Why is there something rather than nothing?

[love_sex_desire]

"the physical object named JN"
I wonder how a state of nothingness could be considered a physical object? I like this concept but that one sentence seems flawed.

So why is there something rather than nothing? Because random quantum fluctuations occur within a state of nothingness with no rules. I guess the question is why do these quantum fluctuations occur, against Occam's razor, and create a state of simplicity or nothingness into a system of dynamics and complexity?

 

[ebola?]

1. The fluctuations don't follow "no rules". Rather, they follow from tenets of our physical theories (I think. . .).
2. Occam's razor is a heuristic of our devising that seems to work. Why must all of the universe follow it?

ebola

 

[Philoscybin]

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.

This is a contradiction. You cannot have a physical system devoid of anything physical.

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.

Another contradiction. You cannot transfer matter out of the universe. How would this occur and where would all the matter go?

This entire premise fails to prove the existence of "nothingness" other than a simple abstract concept. Just because you can envision the abstract, regardless of its contradictions, does not prove the concept to be an actual reality. You cannot assign any property of existence to whatever is imaginable. Just because I can picture cold-fire, a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, or square-circle does not prove their existence within reality.

Lastly, are you a troll?

 

[azzazza !?]

Just because I can picture cold-fire, a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, or square-circle does not prove their existence within reality.

modal realism is a maintainable philosophical position (albeit its pretty counterintuitive and requires a few very strict tenets, such as no spatiotemporal or causal connections between the possible worlds for instance). i don't subscribe to it personally though.

 

[jocaxx]

The "Jocaxian Nothingness" F.A.Q.
Frequently asked questions about the "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 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.

 

[jocaxx]

I wonder how a state of nothingness could be considered a physical object?

Every existence is physical:

"... Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. ...."

So why is there something rather than nothing? Because random quantum fluctuations occur within a state of nothingness with no rules.

If there is "QUANTUM" then therre is QUANTUM RULES !!
Is not a nothingness.
.

This is a contradiction. You cannot have a physical system devoid of anything physical.

I did not say there is nothing , no phisical anythink.
I said the JN have no physical elemnts its simila an EMPTY SET
where only exist itself. The universe in its minimal state.

Another contradiction. You cannot transfer matter out of the universe. How would this occur and where would all the matter go?

It is only a MENTAL experiment to understad the concept.

This entire premise fails to prove the existence of "nothingness" other than a simple abstract concept. Just because you can envision the abstract, regardless of its contradictions, does not prove the concept to be an actual reality. You cannot assign any property of existence to whatever is imaginable. Just because I can picture cold-fire, a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, or square-circle does not prove their existence within reality.

.
Why do yopu think is IMPOSSIBLE have a nothingness without physical elements
only itself?

Lastly, are you a troll?

I ask the same.

 

[Philoscybin]

Quote:
Lastly, are you a troll?

I ask the same.

Sorry. I'm just curious as to whether you are the "creator" of this idea and trying to spread it all over the net. I only ask as I've seen you on other forums pasting the same stuff.

Quote:
This is a contradiction. You cannot have a physical system devoid of anything physical.

I did not say there is nothing , no phisical anythink.
I said the JN have no physical elemnts its simila an EMPTY SET
where only exist itself. The universe in its minimal state.

V V V V V V V

It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.

Why do yopu think is IMPOSSIBLE have a nothingness without physical elements only itself?

Because, like I said earlier, even inside the deepest vacuum of a vacuum chamber, there is still something there. It may be devoid of all air or matter, but there still exists something (space- aka. distance- a relationship of entities). Space is not nothingness, it is something.

 

[azzazza !?]

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.

i think the main problem with JN would be this. IN is contradictory. the word no-thingness itself carries this contradiction. it is a relational definition; related to thingness, except without 'any thingness'. JN, it seems to me, is exactly the same thing. you imagine thingness and strip it of all 'thing'. absolute 'nothingness' (ie. inexistance) is not accessible. its a radical otherness, which means there is no relation to it, no way or road of thought to it. it is so completely radically different to us (existence) that it cannot be seen, heard, thought, percieved. the 'existence' of nothingness is exactly that, it depends entirely upon concieving of thingness (existence) and then disposing of it. how can you say no-thingness exists when that is what no-thingness exactly does in the word itself; to deny thingness? it is a negative definition that derives from existence/thingness. so of course you will find 'existence' in no-thingness. 'real' 'nothingness' is a wholly inconcievable absolute. what the word no-thingness does is 'point' to the impossibility of our thought. it is a logically derived a posteriori. you simply cannot define no-thingness without 'thing'. personally, i don't see JN being anything more then the word no-thingness itself. thingness has to be postulated before its denial, simply because that is the postulation of ourselves, our thought. this is a 'thing'. this thought imagining itself away is still a thought, namely; a thought that imagines itself not there. the real inexistent nothingness cannot be achieved. by such means. it is the contraposition to a state already there. therefor, nothingness cannot exist. thingness can never be real nothingness. true nothingness cannot even be imagined.

looking for nothingness is chasing the dragon. it is an is that is not an is. one runs in circles.

now what is much more interesting, though (usually) more difficult to catch, is the other way around; namely, can i concieve of existence/thingness without nothingness/inexistence? (note that both terms, again, are not positively defined). how would one be aware of existence if all there is, is pure unadulterated existence itself? in other words, can you define 'existence' without contrasting it to inexistence? what is existence? i think neither existence nor inexistence can be concieved without each other. pure existence has no means of being aware of itself. therefor it does not exist*. pure inexistence doesn't have those means either. therefor; absolute existence and absolute inexistence refer to the same. which is a kind of nothing-somethingness. a "no-thing". a "self-denying-itself". We were recently discussing Deleuze around here, and he refers to this as the "transcendental field".

*imagine something that exists before you. now strip that of any awareness of that thing, for all eternity. can you say it still 'exists'? you may say i can 'imagine' it still existing. but: 1. your imagination does not 'exist', and should you uphold any modal realism: 2. imagination is a form of awareness.

 

[bleedingheartcommie]

but people are self centered when they wonder why they are here, when the real question, as you state, is why is the universe here?

Because I am the universe, ....looking back on itself of course.

 

[specialrelativity]

Well, if quit doing mushrooms, you could possibly find nothing, Ein(e).

 

[sssssssssss]

i think its all language.
theres something because we say there is and its agreed upon.
theres nothing because its unexperienced therefore we dont have the thoughts or communication to say it is something.


think of the universe as like earth with longitude and latitude lines.
but having 4 poles instead of 2 with each pole being a different infinity.

there would be an orgin 0 at any point with an opposite orgin 0 equadistant in all angles away.
the longtidude and latitude lines can be just like an x and y axis, being labeled time and space with the sphere being labled energy
each suggested line must go through the corresponding infinities before it reaches its opposite axis

negative points suggest that the time and space arent yet available for a specific energy

i dunno im just kind of rambling on now just some thoughts i had that if developed could seem convencing.

 

[Sweet P]

Why does there have to be a reason?

 

[B9]

^ Because their brains are overactive & anxious - therefore they scream why why why - perhaps

 

[jocaxx]

I'm just curious as to whether you are the "creator" of this idea and trying to spread it all over the net.
I only ask as I've seen you on other forums pasting the same stuff.

Yes.
I think it is too much important idea to die with me.

It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.

Elements of a set is not the same set.
When I said the JN have no physical *elements* (energy, matter, fields)
I did not say that in JN there is *nothing* physical because the JN itself is physical (have an existence).
.

Why do yopu think is IMPOSSIBLE have a nothingness without physical elements only itself?

Because, like I said earlier, even inside the deepest vacuum of a vacuum chamber,
there is still something there. It may be devoid of all air or matter, but there still exists something (space- aka. distance- a relationship of entities).
Space is not nothingness, it is something.

The JN is different of vacuum. Because in this systrem you still have physical laws there.
Quantum Mechanics still is present in the vaccum quantum.

In the JN there is no laws neither quantum mechanics.

JN, it seems to me, is exactly the same thing. you imagine thingness and strip it of all 'thing'. absolute 'nothingness' (ie. inexistance) is not accessible. its a radical otherness, which means there is no relation to it, no way or road of thought to it.

I dont agree.
The JN could be modeling with an "Empty Set". The empty set itself could exist, it is not ilogical.
Because this I didi not say the JN have nothing else. I said it do not have physical *elements*.
Only it self have existed.

I thing you are confused because of the existence definition.
The definition of the existence that I have proposed is:
"“Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”".
.
Thus, If the JN properties it can exist. Because its properties do not denny the existence of itself.

 

[azzazza !?]

^but an empty set requires set theory. it requires someone to say: this is a set; and it is empty. a set is a logical, mental entity. it requires a mental space; outside of itself, in wich it is defined. thus the empty set exists, only because of the existence of its substrate; mind. if you want JN to be the origin of the cosmos, you do not have this substrate; which is a something. which is my point, you cannot have conceivable nothingness without a something to which it is contrasted. a set is a delineation, which implies that that what is not part of the set (ie.everything) lies outside of this set. that is what a set does. its a logical discrimen.

the properties of JN are dependant on a reality outside itself. therefor it cannot be the origin of cosmos. it also implies JN is not a true nothingness, but a derived nothingness, derived from somethingness.

Thus, If the JN properties it can exist. Because its properties do not denny the existence of itself.

im afraid it does deny its own existence insofar that it would be true nothingness. You cannot absolutize JN. if it is like the empty set, you need an 'outside' to this set. a spatial (be it only a mental space) substrate. a spatial substrate, be it mental or physical has rules. when you talk about a set, you imply a very primary logical rule; discrimination. the delineation of the set is said discrimination. without this, you have neither nothingness nor somethingness.

the (partial) reflection you are expressing here is of that of an important philosophical idea (that of the limits of thought) but it is not a new idea. the nothingness that 'exists' (by vitue of relation through a logical discrimen) is the only concievable 'nothingness'. but it is not true nothingness. its not really nothingness. its a virtual nothingness. therefor it can exist. but not as nothingness, only as a nothingness that in reality is a something denying its somethingness within itself.

in short, absolutizing JN to the origin of cosmos renders it inexistent. you cannot sustain your nothingness without an a priori given reality. it cannot be generative pertaining this reality, it is a logically derived dependant, and therefor, not a nothingness.

edit: i do encourage you to keep thinking about the idea of existent nothingness, but don't let your mind rest where you are now; you haven't completed the idea's movement yet.

 

[Philoscybin]

Very well put azzazza.

 

[azzazza !?]

if you are interested in developing and refining your expression of the idea you seem to be reflecting on jocaxx, the following philosophical concepts are more or less related expressions of it, each having their own specific nuances within the framework of their philosopher of course: Heideggers Being (through his concept of death), Sartres Néant, Levinas' Il y a, Deleuzes' trancendental field, Blanchot's concept of death, Derridaen différance, ... .

(edit) or if you are more the analytical type: the develoment of set theory and the problem of completed infinity, from Georg Cantor to Zermelo-Fraenkel with the axiom of choice.

 

[xtobal]

an example of the futility in attempting to understand something beyond logic. its like trying to paint something green with red paint, no matter how many ways you try it won't happen.

 

[Philoscybin]

if you are interested in developing and refining your expression of the idea you seem to be reflecting on jocaxx, the following philosophical concepts are more or less related expressions of it, each having their own specific nuances within the framework of their philosopher of course: Heideggers Being (through his concept of death), Sartres Néant, Levinas' Il y a, Deleuzes' trancendental field, Blanchot's concept of death, Derridaen différance, ... .

(edit) or if you are more the analytical type: the develoment of set theory and the problem of completed infinity, from Georg Cantor to Zermelo-Fraenkel with the axiom of choice.

Yes. I'm quite familiar with Heidegger, Blanchot, and Sartre. I'm more of the analytical type in terms of philosophy so I'll look into Cantor and Zermelo-Fraenkel.

 

[azzazza !?]

^its essentially the russell's paradox. take the set of all sets to be the set of all 'existence'. if this sets exists, it is a subset of the set of all existence. but then its not the set of all existence anymore, it being an existent itself.

so when one says nothingness exists; it voices (attempts to capture) the contradiction in the above. the no-thingness (non-set) is needed to differentiate the set of all sets from itself so it can be said set (lol).