The book of Genismo is intended for people who have the curiosity and also the courage, to try to understand the universe and themselves under a new point of view: in a universe where there is no God or gods, where there are no souls, spirits or "cosmic consciousness".

1. Page 1
Page 2
John Holland Carlos Barcellos
( jocaxx@gmail.com )
Genismo
A new paradigm.
São Paulo, May / 2008
N. registry at the National Library: 389 521 Book: 724 Sheet: 181
2
the
.edição.
Cover: Joint work of Allison Rodrigues, Jocax and Thiago Tamošauskas.
2
Page 3
Thanks
Thank, first of all, to all those who fought
me the world of ideas, often in fierce battles in
various forums of the internet discussions, as allowed, more
that have inspired me to seek new solutions to old
problems, and also to improve my old ideas, refinando-
and the perfecting them.
I also thank all my friends and friends that I always
They encouraged to gather my theories in a book, and particularly
to Thiago Tamošauskas, who created the Genismo logo (the figure
that is in the foreground on the cover), actively participated in the
construction site and the dissemination of Genismo.
3
Page 4
Summary
Introdução .........................................................................................................7
I-
Abolishing Deus ...................................................................................................8
I.1- The Razor Ocam.................................................................................................
8
I.2- The Imp Blue Jocaxian
.................................................. .......................... 15
I.3- The Christian Martyr
.................................................. .......................................... 25
I.4- The Spiritualist Rapist
.................................................. ................................... 26
I.5- Theorems Jocaxianos.............................................................................................
28
I.6- Principle Destrópico..........................................................................................
36
II- The Basics
...........................................................................................................37
II.1- The Science Bases
.................................................. .................................... 37
II.2- The Origin of the Universe
.................................................. ................................ 47
The II.3- Nothing Jocaxian .......................................... .................................................. ...
59
II.4- The Anthropic Principle and the NJ
.................................................. ....................... 64
II.5- The Evolutionary Origins of Thought
.................................................. ........... 69
II.6- The NeoDarwinism
.................................................. ....................................... 75
II.7- The "monkey theorem"
.................................................. ............................. 96
II.8- The "Boeing" and Life
.................................................. ................................. 100
II.9- The Evolution of Machines
.................................................. ......................... 103
II.10- Expanded Science
.................................................. ................................. 105
III-
Consciência ................................................................................................122
III.1- Consciousness and the Feeling
.................................................. .......................... 122
III.2- Multiconsciência

2. .................................................. ..................................... 129
III.3- The Grey Cloud
.................................................. .................................. 131
III.4- Empatismo
.................................................. .............................................. 134
4
Page 5
IV
- Ethics and Moral ..............................................................................................136
IV.1- A Meta-Ethics Scientific
.................................................. ........................... 136
IV.2- "Terry Schiavo" and the MEC
.................................................. ........................ 174
IV.3- Vegetarianism
.................................................. ....................................... 177
IV.4- The gametic ......................................................................................................
181
IV.5- The Future Ethics
.................................................. ......................................... 188
IV.6- Truth and Happiness ........................................... .............................................
192
IV.7- Law and Justice
.................................................. ................................. 196
IV.8- Formula of Happiness: An Example
.................................................. .... 198
V-
Genismo .......................................................................................................208
V.1- The Pillars of Genismo .......................................... .............................................
208
V.2- A New Doctrine ........................................... ................................................
215
V.3- The Meaning of Life .......................................... .................................................. .
221
V.4- Birth Control ........................................... ...........................................
227
V.5- Beliefs and Reality ........................................... ...............................................
233
V.6- Therapy Psicogênica...........................................................................................
237
V.7- Homosexuality ............................................. ...............................................
241
V.8- woman lives more ........................................... .................................................. ..
245
V.9- "Salvation Genetics" .......................................... ...............................................
250
V.10- The Romantic Love and Passion ........................................ ................................
261
V.11- The Guardians pyramid .......................................... .....................................
266
V.12- Nationalism and Genismo ........................................... .....................................
281
V.13 - Frequently Asked Questions Genismo (FAQ) .....................................
286
VI-
Moreover Genismo ............................................... ........................................ 296
VI.1- Felicitax: Construction of Deux ........................................ ................................
296
5
Page 6
Appendices
1. Basic Concepts of Genetics
.................................................. ........................ 302
2. Anthropic Principle
.................................................. ......................................... 321
3. The Beginnings of MEC ............................................ ................................................
316
4. The Beginnings of FF and feel ......................................... .......................................
321
5. Virtual Economy
.................................................. ............................................ 324
6. Genetic Philosophy
.................................................. ........................................... 334
7. The Simulator

3. .....................................................................................................338
Referências .......................................................................................................340
Over the Autor .............................................................................................................
348
Reading Recomendada ................................................................................................
349
6
Page 7
Introduction
This book is intended for people who have the curiosity, and also the
courage, to try to understand the universe and themselves under a
new point of view: in a universe where there is no God, or
gods, where there are no souls, spirits or "consciousness
cosmic ".
It is a book that invites readers if they are religious, to leave
some of his "Matrix Religious" - a sort of "lens
mental "that distorts reality capturing the information
environment and shaping according to a standard personal belief - and
try to understand the universe in an extremely perspective
rational and scientific.
For atheists and non-religious in general, this book gives a new
step towards books on atheism, it is not simply
another challenge book God or religions. It is not intended
simply to argue against God and their beliefs, goes beyond
to show new ways to old questions. It is therefore a
book that proposes new answers.
This book will show philosophical and scientific solutions for order
some important questions still unanswered by science
as: "What is Happiness?"; "What are the feelings?"; "What
It is consciousness? "; "How they may have arisen the laws of physics?";
"As unify science and philosophy?"; "The truth is above
happiness? ".
This book is composed of a series of articles in various
times of my life, and addresses several philosophical problems (and
scientific) that did not yet have answers within a view
skeptical and materialistic. With these new ideas hope to have contributed
to shed some light on these puzzles. We begin our
rational journey through this world of ideas proving initially the
nonexistence of God, and thus we will be able to move on
new paradigms with which we will open a new range of
possibilities for the old and new issues, which emerge
new possibilities of understanding the human being and the universe.
7
Page 8
I - abolishing God
The most important philosophical questions that humanity has
come across as: "What is the origin of the universe", "How did the
life? ", among others, can be answered in two ways rather
distinguished: through a Deist vision, the character is God
the source of explanation for everything, or through rational arguments,
that does not use this Self. This whole book is based on
implicit and explicit assumption that there is no God or gods,
once we prove by means of logical arguments and
evidence, that the idea of an existing God leads to more
contradictions and paradoxes than if we admit, simply,
their absence. That said, we will be allowed to conclude that the
explanations and answers that have as a prerequisite to
divine existence are false answers, that divert our
thought the logical path and therefore tend to move away from the
truth. But before we enter the evidence and arguments
anti-God, we meet an important tool
logical and scientific thinking known as the Razor
Occam.
I.1-A Occam's Razor
The "Occam's Razor" ("Occam's Razor", "Razor
Ockham ", or" Occam's Razor "in English) is a principle
logical-philosophical establishing that one should not add
event (s) unnecessary (s) by theory, or in another way:
pluralities should not be made without the need (in their original
in Latin: 'Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate') [1].
The Occam's Razor is also known as "Principle of
Economy "or" Principle of Parsimony "which states that"
Entities should not be multiplied beyond what is necessary, the

4. nature is itself economical and does not multiply in vain. "
It is believed that William of Ockham (or William of Occam)
Franciscan friar of the fourteenth century, was the creator of this
principle. William was born in the village of Ockham in England in
1285, it was a controversial theologian and one of the most influential
fourteenth-century philosophers. William of Ockham died in Munich
8
Page 9
in 1349, the Black Death that ravaged Europe victim that
time. [2]
Simplicity
The "Occam's Razor" is also known as the "Principle of
Simplicity "and that theories more" simple "are
preferable to theories more "complex". But this form of
know the "Occam's Razor" can be misleading unless
to define the meaning of the word "simplicity". It may be a
mistake to regard the theory more "simple" as that easier
understanding. Simplicity, Occam's Razor, is not
necessarily what is easier to understand. For example, for
some, it may seem simpler to think that the "rain god"
causes the rain to understand a complicated physical process
water evaporation by the sun and subsequent condensation of water in
clouds. Therefore, it is always risky to associate the "Occam's Razor"
the "Principle of Simplicity" if it is not clear what the concept
simplicity that one should keep in mind. A correct association
It is through a number of cases, when they are
equiprobable. Or by the relevance of relationship: if all
hypothesis one theory, one theory is contained in a 2-, then
theory-one is the simplest. Consider, for example, a theory that 1-
It uses the hypotheses (A and B) and two-a theory which utilizes the chances
(A, B and C). Like all assumptions of the theory-1 are contained in
set of assumptions of the theory-2, then the theory-1 can be
considered the simplest (with less chance), and this concept
for simplicity, it is consistent with the "Occam's Razor".
Assumptions Unnecessary
The "Razor" suggests that "we should not add hypotheses
needless to a theory, "but what is the meaning of
word "unnecessary" in this context?
"Unnecessary" would be the hypotheses that are unrelated
the facts that the theory purports to explain. For example, hypotheses
without evidence of their need, or hypotheses without causal relationship
with the observed facts.
9
Page 10
Illustrative Example
The "Occam's Razor" is actually a principle quite
intuitive, and we use routinely in our daily lives
without even realizing it. An illustrative example can show it.
Suppose you, for example, is walking on a street and observes,
farther out, a shoe box on the sidewalk. Without
other information regarding which of the following theories below you
pick in relation to the observed shoebox?
1a this box empty. '
2-A box contains 20 thousand.
3-A box contains 20 thousand dollars and the queen's crown.
4-A box contains 20 thousand dollars the crown of the queen and the secret of life
eternal.
5 a box containing a green elf who created the universe and that
you can perform any three wishes.
Which of these theories about the contents of the box you choose?
Mainly try to answer what is the reason of your choice.
The natural choice would be the number 1 choice "Box is empty," the
same as "Occam's Razor" would point, for all others are
theories with unnecessary chances, since there is no evidence
any of them. Nevertheless, it might not be the correct theory
on the contents of the box. Thus, we can see at first
approach, the "Occam's Razor" is a rational criterion
choice, not a testing instrument on the veracity of
theories or hypotheses. We will see then that the "razor" is also
one method able to act as a criterion of "evidence" when
used to eliminate ad hoc assumptions which in turn are
used against the evidence found.
The Role of Evidence

5. Evidence can be defined as a fact or event that may
go for or against a theory. We say that evidence is
in favor of a theory (corroborates the theory) when the theory predicts
that that evidence could or should occur in conditions
provided for by the theory itself. Otherwise, i.e., when theory
provides that the evidence could not occur, we say that the evidence
10
Page 11
'Refutes' theory, or the theory is 'distorted' by the evidence.
The words 'refute' and 'distortion' is in quotes because in
Indeed, it is always possible to invoke additional hypotheses created
specifically to overcome the problem created by the evidence and
thus save the theory that does not directly adapted to evidence
found. These additional cases are known as
ad hoc hypotheses.
We elucidate the role of evidence in Occam's Razor with
a simple example. Consider two rival theories, T1 and T2:
T1 = "All geese are white".
T2 = "All geese are red."
Consider the evidence E1:
E1 = "was sighted a white goose."
Evidence E1 supports the T1 theory as T1 provides that if a
Goose was sighted, it should be white. But E1 'refutes' T2,
since T2 that provides a goose be seen, it should
be red. Apparently, the T2 theory was refuted by
E1 evidence. But only apparently, because it can invoke a
ad hoc hypothesis, H1, which saves the T2 theory of 'refutation'.
Consider, for example, some hypotheses that could save H1
T2:
H1-a = "Goose seen as white, it is actually red, but
It was purposely dyed white to fool us. "
H1-b = "A few days ago, a solar explosion hit the feathers
Red geese, making them momentarily white ".
H1-c = "A source of alien rays caused our brains
enxergassem all red as white geese. "
These are just some of the hypotheses that could save T2, and
who could prove that they are false? In addition, for each trial
to prove that the hypotheses H are false, we also
argued against creating new ad hoc hypotheses against these
refutations. And so on.
However, we can use the "Occam's Razor" to discard
all these hypotheses that go against the evidence observed since the
11
Page 12
theories corroborated by the evidence does not need assumptions
Additional, they are, for them, unnecessary. In our example,
theory T1 ("All geese are white") is simpler than the
T2 theory ("All geese are red") added to
ad hoc hypotheses (H1-a, etc. H1-b) evidence that refute
observed, and should therefore be more correct in terms of theory
"Occam's Razor".
We can conclude that the evidence observed have a role
very important in the use of "Occam's Razor" because they do
with the theories that go against the evidence, not to be
refuted, depend on the addition of extra ad hoc assumptions that
the longer compatible with the "Occam's Razor".
It notes that the "Occam's Razor" represents a
rational criteria for choosing between theories (or assumptions) and should be
pointed out that a rational choice criterion is always better than
any other non-rational criterion or criteria no.
The Logic of Razor
The Occam's Razor indicates the most likely hypothesis,
because every extra and unnecessary hypothesis added to a
theory makes it less likely. If not, see:
Suppose a T1 theory that is correct and formed with N hypotheses:
H1, H2 ... Hn where all of them are necessary to the theory
work properly.
We can write it, simply, as follows:
T1 = (H1, H2 ... Hn).
Now suppose another theory T2, T1 rival, which contains the
N same chance of T1 plus an extra hypothesis and
Unnecessary "D0". Thus:
T2 = (H1, H2 .. Hn, D0).

6. Now, if we have all the conditions in which the chances of T1
are met, then the T1 theory should give us predictions
correct. The T2 theory, in turn, will only give the correct result if the
12
Page 13
unnecessary hypothesis "D0" is checked. But as for
definition, "D0" is an unnecessary hypothesis, the theory may T2
give a false result when it should give a true result,
it depends on the amount of unnecessary hypothesis "D0".
We prove unnecessary so make assumptions that a
theory could be correct becomes false. This way we can
state that theories that respect the "Occam razor" have
most likely to be true than those
do not meet the razor.
Another example: Suppose T1 is a theory that says that a
car, walk, needs fuel and driver. And the
rival theory, T2, says a car, walk, needs
fuel, a driver and, in addition, the hypothesis D0 = "The
driver needs to pray the 'Our Father.' " T2 becomes false because
latter case, D0, is obviously unnecessary.
The Burden of Proof
The "burden of proof" is a term assigned to establish who,
a contest or dispute, must prove their claims. We must
establish the "Burden of proof" should be the responsibility of
who fight the "Occam's Razor".
The "Occam's Razor" and Religions
The "Occam's Razor" is often strongly opposed by
Most theists and believers in general, because it is a criterion
beats strongly against the idea of an all-powerful God and Creator
the universe. If not, let's see: Suppose a being necessary
that has power to create our universe. So by "Razor
Occam, "is unnecessary that this being has to have infinite power! It
need only have the power to create the universe, nothing more than that. It is
also unnecessary that this being is omniscient, because it is not
You need to know everything to create a universe, but only have
enough knowledge to such an undertaking. Much less
necessary that this being has to be good.
Other "field day" for the razor, from Catholicism,
It is to confront the T1 theory: "An individual rose from
death and ascended into heaven without rockets "with the rival theory T2:
13
Page 14
"Someone wrote lies about a resurrection and many
people believed. " T2 is preferred according to the razor, since the
resurrection hypothesis and the contradiction of the law of gravity are
unnecessary. That is, "Occam's Razor" is true
razor towards religious assumptions in general and not for nothing
that William of Ockham, the alleged creator of the razor was
excommunicated by the Church after report to the Pope in 1324.
- // -
Now that you know the "Occam's Razor" can make
second stop of our journey into the world of ideas to consider
an intruder idea very Chata, which greatly hinders our
reason and our ability to understand the universe: Let's review
God in the light of reason.
14
Page 15
I.2-The Imp Blue Jocaxian
In my many years of atheism, approximately from 12
years, met many arguments against the existence of God. Some
refer to the Catholic God that has well-defined properties,
others, the gods who have a more nebulous definition, so
more difficult to analyze logically. In any event, in
almost all cases, God always has the feature that the
least be the creator of the universe, and often also to be
endowed with consciousness and intelligence.
Among the arguments of my own, I gathered, the latest, and
what I consider the most 'stunning', because it is extremely simple
and, however, devastating is the "Blue Jocaxian Imp." Next,
follow the summaries of the main arguments and anti-God evidence,
beginning with what takes the title of this text. (The names of

7. brackets '[]' next to each argument are the names of
likely authors of the original idea or the person for whom I took
knowledge of the idea.)
Argument 1: "The Imp Blue Jocaxian" [Jocax]
It is said that God is an entity required to answer
question:
"How did the universe come from?"
If respondêssemos with the same question, "How did God come from?", The
theist would say that God needs no creator, as it is the cause of it
same, or that always existed, or that is beyond our
understanding. And there is no attempt to counter that
You can use the same arguments replacing the word "God"
by "Universe". Theistic mind requires a creator of the universe
like it or if you do not want. However, linked to this god-
creator if embed-all other qualifications that normally
is attributed to God as a way to meet our needs
psychological, for example, kindness and / or omniscience, and / or
omnipotence, and / or perfection, among others. However, the observation that
this is not absolutely necessary to create the universe, the surge
argument of "Blue Imp Jocaxian":
15
Page 16
If you say that God created the universe, I can also assume
it was not God who created it, but the "Blue Imp". Only
this little devil is not as all-powerful God does not have the
omniscience of God, as God is not good, not perfect as
And God to create the universe, he ended up dying for so
effort made.
It is my much simpler devil and less complex than the
God-almighty, it should be preferable in terms of "Razor
of Occam "God! So before you invoke God as creator
the universe, it should invoke the "Imp Blue Jocaxian". Case
Otherwise, it would be illogical for add hypotheses
unnecessary the 'creator of the Universe'.
Comment: you do not need a creator with all properties
a "God" to create the universe, just have enough power
to create it. Thus, the claim that a "God" is necessary
for the universe exist lacks rationale.
2 Proof: Contradiction with the FACTS [Epicurus / Hume]
If God is good, then God does not want unnecessary suffering.
If God is powerful, then God can do anything.
Logic: If God can do anything and do not want suffering, then you can
prevent suffering.
Fact: 40 000 children died recently drowned by a
tsunami (death with suffering).
Conclusion: The hypothesis (good and powerful God) can not be
true, because they contradict the fact observed.
Comment: Some may claim that the suffering was necessary
because some people had to "learn". It can counter-
argued wondering what children learn dying
drowned. Against the "original sin" can be counter-argument is
it's just that the innocent pay for the guilty. But that's not
needed as a good and all-powerful God could teach
anything to anybody without having to sacrifice lives
innocent in tragic deaths. If God had to sacrifice so many
lives, so it's not powerful enough, or is not good (in
16
Page 17
human sense). It seems that the original argument refers
to Epicurus, however formalization is due to Hume.
3- Proof internal contradiction (inconsistency) [Sartre ()]:
God is OMNISCIENT therefore know what has happened and what
will occur.
God has given freedom to man, so man is free to
choose.
Contradiction: If God knows everything that man will choose
(Factual knowledge) so the man does NOT have freedom of
choice. (Everything was planned in the mind of God and not man
could change).
Let the demonstration [by Jocax]:
Let's assume the existence of Almighty God. Then follows
logically:
1-God is omniscient.

8. 2-Being omniscient ALL know what will happen.
3-ALL Knowing what will happen, you know everything you will do
and choose, before you even exist.
4-If God knows everything that will make you choose and then you do not
You can do anything different from the forecast of God.
5-If you can not do anything different from the divine prediction, you
and must necessarily have to follow it.
6-If you are required to follow the prediction of God, then it is
impossible to choose or do anything else
different from divine prediction.
7-If it is impossible for you to choose or do anything
different from divine prediction you have no free will!
17
Page 18
As We wanted to demonstrate.
Comment: Since before man born, even before he
marry or make any kinds of choices, his fate would already be
provided the omniscient mind of God. So anything that man
choose would be different from the path already laid down by God. And
so-called "Free Will" would be nothing but an illusion. This
to say that either man is not free to choose or not God
It is omniscient. This is one of the strongest logical proofs
against the existence of God.
4-Argument: For the razor OCAM [Jocax (?)]
-No Evidence that God exists.
-The Universe {+} God together is more complex than just the
} set {universe.
-by Occam's Razor, we must then discard the first
hypothesis of a universe with God in favor of the second, which is
simpler as it requires at least a hypothesis less.
Comment: This argument can be metaphorically by
argument of "Nail Factory":
First, we must agree that if we had to choose between
two hypotheses for the origin of everything, we should stick with the most
likely. And if we wanted a more scientific explanation,
we should stick with one of several theories of physics on the
origin of the universe, like the one which says that the universe emerged
from the quantum vacuum: the particles would have been created from
"quantum fluctuation of the vacuum." This is only a theory, can not
It is demonstrated, but it is much more reasonable than from
premise that there was a HUGE Nails factory (God) that
made all the nails, and no one dares ask about their
origin.
The idea of comparing God to "nail factory" is as follows:
Do you have evidence that there are "nails" (particles
elementary).
18
Page 19
Someone says that there must be a creator for these nails, and proposes
that to do so there must be a huge and complex "Fabrica de
Nails "(God). But this is NONSENSE because besides not
there is evidence of the existence of "nail factory," this
It is far more complex than those found nails.
Then, by Occam's Razor, it is much more logical to assume that
nails always existed than the huge "Nail Factory"
has always existed and is hidden somewhere that only
You get to know after death.
Argument 5: God, if it existed, would be an automaton [André
Sanchez & Jocax]:
- God is omniscient, omnipotent and knows everything that happened and will
happen.
- You know even * all * their OWN future actions.
- So he should follow all their already planned actions without
power to change them, just like an automaton following his
programming.
Conclusion: God, if it existed, would not have free will. It would be a
robot, a kind of automaton that should ever follow your
prior programming (his own prediction) unable to change it.
Comment: The omniscience of God would lead him to a tedious imprisonment
in which nothing could get out even if he had wanted to do it.
He would be attached to his own and cruel omniscience.
6 Proof: If God existed, there would be no imperfection [author
unknown]:

9. If God existed and were perfect, then all he would create would be
perfect.
The man, with his creation, should also have been created,
perfect.
But as a created being perfect can be corrupted and become
imperfect?
If the man was corrupted, so it was not perfect, was corruptible!
19
Page 20
Conclusion: God can not be perfect, it generated something
imperfect.
Comment: A perfect being wants perfection, and even if
created man with free will - we saw up being a
illusion - if it were perfect, it would make perfect choices and not
corrupt.
Argument 7: Origin of God [author unknown]:
The argument of intelligent design whereby the
complexity of nature requires an intelligent creator, falls
the ground when it does not offer a minimum explanation of the
origin of God, which should be extremely complex and
Intelligent, need, according to the argument of intelligent design,
also have an intelligent creator, that would be the "God of God": the
creator of God. This "Creator God" by being smarter
that God should, by the same argument, also have a creator
extremely smart "God the God of God." And so
on ad-infinitum, so that there is this nonsense
argument that need a rather complex further be
complex to create it.
Comment: The Intelligent Design is the most used argument
currently, like science, to teach courses
religion in some Brazilian and US states.
8-Proof: The universe is the age of God. [For Jocax]:
Suppose, for absurdity, that God exists. If God has a
infinite intelligence, he would not have to spend any time
to decide something or process information. Therefore, it does not
despenderia no time to decide to create the universe. That is,
The universe would have to have been created at the time of God's creation.
If God has never created, the universe never could also
It has been created.
Comment: If there is movement there is time. If there was not
time nothing could move.
20
Page 21
9-Proof God has no need. [Unknown author]
If God were perfect it would not need it suffice to you
own. However, if he decided to create the universe so he had
need for this creation and therefore not enough to himself,
It was imperfect.
10-Race: God existed, could not be perfect. [Jocax]:
Many believers take the laws of physics and their constant "magic"
as evidence of divine wisdom as, presumably, one
small change in them would make the universe collapse and destroy.
But they forget that these SAME laws, in case the second law
of thermodynamics provides the inexorable, slow and agonizing collapse
of our universe, showing that there was a FAILURE GRAVE in
their design, which prevents the long term.
Comment: The second law of thermodynamics is known as the
law that says that entropy in a closed system never decreases.
We can consider the whole universe as a closed system, since
nothing gets in or out of it.
11 Proof: God, if it existed, could not be good [Jocax (?)]
God, hypothetically omniscient and omnipotent, knew everything
would happen BEFORE settle create the universe. He knew who would
born and what each person would "choose" in your life. I know until
even though a huge TSUNAMI would show up and kill 40,000
children drowned. If you had the power to make the universe
slightly different, maybe I could have prevented this tragedy.
But knowing ALL of what would happen in the future, of all
deaths from all misfortunes and calamities, put your plan into
practice and was watching the cabin. This is not worthy of a being
kind.
21

10. Page 22
12 Proof: By the definition of the universe, God could not have it
created [Jocax (?)]
According to the definition of Universe (Houaiss):
Masculine noun universe
1 the set of all things that exist or believed to exist
in time and space.
So the universe can be defined as the set of all
exists. Therefore, for those who believe, if God exists, he does not
could have created the universe, since, by definition, should
part of it!
Comment: The Believer could then just put God as
creator of matter / energy and not the universe itself.
13 Proof: By the laws of physics present God could not exist
[Unknown author]
Quantum Mechanics has the fundamental law called
"Uncertainty Principle". Under this Act, it is IMPOSSIBLE,
regardless of the technology, the exact position and the
velocity of a particle. This means that physically is
impossible to be an "all-knowing God" as it could be to know
the position and the exact velocity of a particle and violate a pillar
fundamental of modern science.
14 Proof: God, if it existed, would be sadistic and selfish [Renato W.
Lima (?)]
It is intended to show that God must create an imperfect world,
otherwise the world would be himself. It could be argued
to create a clone of himself would be better to create a world
imperfect to, sadistically, to see him suffer. However, know that
world is not perfect does not mean that it must deny him assistance
when necessary. Provided, of course, there is power to do so and not
wish evil to happen (whether it be good). If God really created
imperfect beings like us and different from himself, he is being selfish,
because you want to be the one perfect and possessed of power. And
Selfishness is definitely not a good thing.
22
Page 23
15-Argument: Igor theorem [Igor Silva (?)]
If we had to choose one of two options, which one
It would be more likely or easier happen?
A- A dead resurrected and ascended to heaven (no rocket) or
B- Someone writing lies on a piece of paper or book and
people believe?
A- Someone has done miracles that contradicted the laws of physics or
B- Someone writing lies on a piece of paper or book and
people believe?
A- A being totipotent (God) exists and created the universe or
B- Someone writing lies on a piece of paper or book and
people believe?
Comment: This article is a simplification of the argument
Hume:
[...] No testimony is sufficient to demonstrate
a miracle, unless the testimony be of
nature such that its falsehood is more miraculous
than the fact that attempts to demonstrate. David Hume,
"Of Miracles" (1748)
16-Argument: By Theorem Kalam [Unknown]
The Kalam's theorem states that nothing can be extended in time
infinite past, as if there were an infinite time in the past,
then it would take an infinite time this past to our
present. But an infinite time means never. So never
we would have the present. But this is nonsense, because we are in
present. Likewise, if the existence of which had god
extend to an infinite time in the past, so also do not
We could have the present. Therefore there can be no god
there is an infinite time in the past.
17-Argument: By no need of the Cause [Jocax]
23
Page 24
The origin of the universe and its laws can be explained
satisfactorily through Nothing Jocaxian (NJ). The NJ explains
logically that the cosmos could arise from nothing Jocaxian since
Nothing that this would not possess laws restricting whatever.

11. Thus, due to the absence of laws, events could occur. That
It eliminates the need for a conscious creator as God
explain our cosmos.
18-Argument: For the implementation of the problem [Jocax]
Suppose a group of beings from a planet any. Suppose that
these beings begin to develop phenomenally
changing your own DNA. Their minds are multiplied
by 1 billion, its strength and dexterity as well. If topássemos with a
them, would think from where to reach a stage as
advanced. But these beings themselves evolve, continue their
self-evolution. After some time, you can get rid
of their material bodies and unite all in a kind of plasma
high power capacity and immeasurable intelligence. These
beings become God. Now this astronomical level of evolution,
if topássemos again with Him, yet we would do in the same
asks the first time? Or now who have become God
dispense from a source to exist?
- // -
Belief in one God, as we saw above, not only distances us
common sense, logic and truth, but can also in
induce insane acts as, for example, the Inquisition, the
Cross and currently "suicide bombers", among others. To
We understand the logic behind these insane acts propelled by faith
irrational, show, following two examples (fictional): "The
Christian martyr Jocaxian "and" The Spiritualist Rapist. " Such
behaviors motivated by irrational belief, although
follow clear logic, will produce disastrous results. The
explanation is that their premises, i.e. in the belief that
based are wrong, and despite the logic is clear, that the
assumptions are erroneous conclusions can be catastrophic. [1]
24
Page 25
I.3 - The Martyr Christian Jocaxian
The Christian Martyr Jocaxian (MCJ) is a great person: one
Catholic devotee of God and a great father. The MCJ wants the best for
your family and your children, and will do everything in their power to give the best
to them.
Thinking about the future of their children, MCJ recently had a
great idea: he knows that his children are still children
innocent and as a fervent religious believer also knows
heaven is infinitely better than the Earth and therefore the best
place to be. Therefore, MCJ has a plan to send their
children there because it would guarantee their happiness has, alongside
God and avoids that perhaps could sin and go to
hell.
MCJ know to run your plan he will have to kill their children,
but this is no problem, because life on earth is nothing
before eternity in paradise and their children will be forever
thankful for being sent to such a good place, next to
God.
MCJ, as a regular reader of the Bible, is aware that
killing is sin and that when sending their children to heaven, he
own will go to hell. But as a good father, he thinks
first to their children and therefore will take this martyrdom.
However, it still has a hope thus satisfying the desire to
Jesus - "Come to me children" - and doing it for the good
them, may perhaps have divine forgiveness.
How good man, MCJ is studying, the Internet, making
pumps. It also aims to bring more children to paradise
placing a huge bomb in most of their nursery school
neighborhood. So do good not only to their children but also
the other children.
Sometimes MCJ wonders how no one had thought of that
before, and I think it just was not done because they really believed
in paradise, or because they were too selfish for fear of
eternal damnation to the good of others. MCJ know that Hitler also
It led directly to the millions of innocent paradise, close to
Jesus and therefore will write a letter to the Pope proposing its
canonization.
- // -
25
Page 26
I.4- The Spiritualist Rapist

12. Man-pedophile, spiritualist, walking down the sidewalk, sees a child and
I feel an overwhelming desire to possess it. But as supporter of
spiritism, he does not know if the DESERVE child being raped or
no.
Then he starts thinking:
"Who knows that child is not a BAD soul NEEDS
BE PUNISHED so committed in their past lives? "
"Who knows she did not rape, or impaled and killed thousands in
your past lives? "
"How can I know if it DESERVE to be punished for what he did or
not? "
It reflects more. Meanwhile his desire increases, it
It reflects a little more, seeking more details on your knowledge
about spiritualism:
"'My spirit lived for a long time and many lives they
know what happened in the past, the truth! If they are me
PUSHING through my sexual desire to rape one
child, is certainly why it is GUILTY FOR SURE, and
DID SOMETHING VERY BAD in their past lives! "
And finally concludes:
"But I should not even worry about it, if God or
anyone not prevent me from carrying out the act, this is simply
because the child EVEN DESERVE suffer! "
"-No Spiritualism, no suffering is in vain, all suffering
It has a reason to exist! "
"You must undergo a ATONEMENT"
26
Page 27
Decided to punish the evil child, and of course indulge their
sexual desire, he grabs the child takes her to a secluded place where
rapes cowardly!
Finally, think:
"-ESTÁA DONE! DESERVED THAT HAD THE ATONEMENT, THE
Bitch! "
"Thank you my spirit by telling me what to do!"
"Thank you my Lord for allowing me to do justice!"
Sure that practiced a just act, it goes away.
I pass a man also spiritualist, and see the child who has just
being raped, dying. As he is an adept of spiritualism
soon concludes:
"-that BLOODY CHILD!"
"-was SINFUL SO THAT YOU HAD THE ATONEMENT
DESERVED! "
"I THINK-BUT STILL NOT BEEN ENOUGH!"
He goes to where the child lay dying, grabs his pocket and pen
stick on the child's neck, causing her to die suffocated by your
own blood ...
"-Now But damn! He had finally what she deserved!"
"-Just A soul VERY BAD PAST might have suffered
punishment like this! "
"-That Just proves that you were actually a VERY Poor soul!"
Then gives a spit in the face of the dead child, and leaves
thinking it his duty to educate and evolve the poor
soul ...
- // -
27
Page 28
I.5- Theorems Jocaxianos
Theorem Jocaxian the First Cause (TJPC)
The First Cause Jocaxian theorem states that:
The first cause of all the events that happened in a system
closed (which is not influenced by external events the system) is
random.
Proof:
We will use the concept of time in which time is defined as
a relationship between events. An event is a change in state of
system. Time, therefore, is not something independent of what
occurs. If, for instance, no event occurs, i.e., the state
the system is unchanged, then the time also ceases to exist.
To be time is therefore necessary to change. If no
change, no time.
Random is a word that is used to say that there
or unpredictable causes no. There are two types of

13. randomness: the objective and the subjective randomness randomness. The
subjective randomness is one in which the causes of the phenomenon
exist but are not known or can not determine them. The
objective randomness, which is used here in this text, is
randomness in which the phenomenon occurs without real causes, the causes
They do not exist.
Random objective exists in nature, in our universe, and as
Sample objective random phenomenon, we can quote the
time decay of an electron in an atom: the electron can
falling from a more energetic orbit to a lower energy
releasing a photon. This phenomenon is not regulated by any law
physics, is considered by quantum mechanics as a phenomenon
objectively random. There is nothing and no rule,
can determine when the electron will decay of its orbit. Other
example would be the creation and destruction of virtual particles in
vacuo.
But to prove the theorem, first, we prove that
there is no infinite time in the past, that is, we can not take the
causes of events for the past infinite and it were ever
28
Page 29
there was a cause that preceded a given effect. For this, we
use the theorem Kalam [1].
The Kalam's Theorem states that there is an infinite time
in the past. This is because if, for absurdity, there was some
event that had occurred in an infinite time in the past so
our current this would take an infinite time to reach
starting with that past. But what does an infinite time
to occur? An infinite time for something to happen means
It never happens. Thus, events occurring at a time
infinite in the past imply that we could not have our
this, but this is absurd, because this is, as we are
it! So we can conclude that there was no
event in an infinite time in the past, and that means
we can deduce another important corollary: the time should
necessarily have an onset .
As there is no infinite time in the past, and the time had to
having a first, follows the first event which occurred was a
event without a previous question, i.e. a random event. And
theorem is demonstrated.
Theorem Jocaxian Time Leak (TJVT)
The Jocaxian time of the leak Theorem states that:
If two systems are not isolated from each other, and if one of them exists
time, then on the other there will be time.
Proof:
Time is the relationship between events. If one of the systems
It occurs and the time they are not isolated from each other, then these
events may also be correlated from the other
system. Therefore, the first system in which there is time can serve
the time counter for the second system. Therefore, in the second
system will be time well.
We can use these two theorems to argue against
existence of God:
29
Page 30
God can not be timeless, it would violate the JN theorem
leakage time: If God existed, and our universe occurs
time, and how our universe is not isolated from God follows
that time also occurs to God. Also, by not TJPC
no need for God to create the first phenomenon, and this
refutes the argument of St. Thomas Aquinas according to which the
movement requires a first mover that would be God. Besides,
also refutes the idea of a God eternally existent as this
would contradict the corollary of the beginning of time.
- // -
30
Page 31
I.6- Principle Destropic
Summary: "Destropic Principle" is an argument that
states that every universe is equiprobable, and the
possibility of life does not feature more

14. special than any other. This goes against the
"Anthropic principle" when it is used for
argue that there is a need of a deity, or
multiple universes to explain the configuration
our universe, in particular, could harbor life.
I will put a new refutation of the "anthropic principle" when
this is used as argument for a deity, or
multiple universes to explain life in our universe. The
argument that I will prepare I had outlined in my article
earlier on the theme: "The Anthropic Principle and the Jocaxian Nothingness"
[1], but now I will go a little deeper in your analysis.
The argument is not very intuitive, so we will launch hand
an analogy to understand the idea behind. Before,
however, I will summarize what the anthropic principle, and how it is
used by creationists and religious in general, to justify
God:
Introduction
The laws of physics, usually written in the form of equations
mathematics, responsible for the characteristics are considered
the universe and its evolution over time. These laws, as we
know today, they are composed of equations in which they appear
some numerical constants (parameters). For example,
we can mention, among others: the speed of light, the electron mass,
the electric charge of the proton etc. [2].
It is argued - without proof - that a small change
(It is not clear that the magnitude of change) in
some of these constants would remove the opportunity of living in
universe. Those who argue that too conclude that a
universe created with physical constants generated at random,
could hardly give life.
31
Page 32
Teaspoon
To be sure, we must note that a universe with laws
Random need not follow the pattern of physical laws that have
in our universe, that is, the mathematical equations that define
a randomly generated universe could be fully
different from what we have in our current universe (in principle such
universes not need to be described by mathematical equations)
so that the parameters we have today would not apply in
none of the equations of this random universe. Thus, it is
totally false claim that all possible universes can
be described maintaining the same equations of our universe
particular and varying only the constants that appear in it.
However, in order to refute the "anthropic principle" in its
own support base, we here consider as truth
all possible worlds maintain the same structure
equations of our universe. We will also assume that these
equations are true, but knowing in advance that it does not
is true, since no theoretical mismatch between theory
of relativity and quantum mechanics. It also
we assume it to be true, although no one has yet
demonstrated that any change of any of the
fundamental impede the possibility of life.
An analogy
To understand the idea of "Destropic Principle", we will
analogy of the equations governing the various possible universes, with
the real numbers. Let's assume that each of the universes
possible can be represented by a real number between zero and
ten. We can justify it if we think that we can concatenate
all fundamental constants in a single numeric parameter.
At our analogy, the "4,22341" parameter, e.g.
It represents a universe U1, which in turn would be of a different
U2 universe represented by the parameter "6.123333 ...," and so
on. Thus, each of these numerical parameters define
completely the characteristics of the universe represented by him.
32
Page 33
Suppose there is a machine that generates randomly
real numbers between zero and ten years. Each number generated would be
parameter to define a universe. We realize that it is
very small, almost zero, which foresee the possibility of
number the machine will generate. However, certainly the machine will

15. generating a number.
Suppose our universe is represented by U1 ("4,22341").
We can then ask what is the probability that the number of
our universe is chosen, and there are plenty of
other possible? There are infinite real numbers between zero and ten, as well
it is virtually impossible to predict the number "4,22341", which is
parameter defining characteristics of our universe, is
chosen.
Thus, when the machine generating a number representing an
parameter of the universe, the answer to the question: "How likely would
the generation of a universe like ours? ", should be" So
as likely to generate any other specific universe. "
Equiprobable
That our random generation model of universes, all
universes are equiprobable, since any real number between zero and
ten would just as likely to be generated. No universe is
most likely to be generated that someone else. Thus,
whatever the number generated by the machine, it would be so
unlikely to be provided or agreed to any other
number. We can then conclude that our universe is so
likely to be generated as any other.
Life
But someone may retort:
"-Our Universe is the only one where there is a possibility of life."
The possibility of life is a peculiarity of our universe.
Any other generated universe would also have their peculiarities
specific. For example, perhaps some of them could be formed
by tiny balls of sparkling colored crystals, other
33
Page 34
could form elastic goos, others, perfect spheres, and so
on. If, for example, the universe generated balls produced
sparkling crystal blue color, then we could do the same
Exclamation:
"- Just in this universe produces little glowing balls!"
Or:
"-Only This universe there is possibility of producing these
chewing gums! "
And so on. For us, human, life can be more
important than glowing balls, or elastic goos that,
but that's just a human valuation. There is no reason
logical to assume that a universe with life is more important
than a universe that produces sparkling crystal balls, or
elastic goos.
Therefore, we can not claim that our universe is special and
only because it is so special and unique as any other universe
that is randomly generated. All have their characteristics
only, generated by their physical constants also unique.
Another Formalism
To clarify this idea we redo our argument using
another formalism:
Suppose the universes are described for six constants
key, (the exact number does not matter, the reasoning
It will serve for any number of constants).
Thus, any universe U could be defined by a system of
equations that uses six basic constants. We represent
this dependence follows:
U = U (A, B, C, D, E, F).
In particular, our universe, U1, is described in this formalism
as:
U1 = U (A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1)
Now consider a U2 universe with different constants U1:
34
Page 35
U2 = U (A2, B2, C2, D2, E2, F2)
As U1 by definition, contains the parameters of our universe,
it will generate a universe that may harbor "life," but can not
generate a "voda". Likewise, U2 can generate "Lofe", but not
can generate "life." "Voda" is a feature of any U2,
such as to be able to form a group of particles which
the density is exactly 0.12221 (any number).
Only U2 can generate a "voda", and any change of
parameters would remove the generation of "voda".

16. Of course, similarly, another universe, U3, with other
constants:
U3 = U (A3, B3, C3, D3, E3, F3)
Nor would allow "life" and not "voda", but would allow
"Lufe".
"Lufe" is a physical condition that occurs when the particles are
subject to the forces generated by the U3 system constants
(A3 F3 ...). Any change in these constants U3
would remove "lufe".
Note that there is no INTRINSIC importance if the universe
will generate "life", "voda" or "lufe". For generating machine, or
for the universe itself, it makes no difference. Even
why the universe or random machine has no conscience or
wishes. To the machine, what differs is the value of the constants
fundamental, not what they will or will not generate. It is irrelevant for
a generating machine, and even for the generated universe, it may
harbor life, "voda", "lufe" or in any other way
peculiarity. Each universe has its own characteristic. If U1
allows "life" it does not allow "voda" or "lufe" if U2 allows
"Voda" it does not allow "life" or "lufe" if U3 allows "lufe"
it does not allow "life" or "voda". And so it is for any
generated universe.
Thus we can see that our universe has nothing
especially because nothing is intrinsically special. "Life" is as
important as "voda" or "lufe". The universe is not
worried that "voda" generates or does not generate conscience, nor "lufe"
generates an incredible yellow glow cluster that would never exist
35
Page 36
at U1. Or "voda" generates micro colored pyramids shine
of indescribable beauty itself. You can import to humans,
small self-centered beings of U1 that give importance to "life"
perhaps because they are also alive.
Thus, the probability of generating a universe which has "lufe" is
equivalent to another that has "life" or "voda". Nothing
miraculous or magical in our universe that makes
REALLY special. Therefore, it is meaningless to say that
probability of our universe be like to be the work of some
divinity. Whatever the generated universe, the probability
he just have that characteristic is the same as that of the
our being as it is.
It's like randomly pick a real number between zero and ten:
All are equally likely and difficult to be chosen,
It is any more or less special than others.
- // -
36
Page 37
II- The Basics
For all the reasons we've seen in previous chapters, we will,
in this book, definitively abandon the idea of the existence of a
God, and look for answers in other ways. Paths
rational, logical and scientific. To do this, we need now
understand the concept of Science today. Learn
also what becomes the "scientific method," and because it is so
important. Later, we will expand this concept
science to also encompass philosophy.
II.1-The Science Bases
Introduction
Karl Popper [1902-1994] is considered the philosopher who defined the
Modern science, delimiting its subject matter and setting
borders. Thus, according to Popper:
- A scientific theory can never be proven true.
- A scientific theory can only be proved false.
- A theory that can not be falsifiable is not a scientific theory.
Falsifiability (or falsification) is therefore the key word
science. One theory (a set of ideas or laws or hypotheses) is
said falseable when there is some form, for example, a
experiment, you can put theory into 'check' and so mostrá-
it false (if any). The test result can never prove
that a theory is true, it may just prove if it does not pass
the test, that it is false. Thus, according to Popper, a theory
can never be tested or disproved, also can not be a
scientific theory.

17. The strength of science, unlike other forms of knowledge,
It comes precisely this relentless falsifiability test. Only
theories that go unscathed by numerous, successive test
falsifiability survive. This represents a selection
born among theories, where, hopefully, only the truest
logrem pass through successive filters that are submitted.
37
Page 38
The pseudo
Science is nothing merciful compared to theories that
propose scientific. For a scientific theory is overthrown,
just find a single case where it fails, and even if it passes
unscathed by numerous tests, it can never be considered a
true theory because it can always occur a case in the future
she fails.
To clarify, let's look at an example of an unscientific theory. If
I propose the following theory:
"There is a green devil on the shoulder of each person, but always
that tries to detect it, or watching it in some way, he
disappears. "This is not a scientific theory, since there are no
means we verify, per the evidence, to distort, the existence of such
"Green devil," as he always disappears when trying
detect it.
However, if the theory is slightly different:
"There is a little devil on the shoulder of each person, but it only becomes
visible on the full moon of a leap year. "
Ready! So far, this theory would become Science!
It would be a scientific theory because it would be falsifiable and to refute
it (or not) would be enough to expect a full moon and a leap year
verify that the imp actually becomes visible. If you are not
visible, the theory failed the test, and it will be considered false,
otherwise, it is a theory that has passed its first test,
but it can not be considered true as it could, for
example, be people who do not. Theories not
scientific form the basis of so-called pseudo-sciences.
The applicability of scientific theories
Of course it is not the fact that a scientific theory is that makes
automatically a useful theory, and our last example proves
it. The degree of utility (or applicability) of a scientific theory
It is proportional to the amount of events that she can address:
as it is more general and comprehensive theory, the greater the degree of
applicability, and also of importance, it will have the
scientific community.
38
Page 39
Demystifying "... is scientifically proven that ..."
Now we've seen how easy it is to create scientific theories, we
demystify a little science with a statement
bold but true:
" Tomorrow morning all the well-known laws of physics may
change, and even the force of gravity may stop there! "
The reader can certainly wonder about it and find a
true blasphemy. This happens even with amazement
people educated and trained in physics! This is because the
people generally tend to 'mystify' the sciences,
particularly physics, treating them as
truths
unquestionable, and find that when a theory receives status
"Law of physics" she reached perfection and is therefore immutable. That is
obviously false.
No one can prove that in a second, tomorrow, or
any future time, the laws of physics remain the same
they are now, or even, for example, the strength of
gravity will continue to exist. In principle, everything can change
a sudden. There is no guarantee that the laws of physics
worth continue forever. No one can know for sure
how the universe is or will be, or even present any evidence to
Physical ensure that the laws remain constant or tomorrow
later.
However, for simplicity and convenience, it is assumed
The stability of the laws of physics in time as something true,
a postulate . Likewise, it is also postulated that they are
valid anywhere in the universe. There is no mystery or

18. magic on this assumption, it is only a hypothesis that has given
right and there is, as yet, no evidence that these
assumptions are false. It can be considered that the stability of
Physical laws are the first postulates of physics. Postulates are
assumptions a priori true, as models
primary structures where all other is based, and
have never been refuted nor presented any evidence that
are false.
39
Page 40
Scientific Methodology
Science makes no restriction as to the origin of the theories
scientific. For this reason, scientific theories do not need
necessarily originate from actual data (empirical laws)
they could even be designed by computers. The
importantly, the model 'Popper' underlying science
modern, scientific theories must necessarily be falsifiable,
that is, testable, and eventually rejected if
They are not approved in the tests.
Although a theory can be designed using only
imagination of its creator, almost all modern scientific theories
have an empirical origin, i.e. are based on experiments,
the observation of nature, the synthesis of data analysis
experimental.
It is called induction process of abstracting general rules by
observation of particular facts. For example, observe that
stars attract the planets, and these attract their satellites, then
power would generalize inducing that matter attracts matter, and that
this attraction force is proportional to the amount of matter in
every body. This was a happy example of a theory created by
induction, known as theory of gravitation, which today
remains a valid theory of classical mechanics. The theory
gravitation was designed by Isaac Newton in the seventeenth century.
But induction is not, strictly speaking, part of the scientific methodology, because the
generalization of particular cases is always error-prone.
Here are some examples:
It is observed that "70% of people die in bed" then, by
induction, we could conclude that "The bed is the most dangerous place
the planet? ".
Another example: We see every day that "the sun rises and sets
in each 24-hour period "so that we can induce" All
day the sun will rise "?
The negative answer to these two questions show that the mechanism
induction by abstraction does not always provide a true rule,
and so it can not be used ever as truth criterion
of theory.
40
Page 41
Factual evidence
The induction mechanism is one of the ways used to
modeling scientific theories and, in hindsight, should not be
In other words, since the bridge between our brains and
nature is made by observation. Scientific theories nothing
They are more than a way to model the nature extracting it the
essence, a common factor to all observed events.
Although the mechanism of induction based on repeated
observation of particular facts can lead us to erroneous theories, the
so that power would say theories conceived without even
a single observation? (Souls, spirits and ghosts are facts
repeated observations in nature?) As incredible as it may seem,
theories made so are the more there are, and it is nonetheless
a sign that the brain is a very fertile and creative agency in
its capacity of abstraction and synthesis, but unfortunately such
human capacity to generate theories ends up polluting the world with
many ideas that lack any connection with reality.
The theories not only the physical theories, but any theories
try to explain the world in some way, so many that to
separate the wheat from the chaff, it takes up a first filter that makes this
task: the search for evidence.
Evidences are facts that support a given theory, ie data
from the reality that seem to fit the theory proposed.
Thus, theories that lack of evidence is always crowded in
relation to theories that present evidence in his favor.

19. But we must be cautious, and terms in mind that a
evidence, though it may corroborate a theory is never proof
that the same is true.
The Occam's Razor
Test or evaluate theories is not always trivial. I speak not only
complex scientific theories, requiring sophisticated and
need electronic paraphernalia, but theories or hypotheses of our
the day-to-day. Sometimes we are confronted or respondents
about several different theories or hypotheses, for
41
Page 42
example, we find the "possibility of life
intelligent off the ground "or" prayers help or not the speed of
healing the sick. "How should we proceed to evaluate a
hypothesis (or theory) when we have neither a fact nor refutatório
favorable evidence?
To complicate matters, there are competing theories that make use of
same facts as evidence supporting both theories!
In such cases, how to evaluate from a theory or another?
How to choose?
With this question, you, the reader, is tricked into thinking on a
old principle of philosophical logic known as the "Razor
Occam, "we saw in the first chapter of our book, but for
be of enormous importance, once again it will be remembered, but with
a slightly more simplified approach:
The "Occam's Razor" is an homage to William of Ockham,
its supposed creator. William was born in the village of Ocham in England
in 1285. It was one of the most influential philosophers of the fourteenth century and
controversial theologian (devoted to a life of poverty and
minimalism). It is believed that he died in Munich in
1349, the Black Death victim who ravaged Europe at that time.
William wrote:
" Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate "--- not Pluralities
They should be put unnecessarily. ---
This is the principle that is often called "Razor
Occam. "
The "Occam's Razor" (Occam's Razor, in English) is a principle
philosophy which states that, if we had to choose one, among
many theories, and we did not have evidence to privilege
some of them in relation to the other, then we should stay with
theory that requires less likely, so considered the most
simple. It is important to note that this is a heuristic argument
that can not produce correct answers, because not always the theory
simplest is true. However, there is no other method
rational choice rather than a razor. The "Occam's Razor"
It can be expressed in another form:
42
Page 43
"To explain something, entities shall not be extended beyond
what is needed. "
We must always keep in mind that the "razor" is not a method
to refute a theory, but a logical criterion of choice. The
"Razor" should be applied when there is no evidence
corroborating a theory more than another (we have seen, however, that
evidence may be seen as an advanced form of
applicability blade). Often, the "razor" is ill
interpreted by the idea that "simplicity is perfection."
We can say that the work of a scientist is nothing more than
use the "Occam razor" in its applicability limit. All
scientist trying to minimize the number of assumptions required
By his theory, in order to expand its scope and increase its
usefulness, and therefore their level of importance.
If there are two different theories explaining a given phenomenon
physical, then the scientific community shall choose the
more general theory, encompassing a larger number of cases, instead
his competitor, whose applicability threshold is lower.
And this is the great difficulty and the great struggle of scientists since
theorize that high amplitude, i.e. with a number
reduced restriction hypothesis is not trivial.
Mathematics
If the scientific criterion (Popper) used in the search for truth
is the falsifiability , what can we say about mathematics,
tool most used by the sciences? Mathematics would be a

20. intrinsic part of the universe, and therefore something discovered by
Man, that would be an area of independent knowledge,
invented by man?
There are controversies. This problem intrigue many philosophers and
scientists and was summarized in a matter that until recently, not
It had been answered:
"Why mathematics serves so well to physics?"
43
Page 44
However, unlike the natural sciences, mathematics has
his own universe, which are its axioms and its elements
basic: the numbers.
Having its own universe, consisting of its axioms and the
logic, mathematics, in principle, would not serve the sciences
natural (such as physics, chemistry etc.) and actually there
many different Mathematics, which are distinct branches of the
others that are created when you change one or another of his
axioms. They evolve independently of each other and neither
all are useful in our physical universe.
Although not shown, many scholars assume
that mathematics can be derived from classical logic. In this case,
if the universe is logical, mathematics would be a property
inherent in the universe. We will see in the next chapter a new theory
about the origin of the universe, which implies that the universe can be
inherently logical. If this theory is true, mathematics
then it would be the natural language of the universe.
The development of mathematics is done through theorems, which
are propositions about the universe of mathematical elements (
not to be confused with our physical universe). The theorems are
equivalent to theories of the natural sciences, but unlike
the latter, can not be refuted by experiments or
confrontation with the facts of our physical reality! The role of
refutability in mathematics is done by contradiction, that in
logic means that there are at least two propositions where a
denies the other ([A] and [not A]). Thus, if we show that a
proposition leads to a logical contradiction, then it is considered
false. Moreover, unlike our real world, where
no scientific theory can be proved true, all
mathematical theorems can be proven true (within
a given premises system), that is, can demonstrate his
truthfulness, thereby making them within the mathematical universe, a
'Absolute truth'. (A theorem is considered demonstrated
when, from the axioms and logic, we arrive at a conclusion,
that is the theorem).
The Austrian mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel showed that within
an axiomatic logical system, a system based on axioms
44
Page 45
and logic, like mathematics, there will always be propositions
They can never be demonstrated using logic and axioms
the system itself. This theorem is known as the " Theorem
Incompleteness "or simply" Gödel's theorem ", and
He shook the foundations of mathematics at the time of its publication,
because before, it was believed that every mathematical proposition could
It demonstrated to be true or false (as a theorem). Gödel
It proved that such a belief was false, and so there are propositions
mathematics that can never be proved or disproved.
In Chapter II.6 we will propose an expansion of the current science and
unify it with philosophy. In this new proposal a "razor
Occam "will have an essential role.
Summary
* We have seen that the current science is founded on the criterion
falsification or falsifiability: theories that can not be
disproved are not scientific theories. No scientific theory can
be considered true. Theories undergo natural selection
through the scientific method, and only those who can
go through numerous tests refutability survive.
* The induction method is one way to generate knowledge
through abstraction and synthesis of observation of particular facts,
but by no means should be considered better or more valid, the
than any other form of knowledge generation. Incidentally,
Science makes no representations as to the origin of the theories
scientific.

21. * Many competing theories may go unscathed by criteria
falsifiability, but if we have to choose one of them, there are still
at least two other scientific criteria considered to
make this choice: those with evidence in his favor and, if
this can not be applied, we still have the "Occam's Razor".
* The "Occam's Razor" should be used when rival theories
They spend so much the criterion of falsifiability as the criterion of
evidence (when both or neither present your facts
please). The "razor" states that one should choose the theory that
45
Page 46
presents the fewest entities or hypotheses considered,
thus simpler.
- // -
Now that we understand the "Occam's Razor", abolished God, and already
we have a good idea of what is modern science, we will make our
close analysis of the "Origin of Everything". The reader,
probably should have read some theories about the origin of
universe, many of them using the laws of modern physics, for
example, the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics, and more
modern, M. Theory However, paradoxically, no
of them explained the origin of the very laws of physics. The theory
Relativity does not explain the origin of the theory of relativity as well
as quantum mechanics does not explain where it originated.
Show, then a philosophical theory, fully compatible
with the "Occam's Razor", which explains the origin of the universe and
also something that no one explained rationally: the origin of
laws that govern it.
46
Page 47
II.2- The Origin of the Universe
The problem of the origin of the universe is old, perhaps the oldest
philosophical problem with which man has ever encountered.
If we define the universe as the set of everything that exists, and
I assume that the physical elements contained therein follow rules
or -such laws which laws that physics assumes that we can existam-
conclude that the theories proposed so far are not fully
satisfactory. To address this deficiency, I am proposing a new
hypothesis which, although not testable, and therefore does not (to Popper)
scientific, is a philosophical theory legitimizes because satisfies the "Razor
of Occam, "it is self-consistent and does not contradict the observed facts.
Evaluation Criteria
Before entering the analysis of these theories, I want to propose some
criteria that the solutions proposed should satisfy. The best
theories must meet, as far as possible, the following
items:
1- Do not be contradictory.
2- Do not be inconsistent with observable reality.
3- Being compatible with the "Occam's Razor" theories regarding
competitors.
4 Be able to explain the observable universe.
We can also sort the theories about the origin of the universe
into two major groups:
Religious theories and natural theories.
1-The Religious Theories
The faith-based solutions to the origin of the universe call
a metaphysical entity called "God". God would be a kind
47
Page 48
a "Great Ghost" that with his power and infinite wisdom,
He created the universe.
Religious theories, although they are widely accepted by
majority of the population, do not pass by most criteria
evaluation proposed above:
- Failure of one criterion: The theory of the "Great Ghost" is not
logically consistent since, by the very definition of the universe,
if God existed, it should also be part of the universe, since
that the universe is defined as the set of all that exists.
Thus, God could only serve to explain the generation of
physical elements of the universe, but the universe itself. If the
theory to explain the origin of the universe, then it would need

22. explain the origin of God himself.
- Failure of two criteria: the "Great Ghost" normally
It is also accompanied by other attributes such as consciousness,
omniscience, omnipotence, and goodness, which creates incompatibility
with observable reality (see "Imp Blue Jocaxian" in
Chapter I.2).
- Three test failure: the "Great Ghost" is also
incompatible with the "Occam's Razor", for being
hypothetically endowed with infinite wisdom and power, flees
criteria of simplicity required by the "Occam's Razor" in
Regarding the physical theories of the origin of the universe. So,
when we are talking about explanations of origins, it is a counter
logical sense to invoke a more complex entity to explain
a more simple if there is no explanation for the very
more complex entity.
2-The Natural Theories (or non-religious)
Natural theories are preferable to religious not presuppose
the pre-existence of a high complexity. The natural theories
They can be divided into two groups:
Natural theories of physical basis and natural theories base
philosophical.
48
Page 49
2.1-The Natural Theories of physical base
Natural theories of physics base leave something to be desired by
following failures:
- Failure criterion one: If physical laws exist and are used
to explain the universe, then they would also need to be
explained, since part of the universe that wants to explain. Or
is, most of them, as we shall see, tries to explain the origin of
universe adopting some of the principles of physics as
"Conservation of Energy Principle", or the laws of
"Quantum Mechanics" or "General Theory of Relativity", without,
however, explain the origin of these very laws.
Most of these modern natural theories based on mechanics
Quantum initially part of the "Absolute Almost Nothing", something like
a 'vacuum-Quantum "without the presence of matter and energy, but without
violate the conservation laws of physics can explain
physical appearance of the elements, which in turn give rise to the
Big Bang.
The explanation for the appearance of matter without violating the law of
energy conservation is through the realization that
Gravity produced by the particles would have a potential energy
negative that contrabalancearia exactly the positive energy of
created particles, forming a universe with total energy equal to
zero.
To illustrate, let's look at some texts about it:
- "Creation Ex Nihilo No-God" by Mark I. Vuletic [1]
From which we extract the following [4]:
" "There are ... (1 followed by 80 zeros) of particles in the region
the universe we can observe. Whence came they? The
answer is that, in quantum theory, the particles can
It is created from form pairs in energy
particle / antiparticle. But this raised the question of
know where it comes to energy. The answer is that energy
Total universe is exactly zero. The matter
universe consists of positive energy. However,
49
Page 50
all matter attracts to itself due to gravity.
Two pieces of matter that are near each other
have less energy than if they were far apart,
because you have to expend energy to separate them against
the force of gravity which attracts each other.
So in a sense, the gravitational field has
negative energy. In the case of a universe that is
approximately uniform in space, can show up
that this negative gravitational energy cancels
exactly the positive energy represented by
field. Therefore, the total energy of the universe is zero. "
(Hawking, 2000, pp. 152-153) " "
- "Zero Point" By Jomar Morais [2]
Which include:

23. " Where did the universe? The Guth's answer is: the
nothing, from scratch. The first particles have appeared
a simple "vacuum fluctuation" process
changing an electric field that classical physics
unaware, but that quantum mechanics was born in
last century, eventually revealing to scholars
subatomic intimacy. According to this conjecture -
known as theory of the inflationary universe - the
primordial particles emerged from the void ... The theory
Guth says ... At first glance it seems that the
coming up phenomenon on the principle of conservation
energy, which assumes the balance of the total energy
all changes in the physical world, but it was not
That's what happened. On inflation, the
positive energy of matter was counterbalanced by
negative energy of the gravitational field, so that
the total energy was always zero. When, finally, the
negative gravity material began to decline,
slowing the rate of expansion, was formed then the
"Primordial soup" (a very high temperature gas)
presented as an initial condition in Big Theory
Bang . "
- "The uncaused Beginning of the Universe (1988)" Quentin
Smith [3]
50
Page 51
Which contains the following passage:
" The disadvantage of Tryon's theory, and of other
que theories postulate a background space from Which
the universe fluctuates, is que They explain the existence
of the universe but only at the price of Introducing
another unexplained given Beheerder, Namely, the background
space. This problem is absent from Vilenkin's theory,
Which Represents the universe the emerging without a
cause "from literally nothing" (1982, p. 26). The
universe appears in a quantum tunneling from nothing
at all to de Sitter space. ".
We can see that the appearance of matter from "nothing"
is not new, it is well known in science for some time.
In addition, phenomena not caused (that happen without cause)
They are not the privilege of exotic entities: Consider an atom
excited with an electron in a high-energy orbit. Does not exist
no formula -not Physical explanations that may predict
when the electron leave their high energy orbit for a
orbit of lower energy. This event is considered purely
random (without cause). When the electron orbital decay of a photon
(A light particle that did not exist) is created. That is, even
a single atom, is an example of the existence of phenomena
without cause and creating a physical entity before nonexistent (the
photon). Previously some scientists claimed that the cause existed,
but it would not be known. This theory became known as the theory
the " hidden variables ". Subsequently, it was shown that if
there was a 'hidden' cause for these events, it would violate one
mathematical theorem known as the Bell inequality .
So currently the MQ takes as true that there are
events without causes in the universe.
To complete our list, we should also include the two main
theories about the origin of the universe without initial creation: The theory
Pulsating universe ( Big Bang-Big Crunch ) and also the theory of
Steady State .
Stationary state theory [5]
51
Page 52
Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), Geoffrey Burbidge (1925-) and Jayant
Vishnu Narlikar (1938-) proposed in 1993, the State Theory
Almost stationary , in an eternal and infinite universe alternating
expansions of about 40 billion years with contractions. The mass
It is eternally created in white holes with Planck mass
Ö [ch / L] = 1019 baryons. The mini creation causes an expansion of
universe, which reduces the mean value setting field,
negative energy reservoir. After expansion, the value of
field is reduced, making a new mini-creation difficult. The
Gravity then overcomes the expansion and the universe contracts,

24. increasing the field until a new creation occurs.
The theory of the "Big-Bang-Big Crunch" I find quite elegant,
However, this theory is not compatible with the latest observations
cosmological showing that the universe is in the process of
rapid expansion, that is, far from a possible contraction.
Another inconvenience of this model is that it appears to violate the
second law of thermodynamics says that entropy can not
decrease. So it seems that the model of the "Big-Bang-Big Crunch"
unfortunately, it is overcome.
Another problem of natural theories of physics base is its
difficult to explain the observable universe for some
physical parameters - constants that the physical laws which utilizam-
would make our supposed physical laws a set of rules highly
unlikely. For example, it is alleged that a small change in
electron charge, the mass of the neutrino etc., would cause our
colapsasse universe quickly. Let's look at some texts about it:
" ... The so-called "anthropic coincidences' in which
the particles and forces of physics seem to be 'tuned
accurately 'to produce life-based
carbon are explained by the fact that the foam
spacetime have an infinite number of universes
sprouting, each different from the other. It happens
simply that we find ourselves in that universe
in which the forces and particles lend themselves to the generation of
carbon and other atoms in the complex
necessary to allow the development of organisms
living and thinking. "(Stenger, 1996) "[6]
52
Page 53
" ... This suggests a new answer to another question
intriguing: how the laws of physics were tuned in
so perfect way to make possible the existence of
stars, planets and living beings? The classic answer was:
fantastic chance or divine miracle. Now there is a
third alternative: if each universe has physical laws
different, maybe we exist in one of the very few whose
laws allow the emergence of intelligent life. "[7]
We can see that the answer usually given by these
theories to the improbability claim the laws of physics is that
there must be infinite or multiple universes parallel to ours and, of
somehow disconnected. So that our universe would be
only one among existing infinite, each with their own
physical laws. But that is not consistent because:
If the proper laws of physics - as, for example, M theory , or
the multiple b nifty Guth - were invoked to explain
emergence of the universe, much as our infinite others,
as if to say that these other universes the laws of physics
They could be different ?! If all universes left of
same initial physical laws, we should expect these same
laws were preserved in all universes generated by them!
-The Models that appeal to infinite release of "data"
just to explain the rise of the number "six" in one of these
data, while solving the issue, is something very strong and seems
counter the Occam's Razor, since we have no evidence
no other universe beyond our own cosmos. A
continuous succession of Universes, or a finite number of them would be
more reasonable, but still not entirely satisfactory.
- It is also something to be desired the explanation that the bubbles
generating parallel universes present GAPS (failures) that
disconnects each other. Why the matter could not be created
continuously in the same bubble? What would make these "gaps"
disconnected? Why are these universes could not communicate?
Nevertheless, the main failure of the theories that attempt to explain the
origin of the universe by a physical basis, is that they do not
explain the origin of physical laws used for its generation.
53
Page 54
One might ask: "Why the principle of conservation
power should be obeyed? "or" Why mechanical
Quantum need real? ". These theories start from something (physical laws)
previously existing. The physical explanations, however, are
preferable to religious as a set of laws is simpler
the existence of a supposed to be infinite complexity.

25. The base 2.1-Natural Philosophical Theories
Natural theories of philosophical basis of the origin of the universe
are those that are not based on laws of physics to explain his
appearance, but that explain the very emergence of laws
able to govern them so. Thereafter, if necessary, the universe could
be a result of Physical laws, as proposed by the theories
physical, or in some other way.
The Origin of the Universe seconds Jocax
To solve the problem of the origin of the universe, created a theory
using the "Occam's Razor" in its extreme maximum. Thus,
to explain the universe, I leave the simplest possible state, and
which therefore needs no explanation for its existence: the "Nothing".
But "Nothing" in which people think is not the same "nothing" of
which I leave, let alone the "nothing" that physicists are based.
So I called my anything the " Nothing Jocaxian "or
simply NJ . The NJ is defined as the state of nature in
which the following conditions are met:
1-There are no physical elements of any kind (not even matter,
neither energy nor space).
2-There are no laws of any kind.
The "Nothing Jocaxian" is different from "Nothing" in which normally
You think because when you think of "Nothing" is thought the "Nothing"
true over the following rule: " Nothing can happen this
Nothing . " So nothing that people normally think is not the
purest possible Nothing, Nothing is a rule!
Another way that people usually think of "Nothing" is
makes it synonymous with absence . This "nothing" as a synonym for
54
Page 55
absence is far from the "Nothing Jocaxian" for the NJ is something
existing, has properties, it would be something similar to the empty set
that does not have elements, but where the set itself exists.
The "Nothing Jocaxian" is "Nothing" that is, is pure nothing, one
Nothing absolute and therefore does not have rules to follow,
even the rule "Nothing can happen", let alone laws
conservation of energy or the principles of quantum mechanics
of physics.
You, the reader, can say "no present rules" is also a
rule to be followed, and thus the definition of "None Jocaxian"
It would be inconsistent. The answer is: - Not having rules is the state
Initial "Nothing," not a rule that he has to follow. Similarly
how not to present matter or energy. We will explain
best:
When a system has no rules (or laws) any
species, this means that there are no laws restrictions, and therefore
"All" can happen ... How can also nothing happens!
That is, the absence of laws implies that "something might happen"
as its negation, "something can not happen," which includes "nothing
It can happen "and it is all possible possibilities
a system can provide. It is therefore a tautology,
absolute truth. Not a rule. We can consider the phrase "all
It can happen "in the broadest sense, which also includes" can
nothing happens "so that if a system that does not present
laws is a system in which "anything can happen" (including
remain without anything happening).
Therefore, we conclude that the simplest system possible -
"Nothing Jocaxian" - is actually a system Toti-potent where
"Anything could happen".
If "anything" can happen, then this absolute nothingness can generate,
random , anything. But if nothing can generate
randomly anything, it can generate the universe or the laws
Physical which, in turn, allow the emergence of the universe
material. On the other hand, the "NJ" could also generate the law "None
It can happen, "and in this case we would have a perpetual nothing without
possibility that nothing would happen. This is the idea
55
Page 56
we usually have in mind when we think of "nothing".
But this is just one of the infinite possibilities that the "NJ" can
generate.
Thus, I propose that the origin of all was the "Nothing Jocaxian"
that by not presenting laws or rules of any kind, "Everything"
- In the broadest sense of the word - could happen. Since there was no

26. rules for what might or might not happen, we can conclude that
RANDOMNESS should be an intrinsic feature of this
system, since randomness can be defined as
unpredictability of what might happen.
If you are reading this text, and if the hypothesis NJ is true,
we can conclude that, fortunately, the NJ not "randomized" (generated
randomly) the rule "anything can happen". If the NJ had
generated this rule would not be here to read this text. On the other
Conversely, if we suppose that claim to be is true
extremely unlikely that a generated set of physical laws
can generate random life then we have a problem: it would be
extremely unlikely, but not impossible, the NJ have
"Randomized" our universe, and so it is appropriate to seek
an answer to this improbability.
Our NJ has a "letter on the sleeves": as it does not need
obey physical laws or other rules of any kind, all
could even happen, for example, NJ have "randomized"
Our order of the universe as we have today, all created this
moment where our memories and memories have been created
consistently. Of course, although it is theoretically
possible, it would still be far more unlikely. One way
to solve the problem would be plagiarizing theorists of pre- Big-Bang and
say that the NJ randomly created a multitude of universes
bubbles each with its own physical laws, also random.
Thus, our universe would be only one of the multiple
"Bubble universes" whose physical laws, fortunately, have led to life.
Another possibility, although simpler and more interesting would be the
creation of the universe with a term of validity: the NJ generate
randomly a universe with physical laws also generated
randomly but with a term or condition of validity,
random. At the end of this term, or condition of arrival this end,
56
Page 57
he extinguished and would go back to "Nothing Jocaxian" original, which
again could "randomize" a new different universe, and
so on. This mechanism could explain the "laws
physical "of our universe without the need to create infinite
parallel universes. There would be trouble if perhaps the NJ generate
a universe that was the " Nothing Trivial " : Nothing with the following law
"Nothing more can happen." In this case, NJ order to generate
everything forever.
Some issues may come to the reader's mind:
1a feature NJ not have rules or laws would not she
own, a rule?
No. A rule establishes some form of restriction should be
obeyed. If I say, for example, "My car is red," that
It is not a rule, but a car STATE. A condition in
which the car is currently located. Eventually, the car can
be painted blue (or not). Establishing the state of nature, in
conditions defined by the "NJ", is not a rule to be
then but an initial state of the system. A rule would be "my
car must be red, "or" My car can not be
red "in these cases the car color would somehow
constrained by a rule.
2-To say that anything can happen would be a rule? A
the imposition NJ ?
No, because this is a logical consequence of its initial state, and
not an imposition to the system. Also, this would be a rule
obrigássemos the NJ generate something. There is this: as
we look at the text, I frieze of NJ everything can OR NOT
happen. And that's not a rule, it is a tautology
LOGIC - an absolute truth in any circumstances - This
It implies that the NJ , like everything else, follows a tautology (a truth
absolute), and not a rule.
The 3- NJ does not have physical elements or laws, but it has
some POWER?
57
Page 58
If we call the "power" the possibility of becoming the
answer is yes. But we must remember that possibility is not
sure, and eventually it will never become or generate
something. Impossible to say that the NJ necessarily go
generate something. Thus the "power" is nothing more than a

27. possibility, not pre-defined a priori , but derived from the conditions
defining the initial NJ .
4-The "No-Trivial", where anything can happen, it would be something more
likely to have ever existed than the NJ ?
No. Nothing that people realize (Nada-Trivial) is
infinitely more unlikely to happen as the origin of
universe than the "NJ". That's because the "nothing-trivial" has, in
Indeed, INFINITE rules to follow: it can not generate
a chair; it can not generate physical laws; it can not generate
God; it can not generate a big bang; it can not generate life; it
can not generate particles etc.
We should also note that the NJ is a physical system
existent, then we can conclude that the universe has always existed,
although the time does not exist in NJ, we can say that NJ was
own universe in its minimal state.
- // -
58
Page 59
We explain the origin of the universe in a logical and rational
we appeal to be without any mysterious, complex and conscious,
quite the contrary, we use it for the simplest object
possible - The "Nothing Jocaxian" ( NJ ) - and it we deduce that
our universe may arise naturally. Let us now analyze the
NJ in greater depth and show how it could generate a
logical universe, with Physical laws do not contradict.
The II.3- Nothing Jocaxian
The "Nothing Jocaxian" ( NJ ) is the "nothing" that exists. A system
physical devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws,
but also any kind of rule [1].
To try to understand and intuit NJ as a "nothing
existing "we can build it mentally as follows: the
our universe withdraw all matter, energy and fields
they generate. Now we can remove the dark energy and matter
dark. What's left is something that is not non-existent. Come on
continue our thought experiment and continue suppressing
elements of our universe: now let's take the physical laws and
spatial dimensions. If you do not forget to remove anything which
left is a NJ : An existing nothing.
The NJ Nothing is different from that commonly thought. Nothing in
It is commonly thought, and that we can call 'Nothing
Trivial "to distinguish it from NJ , it is something that it, nothing can
arise, ie "Nothing Trivial" follows one rule: "Nothing can
happen. " Thus the "Trivial Nothingness", the nothingness in which
people think of when talking about a "nothing" is not nothing
simple as possible, he has at least a restriction rule.
Jocax not set the NJ as something where there is nothing. Such
definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: "If the
nothing is nothing, then he does not exist ". No. First
Jocax defined what it means to exist: " Something exists when its
properties that define fulfilled within reality . " Thus,
NJ was defined as something that:
59
Page 60
1-It has no physical elements of any kind (particles,
energy, space, etc.).
2-It has no law (especially the built-in law "Nothing
Trivial ").
Thus, NJ may have physically existed. The NJ is a construction
that differs from the "trivial nothing" by not contain the rule "Nothing
It can happen. "In this way, your NJ Jocax free of paradoxes
Semantic like, "If it exists, then it does not exist." And states
this nothingness is SOMETHING that may have existed. That is, the "NJ" is
simpler possible physical structure, something like the minimal state
of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of
universe.
We should not confuse NJ definition with rules to be
followed. The NJ definition is only the declaration of a state. If
nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2
above, we say it is "Nothing Jocaxian". The state of a
system is something that can change, is different from a rule that
system must meet (otherwise it would not be a rule). Thus,
for example, the state "has no physical elements" is a state and
not a rule, because eventually this state may change. If