Why is there something rather than nothing?

[jocaxx]

definition is restriction.

Only in the dictionary perhaps.
Some definition, even in the dictionary, could change.

Anyway, JN do not MUST STAY in the same definition it was becaouse this it is not a LAW to be followed.

LAW is some RESTRICTION in the time. State is NOT restriction in the time.

For example "The Trivial Nothingness" (TN) must stay in the same state for ever e NEVER change.
Therefore it has a law: "NOTHING CAN HAPPEN FROM THIS NOTHING".

The JN do not have this LAW, therefore it can change.

Did you gete the difference betwin a state and a law?

'no laws' limits you from having laws.

Similarly, 'no laws' its a property of the initial state.
it is DIFERENT to say 'MUST NOT HAVE LAWS'.

Did undertand the diference:

'INITIALLY HAVE NO LAWS' and 'MUST NOT HAVE LAWS FOR EVER' ???????

JN could pop laws into existence , eventually.

 

[Pythagoras]

Only in the dictionary perhaps.
Some definition, even in the dictionary, could change.

Anyway, JN do not MUST STAY in the same definition it was becaouse this it is not a LAW to be followed.

LAW is some RESTRICTION in the time. State is NOT restriction in the time.

For example "The Trivial Nothingness" (TN) must stay in the same state for ever e NEVER change.
Therefore it has a law: "NOTHING CAN HAPPEN FROM THIS NOTHING".

The JN do not have this LAW, therefore it can change.

Did you gete the difference betwin a state and a law?





Similarly, 'no laws' its a property of the initial state.
it is DIFERENT to say 'MUST NOT HAVE LAWS'.

Did undertand the diference:

'INITIALLY HAVE NO LAWS' and 'MUST NOT HAVE LAWS FOR EVER' ???????

JN could pop laws into existence , eventually.

I would take the hint from azzaza !? and at least attempt to form your argument as a dialectic, I think it might help you in communicating your idea rather than emphatically reiterating it in the face of all objections. Not having read the entire thread I can't comment on your theory as a whole, but your last statement here

JN could pop laws into existence , eventually

presupposes both time (eventually) and potentiality (could), so your nothingness already has two attributes, which can be framed as 'laws', that is the axiomatic properties of JN are potential creation, and temporal existence...axioms that non-existence does not by neccessity display. You might also find that a brief foray into metaphilosophy might give you new insight into your theory.

I wish you the best of luck, you clearly have passion for your theory, it may even be revolutionary, however until you can express it - dialectic prose might help as you seem averse to P1, P2, P3, C logic - its potential may never be realised in the history of Ideas, and that would be a shame:D:D

 

[Philoscybin]

Jocax: Given what you have told us about JN, it simply does not exist. It cannot. It will not.. We have explained and repeated ourselves over and over yet it seems that it's not even that you refuse to listen but that you simply lack the mental capacity or knowledge to actually understand, conceive, and apply what we're saying to you (maybe you need to become more fluent in English and general grammar)... I probably speak for everyone here when I say we've heard enough of your contradictory ramblings. So please, there's nothing more to be addressed, unless you are willing to be open to criticism.

 

[cire113]

if something comes out of nothing then there must be something in nothing!!!!

 

[Philoscybin]

if something comes out of nothing then there must be something in nothing!!!!

Well then it wouldn't be nothing, it'd be something. Things don't just spontaneously pop into the universe out of nothingness.

 

[jocaxx]

I would take the hint from azzaza !? and at least attempt to form your argument as a dialectic, I think it might help you in communicating your idea rather than emphatically reiterating it in the face of all objections. Not having read the entire thread I can't comment on your theory as a whole, but your last statement here

I wiil try to explain in the other way:

Suposse you have a red car. Then I ask you :

The color of your car is state of you car and you can paint it with another color
or it must be with same color always?

A: Its color is not a law is only the the state of the car in that time.

Another example:
The light speed has 300K Km/s , it is a state ou it can change its velocity?
A: Its a law, The light can not change its velocity never.

presupposes both time (eventually) and potentiality (could), so your nothingness already has two attributes, which can be framed as 'laws'

Even I stabilished that in the JN must have a pink elephant
even so it was NOT a law. It was the inicial conditions.
Eventually the elephant could be disapear.

and "eventualy" is not time it can be "by chance".
There is no time in the JN.

Given what you have told us about JN, it simply does not exist. It cannot. It will not..

Why do you think JN could not exist?
What is the logical reason you think it?

 

[jocaxx]

Things don't just spontaneously pop into the universe out of nothingness.

Why not if there have NO laws avoid it ?

There is no conservation rules then , there is not impossible.

 

[Heuristic]

Jo,

A set is just a collection of something. You've defined JN as a collection of nothing. Okay.

P1: JN is a null set.

Then you say that laws, matter, energy, etc., are randomly generated. Okay.

P2: Anything that exists in JN is randomly generated.

And clearly things now exist. So,

P3: Matter, energy, etc. are elements of JN.

What have we done other than restate the original paradox? All this really says is: there is nothing, and then, randomly, there is something. And then there's more.

There's another problem.

Let's say we iterate every possible universe in a set called Possibilities.

Okay. And now we have another set, called JN, which is a null set.

We're then going to start assigning elements from Possibilities to JN. You've given us a rule, namely that each element in Possibilities has a 1 / (number of elements in Possibilities) chance of being assigned to JN.

That's a very different rule than the one which states certain elements of Possibilities have a greater chance than other elements of being assigned to JN.

So we have a rule describing how things come to exist in JN. Thus JN isn't "nothing" in the sense you seem to mean.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

This thread is definitely one for the archives. It's not a topic that comes up all that often here, even though it's pretty central to philosophy. I don't personally think we're close to scientifically answering the question of why our universe formed at all, and what exists beyond our known universe is definitely not within the realm of scientific inquiry. Still, this discussion is a valuable thought experiment, because is causes us to cut to the foundation of those articles of language called 'something' and 'nothing'. Fascinating.

 

[Mr_Fluffykins]

Arguments about religion are usually futile,
that is because of the whole faith idea,
Ive had discussions with people who believe in god, or even ones that specifically believe everything in the bible happened.
Since they think they may identified the faith gene, and what makes certain people able to have blind faith without proof,
or the person who just cannot jump to those conclusions

but if there is a god wouldnt he have given everyone the faith gene and giving all of the human race and equal chance to make it to heaven(if in fact it does exist), and why would he apear to the hindus first, then the jews, and then to the catholics, and then to the muslims,
see the hindus came first before jews or catholics, and if that religion wasn't rigth wouldn't god just have appeared to the hindus and had them change their religion?
Is it all a mind game,
or is it like the diests believe... that the world was created by a grand architect, but that grand architect who sits back and watch the world like some one playing with a tamagotchi but not feeding it

you can use the concept of faith to manipulate people, is this god gene really a form of gullible gene, maybe a recent evolution, and thats why people often believe the religious beliefs of their parents.

Yes you can't use logic to argue against someone who pulls the faith card,
people want to believe that there is more to live then just living, that why so many people reject nihilism its quite depressing, but we shoulder need a job to be good people,

if we all are an accident then we are a very very lucky accident, a serendipity that we shouldn't take for granted , i don't need a heaven waiting for me at the end of life, i don't need the fears of hell motivate me to be good, i can just live my life the way i please, its my life, and its my duty to make it as full and as meaningful to myself, so that i can die with a smile on my face, and if there is an after life, thats great, if there is a heaven, god would let everyone in, we after all only human, and our identities our minds are not functioning on a level of higher beings. and god if he is real shouldn't punish us for using our rationality,

 

[jocaxx]

What have we done other than restate the original paradox? All this really says is: there is nothing, and then, randomly, there is something.
And then there's more.

I think you do not understand: There is no more paradox.
The paradox go away. We have a rational explanation about the origen of the cosmos now.
From nothing (NJ) -> randonly things -> laws -> logical rules (physical laws ) -> Life

It is not beautiful?

Let's say we iterate every possible universe in a set called Possibilities.

Okay. And now we have another set, called JN, which is a null set.

JN was the initial state of ALL cosmos ( - universe)
from JN all possible cosmos was generated if have more than one.

We're then going to start assigning elements from Possibilities to JN. You've given us a rule, namely that each element in Possibilities has a 1 / (number of elements in Possibilities) chance of being assigned to JN.

I don not say *what* is the probability from an element pop into existence from JN.
But there is some probabilities of course since there is no restriction rules at all.

So we have a rule describing how things come to exist in JN. Thus JN isn't "nothing" in the sense you seem to mean.

OUR logic ( the Jn-Theory ) say that things can happen.
But we do not knows HOW things come to exist or when.

see the text:
"...
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.
..."

 

[jocaxx]

if we all are an accident then we are a very very lucky accident

Look for "The Destropic Principle"

 

[ResinTeeth]

because it is possible

 

[Vader]

^Are you suggesting a modal realist view that everything that is possible exists?

 

[rm-rf]

Infinity is nothing and everything at the same time. Hell is not so much a place of fire and brimstone, but separation from God. God is infinite, and God is our physical universe and beyond. Therefore, assimilation with infinity is to become God or become a part of God, and to not-exist is hell.

 

[aanallein]

I agree with rm-rf.

 

[Pythagoras]

We're wandering way off topic here.

To Jocaxx - I would advise you to take to heart the Socratic motto
'
Εν είδα ότι ουδέν είδα'

Your idea is either rubbish, or so inspired that you are unable to communicate it to anyone.

Azzazza gave a well crafted critique using simple set theory and language/metalanguage, you obviously didn't read and reflect on his reply, as if you had you could have entered a dialectic and critique his premises, conclusion, logic etc. Please read Godel, Escher, Bach - the eternal golden braid on how to communicate revolutionary ideas that others can understand. Or if you could state your argument using some formal logic

something akin to -

P1. A>B, P2. [...], C = [...]

To Azzazza - you have the pacience of a saint but Joaxx wont let you play Socrates beffudles but I admire you for delivering roughly 20 refutations with no coherent responses

Back on topic, the boring answer is there is something for if there were nothing, no sentience would exist to pose the question.

I personally like Leibniz's crazy Monad theory, where existence is the admixture of being and nothingness, Pure being with a sprinkling of nothingness gave us the 'something' that is the object of this discussion.

Nothingness is non-being,, non-being has few attributes, but one is clearly the absence of sentience wherein this question has no meaning (though as always, saying something is meaningless is to give it meaning...but its too late for metaphilosophy, my brain's a bit bent after wading though the revolutionary JN theory

Fiat LUX

 

[Vader]

Your idea is either rubbish, or so inspired that you are unable to communicate it to anyone.

Fine point well expressed sir.

Back on topic, the boring answer is there is something for if there were nothing, no sentience would exist to pose the question.

I think the anthropic principle gets given a bit too much weight in discussions like this. You're certainly right that sentience can only exist in certain conditions, but I've never understood how this is meant to dispel the mystery. You say "There is no surprise that you perceive this kind of world; it is the only kind of world in which perception is possible". That's true, but the surprise is not the way the world we perceive is, but that there is a world at all.

 

[ResinTeeth]

Fine point well expressed sir.

I think the anthropic principle gets given a bit too much weight in discussions like this. You're certainly right that sentience can only exist in certain conditions, but I've never understood how this is meant to dispel the mystery. You say "There is no surprise that you perceive this kind of world; it is the only kind of world in which perception is possible". That's true, but the surprise is not the way the world we perceive is, but that there is a world at all.

Indeed, this is like answering the "how" and not the "why", which is the heart of the issue

^Are you suggesting a modal realist view that everything that is possible exists?

I won't go as far as to say that everything that is possible exists (that's a whole can of worms I'll save for another day). However, because we know (at least through sense) that this "somethingness" exists we can also infer that this somethingness was and is absolutely possible and as such was inevitable.

 

[Pythagoras]

The Why, not the how?

Yes it is, which is why I proposed it as the classical philosophic resolution to this paradox. In truth words cannot convey the mysteries of ontology - If I were a poet I might stand a chance but however much I ponder upon the mystery of mysteries, words fail me.

Hence my affinity with Leibniz's super-nouminal metaphysics, the Monads striving to become dyadic, with Minds and matter brought together in perfect harmony by god/God.

Philosophical paradoxes are like the pearl, the grail, the key. Archetypes of unspeakable truths - they make life worth living