Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

jocax

Regulars
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

jocax's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. But it is NOT a *conclusion*. Its is only an assertion you said. Meanwhile I can argue this assertion go against the occans razzor. . With of mine argunets/premises are not self-evident or dubious? and WHY you do not agree with it.
  2. These are premisses. Axioms are the base of logic ( no contradictions and identity and 3 excluded). If you do not refute these conclusion (1+2+3=>4) you have to think it is right. You have to think time do not exist by itself like Newtons thought. Time depend on the events , if do not have change (no event) then there is no time too. Without changes without time too ! . . No. The concept 'Eternal' I was using is that there is NO before. JN is eternal because there is NO BEFORE it. ** The time 0 is when the universe is in the JN state. ** There is no time before JN. NO WAY. Because eternal moviment that have ocurred for ever in the past violate the Kalam Argument. 'Keep searching and inquiring though. If you are intellectually honest, you will be asking, 'What do I know', and 'How do I know it' at every stage of the quest. '
  3. 1-To spent infinite time = never 2-Some event X have ocurred infinite time ago 3-The distance (in time) that event X in the past to now is infinite. 4-Thus (1) and (3) we have that never would be the present (now) The K.A. do not say that the event have ocurred outside of the universe ! The event in the infinite past were in this universe. Perhaps it is my version of the Kalan Argument. I would lovely put my name in it but.... I think it is not right. Therefore there is no infinite time in the past, anyway. In JN the universe was eternal but there is NO time. Time only exists if there is change. If have no change thre is no time.
  4. I think you dont understand. The kalam argument use (is compatible to) the aristotilian logic. The argument is logical. From something happened in the infinite past and now. It is impossoble ! AGAIN, pay attention: 1-If something happen in the infinite PAST it would get an INFINITE TIME to reach to the present (now). 2-But, what is an infinite time to get something? R: Its is NEVER. . So, If there were something happened in the infinite past ago, it would NEVER have the present !! Infinite time = NEVER It is the kalam argument. Because this, we MUST HAVE the beginning to the time!
  5. . I am atheist. I am not saying anything about islam. But there is a 'kalam argument' talking about the time. The K.A. says that is impossible have an event at infinite time in the past because if we have something in the infinite past we have to wait an infinite time to reach to present. But infinite time ti reach to present meaning NEVER. Thus it is impossible have something in the infinite past. Because this, the cosmos must have a beginning in the time.
  6. Not ALL things. Only physical elements, mainly laws. If we withdraw the JN itsself we can not give him properties ! Because the JN-Theory is logical it must be not contradictory. if something has properties it must exist. If withdraw everything we can not have something to put properties in it then the JN would be a contradictory theory. To put this penny you also have to put the laws and the space too, to obligue the penny to stay a penny. If you do not put laws in it, the penny would be destroyed. a) the penny woud be destroyed by chance. the nothingness would not be a nothingness , but some characteristics would be preserved ( the power of random generation for example) c) To manintai , to keep the pennya as a penny a lot of another things ( like laws ans space) would exist in there. Do you claim it is impossible have been something without logic? Are you saying the laws of logic is the minimal state possible? Is it? Square circles do not exist in our universe because our universe have logic laws governing it. Perhaps in some place there is NO LOGIC square circles can be possible. because this the text say: "... 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. ...."
  7. Kalam show us that it is impossible have intinite time in the past. (otherwise we dont would have the present because would spend infinite time to come to present( = never) ). Because this there must have the begining. By randomization. Because there is no rules to deny something pops to existence. . The 'empty set' do not exist anymore. But, in the past could have existed. It s not an *arbitrary* state: It is the state that is the SIMPLEST state possibe to exist in the reality. Because this there is NO necessity some thing before to create it. . 1- because the necessity that to have some bebgining: something simpler that have no cause as simplies it is. 2-because the consequence of this particular state we get logic laws. I explainned why the Nj is important and necessary ( Kalam argument). I explainned how startin of this point we can deduce some atribute of oru universe. How do you think the laws of OUR universe pop into existence? Did you think the laws have ever existed? Here you are starting from the conservation laws. In NJ there is no conservation laws, thus this argument is not valid. Yes ! I Agree. Perfect ! Of corse god could be created from NJ. But there is no evidence that He was created , quite the contrary: The evidences against its evidence are great.
  8. Kalam show us that it is impossible have intinite time in the past. (otherwise we dont would have the present because would spend infinite time to come to present( = never) ). Because this there must have the begining. By randomization. Because there is no rules to deny something pops to existence. . The 'empty set' do not exist anymore. But, in the past could have existed. It s not an *arbitrary* state: It is the state that is the SIMPLEST state possibe to exist in the reality. Because this there is NO necessity some thing before to create it. . 1- because the necessity that to have some bebgining: something simpler that have no cause as simplies it is. 2-because the consequence of this particular state we get logic laws. I explainned why the Nj is important and necessary ( Kalam argument). I explainned how startin of this point we can deduce some atribute of oru universe. How do you think the laws of OUR universe pop into existence? Did you think the laws have ever existed? Here you are starting from the conservation laws. In NJ there is no conservation laws, thus this argument is not valid. Yes ! I Agree. Perfect ! Of corse god would be created from NJ. But there is no evidence that He was created , quite the contrary: The evidences against its evidence are big.
  9. Yes. neither my second one. I think I will decline your invitation. The Nj is similar an Empty Set. Its similar to the 'materialization' of ann 'empty set'. In fact , this 'minimal state' is realy 'magical' but there is a reason: it is because we can conclude that we can *not* conclude that somethong can not happen. . Weel , we have clues from its existence: Our natural laws follow the logic. Similarly we have clues from the Big-Bang too. We canot mesaure the Big-Bang but suppose its existence by evidences. 1-laws follows the logic. 2-Majority of phisicist agree that could be existed any kind of universe with many diferent laws. Why the universe could be so different in so large spectrum? . Because mental experiments do not agree with physical restriction. In the same way Einstein put an observer in a photon we can imagine withdraw thing to the universe. Yor critique does not apply in this context. I think you do not understand. Now we can have change the laws. But in the beginning , before the big-bang there have no laws. how do you think the real laws ( not our laws) pop into existence? how do you think the real laws so this way and not another?
  10. Its similar a Big-Bang : Its NO exist anymore ! It have existed ( in the past ). the JN WAS ALSO a reality. Like a big bang was. . Without coments.... rsrsrsrsr The our laws only try find out the REAL LAWS. The physics suppose to have some natural laws, ANYWAY, of course there are some laws to govern the particles otherwise we would have a chaos now.
  11. I dont think so. The JN IS , basicaly, somethink where there have NO LAWS. What the diference its 'artbitrary' or NOT. The important is that JN is a logic theory for origin of cosmos and there is no contradiction with its definitions. No: JN IS somethink where there have NO LAWS. NO! because a RULE is some properties that must be preserved by time; A STATE is some properties that DO NOT HAVE to be preserved. Thus, the initial STATE of the JN is lack of rules. . You are wrong. the fire can bark or NOT. Of course the second optins occurs in our reality. The same way JN can generate something or not. You CAN NOT to affirm that the ONLY OPTION is not GENERATE anything. NO ! I claim there is properties yes. No, JN is something JN is not a nothing, its a BEING. The minimal state of the universe can be. . In real, The time STARTs with the firsts randomizations of NJ. . see the text: "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." No lack of definition but lack of the rules. Jb-object dont have to follow logic laws but we can try analyze it using the logic: ".... we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object....."
  12. I said SIMILAR NOT EQUAL. Similar because its exists but do not have any element inside. Physicals laws ALSO are modeled with ABSTRACT and mathematical equation that are ABSTRACT too. . Its only a MENTAL EXPERIMENT , Einstein also thought a lot of phisicaly impossible mental experiment like some one travelling in a PHOTON to imagine the consequence. Look for it with a google. I m saying about natural laws and NOT laws written by mens. Do you agree that there are natural laws that govern the universe? . after I continue
  13. 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.
  14. IT'S NOT A LAW ! IT IS A STATE OF THE SYSTEM. See the text again: "...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). ..."
×
×
  • Create New...