Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Origin of the Cosmo: The Jocaxian Nothingness

Rate this topic


jocax

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations

Sounds about right!

I have a better idea. Let's imagine the something that is this forum and withdraw the meaningless words, stolen concepts, package deals and invalid concepts that are the OP in this thread.We will then have nothing left but the responses of Jake and myself to the something that once was your post, but is now nothing but a deleted troll post.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

So if you remove everything that exists, you still have something that exists? You must have forgotten to remove something.

What happens if I go a step further and I mentally withdraw "existent nothingness" as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]

João Carlos Holland de Barcellos

translated by Debora Policastro

physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.

is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.

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

If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).

Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself – would have to obey.

“Why does the universe follow logical rules?”

by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.

Laws don't exist here either. Only things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

A physical system devoid of anything physical. First contradiction.

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.

Moving matter out of the universe into... where? Second contradiction.

Therefore, JN has been defined...

Now of course, a concept must necessarily refer to things in reality (e.g. the concept "chair" refers to specific chairs, like the one I am sitting in.), or to sub-concepts which themselves are built on things in reality (e.g. "furniture" refers to "chair" which refers to real chairs). So your concept, which you have created, and from which you have made this definition, must refer to things in reality that are observable in someway. Show me the evidence of them.

Your flaw is in assuming that because you can pretend to picture "nothingness" in your head, therefore nothingness exists as a thing. Anselm uses the same argument to create God. Gaunilo uses the same argument to create a perfect island. Existence is not a property that can simply be assigned to things we imagine to exist or want to exist. Square circles do not exist simply because I claim to be able to picture one in my head, or get the feeling that I am thinking about one.

You can certainly ponder the existence of things, and then go out in the real world and try to find evidence of their existence. But their existence is not created by your pondering. Nevermind the fact that you are contemplating contradictions (see above).

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silly jocax, origin implies a 'before the origin'. No wonder you are so confused. You seek that which does not exist. You are trying to find, that which is not. Discovering the undiscoverable, or trying to demonstrate existence via non-existence has got to be vexing to ones consciousness, or are you trying to attain non-consciousness to illustrate that as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be honest, I was hoping to learn about the yummy cocktail. Had no idea the word "cosmo" has another meaning. (yet to reveal itself to me)

That would be the fault of the translator. It is unlikely that the contradictions in his argument are also simply a translation problem. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

""Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself – would have to obey.""

Because the author is not posessing any logic, he may delusiolnally create his own, to which his unfortunare readers -now bored- would have to endure. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you remove everything that exists, you still have something that exists?

You must have forgotten to remove something.

Only remain the JN it self. The existent nothing.

What happens if I go a step further and I mentally withdraw "existent nothingness" as well?

I think You can not wtihdraw the lat thing : the nothing.

Because you would have a logical contradiction:

If has a nothing then you have not a nothing.

because this the JN is the MINIMAL state of the existence.

physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.

is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.

see the text:

"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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A physical system devoid of anything physical. First contradiction.

NOT anything physical byt without *physical ELEMENTS* ( energy, matter, fields ).

The JN itself is physical system.

JN is similar an EMPTY SET

Moving matter out of the universe into... where? Second contradiction.

Not moving in a reality.

Only mental experiment do thus elements disappear from universe.

Show me the evidence of them.

Our COSMOS is a evidence since they have logical laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now of course, a concept must necessarily refer to things in reality (e.g. the concept "chair" refers to specific chairs, like the one I am sitting in.), or to sub-concepts which themselves are built on things in reality (e.g. "furniture" refers to "chair" which refers to real chairs). So your concept, which you have created, and from which you have made this definition, must refer to things in reality that are observable in someway.

.

Is not necessary it exists now.

It could be existed in the past.

Like dinos. They dont exist anymore but they were existed in the past.

.

You can certainly ponder the existence of things, and then go out in the real world and try to find evidence of their existence. But their existence is not created by your pondering. Nevermind the fact that you are contemplating contradictions (see above).

.

Those contradictions are not a real contradiction, see above.

.

JN is similar a empty set: The set itself could exist but there is no element inside it.

Silly jocax, origin implies a 'before the origin'.

Origin implies 'before origin' ONLY if this origin ha some COMPLEXITY.

If it is the most simple possible origin there is no necessity of before origin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this guy Jocax gets accredited as coming up with this so called "original" premise of a "nothingness"?

.

The important thing in this subject is the CONSEQUENCE of something there have NO LAW at all.

If there is NO LAW then things can happen.

Anyone disagree?

This is the great idea of this text.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The important thing in this subject is the CONSEQUENCE of something there have NO LAW at all.

If there is NO LAW then things can happen.

Anyone disagree?

This is the great idea of this text.

So, the first law, is that there is no law? Are you unconscious yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the first law, is that there is no law? Are you unconscious yet?

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).

..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JN is similar an EMPTY SET

How is it similar? An empty set is an abstract mathematical concept, built on top of yet more abstract concepts. An "empty set" does not refer directly to anything in reality. So if your JN is similar to an "empty set", then your JN must be equally abstract, and therefore not be a physical system, and not refer directly to anything in reality.

You are effectively taking the idea of a mathematical "empty set", ignoring what that idea is grounded on, what it refers to, and then applying it to whatever you want. If I hold 3 apples in my hand, and then drop all 3 apples, I now have an "empty set of apples" - I have no apples - but, I do not have nothingness.

Not moving in a reality.

Only mental experiment do thus elements disappear from universe.

If it is impossible for things to disappear from the universe, how can you mentally picture this happening? Your mental picture does not resemble reality. So your mental picture, and the predictions you make from it, do not relate to reality - they are not real, not physical, do not exist in reality. Like unicorns, or perfect circles.

Our COSMOS is a evidence since they have logical laws.

Physical laws are abstract concepts created by man. The universe does not obey laws - rather, we observe the universe, and determine rules for predicting causal interactions in the universe to a certain degree of accuracy. We call those rules, "laws".

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will now commit the same fallacy as you, with a different mathematical concept used out of context:

Let's say I have a wooden cube. I use a piece of sandpaper to sand it as round as possible. I use finer and finer sandpaper, and make it more and more smooth, until eventually it is a perfect circle. Therefore perfect circles exist in reality.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will now commit the same fallacy as you, with a different mathematical concept used out of context:

Let's say I have a wooden cube. I use a piece of sandpaper to sand it as round as possible. I use finer and finer sandpaper, and make it more and more smooth, until eventually it is a perfect circle. Therefore perfect circles exist in reality.

Talk about circular reasoning :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, according to point 1, the "JN" suffers from one of the same fatal flaws as the fake concept of "god" - we're not told what it IS, we are only told what it is NOT and then in point 2 expected to consider the possibility of whatever the hell this thing is, even though we don't know what it is and so can't even begin to have any possible evidence for it, so it is totally arbitrary. Point 3 fails because you have not mentioned any properties the "JN" HAS, only ones it does NOT have, like I just said. As for point 4, if it is only the "JN" if it lacks certain properties, then that is a rule of the JN, that it can't be the JN anymore under certain conditions. For point 5, no, it is not the case that something could always happen or not for anything. A fire can not, for example, bark or not. It does not have the necessary parts to bark, so it can only not bark. So you can't just tried to say you've stated a tautology which is meaningless and try to weasel out of having ascribed any capabilities or lack thereof to the "JN" as long as you clam that it is definitely the case that it can or can not do other things and not just that you don't know if it can or not. For point 8, so far you've done nothing to differentiate this "JN" from the "IN" - you claim in point one no actual properties existing of this "JN", no qualities of it, nothing to evidence existence of it. However, if you did give it qualities and evidence of existence, it wouldn't be a nothingness, now would it? You'd fall into the contradiction of trying to say it at once was an existent and not an existent. In point 10, you say there is no time in the "JN", so how does anything ever change? And then in point 11 you say, "It is possible to say that the JN-Object does not have laws therefore it does not need to obey logic . . ." at which point you just flat out admit you don't care if you make no sense and have zilch for evidence anymore at all. As long as this is your position, I think you've just admitted to being a brick wall that refuses to listen to reason and is a waste of time to bother with any further. As for number 15, I don't see how that follows from anything at all, seeing as you listed a lack of definition as the definition of this "JN" and said that this "JN" doesn't even have to be logical, it can have all kinds of contradictions, so how would that necessitate that a logical creation without contradictions would have to come from it? Ah well, why ask, you don't care if this thing makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...