I fail to see what difference "Last Thursdayism" makes.

It has been cited that indeed there is no way to prove whether or not this could be the case — Benj96

Then what's to be gained by considering it?

I fail to see what difference "Last Thursdayism" makes. — 180 Proof

It's better than if it was "Last Wednesdayism"

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

I'm with 180 Proof. I there is no way to determine whether a proposition is true or false, even in principle, then it is meaningless. Another example is the existence of the multiverse associated with one interpretation of quantum mechanics. It may also be true of string theory, although I guess that is still an open question.

It's better than if it was "Last Wednesdayism" — ArguingWAristotleTiff

:smirk:

The relationship between the too is simply relative.
Thoughts? — Benj96

Why is it relative? I can't see your point. Are you referring to timeless universe as we debated together in your previous thread?

It is not possible for a sound mind to doubt previous seconds exist. You couldn't understand time otherwise. We know we are in time and it has a past present and future. To deny the past is like denying the future and the truth is right there. It's to bad B. Russell fell for this

It has been cited that indeed there is no way to prove whether or not this could be the case. — 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.

Doubt requires grounds. "Last (whichever)dayism" is doubt of deep time. Given that there aren't any compelling grounds to doubt deep time cosmology, "last (whichever)dayism" is nothing but a paper doubt (Peirce) or pseudo-question / nonsense (Witty).

is nothing but a paper doubt (Peirce) or pseudo-question / nonsense (Witty). — 180 Proof

Paper doubt? :smile:

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.

Why doubt everything instead of "learn everything". To deny you typed a message after you send it is irresponsibility, so responsibility proves Thursdayism wrong

No, we're not denying we typed a message that we just sent. This is not about concrete evidence. It's Thursdayism -- time dilation. We could have everything concrete in one half of half of a second ago.

information — Benj96

Is it possible to prove that the amount of information we have just won't fit in a (last) Thursday?

Because I am a qualified painter and have spent 7 yeas in a Monastery prayerfully listening to God, I happen to know that the other day he stopped time for (obviously) an indeterminate eon, while he nudged that missile away from the nuclear reactor. He quite often stops the world program to adjust things, and at least once He had to restart completely, because - well I won't go into that.

Thursdayism says the world started last Thursday. It has nothing to do with time dilation

Maybe today is Friday if a day lasts 13.8 billion years! I believe time for god is not the same as time for humans.

Is this similar to Goodman's new riddle of induction?

It's Thursdayism -- time dilation. — Caldwell

Here is an example of the use of the time dilation formula, based on an example I took from https://www.softschools.com/formulas/physics/time_dilation_formula/222/

Clicking on the link will give you the aspects of special relativity involved and the workings of the formula.

observer time = proper time/square root(1- (velocity/speed of light)^2)



v = velocity is in meters per second
c = speed of light (3.0 x 10^8 m/s)

Tanya boards a spaceship, and flies past Earth at 80% of the speed of light. Her twin sister, Tara, stays on Earth. At the instant Tanya's ship passes Earth, they both start timers. Tanya watches her timer, and after she sees 60 seconds have passed, she stops it. At that instant, how much time would Tara's timer say has passed?
If we use the formula, Tanya observes that at 60 seconds, her sister Tara will observe that 100 seconds have passed.

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.
This is an infinity!

So from an observer's point of view, a person traveling away from them, in a spaceship at light speed, would not age at all, but I think logic would suggest, that in their own reference frame, they would age, and they would live their normal life span within the spaceship and its reference frame. If at some point they traveled back to you at light speed, they would -re-enter your frame of reference. I have no idea what age they would be in relation to you at their point of return.

This of course cannot happen, as it's impossible for the velocity of any mass/spaceship to reach light speed. Mass cannot travel at light speed.

In Star Trek, it is suggested that if light speed or greater can be achieved then the mass involved would be 'enveloped in a warp bubble,' and would effectively be traversing the warp or the folded space, not the actual physical distance between positions A and B.

Time dilation is therefore not evidence of last Thursdayism in the sense that it cannot compress the proposed 14 billion years of observed universal time into a few days, using any accurate reference frame or time dilation equation I am aware of but my knowledge of astrophysics is quite quite limited.

Thank you for your explanation.

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

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.

In Star Trek, it is suggested that if light speed or greater can be achieved... — universeness

Nothing can be faster than speed of light. Hence, Star Trek.

Time dilation is therefore not evidence of last Thursdayism — 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.

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

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.
So if v=0 then in the example, the twin sister Tara would be at rest so the observer time = proper time.
No time dilation, both clocks would read the same time in the case of v=0.

The most interesting issue about the time dilation formula is if you consider v at a value ever closer to the speed of light, say 99. 99999999999999999999999999999999% light speed.
The closer you get to light speed (add many more 9's after the decimal point,), the bigger the time dilation becomes. From this, you can show that from the point of the observer, the 'proper time' passed reaches a value bigger than most of the predicted lifespans of the Universe! I don't get that one!

Nothing can be faster than speed of light. Hence, Star Trek — Caldwell

Not under normal circumstances no, you are correct but, It is suggested by many scientists that during the short time of 'inflation,' the Universe expanded at faster than light speed. It is also suggested that as the rate of the acceleration of the Universe increases, relative to us, its 'edge' will be moving at faster than light speed.

There may be a way to get from planet A in our galaxy to planet B without having to directly traverse the distance between them but how to do so is, for now, and probably for many thousands of years yet, pure sci-fi.

I there is no way to determine whether a proposition is true or false, even in principle, then it is meaningless. — T Clark

I read an interesting challenge to this logical positivist view, called 'Toy Story'. When the cupboard door is shut the toys come alive. We have no way of confirming or disconfirming this story. But it has a clear sense.

Some questions and speculations sound dumb and are dumb and some sound dumb and yet aren't dumb and it's hard to tell the difference. Suppose you were travelling fast enough to keep up with a photon - would time stand still for you? That sounds crazy. What if things need a force to stop moving and not just to keep on moving? Bonkers. What if the earth goes round the sun? (Duh, step outside and you can see the sun going round the earth.) Etc.

@universeness
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum! :flower:
Having said that :scream: to math/Algebra

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

Ah, the beguiling, one might even say idealized, view that philosophy consists of the contemplation of those matters which have nothing to do with, but are nonetheless somehow more significant than, actual life. I'm with Pierce on this, and other things: "Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."

Last Thursdayism is not about time being different for different people. It's doubting that you past happened regardless of its rate. Descartes had this doubt of memory when doing math, which is why he wanted to see math in one equation and with one glance

Hello, thanks for the welcome. I have enjoyed reading some of your exchanges in the shoutbox.
Yeah, I love maths, but I have only experienced it to second-year undergrad level within a Scottish Uni.
I taught it to advanced higher level for 5 years in Scottish secondary schools and then I was switched to teaching Computing Science full time. I did so for a further 25 years before taking early retirement.
I wish I had as good a command of maths as TPF members like Jgill.

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

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).

That said:

Thursdayism says the world started last Thursday. It has nothing to do with time dilation — Gregory

This is correct.

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

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.

:up:

I have no idea what age they would be in relation to you at their point of return. — universeness

If you travel at lightspeed through the galaxy for 8.673 years around the planetary system at near the speed of light and return on Earth, you will have aged about one week. So many passed Thursdays vs. one.

Just video record a message made last Thursday, telling certain stuff. Yes. God could have created that. Like all geological data. But why should he? He's no lier. The devil's work! Of course.

If Thursday didn't exist, so didn't one second ago. Time wouldn't exist at all..