[Bored chemist]

Yes, my idea is a bit difficult to explain as Bored chemist has asked how can the dead think its self into existence and how can a universe even think at all.

No, the problem is much worse than that.
Hypothetically, a dead thing which thinks is possible.

The problem is that, according to you, a non existent thing thinks.
That's clearly impossible.
The impossibility was recognised a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_causation

[Just thinking (OP)]

The problem is that, according to you, a non existent thing thinks.
That's clearly impossible.
The impossibility was recognised a long time ago.

Now I see the problem the coming into existence at the very start is as the big bang theory so this is matter that is not living and therefore it is dead. Then the thinking / conscious universe is the second state coming into being so the dead but existing universe began to develop into a conscious entity. I don't know if this is true but if it is this explanation may resolve the confusion or may not either way I failed to describe this theory in this way before.

[Bored chemist]

Then the thinking / conscious universe is the second state coming into being

Where did the previous stage(s) come from?

[Just thinking (OP)]

Where did the previous stage(s) come from?

This is the biggest question and mystery the best to date explanation is the TBB and goes a long way but is still not complete So that leaves room for other theories. Well, what about this we have heard about the possibility of a virtual universe like we are a simulation in some computer what if the conscious universe is like the computer and we are like a thought or a dream in the mind of this thinking entity the real universe may be only a form of electrical activity that is the mind and all we see and experience is a production of this mind. When we dream it seems real at the time but what if the activities that take place in themselves are real we only see our dreams from the outside the dream is a production to its self. The universe may be a long lasting dream our dreams are only little fleeting replicas of the big dream. If this is true the only question is where did the electrical energy come from?

[Origin]

Now I see the problem the coming into existence at the very start is as the big bang theory so this is matter that is not living and therefore it is dead. Then the thinking / conscious universe is the second state coming into being so the dead but existing universe began to develop into a conscious entity.

Why is this in new theories?  This clearly is not a theory or a hypothesis, this is a wag at best.  This should be moved to 'that can't be true'.

[Bored chemist]

So that leaves room for other theories.

Yes, but, outside of theology, it doesn't leave room for things that are logically impossible.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Why is this in new theories?  This clearly is not a theory or a hypothesis, this is a wag at best.  This should be moved to 'that can't be true'.

How can one conduct any research on the beginning or before the big bang the whole concept of the universe's beginning is a hypothesis at best no matter what the possibilities are. There is electrical activity in the universe we do exist we have a mind we consider does this make it a theory call it what you like.

[Just thinking (OP)]

that are logically impossible.

That just means you don't understand if something seems not logical that doesn't mean it is.

[Bored chemist]

Why is this in new theories?  This clearly is not a theory or a hypothesis, this is a wag at best.  This should be moved to 'that can't be true'.

How can one conduct any research on the beginning or before the big bang the whole concept of the universe's beginning is a hypothesis at best no matter what the possibilities are. There is electrical activity in the universe we do exist we have a mind we consider does this make it a theory call it what you like.

Did not parse.

[Bored chemist]

that are logically impossible.

That just means you don't understand if something seems not logical that doesn't mean it is.

No
It is logically impossible for a thing, which does not exist, to think.

[Just thinking (OP)]

No
It is logically impossible for a thing, which does not exist, to think.

The start of the universe was not the universe it started with the ability to think/dream and became the universe from that point on.

[Bored chemist]

No
It is logically impossible for a thing, which does not exist, to think.

The start of the universe was not the universe it started with the ability to think/dream and became the universe from that point on.

I'm sure we are all waiting for you to provide your extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.

However, even if it was true then it would contradict the thread's title.
It would mean that [whatever it was which possessed] "the ability to think/dream "
"may have thought" the Universe "into existence".

Which is an entirely separate idea; an idea which is theology rather than science.

[Just thinking (OP)]

I'm sure we are all waiting for you to provide your extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.

The world has been waiting for 101 years for proof of the big bang still waiting I will come up with my evidence tomorrow.

[Just thinking (OP)]

However, even if it was true then it would contradict the thread's title.
It would mean that [whatever it was which possessed] "the ability to think/dream "
"may have thought" the Universe "into existence".

Not really as I have said that it started with electrical activity that is not the universe the electrical activity is the mind that started the universe. So the universe is not the first thing to happen. First the electrical activity then the mind then the universe. See we must have an order.

[Just thinking (OP)]

This should be moved to 'that can't be true'.

There you go you can write your very first article in that can't be true on how my thread is wrong. You can do it I know you have it in you give it a go.

[Bored chemist]

I'm sure we are all waiting for you to provide your extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim.

The world has been waiting for 101 years for proof of the big bang still waiting I will come up with my evidence tomorrow.

Wrong in every material regard.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Wrong in every material regard.

a Belgium priest came up with the theory 101 years ago and destroyed his first belief and all without evidence.

[Origin]

The world has been waiting for 101 years for proof of the big bang

Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence and theories.

Not really as I have said that it started with electrical activity that is not the universe the electrical activity is the mind that started the universe.

That is not science, that is theology.

[Just thinking (OP)]

Science doesn't deal in proof, it deals in evidence and theories.

I'm glad you pointed that out as you say evidence and theories can be very wrong I would prefer to cut the chase and go for the proof. ps, a little bit of feedback on that can't be true would be nice you can spread a little bit of unreliable evidence and theory.

[Bored chemist]

say evidence and theories can be very wrong

Evidence is not wrong.