The age of our universe

[lifegazer]

I can't be bothered researching the latest scientific opinion for the age of our universe. Why? Not just because scientific opinion, regarding this, is always changing... but because - as Einstein indicated - if the measured time associated with any event (dependent upon the situation of a specific observer) is not universal, then the age of all events - including that of universal origins - is obviously absolutely subjective.

In fact, the measurement of 'time' - being non-universal (not absolute) - cannot be meaningful or common unless there are common experiences associated within the locality of your own experience (in this case: 'the earth').

Hence, whatever age our scientists [of this common Earthly experience] seek to give to our universe, is meaningless and completely subjective (relative to how we experience time & space at this locality).

Scientists should not be forthcoming with universal declarations regarding origins in time, since time is personal.

*********** scientists have created a new dark age and I'm sat here trying to tell everyone whilst they sun themselves.
Sigh.

[Foster Zygote]

I can't be bothered researching the latest scientific opinion for the age of our universe.

Why bother with the facts?

*********** scientists have created a new dark age and I'm sat here trying to tell everyone whilst they sun themselves.
Sigh.

I was going to try to explain your misunderstanding of relativity but I'm sure you'd rather not hear of it. Your last sentence sums up the reason for your post, indeed virtually all of your posts. The theme is that Lifegazer is the smartest guy ever and we are all fools for thinking otherwise.

BTW. Einstein is one of those "*********** scientists". So are they right or are they wrong?

Steven

[Lisa Simpson]

I can't be bothered researching the latest scientific opinion for the age of our universe.

It's 42.

[Foster Zygote]

It's 42.

Exactly! It's 42/42 of the age of the universe. =0)

Steven

[lifegazer]

Why bother with the facts?

C'mon man - what FACTS?!!!

The current 'fact' that is the age of our universe is dependent upon the ~common~ experience of time & space as observed from the perspective of time & space from this locality.

I was going to try to explain your misunderstanding of relativity but I'm sure you'd rather not hear of it.

I certainly would. So explain how/why it is possible for 2+ individuals to experience time differently, yet come up with a universal measurement (of time) for the origin of all events.
It does not compute... is not logical... which is why theories related to the age of the universe - from this particular timeframe - are actually meaningless.

Your last sentence sums up the reason for your post, indeed virtually all of your posts. The theme is that Lifegazer is the smartest guy ever and we are all fools for thinking otherwise.

Whatever. It's not about 'lifegazer'. So grow up.

BTW. Einstein is one of those "*********** scientists". So are they right or are they wrong?

Steven
His understanding of the order that exists within/upon EXPERIENCE is perfectly correct. However, he never differentiated between the experience of an object and the reality of one. That's why he screwed up.
Science proclaimed - after Einstein - that Newton was naive. But that's a pathetic proclamation; since Newton - born in the 15th century - was only proclaiming mathematics about real bodies existing within real space & real time. Yet Einstein - born in the 19th century - still thought that he was proclaiming mathematics about real objects in real space & real time.

The truth is that neither one of them was ABSOLUTELY right since one of them discerned the mathematical order of a real world without regard to experience, and the other discerned the mathematical order inherent within experience and attributed it to a real world!

I'm merely "standing on the shoulders of [both of these] giants" (yes, I perceive genius in both of them).
Truth is, I would never have seen Newton's truths at his time, nor Einstein's at his. Yet I see mine because of them.
And you Sir, have no right to shout me down because I haven't tried to say that either was wrong. I've merely tried to integrate their math/physics into a contemporary philosophical view of 'reality'.

[Ceritus]

Lifegazer, you sir are an idiot. That will be all.

[Foster Zygote]

LG, time dilation as predicted by special relativity is only significant for objects traveling at a substantial fraction of C. for virtually all of the universe this is not a problem. Do you really think that Einstein and all the other brilliant minds who've worked on relativity were so daft that they couldn't have seen the problem that you believe you've discovered.
You seem to be implying that you've just out-thought some of the greatest intellects in human history. How is that not about Lifegazer?

Steven

[TragicMonkey]

Yep. Things seem to make so much sense when you're high, and then you sober up and wonder why you wrote "The answer is hippo! Hooray = happiness! California?" in seven foot letters on your bedroom wall in green crayon.

[RandFan]

Yep. Things seem to make so much sense when you're high, and then you sober up and wonder why you wrote "The answer is hippo! Hooray = happiness! California?" in seven foot letters on your bedroom wall in green crayon.:)

Jerry Maguire.

[TragicMonkey]

:)

Jerry Maguire.

Huh?

[RandFan]

Whatever. It's not about 'lifegazer'. So grow up.If it's not about "lifegazer" then go away.

[RandFan]

Huh? Guess you had to be there.

[RandFan]

Huh?Now that I think about it, Jerry's epiphany, while embarrassing, wasn't illogical. There must be a problem with my meds. BTW, I do question California so I'm not sure that is a good example. Hippos make me happy which prompts me to say hooray. I know that is out of order but it's Sunday. So I think you fail on that one also. I get where your going though. Bottom line, given that this is a lifegazer thread... does it really matter (mater, matter, madder hatter)?

[RandFan]

...but it's Sunday. Which brings us back to the OP. Does anybody really know what time it is? I don't. Does anybody really care? If so I can't imagine why. We've all got time enough to cry.

[Lisa Simpson]

The music is reversible, but time is not. Turn back...Turn back...Turn back...

[Terry]

So relativity defines "interval" which is in some sense the separation between two events, which is constant for all observers, although the mix of time and distance may differ for different observers. We experience time and space differently, but they are aspects of the same thing.

[l0rca]

So relativity defines "interval" which is in some sense the separation between two events, which is constant for all observers, although the mix of time and distance may differ for different observers. We experience time and space differently, but they are aspects of the same thing.

MALARKY.

Kidding.

Obviously the philosophical forum ain't too philosophical. This seems more like science bunk.

We've never claimed a time true for all observers. That's just silly, and lifegoober's sort of right.

The time we determine of the universe is based off of our subjective account. Just like accounting for objects in space in the first three dimensions, where we place subjective coordinates, we do the same for time. We can measure any object with our system of time and come up with accurate claims about that object, and use those claims to manipulate that object accurately.

It is understood that our calculations of the beginning of the universe are "subjective;" based off of photon radiation frequencies we can still detect. These trajectories are being experienced through a time-cone, since we are accellerating. But so is everything else, and uniformly or not, they do occupy different points of spacetime, which would alter their calculations.

Also, obviously, the measurement concepts we have are unique, and other life forms in other areas of the galaxy would use different methods to measure this. But they would be measuring with the same empirical source.

So my question is, does it even matter? We're not wrong because there is no objective right. Our experience of the beginning of time is just as true as it would be for any observer. So long as we calculate with what we have correctly, and be careful not to remove context, we've got an operating beginning of the universe that we can build off of.

You can still grasp an object in your hands, even if you and others have different opinions about the distance of that object.

[Correa Neto]

Honestly, there's no way to assume the universe depends on our -or any other- consiousness to exist. Of course, an individual will have no absolute proof that the universe will continue to exist after its consiousness ceases to exist.

But if one assumes individuals are individuals -and frankly I see no reason why to assume any other alternatives- one can not help but conclude the universe is independent from us. It existed before us and will exist after us, regardless if any consicent being experience, experienced or will experience it.

The universe does not -and can not- care about us. It does not depends on us. We're nothing but one small phenomena within it. Many feel unconfortable with it, but that's life, it is what it is by sheer chance-and it has no "meaning" no "purpose".

Nowdays *********** pseudo-philosophers try desperately to put humans in the centre of the Universe because they feel deeply unconfortable about not having a special place at the centre of creation.

[fuelair]

I can't be bothered ..........................
Sigh.

Me either. Get a brain, knowledge, a life, then come back as a real thinker. This stuff is mental whackoff (as usual).. Troll away.:jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :eek: :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp

[Jimbo07]

*********** scientists have created a new dark age and I'm sat here trying to tell everyone whilst they sun themselves.
Sigh.

This line makes me wonder whether LG is having us on. This is the opposite of skeptics who say IDers are going to lead us into a dark age.

I can't be bothered researching the latest scientific opinion for the age of our universe. Why? Not just because scientific opinion, regarding this, is always changing...

On the other hand, this leads me to say that either LG is trolling, or this post, like many others is completely moronic :boggled: .

[Foster Zygote]

We've never claimed a time true for all observers. That's just silly, and lifegoober's sort of right.

Maybe so. But Lifegazer seems to think that these relative observations are so wildly diverse as to render any measure of time meaningless. I wonder if he owns a watch. Of course, the beauty of the expanding universe means that any individual at any location would see themselves as being at the center of the universe. The perception of universal time would be virtually identical for any observer. A civilization 500,000,000 light years away using the same instruments and techniques as us would reach the same conclusion about the age of the universe.

He also seems to think that astronomers are constantly changing their estimates of the age of the universe in completely arbitrary ways, as though they say it's one million years old one week and one trillion the next. The changes in the estimate of the age of the universe are due to astronomers ability to refine their measurements to a greater degree. His continued demonstration of his ignorance of the methodology of science causes him to assume that scientists know everything right now or they know nothing at all. When astronomers refine their estimates Lifegazer seems to see this as some indication of chaotic indecision and attacks it like a fundie.

Steven

[l0rca]

Oh no! I am not defending him at all. If he is as bent as you say he is, that's fine. I don't want to go back and reread his posts to compare to your opinion, though. He's right up there with Coberst.

[fuelair]

I have pointed out on multiple lg posts that the ignorance of science and philosophy is so abyssmal that it almost has to be trolling. Feel free to find any major point that is rational, logical and/OR coherent.

[RandFan]

I have pointed out on multiple lg posts that the ignorance of science and philosophy is so abyssmal that it almost has to be trolling. Feel free to find any major point that is rational, logical and/OR coherent.I guess trolling is in the eye of the beholder. To me a troll is one who is disingenuously trying to arouse emotion and or cause debate only for the purpose of debate.

I have little doubt that lifegazer genuinely believes in his philosophy. If troll is defined as one who persistently holds an untenable position then I would agree with you. I don't define troll that way myself though.

[Foster Zygote]

I guess trolling is in the eye of the beholder. To me a troll is one who is disingenuously trying to arouse emotion and or cause debate only for the purpose of debate.

I have little doubt that lifegazer genuinely believes in his philosophy. If troll is defined as one who persistently holds an untenable position then I would agree with you. I don't define troll that way myself though.

I still think it's more of a persecution complex than run of the mill trolling. I may have aced my college psych classes but that wasn't the subject of my major, so the following is not presented as an authoritative diagnosis, but I find myself wondering more and more if Lifegazer doesn't show some of the symptomatology of chronic paranoid schizophrenia. If that is the case then I don't think he is suffering from full blown schizophrenia yet, but the delusions of grandeur, the delusions of persecution, the chaotic nature of his thought process and the occasional angry meltdowns make me wonder. Take for instance his habit of reading critical posts as though the writer is yelling at him. On more than one occasion someone has posted a critique of his claims or a request for clarification and he's responded angrily and accused the writer of shouting at him. It's as though the inner voice he assigns to the writer as he reads the post is angry. Of course we're all familiar with the problem of expressing or discerning things like sarcasm or bemusement with written words, but when I've read the same posts I've not seen any sign that the writer's intent was to convey any strong emotion at all.

On the other hand, perhaps he's simply obstreperous.

Steven

[Jimbo07]

On more than one occasion someone has posted a critique of his claims or a request for clarification and he's responded angrily and accused the writer of shouting at him. It's as though the inner voice he assigns to the writer as he reads the post is angry. Of course we're all familiar with the problem of expressing or discerning things like sarcasm or bemusement with written words, but when I've read the same posts I've not seen any sign that the writer's intent was to convey any strong emotion at all.


Of course, as a third party, you wouldn't feel like you're the one under attack, right?

[RandFan]

I still think it's more of a persecution complex than run of the mill trolling. I may have aced my college psych classes but that wasn't the subject of my major, so the following is not presented as an authoritative diagnosis, but I find myself wondering more and more if Lifegazer doesn't show some of the symptomatology of chronic paranoid schizophrenia. If that is the case then I don't think he is suffering from full blown schizophrenia yet, but the delusions of grandeur, the delusions of persecution, the chaotic nature of his thought process and the occasional angry meltdowns make me wonder. Take for instance his habit of reading critical posts as though the writer is yelling at him. On more than one occasion someone has posted a critique of his claims or a request for clarification and he's responded angrily and accused the writer of shouting at him. It's as though the inner voice he assigns to the writer as he reads the post is angry. Of course we're all familiar with the problem of expressing or discerning things like sarcasm or bemusement with written words, but when I've read the same posts I've not seen any sign that the writer's intent was to convey any strong emotion at all.

On the other hand, perhaps he's simply obstreperous.

StevenI'm not an expert either and it's been more than 20 years since I took any courses in psychology. This notion about diagnosing lifegazer has been bandied about and even been the source of debate. As I have said in the past I wouldn't at all be surprised if gazer didn't suffer a bit or more of Messiah complex, persecution complex and or other issues. Some believe gazer is dangerous to himself. I don't remember who that was. In any event I think it wrong to make a diagnosis without A.) being a clinically trained therapist and B.) observing gazer beyond merely reading his posts. Not that you are doing that Foster. But the fact that this keeps coming up is interesting. I think it shows that gazer in the least shows some significant signs of pathology. But that is just my uneducated and inexperienced opinion which is to say it ain't worth squat.

[Foster Zygote]

I'm not an expert either and it's been more than 20 years since I took any courses in psychology. This notion about diagnosing lifegazer has been bandied about and even been the source of debate. As I have said in the past I wouldn't at all be surprised if gazer didn't suffer a bit or more of Messiah complex, persecution complex and or other issues. Some believe gazer is dangerous to himself. I don't remember who that was. In any event I think it wrong to make a diagnosis without A.) being a clinically trained therapist and B.) observing gazer beyond merely reading his posts. Not that you are doing that Foster. But the fact that this keeps coming up is interesting. I think it shows that gazer in the least shows some significant signs of pathology. But that is just my uneducated and inexperienced opinion which is to say it ain't worth squat.

In retrospect, I should have made it more clear that my intent was not meant to be any sort of diagnosis at all, merely speculation. Still, I'm glad you didn't misread my intent. I don't think we're overstepping our bounds to speculate though. After all, I don't need a professional opinion to wonder what's wrong with that guy I saw in Chicago wearing the Spider Man pajamas and screaming at traffic. =0)

Steven

[RandFan]

In retrospect, I should have made it more clear that my intent was not meant to be any sort of diagnosis at all, merely speculation. Still, I'm glad you didn't misread my intent. I don't think we're overstepping our bounds to speculate though. After all, I don't need a professional opinion to wonder what's wrong with that guy I saw in Chicago wearing the Spider Man pajamas and screaming at traffic. =0)

Steven:D

[LawnOven]

This one's easy, it's 6000 years old; same as the earth.

You must have missed that one in science class.

[Z]

I think any diagnosis of lifegazer is bound to be highly inaccurate. Nevertheless, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the fellow: he has a philosophical POV that he considers original and interesting, but recognizes that, in all reality, it's simply an insignificant exercise in mental masturbation.

Otherwise, we wouldn't keep hearing from him. He'd be practicing what he preaches - changing the world, teaching real people, etc. He's a blow-hard. He talks a big talk, then retreats when he's demonstrated to be off his rocker.

Eventually he returns - hoping the same old die-hard skeptics aren't there to prove him wrong yet again.

[RandFan]

I think any diagnosis of lifegazer is bound to be highly inaccurate. Nevertheless, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the fellow: he has a philosophical POV that he considers original and interesting, but recognizes that, in all reality, it's simply an insignificant exercise in mental masturbation.

Otherwise, we wouldn't keep hearing from him. He'd be practicing what he preaches - changing the world, teaching real people, etc. He's a blow-hard. He talks a big talk, then retreats when he's demonstrated to be off his rocker.

Eventually he returns - hoping the same old die-hard skeptics aren't there to prove him wrong yet again.I think it a bit more complex than that. Google "lifegazer" sometime and check out all the forums this guy has haunted and how many he has been tossed out of. There seems to me to be a real need to change people's belief. His pleading for us to come to his way of thinking seems a bit messianic. JMO.

[Foster Zygote]

I think it a bit more complex than that. Google "lifegazer" sometime and check out all the forums this guy has haunted and how many he has been tossed out of. There seems to me to be a real need to change people's belief. His pleading for us to come to his way of thinking seems a bit messianic. JMO.

If that's the case he could just write a woo book or set up a woo website. I suspect he does have a bit of a persecution complex. He seems to enjoy being in opposition to the hoi polloi who are too dense to grasp his genius.

Steven

[fuelair]

If that's the case he could just write a woo book or set up a woo website. I suspect he does have a bit of a persecution complex. He seems to enjoy being in opposition to the hoi polloi who are too dense to grasp his genius.

Steven

Same for me - why doesn't he seem to get that if he keeps misusing terms it makes it impossible to have functional communication and if he refers to concepts but uses them in ways they are not designed for/do not apply to then it keeps him from being understood and making sense. If you want to communicate in a language, you have to use words and concepts as they are used in that language. And he has specifically stated at least twice in response to me that he has no interest in taking classes to learn these things ( implied so I am not accidentally misquoting him) because it is a waste of his time .

[l0rca]

I think any diagnosis of lifegazer is bound to be highly inaccurate. Nevertheless, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the fellow: he has a philosophical POV that he considers original and interesting, but recognizes that, in all reality, it's simply an insignificant exercise in mental masturbation.

Otherwise, we wouldn't keep hearing from him. He'd be practicing what he preaches - changing the world, teaching real people, etc. He's a blow-hard. He talks a big talk, then retreats when he's demonstrated to be off his rocker.

Eventually he returns - hoping the same old die-hard skeptics aren't there to prove him wrong yet again.


http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/Assets/blowhard.jpg

Someone tell me I'm helpful. :)

[Soulend]

What Foster Zygote said.

[RandFan]

If that's the case he could just write a woo book or set up a woo website. I suspect he does have a bit of a persecution complex. He seems to enjoy being in opposition to the hoi polloi who are too dense to grasp his genius.

StevenThe Internet provides an immediacy and certainty that someone will hear him. It seems that he has a need to preach directly to people.

[davefoc]

Thread digression:
I think taking pot shots at Lifegazer is inapproiate and unnecessary:
1. It is undisciplined. Yes, he makes statements that conflict with our often carefully thought out views of the universe. But resorting to an ad hom attack is allowing ourselves to rely on emotion rather than logic in our responses.
2. It is unfair. Lifegazer is almost alone on this board with many of his views. It is easy for the majority to mount a feel good let's dump on the minority campaign. But it also unfair and more an aspect of mob mentality than rational thought.
3. It disrupts what value there may be in a discussion of his topics by diverting the thread into personal conflict.
4. It conflicts with the general goals that JREF has established for the board, especially for the non-community sections of the forum.
End of digression

[Z]

Thread digression:
I think taking pot shots at Lifegazer is inapproiate and unnecessary:

It's hardly potshots. Consider the poster. Trolls are fair game.

1. It is undisciplined. Yes, he makes statements that conflict with our often carefully thought out views of the universe. But resorting to an ad hom attack is allowing ourselves to rely on emotion rather than logic in our responses.

The route of logic was tried - repeatedly - years ago. This gentleman is a rock, a wall against logic.

2. It is unfair. Lifegazer is almost alone on this board with many of his views. It is easy for the majority to mount a feel good let's dump on the minority campaign. But it also unfair and more an aspect of mob mentality than rational thought.

Who said life was fair? For that matter, what would be fair, exactly?

I think our digression into discussions of lifegazer's motivations are perfectly fair.

3. It disrupts what value there may be in a discussion of his topics by diverting the thread into personal conflict.

The thread itself has no value - being yet another rehash of well-outdated material - and I think most of us feel more value in discussing why he wastes his time posting here, rather than discussing what he posts.

After all, the content of most of his posts is really rather dull and old-hat. It's the reasoning behind his posting patterns that are interesting.

4. It conflicts with the general goals that JREF has established for the board, especially for the non-community sections of the forum.
End of digression

I disagree... but I think you figured that out already.

[davefoc]

Thanks for the response zaarydragon, I was far from sure I was right and appreciated a different view. Some of my thoughts about this are undoubtedly affected by the fact that I have not been part of very many threads with lifegazer. None the less, I think the thread would have been better without the name calling and sniping comments. Part of the interest of a thread like this comes from trying to understand how somebody thinks and how it is possible that their view of the world is so different from your own. I suspect that the confrontational nature of some of the posts in this thread made that difficult.

[Z]

I think I can understand your point of view on this, but please consider: for the past couple of years, Darren has posted and re-posted his same old tired attacks on realism and science, swearing that research money and time are wasted studying things such as brains and the origins of the universe. He has called, time and again, for social and scientific revolution of the sort that, if realized, would throw mankind into the dark ages once again. Once, I considered his thoughts dangerous; now, however, realizing that no one could possibly take his discussions seriously for long, I'm not too worried about his nonsense.

The problem, though, is that every few months, new posters or random-passers-by happen upon his latest rehashing, and I am concerned that someone might read his material without thinking about it clearly - and possibly come to conclusions that are harmful to themselves or others. Think about it - if some young person comes to believe that this reality is false, what suicidal acts might the person attempt?

So a few of us come by on a regular basis to challenge lifegazer's posts, and to make absolutely sure that anyone who happens to read them realizes that even the prophet himself doesn't really believe what he preaches. Or, should I say, is unwilling to live by the code he is espousing.

It also, I feel, helps to ensure that the practices of proper logic and reason are staunchly defended against his sort of pseudo-reasoning. I know that, in discussing and arguing against his position, I've learned more about logic and reason than I ever knew beforehand. For that, at least, I'm indirectly thankful for Darren's posts.

Besides... it's awful difficult to pass up the opportunity to annoy a known hypocrite and liar.

(The other thing, of course, is that I hope, one day, he might actually consider some of what's being posted towards him - in fact, I'd be thrilled if he'd really consider my conclusions that his philosophy is absolutely irrelevant. Even if he comes up with a logical refutation of my conclusion, at least I'll know he's starting to think about what's been said.)

[lifegazer]

but please consider: for the past couple of years, Darren has posted... swearing that research money and time are wasted studying things such as brains and the origins of the universe. He has called, time and again, for social and scientific revolution of the sort that, if realized, would throw mankind into the dark ages once again.

You're either a liar, or so thick that I should feel guilty for labelling you as such.
Regardless, I have NEVER called for the sort of revolution that takes us all back to living in caves and doing raindances, etc..
... The fact is that the sort of revolution I call for does not involve the death of science; rather the maturity of science.

Once, I considered his thoughts dangerous; now, however, realizing that no one could possibly take his discussions seriously for long, I'm not too worried about his nonsense.

Considering that you obviously don't understand what my discussions are aiming to achieve, and realising that you're either a liar or stupid, I don't think that I'm actually too worried about your condemnation of my threads.

The problem, though, is that every few months, new posters or random-passers-by happen upon his latest rehashing, and I am concerned that someone might read his material without thinking about it clearly

Yeah, heaven forbid that somebody new should continue to read my threads for two years and still not understand me, like you have, and then proceed to condemn me in the presence of new members, like you have.

- and possibly come to conclusions that are harmful to themselves or others. Think about it - if some young person comes to believe that this reality is false, what suicidal acts might the person attempt?

What a *********** prick you are. How dare you misunderstand my philosophy and then advertise it as an excuse to give-up on life!
My philosophy does not advocate conclusions that are detrimental to ones sense of self! Rather, my philosophy seeks to elevate ones sense of self to such a degree that One is equated to 'God' Itself.

I'm sick to the back teeth of your BS analysis of what I have written.
So tell me, are you the egotistical liar that I take you for, or are your gaffes totally due to stupidity?
It's a serious question, for if I know that your inept analysis of me and my philosophy is due to stupidity, I'll try to be more polite about it in the future.

in fact, I'd be thrilled if he'd really consider my conclusions that his philosophy is absolutely irrelevant.

Of course it's irrelevant that you are 'God' of all that you experience. Why didn't I think of that? Duh.

Even if he comes up with a logical refutation of my conclusion, at least I'll know he's starting to think about what's been said.
A logical refutation of what?
You don't even understand me, as proven by this disgrace of a post of yours that I have chosen to respond to only as a means of enlightening new posters as to the stupid bias and hostility which I have to face every time I enter this forum.
The worrying thing is that the person you were talking to was actually listening to you, apparently. As such, I had no choice other than to expose your stupidity or your deceit, whatever the case may be.

Why don't you tell these new friends of yours what you are and what you actually believe? And then try and explain to these new friends of yours how you have actually managed to find the perfect balance between pure rationale and being a Wiccan priest!

Go away Z. Wrong ball-park for you here. I can put up with you to a point - that point being when you start preaching to newcomers about me when you don't even comprehend me.
Now buzz off or wake up.

[lifegazer]

Why is nobody actually addressing the OP?

The TRUTH is that our scientists are trying to sell us an absolute age for the universe, after previously telling us (Einstein et al) that all efforts to time any singular event - (let alone all events as a whole!) - is completely relative and subjective to the individual experience(r).

It's a complete farce and something stinks when I come back here after a few days away and find nothing but BS responses alluding to the measure of my sanity.

I grew tired of these sort of responses a long time ago. Now, I'm more baffled than angry. Why do you all choose to accept absolute 'facts' that are simply untrue? Is it because you want to accept these facts? If so, then why? To sustain the status quo of atheism, etc.? Why?

I've been called 'crazy' here so many times that the knife has become totally blunt now.
You all really do need to take a look in the mirror. I'm not here for my own sake. That much should be apparent by the abuse that I take.

Whatever... g'night.

[RandFan]

The TRUTH is that our scientists are trying to sell us an absolute age for the universe...NO! NO! NO!

{deep sigh}

If this were the first time you had ever posted this I would simply excuse this as simple ignorance. You know better.

Science doesn't sell anything. Science isn't dogmatic. Science is self correcting.


Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning. All this evidence is collectively called scientific evidence.

Although specialized procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass whole domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together into logically coherent wholes. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective so that the scientist does not bias the interpretation of the results or change the results outright. Another basic expectation is that of making complete documentation of data and methodology available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and researchers, thereby allowing other researchers opportunity to verify results as well as to establish statistical measures of reliability. The scientific method also may involve attempts, if possible and appropriate, to achieve control over the factors involved in the area of inquiry, which may in turn be manipulated to test new hypotheses in order to gain further knowledge.:mad:

If you want to discuss your philosophy that is one thing. If you want to spread ignorance that is another.

[lifegazer]

NO! NO! NO!
Science doesn't sell anything. Science isn't dogmatic. Science is self correcting.

So you're actually standing before this forum and telling it's members that science is not striving to sell us all an absolute age for this universe? Sigh.

WAKE UP.

[RandFan]

So you're actually standing before this forum and telling it's members that science is not striving to sell us all an absolute age for this universe? Sigh.

WAKE UP. I'm telling you that science isn't some grand conspiracy.
I'm telling you that science is not monolithic.
I'm telling you that science is not a democracy.
I'm telling you that science is not a dictatorship.
Science doesn't have a stake in the age of the universe.
Science doesn't care.
Science has a stake in the truth.

I'm telling you that you are ignorant of science. I just don't know if that ignorance is willful, lazy or pathological.

[I less than three logic]

I'm not here for my own sake. That much should be apparent by the abuse that I take.
:D
Well I guess I should speak up for myself
But I really think it’s better this way
The more you suffer
The more it shows you really care
Right? yeah yeah yeah

[RandFan]

I'm not here for my own sake. That much should be apparent by the abuse that I take. Messiah complex? Persecution complex?

[maatorc]

I can't be bothered ...... whilst they sun themselves.
Sigh.

It doesn't have an age.
It only has a phase.
maatorc.

[nescafe]

So you're actually standing before this forum and telling it's members that science is not striving to sell us all an absolute age for this universe?

It isn't. It is telling us the aproximate age of the visible universe according to our current understanding of the laws of physics. It also provides a method whereby observers in different frames of reference can reconcile their different observations.

As for the actual number, this page (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Ewright/age.html) (found as the first hit googling for "age of the universe" (sans quotes))has a few different figures:
13.7 +/- 0.2 gigayears (theoretically derived from the Hubble constant and the apparent density of matter and dark matter),
14.5 +2.8/-2.2 gigayears (based on the isotopes of certian radioactive elements in very old stars,
12.8 +/- 1.1 gigayears (based on the apparent age of certian classes of white dwarf stars.
So hey, that is three different figures, none of them absolute, all derived according to sound scientific principles. Which one of these was the absolute age of the universe again?

[Z]

And so, Gentle Reader, lifegazer goes from spittle and bile - yet another tired personal attack against someone who understands the true implications of his philosophy FAR better than he does - to willful ignorance and bafflement.

Dar, it's simple - you're espousing giving up research into the materialistic origins of the materialist universe as well as research into how material brains cause material experience. In short, you're asking science to stop doing science. If that were to happen, we'd quickly descend to a dark-age quagmire of metaphysical nonsense and religious warfare.

Meanwhile, you don't understand the first thing about logic, reason, science, relativity, philosophy, religion, experience, dreams, physics - indeed, any and every subject you have EVER dared to touch upon has been soiled and muddled by your interaction. There is not a single concept - NOT ONE - that you aren't in some way confused about, wrong about, or just simply absolutely willfully ignorant about. Not one.

-deleted unnecessary ad-hom-

As for me - Yes. I'm a Wiccan priest AND a skeptic and realist. I balance both dogmatic faith and honest truth. Do you want to get into the things I believe in? We've been through this together, Dar. The only difference between your belief system and mine is, in mine, this physical reality is manifestly real. Both of our belief systems discuss a Deity who is one-that-is-all; both embrace the notion that we all are part of a greater being. Both deal with a deity who is, in many ways, irrelevant to our everyday lives. However, your deity is unable to actually create/manifest/become anything at all, while my deity forms the entire physical reality of her own being. Yours dreams of what it cannot be, while mine is what it can be.

Meanwhile, you've proven, beyond any doubt (in my mind), that if you're right, your deity is absolutely incapable of {true} self-awareness. All by yourself. You cannot seem to consider the logical conclusions of your own axioms.

It was that discussion - that minor point - that I thought you would at least attempt to address; yet you've chosen to let it lie. Which means either you're basking in hypocracy and accept the impotence and irrelevance of your God, or you're stumped and cannot find any way to weasel out of those conclusions without undermining the very axioms which your theory depends upon. I personally suspect the former; you have, time and again, fully demonstrated your hypocracy and your unwillingness to actually put your faith to the test.

As to why no one is addressing your OP - that's because your OP is trash. That anyone addressed it at all - indeed, that we post here at all - is a sad example of what people will do when they're bored.

I had honestly hoped your return would be heralded with discussions and logical conundrums to really exercise the ol' grey matter - instead, what you have brought to the table since your return wouldn't even be worthy of an Iacchus post. It's like lifegazer lite - all the ignorance, but only half the challenge.

So, there it is. I'm either a liar or stupid, right? Sure. The Gentle Reader is more than capable of deciding for themselves. And in a few decades, as you're gasping in terror at the end of your life, your realizations and philosophies will be fading memories, and the world will continue on as it always has. Maybe even a little better off, since we'll probably be on the edge of amazing breakthroughs in understanding thought, experience, emotion, etc. from studying all that fatty neural tissue.

But, hey, whatever. Post away. Just know that I'll always be right here, like an insane stalker. :) After all - there's really not much else to do here.

[Loss Leader]

I think if Lifegazer weren't trolling, he might have actually stuck around to answer some of these posts. So, here's a cat (http://lytedark.bravepages.com/pics/spirit%20under%20my%20christmas%20tree%20(blue-green%20eyes).jpg).

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see that he showed up yesterday. My mistake. Still, it's a nice cat.

[stamenflicker]

In fact, the measurement of 'time' - being non-universal (not absolute) - cannot be meaningful or common unless there are common experiences associated within the locality of your own experience (in this case: 'the earth').

While I don't necessarily agree, science does have the anthropic principle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

I personally find the Final Anthropic Principle to be most appealing due to my belief structure, although recent discovery (I think even something uncovered in the last year-- please don't make me look it back up :) ) has made this the least likely of the theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_anthropic_principle

[lifegazer]

Lg: "So you're actually standing before this forum and telling it's members that science is not striving to sell us all an absolute age for this universe?"

- It isn't. It is telling us the aproximate age of the visible universe according to our current understanding of the laws of physics. It also provides a method whereby observers in different frames of reference can reconcile their different observations.

As for the actual number, this page (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/%7Ewright/age.html) (found as the first hit googling for "age of the universe" (sans quotes))has a few different figures:
13.7 +/- 0.2 gigayears (theoretically derived from the Hubble constant and the apparent density of matter and dark matter),
14.5 +2.8/-2.2 gigayears (based on the isotopes of certian radioactive elements in very old stars,
12.8 +/- 1.1 gigayears (based on the apparent age of certian classes of white dwarf stars.
So hey, that is three different figures, none of them absolute, all derived according to sound scientific principles. Which one of these was the absolute age of the universe again?

I have never suggested that science has put forward a set-in-stone age for our universe.
What I have said, is that science is STRIVING to put forward a set-in-stone age for our universe. Indeed, those efforts are gradually diminishing the diversity of those answers to a very small margin of error (hence striving to attain absolute agreement). Even within the examples that you provide, we see no more than a few billion years of diversity - not much in universal terms.

But you're all missing the point it seems. Let's examine why:-

1) The universe is comprised of a multitude of 'things'.
2) The age of each one of those things is relative - and therefore SUBJECTIVE for each individual.
[These subjective differences have the potential to differ vastly, so that (theoretically, given the right circumstances) one man's experience of a year might equate to another man's experience of a second... and one man's experience of a meter might equate to another man's experience of a lightyear (review 'twin paradox scenario' for confirmation of comparable experience diversity-potential.]
3) One cannot attribute an age to the whole if the age he attributes to all of it's parts is completely subjective!
4) Since everyone's opinion about the age of the parts is different, then everyone's opinion about the age of the whole would, necessarily, also have to be completely different - and completely subjective.

In a nutshell, science is acting like a nut.
... It cannot even hope to espouse a meaningful age for the universe as a whole for humanity as a whole when it (only a century ago) has already embraced Einstein's theories regarding relativity which, in effect, subjectified all measurements of space & time.

Now I can understand why the average-Joe might not have previously grasped this. But I cannot understand why any Joe reading this thread/post would not understand it now, because it's very simple to comprehend under the light that I have shone upon it.
But what I cannot understand is why physicists/astronomers with, supposedly, a high level of intelligence would continue to strive to find the age for this universe and try and sell it to the whole.

It's such a pathetically naive contradiction of everything that Einstein told us.

I want to laugh my socks off, but it's really not very funny. In fact, it's extremely sad.

[lifegazer]

While I don't necessarily agree, science does have the anthropic principle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

I personally find the Final Anthropic Principle to be most appealing due to my belief structure, although recent discovery (I think even something uncovered in the last year-- please don't make me look it back up :) ) has made this the least likely of the theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_anthropic_principle

I'd like you to explain why the anthropic principle has absolutely anything relevant to say about this thread. It doesn't, but I'm craving some amusement, so please go ahead and explain anyway.

[lifegazer]

And so, Gentle Reader, lifegazer goes from spittle and bile - yet another tired personal attack against someone who understands the true implications of his philosophy FAR better than he does - to willful ignorance and bafflement.

...
As for me - Yes. I'm a Wiccan priest AND a skeptic and realist. I balance both dogmatic faith and honest truth.

Yeah right. My apologies for forgetting that perfectly rational men wear traffic-cones on their heads and do rain-dances whilst chanting to the goddess of cow-dung... being careful not to get mud on their sack-cloth robes for fear of upsetting the god of cleanliness.
And please -whilst jigging to the beat of those hypnotic drums - be wary of dropping your magic wand lest it breaks and curses humanity for a thousand more years.

Do you want to get into the things I believe in?

No. My God is to be found within myself, not my experience. Regardless, I cannot afford to pay for all those accessories that you wear and wave about.

We've been through this together, Dar. The only difference between your belief system and mine is, in mine, this physical reality is manifestly real.

Such a small difference. I'm almost tempted.

But, hey, whatever. Post away. Just know that I'll always be right here, like an insane stalker. :) After all - there's really not much else to do here.
You could try waking up, but I guess dancing naked under the moonlight is a hard habit to break...

[I less than three logic]

I have never suggested that science has put forward a set-in-stone age for our universe.
What I have said, is that science is STRIVING to put forward a set-in-stone age for our universe. Indeed, those efforts are gradually diminishing the diversity of those answers to a very small margin of error (hence striving to attain absolute agreement). Even within the examples that you provide, we see no more than a few billion years of diversity - not much in universal terms.

But you're all missing the point it seems. Let's examine why:-

1) The universe is comprised of a multitude of 'things'.
2) The age of each one of those things is relative - and therefore SUBJECTIVE for each individual.
[These subjective differences have the potential to differ vastly, so that (theoretically, given the right circumstances) one man's experience of a year might equate to another man's experience of a second... and one man's experience of a meter might equate to another man's experience of a lightyear (review 'twin paradox scenario' for confirmation of comparable experience diversity-potential.]
3) One cannot attribute an age to the whole if the age he attributes to all of it's parts is completely subjective!
4) Since everyone's opinion about the age of the parts is different, then everyone's opinion about the age of the whole would, necessarily, also have to be completely different - and completely subjective.

In a nutshell, science is acting like a nut.
... It cannot even hope to espouse a meaningful age for the universe as a whole for humanity as a whole when it (only a century ago) has already embraced Einstein's theories regarding relativity which, in effect, subjectified all measurements of space & time.

Now I can understand why the average-Joe might not have previously grasped this. But I cannot understand why any Joe reading this thread/post would not understand it now, because it's very simple to comprehend under the light that I have shone upon it.
But what I cannot understand is why physicists/astronomers with, supposedly, a high level of intelligence would continue to strive to find the age for this universe and try and sell it to the whole.

It's such a pathetically naive contradiction of everything that Einstein told us.

I want to laugh my socks off, but it's really not very funny. In fact, it's extremely sad.

What seems sad is your inability to grasp that time dilation posed by relativity requires velocities on the magnitude of a large fraction of c, .5c, .75c, or .9999c. Get the idea? Most everything in the universe is moving very, very slowly compared to that kind of speed. Your ideas that this subjective, relative experience of time can vary vastly, as you put it, are completely unfounded. Science can certainly strive to obtain a measurement of the time the universe has been around in units of the speed of time experienced here on Earth.

[Jimbo07]

But you're all missing the point it seems.

Trying making a useful or coherent point, first.


1) The universe is comprised of a multitude of 'things'.
2) The age of each one of those things is relative - and therefore SUBJECTIVE for each individual.
[These subjective differences have the potential to differ vastly, so that (theoretically, given the right circumstances) one man's experience of a year might equate to another man's experience of a second... and one man's experience of a meter might equate to another man's experience of a lightyear (review 'twin paradox scenario' for confirmation of comparable experience diversity-potential.]

Or both, being much more aware of the consequences and predictions of special relativity than you, would observe the predicted effect for their particular frame of reference.


In a nutshell, science is acting like a nut.
... It cannot even hope to espouse a meaningful age for the universe as a whole for humanity as a whole when it (only a century ago) has already embraced Einstein's theories regarding relativity which, in effect, subjectified all measurements of space & time.

Wow. You really don't have clue 1, do you? At least, this post seems to indicate that.


Now I can understand why the average-Joe might not have previously grasped this. But I cannot understand why any Joe reading this thread/post would not understand it now,

We cannot understand gibberish. This has been pointed out to you.


But what I cannot understand is why physicists/astronomers... would continue to strive to find the age for this universe and try and sell it to the whole.

That much is clear. :rolleyes:

My question is: care to give it a try at least?


It's such a pathetically naive contradiction of everything that Einstein told us.


Stupid astrophysicists, naively contradicting Einstein. :mad:

:D


I want to laugh my socks off, but it's really not very funny. In fact, it's extremely sad.

You're right, here. This is sad. Truly sad... :(

[lifegazer]

I'm telling you that science is not monolithic.

Atheism is built upon science. And most agnostics are agnostics because of science. So don't assume to tell me anything along those lines. Science has affected human culture/attitude/morality.

I'm telling you that science is not a democracy.
I'm telling you that science is not a dictatorship.

If there is no freedom for radical change, then it's probably best to equate it to a communist regime.

Science doesn't have a stake in the age of the universe.

Utter BS. Much time and $£$£ and theories have already been staked. Even a simple search on the internet will provide sufficient proof for this.

Science doesn't care.

You cannot equate disinterest to achieve something with a constant effort to achieve that thing. Again, you're talking BS.

Science has a stake in the truth.

Haha...
What is "the truth"?

I'm telling you that you are ignorant of science. I just don't know if that ignorance is willful, lazy or pathological.
I'm telling you that you're either stupid or a liar. I suspect a little of both. After all, all extremists exhibit both traits. And you sir, have exhibited a constant desire to defend the contemporary attitudes & methods of science to the hilt.

I need to make examples of such dummies to exalt my case. So, please continue...

[lifegazer]

What seems sad is your inability to grasp that time dilation posed by relativity requires velocities on the magnitude of a large fraction of c, .5c, .75c, or .9999c. Get the idea? Most everything in the universe is moving very, very slowly compared to that kind of speed. Your ideas that this subjective, relative experience of time can vary vastly, as you put it, are completely unfounded. Science can certainly strive to obtain a measurement of the time the universe has been around in units of the speed of time experienced here on Earth.
What a simpleton.
Sir, Einstein's verified works provide - without a doubt - that ALL measurements of time & space are completely/absolutely relative/subjective.
There are NO ABSOLUTE MEASURES of space or time to be had within the experience of the universe.
... FACT. Deal with it.

And do not think for a minute that humanity's inability to discern of [practical] differences between individual measurements is a significant defence against anything I have said. After all, we are all sat on the same rock, hurtling through space at similar speeds with similar gravitational orientations.

[lifegazer]

Or both, being much more aware of the consequences and predictions of special relativity than you, would observe the predicted effect for their particular frame of reference.

Squire, the twin-paradox is a scenario which predicts that two people who have separated from an original localised place, later meet to find that all measurements of space & time varied whilst they were apart from one another.
In other words, they've had different experiences (regarding space & time) of the same universe.
Consequently, it is fair to say that - whilst apart - that they had experienced different universes or differences amongst the same universe - given that the state of the universe cannot be universal if everyone sees different times and distances between all objects/events.

Wow. You really don't have clue 1, do you? At least, this post seems to indicate that.

Exasperation isn't a proof of anything, least of all a rational hurricane.

We cannot understand gibberish. This has been pointed out to you.

Sheep can understand nothing other than 'baas'. But this doesn't mean that beings who don't 'baa' are stupid.
You need to expand your consciousness. Don't berate me because you have the inability to comprehend nothing other than the language of sheep.

Your post is BS. It says nothing interesting. It's full of scorn without explanation. I'm just making a point by responding to you. I won't be doing this very often unless you learn to expand in consciousness. I don't expect that you will, and I don't really care. In the scheme of [i]everything, you might be surprised to know that 'Jimbo' means nothing. Then again, you probably don't care. Whatever.

[Z]

Wow, I'm impressed - Dar may have Ian beat on the Stupidity Scale! lol

At least he's back to the old, familiar 'squire'. IIRC, that means he's fair game to be referred to as 'Jester' again.

Jest away, my intelligence-impaired friend.

So anyway, the Goddess Eris tells me that scientists have, in fact, been working to come up with a best-guess approximation, an estimate, give or take a few hundred billion years, which will suffice for Earthly purposes. I see in my crystal ball that there isn't a single self-respecting astrophysicist on this plane who is striving to establish the absolute age of the Universe. (Of course, there are other less savory scientists in OTHER planes of existence trying this, but not in ours...).

The Fool keeps coming up in my Tarot readings - I'd love to presume that it refers to you, Dar, but the funny thing is, the Fool often refers to one seeking wisdom or knowledge - something you never do. On the other hand, if half of what you said were in any way relevant, I'd have expected the Tower to come up - but it's always strangely absent.

According to a rune-toss I checked, you're mistaken with regards to the practical applications and implications of time distortion and relativity. After all, scientists ARE giving a common frame of reference when they 'date' some thing. It's the same common frame we work with when we give our ages, or how long we've lived at such-and-such an address, or how many seconds we last in the sack. (Well, seconds for some of you... :) )

It's not an absolute temporal framework - and no scientist is claiming it is. But it is a practical, relevant framework for our purposes - which is all it's ever been meant to be.

My spirit guide reminds me that we went in this circle previously as well - that you so desparately seek to separate everything into absolute terms that you have, in fact, blinded yourself to the reality of reality - that things rarely, if ever, exist in any absolute sense, whatsoever. Plato's world of ideals (is that right????) just doesn't exist, pal.

Then again, what can we expect for someone who wants there to be infinite distance between fixed points?

Maybe you just need a little chakra work. Most people's chakras are badly out of alignment. I can send you a helpful pamphlet on chakra healing for just $9.99 (+s&h). And if you order now, you'll also receive a nice healing jasper, good for sucking negative energy from your palm chakras.

(And if you think THAT'S interesting, I have some nice properties in the Everglades, going cheap...)

...

But don't make fun of the rain dance, Dar. Every time I've danced, it has rained. Somewhere. :D

[Azure]

This one's easy, it's 6000 years old; same as the earth.

You must have missed that one in science class.

Notice how its always been 6000 years old, for the past 6000 years? :D

[stamenflicker]

but I'm craving some amusement,

Then may I suggest: http://totgelacht.com/showcontent.php?cid=499

Other than that, if you don't see the relevance, you need only re-read your original post, read my links, or go have a cheeseburger cause I won't waste my time helping you.

[RandFan]

And you sir, have exhibited a constant desire to defend the contemporary attitudes & methods of science to the hilt. :) And I do so proudly.

There's nothing to respond to your post. You did not refute a single point that I have made. So what if scientists are atheists? What the hell is that supposed to prove? Can you say "fallacy"? Scientific paradigms can change and they can do so radically.

When solar wind was first suggested it was met with resistance by the scientific community because science doesn't shift with every new idea. On the contrary, new ideas must be considered and analyzed to see if they can stand up against such scrutiny. Those that can't are discarded. Those that can are held provisionally until new or better paradigms come along. However, in the case of solar wind the evidence mounted and more and more scientists came to accept it and eventually the scientific community came to a consensus because that is simply what science does. Redshift, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics these are all instances of shifts in paradigms. There have been many such shifts gazer. All of these instances demonstrate profoundly that you are wrong.

[DreadNiK]

Now I can understand why the average-Joe might not have previously grasped this. But I cannot understand why any Joe reading this thread/post would not understand it now, because it's very simple to comprehend under the light that I have shone upon it.
But what I cannot understand is why physicists/astronomers with, supposedly, a high level of intelligence would continue to strive to find the age for this universe and try and sell it to the whole.


Hahaha.

The 'light you have shone upon it' eh...

Ever considered these 'supposedly intelligent' people are actually much more intelligent than you, mainly because they bother to learn things rather than making up some introspective garbage and then attempting and failing to fit the facts around it.

What I can't understand is how you have such astounding arrogance.

[nescafe]

1) The universe is comprised of a multitude of 'things'.
Good so far.
2) The age of each one of those things is relative - and therefore SUBJECTIVE for each individual inertial frame of reference.
You missed something with this one, though. I have taken the liberty of inserting it in italics.
3) One cannot attribute an age to the whole if the age he attributes to all of it's parts is completely subjective!
And here is where the screwup happens. It is not "completly subjective". Using GR, we can correct for the differences that happen because of different inertial frames of reference, and we can do so to an astonishing degree of precision. We have no problems at all assigning an age to things in different inertial frames of reference, and if those things were sentient and capable of understanding GR they would be able to do the same.
4) Since everyone's opinion about the age of the parts is different, then everyone's opinion about the age of the whole would, necessarily, also have to be completely different - and completely subjective.
Only because you misunderstand GR.

[Upchurch]

2) The age of each one of those things is relative - and therefore SUBJECTIVE for each individual.After all this time, do you still really think that "relative" and "subjective" are the same thing?

They aren't, you know. A measurement of length or duration can be both relative and objective at the same time. Anyone can correctly calculate any length from anyone's frame of reference, given enough information, which is the very definition of objective.

[Loss Leader]

After all this time, do you still really think that "relative" and "subjective" are the same thing?


Bravo, Upchurch. I have been bothered by that for the last ten or twenty posts. "Relative" and "subjective" have nothing to do with each other. My son, when waiting for me to come out to the pool so that he can go swimming, feels that a great deal of time has passed whereas I have the subjective sense that all I did was send one email. But our subjective differences have nothing to do with the fact that the amount of time can be objectively measured.

Ten years is, when compared to the span of a human life, a relatively long time. But there's really no quarelling with the fact that it can be measured objectively.

Who in the honking heck cares if two twins have different experiences of time while one of them goes off in a spaceship in a Robert Heinlein story? So long as science can step back from their experiences and find an objective measure of the amount of time that has passed, their relative experiences don't matter.

I am given to understand that science can do this ... primarily because matter in our universe is going at a speed that Does Not Aproach The Speed Of Light.

What I'm not given to understand is what Lifegazer doesn't get about this.

[nescafe]

Atheism is built upon science.
* nescafe raises eyebrow
If anything, both atheism and science are built on not jumping to conclusions. I can see how this would not sit well with your philosophy, LG.
And most agnostics are agnostics because of science. So don't assume to tell me anything along those lines. Science has affected human culture/attitude/morality.
Yes, and ultimatly for the better (at least, that is part of my philosophy). Or would you claim that ignorance of the material world coupled with elaborate fairy tales is the way to go? Oh, I know! Science itself is an elaborate fairy tale you are trying to get us all to stop believing!
If there is no freedom for radical change, then it's probably best to equate it to a communist regime.
Change, radical or not, is perfectly fine, as long as the new thing does a better job at explaining the data and making predictions from it than the old thing did, the works of Kuhn, et. al. notwithstanding.

Utter BS. Much time and $£$£ and theories have already been staked. Even a simple search on the internet will provide sufficient proof for this. You seem to be confusing Science (an abstract methodology) with Scientists (primates with all the status/territorial gaming that implies). Scientists and scientific organizations have a stake in the game, Science does not, because it is the game itself.

[Upchurch]

Bravo, Upchurch. Hey, thanks!
I am given to understand that science can do this ... primarily because matter in our universe is going at a speed that Does Not Aproach The Speed Of Light.
Heck, it can just as easily be done if that matter does approach the speed of light. It's only if it were to reach the speed of light or goes any faster than it that there would be problems. Not the least of which would be the incineration of the matter from the infinite amount of energy needed to accelerate it to those speeds. And just where do you find an engine that has access to an infinite amount of energy?

[Upchurch]

If anything, both atheism and science are built on not jumping to conclusions.
Personally, my atheism is built upon the idea of personal responsibility, the distinct lack of god-iness in my life experiences, and not taking people's word for it.

[nescafe]

Personally, my atheism is built upon the idea of personal responsibility, the distinct lack of god-iness in my life experiences, and not taking people's word for it.
Fair enough. :)

[drkitten]

And just where do you find an engine that has access to an infinite amount of energy?

Acme, at the "special" coyote-infested proving ground.

Not generally available on the commercial market, though -- there are some reliability issues, and so the insurance companies won't let them sell them for liability reasons. I can understand that.

[Jimbo07]

Exasperation isn't a proof of anything,

You're correct and I apologize.


Your post is BS. It says nothing interesting. It's full of scorn without explanation.

Fair enough, I'll try to explain.

Squire, the twin-paradox is a scenario which predicts that two people who have separated from an original localised place, later meet to find that all measurements of space & time varied whilst they were apart from one another.

Except, as nescafe and Upchurch have alluded to, the varying measurements of time and space are predictable. Before twin A's trip begins, twins A and B can sit down together and work out the time dilation of A's trip (at, say, 0.5c) together. Once the trip is concluded, even though B is slightly older (approx. 1.155) than A, they can still compare notes and find that the time dilation has been the same as predicted. There is something 'common,' if not fully objective.

This is because Special Relativity (SR) is built upon two postulates:
i) The laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames.
ii) c is a constant.

The math works out for constant c, but would revert back to plain old vector addition if c was variable and tA would equal tB. I'll assume you're familiar with vector addition.


In other words, they've had different experiences (regarding space & time) of the same universe.

As does everyone at all times, even in the same inertial reference frame. As you've discussed, our experiences seem (to us, anyway) subjective.


Consequently, it is fair to say that - whilst apart - that they had experienced different universes

It's not fair to say that at all.


or differences amongst the same universe - given that the state of the universe cannot be universal if everyone sees different times and distances between all objects/events.

Standing in the same room, but on opposite sides will give us different experiences looking at a table. The table may not exist exactly as either of us see it, but it doesn't mean the table's state, in relation to the teacup sitting on it, is not somehow objective. Our experience says nothing about some sort of 'true state' of the universe :boggled: . However, you cannot then take that to mean that the universe does not have a state!


You need to expand your consciousness.

This sounds kinda woo. Open your mind, dude. Expand your consciousness. Drink in the universe, man.

That and $3.50 gets me a Starbuck's coffee.


Don't berate me because you have the inability to comprehend nothing other than the language of sheep.

but you're not even demonstrating a comprehension of our 'sheep language'!


I won't be doing this very often unless you learn to expand in consciousness. I don't expect that you will, and I don't really care. In the scheme of [i]everything, you might be surprised to know that 'Jimbo' means nothing.

What does my consciousness or 'Jimbo' have to do with anything? Do you mean the symbol attached to me is meaningless? Do you mean my life is meaningless?

I'd agree with the former, and beyond any meaning to me or my loved ones, I'd agree with the latter!

You still haven't coherently made a case about how SR, GR or QM in any way imply that science needs to reform, nor have you suggested meaningful reform. You can't remake a system you're not familiar with. Einstein wasn't willfully ignorant of Newton. Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, et al. weren't ignorant of the problem of Black Body Radiation, they built their work on it!

Lay out for me how your system of thought can return predictable results in a manner as powerful as, or more than, science, and I'll be willing to listen.

Has this been patience and explanation enough?

[Correa Neto]

Mr. Growlnaarl (a Krimunaaarian) is at a spaceship travelling at 0.9999c and measure the age of the universe. At the same time, Mr. Growlnaarl's spaceship's zoom through the solar system, Mr. Phil (a Human at planet Earth) uses the same methodology and measures the age of the universe.

Do you think they will obtain different ages?

Of course not.

Then...

[wollery]

Lifegazer, it's been said to you before and it will no doubt be said to you again, but I'll say it here, and quite bluntly - get off your lazy arse and do a course on relativity. I think you'll be quite surprised at just how wrong you've been all this time. Do I need to remind you again of how wrong you were about the speed of sound?

[Darth Rotor]

Science doesn't have a stake in the age of the universe.
Science doesn't care.
Science has a stake in the truth.

But scientists do. ;) I'd suggest scientists have a stake in material facts, while the Truth is something a bit fuzzier, given its subjective components.

Scientists tie their egos and careers to being "right," and being first to publish their "rightness." Science has a stake in continuing to investigate that which is poorly understood, and to reproducible results. Sometimes all this science helps mankind, other times it helps the raging debates in the Ivory Towers, and still other times it just raises a new set of questions.

Meanwhile, the grant money is being sought after, and some grant money is, shall we say, tainted at its source. :p

I think Lifegazer is missing the point. His "meaningless" attribution to time measurement means, as I see it, that he doesn't understand, particularly as the frequency of light waves appears to be a universal enough common factor that it can be used as a standard.

As to the age of Earth, and the Universe, the order of magnitude seems to be roughy understood, but the value range within that order of magnitude is the subject of much study, since someone (due to that wonderful thing called curiosity) wants to know a better answer, and so that someone can publish the results and be "most right about the subject so far." :)

DR

[Upchurch]

Mr. Growlnaarl (a Krimunaaarian) is at a spaceship travelling at 0.9999c and measure the age of the universe. At the same time, Mr. Growlnaarl's spaceship's zoom through the solar system, Mr. Phil (a Human at planet Earth) uses the same methodology and measures the age of the universe.
I fought hard against my nit-picky side. I really, really did. But the Dark Side of Skepticism is strong in my family.

Mr. Growlnaarl is traveling 0.9999c relative to what? I would guess Mr. Phil, the only other reference frame mentioned in the situation.

Also, the age of the universe is not measured, per se, but deduced/infered/calculated/whatever based on the rate of expansion of the universe, the known behavior of bodies in motion, and countless other clues that the universe left lying around. Kind of like you can't ask a lady her age (that'd be rude), but you find a picture of her as a child shaking Babe Ruth's hand.

[Upchurch]

Scientists tie their egos and careers to being "right," and being first to publish their "rightness."
Correction: A scientist may tie his/her ego and careers into their theories. A group of scientists will tear each others theories to shreds if a mistake is found. Heck, they'll teach each others theories to shreds just looking for a mistake.

[Jimbo07]

... and teaching theories to shreds is hard!

:D

[Correa Neto]

I fought hard against my nit-picky side. I really, really did. But the Dark Side of Skepticism is strong in my family.

Mr. Growlnaarl is traveling 0.9999c relative to what? I would guess Mr. Phil, the only other reference frame mentioned in the situation.

Also, the age of the universe is not measured, per se, but deduced/infered/calculated/whatever based on the rate of expansion of the universe, the known behavior of bodies in motion, and countless other clues that the universe left lying around. Kind of like you can't ask a lady her age (that'd be rude), but you find a picture of her as a child shaking Babe Ruth's hand.

Hmmmmmmm... The dark side is strong on you.... Goooooood, gooooood!

I tried to write it as simple as I could, so, perhaps there would be a dim chance lifegazer would get the point.

Let's say Mr. Growlnaarl's ship is raveling at 0.9999c relative to the Sun, so he and Phil share a referential.

Both observers would measure the same red shifts, background radiation, etc. and deduced/infered/calculated/whatever similar ages, wouldn't they?

Yeah, yeah, I know time dilatation at Mr. Growlnaarl's has to be taken in to account.

[Upchurch]

I tried to write it as simple as I could, so, perhaps there would be a dim chance lifegazer would get the point. Of course. That's why my nit-pickiness is from the Dark Side. I knew what you meant and had a good idea why you phrased it the way you did, but I had to quesiton it anyway. Evil, I tells ya! Evil!

Both observers would measure the same red shifts, background radiation, etc. and deduced/infered/calculated/whatever similar ages, wouldn't they?

Yeah, yeah, I know time dilatation at Mr. Growlnaarl's has to be taken in to account.Yes and it is reasonable that they would take all known effects into account.

...assuming that they both have the same set of known effects and.....

oooh, the Dark Side is a sneaky bastard. :boxedin:

[nescafe]

You need to expand your consciousness.

This sounds kinda woo. Open your mind, dude. Expand your consciousness. Drink in the universe, man.

It is even funnier when you realize that all of these are, in some way, admitting you were wrong about something. LG does not seem to be capable of that.

[Loss Leader]

As to the age of Earth, and the Universe, the order of magnitude seems to be roughy understood, but the value range within that order of magnitude is the subject of much study.


I disagree. Science has conclusively proven the universe to be 13.7 billion years old next Tuesday. I will under no circumstances revise my opinion based on any methodology or evidence and I will give a swift rabbit punch to the nose of any man who disagrees.

[KingMerv00]

Sheep can understand nothing other than 'baas'. But this doesn't mean that beings who don't 'baa' are stupid.
You need to expand your consciousness. Don't berate me because you have the inability to comprehend nothing other than the language of sheep.

Hasn't it ever crossed your mind that maybe you DON'T make sense? Why are you so sure that you are explaining things clearly?

[maatorc]

I can't be bothered researching the latest scientific opinion for the age of our universe.

All notions about the age of the universe are meaningless.
At the level of the whole universe notions of time and space are non-existent.
The whole universe has not been anywhere, has not arrived anywhere, and is not going anywhere, in space or time, actually or relatively.
The whole universe just IS.
Current scientific consensus seems to agree that the humanly perceptible material universe has apparently been expanding for 13+billion years and is likely to appear to contract sometime later, and maybe expand again and contract again and expa.....!
maatorc.

[Loss Leader]

Current scientific consensus seems to agree that the humanly perceptible material universe has apparently been expanding for 13+billion years and is likely to appear to contract sometime later, and maybe expand again and contract again and expa.....!
maatorc.


I thought current thinking had the universe expanding into nothingness. The last I heard, they didn't think the universe had sufficient mass to collapse in on itself.

[maatorc]

I thought current thinking had the universe expanding into nothingness. The last I heard, they didn't think the universe had sufficient mass to collapse in on itself.

True: There are different ideas, such as steady state, it will run down, it oscillates, it has cyclic repetitions, and maybe more yet to be formulated.
Future conceptual models will probably continue to change, without changing the universe as it actually is in itself.
maatorc.

[lifegazer]

Lg: "2) The age of each one of those things is relative - and therefore SUBJECTIVE for each individual."

After all this time, do you still really think that "relative" and "subjective" are the same thing?

They aren't, you know. A measurement of length or duration can be both relative and objective at the same time. Anyone can correctly calculate any length from anyone's frame of reference, given enough information, which is the very definition of objective.
I see your point that, arguably, one could equate the term 'objective' with regards an individual's experience, but the point is that no absolute measure of time or distance for events/distances can be attributed to those events/distances.

... Each individual's experience of a specifc distance or of a length of time (duration of an observed event) is completely unique to that individual (hence 'relative'). Now, though it is true that equations are in place which enable us to calculate the specifics of any individual's experience, this doesn't alter the fact that experience is unique for each individual.

The whole point of this thread is to show that the age we attribute to any particular thing/event is meaningless in an absolute sense, which means that the age we attribute to all of those things as a whole (the age of the universe) is even more meaningless in an absolute sense.

[lifegazer]

I see your point that, arguably, one could equate the term 'objective' with regards an individual's experience...
For the record, I associated the term 'subjective' with experience simply because experience cannot give you an absolute sense of time or of distance.
In this context, there is nought wrong with using it like that.

This actual debate is moot with regards the actual meat of this thread:

"The whole point of this thread is to show that the age we attribute to any particular thing/event is meaningless in an absolute sense, which means that the age we attribute to all of those things as a whole (the age of the universe) is even more meaningless in an absolute sense."

[Correa Neto]

Of course. That's why my nit-pickiness is from the Dark Side. I knew what you meant and had a good idea why you phrased it the way you did, but I had to quesiton it anyway. Evil, I tells ya! Evil!

Yes and it is reasonable that they would take all known effects into account.

...assuming that they both have the same set of known effects and.....

oooh, the Dark Side is a sneaky bastard. :boxedin:

Nah, feel free to use your evil nitpicker dark powers. I am far from being foolproof. Not to mention that there's always something to be learnt.

And it seems he hasn't got the point, as expected...

[wollery]

I see your point that, arguably, one could equate the term 'objective' with regards an individual's experience, but the point is that no absolute measure of time or distance for events/distances can be attributed to those events/distances.

... Each individual's experience of a specifc distance or of a length of time (duration of an observed event) is completely unique to that individual (hence 'relative'). Now, though it is true that equations are in place which enable us to calculate the specifics of any individual's experience, this doesn't alter the fact that experience is unique for each individual.

The whole point of this thread is to show that the age we attribute to any particular thing/event is meaningless in an absolute sense, which means that the age we attribute to all of those things as a whole (the age of the universe) is even more meaningless in an absolute sense.Nope, wrong again LG. Any group of observers in the same inertial reference frame will agree 100% on any and all measurements of time and distance. The equations relate time and distance between inertial frames, not observers.

[Upchurch]

I see your point that, arguably, one could equate the term 'objective' with regards an individual's experience, but the point is that no absolute measure of time or distance for events/distances can be attributed to those events/distances.No one said there was. But just so there is no confusion, the dicotomies at play here are:

Subjective <---> Objective
Relative <---> Absolute

You cannot mix and match these to suite your purposes. (Well, you can, but you'd be wrong.)

... Each individual's experience of a specifc distance or of a length of time (duration of an observed event) is completely unique to that individual (hence 'relative').
Incorrect. It is unique to a particular frame of reference. Two or more people in the same frame of reference will measure duration or length the same.

Now, though it is true that equations are in place which enable us to calculate the specifics of any individual's experience, this doesn't alter the fact that experience is unique for each individual.
It does actually, because it indicates that experience is not dependant on the person but upon the reference frame the person is occupying. If it were dependant upon the person, our calculations would have to take the person into account, but as it is, we can remove the person from the situation entirely and still calculate the measurements.

The whole point of this thread is to show that the age we attribute to any particular thing/event is meaningless in an absolute sense,To my knowledge, you're the only one who has attempted to argue for absolutelness.

which means that the age we attribute to all of those things as a whole (the age of the universe) is even more meaningless in an absolute sense.Yes, in an absolute sense. I haven't looked into it, but I would guess that the ages are assumed from the Earth's frame of reference, since that is where all the measurements are calculated from.

For the record, I associated the term 'subjective' with experience simply because experience cannot give you an absolute sense of time or of distance.
In this context, there is nought wrong with using it like that.Well, there is because you're mixing and matching the above dicotomies to suit your purpose.

"This is fun!" is subjective.
"That is 10 meters long" is objective.

"This is 10 meters long in this frame of reference" is relative.
"This is 10 meters long everywhere in the universe" is absolute.

On the last one, most people take the reference frame from the context of the situation and skip labeling it as a matter of convention.

[Upchurch]

Okay, given that:

calculations of the age of the universe are estimated with a margin of error
changes as we learn more about the universe
are relative to our frame of reference (but objective)

What is the point? I don't see anything in all this that gets you any closer to your "Science is leading us to a dark age" position or your solipsism position or anything else I can remember about your "philosophy".

Are these revelations supposed to be pertinent of something?

[wollery]

He's still trying to prove the relativity backs up his philosophy.

Sadly he knows far too little about relativity to make sensible arguments.

[Upchurch]

He's still trying to prove the relativity backs up his philosophy.
That would be lovely, but it would require somehow relating one to the other. As far as I can see the whole argument relies on "relative" being equivalent with "subjective", which it isn't.

Sadly he knows far too little about relativity to make sensible arguments.
You don't need to know much. The definitions of "relative" and "subjective" are enough to (dis)prove the point.

[wollery]

That would be lovely, but it would require somehow relating one to the other.He thinks he is relating them. :rolleyes:

You don't need to know much.Apparently more than he does.

[lifegazer]

I repeat, this thread is about one thing only: the age of the universe.

Since all measures of time (and distance) are relative, then so are scientific calculations about the age of the universe.
There is no absolute time (or space) experienced by any observer. Therefore, it is folly to suggest a universal age for everything as a whole.

[Upchurch]

Since all measures of time (and distance) are relative, then so are scientific calculations about the age of the universe.
There is no absolute time (or space) experienced by any observer. Therefore, it is folly to suggest a universal age for everything as a whole.Not at all. Just because these numbers are relative does not indicate that they are without meaning or not usefull.

eta: At the very least, it is interesting.

[Molinaro]

I repeat, this thread is about one thing only: the age of the universe.

Since all measures of time (and distance) are relative, then so are scientific calculations about the age of the universe.
There is no absolute time (or space) experienced by any observer. Therefore, it is folly to suggest a universal age for everything as a whole.

Who is trying to do that?

Scientist know all about frames of refrence, and any measure given either explicitly states the frame of reference of the measurement, or it's so blindingly obvious which one is meant to be used that it isn't mentioned.

If you limit your knowledge of science to articles you see the news and other non-scientific publications you often will find all that boring spelling out of the frame of reference and basis for every number used being left out.

If on the other hand you decided to actualy learn about what you are talking about you would understand that all that stuff is never left out when the ideas are being developed, researched, demonstrated, tested, and/or proven.

If we here on earth come up with a number of 13.7 billion years for the age of the universe that will be based on our frame of reference here on earth. If the age is going to be different in the frame of reference for John Q Alien 3 start systems over to the left, that does not invalidate either answer.

Yes you get different answers in different frames of reference, however, they are both still correct! They are correct because scientists understand that they are only correct, within the frame of reference in which a particular number was calculated. Your denial of a single absolute answer isn't needed, because nobody is claiming that there is only one in the first place.

However, what scientists will tell you is that given an answer in one frame of reference, you can then easily calculate the corresponding value for any other well defined frame of reference.

[Foster Zygote]

And that, my Liege, is how we know the world to banana shaped.

Steven

[Darth Rotor]

Correction: A scientist may tie his/her ego and careers into their theories. A group of scientists will tear each others theories to shreds if a mistake is found. Heck, they'll teach each others theories to shreds just looking for a mistake.
*Tips cap.* I stand corrected. :)
Science has conclusively proven the universe to be 13.7 billion years old next Tuesday.

Uh oh, 13.7 billion years old, next Tuesday? I don't know if I can get that many candles for the cake in time. You are baking the cake, aren't you?

Wait, hold everything, that many candles would add how much CO2 to the atmosphere? Scratch the cake, let's stick with birthday ice cream.

OH NO!!! Enough cows to make enough milk for 13.7 billion servings of ice cream would fart out enough methane to add how much CO2 to the atmosphere?

That does it, NO MORE EARTHDAY/BIRTHDAY PARTIES!

Global warming is why we can't have nice things. :mad:

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I repeat, this thread is about one thing only: the age of the universe.

Since all measures of time (and distance) are relative, then so are scientific calculations about the age of the universe.
There is no absolute time (or space) experienced by any observer. Therefore, it is folly to suggest a universal age for everything as a whole.
In the beginning, there were the assumptions.

The underlying assumption you seem to be relying on is that the universe "began." With due regard to Hawking and friends, an alternative assumption is that the universe "is" and that there is no "beginning," which someone alluded to up there a few posts back.

Hard to test, as I understand it. At this point I am a bit out of my depth.

DR

[Foster Zygote]

With due regard to Hawking and friends, an alternative assumption is that the universe "is" and that there is no "beginning," which someone alluded to up there a few posts back.

The jury is till out but I suspect the truth is something like that. This being said though, we can still measure time like any other dimension relative to a reference point.

Steven

P.S. What happened to your AH-64? Power lines?

[lifegazer]

Not at all. Just because these numbers are relative does not indicate that they are without meaning or not usefull.

eta: At the very least, it is interesting.
They have meaning because they relate to a whole host of people (6 billionish), who are in the/a same/similar "frame of intertia".
But if we all go our own separate ways tomorrow...

... I'm not about to embark upon a long discussion with you now with regards how ~interesting~ current scientific-thought regarding the age of the universe is. It's irrelevant.
I just wanted to make the point that if there is no absolute time, then any age attributed to any singular event is bound to be 'subjective' in the sense that it cannot be universal - or in the sense that there is no absolute time for any event.

So, if there is no absolute time for any singular/finite event, then those wishing to attribute an absolute age to our universe as a whole [series of events], are (must be, by logical default) talking BS.


Einstein forbid us from making universal/absolute judgements about time & distance. What I cannot understand is why scientists have spent so much of their time trying to do this. What's the point? After all, any measure that they might yield, can only be associated with this inertial frame of reference!

And so... that measure is [absolutely/universally] meaningless.

[RandFan]

What I cannot understand is why scientists have spent so much of their time trying to do this. What's the point? After all, any measure that they might yield, can only be associated with this inertial frame of reference![absolutely/universally] meaningless. Why measure the height of the mountain if from my perspective 30 miles away it is only an inch high?

[lifegazer]

In the beginning, there were the assumptions.

The underlying assumption you seem to be relying on is that the universe "began." With due regard to Hawking and friends, an alternative assumption is that the universe "is" and that there is no "beginning," which someone alluded to up there a few posts back.

Hard to test, as I understand it. At this point I am a bit out of my depth.

DR

Squire... I am here arguing against scientists who have tried to attribute an absolute age to this universe.
Since all ages require a beginning and an end/present, your argument holds no sway unless your argument confronts mainstream science... which itself embraces the 'big bang' and a beginning to this universal time.

Regardless, Einstein's theory relates to experience (relativity). And I can tell you now - without any shadow of a doubt - that logic dictates that an experiencER preceded 'that' which was experienced.
In other words, there was a beginning to the experience of the universe.

[Upchurch]

They have meaning because they relate to a whole host of people (6 billionish), who are in the/a same/similar "frame of intertia".
But if we all go our own separate ways tomorrow... Then we can objectively calculate the age of the universe for 6 billionish frames of reference.

... I'm not about to embark upon a long discussion with you now with regards how ~interesting~ current scientific-thought regarding the age of the universe is. It's irrelevant.Your loss.

I just wanted to make the point that if there is no absolute time, then any age attributed to any singular event is bound to be 'subjective' in the sense that it cannot be universal - or in the sense that there is no absolute time for any event.
See, here is where you mix up that "relative"/"subjective" thing again. If you're going to play the game, you need to at least learn what the pieces are called.

So, if there is no absolute time for any singular/finite event, then those wishing to attribute an absolute age to our universe as a whole [series of events], are (must be, by logical default) talking BS.
The only BS I see here is your general confusion about the terms and what they mean.

Einstein forbid us from making universal/absolute judgements about time & distance. What I cannot understand is why scientists have spent so much of their time trying to do this. What's the point? After all, any measure that they might yield, can only be associated with this inertial frame of reference!And from this frame of reference, to ever other frame of reference.

And so... that measure is [absolutely/universally] meaningless.
You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[lifegazer]

Why measure the height of the mountain if from my perspective 30 miles away it is only an inch high?
This question does not relate to what we are discussing here. You should know that.
It's like a kid asking why the moon is bigger than an apple if it looks/appears smaller than an apple.

[RandFan]

You keep using that word. I don't think that word means what you think it means.No attribution Upchurch. Tsk tsk, and a moderator to boot.

--Inigo Montoya (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes)

[RandFan]

It's like a kid asking why the moon is bigger than an apple if it looks/appears smaller than an apple. Isn't the size of the moon and apple relative to the frame of reference of the observer?

Hey, I'll confess, I struggle with relativity so if I'm off base and exposing my ignorance then I apologize.

[lifegazer]

Then we can objectively calculate the age of the universe for 6 billionish frames of reference.

But then we get 6 billionish different ages of/for the universe, since none of them are no longer in the same frame of inertia!
... Which kinda sums-up everything I've been trying to say, since the age of the universe is meaningless unless it has a universal/absolute meaning!

[Upchurch]

But then we get 6 billionish different ages of/for the universe, since none of them are no longer in the same frame of inertia!
... Which kinda sums-up everything I've been trying to say, since the age of the universe is meaningless unless it has a universal/absolute meaning!
You have a very narrow understanding of meaning.

[Foster Zygote]

But then we get 6 billionish different ages of/for the universe, since none of them are no longer in the same frame of inertia!
... Which kinda sums-up everything I've been trying to say, since the age of the universe is meaningless unless it has a universal/absolute meaning!

This is headed back to the "Universe is not real. It only exists in the mind of the ~experiencER~." isn't it? I know it all has to do with Descartes' method of doubt and Paul's theory of relativity and Einstein's gnosticism and these little things: ~~~~~~

Steven

[lifegazer]

Isn't the size of the moon and apple relative to the frame of reference of the observer?

Exactly. The size of The Moon and any specific apple is dependent upon your frame of reference.
This just indicates that there is no 'absolute' (universal) size of that moon or of that apple.
... So, when scientists - here on Earth - say that the Moon is 'X' meters in diameter; they are declaring that measurement with regards their own frame of reference.
In truth, the size of that moon is relatively variable (albeit predictable), but there is no absolute/universal measurement for the size of that moon.

... So, if the size of the moon isn't universal, then the age of that moon certainly isn't. And when you embrace all other bodies within the universe, it is seen as complete folly to attribute an absolute-age to them as a whole.

This is the point of this thread.
... Yet scientists have spent countless hours attributing an absolute-age to the universe which we perceive.
... Which is either wrong... or meaningless.

[lifegazer]

You have a very narrow understanding of meaning.

Copout.
I sincerely answered you... and you typed this rubbish as a response.

You know exactly what I mean. I'm just curious as to whether you will ever acknowledge it. I've always pondered the sincerity of your responses. I'm now thinking that in this thread - at last - I will finally fathom you out.

So, unveil yourself. No more BS.

[Foster Zygote]

Exactly. The size of The Moon and any specific apple is dependent upon your frame of reference.
This just indicates that there is no 'absolute' (universal) size of that moon or of that apple.
... So, when scientists - here on Earth - say that the Moon is 'X' meters in diameter; they are declaring that measurement with regards their own frame of reference.
In truth, the size of that moon is relatively variable (albeit predictable), but there is no absolute/universal measurement for the size of that moon.

... So, if the size of the moon isn't universal, then the age of that moon certainly isn't. And when you embrace all other bodies within the universe, it is seen as complete folly to attribute an absolute-age to them as a whole.

This is the point of this thread.
... Yet scientists have spent countless hours attributing an absolute-age to the universe which we perceive.
... Which is either wrong... or meaningless.

If what you are saying is true then two or more people should see the moon as being of various sizes even if they are standing on the Earth within a meter of one another. Let's be specific about what we mean by "the size of the moon". From a certain distance the moon will span a number of degrees of arc. From Earth the moon spans about 30 arc minutes or 1/2 degree. Any observer on Earth will observe the moon to be about 30 arc minutes. No one will see it as measuring 2 arc minutes and no one will see it as measuring 30 degrees or 1800 arc minutes. Observers halfway between the Earth and moon traveling on the same spacecraft will still see the moon as spanning about 1 degree. Two or more astronauts on the surface of the moon, each with a meter stick, will still measure the circumference of the moon to be about 10,864 km. No one will come up with 65 meters and no one will come up with 100,000 km. What do you make of the fact that observers will perceive the same arc for the moon from the same reference point and that the perceived arc will be predictable and uniform from any vantage point? The fact that someone on Earth sees the moon as spanning 30 arc minutes while the astronaut halfway to the moon sees it as spanning 60 arc minutes does not change the fact that the moons absolute diameter is 3475 km. In point of fact, if what you assert in the above post were true then while I perceived Chicago to be closer to South Carolina than Moscow my friend in the next county would perceive Moscow as being closer than Atlanta. After all, no measure of distance is universal.

The fact is that just because I have to drive 600 miles to reach Indianapolis and someone 100 miles south of me has to drive 700 mile doesn't mean that our different measures form different frames of reference contradict one another.

[AmateurScientist]

For anyone serious about how astronomers and cosmologists estimate the age of the universe, here's how in layman's terms:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101age.html

Relativistic effects are already factored into cosmologists' estimates of the age of the universe -- presently about 13.7 billion years. There are two primary known types of redshift (our observing the frequency of light originating from a star or galaxy being shifted in frequency toward the red spectrum, so that the light appears more red to us than it really is) we observe in objects which are very distant from us in astronomical terms: 1) The Cosmological Redshift, which is due to what we believe to be the expansion of the universe, meaning space itself is expanding, taking the x, y, and z axes for distance with it (and thus the dimension time t as well); and 2) the Gravitational Redshift, which is due to the warping effects massive bodies and their gravitational fields have upon spacetime.

One measurement for the age of the universe is determined by measuring the cosmic microwave background radiation that is found in every direction. It is the "signature" of the remnants of the Big Bang itself.

Another way of measuring the age of the universe (more precisely, determining a lower limit to its age, based on the logical causal premise that the universe cannot be younger than anything in it), is to measure the distance to the most distant observable objects from us, and to work backwards to determine when those objects would have been at the same "location" as everything else -- the origin of the Big Bang, a singularity. There are several ways astronomers and cosmologists have of determining distances from us of observable objects in the universe. Here's one such way:

Cephieds are stars that have used up their main supply of hydrogen and are thus unstable and pulsate. In 1912, A woman astronomer named Henrietta Swan Leavitt discovered a tight correlation between the period of variability (the time it takes to go from maximum brightness to weakest brightness -- resulting in blinking) and absolute luminosity (brightness) of variable stars, also known as Cephieds, or Cephied variables. Thus, Cephieds can be used as standard candles to determine the distance to their host galaxies or star clusters. This means we have a sort of astronomical yardstick in galaxies and clusters of stars throughout the observable universe. We find a Cephied, and we can determine with reasonable accuracy how far away its galaxy is from us. Fortunately, Cephieds are plentiful.

That's not the only way, but it's one way to measure distances accurately.

For a more scholarly exploration of redshift and taking relativistic effects into account when measuring the age of the universe, go here:

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2004-8

AS

ETA: the concept of "comoving distance" might be helpful in understanding how cosmologists go about choosing a coordinate system for any given observer in measuring time and distances in an expanding universe, and what that means in relative terms. The concepts of redshift and blueshift come into play. Here's a link to the wikipedia entry for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_distance

[Upchurch]

You know exactly what I mean. I'm just curious as to whether you will ever acknowledge it. I've always pondered the sincerity of your responses. I'm now thinking that in this thread - at last - I will finally fathom you out.

So, unveil yourself. No more BS.
Well, I've already explained to you many times how relative is not subjective. You pretty much ignored that.

...I'd list more, but really, that's the only dog you have and that just doesn't hunt.

[lifegazer]

If what you are saying is true then two or more people should see the moon as being of various sizes even if they are standing on the Earth within a meter of one another.

Nope, since they are in the same frame of reference/inertia.

One of the fundamental tenets of Einstin's theory, is that all times & distances shall be measured differently - dependeng on the frame of reference. In other words, there are NO absolute distances or times. In other words, the size/length of anything and the duration of any event, is dependent upon the observer.

There is NO absolute age for the universe as a whole, since there is NO absolute age for any of it's parts.

... And since there is no absolute age for the universe as a whole, the age of the universe as given by scientists completely disregards everything Einstein has said.
= Present-day theories regarding the age of the universe are incorrect and meaningless when given as 'fact'.

[lifegazer]

Relativistic effects are already factored into cosmologists' estimates of the age of the universe

What utter BS.

How can a theory (Einstein's), which states that there are ZERO absolute measures of space & time, also factor to yield absolute measures of space & time?!

There are ZERO mathematics that narrate of the absolute space between objects, nor of the absolute time between events.
Oh, and in case you're still doubtful, Einstein used mathematics to prove the previous statement!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Upchurch]

= Present-day theories regarding the age of the universe are incorrect and meaningless when given as 'fact'.
I'll bite. How exactly do you get "meaningless" from "relative"?

[Foster Zygote]

Nope, since they are in the same frame of reference/inertia.

One of the fundamental tenets of Einstin's theory, is that all times & distances shall be measured differently - dependeng on the frame of reference. In other words, there are NO absolute distances or times. In other words, the size/length of anything and the duration of any event, is dependent upon the observer.

There is NO absolute age for the universe as a whole, since there is NO absolute age for any of it's parts.

... And since there is no absolute age for the universe as a whole, the age of the universe as given by scientists completely disregards everything Einstein has said.
= Present-day theories regarding the age of the universe are incorrect and meaningless when given as 'fact'.

Just as there is no absolute diameter of the moon? I was going to ask "Do you understand?" at the end of my previous post but I decided it might be construed as insulting and I thought I'd try a new approach with you. It is apparent, however, that you do not understand. Regarding relativity, as with philosophy or early Christian gnosticism before, you learn a little bit, interpret it in a manner that suits your purposes and then convince yourself that your understanding of the subject is complete. If everything you've claimed in the past were true you would be the greatest philosopher/prophet/cosmologist in human history.

Steven

[Foster Zygote]

What utter BS.

How can a theory (Einstein's), which states that there are ZERO absolute measures of space & time, also factor to yield absolute measures of space & time?!

There are ZERO mathematics that narrate of the absolute space between objects, nor of the absolute time between events.
Oh, and in case you're still doubtful, Einstein used mathematics to prove the previous statement!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, make that greatest philosopher/prophet/cosmologist/mathematician in human history.

Steven

[ynot]

I can't be bothered researching the latest scientific opinion for the age of our universe. Why? Not just because scientific opinion, regarding this, is always changing... but because - as Einstein indicated - if the measured time associated with any event (dependent upon the situation of a specific observer) is not universal, then the age of all events - including that of universal origins - is obviously absolutely subjective.

In fact, the measurement of 'time' - being non-universal (not absolute) - cannot be meaningful or common unless there are common experiences associated within the locality of your own experience (in this case: 'the earth').

Hence, whatever age our scientists [of this common Earthly experience] seek to give to our universe, is meaningless and completely subjective (relative to how we experience time & space at this locality).

Scientists should not be forthcoming with universal declarations regarding origins in time, since time is personal.


*********** scientists have created a new dark age and I'm sat here trying to tell everyone whilst they sun themselves.
Sigh.
The sun is not shining where I am (cloudy day) so I'm sat here in the dark waiting for you to shine some light on whatever subject it is you're trying to get across. Please begin when you're ready.

[AmateurScientist]

What utter BS.

How can a theory (Einstein's), which states that there are ZERO absolute measures of space & time, also factor to yield absolute measures of space & time?!

There are ZERO mathematics that narrate of the absolute space between objects, nor of the absolute time between events.
Oh, and in case you're still doubtful, Einstein used mathematics to prove the previous statement!!!!!!!!!!!!

D'oh! Yeah, you're right, Lifegazer. All those thousands of modern day astrophysicists have forgotten to take Special Relativity into effect in their calculations. I forgot; there was a snow day in school that day. Stupid astrophysicists and their wanting to go sledding as college kids.

AS

[lifegazer]

I'll bite. How exactly do you get "meaningless" from "relative"?
The age of the universe as a whole is dependent upon your frame of reference too.
So, let's imagine say 3 observers with substantially different frames of reference. Their perceptions and measures of things/events are all relatively different (akin to the twin-paradox). Based upon their observations and proceeding calculations, let's say that one observer says that the universe is 5 billion years old, a second observer says that the universe is 12 billion years old, and a third observer says that the universe is 25 billion years old?

... Now, who is right?
... Well, Einstein has showed us that NONE of them are 'absolutely' right. Yet, we have a bizarre situation here where - if all observers have measured & calculated correctly - ALL of them could be correct within the context of relativity.

So, how meaningful is it to say that the universe is 12 billion years old, for example, when the figure is only relevant to a particular frame of reference?
The figure is clearly meaningless since the same observer could swap his frame of reference and then say that the universe is 5 billion or 25 billion years old.

Our scientists keep striving to find out the age of our universe. Last I heard, that value was hovering around the 12 billion year mark.
But can somebody please explain to me why they are bothering when the value that they are pushing is solely dependent upon this Earthly frame of reference?
It's a pointless - "meaningless" - exercise.

[lifegazer]

Just as there is no absolute diameter of the moon?

Correct - there is no absolute diameter of the moon. The value for the diameter of the moon that you have read in your astronomy book, is a figure based upon this Earthly frame of reference.
That figure has no universal/absolute meaning.

That should be a startling fact for you, if you haven't understood it before, especially with regards this thread.

[Z]

Dar seems to have some problems distinguishing between things which are irrelevant, highly relevant, interesting, not interesting, etc. For example, he thinks that determining an approximation for the age of our apparent universe, in context of our common experiential frame of reference, is 'meaningless'; yet fails to see how a philosophy that espouses a deity-being which lacks self-awareness and which is incapable of detectable interaction with this experiential frame of reference is irrelevant.

Now, I don't know for sure what good knowing the age of our Universe would do, any more than I know for sure what good knowing the age of our nation would. Truly, it might be pointless. Then again, they might, in their quest to decipher their experiences, determine something profound - like, maybe, a cyclic mode or some indicator as to how this incarnation of the Universe came into being.

The quest for knowledge should never be given up on the grounds that the knowledge being sought appears to some to be meaningless or purposeless; indeed, many facts which were once considered irrelevant or unimportant have turned out to be quite important - under the right circumstances.

And, the funny thing is, determining the 'age of the universe' doesn't even contravene lifegazer's ramblings. After all, within The Experience, all that we perceive as 'reality' might quite well exactly have happened as described by our prominent astrophysicists... in our own frame of reference.

You know, 'frame of reference' is a good term to bring up, within a 'gazer topic. Why? Because one of the things he continually fails to recognize is that this experiential reality is the 'frame of reference' which we have to work with. And in this frame, science has come up with the best possible answers, and continues to do so. His 'ExperiencER' just isn't in our frame of reference; indeed, it cannot in any way become a part of our frame of reference! Hence - it becomes irrelevant to us.

Well, that's how it goes - discussions with acosmists are usually just like this.

[Z]

Correct - there is no absolute diameter of the moon. The value for the diameter of the moon that you have read in your astronomy book, is a figure based upon this Earthly frame of reference.
That figure has no universal/absolute meaning.

Bingo!

There is no such thing as 'universal' or 'absolute' meanings, Gazer.

NO UNIVERSALS! NO ABSOLUTES! NO IDEALS!

Until you can embrace this as truth, you'll never understand.

[lifegazer]

Bingo!

There is no such thing as 'universal' or 'absolute' meanings, Gazer.

Einstein never proved that there were no absolute truths. He merely proved that there are no absolute measures of time or distance.

NO UNIVERSALS! NO ABSOLUTES! NO IDEALS!

Until you can embrace this as truth, you'll never understand.
Cite the material which proves this so that I can tear it to shreds.

And then, ponder the silliness of declaring - 'absolutely' - that there are no absolute statements to be made.

You should stick to rain-dancing in your robe.

[lifegazer]

... yet fails to see how a philosophy that espouses a deity-being which lacks self-awareness

Do you lack self-awareness?
... No. You simply calculate that the self is the being within experience, which is wrong, since no thing within experience is real in and of itself.

Note the distinction between lacking self-awareness and harbouring an incorrect assessment of what that self is.

and which is incapable of detectable interaction with this experiential frame of reference is irrelevant.

Don't be silly. The experiencER cannot be found amongst experience, by logical default.

Now, I don't know for sure what good knowing the age of our Universe would do,

It doesn't do any good, since there cannot be a universal/absolute figure associated with that concept.

- like, maybe, a cyclic mode or some indicator as to how this incarnation of the Universe came into being.

The experienced universe "came into being" because whatever it is that you are chose to impose that experience upon Itself. That's a fact. Think about it.

The quest for knowledge should never be given up on the grounds that the knowledge being sought appears to some to be meaningless or purposeless

What is the point of the quest for relative (non-universal or non-absolute) knowledge?
You can argue that knowledge might have practical use, but in the case of universal age, you cannot argue that point.

[Loss Leader]

You know, the longer I stay with this thread, the less I understand it. I notice that most of the heavy hitters have pretty much given up and left Lifegazer alone to his point - whatever it may be. Perhaps that's best.

But I still don't understand what the heck Lifegazer is talking about. Why is it important to him that we can't prove the absolute age of the universe? What does winning that argument get him? Is it something about the fact that if we can't know everything, we shouldn't try to know anything and just be happy that God is handling things? Seriously, I have no idea.

How does the fact that something may appear different from various vantage points mean that we cannot know the thing itself? Lots of things change with perspective but they can be calculated. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, some things can only be calculated by comparing different perspectives- aiming a cannonball from land at a ship on a river, for instance.

Ah, never mind. Lifegazer's got his own agenda.

[RandFan]

Ah, never mind. Lifegazer's got his own agenda.:)

[Z]

Einstein never proved that there were no absolute truths. He merely proved that there are no absolute measures of time or distance.

Nor was he out to prove that absolute truths existed or didn't exist. But the simple fact is, that no absolutes exist. Even that statement, is relative.

Cite the material which proves this so that I can tear it to shreds.

The only way you could tear it to shreds is if you physically got hold of the paper materials themselves and ripped them up. That's about the most you threaten such thoughts.

If you're speaking of argumentative 'tearing to shreds', I feel compelled to remind you that in the several years you've been at this, you've not once torn a single argument to shreds. You've barely even bent the papers.

And then, ponder the silliness of declaring - 'absolutely' - that there are no absolute statements to be made.

Interesting - where did I say 'absolutely'?

You should stick to rain-dancing in your robe.

When logic fails, go for character smearing.

[Z]

Do you lack self-awareness?
... No. You simply calculate that the self is the being within experience, which is wrong, since no thing within experience is real in and of itself.

Meaning (since by this you mean 'you' to mean 'the ExperiencER') that the ExperiencER lacks self-awareness.

After all, it was your OWN argument that, unless you know yourself ABSOLUTELY, you aren't self-aware at all.

Should I look up the relevant thread for you?

Note the distinction between lacking self-awareness and harbouring an incorrect assessment of what that self is.

Merely a convenient niggle - considering your prior commentaries.

Don't be silly. The experiencER cannot be found amongst experience, by logical default.

Hence, the experiencER is irrelevant within this frame of reference.

[drkitten]

But I still don't understand what the heck Lifegazer is talking about.

I shouldn't worry much about it. Lifegazer himself doesn't understand what the heck he's talking about, which is one of the fundamental problems.

Why is it important to him that we can't prove the absolute age of the universe? What does winning that argument get him? Is it something about the fact that if we can't know everything, we shouldn't try to know anything and just be happy that God is handling things? Seriously, I have no idea.

Lifegazer is a proponent of an idea -- or perhaps I should write "idea" -- of a radical pantheistic solipsism. In rather broad terms -- he, you, I, my cat, and the hash pipe in 'gazer's hand are all fragments of the divine Ur-mind that has somehow decided to split itself into a number of schizophrenic fragments, simultaneously hiding from itself/themselves the true nature of its/their divinity. In particular, the world itself that we experience is not the true world, but an illusion created by each fragment -- or perhaps by all fragments jointly -- or perhaps shared amongst each other like the hash pipe. His writings, um, "aren't exactly clear" on that point.

In order to establish the non-existence of the physical, phenomenological world, he wants to show that it's observer dependent. The connection from "observer-dependent" to "non-existent" is another theoretical point that is "not entirely clear."

[Loss Leader]

In order to establish the non-existence of the physical, phenomenological world, he wants to show that it's observer dependent. The connection from "observer-dependent" to "non-existent" is another theoretical point that is "not entirely clear."

Holy honking heck! But, um, in that case, wouldn't the works of Einstein be as much schizophenic fragments as anything else? In other words, is it not a fallacy to rely on the findings of a physicist who purported to mathematically deduce the nature of the world in order to prove that it is impossible to mathematically deduce the nature of the world? I mean, Einstein could be as wrong as the people trying to figure the age of the universe. He could have been his own incomplete fragment not seeing the grand unity.

Gazer's philosophy seems 100% unassailable in that any actual evidence of the nature of the universe can be discarded because his philosophy's first rule is: discard any actual evidence of the nature of the universe.

And I thought he was just confused about physics. Turns out he needs to spend more time with his Rabbi.

[The Kilted Yaksman]

The experienced universe "came into being" because whatever it is that you are chose to impose that experience upon Itself. That's a fact. Think about it.

A "fact", eh? That's stupendously concrete declaration from somebody who seems to believe that nothing is concrete. Can you show the maths that support this "fact"? Or is it a "fact" simply because you feel it is/should be? :confused:

[Loss Leader]

Can you show the maths that support this "fact"?

He he. I love the British. "Maths." How cute is that? "Whilst." You guys just make me happy.

[RandFan]

He he. I love the British. "Maths." How cute is that? "Whilst." You guys just make me happy.[another yank] I know, I'm not "pissed" I'm just drunk.[/another yank]

[Upchurch]

The age of the universe as a whole is dependent upon your frame of reference too.
Well, no. It is also dependent upon how far is one from the origin of the universe.

eta: and the method one uses to measure the age of the universe.

... Now, who is right?
... Well, Einstein has showed us that NONE of them are 'absolutely' right.
Strawman. Einstein wouldn't have made that judgement in terms of absolutness. He would have said they were ALL correct.

Yet, we have a bizarre situation here where - if all observers have measured & calculated correctly - ALL of them could be correct within the context of relativity.
Ah, now that is the correct answer. And yes, relativity is bizarre, but that doesn't mean its wrong.

So, how meaningful is it to say that the universe is 12 billion years old, for example, when the figure is only relevant to a particular frame of reference?
Extremely. Especially since that age can be then calculated for any other frame of reference.

The figure is clearly meaningless since the same observer could swap his frame of reference and then say that the universe is 5 billion or 25 billion years old.But as long as he knows what his frame of reference is (which he does since he swapped them), then the figure still has meaning.

Our scientists keep striving to find out the age of our universe. Last I heard, that value was hovering around the 12 billion year mark.
But can somebody please explain to me why they are bothering when the value that they are pushing is solely dependent upon this Earthly frame of reference?
It's a pointless - "meaningless" - exercise.
An easily answered question. The value is not solely dependent.

Just like a single word can be translated into many different languages, so too can a duration be translated into many different inertial frames of reference. To continue the analogy:

Yes
Si
Oui
Da
Ja

A person could swap between one language and another and have a completely different word. And yet, does that render any of them meaningless to those who understand how to translate from one language to another?

Of course not.

So neither is a duration meaningless to those who understand how to calculate from one inertial reference frame to another. Knowing the age of the universe in one inertial reference frame is not meaningless because it can be "translated" into any other intertial reference frame.

[maatorc]

[QUOTE=Loss Leader;1878352]Holy honking heck! .........And I thought he was just confused about physics........ QUOTE]

It is true LG's terminology confuses somewhat.

When, however, drkitten says:
( ...In order to establish the non-existence of the physical phenomenological world, he wants to show that it's "observer- dependent". The connection from "observer-dependent" to "non-existent" is another theoretical point that is "not entirely clear." ...),
such a comment is not as clear as it seems.

It is clear to even a casual observation that in LG's lexicon, non-existent means not the actual thing in itself: It is, rather, the world of our sense realizations.

The physical phenomenological world is the world as we see it based on our human physiological senses: We cannot know any other world.

Observer dependent means relying on our senses of perception as we see the world as we see it.

LG, in his convoluted way, is merely equating the world as it is in itself with what is actual as in an action in nature as in actuality, as distinct from the world as it is perceived as in realised as in real as in reality.

drkitten, by the way, so I have been told, does not like '$10 dollar words' such as 'phenomenological'.

As to whether LG's 'world' is how 'it' IS: Who knows?

maatorc.

[nescafe]

Nor was he out to prove that absolute truths existed or didn't exist. But the simple fact is, that no absolutes exist. Even that statement, is relative.



The speed of light in a vacuum.



Just about everything else in human experience is not absolute, especially statements about human understanding. :)

[nescafe]

Do you lack self-awareness?
... No. You simply calculate that the self is the being within experience, which is wrong, since no thing within experience is real in and of itself.
Fantastic. Tell me again how I calculate this self and the experience it logically implies?

Note the distinction between lacking self-awareness and harbouring an incorrect assessment of what that self is.
Then tell us, oh initiated one, what is the self? No one-sentence or one paragraph summaries, please -- give us all the nitty gritty detail.

Don't be silly. The experiencER cannot be found amongst experience, by logical default.
Which, by the power of Ockham's Razor, makes it totally irrelavent, just like the Mind (if you are a dualist), the Soul (if you are spiritual), or The Solipsist (if you are not me ;) ).

It doesn't do any good, since there cannot be a universal/absolute figure associated with that concept.
Irrelavent. Assuming accurate measurements and a theory at least as powerful as General Relativity, all the measurements made in different frames of reference can be translated into the mesurements that would be made in any other frame of reference.

The experienced universe "came into being" because whatever it is that you are chose to impose that experience upon Itself. That's a fact. Think about it.
True in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, and true, false, and meaningless in some sense.

In this case, though, mostly meaningless.

What is the point of the quest for relative (non-universal or non-absolute) knowledge?
There is no direct point. As Dawkins would put it, curiosity is a free-floating rationale. It is (evolutionarily speaking), a Good Trick.

You can argue that knowledge might have practical use, but in the case of universal age, you cannot argue that point.
Ah, so you picked this argument thinking it had no practial use? At least you are getting better at picking targets for your rants -- remember the cell differentiation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58700) fiasco?
In any case, knowing the age of the universe by itself may indeed be useless, but it can be used to check various other things, like the bounds on the size of the observable universe and how accurate the various theories that describe the structure and nature of the universe at large scales are.

Or it could be that we are curious monkeys, and some of us like knowing this sort of thing. It might get us laid.

[Molinaro]

Here is what Lifegazer's point looks like to me:

I'm Canadian and say that I am 90 KG.
An American would say that I am 200 LBS.
A Brit might say that I am 10 Stone.

Therefore, there is no absolute value for my weight, hence my weight does not exist.


Or put another way...

I say that I am 90 KG. (base 10)
Johny Octol says that I am actualy 132 KG. (base 8)
Meanwhile Mary-Lue Hexi says that I am actualy 5A KG. (base 16)

Therefore there is no absolute correct answer to my weight, and my true weight does not exist.


Now, Lifegazer, if you find the above 2 arguments silly then you need to understand that what you have been arguing is exactly just as silly to me. You see just because I get a different number in one set of units, or in one number base does not make that answer less meaningfull as in another set of units or another number base.

I see the different numbers we get in physics, because of relativity, no more remarkable, or difficult to handle, as any of the above.

Do you get it?

[Foster Zygote]

Here is what Lifegazer's point looks like to me:

I'm Canadian and say that I am 90 KG.
An American would say that I am 200 LBS.
A Brit might say that I am 10 Stone.

Therefore, there is no absolute value for my weight, hence my weight does not exist.

Excellent post. But don't forget the argument that because things look smaller from farther away they don't exist. We might call this the argument from "I'm crushing your head!"

Steven

[Upchurch]

Excellent post. But don't forget the argument that because things look smaller from farther away they don't exist. We might call this the argument from "I'm crushing your head!"
Perhaps the "Mr. Tyzik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Tyzik) Defence"?

[Foster Zygote]

Perhaps the "Mr. Tyzik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Tyzik) Defence"?

"I like to put my money in stocks."

"Well I like to put my money in bonds."

"Well I put my money in my mattress."

Well take THAT you flatheads!

[Upchurch]

lifegazer,

We now have multiple examples of how something can be relative and still retain meaning. Do you still assert the relativeness of the age of the universe indicates that it has no meaning? If so, please indicate what it is about the age of the universe that makes it different from any other measurement.

[Loss Leader]

I'm Canadian and say that I am 90 KG.
An American would say that I am 200 LBS.
A Brit might say that I am 10 Stone.

This is an absolutely ridiculous example. Everyone knows that the British exist only in Fawlty Towers reruns and Canada is a small public park north of Buffalo. Hence, the answer is 200 lbs.

[Foster Zygote]

This is an absolutely ridiculous example. Everyone knows that the British exist only in Fawlty Towers reruns and Canada is a small public park north of Buffalo. Hence, the answer is 200 lbs.

FAWLTY TOWERS

WATERY FOWLS

FLOWERY TWATS

FARTY TOWELS

Were there others? I can't recall.

Steven

[lifegazer]

Here is what Lifegazer's point looks like to me:

I'm Canadian and say that I am 90 KG.
An American would say that I am 200 LBS.
A Brit might say that I am 10 Stone.

Therefore, there is no absolute value for my weight, hence my weight does not exist.

Nope, that's a ridiculous comparison, since you are using different parameters of weight to state the same measurement.
What I have discussed here, is a system which uses universal parameters of space & time to give different measurements for the same objects/events.

[Upchurch]

Nope, that's a ridiculous comparison, since you are using different parameters of weight to state the same measurement.
What I have discussed here, is a system which uses universal parameters of space & time to give different measurements for the same objects/events.
Not at all. We are using different frames of reference to state the same measurement. Frames of reference are not universal.

[lifegazer]

lifegazer,

We now have multiple examples of how something can be relative and still retain meaning. Do you still assert the relativeness of the age of the universe indicates that it has no meaning? If so, please indicate what it is about the age of the universe that makes it different from any other measurement.
Sigh. Most of the responses here are ridiculous, especially those praising the poster I previously replied to.

Upchurch, you don't appear to understand the significance of the concept 'meaning' in a universal context.
My point was obvious: if the age of the universe is dependent upon the frame of reference from whence it was calculated, then that measurement has no universal significance.
... Which equates to no universal significance or no universal meaning.
Which means - since it equates to the universe itself - that it has zero meaning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you tell me that the universe is 12 billion years old, for example, but this measurement has no absolute relevance to the universe itself, then you can ONLY argue that this measurement has significance to you yourself.
But so what?

[lifegazer]

Not at all. We are using different frames of reference to state the same measurement. Frames of reference are not universal.
If I've read that right, then it's incorrect.
How can people from various frames of reference speak of the same measurement?

For example, let's imagine that we don't share the same frame of reference and you measure the earth to be 1000 miles from the Sun, whilst I measure it to be 93,000,000 miles.

It is the parameters of measurement that are universal - not the measurements themselves.
Otherwise, those parameters would be meaningless.

[Loss Leader]

Nope, that's a ridiculous comparison, since you are using different parameters of weight to state the same measurement.

Call me crazy, but I agree with Lifegazer. I think a better example would have been: I an standing on earth and I say that I weigh 200 lbs. You are standing on Europa and say, "No, you only weigh 200 lbs. relative to the earth. It is your mass that is measurable universally, not your weight."

Then, I would say, "Oh, you're right. I spoke in relative terms that are not universal but by knowing my frame of reference, you were able to translate it into universal terms."

Then you answer, "That's right. Just because something is relative, doesn't make it meaningless. You really do have mass."

Then I get a little testy because I think you just called me fat but we smooth things over and have a nice drink and both agree that anyone who doesn't understand the difference between relative and subjective is an idiot.

[Upchurch]

Upchurch, you don't appear to understand the significance of the concept 'meaning' in a universal context.
You appear to be using the term "universal" as being equivalent to "absolute". This is, of course, incorrect.

My point was obvious: if the age of the universe is dependent upon the frame of reference from whence it was calculated, then that measurement has no universal significance.
Yes, it was obvious what you meant, but you are also wrong.

As Einstein pointed out, there is no absolute (or "universal" as you want to term it) measurement for the age of the universe. There is however a relative measurement for the age of the universe in every single inertial frame of reference in the universe. These measurements can be translated from any inertial frame of reference into any other frame of reference. The meaning behind the measurement is not lost in translation.

If you tell me that the universe is 12 billion years old, for example, but this measurement has no absolute relevance to the universe itself, then you can ONLY argue that this measurement has significance to you yourself.
Not true. We can say the universe is 12 billion years old in this inertial reference frame and 12.2 billions years old in that inertial reference frame. Both represent the same duration, thus have the same meaning.

[Upchurch]

If I've read that right, then it's incorrect.
How can people from various frames of reference speak of the same measurement?

For example, let's imagine that we don't share the same frame of reference and you measure the earth to be 1000 miles from the Sun, whilst I measure it to be 93,000,000 miles.

It is the parameters of measurement that are universal - not the measurements themselves.
Otherwise, those parameters would be meaningless.
The really odd thing here is that your using Einstein's Theory of Relativity to argue for the necessity of an absolute reference frame.

You are asking for the distance between point A and point B. That distance has meaning even if you have to describe it from several different contexts

[Z]

You are asking for the distance between point A and point B. That distance has meaning even if you have to describe it from several different contexts

Careful - he'll try to suggest that there's an infinite distance between A and B... well, at least, if spacetime is infinite...

[Upchurch]

Careful - he'll try to suggest that there's an infinite distance between A and B... well, at least, if spacetime is infinite...
If he does, we'll trot out his old argument that there is no distance between any two points in space, back from his old "singularity" days. :)

[Bob Klase]

Having finally plowed through this whole thread, the only thing that occurs to me is tha lifegazer is looking for a novel defense to use in court next time he gets a speeding ticket.

[wollery]

Careful - he'll try to suggest that there's an infinite distance between A and B... well, at least, if spacetime is infinite...Has he ever tried a Xeno's paradox type argument?

[Z]

Has he ever tried a Xeno's paradox type argument?


I remember good ol' Xeno was brought up during those discussions - but I don't remember if he trotted the horse into the arena first, or if we had brought it up trying to forestall such an idea.

At the time, he was arguing against infinite space, with the claim that infinite space meant at least two points simply HAD to exist with infinite space between them... His understanding of concepts like 'absolute', 'infinite', 'universal', etc. are pretty shoddy.