Quote Originally Posted by Universal Mind View Post
Then why did you say I hadn't answered your question even though it's right here? Yes, I understand what you mean, but I don't think the issue your raise is valid. There's my answer to your question, but you said I hadn't answered it. Why did you say that?
You haven't actually answered the question. Also I don't know why you disagree (that's not much of an answer).

Redundant? What does it mean for me to know what you mean relative to my interpretation? What is that? Is it possible for me to know that my interpretation that I still have is wrong and that some other interpretation is correct although I hold on to the other interpretation? If I did that, how exactly would the idea I know is wrong still be my interpretation? Once I know an interpretation is wrong, it is no longer my interpretation. Right?
To be more clear on what you're saying you should actually elaborate in more detail on what your interpretation actually is. Besides that, it appears you're missing the point and playing semantics games again.

The pieces that exploded outward in the big bang. Quark-gluons and other elementary particles.
What are you talking about now? The chemistry/physics of the big-bang? That's not what I was referring to. I was talking about the view of time and space according to an observer.