The Origin of the Universe: The Jocaxian Nothingness

Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
The Origin of the Universe: The Jocaxian Nothingness

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.

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
When I was 12, I wrote a

When I was 12, I wrote a treatise on 'infinite nothinglessness'. It's nothing, but it's so nothing that to even call it nothing is to say too much about it, so it's nothingless. But it's the essence of nothingless, so it's nothinglessness. And it has no limits, it could be anything, so it's infinite nothinglessness. Of course, I was just being silly and playing with words, but your piece reminded me of it. It's such a nothing that it's even more nothing than what people think of when they think of nothing. So it could be anything. Hehe.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
The great Idea is the

The great Idea is the explanation of the CAUSE   the nothingneess can generate anything: Because it has NO rules. ( mainly the conservation rules ).  If no rules then no rules to avoid things to hapen too. ! Smiling


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5085
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Nothingness is a worry

 

I'm hesitant to go with nothingness and I'm wondering if this nothingness post is bait for the fishes.

I reason that science shows a cause for the current universe but I'm loathe to go further than that. There must have been something pre-universe if the BB is true?

Unrepentant Elitist and Bob - are you out there? What was going on before the BB that might have support the bang - or are we talking endless universal yo-yos?

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: I'm

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

I'm hesitant to go with nothingness and I'm wondering if this nothingness post is bait for the fishes.

I reason that science shows a cause for the current universe but I'm loathe to go further than that. There must have been something pre-universe if the BB is true?

Unrepentant Elitist and Bob - are you out there? What was going on before the BB that might have support the bang - or are we talking endless universal yo-yos?

 

 

 

 

 

Although I'm not as educated as they are on the subject, I think I can address this to some degree.  It is my understanding that, much in the same way we can't claim knowledge about a God outside our universe, it is difficult to address pre-BB possibilities.  The main reason?  There was a HUGE explosion.  Explosions destroy evidence, evidence that may have clued us in to what was there.  This is a very simplistic response, and I'm not confident that a physicist would accept it.  lol

 

 

With string theory, the possibility of higher dimensions existing has led to brane theories for the cause of the BB, wherein two higher dimensions (branes) collided, and the BB is the result of the collision on one of those branes (the one we're on/in).  Not 100% on this description either.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"No rules" is still, in its

"No rules" is still, in its way, a rule.

I think the "rules"do not exist in their own right. They are emergent from the basic attributes of whatever elementary bits ( sub-sub-... particles ) emerge from the most 'fundamental' level of reality, whatever that is.

Maybe once some species of sub-particle becomes significant in numbers and/or density, it makes it easier for more like that to form.

And, in somewhat the way you say, the more a particular type of sub-particle allows for the emergence of higher-level entities, the more that direction is likely to lead to a viable Universe, or at least to the sort of singularity that can give rise to such.

So what I am saying is not that different to what you propose, mainly a different slant on 'rules' or '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


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
"No rule" is not a rule, but

"No rule" is not a rule, but only an initial state of universe:


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).

 

The BB comes after the JN :

 

JN ->  Laws and Rules  -> natural Selection -> Logic Laws of Physics -> Big-Bang

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5085
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Not sure why I feel

 

Like a trout under a fly with this guy...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:1-     Has

Jocax wrote:

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

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

...

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?”

...

The flaw that I see with this is that as soon as one law or "schizo creation" is created the conditions for JN are no longer fulfilled which seems to imply that no more laws can be created.

Hypothetically if laws could be spawned in succession as you suggest, your system of natural selection of laws doesn't appear to work. If a new law that is incompatible with previous laws "kills" the previous laws then there appears to be nothing stopping the random generation of a law today that could just remove all current physical laws. Any law that could remove others would start the law creating process over every time a new law was created.

JN just doesn't seem that consistent to me.

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
'Stuff' comes first.Laws

'Stuff' comes first.

Laws follow from the structure of the 'stuff', just as the Laws of Logic follow from the existence of distinguishable separate entities, which gives rise to the Law of Identity, and the Law of Non-contradiction, and then all the rest folows.

Best idea for prime existence seems to me to be Quantum Foam. Randomness is the fundamental source of creativity and creation.

A bubble of raw energy/potential can 'crystallize' into various possible patterns, which each determine the structure and attributes of the elementary bits for that Universe, which in turn governs their behaviour, ie the 'Laws' that describe that behaviour.

Anyway, that's what makes most sense to me at the moment.

 

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


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:   The flaw that I

 

Quote:
  The flaw that I see with this is that as soon as one law or "schizo creation" is created 

the conditions for JN are no longer fulfilled which seems to imply that no more laws can be created.  
  Only if the last created law was :"no more laws can be crated". otherwise i think no.  
Quote:
   If a new law that is incompatible with previous laws "kills" the previous laws then there appears to be nothing stopping the random generation of a law today that could just remove all current physical laws.  
 The laws will be stopped when was generate a particular  law to stop a creatin of the new laws.Until that, the laws can be created randomly.If a new law remove the previous ones then the process continues withe the new lawat beginning.  
Quote:
  Any law that could remove others would start the law creating process over every time a new law was created.   
 No think:  if the others laws are NOT incompatible with the last one then they remain, stay "alive". 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: Best idea for

 

Quote:
 Best idea for prime existence seems to me to be Quantum Foam.

 

Every theory about origin of the universe that is based in some laws ( like quantim mechanics) is ilogical WHILE dont explai the origin of laws it was based.

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Jocax, I see a few problems

Jocax,

I see a few problems with your idea.

First is that it appears to be unfalsifiable. Basically, there in nothing in your nothingness and thus you really can't make a testable prediction of what must logically follow. If you don't predict anything, then nobody can check to see if the prediction holds.

Second, you seem to be falling into a trap that is similar to what some theists are currently getting into. If your lack of anything at all is as you say, then how can it be considered with anything like intellectual rigor? Just for grins, let's go back to the first day of the universe. OK, this is a day without a yesterday. So when did the universe begin?

As I say, theists sometimes run into this as well. If god made time, when did he make it?

This is not a problem for big bang theory (BBT) because BBT does not even attempt to address the question “what went bang?”. Rather, it addresses the question of what has happened since that point. How has the universe evolved and what is likely to happen in the future.

Third is your idea that any new law that is inconsistent with existing laws simply erases all the old laws. As has been noted above, what happens if a new law begins today? As I understand you, the universe resets to your original state of a total void except with the inclusion of the single remaining law.

Sure, you can posit the idea of a law that says that there can be no new laws. However, that really does not say anything that can be worked with in a meaningful way. Pretty much it sounds as if you are tweaking your idea to make it work.

Related to that is the fact that scientists don't really use the term “law” anymore. That is a linguistic holdover from past centuries that is no longer held by the community of physics and cosmology.

As an example, we have all heard about Newton's law of gravity. For the most part, it is perfectly good for everyday use. It explains everything from how a football moves to the motion of the planets. However, it breaks down on both the largest and smallest scales.

In the place of that, we use the theory of general relativity. It works to describe the motion of galaxies and the conditions near black holes. Newton's law is still perfectly good for every day use but Einstein's theory is better (but pointlessly detailed for everyday use).

Further, we know that general relativity breaks down as a useful description of the universe at yet greater extremes. It has yet to be folded into quantum theory. It can't explain what happens at the center of black holes and it falls apart at the beginning of the universe. We are sorely in need of new ideas to probe those areas of physics.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote: Quote: Best

Jocax wrote:

 

Quote:
 Best idea for prime existence seems to me to be Quantum Foam.

 

Every theory about origin of the universe that is based in some laws ( like quantim mechanics) is ilogical WHILE dont explai the origin of laws it was based.

The alternatives are

1. starting with the random, spontaneous appearance of a 'Law', or of

2. 'stuff' with a particular structure, which determines the 'Laws' which describe its behavior.

I go with stuff, on the grounds that a 'law' in the abstract makes less sense than stuff which simply has certain attributes describable by a physical law.

To repeat, I disagree with the very idea of a 'law' in the  abstract without 'stuff' - physical laws are descriptions of how stuff behaves, and I maintain they follow from the attributes of the 'stuff', rather than coming first.

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


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
jocaxian nothingness = minimal state of universe

Quote:
 First is that it appears to be unfalsifiable. Basically, there in nothing 

in your nothingness and thus you really can't make a testable prediction of what must logically follow. If you don't predict anything, then nobody can check to see if the prediction holds.

 

 

Ok, first ia dont agree with definitions of cience based on falsifiable facts.

I wrote an article named "Expanding Science" that agree the science look for the truth

and not nonly falsifiable theories. After then I defined a new scope for the science.

Unfortunatelly, thhe article still is in portuguese: 

http://ssdi.di.fct.unl.pt/pc/0708/files/CiExp.html

 

 

Second, if the theory is correct it predict logical laws in phisics and it is 

corroborated by evidence ( our physical laws are logicals ).

---------------------

Quote:
Second, you seem to be falling into a trap that is similar to what some theists are currently getting into. If your lack of anything at all is as you say, then how can it be considered with anything like intellectual rigor? Just for grins, let's go back to the first day of the universe. OK, this is a day without a yesterday. So when did the universe begin? 
  There is no time when the universe was a JN. Therefore there is no yesterday in this state.The time arise with the firts randomized events.JN was the universe in its minimal state.  ---------------- 
Quote:
  As I say, theists sometimes run into this as well. If god made time, when did he make it?  
   See the text: "...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***....." Anything is more complex than NJ therefore there is no necessity for cause to JN. continue...  


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Third is your idea

 

Quote:
Third is your idea that any new law that is inconsistent with existing laws simply 

erases all the old laws. As has been noted above, what happens if a new law begins today? As I understand you, the universe resets to your original state of a total void except with the inclusion of the single remaining law.
 Well,Because JN can rondimize anything it can randomize laws too.And laws are rule that must be obeyed, therefore if the old laws are in conflict with the last remain active the last one are not a law. Because this the set ofgenerated laws must me consistent by definition of law. 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:'stuff' with a

 

Quote:
'stuff' with a particular structure, which determines the 'Laws' which describe its behavior.

I go with stuff, on the grounds that a 'law' in the abstract makes less sense than stuff which simply has certain attributes describable by a physical law.

How the origin of you 'stuff".    If its is the JN the I agree. Else, you need explai the origin of the stuff.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Physical laws, unlike laws

Physical laws, unlike laws of a nation, are descriptive not prescriptive.

Existence starts with substance with the least possible structure (quantum foam? ), and thus the maximum potential for giving rise to all possible versions of more structured universes, and thus more complex laws.

The whole idea of a process, such as the 'generation' of 'laws', taking place in the absence of a substrate, is nonsense, IMHO.

The laws appear along with the stuff they describe, not before.

JN => FAIL.

Sorry.

 

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


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 why the reason do you

 why the reason do you think some thing that have NO LAWS can NOT generate something?

 

There is no law of conservation of any kind and no law that the nothingness must have to stay in the same state. Then you CANNOT conclude the nothingness must stay a nothing. Otherwiser ,  Give you reason to something have no laws must stay in the same state.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote: why the reason

Jocax wrote:

 why the reason do you think some thing that have NO LAWS can NOT generate something?

 

There is no law of conservation of any kind and no law that the nothingness must have to stay in the same state. Then you CANNOT conclude the nothingness must stay a nothing. Otherwiser ,  Give you reason to something have no laws must stay in the same state.

Interesting. Your assertion that "Then you CANNOT conclude the nothingness must stay a nothing", is fully consistent with my position. Once some sort of something appears, then my scenario gets under way. 

I DID NOT conclude that there is a law "the nothingness must have to stay in the same state". Rather the opposite, if anything.

Just that rather than a LAW just popping into existence, I simply imagine the most basic possible form of 'stuff' appearing, along with its INHERENT simplest possible 'Laws'. That is the distinction between my concept and yours.

I hope your misreading of my post is due to a less than ideal comprehension of English. Otherwise you have serious logic problems.

 

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


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
the stuff must have law to stay the same stuff

Quote:

Just that rather than a LAW just popping into existence, I simply imagine the most basic possible form of 'stuff' appearing, along with its INHERENT simplest possible 'Laws'. That is the distinction between my concept and yours.


First,
I DID NOT said that the FIRST thing to appear (popup) from NJ
its necessary a LAW. Dont : It can be anything laws or not laws.

Second,
if there is no law the "stuf" you said canot have some structure !!
because to stay stable, constant, its necessary LAWS to remain is properties.
For example, the eletron will not remain an eletron if there is no law
that obligate , to force, the eletron to STAY AN ELETRON. Therefore
every STUFF that have some property MUST HAVE A LAW to stay with the SAME properties.

Third, you do not refutate my thesis that the NJ can randomize anything because
there is no restriction law to avoid this possibiliti.
 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:Quote:Just that

Jocax wrote:

Quote:

Just that rather than a LAW just popping into existence, I simply imagine the most basic possible form of 'stuff' appearing, along with its INHERENT simplest possible 'Laws'. That is the distinction between my concept and yours.


First,
I DID NOT said that the FIRST thing to appear (popup) from NJ
its necessary a LAW. Dont : It can be anything laws or not laws.

Second,
if there is no law the "stuf" you said canot have some structure !!
because to stay stable, constant, its necessary LAWS to remain is properties.
For example, the eletron will not remain an eletron if there is no law
that obligate , to force, the eletron to STAY AN ELETRON. Therefore
every STUFF that have some property MUST HAVE A LAW to stay with the SAME properties.

Third, you do not refutate my thesis that the NJ can randomize anything because
there is no restriction law to avoid this possibiliti.
 

You still don't get it. The law governing the stability, etc, of an electron is an attribute of the electron.

Even in your own words, you say that the 'first thing' is not necessarily a law. If it really can be anything, then it can be stuff PLUS the laws that apply to it.

The whole point of primordial stuff such as QF is that it has no clear structure, and behaves in an essentially random ( LAWLESS?? ) manner.

You have not come close to establishing the need for a Law to precede the stuff it DESCRIBES.

LAWS are DESCRIPTIONS,  not PRE-SCRIPTIONS, of the behavior of the stuff.

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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3177
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
well, in the words of billy

well, in the words of billy preston, "nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'."

(sorry, been tring to hold that back but i couldn't resist any longer...)

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Must be a bit tough to spend

Must be a bit tough to spend a lot of time coming with this great new 'theory', only have us point out all that it really doesn't work all that well...

 

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10322
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
That's how peer review works.

That's how peer review works. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: You still don't get

 

Quote:
You still don't get it. The law governing the stability, etc, of an electron is an attribute of the electron.[/b]

 The stability of the property of the eletron is because it flollow the law: "the electon do not decay, its must sustain its properties like charge, mass, spin in the time"Although no body say this is a law , its IS A LAW for the eletron.If didnot have this law the eletron coul decay like a proton decay. Didi u get it?  
Quote:
Even in your own words, you say that the 'first thing' is not necessarily a law. If it really can be anything, then it can be stuff PLUS the laws that apply to it.
 yes , I agree with it. But, the CAUSE of this stuff was the JN, otherwise you have to have a cause for the origin of this stuf.  
Quote:
The whole point of primordial stuff such as QF is that it has no clear structure, and behaves in an essentially random ( LAWLESS?? ) manner.
 If it has a structure and it is diferent of the nothing it demand (need ) an explanation or its existence. 
Quote:
You have not come close to establishing the need for a Law to precede the stuff it DESCRIBES. LAWS are DESCRIPTIONS,  not PRE-SCRIPTIONS, of the behavior of the stuff.
 I didnt understand.The stuff to maintain its structure must follow the rule : ts structure must preserv in the time"Otherwise it could be decay e lost its properties. 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
"WHY SOMETHING THAT HAVE NO LAWS CANOT GENERATE SOMETHING?"

 

Quote:
well, in the words of billy preston, "nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin'."

 NJ must NOT follow this script ! Smiling .
Quote:
Must be a bit tough to spend a lot of time coming with this great new 'theory', only have us point out all that it really doesn't work all that well...
 You did not refute the theory and do not answer the question:  "WHY SOMETHING THAT HAVE NO LAWS CANOT GENERATE SOMETHING?". 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10322
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
He's saying that the "stuff"

He's saying that the "stuff" and the "law" arise at the same time, and that the "law" is nothing more than a description of how the "stuff" behaves and interacts. You are presupposing that a "law" must exist in order for "stuff" to exist. But you have no way of testing this. You must in order to claim it as a valid hypothesis.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Seems like you're still

Seems like you're still assuming that the element time exists in this "nothingness". That in the nothingness things can change from one state to another because time is marching forward. In order to have states that change, there must be clock.

Did time always exist in move in one direction? Is time the preexisting element in "nothingness". Could the universe march back into a state of "nothingness"?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

Seems like you're still assuming that the element time exists in this "nothingness". That in the nothingness things can change from one state to another because time is marching forward. In order to have states that change, there must be clock.

 

So I was right. The universe DOES revolve around me.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
simply wait for the randomization of the "time"

 

Quote:
He's saying that the "stuff" and the "law" arise at the same time, and that the "law" is nothing more than a description of how the "stuff" behaves and interacts. You are presupposing that a "law" must exist in order for "stuff" to exist. But you have no way of testing this. You must in order to claim it as a valid hypothesis.

 I am saying that "stuf" with structure must have a law, and is SIMPLER that JN have always been existed than some "stuff" with its law. If his "stuff"  is not a nothingness it must be a cause , then the JN is simpler than stuff.   
Quote:
Seems like you're still assuming that the element time exists in this "nothingness". That in the nothingness things can change from one state to another because time is marching forward. In order to have states that change, there must be clock. Did time always exist in move in one direction? Is time the preexisting element in "nothingness". Could the universe march back into a state of "nothingness"?
. The time start with the firts randomization.Meanwhile, if its necessary some kind of "time" to have laws then its a question to "wait" the NJ randomize the "time" and we have the necessary conditionsto "natural selection" of the laws. 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10322
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
" I am saying that "stuf"

" I am saying that "stuf" with structure must have a law"

You're making a significant error by assuming laws must predate the stuff they describe. Without stuff to describe, there can be no law to describe the stuff that doesn't exist. Quite simply, you are assuming the laws exist regardless of whether or not there is anything for them to describe. If there is no energy, then the laws of thermodynamics are non-existent, since the stuff they refer to doesn't exist.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:   The time

Jocax wrote:
  

 The time start with the firts randomization.Meanwhile, if its necessary some kind of "time" to have laws then its a question to "wait" the NJ randomize the "time" and we have the necessary conditionsto "natural selection" of the laws. 

 

One of the mysteries of science is 'why does time have a direction'? It seems like the first event would have to be 'time comes into existence with a forward direction'. Then some randomization could occur. Could randomization or laws even exist without time as an a priori condition? I don't think we could get our minds around something like this.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The only "rules" than can

The only "rules" than can conceivably precede 'stuff' are things like the rules of Logic, and others like the theorems of Math which are ultimately state that IF some assumptions are true, then these relationships are inevitably true.

IOW, rules which are eternally and unalterably true.

The Laws of physics are ultimately of the same form: IF the basic stuff comprising matter/energy has THESE attributes, then it will 'obey' a THIS particular set of 'laws'.

So the particular LAWS of physics we observe FOLLOWS from the attributes of the particular nature of the stuff that condenses out of the Big Band, in accordance with the ETERNAL, INEVITABLY TRUE which provide the abstract context for whatever preceded the emergence of stuff, if that actually means anything given the uncertainties in understanding the 'origin' of Time.

Quantum Foam already describes one interpretation of the lowest, most fundamental possible state of existence, in accordance with Quantum Theory.

So JN is either a label on some variant of QF, or just a misconception, unless you want to ignore one of the most well-tested theories in physics (Quantum Mechanics), this requiring you to put up a replacement...

 

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


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
wrote: You're making a


wrote:
You're making a significant error by assuming laws must predate the stuff they describe.    


Not necessary predate but at leat comes in the same time they popup ( appear).
If the stuff has properties that are stable then it is necessary to have law
to obligue to force the stuff to keep they properties otherwise that properties could be
changed randomly.

But it is not important.
The core is that the stuff is more complex that nothngness.

 


wrote:
  Quite simply, you are assuming the laws exist regardless of whether or not there is anything for them to describe.  


I Thing you do not understand.
I did not assume pre-existence of laws of any kind.
I am saying that anything that have order like some structure must have LAW to keep that structure.


wrote:
  One of the mysteries of science is 'why does time have a direction'? It seems like the first event would have to be 'time comes into existence with a forward direction'.  


Perhaps if the time was in the backward direction then we  STILL would call it
the FORWARD direction !
Any direction the time goes we probably will entitle it "forward" direction.

Can I be understood?


wrote:
  Could randomization or laws even exist without time as an a priori condition? I don't think we could get our minds around something like this.  

.
The time is only the relationship between events. If there are no event then there are no time !!

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
many possible universes

wrote:
   The only "rules" than can conceivably precede 'stuff' are things like the rules of Logic, and others like the theorems of Math which are ultimately state that IF some assumptions are true, then these relationships are inevitably true.

IOW, rules which are eternally and unalterably true. 


At beginning the NJ do not have to obey any law, neither logical laws !
After a lot of randomizations the laws of the logic are selected.

.


wrote:
   So the particular LAWS of physics we observe FOLLOWS from the attributes of the particular nature of the stuff that condenses out of the Big Band, in accordance with the ETERNAL, INEVITABLY TRUE which provide the abstract context for whatever preceded the emergence of stuff, if that actually means anything given the uncertainties in understanding the 'origin' of Time. 


.

I dont think the OUR LAWS ARE THE UNIQUE LAWS POSSIBLE !!
Even thinking the laws must follow the logic laws it not IMPLY that the
physical law must be the SAME in all possible universe !

There are a lot of possible set of physical laws that could be consistent and logic.

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
MQquantun is not the simplest thing of the universe



wrote:
   Quantum Foam already describes one interpretation of the lowest, most fundamental possible state of existence, in accordance with Quantum Theory.

So JN is either a label on some variant of QF, or just a misconception, unless you want to ignore one of the most well-tested theories in physics (Quantum Mechanics), this requiring you to put up a replacement... 


.
The quantum physics (MQ) have a lot of LAWS and is based in LAW of the logic.
Then MQ IS NOT THE MOST SIMPLE THINK POSSIBLE !
Therefore it must have a simpler origin and therefore
MQ NOT its not the better choice to origin of the cosmo
because the JN can GENERATE MQ !
 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5085
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
After reading this thread again I

 

Think the Jocaxian Nothingness is actually still with us.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote: wrote:   The

Jocax wrote:

wrote:
   The only "rules" than can conceivably precede 'stuff' are things like the rules of Logic, and others like the theorems of Math which are ultimately state that IF some assumptions are true, then these relationships are inevitably true.

IOW, rules which are eternally and unalterably true. 


At beginning the NJ do not have to obey any law, neither logical laws !
After a lot of randomizations the laws of the logic are selected.

Logic Laws simply describe the absolutely minimal basic relationships which will be observed in any coherent reality.

The idea of a 'nothingness' in which some actual 'process' takes place involving a selection of possible patterns of behaviour (which is what physical Laws are) are 'randomised' and one set emerges, is the most absurd notions I have heard of. Far to much is actually happening there for it to be described as a 'nothingness'. Where did the 'laws' which define that behaviour and the random selection process come from??

You have an infinite regress problem, among other things.

Quote:


wrote:
   So the particular LAWS of physics we observe FOLLOWS from the attributes of the particular nature of the stuff that condenses out of the Big Band, in accordance with the ETERNAL, INEVITABLY TRUE which provide the abstract context for whatever preceded the emergence of stuff, if that actually means anything given the uncertainties in understanding the 'origin' of Time. 



I dont think the OUR LAWS ARE THE UNIQUE LAWS POSSIBLE !!
Even thinking the laws must follow the logic laws it not IMPLY that the
physical law must be the SAME in all possible universe !

There are a lot of possible set of physical laws that could be consistent and logic.

I agree that the particular set of physical laws we observe in our universe are one of set of possible sets of laws which could describe possible Universes. This is recognized by cosmology and physics.

There can still be an overarching 'Law' which describes the constraints on the possible sets of mutually consistent laws which could apply in any specific Universe. For example, if there is a particle like the electron then IF its charge to mass ratio has some specific value, then that may only be compatible with some corresponding value for that of a proton, or maybe proton-like particles would be impossible in Universes where 'electrons' have such a charge and mass. That law governing the relationship between possible electron charge-to-mass and the properties of a proton-like particle consistent with that would be a meta-law.

The 'Laws' describing the possible combinations of physical laws that could exist in any particular set could be referred to as 'meta-laws', and may be constant and universal.

So the fact that there are many possible sets of physical laws does not mean there is not a higher level fixed 'law' that governs the various sets of physical laws that can apply to any one universe. The selection of which set apples could easily be imagined to be determined by the way the raw stuff of the Big Bang happened to randomly condense out into proto-particles and photons, etc, out of a possibly infinite number possible ways. This is consistent with the way current cosmological thinking seems to be going.

It explains where our specific law-set came from, without imagining something actually happening in a 'nothingness'.

Laws do not exist as things. They are descriptions of the way things behave, or the inevitable implications of each fact of existence for other possible facts of existence.

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote: wrote:  

Jocax wrote:



wrote:
   Quantum Foam already describes one interpretation of the lowest, most fundamental possible state of existence, in accordance with Quantum Theory.

So JN is either a label on some variant of QF, or just a misconception, unless you want to ignore one of the most well-tested theories in physics (Quantum Mechanics), this requiring you to put up a replacement... 


.
The quantum physics (MQ) have a lot of LAWS and is based in LAW of the logic.
Then MQ IS NOT THE MOST SIMPLE THINK POSSIBLE !
Therefore it must have a simpler origin and therefore
MQ NOT its not the better choice to origin of the cosmo
because the JN can GENERATE MQ !
 

Quantum mechanics says that QF is the simplest possible form of actual existence. The fact that it may not be a totally chaotic blur, and has some utterly minimal structure does not mean it is not the simplest thing POSSIBLE! That is purely an assumption on your part.

Yes, you can no doubt conceive of a simpler scenario, but that does not make that scenario POSSIBLE.

The consistent message from what we discover about behaviour of particles at the Quantum scale is that our intuitions are a poor guide to what is or is not possible.

A nothingness that can generate LAWS is a nonsensical, unnecessary concept that is a contradiction to the idea of a nothingness.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I think I know where the JN

I think I know where the JN can actually be found - between the ears of Jocax.

 

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


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
do you think darwin theory is absurd too?


wrote:
  Think the Jocaxian Nothingness is actually still with us.  


Its possible that its mainly property of randon-generation is still working
but temporary stopped bay some rule, for example,  like :
"rules will be stoped to popup until  the sun have exploded, after the randon generation will restart again."
Its one of the infinite possibilities.

.


wrote:
  Logic Laws simply describe the absolutely minimal basic relationships which will be observed in any coherent reality.  

.
At the beginning NOTHING must be coehrent.
Because this i named "schizo-crations" the firsts creation generated.
.




wrote:
   The idea of a 'nothingness' in which some actual 'process' takes place involving a selection of possible patterns of behaviour (which is what physical Laws are) are 'randomised' and one set emerges, is the most absurd notions I have heard of. 


Why absurd?
Dis you think the darwinism where species evolve bay natural selection is absurd too
and the life was a god's creation?

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
wrote:  Where did the


wrote:
  Where did the 'laws' which define that behaviour and the random selection process come from??

You have an infinite regress problem, among other things.  

.
The cause of the possible random creation is the lack of the laws!
If there is no restriction law then things coul happen or not.
.
I think you didnt read the text very weel:


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.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote: wrote:  Logic

Jocax wrote:


wrote:
  Logic Laws simply describe the absolutely minimal basic relationships which will be observed in any coherent reality.  

.
At the beginning NOTHING must be coehrent.
Because this i named "schizo-crations" the firsts creation generated.

Your idea may some merit in the sense that until something randomly appeared that did have those minimal basic characteristics, it either didn't last or simply persists as something incapable of generating actual coherent universe of any form, in some other 'dimension'.

Quote:


wrote:
   The idea of a 'nothingness' in which some actual 'process' takes place involving a selection of possible patterns of behaviour (which is what physical Laws are) are 'randomised' and one set emerges, is the most absurd notions I have heard of. 


Why absurd?
Dis you think the darwinism where species evolve bay natural selection is absurd too
and the life was a god's creation?


Simply because evolution involves actual real entities, not empty 'nothingness'. Any actual process involves interacting things, not abstract laws in an empty nothingness.

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


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
the important is that laws have emerged


wrote:
  The 'Laws' describing the possible combinations of physical laws that could exist in any particular set could be referred to as 'meta-laws', and may be constant and universal.  


That you have said is apropriate to your declaration:
"..You have an infinite regress problem, among other things...."

Because if you to elect a "meta-law" like you elect GOD for the origin
then you have to explain your "meta-law" because its not simpler
than the nothingness.



wrote:
  Laws do not exist as things. They are descriptions of the way things behave, or the inevitable implications of each fact of existence for other possible facts of existence.  


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).

But you DONT unsdertood that its not important if laws or thing or both
primary popup from nevertheless. The important thing is that
LAWS COULD BE EMERGED, and after this they suffering a "natural selection"
 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
meta-law is not QF


wrote:
  Quantum mechanics says that QF is the simplest possible form of actual existence. The fact that it may not be a totally chaotic blur, and has some utterly minimal structure does not mean it is not the simplest thing POSSIBLE! That is purely an assumption on your part.  


You contradict yourself !!

See you said:

"
I agree that the particular set of physical laws we observe in our universe are one of set of possible sets of laws which could describe possible Universes. This is recognized by cosmology and physics......
..The 'Laws' describing the possible combinations of physical laws that could exist in any particular set could be referred to as 'meta-laws', and may be constant and universal....
"


Far the must, of course you have to prove or give an evidence WHY
Quantum Physics is the simplest form have to exist.
of course QF is more complex than nothing and you did not refuted
the core idea that the nothing can genetrate things.
 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
JN is not a trivial nothingness



wrote:
  A nothingness that can generate LAWS is a nonsensical, unnecessary concept that is a contradiction to the idea of a nothingness.  


Because this the theory is named Jocaxian-Nothingness and NOT "nothingness"
JN is something that could be existed is not a nothingness people imagine.

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote: wrote: 

Jocax wrote:


wrote:
  Quantum mechanics says that QF is the simplest possible form of actual existence. The fact that it may not be a totally chaotic blur, and has some utterly minimal structure does not mean it is not the simplest thing POSSIBLE! That is purely an assumption on your part.  


You contradict yourself !!

See you said:

"
I agree that the particular set of physical laws we observe in our universe are one of set of possible sets of laws which could describe possible Universes. This is recognized by cosmology and physics......
..The 'Laws' describing the possible combinations of physical laws that could exist in any particular set could be referred to as 'meta-laws', and may be constant and universal....
"


Far the must, of course you have to prove or give an evidence WHY
Quantum Physics is the simplest form have to exist.
of course QF is more complex than nothing and you did not refuted
the core idea that the nothing can genetrate things.
 

TRUE nothingness cannot generate anything.

Quantum physics , especially the Uncertainty Principle, fundamentally shows that there are only discrete states of existence, ie that you cannot have indefinitely small values for energy or other fundamental parameters of particles.  There can be no particle with 10% or 1% of the charge of an electron. 

Similarly, at the lowest possible energy level, if there is not absolutely nothing, their will be a non-zero probability of that all-but-nothing having an energy level of either zero or the first possible discrete value above zero. 

Stuff may conceivably simply appear from virtual nothing, and exactly what appears will have a level of randomness, but the idea that some actual process of shuffling was going on before that something appeared really doesn't make sense without some much better argument than simply claiming it, because such a process really is not necessary to explain the nature of actual physical laws.

The randomness of what pops into existence is easily conceivable as generated as part of the actual process of emergence, rather than as something that preceded it.

This is the point you keep missing - the 'Laws' don't need to exist BEFORE the stuff they describe, they are are just a description of the inherent behaviour of what does actually appear.

And that the range of actual possible physical laws does exist is perfectly possible within the framework of a fixed meta-law defining what combinations of physical laws can apply to any one universe, the selection occurring as the laws emerge, not before.

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5085
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmmmmmm

BobSpence1 wrote:

Jocax wrote:


wrote:
  Quantum mechanics says that QF is the simplest possible form of actual existence. The fact that it may not be a totally chaotic blur, and has some utterly minimal structure does not mean it is not the simplest thing POSSIBLE! That is purely an assumption on your part.  


You contradict yourself !!

See you said:

"
I agree that the particular set of physical laws we observe in our universe are one of set of possible sets of laws which could describe possible Universes. This is recognized by cosmology and physics......
..The 'Laws' describing the possible combinations of physical laws that could exist in any particular set could be referred to as 'meta-laws', and may be constant and universal....
"


Far the must, of course you have to prove or give an evidence WHY
Quantum Physics is the simplest form have to exist.
of course QF is more complex than nothing and you did not refuted
the core idea that the nothing can genetrate things.
 

TRUE nothingness cannot generate anything.

Quantum physics , especially the Uncertainty Principle, fundamentally shows that there are only discrete states of existence, ie that you cannot have indefinitely small values for energy or other fundamental parameters of particles.  There can be no particle with 10% or 1% of the charge of an electron. 

Similarly, at the lowest possible energy level, if there is not absolutely nothing, their will be a non-zero probability of that all-but-nothing having an energy level of either zero or the first possible discrete value above zero. 

Stuff may conceivably simply appear from virtual nothing, and exactly what appears will have a level of randomness, but the idea that some actual process of shuffling was going on before that something appeared really doesn't make sense without some much better argument than simply claiming it, because it really is not necessary to explain the nature of actual physical laws.

The randomness of what pops into existence is easily conceivable as generated as part of the actual process of emergence, rather than as something that preceded it.

This is the point you keep missing - the 'Laws' don't need to exist BEFORE the stuff they describe, they are are just a description of the inherent behaviour of what does actually appear.

And that the range of actual possible physical laws does is perfectly possible within the framework of a fixed meta-law defining what combinations of physical laws can apply to any one universe, the selection occurring as the laws emerge, not before.

 

Having read the original article again you'd have to think, given Jocax is talking about the natural selection of laws - a process that sounds a bit odd to me given these laws are not in race to survive, that regardless of whether JN is one law heavier than trivial nothingness, there must have been a time when TN prevailed and JN had not yet evolved, hauling the argument back down into the nothingness from whence it came. I also agree with your contention Bob, that a law describes a something and in the context of the JN, the presence of a single law allowing something to happen sounds impossible.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: TRUE nothingness

 

Quote:
TRUE nothingness cannot generate anything.

 Why NJ ( not any nothingness) ?  What is the reason do you think that?    
Quote:
Quantum physics , especially the Uncertainty Principle, fundamentally shows that there are only discrete states of existence, ie that you cannot have indefinitely small values for energy or other fundamental parameters of particles.  There can be no particle with 10% or 1% of the charge of an electron.  
 You can say, without proof, that every possible universe must follow quantum physics ! .  
Quote:
Stuff may conceivably simply appear from virtual nothing, and exactly what appears will have a level of randomness, but the idea that some actual process of shuffling was going on before that something appeared really doesn't make sense without some much better argument than simply claiming it, because such a process really is not necessary to explain the nature of actual physical laws.  
.At first I did not only claim that NJ make things appear from nothing !I said the reason: The lack of laws ( no conservation laws of any kind )  Second, you do not explain wgu quantum mechanis is that way. YOU ONLY CLAIM THE Q.F. IS THE START OF ALL POSSIBLE UNIVERSE.Not me.  

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
  Quote:The randomness of

 

 
Quote:
The randomness of what pops into existence is easily conceivable as generated as part of the actual process of emergence, rather than as something that preceded it. This is the point you keep missing - the 'Laws' don't need to exist BEFORE the stuff they describe, they are are just a description of the inherent behaviour of what does actually appear.  
.I did not say that the laws must precede the things.I said Shcizo creation can be anything, laws or things.But you dont explain HOW the laws appear to existence.You only claim that is the simplest way of nature but nobody ( i know ) agree with this claim.