It has been cited that indeed there is no way to prove whether or not this could be the case — Benj96
I fail to see what difference "Last Thursdayism" makes. — 180 Proof
there is no way to prove whether or not this could be the case. — Benj96
I fail to see what difference "Last Thursdayism" makes. — 180 Proof
The relationship between the too is simply relative.
Thoughts? — Benj96
This statement could have traction. Because what proof is required to show that the universe has been around forever? The books at the library? The buildings and bridges we had built? The aging parents? Fossils? Meteorites falling from space? We have nothing but tangible objects to "prove" time. But the infinitesimal time dilation could very well be felt like a year, 10 years, 100 years, or forever. And the tangible objects -- that's the product of time dilation as well, for all we know.It has been cited that indeed there is no way to prove whether or not this could be the case. — Benj96
Paper doubt? :smile:is nothing but a paper doubt (Peirce) or pseudo-question / nonsense (Witty). — 180 Proof
information — Benj96
It's Thursdayism -- time dilation. — Caldwell
Isn't it that we could slow the v to zero meters (or miles) per second. The result is still zero, but not because velocity is equal to light speed. Trying to understand this part.But this formula also shows that if the velocity was at light speed then the bottom line of the equation becomes square root(0), which is 0. We then have observer time = proper time / 0. — universeness
Nothing can be faster than speed of light. Hence, Star Trek.In Star Trek, it is suggested that if light speed or greater can be achieved... — universeness
No we cannot use time dilation as evidence of last thursday (we're stuck with this terminology now, but okay... we both know what that means though). We could only use it to plant doubt as to the existence of the universe in billion of years.Time dilation is therefore not evidence of last Thursdayism — universeness
Isn't it that we could slow the v to zero meters (or miles) per second. The result is still zero, but not because velocity is equal to light speed. Trying to understand this part — Caldwell
Nothing can be faster than speed of light. Hence, Star Trek — Caldwell
I there is no way to determine whether a proposition is true or false, even in principle, then it is meaningless. — T Clark
For all you good people out there, this thread is about extremism. The point of view that the universe only existed last Thursday. So what could be gained from it? It is a challenge to our deep seated beliefs, the ones with absolute certainty. Nothing excites philosophers than a question of grounds for doubt -- why couldn't we just point to the sky, or to the moon as proof? Because paper doubt has that edge that we couldn't quite brush off. We have to deal with it. — Caldwell
lol. Yeah, that's what I was thinking, but not in relation to the square root. I was thinking of something else. So forget what I said. V at zero is at a standstill. V = SOL (only kinetic energy is infinite, but not the relation).No, if v=0 then the v squared divided by c squared part of the formula would be 0, BUT inside the square root part of the formula we have 1- so we would have 1-0 if v=0. This would give the answer 1. — universeness
This is correct.Thursdayism says the world started last Thursday. It has nothing to do with time dilation — Gregory
It can't be time dilation in a vacuum. Decomposing fractions does not have a relativity quality like time dilation where time is relative. Decomposing time into smaller and smaller fractions doesn't itself make it relative. So, the universe being created only last Thursday would have to be explained in relation to the infinitesimal fractions of time -- which confuses me.The full extent never summing to anything greater than 1 from start to finish. Much like expansion of space time it’s a dilation of time within itself. So that one week is both enough to carry out a working week and also to have an entinte universe come and go. The relationship between the too is simply relative.
Thoughts? — Benj96
I have no idea what age they would be in relation to you at their point of return. — universeness
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.