The origin of the physical laws

Hi Jocax, I think it would help if you were to edit those places where the board hasn't been able to read the character set.

II.3 The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]

Joao 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. [1]

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.

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 'Occams Razor' [2], 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.

[All of this may sound really weird, and it actually is. But I can put clear evidence that JN is not an absurd: first, go search the following on a search engine on the Internet: 'virtual particles' or singular 'virtual particle'. Virtual particles occur in our universe as spontaneous creation from the quantum vacuum, from one particle and its anti-particle. Science considers the generation of this pair of particles an event without physical causes, something genuinely random. This is a scientific fact and can be explained by quantum mechanics. Now, let us move a bit from the facts and imagine each one of these particles contains a tiny miniature universe. That way, in this mental experience, we have a clue, a little evidence that the emergence of a universe out of nothing is so out of purpose as we could once believe]

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 universe, 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.



www.genismo.com

Hi Jocax, I can't see many people wanting to talk about philosophy on what is after all an astronomy web board. If we abstract from something all of its logical categories, then we are left with "being", which of course is a logical "nothing." However this is not an existing nothing but a "real" nothing. Logically prior to the world but casually prior, as reality is nowhere and nowhen. The logical Kantian categories are ideas with which we drape existence. It's our task, if you will, to bring existence into accord with reason.

I honestly believe that in jumping from the logical statement of being is nothing, to existence, you have fallen into the platonic error of seeing the world of forms as somehow existing in some space and time. Take for example "...suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence." Implicit within the idea of sequence, there must surely be a set of rules that are more developed than the initial concept of being and nothing.

I will try explain. (sorry by my poor English)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> If we abstract from something all of its logical categories, then we are left with "being", which of course is a logical "nothing." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If we withdraw logic rules too, then we dont have a logical "nothing" because it has no rules.
nevertheless we stil have something I named JN-object.
.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> However this is not an existing nothing but a "real" nothing. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
.
I think everything that exist is real too.
What do you know that exist and is not real?
.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I honestly believe that in jumping from the logical statement of being is nothing,
to existence, you have fallen into the platonic error of seeing the world of forms as somehow existing in some space and time. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

See the existence definition I have proposed:
"... 'Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality'. ... "
.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Take for example "...suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence." Implicit within the idea of sequence,
there must surely be a set of rules that are more developed than the initial concept
of being and nothing. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
.

If there is some necessity of some previous conditions to have a sequence
then there is a possibility of this conditions be randomized ( like mutation in life evolution ).
Therefore after a lot of randomization we can get the start consitions to get time to
make a 'sequence', after we have natural selection of rules.




www.genismo.com

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.




www.genismo.com