The scientific method rejects the presupposition of truth. — VagabondSpectre

I did not ask what presuppositions you reject, I asked what presuppositions you have (perhaps uncritically) adopted in claiming to know the age of the universe.

One way we can tell is by measuring the continual expansion/separation between observable bodies of matter, and by charting their positions, speeds and distances we can predict how long it took for them all to arrive at where they are from the central point of expansion. — VagabondSpectre

What presuppositions must one adopt in order to predict past behavior on the basis of present measurements?

Another way we can try to tell the age of the universe is by figuring out the age of the oldest observable stars and star clusters. — VagabondSpectre

What presuppositions must one adopt in order to estimate the age of the oldest observable stars and star clusters?

"Reasonably dispute"? Basically nothing. — VagabondSpectre

Your bias is showing; you are imposing your own presuppositions as rational requirements that everyone must adopt, without identifying them let alone providing justification for them.

How do we distinguish justified belief from genuine knowledge? — aletheist

Well, how do we? If justification is insufficient to warrant the claim of knowledge, then what is? — SophistiCat

I asked you first. :) It was a sincere question. No doubt every person has some beliefs that are justified yet false, which therefore do not qualify as genuine knowledge. Hence modesty seems to be the proper attitude about them.

What presuppositions must one adopt in order to predict past behavior on the basis of present measurements? — aletheist

Causation.

What presuppositions must one adopt in order to estimate the age of the oldest observable stars and star clusters? — aletheist

Proven theories pertaining to astrophysics.

Your bias is showing; you are imposing your own presuppositions as rational requirements that everyone must adopt, without identifying them let alone providing justification for them. — aletheist

Huh?!?

Your personal presuppositions, whatever they may be, do not challenge the scientific truths that I've described. I never said anyone must adopt anything. What i said was that in order to overturn these examples of scientific truth as unreasonable or unreliable you need to confront overwhelming amounts of evidence.

You can try and say something like "Oh but your evidence is based on your personal presuppositions", but that's just a platitude that can be said about anything.

"The Moon orbits the Earth".

"Oh but what presuppositions must one adopt in order to asses the position of the moon?".

"Reasonable ones."

This is a very meaningless statement. We know that an event X occurred, but we don't know what X was. Every time we attempt to describe X, we are probably wrong, so how can we even make the claim that X occurred? X has absolutely no meaning because we don't know what X is. It's like saying I know that there is something there, but I have absolutely no idea what it is. What's the point in even naming it X, if it could be absolutely anything? Why not call it what it is, the unknown, instead of creating the false impression that there is something known here? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not meaningless at all.

We know the rapid expansion of heat and energy happened; an explosion. It's like we've found an area where there is clear evidence of an explosion having occured, but we don't know what the bomb was, why it exploded, (or who may have put it there).

We know X, a heat-expansion event, occurred, but we don't know everything about it. Why is that so intellectually upsetting to people?

We have a very good description of what the big bang was, we just don't know have a complete and full description with receipt. As science progresses though we're getting better and better pictures of the past, including the big bang. Astrophysics has accepted and incorporated the rapid expansion model for quite awhile now, and as inter-disciplinary work starts to emerge more and more (quantum physics applied to the study of the early universe for instance) it's rapidly solidifying as a well confirmed scientific fact.

Ask a physicist, and they're likely to tell you that we're as certain that a big bang of some sort occurred as we are certain that the earth is round.

What presuppositions must one adopt in order to predict past behavior on the basis of present measurements? — aletheist

Causation. — VagabondSpectre

How does causation, all by itself, warrant beliefs about past behavior on the basis of present observations?

What presuppositions must one adopt in order to estimate the age of the oldest observable stars and star clusters? — aletheist

Proven theories pertaining to astrophysics. — VagabondSpectre

How can we "prove" any theories about the past, entirely on the basis of present observations?

"The Moon orbits the Sun". "Oh but what presuppositions must one adopt in order to asses the position of the moon?". "Reasonable ones." — VagabondSpectre

I am guessing that you meant to say, "The moon orbits the earth." In any case, I have no problem with relying on our best theories about how the universe currently works to make fairly definitive statements about the present, and even some predictions about the future (which we can subsequently test to see if they are borne out). The issue is uncritically adopting the same level of confidence when making fairly definitive statements about the past, especially the very distant past; e.g., "The moon began orbiting the earth 4.5 billion years ago."

How does causation, all by itself, warrant beliefs about past behavior on the basis of present observations? — aletheist

Brute force.

Causation is just one of those things that keeps showing to be true via experience and observation.


It's fundamentally required to exist for science to work, and it needs to be extremely consistent for science to provide us with reliable predictions and understandings. I can only prove it by repeated experimentation.

How can we "prove" any theories about the past, entirely on the basis of present observations? — aletheist

We take the causal relationships that we observe and in the same way we use them to make future predictions, we simply reverse them to infer the past.

Explosions cause debris fields. When we explode things we predict that the physical forces emanating outward from a local point creates a certain pattern in the resulting scattering of matter that we call a debris field. When we find a debris field, we reason that an explosion is what caused it.

I have no problem with relying on our best theories about how the universe currently works to make fairly definitive statements about the present, and even some predictions about the future (which we can subsequently test to see if they are borne out). The issue is uncritically adopting the same level of confidence when making fairly definitive statements about the past, especially the very distant past; e.g., "The moon began orbiting the earth 4.5 billion years ago." — aletheist

The reason why we can use observations of the present to predict (and thereby understand) the future is because the present and the future are connected. The past and the present are also connected, via causation. It's an axiomatic truth that is unproductive and unreasonable to deny.

I asked you first. :) It was a sincere question — aletheist

I thought that my position was clear. JTB is not an operational definition of knowledge. While justified is operational, true is aspirational. When deciding whether some belief warrants the claim of knowledge, justification is the only criterion that needs to be met. We can't produce anything above and beyond justification that would signify truth. (Again, I am excluding the kinds of belief that don't fit the JTB model in the first place.)

No doubt every person has some beliefs that are justified yet false, which therefore do not qualify as genuine knowledge. Hence modesty seems to be the proper attitude about them. — aletheist

Most of us are on board with fallibilism. But that attitude ought to extend to pretty much all of our beliefs. When you single out one particular belief, surely you have more than this platitude in mind?

Causation is just one of those things that keeps showing to be true via experience and observation. — VagabondSpectre

I am not questioning whether causation is a presupposition of beliefs about past behavior that are based on present observations; I am questioning whether it is the only such presupposition.

We take the causal relationships that we observe and in the same way we use them to make future predictions, we simply reverse them to infer the past. — VagabondSpectre

Right - we (quite reasonably) presuppose that nature has "always" operated in the same way that we observe it operating today; or at least, all the way back to very soon after the posited Big Bang. However, we do not - and cannot - know that this is the case.

The reason why we can use observations of the present to predict (and thereby understand) the future is because the present and the future are connected. The past and the present are also connected, via causation. It's an axiomatic truth that is unproductive and unreasonable to deny. — VagabondSpectre

That the past, present, and future are connected does not entail that that the laws of nature are invariant throughout all time. Such a conclusion requires the presupposition of causal determinism, which many people (quite reasonably) reject.

When deciding whether some belief warrants the claim of knowledge, justification is the only criterion that needs to be met. — SophistiCat

It seems to me that we have to make a distinction of some kind between justification that warrants belief and justification that warrants knowledge. Otherwise, the two concepts would be indistinguishable, which is obviously not the case.

When you single out one particular belief, surely you have more than this platitude in mind? — SophistiCat

I am not really singling out one particular belief, but one particular kind of belief - definitive scientific pronouncements about the very distant past. For the reasons that I just posted, I think that there is inadequate warrant for claiming to have knowledge in such cases.

We know the rapid expansion of heat and energy happened; an explosion. — VagabondSpectre

"Expansion of heat and energy" is a nonsense phrase. It doesn't make any sense at all to say that heat or energy expands. This idea just comes about from the inadequacies of general relativity to provide us with the means to understand what really has happened.

We have a very good description of what the big bang was, we just don't know have a complete and full description with receipt — VagabondSpectre

OK, if you think that "heat expansion" is a good description, then explain to me what heat expansion means.

Ask a physicist, and they're likely to tell you that we're as certain that a big bang of some sort occurred as we are certain that the earth is round. — VagabondSpectre

In case you're not up to date with modern geodesy, the earth is not round.

"Expansion of heat and energy" is a nonsense phrase. It doesn't make any sense at all to say that heat or energy expands. This idea just comes about from the inadequacies of general relativity to provide us with the means to understand what really has happened. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not nonsense at all. Explosions are the rapid expansion that results from a sudden release of heat and energy.

But what are you really saying here. "General relativity is inadequate"? What are it's inadequacies?

"The heat-expansion event" is just short hand for saying that approximately 13.7 billion years ago, all the matter and energy that is in the observable universe was in a very hot and very dense state as it expanded outward.

P.S, Oblate spheroids are round!

That the past, present, and future are connected does not entail that that the laws of nature are invariant throughout all time. Such a conclusion requires the presupposition of causal determinism, which many people (quite reasonably) reject. — aletheist

Basically you're suggesting that even though empirical science has given ample evidence to warrant accepting the big bang, they might be wrong because of some sort of magical interference.

Spooky dice rolls. Newtonian indeterminacy. The Hand of God. Call them what you will, on-going experimentation continuously weakens the case that can be made for them. So long as the technology which is built using the laws we hope are constant keeps working, it's good enough for me.

Basically you're suggesting that even though empirical science has given ample evidence to warrant accepting the big bang, they might be wrong because of some sort of magical interference. — VagabondSpectre

You are not even trying to understand the point that I am actually making.

So long as the technology which is built using the laws we hope are constant keeps working, it's good enough for me. — VagabondSpectre

Technology is built using the laws of nature that we observe now, and have observed (for the most part) over a time period of only a few hundred years. Even if we extend that to the entire span of human history, there is no way for us to observe whether the same laws of nature operated in the same way over a time period that is posited to be six orders of magnitude greater than that.

You are not even trying to understand the point that I am actually making. — aletheist

I think I understand it. You're saying that since we cannot be sure causation happened in the past like it does in the present, we cannot be sure evidence of past events is meaningful or points to what really happened.

Sure... We cannot be sure...

But absolute certainty never was on the docket, only reasonable belief. We have no good reason to presume that physical constants were different in the past, except possibly in the very hot and dense early universe where the big bang description still applies.

Arbitrarily presuming that the laws of physics suddenly changed at some point (in order to avoid a conclusion we don't like: the rapid expansion model) goes against the preponderance of observational evidence we do have.

You're saying that since we cannot be sure causation happened in the past like it does in the present, we cannot be sure evidence of past events is meaningful or points to what really happened. — VagabondSpectre

No, not causation in general; rather, the specific laws of nature as we observe them operating today.

We have no good reason to presume that physical constants were different in the past, except possibly in the very hot and dense early universe where the big bang description still applies. — VagabondSpectre

We also have no good reason to presume that they were exactly the same over that entire vast period of time.

Arbitrarily presuming that the laws of physics suddenly changed at some point (in order to avoid a conclusion we don't like: the rapid expansion model) goes against the preponderance of observational evidence we do have. — VagabondSpectre

Who said anything about sudden changes? Another possibility is that the laws of nature have evolved gradually over time.

Note that I have never suggested in this thread that the universe is not 13.7 billion years old; I have simply challenged your assertion that we know it to be 13.7 billion years old.

It's not nonsense at all. Explosions are the rapid expansion that results from a sudden release of heat and energy. — VagabondSpectre

I know what an explosion is, and a sudden release of energy, I just don't know what an expansion of heat or energy is supposed to mean. By the law of conservation of energy, energy does not expand.

But what are you really saying here. "General relativity is inadequate"? What are it's inadequacies? — VagabondSpectre

General relativity leaves us with the notion of spatial expansion, which is nonsense. This indicates that general relativity is inadequate for understanding the nature of the universe. The real issue is the relationship between space and time which relativity theory creates, making time a fourth dimension. This leaves us incapable of understanding non-dimensional things. We know that there is zero dimensional existence, the evidence is abundant in mathematics. The only logical way to incorporate the non-dimensional into our understanding of reality is to allow time to be the 0th dimension. This requires establishing a completely different relationship between time and space from the one which relativity gives us, which makes time the fourth dimension.

"The heat-expansion event" is just short hand for saying that approximately 13.7 billion years ago, all the matter and energy that is in the observable universe was in a very hot and very dense state as it expanded outward. — VagabondSpectre

And I'll say it again, that's just unintelligible nonsense. What's the point in describing something as unintelligible nonsense rather than just saying "we don't know", other than to create the deceptive impression that one knows what one is talking about, when this is really not the case.

Scientifically, I agree with molecular-panspermia (Extraterrestrial organic molecules).

Indeed, statistically it is plausible that organic molecules can be formed from dusts (and later meteorites and comets) in space. These molecules may have become precursors for life after crashing on planets. Amino acids was also detected in one of the comets, if my memory serves me right.

It is important to note that amino acid in nature is L type (and not D). I think MChD (Magneto-Chiral Dichroism) can provide an answer for that.


*of course this is subject to change in light of new evidence.

By the law of conservation of energy, energy does not expand. — Metaphysician Undercover

Energy can cause expansion, such as in explosions.

General relativity leaves us with the notion of spatial expansion, which is nonsense. This indicates that general relativity is inadequate for understanding the nature of the universe. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wow.

So general relativity, a theory with mountains of evidence to confirm it, is "nonsense" because you don't like the notion of spatial expansion. Wonderful argument. Top marks.

And I'll say it again, that's just unintelligible nonsense. What's the point in describing something as unintelligible nonsense rather than just saying "we don't know", other than to create the deceptive impression that one knows what one is talking about, when this is really not the case. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you're honest with yourself I think you will realize that the rapid expansion description of the universe isn't "just unintelligible nonsense".

You want us to say "we don't know", but we do know. We know that roughly 13.7 billion years ago all the matter and energy in the universe was in a very hot and very state, and expanded.

That's not nonsense, nonsense would read like this: " the real issue is the relationship between space and time which relativity theory creates, making time a fourth dimension. This leaves us incapable of understanding non-dimensional things. We know that there is zero dimensional existence, the evidence is abundant in mathematics. The only logical way to incorporate the non-dimensional into our understanding of reality is to allow time to be the 0th dimension. This requires establishing a completely different relationship between time and space from the one which relativity gives us, which makes time the fourth dimension."

No, not causation in general; rather, the specific laws of nature as we observe them operating today. — aletheist

If you think about it, the laws of nature define causation. The pull of gravity causes movement. The strong and weak nuclear forces cause atomic and molecular activity, and electromagnetic fields have effects (causes) of their own. Change the laws and you change causation

We also have no good reason to presume that they were exactly the same over that entire vast period of time. — aletheist

Except for the fact that the laws of physics haven't yet changed under our watchful eyes. they remain stoicly and suspiciously consistent.

It's more reasonable to assume the laws didn't suddenly change in the past because they don't suddenly change right now. If the laws kept suddenly changing, then I would be with you in assuming that in the past they did change.

If you think about it, the laws of nature define causation. — VagabondSpectre

No, we hypothesize laws of nature to explain causation; or rather, what we presuppose to be causation, rather than just random events.

Except for the fact that the laws of physics haven't yet changed under our watchful eyes. they remain stoicly and suspiciously consistent. — VagabondSpectre

How long have we been capable of carefully monitoring the universe's adherence to the currently accepted laws of physics - 100 years or so? Compared to the corresponding estimate for the age of the universe, it is less than the blink of an eye. Proportionally, it is like saying that because we do not observe any significant changes in 10 seconds, a person who is 43 years old probably has not changed at all since the day he/she was born.

It's more reasonable to assume the laws didn't suddenly change in the past because they don't suddenly change right now. If the laws kept suddenly changing, then I would be with you in assuming that in the past they did change. — VagabondSpectre

You skipped right over my comment that addresses this. Here, let me repeat it for you.

Who said anything about sudden changes? Another possibility is that the laws of nature have evolved gradually over time. — aletheist

Besides, our understanding of the laws of nature has changed quite radically over the last century or two. Furthermore, there is no way for us to tell for sure whether the tiny deviations that our instruments routinely detect from our precise mathematical predictions are entirely due to measurement error, as we usually assume, or actually reflect continuing evolution and/or random fluctuations of the laws of nature themselves.

No, we hypothesize laws of nature to explain causation; or rather, what we presuppose to be causation, rather than just random events. — aletheist

There's no causation without consistency. Think about it. If things just happened randomly, "cause" would be an incoherent term. The consistency that we do observe in causes and effects provides the basis for the "laws" (our invention) that we use to describe and predict those causes and effects.

The fact that there is consistency is why we make up laws to describe it: that consistency is what we call causation. And it's all borne out by evidence.

How long have we been capable of carefully monitoring the universe's adherence to the currently accepted laws of physics - 100 years or so? Compared to the corresponding estimate for the age of the universe, it is less than the blink of an eye. Proportionally, it is like saying that because we do not observe any significant changes in 10 seconds, a person who is 43 years old probably has not changed at all since the day he/she was born. — aletheist

Until we measure changes in causation, it just seems safer to presume that they tend not to. If and when we do measure a change, we can just invent a new law that describes how they change. Until completely random stuff starts happening, I'll choose not to assume they did simply because i might want to avoid conclusions I dislike.

Who said anything about sudden changes? Another possibility is that the laws of nature have evolved gradually over time. — aletheist

As above, if they evolve overtime and we notice that evolution, that's when we should overturn our existing axioms and adapt them accordingly. We don't notice gravity getting stronger or weaker, and if we did, we would measure it and describe it's change as a "law".

But what you're choosing to assume is that the physical constants of the universe are so inconstant that our evidence for the big bang is illusory. It almost seems like the laws of physics would need to completely reverse in order for that to be the case...

Until completely random stuff starts happening, I'll choose not to assume they did simply because i might want to avoid conclusions I dislike. — VagabondSpectre

As I have already tried to make clear, my comments have nothing to do with the conclusions of modern science, or whether I like them. I am pointing out the presuppositions that underlie them, which most people - including you, apparently - adopt uncritically. This is a philosophy forum, after all.

As above, if they evolve overtime and we notice that evolution, that's when we should overturn our existing axioms and adapt them accordingly. — VagabondSpectre

What if they are evolving so slowly at this point that it would take thousands of years before the change is large enough to exceed our usual measurement errors? What if they evolved faster in the very distant past? How would we be able to tell? Again, I have no problem with applying the laws of nature as we currently understand them to the present and (short-term) future; the issue is assuming that they were the same billions of years ago.

As I have already tried to make clear, my comments have nothing to do with the conclusions of modern science, or whether I like them. I am pointing out the presuppositions that underlie them, which most people - including you, apparently - adopt uncritically. This is a philosophy forum, after all. — aletheist

What I'm saying is that thanks to observational evidence displaying consistency, it's not an uncritical presupposition.

What if they are evolving so slowly at this point that it would take thousands of years before the change is large enough to exceed our usual measurement errors? What if they evolved faster in the very distant past? How would we be able to tell? Again, I have no problem with applying the laws of nature as we currently understand them to the present and (short-term) future; the issue is assuming that they were the same billions of years ago. — aletheist

Why assume they were different?

The big bang is the model of what happened if the laws of physics are more or less consistent throughout time. There's no possible model for random variance in the laws of physics.

The longer our instruments continue to measure no change in the psychical constants we have identified, the weaker the presupposition that they suddenly changed becomes.

The big bang is the model of what happened if the laws of physics are more or less consistent throughout time. — VagabondSpectre

I agree, and your acknowledgment of this presupposition is what I was seeking all along. Of course, you are also presupposing that our current understanding of the laws of physics is correct.

The longer our instruments continue to measure no change in the psychical constants we have identified, the weaker the presupposition that they suddenly changed becomes weaker and weaker. — VagabondSpectre

I am guessing that you meant physical, not psychical. In any case, to repeat myself yet again: I am not talking about sudden changes, but gradual ones that would be imperceptible over many human lifetimes - perhaps even the entire history of the human race.

So general relativity, a theory with mountains of evidence to confirm it, is "nonsense" because you don't like the notion of spatial expansion. Wonderful argument. Top marks. — VagabondSpectre

I'm glad you have such a high appreciation of what I said. Until you can explain spatial expansion in a way which makes sense, I'll assume my top marks are well deserved.

If you're honest with yourself I think you will realize that the rapid expansion description of the universe isn't "just unintelligible nonsense". — VagabondSpectre

OK then, if you want to discuss philosophy instead of just throwing around catch phrases like "Big Bang", "space itself is expanding", and "rapid expansion of heat and energy", as if there's something real that these phrases represent, then let's have a go, and see if these phrases really refer to something intelligible or not. But speaking gibberish and claiming it to be intelligible doesn't make it intelligible.

Why not call [the Big Bang] what it is, the unknown, instead of creating the false impression that there is something known here? — Metaphysician Undercover

A lot of extremely clever scientists, utilising sophisticated technology, have come to the view that the Universe began with rapid expansion from a single point. They're not simply sitting around the camp-fire spitballing 'how did it all begin, George?' There are masses of observational data - and besides all the hypotheses are subject to constant questioning and review. Scientists don't believe anything just for the sake of believing it. Certainly there are many things unknown about it, but the fact that you can't believe that it happened doesn't count for evidence against it.

I have a lot of respect for your posts on philosophy, but I think most of your arguments against scientific topics are variations on: 'I can't understand that at all, and unless you can explain it to me, it must be nonsense'. There are very many confounding discoveries in science, things that highly intelligent people have wrestled with, even to the point of breakdown. Often they can only be represented in the language of mathematical physics which I know I don't comprehend. But that doesn't mean they're 'talking gibberish'.

OK then, if you want to discuss philosophy instead of just throwing around catch phrases like "Big Bang", "space itself is expanding", and "rapid expansion of heat and energy", as if there's something real that these phrases represent, then let's have a go, and see if these phrases really refer to something intelligible or not — Metaphysician Undercover

Big bang cosmology provides us with a model for past events which happens to be the best fit for all the observational data. It's taken basically 80 years for the scientific community to come to grips with it, and they'll be damned if they haven't tried to falsify it. So without ado, here's it's beginning:

In the 1920's an obscure Belgian priest and a soviet super nerd used general relativity to mathematically derive and hypothesize that space/the universe was expanding, only to be sneered at by Einstein, right up until 1929 when Edwin Hubble published his discovery that the farther away an object is from the earth (deep space objects), the quicker it is moving away from us. Everyone had more or less assumed that the distribution of matter in the universe was static and Einstein himself resisted the idea of an expanding universe even when it was an implication of his own theory (see: the cosmological constant), but the observational evidence Hubble offered could not be discounted. Unless the milky-way and some nearby galaxies are the center of the observable universe, the fact that everything is moving away from us can be more simply explained by a metric expansion of space itself rather than by proposing that everything happens to be traveling away from us as a central point. With the expansion of space itself no matter where you're at all distant objects are getting farther away from you. To be clear, metric expansion of space means that the distance between any two given points is growing (has no observable effect within local gravitational fields which bind things together).

An expanding universe implies that in the past everything was closer together, and taken to it's extreme implies that all observable objects were in a very dense (and therefore hot) cluster. "Big bang" was just a kind of simplified descriptor for the magnitude of the expansion of the early universe (in that it contained all the matter and energy in the observable universe) and contrasted well with the static universe cosmological model, and the name stuck. There are various distinct models that fall under the "big bang" moniker, but broadly they all propose and describe a very dense and very hot period of the early history of the universe which featured energetic expansion.

There's more evidence for the big bang and the metric expansion of space, but I won't try to bore you with that until we sort out whatever is unintelligible with the above briefing.

It seems to me that we have to make a distinction of some kind between justification that warrants belief and justification that warrants knowledge. Otherwise, the two concepts would be indistinguishable, which is obviously not the case. — aletheist

Sure, but these would not be distinctions in kind - only distinctions in degree. There are no two things by which we can recognize knowledge - justification and truth - only justification: how much of it we have, how secure it is, and so forth.

I am not really singling out one particular belief, but one particular kind of belief - definitive scientific pronouncements about the very distant past. For the reasons that I just posted, I think that there is inadequate warrant for claiming to have knowledge in such cases. — aletheist

But why this particular kind of belief? The reasons that you give aren't very convincing. There are innumerable ways in which the world could be different from how we imagine it to be, and this goes not just for deep past but for immediate present as well. You would have to do more work to explain why you draw the line where you do.

Or maybe you don't have to. After all, you are just making a personal epistemic choice, and one where nothing much rides on it. The stakes are almost inconsequential: whether or not to call certain beliefs "knowledge".

(By the way, if the laws or constants did change in the past, there would have been evidence of it that we would have readily noticed. The structures of our theories are highly integrated and there's a lot of consilience in the observations, so that changing one or two things in the structure is almost impossible without conflict with already available evidence. But that's only if we change one or two things. There are still infinitely many ways in which the world could conspire to be very different while still maintaining the appearances.)

I must say, nice job with a brief summary. But I don't think any of the people here really understand the mathematics and science behind this and no matter how many times you try to convince those that just emotionally reject the idea, they are not going to change their mind.
I don't completely understand it either because I am not an astronomer but a physical chemist.

Science is extremely sophisticated today because they are built upon very large, multi-discipline, intuitively hard to understand branches of science. All of these branches intertwine in so many different ways. It impossible for one to be able to understand all of this in a lifetime. General public usually never get the chance of understanding how much of the correct effort numerous scientists have put to get this far. And if they don't understand and wants to reject it, they suddenly think they are smarter than these large group of scientists, as seen numerous times on this forum. A very sad reality.

By the way, if the laws or constants did change in the past, there would have been evidence of it that we would have readily noticed. The structures of our theories are highly integrated and there's a lot of consilience in the observations, so that changing one or two things in the structure is almost impossible without conflict with already available evidence. But that's only if we change one or two things. There are still infinitely many ways in which the world could conspire to be very different while still maintaining the appearances. — SophistiCat

Some YEC's (and I'm not saying that aletheist is one) claim that the speed of light in a vacuum was faster in the past in order to account for the "starlight problem." However, one rejoinder to this line of argument is that, as c factors into the energetics of nuclear reactions via E = mc^2, nuclear processes would have been greatly more energetic with higher values of c, and would have reduced the Earth to a cinder, or something to that effect.

I am too lazy to chase down detailed expositions of this debate at the moment, but all those interested can Google "starlight problem" for some interesting discussion on this topic. As silly and intellectually repugnant as views such as YEC can be, they at least have the benefit of prompting us to re-evaluate how we know what we purport to know, which any good science should constantly do.