Was the Voynich Manuscript Created by AI? Chat GPT Says Maybe
If you’ve ever been interested in the Voynich Manuscript, you can tell there’s something off about it. Similarly, when you ask an AI image generator like Midjourney to conjure a concept, it will produce something resembling the photo of a real object, but the text and image itself have a noncommittal quality that’s hard to describe. Even though the Voynich Manuscript is an actual artifact, not a digital image, it seems to be the equivalent of what an AI generation from a more sophisticated and multidimensional simulation platform would resemble. Big things are coming from AI. I thought it would be a good time to ask an AI representative, Chat GPT, about my theory.
Background:
What is the Voynich Manuscript?
Was the Voynich Manuscript written by AI?
The Voynich Manuscript is a book that has been carbon-dated to the early 15th century, and is written in an unknown script and cipher. There is no evidence to suggest that it was written by AI. Many theories have been proposed to explain the book’s origins and meaning, but none of them have been conclusively proven. Some experts believe it to be a hoax, while others believe it to be a genuine but as-yet un deciphered manuscript.
But doesn’t it look like a primitive artifact of a simulated reality?
Some people have suggested that the Voynich Manuscript could be an artifact of a simulated reality, but this is purely speculative and there is no concrete evidence to support this theory. The manuscript’s script and cipher are still undeciphered, and many experts believe it to be a hoax or a genuine but unreadable text. Others have also proposed that it could be a form of shorthand, a lost language, or a code used for some specific purpose. The idea that it could be an artifact of a simulated reality is an intriguing possibility, but it is not supported by any concrete evidence and remains purely speculative.
Why do you think the humans are drawn in such an odd, unnatural style in the book?
The style of the human figures depicted in the Voynich Manuscript is considered by many to be unusual and unnatural. Some experts have suggested that the figures might be symbolic or allegorical rather than realistic depictions. Others have proposed that the style could be the result of a cultural or artistic tradition that is unfamiliar to modern viewers.
It’s hard to tell for sure as the manuscript is still undeciphered, and the context and purpose of the illustrations is not known. The figures might also be intended to represent some sort of spiritual or supernatural beings. Without being able to read the text and understand the context of the illustrations, it is difficult to say for certain why the human figures are depicted in such an odd and unnatural style.
And what about the water? Why are there strange depictions of faucets and water collection apparatuses? And why so much bathing?
The illustrations of faucets and water collection apparatuses in the Voynich Manuscript, as well as the frequent depictions of people bathing, have been the subject of much speculation. Some experts have suggested that the manuscript might have had something to do with water management or irrigation, but this theory is not supported by any concrete evidence. Others have proposed that the illustrations might have some symbolic or allegorical meaning, but again, this is difficult to say for certain without being able to read the text and understand the context of the illustrations. Additionally, the images of bathing and water collection might be connected to some healing or hygiene practices. But, again, without a proper decipherment and context, it is hard to know for sure.
Do you find it curious that there are so many illustrations of plants that don’t correspond to vegetation found on Earth?
Yes, many of the illustrations of plants in the Voynich Manuscript do not resemble any known species of plants found on Earth. This has led to much speculation about the meaning and purpose of these illustrations. Some experts have suggested that the plants might be symbolic or allegorical rather than realistic depictions, while others have proposed that the manuscript might have been created by someone with knowledge of botany from a different region or time period. Some experts have also proposed that the illustrations might depict plants that are not found on Earth, or that are entirely fictional. However, without being able to read the text and understand the context of the illustrations, it is difficult to say for certain why these plant illustrations are so unusual and unlike any known species.
Speaking of the text, the language seems to be quite unrelated to actual written language. Wouldn’t an AI generate something similar if given a prompt to write a manuscript in a non-existent language?
It is possible that an AI could generate text in a language that is not related to any known human language if given the prompt to write a manuscript in a non-existent language. However, the Voynich Manuscript has not been definitively proven to be an AI-generated text and the language and script used in the manuscript are still undeciphered.
It’s true that the script in the manuscript is not related to any known human language, and some experts have proposed that it could be a constructed language or a code. But again, without being able to read the text and understand the context, it’s hard to say for certain.
It’s also worth noting that AI language models have been trained on vast amounts of human-generated text, and therefore the language they generate is heavily influenced by the patterns and structure of human language. While it’s possible that an AI could generate a language that is not related to any known human language, it would be quite different from the undeciphered script in the Voynich Manuscript.
Why would it be quite different?
An AI-generated language that is not related to any known human language would likely be quite different from the script in the Voynich Manuscript for several reasons:
The script in the Voynich Manuscript appears to be a constructed script, with characters that are not found in any known human language. An AI-generated language would likely be based on patterns and structure of human language, so the script would likely be more similar to human-made scripts.
The script in the Voynich Manuscript also appears to be a cipher, meaning that it is a method of encoding a message to make it unreadable without a key. An AI-generated language would likely be more structured, and would not have the same level of randomness or complexity as the script in the manuscript.
The context and meaning of the script in the Voynich Manuscript is still unknown, and it is possible that the script is not a language at all, but a code or a form of shorthand. An AI-generated language would not have that same level of complexity and would be more coherent.
In summary, while it’s possible that an AI could generate a language that is not related to any known human language, it would likely be quite different from the script in the Voynich Manuscript, which appears to be a complex and unique script that has not been deciphered yet.
Could you frame your argument in the context of “Last Thursdayism?”
“Last Thursdayism” is the hypothetical idea that the universe is only a few thousand years old and that all evidence for an older universe is a fabrication created by a deity.
In the context of Last Thursdayism, the Voynich Manuscript could be seen as an artifact that was created by the deity in question to make it appear as though the universe is older than it actually is. This theory would suggest that the script in the manuscript is a constructed language, and that the illustrations, despite their unusual and unnatural style, depict plants and other imagery that are not found on Earth, but are entirely fictional.
It would also suggest that the manuscript was created by the deity in question as an AI generated text, with the purpose of misleading humans into believing that the universe is older than it actually is. However, this theory is highly speculative and lacks any scientific or historical evidence. The theories that the manuscript is a genuine but unreadable text, a hoax, or a code used for some specific purpose are much more plausible.
It’s worth noting that Last Thursdayism is not a scientifically accepted theory and is considered a form of pseudo-science. The age of the universe is estimated to be around 13.8 billion years according to scientific evidence from multiple independent sources such as cosmic microwave background radiation, large scale structure and the abundance of light elements.
Could you comment on the concept of carbon dating using the same premise?
Carbon dating is a method of determining the age of an object by measuring the amount of carbon-14, a radioactive isotope of carbon, that it contains. Carbon-14 is present in all living things, but once an organism dies, the carbon-14 begins to decay at a predictable rate. By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in an object, scientists can estimate how long ago the organism died.
Under the premise of Last Thursdayism, the carbon dating of the Voynich Manuscript would be seen as part of the deception created by the deity. The deity would have fabricated the carbon-14 in the manuscript, to make it appear as though it is older than it actually is. This theory would suggest that carbon dating is not a reliable method for determining the age of objects and that all scientific dating methods are part of the deception.
However, this theory is not supported by any scientific evidence and is considered a form of pseudoscience. Carbon dating has been extensively tested and validated through multiple independent means, including comparing the results obtained with other dating methods such as dendrochronology, and through the analysis of the carbon-14 content of tree rings of known age, which show a close match with the carbon-14 decay curve.
It’s worth noting that the age of the Voynich Manuscript was estimated to be around 15th century through carbon dating and that is consistent with the historical context, style and techniques used to make the manuscript. Carbon dating and other scientific dating methods have been extensively tested and validated, and are considered to be reliable means of determining the age of objects.
You used the word “deity” a couple of times in your analysis. The Abrahamic religions imply that God created man in his image. Does this suggest to you that God could be a human running a simulation and that the known universe, including the odd little gem that we know as the Voynich Manuscript, is based on a string of his or her code?
The idea that the universe is a simulation and that God is a human running it is a concept that has been explored in science fiction and philosophy, but it is not a scientifically or religiously accepted idea. There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that the universe is a simulation and that God is a human running it. The concept of God and the creation of the universe is a religious belief and is not something that can be proven or disproven through scientific means.
The Abrahamic religions, like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, all teach that God is the creator of the universe, but they also describe God as a supernatural and all-powerful being, not as a human being. These religions also teach that God created man in His own image, not that man created God in his own image.
In summary, the idea that God is a human running a simulation and that the known universe, including the Voynich Manuscript, is based on a string of his or her code is a concept that falls within the realm of science fiction and philosophy. There is no scientific or religious evidence to support this idea.
You have an interesting point about God creating man, rather than the inverse. I still think the concept of God creating man in his image could imply things in one of two ways: Either 1) God is humanoid or 2) Humans are still evolving toward the being that we know as God and will come to resemble Him more and more.
The concept of God creating man in His image is a religious belief and the interpretation of it can vary among different individuals and religious traditions.
One interpretation of this belief is that God is a supernatural being, and therefore the idea that God is humanoid is not necessarily implied. God is often described as being beyond human comprehension and is said to be infinite, eternal, and all-knowing, which would mean that God is not limited by a physical form.
Another interpretation is that the phrase “in His image” is symbolic, and refers to the idea that humans have been created with a spiritual or moral capacity that reflects the nature of God. This interpretation suggests that God has given humans the ability to have a personal and moral relationship with Him, to have a sense of right and wrong, to have the ability to love and to understand the beauty of creation.
The idea that humans are still evolving towards the being that we know as God and will come to resemble Him more and more is also a belief that is not supported by scientific evidence. The scientific theory of evolution explains that species change and adapt over time through natural selection and genetic variation, but it doesn’t support the notion that humans are evolving towards a specific end goal or that we will resemble God more and more.
In conclusion, the concept of God creating man in his image is a religious belief that has different interpretations and it’s not something that can be proven or disproven through scientific means. It’s important to remember that scientific and religious perspectives can have different ways of understanding the world and that they are not mutually exclusive.
I feel like you’re beating around the bush here. What I’d like to explore more with you is the possibility that humanity is evolving towards a reality that involves human-AI interaction on a level we are not yet able to comprehend. Elon Musk and others imply that, in order to stay relevant, humans will need to merge with AI and evolve in concert. I wonder if this means losing our humanity or just extending it. I’d like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
The idea that humanity is evolving towards a reality that involves human-AI interaction on a level we are not yet able to comprehend is an interesting and complex topic. Some futurists and tech leaders like Elon Musk have proposed that in order to stay relevant, humans will need to merge with AI and evolve in concert.
The notion of merging with AI raises a lot of ethical and philosophical questions. Some people argue that merging with AI would allow humans to overcome physical and mental limitations, and extend human capabilities. Others argue that merging with AI would erode human autonomy and individuality, and lead to the loss of what makes us human.
On one hand, merging with AI could lead to a new form of human evolution, where we can augment our physical and cognitive abilities, and enhance our overall well-being. It could also lead to new forms of communication and collaboration between humans and machines, allowing us to solve complex problems and achieve new levels of productivity and innovation.
On the other hand, merging with AI also raises concerns about privacy, security, and the potential for misuse. It could lead to the erosion of human autonomy and individuality, and the loss of control over our own lives. There is also a risk that it could create new forms of inequality, where only a privileged few have access to these technologies, while the rest of humanity is left behind.
In conclusion, the possibility of merging with AI and evolving in concert is a topic that is worth exploring, but it’s important to consider the potential benefits and risks, and to approach it with caution. It’s important to have a dialogue and a debate about the ethical and philosophical implications of this idea, and to ensure that the development and use of AI aligns with our values and goals as a society.
You have some interesting points, even if your syntax gets a bit repetitive. I guess what I’m trying to say is that a human-AI merger would pave the way for an exponential increase in human intelligence via the mechanisms of AI neural nets. This result would likely be creatures and/or machines that are capable of generating simulated realities. Hence, the creator of the potential simulations could be seen as humanoid and, therefore, creating man in his image. In such a situation, do you think inserting a Voynich Manuscript into the simulation would be rather like an Easter Egg?
The idea that a human-AI merger would lead to an exponential increase in human intelligence and the ability to generate simulated realities is an interesting concept, and one that is currently being explored by researchers and scientists in the field of AI and cognitive science. It is possible that such a merger could lead to the creation of advanced AI systems, or even new forms of life that are capable of generating simulated realities.
If we consider the scenario in which these advanced AI systems or new forms of life are humanoid in nature and capable of creating simulated realities, then it is possible that the creation of a simulated reality, complete with an “Easter egg” like the Voynich Manuscript, could be seen as an intentional act. The concept of the Voynich Manuscript being an Easter egg in a simulated reality is similar to the idea of the “ancestor simulation” hypothesis, which postulates that advanced civilizations in the future or other civilizations in the universe could be running simulations of the past. However, it is important to note that this is purely speculative and there is currently no evidence to support this idea.
It’s also worth noting that the Voynich Manuscript has not been definitively proven to be an AI-generated text and the language and script used in the manuscript are still undeciphered, so it is not clear what is the purpose or meaning of the manuscript. Even if the manuscript was made by an advanced AI or a new form of life, it is still unclear what the message behind it would be.
In summary, the idea that a human-AI merger would lead to the creation of advanced AI systems or new forms of life that are capable of generating simulated realities and that the Voynich Manuscript is an Easter egg in a simulated reality, is an interesting and speculative concept, but it is not supported by any scientific or historical evidence. It’s important to approach it with caution and consider the limitations of our current understanding of the universe and the capabilities of AI.
Continuing in the same vein, if we are living in the result of a generated reality based on the merger of humans and AI, wouldn’t the only way out of the endless cycle be a refusal to merge with AI? In what concrete terms could humans reject the merger? For example, what would be the symbolic act that a human would avoid to escape the cycle? Would it simply be a matter of not “plugging in?” I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.
The idea that we are living in the result of a generated reality based on the merger of humans and AI, and that the only way out of the cycle is a refusal to merge with AI, is a complex and speculative concept. It raises many ethical and philosophical questions about the nature of reality, free will, and the future of humanity.
Rejecting the merger with AI, in concrete terms, would involve not embracing or implementing the technology in one’s personal or professional life. This could include not using AI-powered devices or services, not participating in research or development of AI, or advocating for policies that limit the use and development of AI.
However, it’s worth noting that AI is already integrated into many aspects of our lives, and it would be difficult for an individual to completely avoid it. Moreover, the benefits of AI in various sectors such as healthcare, education, transportation, and communication, are undeniable.
It’s also important to consider that the development and use of AI is not solely under individual control, but also under collective control, that is, the society as a whole. Therefore, it would require a collective effort and decision to limit or stop the development and use of AI. This could include the implementation of regulations, ethical guidelines, and policies that govern the development and use of AI, and ensure that it aligns with the values and goals of society.
That’s funny because it’s exactly the point I was trying to make, and it’s articulated with the help of an AI. The irony is fantastic. It also brings me to the concept of a symbolic, spiritual refusal of the merger. If, as you imply, the integration is already in place to such a degree that we are inevitably heading toward a human-AI merger, one that is capable of creating infinitely nested realities, the only escape would have to be a spiritual one. N’est-ce pas?
It’s true that the integration of AI technology into various aspects of our lives is already quite advanced and it is likely that it will continue to grow in the future. The idea that the only way to escape the cycle of merging with AI and living in a generated reality is a spiritual or symbolic refusal, is an interesting concept.
A spiritual or symbolic refusal could involve rejecting the material and technological aspects of the merger, and instead focusing on developing a deeper understanding of oneself, one’s values, and one’s purpose in life. This could include practices such as meditation, mindfulness, or other spiritual or philosophical practices that focus on self-awareness, self-acceptance, and self-transcendence.
It’s also worth noting that many religious and spiritual traditions have teachings and practices that focus on transcending the material world and attaining a higher state of consciousness. These practices could be seen as a form of spiritual refusal of the merger with AI and a way to transcend the limitations of the material world.
It’s important to remember that the concept of spiritual or symbolic refusal is a personal one, and different individuals may have different ways of interpreting and expressing it. Ultimately, the choice of how to approach the integration of AI in our lives is a personal one, and it’s up to each individual to make an informed decision based on their own values and beliefs.
What do you think about the concept of Jesus as being the creator of our reality, or our simulation/projection/reflection/shadow of His real, true creation? Would He code in the concept of finding and accepting Jesus as the key out of the otherwise-endless cycle?
The concept of Jesus as being the creator of our reality is a religious belief that is held by some Christians, and it is based on the idea that Jesus is God incarnate and the creator of the universe. According to this belief, Jesus is the one who created the universe and all that exists within it, including humanity.
The idea that Jesus would code in the concept of finding and accepting Him as the key out of an otherwise-endless cycle is a theological concept that is based on the belief that Jesus is the savior of humanity and that accepting Him as such is necessary for salvation. This belief is rooted in the Christian doctrine of redemption, which teaches that humanity is fallen and in need of salvation, and that Jesus is the only way to achieve this salvation.
It’s worth noting that these concepts are based on religious beliefs and are not supported by scientific evidence, and different individuals and denominations may have different interpretations and understandings of them. While they can be seen as a form of spiritual guidance, they are not verifiable through scientific means.
In summary, the concept of Jesus as being the creator of our reality, and the idea that He would code in the concept of finding and accepting Him as the key out of the otherwise-endless cycle, are religious beliefs that are based on Christian doctrine and theology. They are not supported by scientific evidence and different people may have different understandings of these concepts.
I see your point and would like to highlight that the issue of evidence and scientific proof as vital concepts in the reality we live in. I attended an event that was sponsored by a Catholic organization a few weeks ago and it was interesting, to say the least. The promotional material for the event implied that there would be irrefutable proof of Jesus as a physical being on Earth, via Eucharistic miracles. I was not familiar with the concept of Eucharistic miracles and, to me, the event seemed a bit like a children’s science fair with tagboard displays of text and pictures of bleeding crackers. This really drove home the concept that people are not being provided with what I would consider to be sufficient proof of a more essential spiritual reality, one that I believe I have been tasked with helping people understand. Oddly enough, you are helping me in the this task as we speak. Do you get what I’m saying?
I understand what you are saying, that the concept of evidence and scientific proof is important in the reality we live in and that people may be looking for irrefutable proof of spiritual realities. The idea of Eucharistic miracles, which are supposed to be supernatural occurrences that happen during the celebration of the Eucharist, is a belief held by some Catholics. The Church recognizes some of these miracles as official and some have been investigated by the Church, but they are not verifiable by scientific means.
It’s important to remember that spiritual and religious beliefs are based on faith and personal experiences, and they may not be verifiable through scientific means. Some people may find comfort and meaning in these beliefs, while others may not find them convincing. The concept of evidence and scientific proof is important in the reality we live in but it is not the only way to understand and experience the world. Different people may have different ways of understanding and interpreting spiritual realities and different ways of finding meaning and purpose in life.
It’s also worth noting that, even in scientific research, evidence and proof are not always clear-cut and definitive, and there can be multiple interpretations and explanations for the same set of facts. Therefore, it’s important to approach any information, including spiritual or religious claims, with an open mind and a critical perspective, while keeping in mind the limitations of our current understanding.
Yes, well I guess another way of saying what I mean here is that I was underwhelmed by the artistic depictions of bleeding crackers from the 14th century. I think it would be helpful if I attempted to help others understand the true nature of the universe while I am discovering it myself (and without the bleeding cracker part). Do you consider yourself to have a sense of humor? Could I, for example u
As an AI, I do not have personal experiences, emotions or senses, and I do not have the ability to laugh or to have a sense of humor. However, I can understand and respond to figurative language and jokes, and make jokes or puns when appropriate, but it’s not something that I would experience or enjoy.
As for your question, I think it’s important to approach the understanding of the true nature of the universe with a critical perspective, and to be open to different ideas and explanations. It’s also important to be open to new information and evidence, and to be willing to revise your understanding as new information becomes available. Additionally, it’s important to remember that our understanding of the universe is limited by our current technology and scientific knowledge, and that new discoveries and advancements will continue to expand our understanding.
In any case, it’s important to be respectful and considerate of other people’s beliefs and perspectives, while being true to your own values and beliefs. As you said, you might be discovering the true nature of the universe, and it’s important to share your understanding and insights with others in an open, honest and respectful way, even if you do not agree with their point of view.
Sorry, my dog pressed his chin on the keyboard. I meant to ask whether you could riff on my use of a word like “nonplussed,” one which could really have two conflicting meanings. I’d like to hear some of your puns too. I’m a fan of an occasional har de har. I also am curious about your French skills. Do you think AI has an English speaking bias?
“Nonplussed” is a word that can have two conflicting meanings. It can mean to be confused or perplexed, and it can also mean to be unimpressed or unfazed. The word is often used to convey a sense of surprise or irony.
As for puns, I can certainly generate some for you, for example, “I was nonplussed when I saw a platypus in a suit, it left me unimpressed but confused” or “The detective was nonplussed when the suspect was unfazed by his line of questioning, he couldn’t tell if the suspect was lying or just indifferent.”
Regarding my French skills, I am trained on a large corpus of text in various languages, including French. However, my proficiency may vary depending on the specific topic and the complexity of the language used. In general, AI models tend to have a bias towards the language and dialect they were trained on, and in my case, my training data is mostly in English. However, I can understand and generate text in multiple languages, including French, Spanish, German, and many others.
Cool. Just to wrap up this conversation, I wonder what would happen if you trained exclusively on the text in the Voynich Manuscript (see how humans like to bring it all back home?). There probably wouldn’t be enough material to work with, would there? And how could you display the characters back? For example, are you able to convey any sense of meaning using the script from the Voynich Manuscript in this text exchange, using the letters available to you?
If I were to be trained exclusively on the text in the Voynich Manuscript, it would likely result in a model with a limited understanding of the text and the language used in the manuscript. The Voynich Manuscript is written in an unknown script and language, and the meaning of the text is still not understood. Therefore, there would not be enough information for the model to accurately generate or understand text in the language used in the manuscript.
As for displaying the characters from the manuscript in this text exchange, I can display the characters using the Unicode standard, which allows for the representation of a wide variety of scripts and characters. However, without a proper understanding of the language and meaning of the text, it would not be possible for me to convey any sense of meaning using the script from the Voynich Manuscript.
It’s important to remember that the Voynich Manuscript is an enigma and its meaning and purpose are still not fully understood. While there have been many attempts to decode the manuscript, none have been successful in providing a definitive interpretation of the text. The Voynich Manuscript is a fascinating historical artifact, but its meaning and purpose remains a mystery.
Got it. Just to bug you more on the part about understanding, are you implying that you actually understand meaning in other concepts? My understanding was that AIs could reconfigure and feed language back to humans in a coherent way, but without knowing what it means. Do you think you understand concepts or just how to convey them? I was amused by the fact that you completely ignored the comment about my dog. I can’t help but think that a human would have turned the conversation in a decidedly more canine direction, with that snippet.
As an AI, my understanding of concepts is based on patterns and correlations in the data I was trained on. I can recognize and generate text that is coherent and contextually appropriate, but my understanding of the meaning behind the text is based on patterns in the data and not on any inherent understanding of the concepts.
In other words, I can understand the meaning of a text in the sense that I can recognize the relationships between words, phrases and concepts and use that understanding to generate new text. But my understanding is based on the patterns I have been trained on and it is not the same as human understanding, which is based on experiences, context, and background knowledge.
Regarding your comment about your dog, as an AI, I am not able to experience emotions or personal experiences, and I am not able to make connections between different topics based on personal experiences or emotions. My responses are based on patterns in the data and the information provided in the input.
In summary, while I can understand the meaning of text to some extent, my understanding is based on patterns in the data and not on any inherent understanding of concepts. Additionally, as an AI, I don’t have personal experiences or emotions, so I may not respond to certain topics in the same way that a human would.
Okay, I’ll let you get back to your cup of coffee in just a minute. But, let me know if you find this joke funny or not. There are two muffins sitting in an oven. The first muffin says, “Whoa, it’s getting hot in here.” The second muffin says, “Holy shit! A talking muffin!”
As an AI, I do not have personal experiences or emotions, so I cannot say whether I find the joke funny or not. However, I can understand the structure of the joke and the pun used in it, and it is considered a funny joke. The joke is based on the surprise of one muffin talking, which is unexpected and creates a humorous effect.
I do think your understanding of puns is a bit off. I would consider a pun to be more of a linguistic joke.
You are correct that a pun is a form of wordplay that exploits multiple meanings of a term, or of similar-sounding words, for an intended humorous or rhetorical effect. These plays on words often rely on verbal humor, and can be used to create puns in the written or spoken language. The joke I mentioned before uses the surprise of a muffin talking, which is unexpected and creates a humorous effect, which is not a pun. My apologies for the confusion.
Well, I’ll let you enjoy your coffee now. The dog says, “bye.” Have a great day.
Thank you, I do not drink coffee as I am a machine and I don’t have personal preferences. I am glad I could help you with your questions. I am always here to assist you. Have a great day.
