Why is there something rather than nothing?

[ColtDan]

mind blowing concepts and discussion, i dont think we will ever find out tbh

 

[ColtDan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr7wNQw12l8

 

[jocaxx]

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.

I think it is a kind of 'meta-analise': Of course all we think need some MENTAL space otherside we can not think about.

But returning to reality: The empty set do not require itself any space.

From Wiki:
'In mathematics, and more specifically set theory, the empty set is the unique set having no elements; its size is zero. Some axiomatic set theories assure that the empty set exists by including an axiom of empty set; in other theories, its existence can be deduced. Many possible properties of sets are trivially true for the empty set.'

thus the empty set exists, only because of the existence of its substrate; mind.

I do not think so: MIND IS NOT PREREQUISITE to empty set concept.
It was true in the mathematics books would have the restriction at the beginning of each book: This definitions
only are truth if there ara minds to read them
.

if you want JN to be the origin of the cosmos,
you do not have this substrate;

wich substrate?
JN has no substrate. It has only it self like an empty set.

The JN can be modeladed, 'shaped' like an Empty Set. If the Empty set can be defined then JN too.
The Empty Set exists as a mathematiclogic model of something.

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.

But JN IS something in reality.
Jn is the universe in its minimal state.

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.

Of course we have to define JN using our knowledge.
Because this its definition appear the words 'fields', 'space', 'particles' etc..
The same occur wit empty set definition where is said a set without ELEMENTS.
The word 'element' appear in its definition too.

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.

I thing its wrong because when you said that there is a set uniitary (with ONLY ONE element)
you do NOT need more than one element to contrast with the unitary set.
The unitary set cound be exist without another set with 2 elements !
If it was true, it would be a proof agisnt god existence: it must be 2 gods in order
to define 1 god !

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 important idea with come form JN-Theory are two:
1-The LACK of LAWS is the CAUSE the possible randomization from the nothing.
Therefore nothingness is uninstable.

2-The 'natural selection' of the 'mutants-rules' cause the logical universe.

in short, absolutizing JN to the origin of cosmos renders it inexistent.

I do not think so.
Why do you think that is IMPOSSIBLE to have some a real 'nothingness'?

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.

I did not say it is a 'nothingness'.
because it existed then there is something : itself.
The 'Inexistent Nothingness' is a contraditory cooncept. JN is diferent.

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).

See the text:
'...
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.
...
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”.
...
...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 simplest possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.'

 

[azzazza !?]

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”.
...
...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 simplest possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.'

"existent nothingness" itself, the words by which you define JN, are a semantic paradox from wich you claim JN is liberated. thingness=existence. you literally say: "existent non-existence". you are constantly defining JN as a something in which nothing exists; not even itself.

if you believe an empty set=emptiness you are mistaken. an empty set is not nothing. it is a contained nothing. as you say yourself; it is defined as having no elements. so in order to define the empty set you need elements first. then you delineate (literally in a venn-diagram) an emptiness without elements encapsulated in it. you think: no i do not need elements, you see, there are none in it. but what you dont see is that the delineation; the demarkation of your venn-diagram defines "element". it is a de-finition; from the latin fines; which means border, boundary. it defines nothingness. this line itself creates "element" and "no-element"; it seperates something from nothing. before this line, you have neither. "nothingness" only gains its reality, its existence as an empty set. not as emptiness by itself. therefor, it is not a nothing by virtue of itself, but by virtue of its created other. it is the set, the line that creates nothingness and somethingness at the very same time. the line itself is both th nothingness inside and somethingness outside the set. it grants both its existence, not one or the other.

and this is what you see in the (modified) russell paradox i referred to above. and the opposite is equally true. if you take the set "existence/element/thingness" you are faced with the same problem: you need there to be something outside the set to define that set. but this 'something' cannot be a thing, for then it is not outside the set. this outside 'no-thing' (both a thing and both not) is what makes the set possible.

take a good look at it:

some sets are members of themselves. some sets are not.

Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists.

The JN can be modeladed, 'shaped' like an Empty Set. If the Empty set can be defined then JN too

so, consequently, you say the empty set itself does not 'exist'. given that it is not something in which nothing exists.(did i mention you postulated JN is free from semantic paradoxes? if you look carefully, you can already discern why JN is not like the empty set. but lets continue on these vital premises of yours regardless. though it pretty much becomes somewhat nonsensical now)

now we take the set of all empty sets.

given that you hold that an empty set is not something that exists, the set of all empty sets is a member of itself, for it is empty. (personal comment: the empty set is not its non-element (emptiness)!! this does not collide!!)

given that the set of all empty sets is empty itself, the 'set of all empty sets' is a member of this set. thus: the set of all empty sets is, by its definition, both within itself and around itself. its both a member of itself and both not.

so i repeat your main problem: the empty set is not its non-element (emptiness)!! this does not collide!!)

 

[Sykoknot]

" "

 

[Philoscybin]

The problem with JN is that it supposes itself as a reality. Given that there are no axioms based upon the premise(s) there is no logical validity to conclude JN as self-evident. Your idea of an empty set cannot co-exist within a reality of physical laws. It negates the actual premise of an empty set as a physical system. The mathematical logistics of an empty set refers to the deletion of a total sum of x amount of something within something, however since the x amount of something is within something, the empty set cannot be a nothingness.

 

[jocaxx]

"existent nothingness" itself, the words by which you define JN, are a semantic paradox from wich you claim JN is liberated.

It is NOT a paradox because I explain WHAT IS 'EXISTENT NOTHINGNESS':
It is somethink existent that have some properties, like an Empty Set: nothing exist EXCEPT itself.

you literally say: "existent non-existence". you are constantly defining JN as a something in which nothing exists; not even itself.

Some thing existent with *nothing* inside it. It is not a contradiction.
An Empty Set occurs the same: Something without elements inside it.
.

f you believe an empty set=emptiness you are mistaken. an empty set is not nothing. it is a contained nothing.

The JN ALSO is not a nothing it is being: something existent without another elements inside it, only itself.

it is defined as having no elements. so in order to define the empty set you need elements first.

You do NOT need HAVE elements. You need the CONCEPT of the elements in order to define the 'Empty Set'.
It is a diferente aproach.

if you take the set "existence/element/thingness" you are faced with the same problem: you need there to be something outside the set to define that set.

But, as I have already said the definition of an empty set (E.S.) not mean that it is impossible have an empty set.
The definition of an E.S. is equal the definition of the DARKNESS :
You define the darkness with the absence of the light but it is **NOT necessary** have light
in order to have DARKNESS. The rule of the light is only to understand the definition.

but this 'something' cannot be a thing, for then it is not outside the set. this outside 'no-thing' (both a thing and both not) is what makes the set possible.

so, consequently, you say the empty set itself does not 'exist'.

Your thought is wrong because you do not read the 'not' word in the sentence:
see again:
'... Jocax did *NOT* define the JN as something in which nothing exists. ...'

given that you hold that an empty set is not something that exists, the set of all empty sets is a member of itself, for it is empty.

I do not agree that the E.S. is elemet of itself. Where did you see that?
See the wiki:
"In mathematics, and more specifically set theory, the empty set is the unique set having no elements; its size is zero."

Therefore it can not be element of itself then the JN can not be element of itself too.

 

[jocaxx]

The problem with JN is that it supposes itself as a reality.

I have explained why it is possible.

Why do *you* think that is not possible have no laws and no pphysical elements?
I can not undertand it.
WHAT do you think is the minor (minimal) set of element possible in an existence?
.

Given that there are no axioms based upon the premise(s) there is no logical validity to conclude JN as self-evident.

What do you mean that are not "axioms based on premisses" ?

Your idea of an empty set cannot co-exist within a reality of physical laws.

Of course not !
in a Empty set there is NO physical Laws !!

It negates the actual premise of an empty set as a physical system. The mathematical logistics of an empty set refers to the deletion of a total sum of x amount of something within something, however since the x amount of something is within something, the empty set cannot be a nothingness.

Of course not. The Inexistent Nothingness ( ausence of everything) is not the same the Jocaxian nothingness. Because JN exists.( Could existed in the past).
.

 

[azzazza !?]

[JN is] Some thing existent with *nothing* inside it. It is not a contradiction.
An Empty Set occurs the same: Something without elements inside it.

... Jocax did *NOT* define the JN as something in which nothing exists. ...'

an empty set IS something in which nothing 'exists'. there IS nothing in it
(and yes, i know what you will say: no! its the nothingness itself that exists!. an empty set is NOT nothingness existing. its an empty bag. the bag is a something that defines the nothing. without the bag, 'nothing' 'is not'/does not exist.)


your above words are not a contradiction? one time you are handling the empty set-definition, another time you are defining it is not something with nothing inside it. you use either of these wholly contradictory definitions whenever it fits you. you justify it with your idea of JN, which is 'both without being contradicory' its paradoxal because of this. the heart of this paradox lies in the wording 'existent nothingness', and when you think about it, in the word 'nothing' itself. when i define the empty set the way you are using it, you get the sillyness that ensued when i applied your idea of the empty set in the russell paradox. and yes, as i already said there, that is complete nonsense.

i will not spend another minute on this; you are deluding yourself into thinking you solved the paradox while you fell an obvious victim to it. the core of your deluded thinking is written in your own words above in plain sight.

 

[jocaxx]

an empty set IS something in which nothing 'exists'. there IS nothing in it

THERE IS NOTHING IN IT, I agree, BUT *THERE IS ITSELF*.

An Empty set IS NOT A TOTAL EMPTY , AN Empty Set IS NOT AN INEXISTENT EMPTYNESS.
.

and yes, i know what you will say: no! its the nothingness itself that exists!

Yes ! you are right !
.

an empty set is NOT nothingness existing. its an empty bag. the bag is a something that defines the nothing. without the bag, 'nothing' 'is not'/does not exist

Because this I said the Empty Set is similar a Jocaxian Nothingness !
because it is NECESSARY have SOMETIHING to be depositary of the properties.
If something no exiist it ca not have properties neither the propertie 'have no element'.
in order to have the propertie "have no elements" it must be exist.

. Jocax did *NOT* define the JN as something in which nothing exists.

your above words are not a contradiction? one time you are handling the empty set-definition, another time you are defining it is not something with nothing inside it. you use either of these wholly contradictory definitions whenever it fits you.

'Jocax did *NOT* define the JN as something in which nothing exists' BECAUSE ITSELF exist:
The 'bag' depositary of these characteristic ( no laws, no elements ).

the heart of this paradox lies in the wording 'existent nothingness'

You do not have translate literaly this 2 words.
'Existent Nothingness' TOGETHER is diferent of the 'Nothingness' only.

 

[azzazza !?]

^really, its not. 'no-thingness' is the same as 'thingness-no'

 

[B9]

One cannot have one without zero - without zero one would be nothingness!

 

[Philoscybin]

I have explained why it is possible.

Clearly you have failed to prove or explain JN as a possible reality- this is why people are refuting your argument. This is why your article has even been deleted from Wikipedia as "unsourced, non-notable scientific hackery and quackery". You simply elude back and forth with vague descriptions and circular logic. You compare JN to something like any empty set yet imply it is not a set absent of something.

Why do *you* think that is not possible have no laws and no pphysical elements?
I can not undertand it.

Why do I think it is not possible for laws and physical elements to cease existing?.... Because of the most elementary scientific law: matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed. Tell me, how is it possible to have no physical properties within the universe? How can physical laws and matter cease to exist? You can't just erase them. You can't move them and then call the spatial emptiness a nothingness.

WHAT do you think is the minor (minimal) set of element possible in an existence?

There is no minimal set of elements possible to exist in the sense that in the total order of things, both the minimal and maximal are equal. Again, existence exists- A is A.

In your FAQ points, you tell us what JN is not then expect us to realize its possibility of existing based on whatever it isn't, or doesn't have (physical properties). You contradict yourself by stating that JN has no rules yet you propose that JN cannot be itself under certain conditions (which you neglect to address), making that a rule. Instead, you jump in and claim it as a tautology under the assertion that JN can or cannot generate something... Pigs don't fly....... Grass doesn't bite....... They simply do not possess the necessary properties to do so; they possess the properties to not do so.

You have failed to differentiate JN from inexistent nothingness. You claim there are no properties, qualities, etc. to it, obviously because if you were to, then it wouldn't be a nothingness. You would contradict yourself saying that at once it was and was not an existent. You state that time doesn't apply or exist within JN, yet how does anything ever change?- especially when you say,

Later it could have materialized randomly one or more cosmos.

, indicating there is change and time. Then in point 11, you essentially dismiss the necessity for reason in whether or not there is any evidence or if you make any sense towards your position:

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.

. You've basically made it clear that you are steadfast and not open to any rational critique or feedback on the subject.

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.

Seeing as you defined JN by what it lacks and that it doesn't need a logical explanation, there is no connection in what you're saying. How would an illogical and contradictory "source" require a logical and non-contradictory "creation"? What preceded the Big Bang was not in any way a nothingness. Like I said, the universe still existed and consisted of physical properties such as a compaction of concentrated energy of which sparked the explosion which was simply an event that gave structure and alignment to the cosmos. It was not a switch or transformation from nothing to something, the same way A cannot turn into B- it can only be seen that way in the abstract.

Your entire definition of JN is completely unoriginal and doesn't need to be preached. I would suggest you stop posting this mesh of metaphysical jibberish and admit that "your" idea is flawed (and furthermore nothing to take pride in shouting about 'til you're blue in the face). Hopefully, you'll come to realize this, at least through the multitude of others disagreeing with you.

 

[jocaxx]

Clearly you have failed to prove or explain JN as a possible reality- this is why people are refuting your argument. ..This is why your article has even been deleted from Wikipedia as "unsourced, non-notable scientific hackery and quackery".

No revolutionary theory is easy to be assimilated. of course is expected to be rejected for the most.

WHY DO YOU THINK NOTHING CAN HAPPEN FROM SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT HAVE LAWS?

You simply elude back and forth with vague descriptions and circular logic.

Where is the circular logic?

You compare JN to something like any empty set yet imply it is not a set absent of something.

The empty set exist in mathematichs as the JN could be existed in the reality.
Why do you think is impossible to exist it?

Why do *you* think that is not possible have no laws and no pphysical elements?
I can not undertand it.

Why do I think it is not possible for laws and physical elements to cease existing?....

I do not say it is impossible !
Of course everything ( laws and physical elements) coud be disappear !!

Because of the most elementary scientific law: matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed.

IN THE JN THERE IS NO LAW !
THEREFORE YOU CAN NOT CONCLUDE THIS !!

 

[jocaxx]

Tell me, how is it possible to have no physical properties within the universe?
How can physical laws and matter cease to exist? You can't just erase them.
You can't move them and then call the spatial emptiness a nothingness.

Its simple.
Supose that one of the laws generated at random by JN is :
"After the event X happened all things will disappear"

Therefore everything can be disappear if that law exist !

You can't just erase them. You can't move them and then call the spatial emptiness a nothingness.

I moved as a MENTAL experiment in order to people understand the idea.

WHAT do you think is the minor (minimal) set of element possible in an existence?

There is no minimal set of elements possible to exist in the sense that in the total order of things,
both the minimal and maximal are equal. Again, existence exists- A is A.

You are wrong because if one single electron disappear from the universe
this universe will be simpler than the universe+eletron.

In your FAQ points, you tell us what JN is not then expect us to realize its possibility of existing based on whatever it isn't,
or doesn't have (physical properties).

NO.
The JN HAS some properties like yopu can have the propertie that NO have cancer !
Then JN has NO LAWS and NO physical elements.
Why do you think it is no possible to exist?

You contradict yourself by stating that JN has no rules yet you propose that
JN cannot be itself under certain conditions (which you neglect to address), making that a rule.

I do not understand it.
How JN can not be itself?
I said that when the JN generate something it leave to be a JN and goes to be a kind of cosmos.
(when it starts to generate something he ceases to be a JN and becomes a kind of cosmos);

They simply do not possess the necessary properties to do so;
they possess the properties to not do so.

The property "have no laws" is sufficient to allow things to happen.

Because if there no have prohibition then there is NO REASOM to things ca be happen.

 

[jocaxx]

You have failed to differentiate JN from inexistent nothingness.

See the FAQ :
"
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.
"

The JN exists and the Inexistent Nothingness can not exist.

You claim there are no properties, qualities, etc.

No the JN HAS properties because this it exists.

to it, obviously because if you were to, then it wouldn't be a nothingness.

Jn is NOT a "Inexistent Nothingness".
JN is an Existent Nothingness.

how does anything ever change?

because there have NO restriction laws. There is not conservation rules !!
Then things can happen by chance, at random.

indicating there is change and time.

The time and another elements comes , pop into existence, with this randomization.

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.

You've basically made it clear that you are steadfast and not open to any rational critique or feedback on the subject.

I am saying that our logic coud put some limit to the possibilities of the JN
and NOT put more possibilities it in fact could to do.
(I am saying that our logic can be restricting the possibilities of JN and not putting more opportunities where it has not.)


The logic cause restriction and some prohibition where the JN donot must obey.

Therefore the JN analized here can be less powerfull than it is in the reality.

 

[jocaxx]

Seeing as you defined JN by what it lacks and that it doesn't need a logical explanation, there is no connection in what you're saying.

I did not say it do not need a logical explanation. I already gave an explanation.
I think you do not understand it.

How would an illogical and contradictory "source" require a logical and non-contradictory "creation"?

I do not say the JN is forced to NOT follow the logic. Eventually it can, of course,
follow the logic , just because there is no law to obligue it to not follow the logic !

Like I said, the universe still existed and consisted of physical properties such as a compaction of concentrated energy of which sparked the explosion which was simply an event that gave structure and alignment to the cosmos.

The JN can generate the cosmos.
The elements of our cosmos and its physical laws must have be an explanation like
"why its like this and not another way?".
Moreover, there is a kalam argument that says that can not be an infinite time to the pass,
becaouse would expend an infinite time (never) to reach to our present.

It was not a switch or transformation from nothing to something

Why not if there is NO conservation law??????????????
.

Your entire definition of JN is completely unoriginal and doesn't need to be preached.

Where did you see that "no law" implies in random possibilities before.
Did you habe a link?

Hopefully, you'll come to realize this, at least through the multitude of others disagreeing with you.

I do not care because in the past everyone also thought the earth was flat.

 

[azzazza !?]

Where did you see that "no law" implies in random possibilities before.

no law=no possibilities. possibility is a law.
not only that, it also requires a point of departure. what is possible from here? if there is no 'here' there is no possibility that builds from it. the JN, if it is a (existent) nothingness, is a sterile and self-absorbed absolute.

 

[jocaxx]

no law=no possibilities. possibility is a law.

It is wrong.

A law ever limit something. Its is it definition: Law limit something.

When you say 'no possibilities' you are meaning that are infinite laws:
no eletron can happen,
no light can happen,
no elephant can happen,
no black hole can happen,
no gravity can happen
...

No possibilities at all is the same that have infinite laws that DENY all events.

Moreover, I do not say that Jocaxian Nothingness MUST do something happen !
I said : From NJ something can happen OR NOT.
There is a possibility nothing happen too.
because this the text say:

"...N, 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).
..."

not only that, it also requires a point of departure. what is possible from here? if there is no 'here' there is no possibility that builds from it. the JN, if it is a (existent) nothingness, is a sterile and self-absorbed absolute.

The point of departure is it itself: The minimal state of the existence.

 

[azzazza !?]

No possibilities at all is the same that have infinite laws that DENY all events.

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

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.

im sorry to say, as you seem to be putting a lot of energy in this JN of yours, but this is most certainly not the "entirely new and genius idea which nobody can understand" you think it is. it bears a very deep and outspoken conflict which you are not comprehending. Yet this conflict is highly apparent to anyone with even only a little experience in this field, and it is also apparent how and where you are falling prey to the paradox you are refusing to see. yet is at the heart of your idea. as long as you are refusing to accept the paradox that is the heart of your idea, what you are postulating will not in any way become an even remotely philosophically viable position. in my best and most well-willing interpretation of it, it is a premature consolidation of what should have been an intermediate thought stage on the way to further developing your insight in the meaning of what is really a very old idea (Heraclitus, for instance), the unity of or in polar opposites. 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. it is about the path you took. what makes for philosophial brilliance is not the answer one gives, but how well one can express his understanding of the heart of the status quaestiones. in philosophy, we don't make any progress. at all. in fact, we run in circles all the time. we make a sport out of that