Why bother even posting, then? Seriously, I'm getting sick of telling you, you really need to stop with the pointless posts.

Ban hammer time and hi Shenzi welcome home.

I didn't get to watch the video.

scientifically speaking, we are. this is just a little spec in a giant void, and nothing we do means anything because it all just ends eventually. it's what lies beyond science that gives us significance, because then we have the soul, which adds a layer of depth to reality, transcending the quasi-metaphorical flatness of the physical plane, and it also adds meaning and genuine identity to people, since otherwise, meaning, without the soul, people are just an extension of physical matter. nothing would "live" on the physical plane, so it wouldn't matter. with consideration to the soul, our actions mean everything.

Lol, spirituality. It's like a comedic representation of everything hilarious about prefixes like "quasi-" and their ilk.

Video was tl;dw, but I'll just casually assume that the thing was talking about the idea that we make decisions, or stuff happens, and that causes two universes to spring into motion and seperate.

I can't really roll with that idea on a philosophical or practical basis. My choice on whether or not to make porridge tomorrow morning produces an entirely new universe? Seems legit.

But even is there was some quasi-scientific (oh god, so good) reason for birthing new universes all over the place, I'm still a hard, incompatibalist determinist. If there only one way a given universe can go on, I can't really imagine there being new universes spawned from alternate timelines. Because, you know, there aren't any.

I'd put money on the fact that I've completely gone the wrong way on this one, and I've just totally owned a strawman, but whatever. 45 minutes? About some boring quasi-universe-quasi-physical-quasi-parallel-quasi-quasi theory? Can't be having with that.

Why is it science is determined to make us seem so insugnificant

That's because we are! Science, philosophy, and religion all tend to give us the sense that we are small. Our brains are wired up very powerfully, and it gives us the ability to think in ways that no other animal can, conceptualizing ideas of other worlds, planes, universes, after-lives, and metaphysics.

(post edited 07 Feb 2016)

http://people.morehead-st.edu/fs/k.mincey/Swenson.htm

                    The Universe
                  by May Swenson
                     (1919-1989)
 
                        What
                            is it about,
            the universe,
            the universe about us stretching out?
    We, within our brains,
             within it,
                            think
  we must unspin
the laws that spin it.
                            We think why
                because we think
        because.
                Because we think,
                              we think
                              the universe about us.
 
                But does it think,
                            the universe?
                                Then what about?
                                                About us?
                                           If not,
must there be cause
                            in the universe?
Must it have laws?
                                        And what
                                    if the universe
                                                    is not about us?
                                        Then what?
                                                    What
                                                           is it about?
                                        And what
                                                                about us?

Pasted from <http://people.morehead-st.edu/fs/k.mincey/Swenson.htm>

When unexplained phenomena are being discussed in a casual environment, it is acceptable to use the word "theory" in place of "hypothesis" "myth" or or any word that implies a statement is intended as a possible explanation.  The probability of someone bringing up technicalities is proportional to the number of parties involved.

(I didn't see it here, but it's a good fallacy resource: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep … ments.html)

And if we can take that possibility, then it doesn't really matter then if another universe is possible because there would be no way of having knowledge of such a universe unless founded completely by accident in terms of a universe in which another one may not even apply.

I think it's definitely possible, however, for multiple universes to exist.  I think the way universes exist can be based on probability.  And no matter what it takes, or 'how long' it takes for a universe to form, what might be improbable for a short time, might be inevitable in an eon.

You are interpreting it wrong though, you need to take the whole definition, and not the first 3 words. The rest refers to the way that knowledge or study is, not referring at all to what is generally accepted. That is why we can't use the term in ways like:

"Science says---"

You need to say:

"Scientific studies suggest---"

Though is you want another web source to back it up, Wikipedia.

And just to point out, the quote from my post you responded to wasn't mine, it was Carl Sagan's.

and yes, it can be wrong. the definition of science
knowledge of the physical, and the concept of science, are the same thing. if people "know" something based on the scientific method, that ends up being wrong, science was wrong.