Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Origin of the Cosmo: The Jocaxian Nothingness

Rate this topic


jocax

Recommended Posts

"....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.

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.

.

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.

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.

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".

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I said SIMILAR NOT EQUAL.

Similar because its exists but do not have any element inside.

You have not yet shown that it exists except as an abstract concept with no relation to reality, nothing physical.

Physicals laws ALSO are modeled with ABSTRACT and mathematical equation that are ABSTRACT too.

Yes, but physical laws refer directly to things in reality - physical things. Every physics equation has units of measure that relate to something measurable in reality.

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.

Einstein used that mental experiments to look for contradictions. He imagined a situation, then determined if that situation led to any contradictions, and then tried to determine why it was contradictory. You have imagined a situation, and then decided it exists in reality, and decided not to examine the issue further.

Einstein's mental experiments were his starting points. Your mental experiment seems to be your starting and ending points.

Do you agree that there are natural laws that govern the universe?

No, what evidence is there that there are equations that command particles to move in certain ways?

The particles move, we observe them, we find patterns, and we make equations for predicting their movement. I agree with that.

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

I dont think so.

The JN IS , basicaly, somethink where there have NO LAWS.

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.

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.

Point 3 fails because you have not mentioned any properties the "JN" HAS, only ones it does NOT have, like I just said.

No: JN IS somethink where there have NO LAWS.

As for point 4, if it is only the "JN" if it lacks certain properties, then that is a rule of the JN,

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.

.

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.

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.

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 !

I claim there is properties yes.

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. I

No, JN is something JN is not a nothing, its a BEING. The minimal state of the universe can be.

.

In point 10, you say there is no time in the "JN", so how does anything ever change?

In real, The time STARTs with the firsts randomizations of NJ.

.

"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.

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."

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,

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....."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have not yet shown that it exists except as an abstract concept with no relation to reality, nothing physical.

Its similar a Big-Bang : Its NO exist anymore ! It have existed ( in the past ).

Yes, but physical laws refer directly to things in reality - physical things. Every physics equation has units of measure that relate to something measurable in reality.

the JN WAS ALSO a reality. Like a big bang was.

.

Einstein's mental experiments were his starting points. Your mental experiment seems to be your starting and ending points.

Without coments.... rsrsrsrsr

QUOTE

"...Do you agree that there are natural laws that govern the universe?..."

No, what evidence is there that there are equations that command particles to move in certain ways?

The particles move, we observe them, we find patterns, and we make equations for predicting their movement. I agree with that.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

English isn't your first language, is it? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute your persistent troubles in this thread to not having yet a command of the English language that is quite up to snuff for a discussion like this where some subtle differences in words can make a big difference instead of just skipping straight to concluding you're just here to troll. I recommend perhaps until you've gotten better at English instead trying to have a discussion on this topic with people in your native language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of what does this "nothingness" consist of if every physical property is somehow put into some magical "minimal state" such that they no longer exist and don't "follow any rules"? And if nothing can be measured or detected in any way how can it be said to "exist"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its similar a Big-Bang : Its NO exist anymore ! It have existed ( in the past ).

Except that physical theories such as the Big Bang theory are tested by observations. What observations can test your theory?

Without coments.... rsrsrsrsr

But you have not commented on how Einstein's mental experiments are - as I have shown - different from yours in their purpose and nature.

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.

You are taking *laws* which are *observations* and trying to turn them into *laws* that can be changed, removed, etc. That does not make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

English isn't your first language, is it?

Yes. neither my second one. :dough:

I recommend perhaps until you've gotten better at English instead trying to have a discussion on this topic with people in your native language.

I think I will decline your invitation.

Of what does this "nothingness" consist of if every physical property is somehow put into

some magical "minimal state" such that they no longer exist

and don't "follow any rules"?

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.

.

And if nothing can be measured or detected in any way how can it be said to "exist"?

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.

Except that physical theories such as the Big Bang theory are tested by observations. What observations can test your theory?

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?

But you have not commented on how Einstein's mental experiments are - as I have shown - different from yours in their purpose and nature.

.

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.

You are taking *laws* which are *observations* and trying to turn them into *laws* that can be changed, removed, etc. That does not make any sense.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Beginning? What beginning?

How does anything 'pop into existence?'

Most comedians charge for their entertainment, not all of them though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nj is similar an Empty Set. Its similar to the 'materialization' of ann 'empty set'.

This is rationalism. An "empty set" is an abstract method of concept and doesn't exist anymore in reality than does the concept of infinity.

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.

Your are attempting to use logic to deduce the existence of the universe while starting from an arbitrary premise that does not follow from the evidence of reality. A's don't magically transform in to B's.

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.

How can we have "clues" of existence from something that is nothing in particular and behaves with no rules?

We use logic to deduce natural laws from reality based on sensory-based observations of what exists not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically, in a state of nothingness, ie. totally empty space, nothing can happen (any reaction requires matter and/or energy). Therefore the big bang or any other origin theory is logically inexplicable

But if you strip that nothingness of its laws, then it is no longer true that 'nothing can happen'

From here new laws and entities will come into existence (or not), perishing when they contradict each other, and thus a consistent logical universe will bootstrap itself into existence

I wonder if Rand ever pondered this. I'm thinking of that quote where she said she knew a better proof for the existence of God than previously expressed, although she thought it was still wrong and didn't tell anybody. I can think of a God-proof derived from this Jocaxian Nothingness idea (clue: in this case God would be created too...).

Whether its right or wrong doesn't matter though because I concluded long ago that even if God exists, Objectivism would still be the proper code of ethics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beginning? What beginning?

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.

How does anything 'pop into existence?'

By randomization. Because there is no rules to deny something pops to existence.

.

An "empty set" is an abstract method of concept and doesn't exist anymore in reality than does the concept of infinity.

The 'empty set' do not exist anymore. But, in the past could have existed.

Your are attempting to use logic to deduce the existence of the universe while starting from an arbitrary premise that does not follow from the evidence of reality.

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.

.

How can we have "clues" of existence from something that is nothing in particular and behaves with no rules?

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.

We use logic to deduce natural laws from reality based on sensory-based observations of what exists not the other way around.

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?

So basically, in a state of nothingness, ie. totally empty space, nothing can happen (any reaction requires matter and/or energy).

Here you are starting from the conservation laws.

In NJ there is no conservation laws, thus this argument is not valid.

But if you strip that nothingness of its laws, then it is no longer true that 'nothing can happen'

Yes ! I Agree.

From here new laws and entities will come into existence (or not), perishing when they contradict each other, and thus a consistent logical universe will bootstrap itself into existence

Perfect !

I wonder if Rand ever pondered this. I'm thinking of that quote where she said she knew a better proof for the existence of God than previously expressed, although she thought it was still wrong and didn't tell anybody. I can think of a God-proof derived from this Jocaxian Nothingness idea (clue: in this case God would be created too...).

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beginning? What beginning?

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.

How does anything 'pop into existence?'

By randomization. Because there is no rules to deny something pops to existence.

.

An "empty set" is an abstract method of concept and doesn't exist anymore in reality than does the concept of infinity.

The 'empty set' do not exist anymore. But, in the past could have existed.

Your are attempting to use logic to deduce the existence of the universe while starting from an arbitrary premise that does not follow from the evidence of reality.

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.

.

How can we have "clues" of existence from something that is nothing in particular and behaves with no rules?

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.

We use logic to deduce natural laws from reality based on sensory-based observations of what exists not the other way around.

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?

So basically, in a state of nothingness, ie. totally empty space, nothing can happen (any reaction requires matter and/or energy).

Here you are starting from the conservation laws.

In NJ there is no conservation laws, thus this argument is not valid.

But if you strip that nothingness of its laws, then it is no longer true that 'nothing can happen'

Yes ! I Agree.

From here new laws and entities will come into existence (or not), perishing when they contradict each other, and thus a consistent logical universe will bootstrap itself into existence

Perfect !

I wonder if Rand ever pondered this. I'm thinking of that quote where she said she knew a better proof for the existence of God than previously expressed, although she thought it was still wrong and didn't tell anybody. I can think of a God-proof derived from this Jocaxian Nothingness idea (clue: in this case God would be created too...).

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalām (Arabic: علم الكلام‎) is the Islamic philosophy of seeking Islamic theological principles through dialectic. In Arabic the word means "words, discussion, discourse". A scholar of kalam is referred to as a mutakallim (Muslim theologian; plural mutakallimiin). There are many interpretations of why this discipline was called "kalam"; one of them is that the widest controversy in this field was about Allah's speech.

Ibn Warraq did an excellent piece on the history of these thugs and barbarians (Muslims, in general).

That must really frost them having 'Why I am not a Muslim' being done under a pen name. Who do they fatwa against? I am sure that S. Rushdie can attest to this.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only remain the JN it self. The existent nothing.

...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.

I understand. I am just asking you to perform a thought experiment. You see, when you ask me to mentally withdraw ALL things that exist? That is what I did. However, you tell me that I didn't do the job right and your nothingness actually still exists there. Since I was incapable of removing the last existents (or, as you say, state of existence), I asked for you to do it for me and tell me what is left. But you say that's not possible.

I think this exposes your logical contradiction.

Let me try it another way. Another thought experiment.

What happens if we imagine a single copper penny being placed into your nothingness? What occurs then? a.) to the penny b.) to your state of nothingness c.) have any other "things" come into existence by virtue of the penny appearing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They proclaim that there is no law of identity, that nothing exists but change, and blank out the fact that change presupposes the concepts of what changes, from what and to what, that without the law of identity no such concept as “change” is possible.

For the New Intellectual Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 154.

I think the above quote sums up and negates this whole theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I actually can picture one in my head, and I propose they do exist. Please, you may pay a honest tithe and I will deal with the implications so you don't have to worry about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, when you ask me to mentally withdraw ALL things that exist?

Not ALL things. Only physical elements, mainly laws.

I asked for you to do it for me and tell me what is left. But you say that's not possible.

I think this exposes your logical contradiction.

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.

What happens if we imagine a single copper penny being placed into your nothingness?

What occurs then?

a.) to the penny

b.) to your state of nothingness

c.) have any other "things" come into existence by virtue of the penny appearing?

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.

:thumbsup: 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.

They proclaim that there is no law of identity, that nothing exists but change, and blank out the fact that change presupposes the concepts of what changes, from what and to what, that without the law of identity no such concept as “change” is possible.

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 simply because I claim to be able to picture one in my head, or get the feeling that I am thinking about one.

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. ...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually can picture one in my head, and I propose they do exist. Please, you may pay a honest tithe and I will deal with the implications so you don't have to worry about them.

I can do better! I can produce square circles for you in a legitimate mathematical way.

Consider R^2 the Cartesian Product of the Real Number Set with itself. Now define a metric as follows: Let p be (x1, y1) and q be (x2, y2). Define m(p,q) = |x1 - x2| + |y1 - y2|. This metric obeys all the postulates for metrics, to wit;

a m(p,q) = 0 if and only if p = q

b m(p,q) = m(q,p)

c m(p,q) + m(q,r) >= m(p,r).

Now define the "circle" given p0 and r > 0; C(p0,r) = {p | m(p,p0) = r}

If you plot this out you will find that the "circles" are squares! They are squares rotated by

45 degrees. The metric m is sometimes called the taxi-cab metric because it is the distance cabs must travel in a city with square blocks defining the streets.

Bob Kolker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the JN-Theory is logical it must be not contradictory.

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. ...."

In your Kalam dialectic, to who's logic are you appealing? You mention classic(al?) logic, yet Islam rejected Aristotilian and presumable Platonic reasoning centuries ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one can imagine, draw, or write an equation for an entity with the incommensurate characteristics of a "square-circle". Only a person who does not understand what a concept, definition and their auditory/visual symbols are can claim to do so. Such a person will do well to :

Observe the technique involved in these three examples. It consists of creating an artificial, unnecessary, and (rationally) unusable term, designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concepts—a term which sounds like a concept, but stands for a "package-deal" of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context, a "package-deal" whose (approximately) defining characteristic is always a non-essential. This last is the essence of the trick.

Let me remind you that the purpose of a definition is to distinguish the things subsumed under a single concept from all other things in existence; and, therefore, their defining characteristic must always be that essential characteristic which distinguishes them from everything else.

So long as men use language, that is the way they will use it. There is no other way to communicate. And if a man accepts a term with a definition by non-essentials, his mind will substitute for it the essential characteristic of the objects he is trying to designate.

CTUNI

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your Kalam dialectic, to who's logic are you appealing?

You mention classic(al?) logic, yet Islam rejected Aristotilian

and presumable Platonic reasoning centuries ago.

.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

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.

You referenced Kalam in an earlier post.

You reference a 'kalam argument' and refer to classic(al?) logic, and then brush aside the inquiry: To what logic are you appealing, considering the 'kalam arguement' is most likely based on something other than Aristotilian logic?

As an aside:

An infinite amount of time between when and when?

What beginning? That which has always been, has no beginning. It is impossible for that which has always been to have a beginning.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You referenced Kalam in an earlier post.

You reference a 'kalam argument' and refer to classic(al?) logic, and then brush aside the inquiry: To what logic are you appealing, considering the 'kalam arguement' is most likely based on something other than Aristotilian logic?

I think you dont understand.

The kalam argument use (is compatible to) the aristotilian logic.

The argument is logical.

An infinite amount of time between when and when?

From something happened in the infinite past and now.

What beginning? That which has always been, has no beginning.

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!

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...