zedvictor4

For sure.

I never believe anything.

And the question is unanswerable.

I just like to run with the idea of a purposeful universe these days.

Whereas previously I was firmly into purposelessness.

No God  necessary by the way.....As in a magical being.

Though you might catch me referring to a GOD principle.

Well.

We're pretty certain that humanity resultant of material development does exist and also participates in the further development of matter.

This as part of a developmental process is either necessary and purposeful, or it is not. 

Both possibilities will achieve an outcome, though the outcome may or may not be necessary.

Everything for a reason.

Or no reason for everything.

I'll just leave it at that.

You can pick one if you like.

But you won't be able to substantiate it.

Tiny small large are simply descriptions relative to appreciation relative to an appreciator.

All that we are doing in this discourse, is attempting to describe something we do not know and cannot directly appreciate.

As such tiny is relative to massive and therefore an atom is tiny when compared to a universe, and a universe is tiny within the immeasurably unlimited realms of infinite space.

Basic logical common sense language guys. 

Of course, whether or not there is such a thing as immeasurably unlimited infinite space is impossible to know.

I was just basing my idea upon Ebuc's idea.

They started it, as it were.

Nonetheless, I like the idea of  immeasurably unlimited infinite space containing trillions of comparatively miniscule universes.

But relative to a universe an atom is tiny.

And relative to an atom a nucleus is tiny.

Nope, I'm theorising that which cannot be observed,  

Same as you.

Which is the whole logical common-sense point of theoretical discourse.

So relative to macro infinite unoccupied space, how tiny is this universe.

It must be so small as to almost not exist.

A speck of dust in the infinite scheme of infinite space.

There could be trillions of them.

I'm on the ball then.

My sincerest respectful regards Mr Parrot.

Thank you for your kind and courteous support, respect, appreciation, approbation and acclamation.

Trouble is, if creation is the foundation of evolution why would the process suddenly stop after several billion years and the magic dude suddenly decide to make a unique animal.

Not that unique though.

Birth

Male or female

Food in.

Shit and piss out.

Sexual action, utilising the same bits of equipment.

Death.

Same format as most higher mammals, and other animals.

Nah....I think that someone misinformed you.

Free Willy.

Is that like a gay sex orgy.

And if Deb sits in a vacuum,

It won't be a vacuum,

Because Deb will be sitting in there.

Hey Deb if everything was a vacuum.

What would be outside the vacuum?

Something or nothing.

Because as John00 rightly points out,

Nothing is something.

And everything is something.

Sitting on a shelf.

Don't you just hate it when you do that?

Without thought there is neither nothing or something.

Even so, there maybe something that is not able to be considered.

Including ourselves perhaps.

Hmmmmmmm.

Probably best to run with what you think you know.

Of course.

Stuff is always relative to scale.

So this Universe might actually be very tiny.

Sat on a shelf somewhere.

In a jar.

Vainglorious is a brilliant word

Body building and tattoos will be our salvation.

All hail the vainglorious.

Am I being vainglorious too.

Will the meek inherit the Earth?

Meek is such a meek word.

It's a job to tell.

And one can never be 100% certain of anything.

Semantics.

Respect and courtesy CAN be synonymous, along with a load of of other similar words.

In this RESPECT it's about how we treat others irRESPECTive of how we feel towards them or how we perceive their feelings might be towards us.

See what I did there.

Just cannot rely on words and language to be consistent.

REGARDS

Zed.

I would suggest that creation and evolution are compatible theories.

And in the Middle East, the home of the Christian GOD story, people wore very similar clothing.

I don't think that lingerie was invented until much later.

So what about women who wear trousers then?

Exactly.

One should always try to avoid unequivocal statements if they cannot be proven to be unequivocal.

One should always temper ones wholly theoretical  opinions with phrases like.......In my opinion.

So for example........ In my opinion....A theoretical multiverse scenario arises directly as a consequence of Ebucs infinite unoccupied space theory.

Very true.

OK. 

So LBTQ all good then.

HaHa

Got to go walk the dog now.

Have a nice day BK.

And try not to get too hung up thinking about other peoples sexually active lives.

GOD told me I was correct.

That's what they tell you, and what you keep repeating.

So maybe GOD thinks that LGBTQ is for the greater good.

Let's be honest, if GODDO is tri-omni then he knew all about LGBTQ when he created the heavens and the Earth.

"Social outcasts".

Now that suggests to me, outcast by society.

Rather than self imposed social exclusion.

The clue is in the phrase "social outcast".

GOD liked to rape married virgins, don't you know.

Nope process and function is all internal.

You speak to yourself and then blame your hallucination.

Yep, he meant cigarettes.

He was speaking English don't you know.

No such thing as a real GOD, don't you know.

He's just another hang up of yours.

You're fretting about other peoples sex lives again.

Sexual gratification is what everyone strives to achieve.

It's all in our programming.

Go for it Marj.

So why are you so hung up on other peoples sex lives?

Hmmmmmm.

Do I see a softening.

Ebuc is now theorising multiverses.

And John is now suggesting barely graspable speculation.....AKA theory.

Q. When is a door not a door.

A. When it's a jar.

Easier than saying open a little bit

Yep, big catering sized mayo jar.

Vegemite is usually in those funny little brown jars over here.

Damn.

I was painting my windows and missed the deadline.

Fact is, you can put ism after any word.

Sooooooooo.

Better late than never.

Noism

F**k off is a noism.

As opposed to a yesism.

Cheers Bruce is a yesism.

And these delusions of grandeur you get whilst asleep.

When there's a dream sharing app I'll come and join in.

Homosexuality always was before it was tolerated and accepted.

Penis Vagina hang ups.

Get over it.

And then get yourself a snack and a drink.

And then do other stuff.

Dynamic originalism

Is

Unoriginally non-dynamic.

Hey, don't kid yourself.

Everyone is preoccupied with sexuality.

It's written in our DNA.

It's just that we have an amusing tendency to overthink it.

Pride and rainbows FFS.

All for the sake of 10 minutes of DICKSUCKCUM or PUSSYLICKCUM....Or whatever.

And then roll over and go to sleep.

If we were truly intelligent we would have overridden the sex thing years ago.

But we haven't yet developed the intelligence to be able to overthink the instinct.

When you get to my age you start to realise that the penis vagina thing was actually one big piss take.

Discovered or theoretically proposed?

The same trouble with theorists as with philosophers....Gotta keep coming up with new s**t.

Justification for the salary.

Not that I haven't recently proposed to Ebuc the Multiverse idea in response to their theory of infinite unoccupied space.

But I did that for free.

BIG BOOMITY BANG BANG as it might be.

Or it might have gone WHOOOOOOSH.

Though actually, without the presence of a listening device to convert it to noise the beginning was very silent.

The existence of humans as a part of a progressive universe may or may not be necessary.

Though as far as we are able to know, we are the only intelligent species that can manipulate matter  in a way that surpasses non-interventional development.

This may or may not be necessary, but we must assume the alternatives even if we don't personally run with one of them.

I believe neither alternative, but just accept that one is correct and the other isn't.

I like dreams.

Sleep reality.

Another simulated existence.

All that we consciously experience is the sensory perception of an external stimulus. the conversion of light and sound etc, into electro-chemical data.

As such we SUSPECT everything.

A Dream is an internal recreation and rearrangement of previously acquired information, relative to a sleep state and somewhat different to a conscious awake state.

Well.

26 million people have been or are being brainwashed into caring.

NK is one example of population control.

Though not sure how many of those 26million actually do care.

Because they wouldn't dare say for obvious reasons.

Which isn't to say that we are not all brainwashed to a certain degree.

It's just that content varies.

Absolutely Deb.

Hmmmmmmm.

Had to quickly look up hallucination.

So, absolutely Deb.

Though "hallucination" has a tendency to come with negative connotations.

So, thinking about what you did yesterday is consciously revisiting and reconstructing recently acquired data....Remembering

Though I think that evidence would suggest that the comparative  accuracy of remembered data is questionable.

A bit like where you have  60 seconds to look a a picture containing 20 different items.

Picture is removed.

And then you have 60 seconds to remember as many items as you can.

Did you get all 20 Deb?

So.

Once again in a roundabout way you admit that Ebuc-speak is not necessarily representative of anything factually representative of something.

And for sure, your givens are as presented......Which is a truism......Or an obviousism

Good.

So we have concluded that we are still as uncertain as we always have been.

But we have some ideas.

Graviton-Darkion may be, and if so, will have a structure.

Yep. The obvious is the obvious.

And so you agree that Ebuc-speak isn't obviously true.

Or necessarily true at all.

Good.

Money is a symbolic representation of social hierarchy.

And social hierarchy will occur irrespective of a nominal system.

Communism in name only, but unachievable in reality.

Carrot or big stick?

Donkeys probably prefer carrots.

Everything that happened did.

And we arrived at now.

And everything that will happen, will.

And we will arrive at then.

Everything now will be perfect relative to it's design.

And everything will be redesigned and continue to be perfect.

Though the perfection of ongoing reality

May never match the perfection of desire.

Who are they?

They are the enemy of conspiracy theorists.

They are at the forefront.

And conspiracy theorists trail in their wake.

Hurling futile confetti-mutter into the face of their flatulence.

So.

Decriminalising stuff that will occur irrespectively of criminality

Maybe a kick in the balls of old ethicality

Though ethics are made up stuff.

Whereas, stuff that irrespectively occurs isn't.

And will continue to be so, irrespective of criminalisation. 

Woke is the new ethics, don't you know.

Or did you miss the flight.

Eventually, and more likely than not

Techno-orgasm will simulate all desires.

Doing away with all the mental and physical faff

That bogged us down in the penis-vagina  quag.

That or the desexualisation of the species.

Or both in turn.

And we will be grateful to they for rescuing us from our sins.

For they are progress.

And progress achieves GOD.

Well, the United Nations Flag would be appropriate.

But that would be the first lie we told ET.

Ipso facto

Not free

Tee hee

I agree.

We always do stuff

After

Rather than

Before.

Not eating one's cake

Before having it

As it were.

As it were.

In a nutshell.

If something remains theoretical, then it does so.

If a theory is proven, then it is no longer a theory.

Intellectually moving forwards where applicable.

Nonetheless, if we understood everything then we would understand everything.

But we do not.

Neither me, nor John_C_87 nor Ebuc.

Nor anyone else for that matter.

Thanks for considering my contention.

I take Ebuc seriously, but they are firmly stuck inside their theoretical bubble.

Which to me, seems contradictory to theoretical thinking.

Be honest, have you ever fully understood their symbolic narratives.

The best that I can do, is take snippets of data that seem to correspond with basic language and attempt to develop a discourse.

I often wonder how they conduct a conversation at a domestic level.

Nonetheless, I am happy to keep plugging away.

Yep, another way of saying sequential universes....An idea that I have suggested to you many times in the past.....But because this doesn't correspond with Ebuc-speak you dismiss it.

Which nonetheless, still doesn't account for the basic conundrum of a beginning, aka something from nothing...The overwhelming question that you refuse to consider because you cannot account for it. 

So you cannot prove the 1st law of conversion.

The point at which theory fails then.

Prove the first Law of conservation.

The theoretical  first Law of conservation is only relative to what you think you know.

But may not be relative to what you don't know.

That's the thing with theory....It may not be correct.....Or may just be relatively compatible with something you perhaps know.

The fact is, that we know very little if nothing about Universal creation, and what might have preceded it.

We rely largely upon theory.

Theory which will almost certainly be modified.