The Origin of the Universe: The Jocaxian Nothingness
Offline 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 rule 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.
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
Laws are descriptions of the attributes of things. There is nothing to explain about the appearance of laws, only the things need to be explained, the laws are an aspect of the things. No separate description of the appearance of the laws is required.
You are inventing a solution to a non-problem (the appearance of Laws).
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
"No!You have a problem similat to "chicken-egg-origin" paradox:Things with structure that have properties must be law to keep its properties , otherwise this properties do not are manted (kept)."
No! Stuff happened. Laws explain it. End of story. As Bob said, you've invented a problem that quite literally doesn't exist. Your allusion to chicken & egg is a demonstration of your ignorance. Neither came first. A T-Rex came before both.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Right!
Laws don't "keep the properties". That is total nonsense. A Law of physics, etc. is NOT some spooky, separate, immaterial thing which controls the behaviour of stuff.
The attributes of the stuff define the Laws, you silly Jocax!!
EDIT: "silly Jocax" came out a bit "gay" - I was trying to avoid saying something much more offensive....
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
What's going on here? Jocax is putting the cart before the horse? Jocax is trapped by Plato's theory of forms?
The natural world comes first. The natural world does not behave in a certain way due to immaterial laws; it simply is what it is. Immaterial laws would be redundant and completely unnecessary. Laws are derived from the behavior of matter. Yes, the behavior of the natural world exists independent of the humans who write about it. But clearly, mathematical formulations of physical relationships and behavior do not exist independent of the humans who write about them, as they are merely human abstractions of how the natural world behaves.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
.
Laws not only is the description of the atribute but the relationchip
between others things.
See the example of virtual particles:
In quanfum vacuum virtual particles can pop to existence where there was nothing.
Then, why this particles pop to existence with the same and exact properties
and not another propertie? There was no matter to get the laws of this particle.
Then were the vaccum knows HOW these particles can be?
How the universe 'knows' that speed of light have to be 'c' and not another value?
Because there have some LAWS in the vaccum (or coded in some dimension of universe).
Therefore we , at least , have to conclude that the LAWS exists and in the some way
are wrintten or coded in the 'texture' of the universe.
Its a problem: For example if the speed of the light was 2c and not c How would be
the diference of the vaccum?
Stuff canot have properties if there are NO LAWS to mantain this properties !
Why do you thing the eletron , for example, has properties like negative charge,
and not a different one?
Why do you think the eletron ever mantain its properties in the tiome e NOT DECAY
or not transform in another particles?
BECAUSE THERE WERE LAWS GOVERNING IT.
You can say that electron have LAWS EMBEDED IN IT.
In this case I can agree, but you have to agree that there are LAWS ,
because laws are a way that keep STABILITY in the time.
Not only, because The LAWS EXISTS WITHOUT STUFF ! See this examples:
The GRAVITY LAWS, for example, exists without stuff (matter)
the COULOMB LAWS exist without charge in the space !!
The law that say the speed of the light is constant EXISTS WITHOUT LIGHT !!
YOU DENNY THIS?
When the matter or light or charge appear in the vaccum . for example, it has to OBEY its laws . Then WHERE THE LAWS COME FROM? Its have coded in the texture of the universe. EVEN THERE WERE NO MATTER OR LIHT OR CHARGE IN IT.
.
I' m refering (saying ) about the natural laws and NOT about the laws writen by humans being.
.
In this way STABILITY STUFF need laws to maintain its properties constant in the time.
This can't be right. Gravity is the attraction 2 particles have for each other and it's a force that in space causes bodies to be drawn to each other. You can't have gravity with no stuff.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
The LAWS DESCRIBING the behaviour of a thing come from the same place all its other attributes, its size, charge, color, shape, mass, etc come from. They are coded into the stuff or the fundamental particles which define the thing to which the LAW applied. That is the way science currently sees it, although we have not found some of these particles, like the 'graviton' for gravity, the Higgs Boson for mass, which they are looking for with LHC.
If there was no matter in existence, then all that one could say was that IF there was some stuff that had the attributes of matter as we know it, it would behave as we observe that matter to behave.
The laws only exist in the same sense that the laws of logic and math exist. They FOLLOW from very basic aspects of 'reality'. Logic and all its elaborations and theorems FOLLOW deductively from the basic nature of a universe in which we can distinguish one part of reality from another, such that there exists 'A' and 'not A'. Similarly for math - its theorems are not all specifically encoded somewhere in the structure of the Universe. Math just says that IF the basic axioms apply to the universe, THEN all this follows...
In a sense, the various aspects of matter/energy and the forces they experience are encoded in the Universe, but only in that very basic sense. The details follow as consequences of those very basic attributes combined with the implications of the attributes of specific types of particles.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Yes, I know. Look at the section I quoted; I was responding to this:
"We writre laws thar describe the behavior of matter. But the LAW exist independent of the human write about them."
The natural laws exist independent of humans, but they do not exist independent of the natural world because they ARE the relationships and behaviors of the natural world. They do not precede it.
Without immaterial laws, everything would be random and chaotic? Why?
Yes, I completely deny that. Einstein's Law of Universal Gravitation does not exist without matter. Coulomb's Law does not exist without electrostatic forces. The speed of light does not exist without light. These are merely the ways in which reality behaves; they neither precede reality nor dictate how it behaves.
I'm a scientific naturalist. For me, it is silly to discuss anything immaterial that exists as anything more than a statement or abstraction of reality. Your laws are garbage. Reality simply exists; it does not need "higher" or "inherent" justification from supernatural laws/forms, gods, esoteric realms, dust, etc. Furthermore, since you have proposed something that is firmly in the realm of the supernatural, you now need to explain what is even meant by these laws "existing."
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Jocax is arguing that the "rule" of gravity is an actual "thing."
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
It really can't be said any simpler OR more complex than it has. I'd be repeating myself or others to continue discussing this fallacious proposal.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"....Alan Guth's main beliefs about the universe are that it definitely has a beginning and that it is just one of many universes that came into existence. Inflation never ends, but keeps expanding at an exponential rate, meaning that it doubles in very short increments much less than one second. Universes keep being created all the time as bubbles within the inflation process. The entire cosmos was created by quantum fluctuations from nothingness. While the concept of a universe being created from nothing sounds improbable, it is perfectly consistent with the laws of conservation of energy because its total energy value is zero. ..........magine no space at all and no matter at all. Good luck. To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something. Quantum theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules any physical system. It is impossible, even in principle, to predict the behavior of any single atom; all physicists can do is predict the average properties of a large collection of atoms. Quantum theory also holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly. While this phenomenon has never been observed directly, measurements of the electron's magnetic strength strongly imply that it is real and happening in the vacuum of space even now. Theoretically, anything—a dog, a house, a planet—can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles—one positive, one negative, so that conservation laws are not violated—are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly, typically for only 10-21 second. The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely. ..." Did you see?Before matter pop have alreay RULES from quantum physics QF drive in therefore LAWS of the COULOMB for example and other forces belong to QF and allready had existed BEFORE the first particle pop to existence. There ALREADY HAVE CONSERVATION LAWS BEFORE PARTICLES POP TO EXISTENCE. Then the laws precede the stuff.This will be my last response in this thread, barring the unforeseen possibility that the discussion may actually gain substance.
"WHY"
THIS is your critical and ultimate flaw. You are begging the question. You must prove that there must be a why. You cannot just ask the question and assume it has meaning, because it currently doesn't. Instead, ask how. Where, when, and what are also acceptable. But why presupposes a meaning to existence, which has never been observed to have an absolute quality with which one can attach a why. There is no why. Or if there is, we are unaware of it. You could present this on a thousand different scientific forums, in a hundred different languages, and they'll all tell you what we have. Until you have a way to test your hypothesis, it is nothing more than philosophy and question begging wrapped together.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You actually might have a point, IF particles were totally independently popping into existence from the raw nothingness or quantum foam, but the actual scientific thoughts here are that either:
1. gravity is truly fundamental, and can only only appear in one form,
OR
2. along with the other forces and the primary particles, it condenses out of the Big Bang singularity 'substance' - randomly (?) - as one of the possible ways the raw primeval 'substance' of the BB singularity can crystallize into the seed of space-time-matter-energy which then inflates into the early stages of the BB expansion as a volume of space-time with uniform properties.
It will be uniform because the particular space-time-mass-energy structure emerged at a time while the Universe was so small that everything was in such close connection that there was only 'room' for one structure to form.
What I am saying is the problem you raise has already been considered and explicitly addressed by what is known as 'Cosmic Inflation', originally proposed by Alan Guth. If you are not already aware of this aspect of BB theory, you should look it up.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
You have no basis for saying logic could be any different in a universe which made any kind of sense, since it FOLLOWS from extremely fundamental properties of existence, ie that stuff can exist as identifiably different chunks, 'A' and 'not A': the rest of Logic is DEDUCED, ie, it INEVITABLY follows from that basic property of existence.
Math and logic SHOW that extremely complex laws can FOLLOW, ie be INEVITABLY and UNIQUELY DETERMINED by a few simple AXIOMS, which is all that needs to either come into existence initially, or emerge with matter/energy.
The exact nature of such laws does need to be complex for us not to have found them yet, since they emerged, or applied, while the Universe was in a very different state to what it is now, and desribe the nature of particles we have not yet detected, such as the Higgs Boson.
This is an important part of what is being investigated with the new Large Hadron Collider.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
WHY the stuff have to behave exactly the same even it not have existed before? I Think the laws already have existed. Because this there are a theory about the origin of the cosmo starting with the quantum vacuum. QF is a lot of premisses that exist independent of presence of stuff.