, analytic thinking.

You are defending this approach so it seems fair you should defend one of its essential elements.

 

[vectorcube]

?

If you don't like the conclusion don't you always challenge the premises?

Like i said defore, i don ` t have a justification for the definition of the word "fact". It is given in any philosophical dictionary.

You are defending this approach so it seems fair you should defend one of its essential elements.

The word "facts" is defined by philosophers in a certain way, and i used it according to the standard convention. I am not at all committed to a particular view just because i use the word, and i don` t see why you would think so.

 

[tauon]

For the 100 times. NO!

nothing is not a state of affair, and so the scheme does not apply. What you have here does not make any sense.

for the 1000th time: of course "nothing" is NOT a "state of affair"!

but as I said, the question fits in the pattern "why A and not Q?" where A is the fact of being a state of affair (existence, being: whatever you may label it) and Q is not a state of affair... -_-

it's like asking: why are the states of affair (gawd, this line is beginning to sound incredibly annoying) instead of not being any states of affair. the question "works". you just need to ask it right. whether it is answerable or not: that's a whole different matter altogether.

but of course, the pattern is merely symbolical. since we are somethings, we need something... so we use a something to inquire about not-something... like the symbol ∅ for the empty set etc. jeez what's so hard to get that? why are you so stuck in formalism? you confuse the term denoting the thing (or the lack of any thing) for the thing itself (or lack of).

 

[tauon]

Like i said defore, i don ` t have a justification for the definition of the word "fact". It is given in any philosophical dictionary.

... ... a philosophical dictionary? hahaha
you're joking right? o_0

The word "facts" is defined by philosophers in a certain way, and i used it according to the standard convention. I am not at all committed to a particular view just because i use the word, and i don` t see why you would think so.

the word "fact" while it holds a relatively similar meaning/definition for almost everyone, it can be highly nuanced. furthermore, whether that definition correlates with "reality" is also something that different people while having a generally similar view of, may hold some divergent ideas for it.

as for you constantly touting "defined/said by philosophers" here and there, that it is meaningless and irrelevant- argumentum ad verecundiam -_-

 

[apeiron]

Like i said defore, i don ` t have a justification for the definition of the word "fact". It is given in any philosophical dictionary.
.

If you remember, what you were ducking was the request for a justification of your use of "state of affairs".

I pointed out that this is a dichotomistic term, one that signifies the global scale (state) and the local scale (affairs). I asked did you notice this fact and understand its logical significance?

So focus, as you keep demanding of everyone else.

 

[vectorcube]

for the 1000th time: of course "nothing" is NOT a "state of affair"!

but as I said, the question fits in the pattern "why A and not Q?" where A is the fact of being a state of affair (existence, being: whatever you may label it) and Q is not a state of affair... -_-

QUOTE]


Here is what is wrong. A, and Q needs to be a state of affair for the scheme to work.

If G is a not a state of affair. I don ` t see why "not G" is a state of affair.

it's like asking: why are the states of affair (gawd, this line is beginning to sound incredibly annoying) instead of not being any states of affair. the question "works". you just need to ask it right.

It does not work that way. *Something* that is NOT a state of affair do not fit into the scheme.

 

[vectorcube]

... ... a philosophical dictionary? hahaha
you're joking right? o_0

Are joking by saying this? hahaha

I think a word when used that commonly within philosophy have a high probability of being in a dictionary. It is a very likely of being in a philosophy dictionary. Why is that surprising?
Why is that funny?

as for you constantly touting "defined/said by philosophers" here and there, that it is meaningless and irrelevant

Why? It is crazy. It is like talking about modality, and not knowing what "possible world" means. Don ` t you want to know what are "possible worlds" mean. Why can ` t i define it according to what philosophers conventional hold to be the case? You make no sense here.

 

[vectorcube]

If you remember, what you were ducking was the request for a justification of your use of "state of affairs".

What is there to justify? I see a table in front of me is a state of affair. Do you really want a justification? weird...

I pointed out that this is a dichotomistic term, one that signifies the global scale (state) and the local scale (affairs).

Well, i have no idea what dichotomistic mean.

I asked did you notice this fact and understand its logical significance?

Don` t know anything about it. I was not really paying attention, because of 1.

 

[apeiron]

Well, i have no idea what dichotomistic mean.

As you would say, are you crazy, what you mean, everyone know, look it up in the dictionary, etc.

 

[ValenceE]

Vectorcube,

If you may, I’d like to get back to your OP…

P) Why is there something rather than nothing?

Analysis:

Take the general form of the question as: Why is there A rather than B?
Where A, and B stands for facts, or state of affair.

A general form of the answer would be something like the following:

There exist fact C such that C makes the obtaining of fact A more likely than the obtaining of fact B. So, when comfronted with "why A rather than B?". One need only to find this unique C that would make A more likely than B.

So, if we are to answer P, then we have to find a fact C such that C makes something more likely than nothing. This is absurd, because C is part of something, and thus, there is no fact of the matter that would make something more likely than nothing. What does this mean? It means that there is no underlying reason for why there is something rather than nothing. That the existence of something is a brute fact.

You start by asking why A rather than B and then give a possible answer by introducing C as a catalyst favouring A over B.

So far this makes sense. Where you go astray is when you assign SOMETHING to A and NOTHING to B, then apply your logical process…

In the initial proposition, BOTH A and B are ‘somethings’ since they are defined as facts, or state of affairs. So, why change the initial context in assigning NOTHING to B? This only brings about the nonsensical answer or explanation you’re trying to use as a thread starter. Furthermore this certainly doesn’t give any reason or proof that ‘something’ has no underlying favouring source.

And, by the way, it is my strong belief that, even if ‘nothing’ would have been, rather than ‘something’, it would still be infinite and able to give rise to mathematics, as it would be equal to Unity.

It then could probably evolve into 'something'. So, maybe we should look into the possibility and hopes of 'nothingness' to exist, or even survive... I don't think it can exist other than also being a state of affair, and, using your arguments, merge with C to become, in itself, the underlying reason for 'something' rather than 'nothing'


Regards,

VE

 

[qsa]

As you would say, are you crazy, what you mean, everyone know, look it up in the dictionary, etc.

don't tell me, you name is John McCrone

the reviews for your books don't look all that great. But I for one still commend you.
I commend anybody who tries his best. You should have stated your website earlier so that we would have had more interseting debate.

 

[apeiron]

don't tell me, you name is John McCrone

Sshhh! I am in enough trouble with the moderators here as it is.

the reviews for your books don't look all that great.

"John McCrone's Going Inside is far superior to the vast majority of recent tomes on cognitive neuroscience for the general reader. He rounds up the usual suspects, but at least he does so with some care."
John C Marshall, Nature 400, 132 (1999)

...but what does an Oxford professor reviewing in some flaky journal called Nature really know...

 

[vectorcube]

As you would say, are you crazy, what you mean, everyone know, look it up in the dictionary, etc.

Must be one of those made up words, GREAT.

 

[apeiron]

Must be one of those made up words, AGAIN.

Surely to be consistent with modal realism, every possible word must be actual. And indeed actually refer to some possible concept. So what is your objection exactly?

Anyway, seems to be an actual term in this actual world...

di·chot·o·my
Pronunciation: \dī-ˈkä-tə-mē also də-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural di·chot·o·mies
Etymology: Greek dichotomia, from dichotomos
1 : a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities <the dichotomy between theory and practice>; also : the process or practice of making such a division <dichotomy of the population into two opposed classes>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dichotomy

 

[vectorcube]

Surely to be consistent with modal realism, every possible word must be actual. And indeed actually refer to some possible concept. So what is your objection exactly?

Anyway, seems to be an actual term in this actual world...

di·chot·o·my
Pronunciation: \dī-ˈkä-tə-mē also də-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural di·chot·o·mies
Etymology: Greek dichotomia, from dichotomos
1 : a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities <the dichotomy between theory and practice>; also : the process or practice of making such a division <dichotomy of the population into two opposed classes>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dichotomy

I have a feeling you would do that.

I never hear people say "dichotomistic term". I know what a dichotomy is. I don` t know what you are asking me.


modal realism variants are very popular. There are a lot of following.

 

[apeiron]

I never hear people say "dichotomistic term". I know what a dichotomy is. I don` t know what you are asking me.

-istic (is′tik) - of or relating to an action, practice, doctrine, quality, etc
http://www.yourdictionary.com/istic-suffix

So you already know dichotomy and now you know -istic.

 

[vectorcube]

-istic (is′tik) - of or relating to an action, practice, doctrine, quality, etc
http://www.yourdictionary.com/istic-suffix

So you already know dichotomy and now you know -istic.

wonderful. I think you are mad or something, because it seems you love to talk about everything except philosophy.

 

[jocaxx]

The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]
João Carlos Holland de Barcellos
translated by Debora Policastro

The “Jocaxian Nothingness” (JN) is the “Nothingness” that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.

In order to understand and intuit JN as an “existent nothingness”, we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.

JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call “Trivial Nothingness” to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the “Trivial Nothing” follows a rule: “Nothing can happen”. Thus, the “Trivial Nothingness”, the nothingness people generally think of when talking about “nothingness”, is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.

Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: “If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist”. No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:

1- Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)

2- Has no laws (no rules of any kind).

Being so, JN could have physically existed. JN is a construction that differs from the “trivial nothingness” since it does not contain the rule “Nothing can happen”. That way, Jocax liberates his JN from semantic paradoxes like: “If it exists, then it does not exist” and claims that this nothingness is SOMETHING that could have existed. That is, JN is the simpler possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.

We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a “Jocaxian-Nothingness”. The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state “has no physical elements”; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).

Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the “Occam’s Razor”, it must be the simpler state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself – defined as a set of all existing things – in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.

JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: “it may or may NOT happen”. This tautology – absolute logical truth – as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).

We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue “indefinitely” (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.

We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression. We are dealing with two types of “Jocaxian-Nothingness”: the physical object named “JN”, which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above; and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text), uses logical rules to help us understand the JN-Object. But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object.

Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen. There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen, then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in a system without premises: “something happens or not”. If something occasionally happens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally random and unpredictable.

We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once they come from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them, they would seem completely “schizophrenic”. Of course with the first randomizations, JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms. Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself – would have to obey.

Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logical rules?”

Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo, since it is the simpler possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.

 

[jocaxx]

The “Jocaxian Nothingness” F.A.Q.
Frequently asked questions about the Jocaxian Nothingness “JN”
Jocax, Feb/2009
Translated by Debora Policastro



1 – What is the Jocaxian Nothingness (JN)?

A: The JN, differently from existent things, presents the following properties:
P1- There are no physical elements of any kind (matter, space or energy).
P2- There are no laws of any kind.

2- Does the JN exist?
A: We can only say that the JN exists in case something that has the properties of a JN (P1 and P2 above) exists. Nowadays, the JN does not exist anymore, but it could have existed in a distant past, before the Big-Bang.

3- Is the JN a being?
A: Yes. Once it has properties, it should exist in order to be a recipient of such properties.

4- Could the Jocaxian-Nothingness feature of not having any rules or laws be a rule itself?
A: No. A rule establishes some kind of restriction. For instance: “my car must be red” is a rule, but “my car is red” is not a rule, but the state of the car. Occasionally, the car could be painted blue. Establishing that the “Jocaxian Nothingness” is the state of nature in which there are no rules is not a rule that must be followed, but also a state of nature that could change (or not).

5- Would saying that anything can happen be a rule? An imposition to the Jocaxian Nothingness?
A: Yes. However, if you look at the text I emphasize that in the Jocaxian Nothingness anything can happen OR NOT. This is not a rule, but a logical tautology, an absolute truth in any circumstances or scenarios. That implies that the Jocaxian Nothingness, just like anything, follows a tautology (an absolute truth), not a rule.

6- The Jocaxian Nothingness does not have physical elements or laws. Does it have any POTENTIAL?
A: If “potential” means the possibility of transforming itself, the answer is yes. However, we must bear in mind that possibility is not certainty. The Jocaxian Nothingness could eventually never become or generate something else.

7- Would the Trivial Nothingness, where nothing can happen, be more likely than the “JN”?
A: No! The nothingness people usually think of, which I called “the trivial nothingness” (TN) is infinitely more unlikely to happen as the origin of the universe than the JN. The “trivial nothingness” would have INFINITE embedded rules that must be followed, i.e. it could not generate fields, space, it could not generate a chair; it could not generate physical laws, god, a Big-Bang, life, particles, etc.

8 – Is the “Inexistent Nothingness” purer than the JN?
A: The Inexistent Nothingness is a “nothingness” where nothing exists, not even itself!
Therefore, it is intrinsically contradictory. Since it does not exist, it could not have properties, but once it has the “not having anything” property, it should exist. Thus, if the “IN” exists, it cannot be inexistent, and if it is inexistent, it cannot exist. It is a contradiction, and that is why it was not used as the generator of the cosmos.

9 – What is the difference between the “Universe” and the “Cosmos”?
A: The Universe is the aggregation of everything that exists. Thus, each possible “Bubble Universe” or “Multi-Universe” is, in fact, part of the same Universe. That is why it is more correct to name each “Bubble Universe” as “Bubble Cosmos”. Therefore, a Cosmos would be a place in the universe governed by its own physical laws, isolated and with no interconnection with other cosmos.

10- Is the JN the Universe or has the JN originated the Universe?
A: If we understand the definition of the Universe as being the aggregation of all that exists, the JN would be the universe itself. It would be the universe in its minimal state, the simplest state possible. Therefore, the JN could not originate the universe, since it is the universe itself, where time does not exist. Later it could have materialized randomly one or more cosmos.

11- Is the JN limited to our logic? Could it be illogical?
A: There are two interrelated concepts about the Jocaxian Nothingness: The Jocaxian Nothingness Object (JN-Object) and the Theory about this JN-Object (JN-Theory). The JN-Object is defined as something that has properties relative to the JN (P1 and P2) above. The theory about the JN (JN-Theory) is based on logic and explains how the JN-Object could have materialized our cosmos at random. It is possible to say that the JN-Object does not have laws therefore it does not need to obey logic, and is it correct, indeed. However, by analyzing the JN-Object from our classic logic, we are not attaching new possibilities to the JN-Object, but the opposite: we could, in fact, be limiting the possibilities of the JN-Object which means, maybe it could be more totipotent than we can imagine.

12- Is the JN no longer a JN in case it have materialized something randomly, therefore losing the capacity of doing it?
A: The materializations of the JN are called “schizo-creations”. The Universe was in a JN form. When the first schizo-creation of the JN happens, it means that the JN cannot be the JN anymore, as now the universe has at least one element: its first schizo-creation. In case this schizo-creation is not a law that prevents the universe from materializing other things, like a law that transforms it into a trivial nothingness, then this schizo-creation, which is the evolved JN (EJN), could occasionally continue to generate schizo-creations. Only the generation of laws that restrict the generation of laws could prevent new schizo-creations.

13- Is it possible to isolate a portion of the cosmos and transform it in a JN?

A: Hardly. Since our cosmos is flooded with physical laws, in order to create a JN it would be necessary to withdraw all the physical laws from that portion. No one knows yet if it is possible or how it could be done.

14- Is it necessary to sort laws temporally in order to have a natural selection of laws? That is, would time be a prerequisite?
A: It would not be a big problem in case we needed some “time law” or “time” itself to sort laws materialized by the JN. It would be enough only to “wait” that one of the schizo-creations was a temporal law. Thereafter new laws would be sorted and undergo the “natural selection”.

15- What is the evidence that our cosmos came from a JN?
A: The evidence would be a logical universe where there are no physical contradictions between its physical elements.

 

[debra]

JN is nonsense - reminicent of string theories dimensions which is also nonsense.

The only requirement for a universe is that numbers & mathematics can exist. And numbers need no physical space and have no mass or size at all. The idea of size is only mathematical.

The concept of 'where is' has no real meaning because that idea is an abstraction of mathematical volumes and is not real as of itself. Its true in the context of mathematics only, and has no truth outside of mathematics. Its easy and simple to grasp.

A place is a mathematical abstraction. I repeat, 3D space - is mathematical only. There could be no other form of it at all. So
JN is an academic argument based on a misconception. (the misconception? the idea that space is real and physical - it cannot possibly be so - space is entirely and completely mathematical in origin - it could not be anything else)

 

[jocaxx]

I don't thinh so.

Space is the set of the points where the things could be.
If there are no things then there are NO SPACE.

It is like time: if it have no change ( no state changes) then there is no time too.

By the way, mathematics only exists if there is logic too.

If there is not logic also there is not mathematics.

Beside this, the logic is more complex than the nothingness then there is a necessity of explanation to its existence.

 

[Sorry!]

JN is nonsense - reminicent of string theories dimensions which is also nonsense.

The only requirement for a universe is that numbers & mathematics can exist. And numbers need no physical space and have no mass or size at all. The idea of size is only mathematical.

The concept of 'where is' has no real meaning because that idea is an abstraction of mathematical volumes and is not real as of itself. Its true in the context of mathematics only, and has no truth outside of mathematics. Its easy and simple to grasp.

A place is a mathematical abstraction. I repeat, 3D space - is mathematical only. There could be no other form of it at all. So
JN is an academic argument based on a misconception. (the misconception? the idea that space is real and physical - it cannot possibly be so - space is entirely and completely mathematical in origin - it could not be anything else)

please enlighten us with a bit of mathematics that is what is called space or time. Not mathematically models on what we perceive it as, no, what they actually are. You seem to be quite sure that there exists something called 'space' and it's mathematical. Prove it.

 

[apeiron]

The “Jocaxian Nothingness” F.A.Q.
Frequently asked questions about the Jocaxian Nothingness “JN”
Jocax, Feb/2009
Translated by Debora Policastro

Please, in what way is JN different from Anaximander's apeiron (an idea over 2500 years old now) or CS Peirce's vagueness?

I certainly agree with the concept but it is not original. It may perhaps have something distinctive about it, but that is not clear from the FAQ. So please, be scholarly and put JN into the context of other work in a similar vein.

And a key next step is to define the way that an apeiron, a vagueness, a JN, actually develops. I don't see this logic stated as yet.

 

[Galteeth]

The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]
João Carlos Holland de Barcellos
translated by Debora Policastro

The “Jocaxian Nothingness” (JN) is the “Nothingness” that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.

In order to understand and intuit JN as an “existent nothingness”, we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.

JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call “Trivial Nothingness” to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the “Trivial Nothing” follows a rule: “Nothing can happen”. Thus, the “Trivial Nothingness”, the nothingness people generally think of when talking about “nothingness”, is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.

Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: “If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist”. No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:

1- Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)

2- Has no laws (no rules of any kind).

Being so, JN could have physically existed. JN is a construction that differs from the “trivial nothingness” since it does not contain the rule “Nothing can happen”. That way, Jocax liberates his JN from semantic paradoxes like: “If it exists, then it does not exist” and claims that this nothingness is SOMETHING that could have existed. That is, JN is the simpler possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.

We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a “Jocaxian-Nothingness”. The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state “has no physical elements”; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).

Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the “Occam’s Razor”, it must be the simpler state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself – defined as a set of all existing things – in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.

JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: “it may or may NOT happen”. This tautology – absolute logical truth – as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).

We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue “indefinitely” (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.

We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression. We are dealing with two types of “Jocaxian-Nothingness”: the physical object named “JN”, which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above; and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text), uses logical rules to help us understand the JN-Object. But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object.

Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen. There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen, then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in a system without premises: “something happens or not”. If something occasionally happens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally random and unpredictable.

We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once they come from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them, they would seem completely “schizophrenic”. Of course with the first randomizations, JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms. Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself – would have to obey.

Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logical rules?”

Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo, since it is the simpler possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.

If the system lacks laws, how can you make conclusions about what will or will not emerge?

( I don't entirely disagree with the concept, but I am being a good skeptic.)

 

[Galteeth]

By the way, I had never heard of JN, but this idea had occurred to me too. I think it's a fairly common idea. I thought of it more like, if if the universe becomes completely random, then everything will have to eventually emerge, and when something emerges that is internally consistent, by chance, it will appear as a rationally governed universe because consciousness is dependent on consistent laws (anthropic principle type reasoning). I think Boltzmann had a similar idea too.

 

[apeiron]

I thought of it more like, if if the universe becomes completely random, then everything will have to eventually emerge,

Yes, it is an idea as old as civilisation. But surprisingly little considered in Western mainstream thinking.

As I say, you need two things to make the idea more precise, more useful.

First you need to be able to describe the state of the initial conditions. It must be more random than just random.

Second you need some "lawful" way the initial state can develop its emergent regularities (self-organise to have its habits or natural laws).

With the randomness, for example, the initial conditions (vagueness, apeiron, potentia, JN) cannot be some kind of ensemble of crisp states. A set of already existing probabilities. It must be more like the entangled indeterminancy of a QM wavefunction. No hidden variables allowed!

 

[Galteeth]

Yes, it is an idea as old as civilisation. But surprisingly little considered in Western mainstream thinking.

As I say, you need two things to make the idea more precise, more useful.

First you need to be able to describe the state of the initial conditions. It must be more random than just random.

Second you need some "lawful" way the initial state can develop its emergent regularities (self-organise to have its habits or natural laws).

With the randomness, for example, the initial conditions (vagueness, apeiron, potentia, JN) cannot be some kind of ensemble of crisp states. A set of already existing probabilities. It must be more like the entangled indeterminancy of a QM wavefunction. No hidden variables allowed!

Doesn't this just regress the problem (what causes the "lawfullness" of certain forms of emergence or the probabilities?)

 

[apeiron]

Doesn't this just regress the problem (what causes the "lawfullness" of certain forms of emergence or the probabilities?)

How does it regress things? The argument is about dissolving what we know to exist back into some kind of pre-existence. And that would include BOTH laws and initial conditions, both the local substances and the global forms.

So in this view, both laws and the stuff constrained by law are just a vague potential, a forment of possibility. Then they both emerge together, synergistically.

There is no need for an external realm of meta-law that then makes the emerging laws "lawful" because this is an internalist logic (as regards the development of both the initial conditions and the laws). There is no "outside".

It is a self-making or bootstrapping, background independent, approach to causality...in complete contrast to the usual anglo-saxon background dependent models, where there is assumed to be a fixed background of a creating god, or eternal physical law, or Platonic mathematical form, or some other external cause.

Infinite regress is a problem for background dependent stories, not internalist ones which are creating their own backgrounds out of much less than nothing (ie: vagueness).

Well, that would be the claim which you might want to examine.

 

[debra]

It is a self-making or bootstrapping, background independent, approach to causality...in complete contrast to the usual anglo-saxon background dependent models, where there is assumed to be a fixed background of a creating god, or eternal physical law, or Platonic mathematical form, or some other external cause.

Infinite regress is a problem for background dependent stories, not internalist ones which are creating their own backgrounds out of much less than nothing (ie: vagueness).

I believe you are stuck in thoughts of a universe made of particles, energy and physical space. Trying to analyse that is like trying to analyse a computer simulation as if you were inside that simulation. i.e. belief that what you see around you (in the simulation) is reality.

Intelligence is the key, because its intelligence that is making everything. Even the way
a particle collides with another is a simple form of intelligence running on mathematical lines.

IMO there are no deep unsolvable mysteries. The way the universe works overall is very very simple. But there are massive complexities in how objects interact.

Causality? That is again simple, its cause before effect, and is a very simple mathematical
law that shapes time - why? Because it logically must shape time. Back to intelligence you see.