Hi, Jocax. I am not sure I can conceive the JN. It seems to me that there cannot exist a state of affairs where there is no spatial dimensions, in a way that if we can call somthing of JN, we would be naming something that does not and cannot exist. I can only conceive an existing nothingnessif it is the empty space. But the empty space would still have physical laws. I cant understand tha part of the experiment when you ask us to withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. Those are the basic elements of a world; without space, or space and laws, there cannot exist a world. And every existing object exists in a world, as if a nothingness of some kind exists, it exists in at least one world. There is no world without space; space is a necessary being.

Let's make a mind experiment. If there is a world F inside another world T, if we withdraw everything you are asking us, including space dimensions, when we withdraw the space dimensions of F, F would stop its existence at that moment, and T would have assumed every space of T. If there are no spatial dimensions in F, there is no F at all. If the JN is the nothingness that exists, so it is an empty space, and not your description of JN. And depending on our conception of laws (humean x non-humean), we would say that in the nothingness that exists, there are laws too.

Your definition of JN, that it has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.) and no laws (no rules of any kind) is weird. Since without space or rules, we cannot understand how JN could possibly be part of world or even a world; so we cannot understand how it could exist. And if in JN there are no laws, so we would confuse JN with TN, since laws cannot arise from nothing.

You said that there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from an absolute nothingness, and you said that such a 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. Let me explain something: laws are postulated to explain the necessity of the consequence of the relation between the properties of the particulars. If there is no laws, you have to explain the relation between properties as it become allowable for you to say that ramdom events can happen. And you also have to explain how, if we have your JN, something can come from it. It is a withdraw from everything that can exist in a world (and even of the world itself). I can agree with you about the origin of the world with a JN if we think JN as I think: as the space + laws.

If there is a JN of any kind (mine or yours), I agree that we do not need to explain its existence; it exists by necessity. So "something exists" is an analytic truth.

But why does JN existed in a distant past and just could have existed in a distant past? Maybe there is some JN somewhere in the universe now (my JN, and not yours). Because if all the universe can be a JN, so a part of it also can. And a reason for a part do be the JN is because there is nothing there.

Rodrigo,I will put the FAQ for JN , I hope help the understanding: 
----------------

The "Jocaxian Nothingness" F.A.Q.
Frequently asked questions about the "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 “to be”?
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.

[quote] I am not sure I can conceive the JN. It seems to me that there cannot exist a state of affairs where there is no spatial dimensions,  [/quote]
.
I dont think so.
Why could not exist it? 



[quote] in a way that if we can call somthing of JN, we would be naming something that does not and cannot exist.  [/quote]

See the definitions: 

Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”.



[quote]  I can only conceive an existing nothingnessif it is the empty space. But the empty space would still have physical laws. [/quote]

I dont understand :  WHY anything must have physical laws ? 

A clue:  Think why physical lawa are this shape and not the other way....
.



[quote] Those are the basic elements of a world; without space, or space and laws, there cannot exist a world. And every existing object exists in a world, as if a nothingness of some kind exists, it exists in at least one world. There is no world without space; space is a necessary being.  [/quote]

I do not agree with you.
I think its possible somethink without laws.




[quote] If there is a world F inside another world T, 
if we withdraw everything you are asking us, including space dimensions, 
when we withdraw the space dimensions of F, F would stop its existence at that moment, 
and T would have assumed every space of T. If there are no spatial dimensions in F, 
there is no F at all.
 [/quote]

Your mental experiment is not applyable,
 because the JN is not inside of the universe its is the universe in its primordius.

Yor mental experiment would start with T not with F.




[quote]  Let me explain something: laws are postulated to explain the necessity of the consequence of the relation between the properties of the particulars. If there is no laws, you have to explain the relation between properties as it become allowable for you to say that ramdom events can happen.  [/quote]

There is no laws in the JN. But we can think using laws.
See the text:
[i]"...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...."[/i]

.

[quote] But why does JN existed in a distant past and just could have existed in a distant past? Maybe there is some JN somewhere in the universe now (my JN, and not yours). Because if all the universe can be a JN, so a part of it also can. 
And a reason for a part do be the JN is because there is nothing there.
 [/quote]

Because anything that have some COMPLEXITY would have the explanation for its existence.
The only think that do not must have an explanation is the simplies think that 
could be existed: The existent nothingness.

"JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past"

and

"Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo [sic], 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"

together establish the JN as an invalid argument. If the latter, that JN is the "natural candidate" for our cosmos, is accepted as the origin of the cosmos, then the former, "JN... may have existed in a distant past" must read, "JN... must have existed in a distant past." Hence, coherence falls apart in that the JN, posited as devoid of rules, has a rule.

To say that JN is a candidate for any existence whatsoever nullifies the JN insofar as we are positing some rule thereof. In other words, as an "existent nothingness" the JN would have to be posited next to any other existent that obtains in time or space, thereby positing some location in time or space of the JN and thus the time and space thereof. Additionally, admitting the JN is a "simpler possible state" weds it to rules, space, and time relations. An "existent nothingness" cannot exist at all but as nonsense. Furthermore, Aristotle's law of non-contradiction overturns the JN.

We have to be careful when we talk about properties. If a world does not have rules or laws, we are talking about physical laws, or better, laws of nature. We would be talking about a world without physical laws. But when we talk about the laws of logic, we are not talking anymore of a regularity or of an object that expresses or makes the consequences of the relations between the properties of the particulars. Laws of logic are not like the laws of physics. We cannot talk about the laws of logic not obtaining because they are what allow us to reason about anything. If the laws of logic do not obtain in a world, so in that world no object must be identical to itself, or in that world an object can be P and not-P at the same time and in the same sense. If contradictions can be true in a world, anything can be said of it and it would be true. So, if we are to be able to talk about JN in a world (or as a world), we must not allow that the laws of logic do not rule in it. [I have to say that the laws of logic I am talking about is the law of identity and the law of contradiction; I am not talking about the law of excluded middle, that is arguable if we believe the existence of frewill]. There is nothing the laws of logic do not rule. So, P2 cannot be fulfiled (unless we were talking just about physical laws).

And other thing is the conceivability of a world that does not have space or spatial dimensions. It seems we cannot fulfil P1, since a world where there is no space is not a world at all. Maybe it would be, if Big-bang theory is right and if the space and time arose in a certain moment together with the universe. But such a theory does not intend to explain before Big-bang, and it says that before Big-bang, there would be a time t=o where all things were inexplainable. The problem is that this theory postulates the expansion of the space, and if the space expands, it expands to some other space. Your JN must be the space where the physicist's space must exist. So, a JN cannot be devoided of space. We have to discuss very deeply the nature of the space before accepting Big-bang theory without restrictions. And not just the space, but also time, because it is difficult to understand what they want to say with "the time came to existence [at a certain time]".

If you think that something must have P1 and P2 for us to say that a JN exists, so JN does not exist and did not exist. Because there cannot exist a world without spatial dimensions, because something without spatial dimensions (or at least something based in other something with spatial dimensions) does not concretly exist. For example, imagine my 1mmx1mmx1mm ball. Now imagine that same ball, but with 0mmx0mmx0mm of spatial dimensions. A 0mmx0mmx0mm ball is not a ball at all; it does not exist. A 0mmx0mmx0mm world is the same thing.

I dont know if it's right, but it seems you believe that "to exist" is different from "to be". You think something is if we can talk meaningfully about it. We can talk meaningfully about Saint Clauss, but he does not exist, he just subsist [it is the Meinongian term to the verb to be taking in a different sense that is not to exist]. It seems at least that JN subsists, since we can talk about it as a particular having some properties. But the problem is that we cannot conceive what is for a world to not have spatial dimensions. Because if we cannot conceive it, so there is neither a thought object to JN to be, or better, JN would neither subsist.

Let's talk about the possibility of existing a state of affairs where there are no rules later, after we stablish the "space problem".

You said: 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.

So, JN follows the laws of logic. And the problem here would be: JN is a state of affairs where "anything can happen" or where "it is not the case where anything can happen"? Of course it is one OR the other, since both states are contradictories; but which, from both, is JN? A state where "anything can happen"? Or a state where "it is not the case where anything can happen"? You must be careful, since your definition of JN makes it a probabilistic thing. If JN has a potential that can happen and that can not happen, so if it happens, or if does not happen, it is all a matter of probability, since there is nothing in JN that can make it happen. And if it is probabilitic or if it is not, we would have to salve that by arguing more. Since no one can see how the probability of something to happen can make it happen. Why is that that anything can happen? If there are no physical objects, why does anything can happen? Nothing can happen if there are no physical objects. Happenings are compound by physical objects and/or by relation of them. You must explain how something can happen if there are just a JN. If you dont, we would think that JN = TN.

You said: 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.

You have a misconception of language. If I can predicate a property of something, it is not necessarily the case that it exists. I can predicate properties of Sherlock Holmes, of Saint Clauss, of the present King of France, and neither of those objects exist. I can have concepts and words that purport to talk about an existing thing, but that do not. "Nothing" is a state of affairs where there are no things, we can say; and after that we can say that there is no state of affairs where there are no things; as nothing would not exist, althouth we would be able to talk about it. To produce a concept or a word to a purported individual is not to produce the existence of such an individual. You must not confuse things with words. So, IN should not exist, because it is a concept to talk about a state of affairs that cannot exist. As when I talk about the married-bachelor. When I say that a married-bachelor is not a square-circle, I am sayng that a married-bachelor has a property, the property of not being a squre-circle; but it does not put married-bachelors into existence.

Just to use the same terms; when I talk about a world, I am talking about your Cosmo.

I doubt JN is the simplest possible state. I think we must stop before: the empty space. And if you think that something can ramdomly happen in JN, so you are putting one more object into the game: the ramdomness. I doubt you prove that ramdomness in itself (or, better said, in JN) can produce something.

If a JN-Object can be illogical, so a JN-theory does not have reasons to follow logic in talking about the JN-Object. Logic allows us to see the impossibilities of a system. If JN-Object is illogical, or can be illogical, so we would not use logic to talk about the impossibilities of a JN-Object.

You said: I dont understand : WHY anything must have physical laws? A clue:  Think why physical lawa are this shape and not the other way... I do not agree with you.
I think its possible somethink without laws

Let's talk first about the space, because when we talk about physical laws, we will have to enter a hard and deep discussion about the nature of laws (if they can be created, what are laws meant to explain, etc). Let's talk about laws after we finish the discussion about the space?

My first point to solve here is that an existing nothing must have spatial dimensions. A 0mmx0mmx0mm cosmos would not be a cosmos at all.

[quote] 
"JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past"

and

"Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo [sic], 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"

together establish the JN as an invalid argument. If the latter, that JN is the "natural candidate" for our cosmos, is accepted as the origin of the cosmos, then the former, "JN... may have existed in a distant past" must read, "JN... must have existed in a distant past." Hence, coherence falls apart in that the JN, posited as devoid of rules, has a rule.
 [/quote]
.
.

I dont know if I understand, but some considerations are necessary: 

1- The NJ do not exist any more because it *change* because it generate things and hence 
  it is not empty of laws or physical elements.

2- You do not have to confound rules with state. See the text: 

[i]".... 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.  ....."[/i]


.


[quote]'
To say that JN is a candidate for any existence whatsoever nullifies the JN insofar as we are positing some rule thereof. In other words, as an "existent nothingness" the JN would have to be posited next to any other existent that obtains in time or space, thereby positing some location in time or space of the JN and thus the time and space thereof.'  
 [/quote]
.
I Said that JN is candidate because JN could generate the cosmos.
I am not saying it ever will necessary generate the cosmos, it could not generate anything else.
Bur fortunatelly it generate our cosmos.



[quote]
 Additionally, admitting the JN is a "simpler possible state" weds it to rules, space, and time relations. An "existent nothingness" cannot exist at all but as nonsense. Furthermore, Aristotle's law of non-contradiction overturns the JN. 
[/quote]

To be a simpliest state of nature is not a rule. Its only a state and enventually can change.

[quote] 
If a world does not have rules or laws, we are talking about physical laws, or better, laws of nature. We would be talking about a world without physical laws. But when we talk about the laws of logic, we are not talking anymore of a regularity or of an object that expresses or makes the consequences of the relations between the properties of the particulars. Laws of logic are not like the laws of physics. We cannot talk about the laws of logic not obtaining because they are what allow us to reason about anything. 
[/quote]
.
Because this I said in the article: 
[i]"...
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.
  ..."[/i]



[quote]
  If the laws of logic do not obtain in a world, so in that world no object must be identical to itself, or in that world an object can be P and not-P at the same time and in the same sense. If contradictions can be true in a world, anything can be said of it and it would be true.
 [/quote]

But you can not say that it can generate some laws and put order in that world.
What I want to say is that at beginning coud be a chaos but after some randomization 
can be emerge logic rules and transform that chaos in something logic.
All is possible.


[quote] 
There is nothing the laws of logic do not rule. So, P2 cannot be fulfiled (unless we were talking just about physical laws).
 [/quote]

I dond know why.
If there is no rules than there is no rules !!  and P2 can be fulfiled.



[quote] But such a theory does not intend to explain before Big-bang, and it says that before Big-bang, there would be a time t=o   [/quote]

I discover that by Quantum Mechanics if we have a point of "infinite" mass then
this point can not be stopped. It must be vibtrating THEN there must be time.
Because vribration is oscolation over the time.

The theory is before the big bang because the physician try to explain the BB
with Laws of the Phyisics. But: 
HOW DOES THE PHYSICAL LAWS POP INTO EXISTENCE?

Why is that that we must accept that existence is existence in space or/and in time?If we accept that, without other restrictions, we would not be able to talk that the space (or the time) exists, because space does not exists in itself, and neither time exists in itself.

But an interesting thing in your argument (that I hadnt noticed before) is that if JN existed in a distant past, it existed in a moment of time; and so, time coundt had inexisted when JN existed (if JN existed at all; what I think is impossible).

And if there were no things when JN existed, but it was possible to exist, so JN was a kind of possibility of location, and as thus, a space. Space (and time, if time really exists) cannot be ruled out of any state of affairs. If a state of affairs exists, so there is space (and time, if time really exists). Thus, if nothingness exists, it has space (and time, if time really exists), because the space (and time, if time really exists) is a transcendental condition of the existence of a world.

[quote] 
If you think that something must have P1 and P2 for us to say that a JN exists, so JN does not exist and did not exist. Because there cannot exist a world without spatial dimensions, because something without spatial dimensions (or at least something based in other something with spatial dimensions) does not concretly exist. 
[/quote]

I do not think so: 

[i]"...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”.  ...."[/i]

.


[quote]  
But the problem is that we cannot conceive what is for a world to not have spatial dimensions.  
[/quote]

I do not know why you 'implie' ( dont want) something without space , without dimension.
I do not have problems with it.
You can think the JN IS SIMILAR AN EMPTY SET. It 'exist' but not have element.



[quote]  
So, JN follows the laws of logic.
[/quote]

No. I am analyzing it with the logic laws and in this analise I supposed it follow 
NOT RULES but TAUTOLOGICAL THRUTS.


[quote] 
And the problem here would be: JN is a state of affairs where "anything can happen" or where "it is not the case where anything can happen"? Of course it is one OR the other, since both states are contradictories; but which, from both, is JN? A state where "anything can happen"? Or a state where "it is not the case where anything can happen"?  
[/quote]

'anything can happen' meaning something can happen or NOT.

The JN could be stay equal 'forever' or change or generate something.
We can not prevent what it would do.


[quote] 
 Since no one can see how the probability of something to happen can make it happen.
 [/quote]

No one no ! I see ! :-) 
If you can not conclude that it never can happen the you can not say 
nothing can happen in JN, Do you agree? 

.

[quote]
Why is that that anything can happen? If there are no physical objects, why does anything can happen?
  [/quote]

This is the point: 
Because there is NO restriction rules to deny something to happen.
There have no conservation rule of any kind.
.



[quote]  
Nothing can happen if there are no physical objects.  
[/quote]

It is a rule you are imposing and that NJ do not HAVE to follow.
.


[quote]  
Happenings are compound by physical objects and/or by relation of them. 
You must explain how something can happen if there are just a JN. 
[/quote]

I already have explainned this.
Things can happen by random.
Your thougth is habituate with the cause-and-effect rule. 
But even in Qquantum Mechanics  (QM) its not happen !
In QM things can happen without some cause.
Look for "virtual particle" they pop into reality by chance, at random. (IN OUR WORLD)

.

[quote] 
You have a misconception of language. If I can predicate a property of something, 
it is not necessarily the case that it exists.
 I can predicate properties of Sherlock Holmes, of Saint Clauss, 
of the present King of France, and neither of those objects exist.
 [/quote]

But this predicate is NOT FULFILED in the reality.
If you say "king of the france is red" this predicate is not true in the reality.
It is different did you see?


[quote] 
I doubt JN is the simplest possible state. 
I think we must stop before: the empty space. 
And if you think that something can ramdomly happen in JN, so you are putting 
one more object into the game: the ramdomness. 
I doubt you prove that ramdomness in itself (or, better said, in JN) 
can produce something. 
[/quote]

You have to think that randomness is not something that already was in JN.
Randomization is the CONSEQUENCE of the lack of rules that we can 
deduce using our logic.



[quote] 
If a JN-Object can be illogical, 
so a JN-theory does not have reasons to follow logic in talking about the JN-Object. 
Logic allows us to see the impossibilities of a system. 
If JN-Object is illogical, or can be illogical, so we would not use logic to talk about the impossibilities of a JN-Object.
 [/quote]

The JN mus not follow the logic necessarly.
But we can analize some aspects of the JN, 
for example:  JN coud be  "A" or "not A" and , perhaps "THIRD EXCLUDED" .
Our logic only catch the "A or Not A" and do not comtemplate "third excluded".
Then JN can have more potential than we obtain with uur study and not less.

[i]"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."[/i]

"But you can not say that it can generate some laws and put order in that world. What I want to say is that at beginning coud be a chaos but after some randomization  can be emerge logic rules and transform that chaos in something logic. All is possible."

I am Just saying that when you say "devoid of rules", you are talking just about physical laws, and not logic laws. No existing object can be ilogical. First, something to be an object must respect the law of identity; and to be a conceivable object, it must follow the law of non-contradiction; both the main laws of logic (or, if you prefer, tautologies that are the main axioms.of logic). So, when you say that anything is possible, you would admit that is not possible to exist a married bachelor. To accept that is to accept that what is impossible is what is ruled out by logic (by the law of non-contradiction, mostly). So, if JN-Object is an object and can exist (or could, whatever), so it follows the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction; and, thus, is not illogical (follows logic). Of course, the laws of logic alone are not suffice to make anything to happen. And it is because of that that I said that you were talking about physical laws, and not logic laws.

I dond know why. If there is no rules than there is no rules !!  and P2 can be fulfiled

Because laws of logic are rules of formal systems, rules for every formal (simbolic) system. Logic allows us to ruled out impossibilities (contradictions) a priori.And please, I am waiting for your argument for the thesis that P2 can be fulfiiled, or just change the definition as to not include logic laws.


The theory is before the big bang because the physician try to explain the BB with Laws of the Phyisics. But: HOW DOES THE PHYSICAL LAWS POP INTO EXISTENCE?

If we are explaining every relation of properties with laws, so laws would rule before bigbang, and bigbang would only be possible to happen because there would exist laws that make the state before BB to be BB. To defend that, I would say that laws are eternal, they do not pop into existence, as like the space.

ME: If you think that something must have P1 and P2 for us to say that a JN exists, so JN does not exist and did not exist. Because there cannot exist a world without spatial dimensions, because something without spatial dimensions (or at least something based in other something with spatial dimensions) does not concretly exist. 

YOU: I do not think so: "...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”.  ...."

ME NOW: Sorry, it does not explain nothing. We are talking about the space and spatial dimensions. How can an object without spatial dimensions concretly exist?

.

YOU: I do not know why you dont want something without space , without dimension.I do not have problems with it. You can think the JN IS SIMILAR AN EMPTY SET. It 'exist' but not have element.

ME NOW: How can a 0mm x 0mm x 0mm ball exist? That's the problem. The empty set is not a concrete entity.

.

YOU: 'anything can happen' meaning something can happen or NOT. The JN could be stay equal 'forever' or change or generate something. We can not prevent what it would do.

ME NOW: Ok, agreed. Sorry... Misunderstaing...Now I mean what you meant.

.

YOU: No one no ! I see ! :-) If you can not conclude that it never can happen the you can not say nothing can happen in JN, Do you agree?

ME NOW: What I am trying to say is that is something happend, it had a cause to happen. And if it had a cause, so it could only not had happened, if the causes were different. But if its causes could not be different, so it occured necessarily. So, I would be saying that if JN existed and something happend on it, so such a happening happened necessarily.

.

YOU: Because there is NO restriction rules to deny something to happen. There have no conservation rule of any kind.

ME NOW: There are no restrictions for the relation between the properties of things, but there are no things yet...

.

ME: Nothing can happen if there are no physical objects.  

YOU: It is a rule you are imposing and that NJ do not HAVE to follow.

ME NOW: So, explain us how it could be possible to somemthing to happen without physical objects. Make a hypothesis.

.

YOU: You have to think that randomness is not something that already was in JN. Randomization is the CONSEQUENCE of the lack of rules that we can deduce using our logic.

ME NOW: I think my main point is to ask how can ramdomness cause something?

.

YOU: The JN mus not follow the logic necessarly. But we can analize some aspects of the JN, for example:  JN coud be  "A" or "not A" and , perhaps "THIRD EXCLUDED" . Our logic only catch the "A or Not A" and do not comtemplate "third excluded". Then JN can have more potential than we obtain with uur study and not less. [i]"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."[/i]

ME NOW: Please, explain how can something fail to follow a logic law.