[Right Wing Professor]

This whole sidebar could have been nipped in the bud were it not for RWP hypothesizing a single spatial dimension universe

Which I didn't, as you admit. So why is your misreading of my words my problem?

The inversion becomes physically impossible because the “creator” RWP did not provide a temporal dimension and an additional spatial dimension (template, zero point, direction, etc.) for context.

I've answered this over and over again. I've also asked you, over and over again, to identify where time enters the problem. You are either unable or unwilling to do so.

Go learn some math, AG. That's the kindest thing I can say to you right now.

[Alamo-Girl]

If we have been talking past each other then I apologize.

My assertions from the beginning of this sidebar have been in context with the void which I raised way back at post 328.

Your counter-argument was:

The most symmetric possible 'thing' is the void; it looks the same irrespective of how we move it in any direction or rotate it. A point is less symmetric than the void; a sphere less symmetric than a point; and so on. There is nothing more symmetric than nothing, if you get my drift. So 'where does it come from' is the wrong question. To which I replied:

Whoa! There is no symmetry in the void. It cannot be observed, moved, rotated. It is null. There are no fields, no points, no space, no time in the void. No geometry, ergo no symmetry.

As you say a point is more symmetric than a field. But the term symmetry cannot be applied absent spatial and temporal dimensionality.

Again we are at the causal relation that were it not for A, C would not be. No space/time therefore no events, no things, no symmetry etc.

All along I’ve been arguing the point – not as a mathematical construct – but as physics. And as I have previously asserted, not all mathematical constructs translate well to physics. An inversion “in” a single spatial dimension universe is one, infinity is another.