Something from Nothing

[ChristineM]

You have shown nothing , please show where you have shown something pre-big bang?

My opinion is based on the highest logic, not drivel and subjective make believe.

Untruth becomes you
https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207

Considering nothing is known pre -10e42 of a second after the bb i really would love to see this logic so perhaps you can provide a peer reviewed academic paper to validate you opinion

 

[james blunt]

Considering nothing is known pre -10e42 of a second after the bb i really would love to see this logic so perhaps you can provide a peer reviewed academic paper to validate you opinion

I have not wrote it yet , so it as not been published yet but it will even I do not write it. In reality you cannot say my theory is incorrect because it is the only theory and knowing pre-big bang.
I used after the big bang physics to deduct a pre-big bang process that has objective merit.

 

[ChristineM]

I have not wrote it yet , so it as not been published yet but it will even I do not write it. In reality you cannot say my theory is incorrect because it is the only theory and knowing pre-big bang.
I used after the big bang physics to deduct a pre-big bang process that has objective merit.

So Jim, you would have no problem setting out your logic?

 

[james blunt]

So Jim, you would have no problem setting out your logic?

Not at all and obvious we start with nothing and defining nothing.

We can look at nothing in two ways,

1) 0 dimensions , a point, a singularity

2) An unknown volume of points, any point being a singularity , 0 dimensions.

Both describe nothing.

Ok so far?

 

[james blunt]

Moving on , I want you to shut your eyes and imagine number 1 and number 2.

The vision you will see of 1 or 2 will be the same picture which I have ''printed'' out of my mind to show the picture.

 

[james blunt]

The next part is the complex part,

You now have to observe the picture to be n-dimensional , the picture is not dark or light, the picture is absolute nothing .

If you can process this information you can see what nothing looks like.

Consider you are looking at an infinite invisible person, that helps.

Added - Or just consider space is invisible.

P.s this is the hardest part to ''see'' it took me ten years or so .

 

[ChristineM]

Not at all and obvious we start with nothing and defining nothing.

We can look at nothing in two ways,

1) 0 dimensions , a point, a singularity

2) An unknown volume of points, any point being a singularity , 0 dimensions.

Both describe nothing.

Ok so far?

3) a vacuum

4) an empty volume

5) my bank balance

 

[ChristineM]

Moving on , I want you to shut your eyes and imagine number 1 and number 2.

The vision you will see of 1 or 2 will be the same picture which I have ''printed'' out of my mind to show the picture.

View attachment 21794

Imagine blows it out of the water, if it needs imagination it is unreal

 

[ChristineM]

The next part is the complex part,

You now have to observe the picture to be n-dimensional , the picture is not dark or light, the picture is absolute nothing .

If you can process this information you can see what nothing looks like.

Consider you are looking at an infinite invisible person, that helps.

Added - Or just consider space is invisible.

P.s this is the hardest part to ''see'' it took me ten years or so .

You previously stated 0 dimensions, now it's "n" dimensions.

If the picture is nothing then it is not a picture

And an infinite invisible person hiding in nothing that can't be nothing because it contains infinite invisible person.

Nasa states space is beige, so not invisible then except in your imagination.

So every point of your "logic" fails.

 

[james blunt]

You previously stated 0 dimensions, now it's "n" dimensions.

If the picture is nothing then it is not a picture

And an infinite invisible person hiding in nothing that can't be nothing because it contains infinite invisible person.

Nasa states space is beige, so not invisible then except in your imagination.

So every point of your "logic" fails.

I guess you are still using your eyes to see the picture.

 

[ChristineM]

I guess you are still using your eyes to see the picture.

You are welcome to guess all you want, seem thats how you get your answers anyway

 

[james blunt]

You are welcome to guess all you want, seem thats how you get your answers anyway

Well Madam, there was no point continuing if you have not got the cognitive freedom to ''see'' my thought I shared with you .

 

[ChristineM]

Well Madam, there was no point continuing if you have not got the cognitive freedom to ''see'' my thought I shared with you .

I dont consider guesswork and irrational jumps to fill the unknown to be worth seeing.

 

[james blunt]

I dont consider guesswork and irrational jumps to fill the unknown to be worth seeing.

Guess work ? We had not even got past nothing because you have weak vision, no insult intended.

 

[ChristineM]

Guess work ? We had not even got past nothing because you have weak vision, no insult intended.

Considering you have no evidence of super/supernatural beings and nothing is known pre bb, yes guess work

I can't envision delusion, no insult intended.

 

[james blunt]

Considering you have no evidence of super/supernatural beings and nothing is known pre bb, yes guess work

I can't envision delusion, no insult intended.

No, I am a genius

 

[ChristineM]

No, I am a genius

A genius in your own mind... It shows ;-/

 

[james blunt]

A genius in your own mind... It shows ;-/

But only in my mind do I need to be a genius, to be a genius.

 

[ChristineM]

But only in my mind do I need to be a genius, to be a genius.

And what is your PhD (or equivalent qual) in Jim?

 

[james blunt]

And what is your PhD (or equivalent qual) in Jim?

A piece of paper does not make'th the person, to be or not to be, is to be.