>>22479133Then you have no capacity to think for yourself if you cannot see that there is no such thing as a central rule for anything, not even universes. Science? Our science does not apply to other universes. Our science cannot explain everything. Our science is but one view of many. Only pure arrogance would suggest there is only one "truth". Same to me? Yes, I will admit that, but I remain firm on what I believe. I don't care if you don't think it's true, and I don't care if science doesn't think it's true. They also think that spacefaring species can only be hostile. I'll be dagged if I ever believe that, and I'll be dagged if other universes are not limited to our own limited way of thinking. They could be something that we totally cannot comprehend. The very idea of fourth dimensional relationships is a paradox to our mere third dimensional understanding. There could be multiple versions of our space/time overlapping us RIGHT NOW. There is another me occupying the same space I am, and countless others as well. There is another me elsewhere in what we know as our universe. There is also a universe where I am you and we are having this same conversation, yet all we can experience is what our existence here is. Even what I am saying can be a load of malarkey, and you can be right under certain circumstances, but there is also the one where I am right, all at the same time. Preposterous? Depends on how you look at it. In any case, I refuse to let them tell me, regardless of how well they think they can explain it in terms of what we understand, what to believe. It all means nothing to me.
>>22479197Proof? All proof is subjective. It all depends on if you want to believe it, regardless of what it is. I already said that it is possible for universes to exist that are beyond what we understand a universe to be. Can they still be called a universe? Yes and no. For them, they would be a universe, to us, perhaps not. Who is right?
