The question that needs to be asked is "how can last Thursdayism be disproved?"

Our only evidence that the world wasn't created last Thursday is our memory (individual, collective, inanimate) of events that occured way before last Thursday.

The catch is memories can be implanted/erroneous (false memories, confabulation, Mandela effect, and so on).

Out goes the window, memory. What's left? I must mention inanimate memory here separately only if to prolong the nevitable.

Motor vehicle accident forensics, for instance, relies on inanimate memory: a red car collides with a black one and each car "remembers" the color of the other car (paint flakes, dents, scrapes, etc.). The world, many things in it, give us the impression that it's been around for at least 4.5 billion years (radioactive dating).

However, someone capable of inserting false memories must surely be capable of more: falsifying or manipulating the geological data for example. Forgers are known to have artificially aged paper/wood/etc. in order to dupe unsuspecting customers. In other words, inanimate memory too is no longer sufficient to disprove Last Thursdayism.

If last Thursday didn't happen then this yesterday didn't happen. If yesterday didn't this morning didn't happen. If this morning didn't happen, last minute didn't happen. If last minute didn't happen last second didn't happen. If last second didn't happen, my eye winking didn't happen. If the past hasn't happened the present can't happen. The present happens. So history happened.

If God created the universe 6000 years ago, what was his reason to include fossils?

......what was his reason to include fossils? — EugeneW

That is something I would like to discuss with him when the time comes.

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 — EugeneW

I was talking about the more interesting examples:
Consider the formula again:

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

Consider a currently, good human lifespan of 100 years.

So the observers time is 100 years.

Perhaps one of our maths experts such as jgill could confirm my calculations here, in case I have blundered:

Consider velocity of the spaceship moving away from the Earth based observer as 299999999 meters per second. This would be 1 meter per second slower than light speed at 300000000 meters per second.

When I popped these values into the formula (I used the calculator app on my laptop as it offers many more digit places than my scientific calculator), I got the answer 1,224,644 years as the amount of time passed for the observer. Only 100 years would have passed for the people on the spaceship.
Now the spaceship still has to return to Earth, so, the round trip time for the observer would be 2,449,289 years.

Now lets use 299999999.9 for the velocity of the spaceship so 0.1 meters per second slower than light speed rather than 1 meter slower. Using these numbers in the formula and the same 100 years of observer life. We have a round trip journey time (from the standpoint of the observer) of 7,745,966,6930 years. (for the people on the spaceship, it would be 200 years). This is quite a jump for such a small increase in the velocity of the spaceship.

The maximum number of places I could enter using my laptop calculator app was 23 places after the decimal point so I could enter 23 nines after the number 299999999.

This gave me a round trip journey time for the observer of
774,596,669,241,483,377 years. So the Earth/Sun and solar system would be long gone in the 200 years of travel time for those on the spaceship.

Unless I have made mistakes in my calculations or units used, this is a serious mind f***.
If we consider a few thousand years of observer time I think we reach a point that the Universe ends before the spaceship traveling within it can return to its starting point.

I sent this question to 'askanastrophysicist,' ages ago and they pointed out the following:

1. You have not considered acceleration and deceleration times which would affect your numbers but not in a very significant way.

2. It is highly unlikely that a spaceship could reach the velocity increments you suggest as the energy input required would be vast to allow mass to travel at such velocity. As you get closer and closer to light speed, the extra input energy required becomes much more vast.

3. But yes, in theory, what you suggest is valid, time dilation is weird, isn't it!

Anyway, last Thursdayism is surely down to that pesky Thor, it's his day after all.
Perhaps the rest of the avengers can prevent Thor from 'dissin' our 'Midgard' layer of the Universe with his 'Thorsdayism!' Freaking superhero gods!! More trouble than they were ever worth. Just as well that they don't exist!

Sorry, the number 7,745,966,6930 in my calculations should have been typed as 7,745.966
The 6930 is after the decimal point and can be ignored.

Aaaaarrggggh! I mean 7,745,966
A bloomin, flippin comma was required instead of a bloomin, flippin dot

It's very simple. Say a particle accelerates to just below c. If the particle travels for 1 day and returns to Earth then because of the asymmetry the clocks on particles on Earth show, say, 2 years, a considerable difference. The particle hasn't experienced thursday, but Earth a lot of thursdays have passed. Because of the asymmetry. So, has thursday passed or not? Yes it has. 104 times.

Aaaaarrggggh! I mean 7,745,966
A bloomin, flippin comma was required instead of a bloomin, flippin dot — universeness

The road to destruction... :wink:

My posts about time dilation were a digression from how it was being used in the OP.
I was merely presenting the implications of the extremity of the formula for real humans traveling close to light speed not unthinking particles. I think it's fascinating that this formula suggests that if a future human or perhaps even a future transhuman travels away from Earth for 200 years round trip, at 0.1 meters per second, slower than light speed. The Earth probably won't be there when they return. If that's the case then we do need to find a way to get from interstellar or intergalactic planet A to planet B which does not involve trying to directly traverse the physical distance between them.

Alcubierre's drive and wormholes don't work, even in theory. The fact that not one Thursday has passed for you and 50 on Earth proves that Thursday has passed. Of course you can say that the whole trip is a memory, but then we can just as well ask if this question was really asked. The question wasn't asked. "Questionism"...

A transhuman? Our follow up in evolution?

That is something I would like to discuss with him when the time comes. — Cuthbert

:lol:


Like last Thursday, it's questionable if that coming time exists.

A transhuman? Our follow up in evolution? — EugeneW

More like a human merging with electronic/quantum systems and genetic engineering rather than any significant contribution from natural evolution. A human brain in a sustaining cybernetic body, a human consciousness that can be stored and transmitted from one location to another at light speed or greater.
Maybe from one cybernetic container to another. Perhaps the remake of 'Battlestar Galactica,' type idea that when you die, your consciousness is just automatically dowloaded into another of your stored clones.
All the current sci-fi suggestions are predictions of possible future technologies. Most will probably be unrealised but some will be. A lot of StarTrek tech is now all around us. The computer pad, video phone calls, a flip-top communicator etc.

Alcubierre's drive and wormholes don't work, even in theory. — EugeneW

If two ideas fail, people conceive new ideas.

Are you serious? Don't get carried away by those ideas. The next step in evolution is not how we engineer it.

If two ideas fail, people conceive new ideas. — universeness

These are the only two ideas to survey. Maybe God will show up to transport us instantaneously...

In truth I suspect that everything is merely a creation of my imagination in an effort to keep me amused. There is nothing until I perceive it to exist, or to have existed, in order to enrich my experience of my imagined reality. Time is meaningless as there is no context in which it would be valid. There is only me.

Imaginationism.

A human brain in a sustaining cybernetic body, a human consciousness that can be stored and transmitted from one location to another at light speed or greater. — universeness

These are just fantasies, like gods are. Difference being that gods are real while these fantasies stay fantasies.

Are you serious? Don't get carried away by those ideas. The next step in evolution is not how we engineer it — EugeneW

Very serious! I don't get carried away, I might get intrigued and become hopeful however. Out of little acorns, big oak trees grow! Any scientific/technological/chemical/biological idea that forms in a human mind should be heard, just like your ideas as to the structure and workings of the Universe. How would you respond to someone who said 'are you serious?' after you explained your ideas in detail.
They can always respond with 'I think you are getting carried away, Prove your idea is correct!' I hope your response would be, well I cant...YET.

I think it is natural that our science would outrun evolution and natural selection. A spear was created by humans and that sped up our ability to kill other creatures for meat. A spear did not evolve. Same with the electronic technologies. It seems natural to me that we will eventually merge with electronics and become transhuman (cyborg) for starters. Its already arrived to some extent, pacemakers, cochlear implants, small electronics physically connected to the brain, robotic/prosthetic limb replacement to name but a few developments. I don't think it's completely inaccurate to refer to someone with a pacemaker, which keeps them alive, as an early transhuman or cyborg.

Maybe God will show up to transport us instantaneously.. — EugeneW

These are just fantasies, like gods are — EugeneW

Make up your mind......

Difference being that gods are real while these fantasies stay fantasies. — EugeneW

You continue to play with Pascal's wager. Bet On...Bet Off...Bet On...Bet Off. The Karate Theistic Kid (Only kidding!)

That which has been invented often began as someone's fantas(tic)/(y) idea.

In truth I suspect that everything is merely a creation of my imagination in an effort to keep me amused. There is nothing until I perceive it to exist, or to have existed, in order to enrich my experience of my imagined reality. Time is meaningless as there is no context in which it would be valid. There is only me.

Imaginationism — Book273

Each of us can make the same claim. It's just solipsism and solipsism is nonsense in my opinion.

Very serious! I don't get carried away, I might get intrigued and become hopeful however. Out of little acorns, big oak trees grow! Any scientific/technological/chemical/biological idea that forms in a human mind should be heard, just like your ideas as to the structure and workings of the Universe. How would you respond to someone who said 'are you serious?' after you explained your ideas in detail. — universeness

The "are you serious?" attitude I have encountered a lot. You are the first exception. Mostly these are underbelly reactions to the attack on the status quo and uttered by people who feel threatened wrt their view on reality. They dont try to understand and their reaction is irrational because if they react that fast they havent made any attempt to understand. Banning is the result.

Im not speculating about the application of science though. But I know a brain can't be contained in a vessel, no matter what SF fantasies show. It's nice to fantasize about the application of science and its application. But you should keep in mind that not everything is possible with science. It is claimed that robots and AI are the next step in evolution. I think this is not so.

You continue to play with Pascal's wager. Bet On...Bet Off...Bet On...Bet Off. The Karate Theistic Kid (Only kidding!) — universeness

:lol:

Haha! The quark kid strikes again. What is Pascal's wager?

What is Pascal's wager? — EugeneW

Shhhhhhhh, your on a philosophy site. Pascals wager is a philosophy basic.

As long as no one else can hear this, let me whisper the address below at you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

Have a wee look. shhhhhhhhh

Hope nobody heard or saw this. Did Pascal gamble with his life regarding the existence of gods? How can you wager your life on that? If they don't exist, I will drop dead? If they do exist then the other might drop dead? How can you know who wins the wage?

Isn't it always better to bet they exist? What you gotta loose?

But I know a brain can't be contained in a vessel, no matter what SF fantasies show. — EugeneW

What is a human head, if not a vessel? If we replicate every system inside the head and body that supports the brain then I don't see why not, given enough time and scientists.
You also might find the concept of the Boltzmann brain interesting if you don't already know about it.
have a wee look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

It doesn't really speak to my transhuman points but it's interesting as well as relatively debunked, I think.

It is claimed that robots and AI are the next step in evolution. — EugeneW

I only like the evolution word when used in the natural sense, I don't like it applied to human scientific endeavors. Creating sentient AI is a whole different debate. I was talking about human life extension by transhuman methodology/technology. Not human simulations such as robots or androids.

What is a human head, if not a vessel? If we replicate every system inside the head and body that supports the brain then I don't see why not, given enough time and scientists.
You also might find the concept of the Boltzmann brain interesting if you don't already know about it.
have a wee look at: — universeness

I mean an artificial vessel. The Bolzmann universe encompasses infinite regression, which solves nothing.. It was invented by Bolzmann in relation to entropy. If the whole universe could exist as a fluctuation then in that fluctuation a thermal equilibrium would evolve which could result in a fluctuation of a universe, etcetera. Brains just involve a process leading to them and any attempt to create them must involve the whole universe.

Hope nobody heard or saw this. Did Pascal gamble with his life regarding the existence of gods? How can you wager your life on that? If they don't exist, I will drop dead? If they do exist then the other might drop dead? How can you know who wins the wage? — EugeneW

I think the wager was your investment in belief in God despite all the arguments against such belief. I think that's what you do. You know the god story is highly unlikely but you have laid your bet by your version of theism in a similar way to Pascal. This is of course only my humble opinion on your theism.
To me, you are not a THEIST, you are a theist (this site does not allow you to alter text to point 6, very small text size, so you will just have to see the very small text in your head, perhaps right beside a tiny wee man (god) with a white beard)

Pascal was just suggesting that it is wise to bet that God exists, just in case it does, because the punishment for not believing was so bad.

Isn't it always better to bet they exist? What you gotta loose? — EugeneW

That was Pascal's point exactly. I require proof! I don't fear the traditional theistic threats.
I have personally called them out very often, including on this site.
If god will manifest and submit to scientific scrutiny, then I will change my viewpoint, if the results confirm it as having demonstrated all the necessary omni's
If it can't even do that then It has no right to ask for belief.