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.

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
  Quote:- a process that

 

 
Quote:
- a process that sounds a bit odd to me given these laws are not in race to survive,  
 The "stronger law" ( in the selection natural in JN) is  the LAST law to pop to existence.   
Quote:
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.  
.We writre laws thar describe the behavior of matter.But the LAW exist independent of the human write about them.Because this, laws govern the universe not only describe them.Of course the laws coud be thought as some relation with the matter like time...but it is another subject. 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:  Quote:The

Jocax wrote:

 

 
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. 

 

Laws are descriptions of the attributes of things. There is nothing to explain about the appearance of laws, only the things need to be explained, the laws are an aspect of the things. No separate description of the appearance of the laws is required. 

You are inventing a solution to a non-problem (the appearance of Laws).

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10136
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"No!You have a problem

"No!You have a problem similat to "chicken-egg-origin" paradox:Things with structure that have properties must be law to keep its properties , otherwise this properties do not are manted (kept)."

No! Stuff happened. Laws explain it. End of story. As Bob said, you've invented a problem that quite literally doesn't exist. Your allusion to chicken & egg is a demonstration of your ignorance. Neither came first. A T-Rex came before both.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

I mean, what's more likely -- that I have uncovered fundamental flaws in this field that no one in it has ever thought about, or that I need to read a little more?  Hint: it's the one that involves less work.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"No!You have a

Vastet wrote:
"No!You have a problem similat to "chicken-egg-origin" paradox:Things with structure that have properties must be law to keep its properties , otherwise this properties do not are manted (kept)." No! Stuff happened. Laws explain it. End of story. As Bob said, you've invented a problem that quite literally doesn't exist. Your allusion to chicken & egg is a demonstration of your ignorance. Neither came first. A T-Rex came before both.

Right!

Laws don't "keep the properties". That is total nonsense. A Law of physics, etc. is NOT some spooky, separate, immaterial thing which controls the behaviour of stuff. 

The attributes of the stuff define the Laws, you silly Jocax!!

EDIT: "silly Jocax" came out a bit "gay" - I was trying to avoid saying something much more offensive....

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Deadly Fingergun
atheist
Deadly Fingergun's picture
Posts: 237
Joined: 2009-11-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Vastet

BobSpence1 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"No!You have a problem similat to "chicken-egg-origin" paradox:Things with structure that have properties must be law to keep its properties , otherwise this properties do not are manted (kept)." No! Stuff happened. Laws explain it. End of story. As Bob said, you've invented a problem that quite literally doesn't exist. Your allusion to chicken & egg is a demonstration of your ignorance. Neither came first. A T-Rex came before both.

Right!

Laws don't "keep the properties". That is total nonsense. A Law of physics, etc. is NOT some spooky, separate, immaterial thing which controls the behaviour of stuff. 

The attributes of the stuff define the Laws, you silly Jocax!!

This would be one of the better reasons for having abandoned language in favor of math for discussing this stuff among physicists. Words are mushy and confusing.


 

Big E wrote:
Clown
Why, yes, I am!


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
What's going on here? Jocax

What's going on here? Jocax is putting the cart before the horse? Jocax is trapped by Plato's theory of forms?

Jocax wrote:
We writre laws thar describe the behavior of matter.

But the LAW exist independent of the human write about them.

The natural world comes first. The natural world does not behave in a certain way due to immaterial laws; it simply is what it is. Immaterial laws would be redundant and completely unnecessary. Laws are derived from the behavior of matter. Yes, the behavior of the natural world exists independent of the humans who write about it. But clearly, mathematical formulations of physical relationships and behavior do not exist independent of the humans who write about them, as they are merely human abstractions of how the natural world behaves.  

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
wrote: Laws are descriptions


wrote:
Laws are descriptions of the attributes of things.

.
Laws not only is the description of the atribute but the relationchip
between others things.

wrote:
  There is nothing to explain about the appearance of laws,
only the things need to be explained, the laws are an aspect of the things.
No separate description of the appearance of the laws is required.    
  


See the example of virtual particles:
In quanfum vacuum virtual particles can pop to existence where there was nothing.
Then, why this particles pop to existence with the same and exact properties
and not another propertie?  There was no matter to get the laws of this particle.
Then were the vaccum knows HOW these particles can be?
How the universe 'knows' that speed of light have to be 'c' and not another value?

Because there have some LAWS in the vaccum (or coded in some dimension of universe).

Therefore we , at least , have to conclude that the LAWS exists and in the some way
are wrintten or coded in the 'texture' of the universe.


wrote:
  You are inventing a solution to a non-problem (the appearance of Laws).  


Its a problem: For example if the speed of the light was 2c and not c How would be
the diference of the vaccum?


wrote:


"No!You have a problem similat to "chicken-egg-origin" paradox:Things with structure that have properties must be law to keep its properties , otherwise this properties do not are manted (kept)."

No! Stuff happened. Laws explain it. End of story. As Bob said, you've invented a problem that quite literally doesn't exist. Your allusion to chicken & egg is a demonstration of your ignorance. Neither came first. A T-Rex came before both.
   


Stuff canot have properties if there are NO LAWS to mantain this properties !
Why do you thing the eletron , for example, has properties like negative charge,
 and not a different  one?
Why do you think the eletron ever mantain its properties in the tiome e NOT DECAY
or not transform in another particles?
BECAUSE THERE WERE LAWS GOVERNING IT.

You can say that electron have LAWS EMBEDED IN IT.
In this case I can agree, but you have to agree that there are LAWS ,
because laws are a way that keep STABILITY in the time.


 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
wrote:   The attributes of



wrote:
   The attributes of the stuff define the Laws, you silly Jocax!! 


Not only,  because The LAWS EXISTS WITHOUT STUFF  ! See this examples:


The GRAVITY LAWS, for example, exists without stuff (matter)
the COULOMB LAWS exist without charge in the space !!
The law that say the speed of the light is constant EXISTS WITHOUT LIGHT !!


YOU DENNY THIS?
 

When the matter or light or charge appear in the vaccum . for example, it has to OBEY its laws . Then WHERE THE LAWS COME FROM?  Its have coded in the texture of the universe. EVEN THERE WERE NO MATTER OR LIHT OR CHARGE IN IT.
 

 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
stability imply laws



wrote:
    

wrote:
  Yes, the behavior of the natural world exists independent of the
humans who write about it. But clearly, mathematical formulations of
physical relationships and behavior do not exist independent of
the humans who write about them, as they are merely human abstractions of
how the natural world behaves.    

.

I' m refering (saying ) about the natural laws and NOT about the laws writen by humans being.
.
In this way STABILITY STUFF need laws to maintain its properties constant in the time.
 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Gravity can exist without stuff?

 

This can't be right. Gravity is the attraction 2 particles have for each other and it's a force that in space causes bodies to be drawn to each other. You can't have gravity with no stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote: wrote:   The

Jocax wrote:



wrote:
   The attributes of the stuff define the Laws, you silly Jocax!! 


Not only,  because The LAWS EXISTS WITHOUT STUFF  ! See this examples:


The GRAVITY LAWS, for example, exists without stuff (matter)
the COULOMB LAWS exist without charge in the space !!
The law that say the speed of the light is constant EXISTS WITHOUT LIGHT !!


YOU DENNY THIS?
 

When the matter or light or charge appear in the vaccum . for example, it has to OBEY its laws . Then WHERE THE LAWS COME FROM?  Its have coded in the texture of the universe. EVEN THERE WERE NO MATTER OR LIHT OR CHARGE IN IT.
 

The LAWS DESCRIBING the behaviour of a thing come from the same place all its other attributes,  its size, charge, color, shape, mass, etc come from. They are coded into the stuff or the fundamental particles which define the thing to which the LAW applied. That is the way science currently sees it, although we have not found some of these particles, like the 'graviton' for gravity, the Higgs Boson for mass, which they are looking for with LHC.

If there was no matter in existence, then all that one could say was that IF there was some stuff that had the attributes of matter as we know it, it would behave as we observe that matter to behave.

The laws only exist in the same sense that the laws of logic and math exist. They FOLLOW from very basic aspects of 'reality'. Logic and all its elaborations and theorems FOLLOW deductively from the basic nature of a universe in which we can distinguish one part of reality from another, such that there exists 'A' and 'not A'. Similarly for math - its theorems are not all specifically encoded somewhere in the structure of the Universe. Math just says that IF the basic axioms apply to the universe, THEN all this follows...

In a sense, the various aspects of matter/energy and the forces they experience are encoded in the Universe, but only in that very basic sense. The details follow as consequences of those very basic attributes combined with the implications of the attributes of specific types of particles.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:I' m refering

Jocax wrote:
I' m refering (saying ) about the natural laws and NOT about the laws writen by humans being.

Yes, I know. Look at the section I quoted; I was responding to this:

"We writre laws thar describe the behavior of matter. But the LAW exist independent of the human write about them."

The natural laws exist independent of humans, but they do not exist independent of the natural world because they ARE the relationships and behaviors of the natural world. They do not precede it.  

Jocax wrote:
In this way STABILITY STUFF need laws to maintain its properties constant in the time.

Without immaterial laws, everything would be random and chaotic? Why?

Jocax wrote:
The GRAVITY LAWS, for example, exists without stuff (matter) 

the COULOMB LAWS exist without charge in the space !!
The law that say the speed of the light is constant EXISTS WITHOUT LIGHT !!


YOU DENNY THIS? 

 

Yes, I completely deny that. Einstein's Law of Universal Gravitation does not exist without matter. Coulomb's Law does not exist without electrostatic forces. The speed of light does not exist without light. These are merely the ways in which reality behaves; they neither precede reality nor dictate how it behaves.

I'm a scientific naturalist. For me, it is silly to discuss anything immaterial that exists as anything more than a statement or abstraction of reality. Your laws are garbage. Reality simply exists; it does not need "higher" or "inherent" justification from supernatural laws/forms, gods, esoteric realms, dust, etc. Furthermore, since you have proposed something that is firmly in the realm of the supernatural, you now need to explain what is even meant by these laws "existing."

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:This

Atheistextremist wrote:
This can't be right. Gravity is the attraction 2 particles have for each other and it's a force that in space causes bodies to be drawn to each other. You can't have gravity with no stuff. 

Jocax is arguing that the "rule" of gravity is an actual "thing." 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10136
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It really can't be said any

It really can't be said any simpler OR more complex than it has. I'd be repeating myself or others to continue discussing this fallacious proposal.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: This can't be

 

 
Quote:
This can't be right. Gravity is the attraction 2 particles have for each other and it's a force that in space causes bodies to be drawn to each other. You can't have gravity with no stuff.
  But thing in the vaccum without any particles.Then a pair of virtual particles APPEAR TO EXISTENCE from this vacuum.And appear a gravitational force that atract them.This force and the pair of particles too NOT had existed before but it was pop to existence follow with the gravity LAW !! Then the gravity law have already existed, coded somewhere,  before the particles pop to existence.Do you agree?  

 


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

 

  
Quote:
The LAWS DESCRIBING the behaviour of a thing come from the same place all its other attributes,  its size, charge, color, shape, mass, etc come from. They are coded into the stuff or the fundamental particles which define the thing to which the LAW applied.
 You have to think WHY from anywhere in the vacuum the properties from the particles that POP to existence ARE THE SAME !! Did you get?  If ALL particles to pop to existence where have no one before have the SAME LAWS its because that laws ALREADY WAS THERE, codes some place some how. 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
complex law dont pop from nothing without explanation its origin

  

Quote:
If there was no matter in existence, then all that one could say was that IF there was some stuff that had the attributes of matter as we know it, it would behave as we observe that matter to behave.
 WHY the stuff have to behave exactly the same even it not have existed before? I Think the laws already have existed. Because this there are a theory about the origin of the cosmo starting with the quantum vacuum.  QF is a lot of premisses that exist independent of presence of stuff.   
Quote:
 Logic and all its elaborations and theorems FOLLOW deductively from the basic nature of a universe in which we can distinguish one part of reality from another, such that there exists 'A' and 'not A'. Similarly for math - its theorems are not all specifically encoded somewhere in the structure of the Universe. Math just says that IF the basic axioms apply to the universe, THEN all this follows...
. The universe DID NOT BEHAVE a priori with our logic or our physical laws.They are not trivial. They are complex laws , if it was easy we already have found it !and the phusics do not will have more work to do.But the laws are so complex that we still do not found it. 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: Jocax wrote:In

 

 
Quote:
Jocax wrote:In this way STABILITY STUFF need laws to maintain its properties constant in the time.Without immaterial laws, everything would be random and chaotic? Why?
 It is an essencial question ! Because there is NO REASON to things stay the same.If there is no rule then there is no rule saying: "stuff need have the same properties by the time" Then it coul be the same propertie or change it randomly.

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: Yes, I completely

 

Quote:
Yes, I completely deny that. Einstein's Law of Universal Gravitation does not exist without matter. Coulomb's Law does not exist without electrostatic forces. The speed of light does not exist without light. These are merely the ways in which reality behaves; they neither precede reality nor dictate how it behaves.

 "...  “ A disadvantage of Tryon's theory, and of other theories that postulate a background space from which the universe fluctuates, is that they explain the existence of the universe but only at the price of introducing another unexplained given, namely, the background space. This problem is absent from Vilenkin's theory, which represents the universe as emerging without a cause " from literally nothing " (1982, p. 26). The universe appears in a quantum tunneling from nothing at all to de Sitter space .”  ..." There are a LOT of physic theory that the stuff cames from the nothing but they follow laws.  The Quantum Physics ( its laws ) have already existed in order the stuff comes with THE SAME LAW. 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
  "....Alan Guth's main

 

 "....Alan Guth's main beliefs about the universe are that it definitely has a beginning and that it is just one of many universes that came into existence. Inflation never ends, but keeps expanding at an exponential rate, meaning that it doubles in very short increments much less than one second. Universes keep being created all the time as bubbles within the inflation process. The entire cosmos was created by quantum fluctuations from nothingness. While the concept of a universe being created from nothing sounds improbable, it is perfectly consistent with the laws of conservation of energy because its total energy value is zero. ..........magine no space at all and no matter at all. Good luck.  To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something. Quantum theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules any physical system. It is impossible, even in principle, to predict the behavior of any single atom; all physicists can do is predict the average properties of a large collection of atoms. Quantum theory also holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly. While this phenomenon has never been observed directly, measurements of the electron's magnetic strength strongly imply that it is real and happening in the vacuum of space even now.  Theoretically, anything—a dog, a house, a planet—can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles—one positive, one negative, so that conservation laws are not violated—are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly, typically for only 10-21 second. The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely.  ..." Did you see?Before matter pop have alreay RULES from quantum physics  QF drive in therefore LAWS of the COULOMB for example and other forces belong to QF   and allready had existed BEFORE the first particle pop to existence. There ALREADY HAVE CONSERVATION LAWS BEFORE PARTICLES POP TO EXISTENCE. Then the laws precede the stuff. 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
  Quote:Your laws are

 

 
Quote:
Your laws are garbage. Reality simply exists; it does not need "higher" or "inherent" justification from supernatural laws/forms, gods, esoteric realms, dust, etc. Furthermore, since you have proposed something that is firmly in the realm of the supernatural, you now need to explain what is even meant by these laws "existing."  
 If you have some complex and IMPROBABLE things in a existence ( reality ) I thing it demand , necessit some explanation about origin.That is the REASON we do not agree that the life or the cosmo have ever existed and therefore we try EXPLAIN its by simpler things. THE SAME WAY we have complex law of the physics that must have to some origin because it is not a simplest thing that do not necessity explanation. But you can say : Physical law have existed for ever eternely, I dont think so. 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10136
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
This will be my last

This will be my last response in this thread, barring the unforeseen possibility that the discussion may actually gain substance.

"WHY"

THIS is your critical and ultimate flaw. You are begging the question. You must prove that there must be a why. You cannot just ask the question and assume it has meaning, because it currently doesn't. Instead, ask how. Where, when, and what are also acceptable. But why presupposes a meaning to existence, which has never been observed to have an absolute quality with which one can attach a why. There is no why. Or if there is, we are unaware of it. You could present this on a thousand different scientific forums, in a hundred different languages, and they'll all tell you what we have. Until you have a way to test your hypothesis, it is nothing more than philosophy and question begging wrapped together.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:   Quote: The

Jocax wrote:

 

  
Quote:
The LAWS DESCRIBING the behaviour of a thing come from the same place all its other attributes,  its size, charge, color, shape, mass, etc come from. They are coded into the stuff or the fundamental particles which define the thing to which the LAW applied.
 You have to think WHY from anywhere in the vacuum the properties from the particles that POP to existence ARE THE SAME !! Did you get?  If ALL particles to pop to existence where have no one before have the SAME LAWS its because that laws ALREADY WAS THERE, codes some place some how. 

You actually might have a point, IF particles were totally independently popping into existence from the raw nothingness or quantum foam, but the actual scientific thoughts here are that either:

1. gravity is truly fundamental, and can only only appear in one form,

OR

2. along with the other forces and the primary particles, it condenses out of the Big Bang singularity 'substance' - randomly (?) - as one of the possible ways the raw primeval 'substance' of the BB singularity can crystallize into the seed of space-time-matter-energy which then inflates into the early stages of the BB expansion as a volume of space-time with uniform properties.

It will be uniform because the particular space-time-mass-energy structure emerged at a time while the Universe was so small that everything was in such close connection that there was only 'room' for one structure to form.

What I am saying is the problem you raise has already been considered and explicitly addressed by what is known as 'Cosmic Inflation', originally proposed by Alan Guth. If you are not already aware of this aspect of BB theory, you should look it up.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:  Quote: If

Jocax wrote:

  
Quote:
If there was no matter in existence, then all that one could say was that IF there was some stuff that had the attributes of matter as we know it, it would behave as we observe that matter to behave.
 WHY the stuff have to behave exactly the same even it not have existed before? I Think the laws already have existed. Because this there are a theory about the origin of the cosmo starting with the quantum vacuum.  QF is a lot of premisses that exist independent of presence of stuff. 
 The current explanation is basically Cosmic Inflation as I described in my previous post. 
Quote:
 
Quote:
 Logic and all its elaborations and theorems FOLLOW deductively from the basic nature of a universe in which we can distinguish one part of reality from another, such that there exists 'A' and 'not A'. Similarly for math - its theorems are not all specifically encoded somewhere in the structure of the Universe. Math just says that IF the basic axioms apply to the universe, THEN all this follows...
. The universe DID NOT BEHAVE a priori with our logic or our physical laws.They are not trivial. They are complex laws , if it was easy we already have found it !and the phusics do not will have more work to do.But the laws are so complex that we still do not found it. 

You have no basis for saying logic could be any different in a universe which made any kind of sense, since it FOLLOWS from extremely fundamental properties of existence, ie that stuff can exist as identifiably different chunks, 'A' and 'not A': the rest of Logic is DEDUCED, ie, it INEVITABLY follows from that basic property of existence.

Math and logic SHOW that extremely complex laws can FOLLOW, ie be INEVITABLY and UNIQUELY DETERMINED by a few simple AXIOMS, which is all that needs to either come into existence initially, or emerge with matter/energy.

The exact nature of such laws does need to be complex for us not to have found them yet, since they emerged, or applied, while the Universe was in a very different state to what it is now, and desribe the nature of particles we have not yet detected, such as the Higgs Boson.

This is an important part of what is being investigated with the new Large Hadron Collider.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


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

 

Quote:
THIS is your critical and ultimate flaw. You are begging the question.

 You must prove that there must be a why. You cannot just ask the question and assume it has meaning, because it currently doesn't. Instead, ask how. Where, when, and what are also acceptable. But why presupposes a meaning to existence, which has never been observed to have an absolute quality with which one can attach a why. There is no why. Or if there is, we are unaware of it. You could present this on a thousand different scientific forums, in a hundred different languages, and they'll all tell you what we have. Until you have a way to test your hypothesis, it is nothing more than philosophy and question begging wrapped together.
 The "HOW" question is interesting to be answered too;"HOW the our laws become what they are?"or"Do the lwas of the universe ever are the same forever in the past?" I think the laws dond were the same , I think the laws have had an evolution to become what they are now, like I explain in the initial text..But it yours rigth believe that it are the same all the time. I dont think so becausethe laws are complex. If were simple we alread have found it. ..
Quote:
It will be uniform because the particular space-time-mass-energy structure emerged at a time while the Universe was so small that everything was in such close connection that there was only 'room' for one structure to form.
 I understand this "room" is the space where the laws are embeded ( coded ).Thus every particle that pop to existence will have to obey the same laws ( the laws inside the 'room' )because this all particles the same name have the same properties:  Because there are a generaw law controling them..     
Quote:
What I am saying is the problem you raise has already been considered and explicitly addressed by what is known as 'Cosmic Inflation', originally proposed by Alan Guth. If you are not already aware of this aspect of BB theory, you should look it up.
 No, the problem is BEFORE the Big-bang. At the Big bang the laws already have formed. They are done.The question is: "Why the laws have  this 'shape' ? "and "How the laws pop to existence if no laws  is simpler?" 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:  WHY the stuff

WHY the stuff have to behave exactly the same even it not have existed before? I Think the laws already have existed. Because this there are a theory about the origin of the cosmo starting with the quantum vacuum.  QF is a lot of premisses that exist independent of presence of stuff. 

 The current explanation is basically Cosmic Inflation as I described in my previous post.   
 But in this case the cosmo generated by BB has LAWS that is in every place in the universe.Its like a global variable in a program differente of the local variable inside each object , embeded in each particle.The global variable has to stay coded in some place perhaps in the 'texture' of the universe..  
Quote:
You have no basis for saying logic could be any different in a universe which made any kind of sense
 I am not saiyng the universe MUST have sense for us. Its not a fatality that the universe have to have sense at any time in its existence.Meanwhile, if the JN theory is right, with the time the logic evolves and all universehave to follow the logic rules..   
Quote:
Math and logic SHOW that extremely complex laws can FOLLOW, ie be INEVITABLY and UNIQUELY DETERMINED by a few simple AXIOMS, which is all that needs to either come into existence initially, or emerge with matter/energy.
.If you start from a QUANTUM NOTHING like many theorys start , like Gut's theory ,then stuff/matter pop to existence controlled by QUANTUM LAWS.  But you have a problem: Even MQ are based in logic there are a big set of possible and DIFFERENts Logical Physics theories. Then one more question: Why our laws are the form they are ?  

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:  Quote: What

Jocax wrote:

  

Quote:
What I am saying is the problem you raise has already been considered and explicitly addressed by what is known as 'Cosmic Inflation', originally proposed by Alan Guth. If you are not already aware of this aspect of BB theory, you should look it up.
 No, the problem is BEFORE the Big-bang. At the Big bang the laws already have formed. They are done.The question is: "Why the laws have  this 'shape' ? "and "How the laws pop to existence if no laws  is simpler?" 

Which is YOUR persistent failure to understand.

How does ANYTHING just 'pop into existence'? Logic consideration of Quantum behaviour would suggest that more complex things are less likely than simpler things, but not intrinsically impossible. you are not grasping the implications of truly random or chaotic behaviour which is NOT determined by anything else.

'Outside', or 'before', a specific Big Bang event, there IS only the simplest possible 'LAW', ie something like the law of identity which defines Logic. No selection required, except in the sense that stuff which did not support at least that minimal 'Law' would not emerge or persist.

You keep missing my point that complex laws derive from, are implied by, simpler 'laws'. This derivation allows that at certain points more than one set of of mutually exclusive sets are possible, and which one actually becomes the governing set in a particular Universe is 'selected' by which of the possible structures of matter/energy/space/time which crystallized out.

I don't see how I can explain it any clearer. I may not continue to respond, unless I can think of some other way to explain it.

I have a broad grasp of the picture presented by modern science. There are obviously deep mysteries still, things I don't understand, things in current science that I can't personally really follow, not being an expert in any of the specific fields.

Your ideas don't seem to be addressing any of the real mysteries I see, and you seem to be unable to grasp some fundamental ideas which help make some sort of sense of things, at least as I see it.

 

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: How does ANYTHING

 

 
Quote:
How does ANYTHING just 'pop into existence'? Logic consideration of Quantum behaviour would suggest that more complex things are less likely than simpler things, but not intrinsically impossible.
.The CAUSE , the explanation from things POP into existence from vaccum im quantum physicsis due the INCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. Its one of a lot of  LAWs of quantum physics. But I insist: This laws could not be in this way. The laws could be different. . 
Quote:
you are not grasping the implications of truly random or chaotic behaviour which is NOT determined by anything else.
 If the things that pop to existence have to follow some rule then this rule would be to be explained !  Then we would have a infinite regress !because this the chaos at beginning is natural and normal.   
Quote:
'Outside', or 'before', a specific Big Bang event, there IS only the simplest possible 'LAW', ie something like the law of identity which defines Logic. No selection required, except in the sense that stuff which did not support at least that minimal 'Law' would not emerge or persist.
 Do you think the Big-Bang was the primary cause, but there were LAWS controlling it.There are a lot of physical explanation how the big bang pop from vaccum..And of course the cosmo have laws. Do you think the laws pop to existence together the big-bang?  Then answer WHY the laws have this sshape and not another one? .  
Quote:
You keep missing my point that complex laws derive from, are implied by, simpler 'laws'. This derivation allows that at certain points more than one set of of mutually exclusive sets are possible, and which one actually becomes the governing set in a particular Universe is 'selected' by which of the possible structures of matter/energy/space/time which crystallized out.
.You persist and NOT EXPLAIN FROM WHERE THIS SIMPLE LAWS COME FROM.Why speed of light is c and not 2c?Why gravity force is inverse to square of distance and not another function? and dont explain WHY this simple laws have to follow logic laws.    
Quote:
Your ideas don't seem to be addressing any of the real mysteries I see, and you seem to be unable to grasp some fundamental ideas which help make some sort of sense of things, at least as I see it.
  My idea try to explain WHY the laws follow the logic and answer the question: "WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?" 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote:  Quote:The

Jocax wrote:
 

 

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. 

You certainly don't explain how the laws appear. You merely make an assertion.

There is no sense to stating a pure LAW appears. That is as stupid as Plato's Idealism. Only actual stuff can be said to appear, and the laws that describe its behaviour 'appear' along with it.

I say, for the Nth time, they are just the description of the behaviour of the particular particles which appear.

Here is a link to an article by a scientist who seems to think along much the same lines I do:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

From that article:

Quote:

We are gradually learning that several of the laws of physics, those that seem the most universal and profound, are in fact little more than statements about the simplicity of nature that can almost go unsaid. The "laws" of energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation have been shown to be statements about the homogeneity of space and time. The first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, results from there being no unique moment in time. Conservation of momentum follows from the Copernican principle that there is no preferred position in space. Other conservation laws, such as charge and nucleon number, also arise from analogous assumptions of simplicity.

For the mathematically inclined, the conserved quantities are generators of the symmetry transformations involved. A homogeneous universe, one with a high level of symmetry, is the simplest of all possible universes, just the kind we would expect to happen by accident. In such a universe, many conservation laws will automatically exist.

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: You certainly don't

 

Quote:
You certainly don't explain how the laws appear. You merely make an assertion.

 See again:  NO LAWS ->  POP TO EXISTENCE ANYTHING ->  THE TIME POP -> LAWS TOO -> 'NATURAL SELECTION' -> CONSISTENT LAWS . "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."   
Quote:
There is no sense to stating a pure LAW appears.  
 I did not say that *ONLY* law appear !I did say that LAW could appear. Not matter if the law need some stuff or not. But I swhow to you that in the QUANTUM VACUUM without matter there are LAW to driver the matter or light or anything that pop into existence with THE SAME PROPERTIES IN ANY PLACE OF THE UNIVERSE.Therefore we can conclude that the laws have already be there BEFORE matter pop to existence !    
Quote:
hat is as stupid as Plato's Idealism. Only actual stuff can be said to appear, and the laws that describe its behaviour 'appear' along with it.
 How do you explain that EVERYWHERE in the cosmos the matter appear with the same properties?   The evidence is that the LAWS is in the 'texture'  of universe, NOT EMBEDED in the stuff.WHERE place inside of eletron or any particle are coded its INTERACTION propertieswith others particles?  

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
   Quote: I say, for the

 

  
Quote:
I say, for the Nth time, they are just the description of the behaviour of the particular particles which appear.
 Do you agree that DESCRIPTION must be codes in some place?  In the some place there is coded that the light speed is c and NOT 2c .In the some place there is coded that the gravity force is proporcional to mass product and NOT sum of mass. I think you think the laws are coded inside the matter ( like a local variable), I think its coded in the 'texture' of the universe like a global variable.    
Quote:
A homogeneous universe, one with a high level of symmetry, is the simplest of all possible universes  
 I Disagree with this statements. Siemetry is the simplest way to describe in MATHEMATICs.  To describe a universe using mathematics the simplest set of equatins occurs when the universe has symmetry. But it is not the simplest way to universe appear. ORDERED THINGS IS MORE DIFFICULT TO COOUR THAN DISREDERED ONES. For example: Because this when a dish fallow and breaks its pieces are not spread in the regular shape but randomly spread in the ground. The galaxys are not equally spread thru the cosmos, they are aglutinated in groups. 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
It is what I was saying

 

 
Quote:
The "laws" of energy, momentum, and angular momentum conservation have been shown to be statements about the homogeneity of space and time. The first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, results from there being no unique moment in time.
.Well , you see that the conditions for this law is the homogeneity from space and time.Then we have part of the solution: THE CONSERVATION LAW OF ENERGY ARE CODED IN THE SPACE !!! (via HOMOGENEITY )  It is what I was saying :  Some laws are coded in the texture of universe, in this case, in its homogeneity and NOT inside the matter ! 

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
 I was thinking that :if

 I was thinking that :

if  the   universe  HAVE TO KEEP its homogenity then there is a LAW to obligue the cosmos to  stay homogeneous with the time 

therefore is the same thing say that there is a LAW of energy conservation OR that there is a law that obligue the cosmos keep its homogeneity.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jocax wrote: Quote: You

Jocax wrote:

 

Quote:
You certainly don't explain how the laws appear. You merely make an assertion.

 See again:  NO LAWS ->  POP TO EXISTENCE ANYTHING ->  THE TIME POP -> LAWS TOO -> 'NATURAL SELECTION' -> CONSISTENT LAWS . "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." 
 But there is no actual justification or evidence that anything like that actually happened. Quantum Mechanics is based on what has actually been observed. 
Quote:
 
Quote:
There is no sense to stating a pure LAW appears.  
 I did not say that *ONLY* law appear !I did say that LAW could appear. Not matter if the law need some stuff or not. But I swhow to you that in the QUANTUM VACUUM without matter there are LAW to driver the matter or light or anything that pop into existence with THE SAME PROPERTIES IN ANY PLACE OF THE UNIVERSE.Therefore we can conclude that the laws have already be there BEFORE matter pop to existence ! 
 The structure of space-time is determined by the contents: photons, dark energy, gravity, as well as matter, which seem to provide some continuity with the original condensed state. This is all implied by the Guthian inflation. I can see that the need for something to tie the raw properties of space-time together across apparently empty space is what you are attempting to explain, by proposing the reality of particular LAWS, somehow encoded, but I have pointed out that Science is addressing this in other ways. There does seem to be something tying the space-time of our particular universe together. Otherwise we would we would see evidence that photons from early in the Universe which have traversed such large distances have encountered random variations of fundamental laws. We do not observe such apparent violations of the laws we know.
Quote:
 
Quote:
That is as stupid as Plato's Idealism. Only actual stuff can be said to appear, and the laws that describe its behaviour 'appear' along with it.
 How do you explain that EVERYWHERE in the cosmos the matter appear with the same properties?   The evidence is that the LAWS is in the 'texture'  of universe, NOT EMBEDED in the stuff.WHERE place inside of eletron or any particle are coded its INTERACTION propertieswith others particles?  

Its properties of an electron are very simple - its charge, mass, and spin, all other aspects follow from these basic aspects. Nothing need to be encoded in it, beyond those properties.

The more complex theorems of mathematics are not apparent to us in the axioms, but they follow inevitably, when we work thru the implications of those laws.

I say it again, you only need the very basic nature of stuff to be specified. The complexity we see is IMPLIED by those minimal axioms.

You are only ASSUMING that those particles COULD have completely different properties, you do not know that there is any necessity for your process for selection of a set of laws.

Your assumption of abstract LAWS having some sort of existence in themselves doesn't solve anything, because when you start proposing a 'process' by which they pop into existence in various forms, and can interact with other sets of laws, like forcing other incompatible ones out of existence, you now are saying the behaviour of the LAWS themselves are governed by some 'higher' meta-laws, which may in turn require some meta-meta-laws.

IOW what meta-LAWS determines the behaviour of 'LAWS' in the JN?? And where did THEY come from??

You have an infinite regress problem, which can be bypassed by assuming that a basic LAW, like that governing basic logic, simply exists as an abstract principle which will hold in any consistent Universe, and any sorting process of possible derivable SUB-SETS of matter/energy/space/time combinations, occurs at the earliest stage of a particular Big Bang process, as conjectured by current theories of cosmology/physics.

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:But there is no

 

Quote:
But there is no actual justification or evidence that anything like that actually happened. Quantum Mechanics is based on what has actually been observed.  

 The 'evidence' are the laws following the logic.But I know we have quantum laws but we ALSO have life !but the theory of origin of life dont start with the life itself.Similarly we have QF but could have a theory to EXPLAIN the ORIGIN of the QF.   
Quote:
The structure of space-time is determined by the contents: photons, dark energy, gravity, as well as matter, which seem to provide some continuity with the original condensed state. This is all implied by the Guthian inflation.
 There is a Guth's theory , I already have appointed before , that the energy ans mass pop to existence from the nothing ( quantum vaccum ).Then this particles appear with some laws drive it to have its properties any place in the universe  its appear.. 
Quote:
There does seem to be something tying the space-time of our particular universe together.  
 But there is.If there is nothing to obligue the cosmo (space-time) keep its structure then it could be change and not be symetric. If the space-time MUST  keep the same properties, it is because there is a LAW to obligue it to remain stable.   
Quote:
Otherwise we would we would see evidence that photons from early in the Universe which have traversed such large distances have encountered random variations of fundamental laws. We do not observe such apparent violations of the laws we know.
 This is a evidence that must have some law operating in all universe similarly.   
Quote:
Its properties of an electron are very simple - its charge, mass, and spin, all other aspects follow from these basic aspects. Nothing need to be encoded in it, beyond those properties.  
 But how do you explain this same properties when an eletron POP to existence fromm vaccum too far from another one. Its not a clear evidence there is some law controling its properties?  

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
    Quote: I say it

 

   
Quote:
I say it again, you only need the very basic nature of stuff to be specified. The complexity we see is IMPLIED by those minimal axioms.
 Then is ask you:WHY and HOW these axiomes POP into the  existence?  

 


Jocax
Posts: 62
Joined: 2009-12-07
User is offlineOffline
FAQ of the JN

 The “Jocaxian Nothingness” F.A.Q.

Frequently asked questions about the Jocaxian Nothingness “JN”

Jocax, Feb/2009
Translated by Debora Policastro

 

 

 

1 – What is the Jocaxian Nothingness (JN)?

 

A: The JN, differently from existent things, presents the following properties:

P1- There are no physical elements of any kind (matter, space or energy).

P2- There are no laws of any kind.

 

2- Does the JN exist?

A: We can only say that the JN exists in case something that has the properties of a JN (P1 and P2 above) exists. Nowadays, the JN does not exist anymore, but it could have existed in a distant past, before the Big-Bang.

 

3- Is the JN a being?

A: Yes. Once it has properties, it should exist in order to be a recipient of such properties.

 

4- Could  the Jocaxian-Nothingness feature of not having any rules or laws be a rule itself?

A: No. A rule establishes some kind of restriction. For instance: “my car must be red” is a rule, but “my car is red” is not a rule, but the state of the car. Occasionally, the car could be painted blue. Establishing that the “Jocaxian Nothingness” is the state of nature in which there are no rules is not a rule that must be followed, but also a state of nature that could change (or not).

 

5- Would saying that anything can happen be a rule? An imposition to the Jocaxian Nothingness?

A: Yes. However, if you look at the text I emphasize that in the Jocaxian Nothingness anything can happen OR NOT. This is not a rule, but a logical tautology, an absolute truth in any circumstances or scenarios. That implies that the Jocaxian Nothingness, just like anything, follows a tautology (an absolute truth), not a rule.

 

6- The Jocaxian Nothingness does not have physical elements or laws. Does it have any POTENTIAL?

A: If “potential” means the possibility of transforming itself, the answer is yes. However, we must bear in mind that possibility is not certainty. The Jocaxian Nothingness could eventually never become or generate something else.

 

7- Would the Trivial Nothingness, where nothing can happen, be more likely than the “JN”?

A: No! The nothingness people usually think of, which I called “the trivial nothingness” (TN) is infinitely more unlikely to happen as the origin of the universe than the JN. The “trivial nothingness” would have INFINITE embedded rules that must be followed, i.e. it could not generate fields, space, it could not generate a chair; it could not generate physical laws, god, a Big-Bang, life, particles, etc.

 

8 – Is the “Inexistent Nothingness” purer than the JN?

A: The Inexistent Nothingness is a “nothingness” where nothing exists, not even itself!

Therefore, it is intrinsically contradictory. Since it does not exist, it could not have properties, but once it has the “not having anything” property, it should exist. Thus, if the “IN” exists, it cannot be inexistent, and if it is inexistent, it cannot exist. It is a contradiction, and that is why it was not used as the generator of the cosmos.

 

9 – What is the difference between the “Universe” and the “Cosmos”?

A: The Universe is the aggregation of everything that exists. Thus, each possible “Bubble Universe” or “Multi-Universe” is, in fact, part of the same Universe. That is why it is more correct to name each “Bubble Universe” as “Bubble Cosmos”. Therefore, a Cosmos would be a place in the universe governed by its own physical laws, isolated and with no interconnection with other cosmos.

 

10- Is the JN the Universe or has the JN originated the Universe?

A: If we understand the definition of the Universe as being the aggregation of all that exists, the JN would be the universe itself. It would be the universe in its minimal state, the simplest state possible. Therefore, the JN could not originate the universe, since it is the universe itself, where time does not exist. Later it could have materialized randomly one or more cosmos.

 

11- Is the JN limited to our logic? Could it be illogical?

A: There are two interrelated concepts about the Jocaxian Nothingness: The Jocaxian Nothingness Object (JN-Object) and the Theory about this JN-Object (JN-Theory). The JN-Object is defined as something that has properties relative to the JN (P1 and P2) above. The theory about the JN (JN-Theory) is based on logic and explains how the JN-Object could have materialized our cosmos at random. It is possible to say that the JN-Object does not have laws therefore it does not need to obey logic, and is it correct, indeed. However, by analyzing the JN-Object from our classic logic, we are not attaching new possibilities to the JN-Object, but the opposite: we could, in fact, be limiting the possibilities of the JN-Object which means, maybe it could be more totipotent than we can imagine.

 

12- Is the JN no longer a JN in case it have materialized something randomly, therefore losing the capacity of doing it?

A: The materializations of the JN are called “schizo-creations”. The Universe was in a JN form. When the first schizo-creation of the JN happens, it means that the JN cannot be the JN anymore, as now the universe has at least one element: its first schizo-creation. In case this schizo-creation is not a law that prevents the universe from materializing other things, like a law that transforms it into a trivial nothingness, then this schizo-creation, which is the evolved JN (EJN), could occasionally continue to generate schizo-creations.  Only the generation of laws that restrict the generation of laws could prevent new schizo-creations.

 

13- Is it possible to isolate a portion of the cosmos and transform it in a JN?

 

A: Hardly. Since our cosmos is flooded with physical laws, in order to create a JN it would be necessary to withdraw all the physical laws from that portion. No one knows yet if it is possible or how it could be done.

 

14- Is it necessary to sort laws temporally in order to have a natural selection of laws? That is, would time be a prerequisite?

A: It would not be a big problem in case we needed some “time law” or “time” itself to sort laws materialized by the JN. It would be enough only to “wait” that one of the schizo-creations was a temporal law. Thereafter new laws would be sorted and undergo the “natural selection”.

 

15- What is the evidence that our cosmos came from a JN?

A: The evidence would be a logical universe where there are no physical contradictions between its physical elements.