Originally Posted by CloseTheBlastDo
Ermm, there was no assumption made - so your statement is not so much incorrect as incoherent.
My reply was to the statement:
I wasn't talking about you personaly, I was talking about our society's assumptions in general, I have made you mistaken my comments.
Originally Posted by CloseTheBlastDo
But most physicists do NOT agree that matter was nessesarily created at the Big Bang - that idea forms no part of the big bang theory. Hence why the statement I was replying to was in error, and hence why I commented on it. Apparently, you seem to have taken my statement to mean that multiple universes - in any sense of that term - do not exist.
Now I know I didn't say this, I already believe other universers exist.
You couldn't be more wrong. I actually find the idea of multiple universes (whether multiple dimensions, or multiple sequencial big bangs / big crunches or universes created from within another one .via black holes, or some other method not now known...) quite a logical one - for many reasons:
As I will say again, I didn't say that you don't believe in other universes.
The Big Bang theory makes no statement nor optinion about whether matter was created at the point of the big bang, or alternately it always existed - in some form or another - and only at the big bang did it all start flying out from a 'central' point. That was the point of my reply. THe fact that you've assumed a whole bunch of other stuff that wasn't present in my reply says more about you than it does about me.
COnsidering how wrong you were in simply reading a reply on a forum, I find it hard to beleive that the true ultimate origins of the universe are 'obvious' to you... You may have 'an answer' that seems obvious to you (like a caveman might assume that all he needs to reach the moon is a tall enough tree to climb), but finding an answer you find 'obvious' doesn't make it true. That goes without saying.
Existence is infinite?
Exactly. So most of this first section of your reply either involves misunderstanding of the reply, or simply parrotting what I've already said...
...hmm - let's hope that the next section has more to offer...
Hmm - nope. More of the same nonsense. Where in the above did I assume that ours is the only universe?!
...the theory of the big bang only concerns our universe, and therefore that's all I'm referencing when I talk about the 'big bang'. Rather than keep banging on about all these things that I'm assuming that I have never stated (?!), I would humbly sugggest that it is you who should stop assuming. Specifically, you should stop assuming I beleive things that I have not stated I beleive, nor think. Thanks.
Again, I humbly ask you read and understand what I post before declaring my reasoning flawed. Thanks.
Well, since I assume neither, perhaps you can direct your rant at someone else please..?!
And note that the bit in bold is more parrotting. I already know that the big bang only relates to our universe. If you already know this, I wonder how you took my reply so incorrectly?!
Your happy to assume what you can't possibly know. Your life.
So after all your talk of You can't assume there is only one universe!, you now acknowledge that I made it clear that I do not assume - at all - that there is one universe?! Huh?
Would you be offended if I say that you seem a bit - ermm - inconsistent?!
I can only guess as to what the above is supposed to mean. But considering what I've had to read thus far, I'm not convinced that I'd be missing much :/
I'm sure this idea seems perfectly sensible to you. And I'm glad that you've found an interesting, mystical idea to help the universe make sense 'to you'. Of course since I haven't heard under what logic reasoning you've constructed this thouroughly entertaining theory, any evidence you may think you have for this interesting idea is inconsequensial. But as long as you don't mind this minor detail - well - whatever turns your crank...
Ermm - thanks for the offer, but no thanks. I don't need to invoke the idea of a 'cosmic intelligence', or a 'universal consciousness' to comfort my ignorance. Thanks.
As far as 'reality is horsesh*t' - ermm - a universal consiousness made of 'horse sh*t'? Well, this woudl certainly explain some of God's more dubious desisions. According to this theory, he / she / it didn't exactly have much to work with...!
And I'm pretty sure you mean 'band wagon'...
Hey, don't act condescending toward me ok, we just had a miss communication