Jocaxian Theorems

[jocaxx]

Jocaxian Theorems

João Carlos Holland de Barcellos

translated by Debora Policastro

 

 

Jocaxian Theorem of First Cause (JTFC)

 

The Jocaxian theorem of First Cause establishes that:

The first cause of all events that took place in a closed system (one that is not influenced by events external to the system) is the randomization.

 

Proof:

 

Let’s use the concept of time in which time is defined as a relationship between events. An event is a change of state in the system. Therefore, time is not independent from whatever happens. If, for example, no event takes place, that is, the state of the system remains unaltered, time then disappears. Change is necessary so that time can exist. If there is no change, there is no time.

 

Randomization is the word we use to say that there is unpredictability or that there are no causes. There are two types of randomization: objective and subjective. In the subjective randomization there are causes for the phenomenon, but they are either unknown or we cannot describe them. In the objective randomization, which we will talk about, the phenomenon occurs with no real causes, that is, its causes are inexistent.

 

The objective randomization exists in our nature, in our universe. As an example, we can cite the moment of decay of an electron in an atom: the electron can decay from a more energetic orbit to a lower-energy one by liberating a photon. Such phenomenon is not regulated by any physical law: it is considered by the quantum mechanics to be an objectively random phenomenon. There is nothing, no rule that can determine when the electron will decay from its orbit. Another example would be the creation and destruction of virtual particles in the vacuum.

 

First, in order to demonstrate the theorem, we will prove that there is no infinite time in past, that is, we cannot take the causes of the events to the infinite past and then say that there has always been a cause that preceded a given effect. Thus, we will use the Kalam’s Theorem.

 

The Kalam’s Theorem establishes that there is no infinite time in past. If, absurdly, there had been any event occurred in an infinite time in past, then our current present would take an infinite time to come, starting from that past. But what does “an infinite time to occur” mean? An infinite time for something to occur means that this thing will never occur. Thus, events occurred in an infinite time in past imply that we cannot have our present, but this is an absurd thinking once we are in the present! Then we can conclude that there has not been any event in an infinite time in past. That means we can deduce another important corollary: time had to have a beginning, necessarily.

 

As there is no infinite time in past and time had to have a beginning, the first occurring event had no previous cause, that is, it was a random event. And the theorem is proved.

 

Time Leakage Jocaxian Theorem (TLJT)

 

The Time Leakage Jocaxian Theorem establishes that:

If two systems are not isolated from each other and time exists in one of them, then time will exist in the other as well.

 

Proof:

Time is the relationship between events. If time occurs in one of the systems and they are not isolated from each other, then these events can be also correlated from the other system. Therefore, the first system, in which time exists, can be a time counter for the second system. Thus, there will be time in the second system too.

 

We can use both theorems to argue against the existence of God: God cannot be timeless as this would violate the Time Leakage Jocaxian theorem. If there is time in our universe and it is not isolated from God, then time also exists to God. Besides that, by the JTFC there is no necessity for God to generate the first phenomenon. This refutes Saint Thomas Aquinas’ argument, which says that the movement requires a first engine that would be God. Also, it refutes the idea of a forever existent God, once it would contradict the corollary of the beginning of time.

 

 

 

The Existence Theorem

 

We will prove that there is an ultimate reality, a reality that does not depend on any interpretation of any being to exist.

In this text, we define reality – real existence – as events and/or facts that do not depend on interpretation (=thought, imagination, dream or processing) of any being to exist.

 

Demonstration

 

We will begin our proofing with “something 1”, that can be any object being observed e.g. an apple, or even the thinking itself: consciousness.

I observe something 1.

If this something 1 is the reality, the proofing finishes.

If Not:

This something 1 is just an interpretation (or imagination) of a being 1 and, in fact, does not exist in the reality. But this interpretation in itself of something 1, done by the supposed being 1, is also something 2.

If this something 2 is reality, then our proofing finishes.

If Not:

Something 2 is just an interpretation of a being 2 whose interpretation, in itself, is something 3.

If something 3 exists as a reality, the proofing finishes.

If Not:

This something 3 is just an interpretation of a being 3, which we call something 4.

Thus, in a generic way, we have:

If something (i) exists as reality, the proofing finishes.

If not:

Something (i) is only an interpretation (or imagination) of a being (i) whose interpretation in itself we call something (i+1).

If something (i+1) exists in reality the proofing finishes.

 

And so on. This way, if the interpretation never corresponds to a real existence, we would have an infinite recursion, which would be illogical. It would be something like a dream of a dream of a dream of a dream… infinitely. So, in order not to have this infinite cycle, we must have, at some point, an end to this recursion. That means that some of the “something (i)” have a real existence, that is, it is not an interpretation. And then we prove our theorem: “I think, therefore, something exists!”

 

Examples:

 

I see a red crow. The “red crow” can be real, and if it is not, my interpretation of it can. Otherwise, a being can be imagining (or dreaming) that “I” am imagining that I see a “red crow”.

 

Another example would be a virtual universe: there are beings that do not really exist; they are simulated in a computer. These beings observe something. What they observe is not real either: it is virtual. Also, the beings themselves and their dreams do not exist: they are virtual. Therefore, their interpretations do not exist.

However, the computer which interprets them in this example is real, and its “imagination” (= its processing) is real, once it is what generates the virtual universe, the virtual beings and its imagination. That is:

What the virtual being observes is not real; it is a simulation of the computer.

The virtual being is not real either; it is simulated and depends on the processing of a computer.

The interpretation of the virtual being is not real either, once it depends on the processing of a computer.

The interpretation of the computer (= its processing) which produces the virtual being and what it imagines, in this example, would be real.

 

Refuting Descartes

 

That means that “I think, therefore I exist” (“Cogito, ergo sum”) from Descartes can be untrue once the thinking being, as demonstrated in the example above, can be unreal. However, as proved before, there must be some level of interpretation in which at least the interpretation itself is real.

 

By the “Occam’s razor”, as long there is no contrary evidence, we have consider the lower interpretative level a reality. If I observe something 1, this something 1 may exist.

 

Corollary: There is a real being.

 

As a corollary of the system we can also claim that if I observe something, there must be some “being” that has a real existence, i.e. this being itself is not an interpretation.

Proof:

As we proved that there is an interpretation that is real, that is, an interpretation that does not depend on the interpretation of another being to exist, then the being that interprets must exist as well. If this “being” which does the real interpretation did not exist, that is, if it was the interpretation of another being, then its interpretation would not be real, as it would depend on this other being. Therefore, the real existence of a being is necessary so that a real interpretation can exist.

 

Portuguese version: Genismo - Logica

[clapstyx]

Hmm..are you suggesting time does not exist until something random happens to set in motion a course of events that leads to a moment where something substantial enough to be known as history occurs? If so what you must also be saying is that all time is a consequence of a random sequence of happenstance which then un randomises itself with the development of consciousness which by the sense of your argument would suggest that time then stops until an overpoweringly random event occurs again so time has a course and a station from which to depart and random events have a station to arrive at meaning therefore then that time begins when a place for a random event comes into existence and since that could be anytime it means that time has always existed and always will.

[jocaxx]

.are you suggesting time does not exist until something random happens to set in motion a course of events that leads to a moment where something substantial enough to be known as history occurs?

 

Yes! ( At beginning of All).

 

 

If so what you must also be saying is that all time is a consequence of a random sequence of happenstance which then un randomises itself with the development of consciousness which..

 

No.

since the laws of the universe arise time does not necessarily depend more on chance. The time will depend on the events that take place as a result of causes governed by physical laws.

[Rade]

Concerning Kalam’s Theorem, that there is no infinite time in the past. This is false. To make the claim, Kalam must assume that there is a present, since logically there cannot be a "past" without some opposite, either present or future will do as logical opposite from "past". Now, for Kalam Theorem to be true then logically time is finite in the past, that is, logically Kalam must hold as a true statement that there is a moment that is the begin of past time, for the simple reason that something that is finite has nothing outside it. Yet, we see that the argument of Kalam then fails because each moment is logically both the end of past time and the begin of future time, this is what it means to be called a "moment". We see thus that the Kalem argument is based on a contradiction, and thus false, since a truth statement cannot be a contradiction. It is a contradiction because Kalam bases his argument on the premise that time has a begin in a past moment, which contradicts the fact that each moment not only is a begin to the future but also an end of the past. The end result is that, Kalem in no way logically demonstrates that time is finite, his argument is logically a contradiction. Moreover, the reason that time is infinite is because to be infinite means that something can always be taken out of that which has been taken, that is, that the infinite has something outside of it, and this is exactly the nature of time. The moment (the present or now) is not within time, thus it is the moment that is finite, and the time that is infinite. Sorry, you cannot use Kalem to support your position.

[jocaxx]

No,

There is a present now and there is a past of this present.

But, is false that all moment (present) have to be a past of it!

 

The beginning of the time must not have to be a past of it.

 

So, Kalam argument is true: It is impossible have a infinite time in the past.

[Rade]

There is a present now and there is a past of this present.

But, is false that all moment (present) have to be a past of it!The beginning of the time must not have to be a past of it. So, Kalam argument is true: It is impossible have a infinite time in the past.

To your claim: "is false that all moment (present) have to be a past of it". Why is that false ? You cannot just make the claim the statement is false without the argument to support the claim. Your comment is not a logical argument but a convoluted mesh of words. That is, your conclusion does not follow from your premise, for the simple reason you state no premise.

 

For the Kalam Theorem to be true, you do agree that it means that time is finite, that there was a beginning to time, and that the beginning was at some past moment--correct ? Well, if you say yes, then you falsify the Kalam Theorem because BY DEFINITION each moment is "the end of past time and simultaneously the begin of future time". Thus, the thinking of Kalam leads to a logical contradiction. Nothing you have presented makes it true just because you believe it is true---you need to make a logical argument why it is true.

 

What you need to do is to think about what it means to be a "moment" (the present) in time and how the concept is related to the concept of time and the present and past and future. Once you provide your definition of the moment as relates to time and past and present and future...then...use that definition to support the Kalam Theorem--don't just demand the "Kalam Theorem is true " !. Then I will read and respond.

[jocaxx]

You said:

To your claim: "is false that all moment (present) have to be a past of it". Why is that false ?

 

Because is there was an infinite time in tne past, we have an infinite time to reach to the present and tinfinite time = never.

 

So, the time must have be a start point; The time zero.

[Rade]

Because there was an infinite time in the past, we have an infinite time to reach to the present and infinite time = never. So, the time must have a start point; The time zero.

No, you base your claim on a false premise.

 

You hold that the time from some present moment to what you call the "past" is infinite, and thus that the reverse passage of time from THIS "past" to the present is also infinite. This is false.

 

You seem to not realize that [moments] such as past, present, future are OUTSIDE OF TIME. By definition, to be infinite means that there is always something outside of (that is, if nothing is outside of, then it is complete, whole, finite). If you claim to have contact with the infinite past via time, then by definition the past moments are infinite in number and outside of time, and you can never have the reversal of time passage "back to the present" that you wish for. There can never be a final "source past moment" in the passage from the present to the infinite past, for there is always another past [moment] that can be added if past is to be infinite.

 

However, as soon as you discuss any specific past [moment] as being a zero source, (that is, the past moment when you reverse time passage from the past to the present) you no longer are talking about the infinite past because you place a limit on the past, that is, you demand that time reverse have a begin from some specific past [moment]. But, there is logically no reason to think that there are not an infinite number of past [moments] in the opposite direction of time from when you demand that time begin passage back to the present. Thus your claim "we have an infinite time to reach to the present" is a nonsense proposition, it is logically impossible. In fact, you have "a finite time to reach the present" from any past moment where the time reversal has a begin (you have a passage to the infinite future], and, at the same [moment] of the reversal event, you also have "an infinite time to reach the past" (a passage to the infinite past).

 

As soon as you set a past [moment] for your time reversal to the present [moment], you place a boundary on time and logically then the "time to reach the present" is by definition FINITE, not infinite. This is the reason why you reach a false conclusion that your reverse passage to the present [moment] has taken an infinite time, it has not, the passage of time from any past [moment] can never occupy an infinite amount of time, only a finite amount.

[ErlyRisa]

arghh - but, in your argument too

 

extuingish the existence of the other, hence creating your argument, ...is time

 

-Who's looking?

 

the past.

your parent

your CREATOR.

 

By simply arguing against "your parent", you are in effect creating the existence.

 

if: you didn't waste your time arguing it in the first place, then you would be thinking in another manner.

 

A robot would ask its creator the same, unless - as a clever creator, you hid yourself from its timeline...

therefore, the created, may just ask of itself, where and how it came to be.

-recreating the existence of: THE PAST

 

-A robot the runs out of "steam", may in it's last moment have it's choice...

and only the past can create that moment.