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.

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 (no rules of any kind).

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 “Occam’s Razor”, 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.

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 our cosmo, 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.

“Why not God?”

Because we have no valid evidence or necessity for the conjecture.
If we have what in this case is an unnecessary conjecture without any evidence, what we have is a wild conjecture.

There are a potentially infinite amount of wild conjectures, so the chance of your particular god conjecture being correct tends to zero.
lim 0=1/inf.
The chance of your particular god conjecture being incorrect tends to one.
lim 1=1-(1/inf).

“Your god is imaginary”

Well then would you please prove it?

Challenge accepted.

If we conjecture a spontaneously or eternally existing creator god, the fundamental properties of that creator god must exist without the intervention of any entity, because they exist in that creator and it didn’t create them.

It follows that modality – what is possible, probable, necessary and contingent – exists without the intervention of any entity.

Which is to say, every metaphysically and logically possible world exists without the intervention of any entity – including this one.

In agreement with that logical argument we have these physical facts:

Whether or not the Universe “had a beginning”, in particular, whether or not spacetime “had a beginning”…

1) There is no time when the Universe has not existed.
2) The Universe has existed for all time.
3) There is no before the Universe when a cause could exist.
4) Causation is a property of the Universe.

Creator gods are therefore impossible.

Why would there be this direct correspondence unless the brain was the substrate upon which thinking and experience occur?

If god is in the brain, it’s a trained one that we can make jump through hoops.

God just seems to get smaller and more pathetic every day.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/090309-brain-religion.html

Have fun.

Woooooosh. Either find studies that 100% back you up or you have no proof, nor argument.

It’s clear you didn’t look at the pages I linked above. I can see further discussion is pointless.

“How do you prove something you can’t see unless you rely on a person telling you they are having a thought?”

Ah, that’s how you can tell your god is correct. Secondhand, unverifiable information. Gotcha.

Additionally, um, we have these machines, you know, that can see into the brain and watch activity. You really should keep up on neuroscience.

Lastly, how is the brain functioning normally any different from thought processing? Answer me that, and give me an example of a time when the brain was not functioning and yet thought persisted–and no anecdotal stories, either.

“Do you believe individuals when they claim to have a mind to mind conversation with God?”

There are claims like that from every world religion, not just your own, and if you looked at the studies I posted above they also discuss this. Richard Dawkins covers this in The God Delusion as well.

I can conclude that it is all in your head.

“Don’t lose faith in the chemicals now!”

Why should I have “faith in the chemicals”? Are you implying that our bodies are not chemically based? Faith is a position that doesn’t rely on good evidence.

“Once again, chemicals in the body do not prove love exists.”

Once again, god outside the body does not prove love exists.

“I thought you knew something about science but you are continuing to disappoint.”

And you thought archaeology had something to do with abiogenesis, you thought someone mentioned cosmic dust, and you thought that science doesn’t use both inductive and deductive reasoning. You also think that a supernatural being is responsible for everything. I can see we’re evenly matched in inanities.

*sigh*, thanks Kilre I know. Moving on….

“A functioning brain is not the proof of thought.”

Ha Ha I don’t have to, you do. You claim chemicals reacting in the brain prove thought does exist. Really? Prove it. It proves the brain is functioning, not thought. You do know the difference….right? How do you prove something you can’t see unless you rely on a person telling you they are having a thought? But then, what does that look like? Do you believe individuals when they claim to have a mind to mind conversation with God?

“at least chemicals have a physical and testable attribute. Your god does not.’

Don’t lose faith in the chemicals now! Once again, chemicals in the body do not prove love exists. I thought you knew something about science but you are continuing to disappoint.

Prove it. Where is some research to back this claim up? I pointed the way to actual research linking thoughts and brain activity; now put up or shut up.

—

“Assuming love is a process of evolution is also not proof, it is an exercise of faith.”

If you say love is contingent upon a supernatural force outside the body, you know what I’m going say. Bulllllllllll ssshhhit. That’s more of a faith statement than relying upon the explanation that it is all chemicals bouncing around in our bodies; at least chemicals have a physical and testable attribute. Your god does not.

—

“Why not God?”

Because you haven’t proven yet that it is your god doing anything, and not some other god. You’ve only stated, with gusto I might add, that it is your god, and that we should believe you; not on the evidence, but on faith.

So I turn it around: Why not chemicals?

—

As well, Xenon, the page you linked refuted your claims. I wish you’d read what you link. And what I link. I quote from your link:

“On the previous page, you learned that although mathematics is deductive in nature – that is, logical proof is the only acceptable evidence of truth – the process of mathematics is not entirely deductive. It is also true that although science is inductive by nature – observations are the only acceptable evidence of truth – the process of science can be deductive!”