Why is there something rather than nothing?

[jocaxx]

no laws at all is the same as having infinite possibilities
that DENY any manifestation of any one of them.
you need a bridge here, newbie

No!

I Already say that LAW, by definition, ever restrict / confine / limit the possibilities of something.
LAW IS RESTRICTION.
.
If something DENY some possibilities or ALL possibilities then there is some LAW acting.

If there have no law then tere have NO RESTRICTION and all possibilities can happen, included NOTHING happen too.

The minimal state of the existence

so you have limited your possibilities to existence. so you have a law. and from that an infinite number of possibilities arise. but this is not nothingness. you have one law: existence.

Wrong.
You do not see the text with attention:

"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)."

 

[jocaxx]

you may be disappointed that, apparently, you find yourself at the very point from which you started, but that is the nature of this kind of philosophy.

I do not think so.
The time will give the reason to who deserve. I mean:
The Time will vindicate who deserves it.

 

[azzazza !?]

LAW IS RESTRICTION.

now this is where you are, amongs other places, horribly wrong. law is creation, through restriction.

when you have a state of infinite possibility, without law, nothing can arise from it. why not? because infinite possibility prohibits that in itself. it cannot come out of itself, because any possibility manifesting it restricts the possibilities somehow. when your law is existence, you rule out non-existence. a true state of 'anything is possible' cannot exit itself, for it entails its self-destruction when that happens. but there is nothing in it that can do that! therefor you have no possibilities. it needs an external introduction of something that you yourself have defined as outside this state, which will restrict it. this restriction cannot and will not come from the state of true infinite 'possibility' (nothingness), for its very definition contradicts that.

but well, i won't further try and stop you from finding out that JN is not viable whatsoever the hard way. you are not make any real effort to question yourself critically. the reason i continued to try; was out of a sense of compassion for you wasting time and energy you could better spend elsewhere, not in the least on re-thinking and developing the idea you are after. im sorry to say, but any philosopher ever reading it in this form will chuckle at your hubris then tell you not to waste his time; or if you're lucky, compassionately try and explain to you where and how your thinking is skipping. but JN will ultimately end in the bin. do keep thinking about the N, though, as it is very interesting to think about.

 

[azzazza !?]

The Time will vindicate who deserves it.

it does.
time will tell you the truth. but time is a terrible thing to waste, as that is all that you have here.

 

[jocaxx]

LAW IS RESTRICTION.

now this is where you are, amongs other places, horribly wrong. law is creation, through restriction.

Of course LAW IS RESTRICTION.

Show me any law that do not restrict anythink.

when you have a state of infinite possibility, without law, nothing can arise from it.
why not? because infinite possibility prohibits that in itself.

It is contradictory.

If there is infinity possibility of course 'nothing happen' is one of this possibilities !

So, if the "nothingness" stay in the same state, without change, then it follow one of those infinite possibilities :
stay like a nothing !

t cannot come out of itself, because any possibility manifesting it restricts the possibilities somehow.

Of course AFTER some possibilities is manifested, the original state is not a nothing any more !!

I did not say the NJ would stay a NJ for ever !!

when your law is existence, you rule out non-existence.

My law is not the existence it is the initial state of the universe.
It is NOT a law because this state do NOT must to conserve , to stay the same.
Because this it is a state not a law.

a true state of 'anything is possible' cannot exit itself, for it entails its self-destruction when that happens.

But BEFORE is is destroied, anything is possible.
Afte some manifestation of this initial state, the possibilities could not be the same.

but there is nothing in it that can do that!

the lack of laws can do that.

No restriction implies possibility.

 

[jocaxx]

time will tell you the truth. but time is a terrible thing to waste, as that is all that you have here.

I do not think so.

I am telling to the world this new idea of the origin to the universe.
And this new idea will stay in the history of the philosophy and the humanity
like anothers ideas does. Do you think it is waste of the time?

 

[azzazza !?]

possibility without restriction implies itself. strictly speaking, this state cannot exist, it slides back into nothingness. there is a law implied here, namely, anything has to be possible. possibility is not a nothing, it is an inbetween something and nothing. when you say purely free possibility (without a something), it implies itself, and nothing can come from it (???? this doesn't even remotely makes sense!) this is just nothing!. this is not even possibility. because possibility is not a something. nothing does not imply possibility, it implies nothing. when you talk about becoming, you need both nothing and something, for becoming is its inbetween.

just assuming 'nothing' as 'no laws' implies 'infinite possibility' is *incredibly naieve*. i feel like smacking my head into a wall just trying to go along your thinking in the above and pointing at the *huge*gaps!. yet there you are, thinking you found a brilliant idea! are you just torturing me?

do you really believe that not one of those brilliant philosophers has ever entertained an idea of 'existent nothingness'? i'd be surprised if there is even one that didn't at some point in their lives. have you ever even read one of them? their thinking goes *miles* deeper then this. this is childs play, even for me.

 

[ColtDan]

^ what he said

 

[love_sex_desire]

no laws at all is the same as having infinite possibilities that DENY any manifestation of any one of them.

I've been passively following this thread but one question I have is how could a primal state of no laws DENY any manifestation? Does not a law DENY or RESTRICT possibilities? Whereas no laws would allow for the possible manifestation of infinite possibilities? Because no laws allows everything to either happen or not happen, that which does not happen is not DENIED, it is simply possibility.

A law restricting any manifestation is the same as having infinite possibilities bound to that law that DENY any manifestation of any one of them. To DENY manifestation would be law not a state of no-laws. Nothing can be denied with no laws, as there is no law restricting any possibility.

 

[azzazza !?]

^infinite possibility is a law. namely: itself
1. foremost, a ('primal') state of real, absolute nothingness denies any possibility.
2. now we go hypothetical: we put in the idea of infinite possibility in this primal state of nothingness. what we have now is 'nothingness' and 'infinite possibility' therein. (note: this state is not possible, it has no internal connection.)
3. infinite possibilty, resulting from a state of absolute nothingness (is this just me wanting to smack my head into a wall?) implies infinite possibility. how can there, from nothingness, manifest anything just from implanting an idea of infinite possibility? there is a leap/bridge from possibility to manifestation here. Inside the idea of possibilty, 'somethingness' is implied. as in: be-coming but you do not have somethingness! where did this come from!? possibility is an inbetween. if there would be (hypothetical) just 'possibility', nothing can come from it! the ideas 'nothingness' and 'possibility' are not connected in any way, they are sterile absolutes. because possibility is just that: possibility. how is a manifestation 'chosen' from the infinity? infinite possibility, by itself in a state of pure nothingness cannot manifest anything! its its own law! possible! but not ever there! in reality, this is just the same as saying nothingness. it needs a 'something', a law to restrict itself. this law is (normally) implied in the idea of possibility, but only when possibility is a state of an inbetween something and nothing* this is what i and philocybin were talking about earlier; the discrimen creates both the nothing and the something. now, what can manifest such a law out of itself is a paradoxal state of nothing-somethingness.

*i put it like that for simplicity's sake. in reality, possibility is the link constituted by the nothing of a something which connects it to another something, which also has its own nothing in it connecting it to... and so on.
for example: an apple carries its not-apple in it. at a certain point the apple becomes a mold. the apple and the mold are connected through the 'not' of the apple; the possibility implied from the starting point 'apple'. there exists no absolute apple. (though it has a certain absolute, but for oversights sake, i'll leave that out of it)

out of the marriage of 'being' and 'not-being' comes be-coming. coming to be. the 'be' is already there. it is the movement of a 'being that is not' (a no-thing) to a 'thing'. in the word possibility as becoming, both being and not-being are implied. take one of these away, and possibility slides back into the absolute remaining, and ceases to exist.


phew!

 

[azzazza !?]

perhaps a simpler, effective example:

take the human imagination. it has infinite possibilities. but now take away all categories such as 'animal' 'claw' 'circle' etc etc. take away the idea of form and matter; anything from which you start of. now you have this 'primal state of nothing'. what would you imagine, if there is and ever was only nothing? -- bottom-up.

top-down would be like this: try to think of (well, you can't, but you can make it a certain 'nothing'/undefined) something utterly, completely alien. it bears radically no resemblance to anything you've ever seen or encountered. whatsoever. not even its constituent parts. it does not fit into any mental category whatsoever. it is this homegenous amalgam of pure, unadulterated alterity. it is radically, absolutely different to yourself or anything in it. anything you can think of, it is not. completely unimaginable, as one would say. would you be able to see it when it was right in front of you?

(you can see that 'difference' here is actually also composed of a certain 'sameness' as well, which is opposed to something else, which departed from this 'sameness'. 'difference is relationally defined, and as such, also an 'inbetween', and implies in reality both absolutes of identity and difference, within each other)

 

[jocaxx]

possibility without restriction implies itself. strictly speaking,
this state cannot exist, it slides back into nothingness.

.
IMO, what you are saying have no sense at all.

WHY infinite possibilities implies itself?
how premisses you have used to claim this result?

there is a law implied here, namely, anything has to be possible.

It is not a LAW. It is a logical consequence of the state "no law at all" !

because LAW IMPLY NECESSARILY SOME RESTRICTION.
If there is NO LAW there is NO RESTRICTION AT ALL.

It is logic. No Law.

possibility is not a nothing, it is an inbetween something and nothing.

possibility is not something also, becaouse NOTHING HAPPEN indeeed.
possibility is the logical consequence from an state and
morover
JN is not an Inexinstent nothingness , it is real and it exists.

 

[jocaxx]

just assuming 'nothing' as 'no laws' implies 'infinite possibility'
is *incredibly naieve*. i feel like smacking my head into a wall just trying to go along your thinking in the above and pointing at the *huge*gaps!. yet there you are, thinking you found a brilliant idea! are you just torturing me?

Weel , i know that revolutionary idea is very dificult to understand !

But see the text with atention:

"
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.
"

do you really believe that not one of those brilliant philosophers has ever entertained an idea of 'existent nothingness'? i'd be surprised if there is even one that didn't at some point in their lives. have you ever even read one of them? their thinking goes *miles* deeper then this. this is childs play, even for me.

NEITHER YOU UNTERTAND !
it is because this idea NO LAWS IMPLIES INFINITE POSSIBILITIES
is not EASY to understand them imagine to GET THIS IDEA !!

I've been passively following this thread but one question I have is how could a primal state of no laws DENY any manifestation? Does not a law DENY or RESTRICT possibilities? Whereas no laws would allow for the possible manifestation of infinite possibilities? Because no laws allows everything to either happen or not happen, that which does not happen is not DENIED, it is simply possibility.

A law restricting any manifestation is the same as having infinite possibilities bound to that law that DENY any manifestation of any one of them. To DENY manifestation would be law not a state of no-laws. Nothing can be denied with no laws, as there is no law restricting any possibility.

I Think I Agree with you.

 

[Vader]

Isn't "no law can resrict possibility" itself being claimed as a law?

 

[azzazza !?]

NEITHER YOU UNTERTAND !
it is because this idea NO LAWS IMPLIES INFINITE POSSIBILITIES
is not EASY to understand them imagine to GET THIS IDEA !!

its a naieve, pre-philosophical assumption. and it feeds on the 'existence' you are turning a blind eye to. existence is the first law/discrimen/restriction you draw. it seperates your 'nothingness without laws' from its own proposed existence. it makes your 'nothingness' not of the inexistent variety. what you are overlooking is that this JN of yours really is not a 'nothingness without laws' anymor, because of this. a nothingness without laws is inexistent. existence is a law. namely: this exists, and this does not. you have restricted your nothingness in order to make something possible. namely you have ruled out the possibility that your nothingness does not exist. this rule creates both 'existence' in general, as well the possibilty to any other existents. because existence already exists! thus JN is not nothing!


before telling me that i don't understand your idea; perhaps the question you should ask is: do you understand my idea? or am i just sprouting nonsense in your eyes? if you ever plan on going down in the history of philosophy, dialectics will be a crucial ability. can you explain to me in your words how i come to my idea, and where it is off? instead simply hammering ad nauseam on your assumptions?
your not listening here. all you say is: "no! not true! its like this." we are arguing next to eachother. in a dialectic/philosophical discussion, you say "yes, what you say is true. but this is not the whole story. you see, there is a deeper layer to that, and here it is." you do not create the necesairy self-critical opening to the other that is: "maybe I am wrong here, and there is an opportunity to learn here for me. perhaps this is deeper then i thought." instead, you assume your knowledge is finished. which has two implications: "knowledge is finite". and; "i have finished it". which effectively equals me to 'God'. i finished the infinite. hubris my friend! hubris! this is why we have paradoxes! so that it remains infinite!

damn i really do have to much time on my hands for the moment

 

[jocaxx]

take the human imagination. it has infinite possibilities.

No.
The human brain is finite then it has limited possibilities !!

but now take away all categories such as 'animal' 'claw' 'circle' etc etc. take away the idea of form and matter; anything from which you start of. now you have this 'primal state of nothing'. what would you imagine, if there is and ever was only nothing?

No.
Because our imagination do not think "no law implies possibilities".
Our brains was evolved by natural selection where there is a "consevation law".
So our brain was evolved with "conservation law" in it !!
because this is so dificult to imagine "no law -> possibilities to happen".

it is this homegenous amalgam of pure, unadulterated alterity. it is radically, absolutely different to yourself or anything in it. anything you can think of, it is not. completely unimaginable, as one would say. would you be able to see it when it was right in front of you?

Exactly because this you do not understand the Jocaxian Nothingness !!

.

Isn't "no law can resrict possibility" itself being claimed as a law?

Definition is not a law. For example,

the Law definition ever restrict something , it is its definition.
therefore
"No Law" do not restrict anything.

 

[jocaxx]

its a naieve, pre-philosophical assumption. and it feeds on the 'existence' you are turning a blind eye to. existence is the first law/discrimen/restriction you draw. it seperates your 'nothingness without laws' from its own proposed existence.

You continue to dont understand the point:

STATE IS NOT A LAW

State is the configuration of the system, the system do not must persist with the same state..
Law is some RESTRICTION about the state of the system, or about its properties.

The existence is the INITIAL STATE of the NJ not a law it have to keep.

See again:
"
We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a “Jocaxian-Nothingness”. The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state “has no physical elements”; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).
"

 

[azzazza !?]

^those two methaphorical examples are there to give less philosophically-minded people here a rough idea of the sense of what im saying. they are by no means philosophically rigorous, and are not intended as such.

and: definition is restriction. its in the word itself de-fine. fine was once the latin fines; meaning border, territory, boundary. de-fine literally means: to mark/set out borders/limits.
'no laws' limits you from having laws.

a state is a defined timeframe in a system. a system is something without laws? are you serious? thats ridiculous!
i should really just let you ramble. your concepts are much to weakly defined for any real discussion, let alone an entry in the history of philosophy.

of course 'state' is a law. it prohibits its opposite state from being the case. can your JN not exist then? if it can, thats solved then. JN does not exist. which was the point i started this discussion with you. its just inexistent nothingness. a nice closer, if you ask me

 

[jocaxx]

what you are overlooking is that this JN of yours really is not a 'nothingness without laws' anymor, because of this.
a nothingness without laws is inexistent. existence is a law.
namely: this exists, and this does not.

Do you undertand the diferenece betwin LAW and STATE?

The JN is A INITIAL STATE DEFINITION.

IF the universe was in this INITIAL STATE it is named "jocaxian Nothingness" state.

In this STATE there is no rules, no laws.
EVEN its EXISTENCE, in principle, could be destroyed. So,
if it could be logically possible, the JN state could goes to a INEXISTENCE at all !

There is *NO* rule to say "JN MUST BE EXIST". So eventualy it could be destroyed or
if was possibly even disappear.

you have restricted your nothingness in order to make something possible.
namely you have ruled out the possibility that your nothingness does not exist.

I think it is the simplist state of the EXISTENCE.

And before this, we can logically evolves to the cosmos. Ther is no GOD necessity !

Of course any one coud have start with another state.

I didi not startes with "Inexistent Nothingness" (IN) because it seems ilogical. Because this
is started with JN. Of couse someone could try start with IN. It would be a rival theory.

before telling me that i don't understand your idea; perhaps the question you should ask is: do you understand my idea? or am i just sprouting nonsense in your eyes?

I Think so.
And you?
Do you undertand the diference between STATE and LAWS ?
I think it is that diferrence that we can not agree each other. is nt you?

 

[azzazza !?]

a state is a law. it exempts its opposite state from being the case. sigh. you destroy your JN to inexistence the minute you say it has no laws. im finished now.