I’ve not seen that video due to lack of Flash plugin on my box. But
did you ever read his Wikipedia entry[1] ?

References:
[1] – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.10)

iEYEAREKAAYFAksvSgQACgkQHy+EEHYuXnQM+QCfane9mv+F7ITx1/vwAdVKNLM2
DegAnRKABGIApfLFbRzfivcNnufNiOcu
=n6FA
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

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.

I haven’t visited your blog in a very long time, but you seem to have become quite an active writer/blogger/thinker/etc!

Good going!

But I don’t have the time to actually read all your posts now… Too busy, unfortunately, and as always, I am sure I will be able to appreciate your posts only if I put some time into reading them.

But one thing that struck me: you seem to spend a lot of time thinking about imaginary entities. Many of your posts are about “god(s)”, particularly the Christian set of god(s). And you seem to have a lot of interesting debates with people (like NN?) about “god(s)”.

Why spend so much time on the subject? Is this subject worth spending so much of your time? Sure, people like NN will devote a lot of time into it – but then, he is a “believer”, “god(s)” is supposed to be an interesting enough subject for him to invest so much of time and effort. But why should you do the same?

There was a time when I was on this Atheist vs. Theist community on Orkut, where I used to engage in a lot of these discussions with a lot of people. (But I think nothing as detailed as your posts!) It was interesting and useful to some extent, because there a lot of people from different belief systems participated – from Christians to Muslims to Buddhists; and so I got to know a lot of things that I didn’t know about, particularly about non-Christian beliefs and their own peculiarities. But then, after a certain point, I realized that it was a complete waste of time to spend any time in such discussions, that I had better things to do. (But even now, I occasionally do get drawn into such discussions sometimes.)

Frankly, I don’t think this subject requires so much of your attention. 90% of the world’s population do believe in some kind of “god(s)”, and each person’s belief has some peculiarity. But then, is it worth spending so much time on such a stupid subject?

Unlike Dawkins, your imaginary friend is almighty & all-knowing, i.e. it knows how to & can convince 4 billion non-Christians in a jiffy. But it is so weak that it needs human apologists play defense for it without providing evidence. So everything I have heard about God is from humans. Why is that?

Why are the popular stories about purgatory and a place of torture in the Christian culture popular? Why don’t apologists even try to change popular concept of hell by preaching to the choir? The are reasons I can of for this is that: 1. Christianity really does talk about hell as a torture chamber. (See the parable of rich man & lazarus) 2. Apologists just want to seduce the doubters of their disgusting worldview back into Christianity.

First of all the god-like man I was referring to was Dawson, but I guess as a fellow disciple, you may want to wear that title as well.

On the subject of hell, well think about Christ’s words in the context of its original hearers. When Christ mentioned that in the Gospels, he spoke of “Hedes” as a place that was literally outside the city wall, where the fire was never quenched or satisfied, it burnt into none existence everything that was thrown into it. The heat of the fire consumed the actual items, but the fire itself was always hot and smoldering. It was indeed the garbage incinerator of the city.

Death and hell is separation from God, not necessarily a physical place of torture. One could argue that the act of living our lives separate from God is indeed a hellish experience. The popular stories about purgatory and a place of torture in the Christian culture may not necessarily be true. If you really want to see the heart of the Christian message, then look to Jesus, and the words he spoke. His claim about himself and the reasons he died, and you’ll see that he is so far removed from the Christian establishment that has found its existence in political and material power.

Understand God hates religion as much as you do, as much as I do; however true intimate, loving relationships with God is not necessarily reflected in the church history of the men who ambushed the hearts, thoughts and physical strengths of men by invoking the name Jesus Christ; but who themselves had no passion, intimacy or care for God’s purposes on earth; if they did they would not have shored up Christ’s simple message with the blood of men. I would be atheist if I did not do the work of separating man’s political religious institution from God’s simple message that cuts across all ethnicities, religions, and nations. His kingdom is found amongst the nations of the earth, not in a catholic Italy, or an evangelistic America or an Anglican UK or Africa, and not even an Islamic Middle east, Religion is man’s failed attempt to connect with God and make sense of his life. Because Religion is embedded with man’s agenda, and in their minds, sealed with God’s approval it has proven divisive, dangerous and murderous. But so has atheism, as a religion as well… the hands of the atheist are as clean as the hands of the “religious” man who believe in god. Think Hitler, an atheist who used religion to his own end.

The truth, the real truth is in Christ’s message that embraces and calls all humanity; the Muslim, Buddhists, atheists as well as the Christian to listen to him, make a decision about him and hopefully believe in him, and thus believe in God who sent him. Trust me, if people responded, there would be less people joining the armies of the world to fight for land, oil, pride, and the sheer hate of another. It’s happened before, in the first century AD, when Christians where persecuted by a political power for their refusal to serve in the Roman army because of their belief in Jesus Christ and his message, contrast that with Christianity today where you find those who will go to war for the sake of Jesus – Relationship versus Religion.

T

I would encourage you to ask God these “impossible questions.” See Isaiah 40 for example. While apologetics is impressive and useful, it cannot fully explain God. Ask HIM and if you let him, he will reveal himself to you. See Job for example. Ask God.

I recently read the best chapter I’ve ever read on “impossible questions.” It’s from the book “The Gospel According to Moses.” Read Chapter One called “God on the Spot.” This really helped me – and still does – when I struggle with reconciling an omnipotent loving God and “pain.”

Blessings,

Todd