PARADOX solving.

[sevenperforce]

Classically, there is no way to disprove Omphalism; you can show that it requires an infinitely deceitful Creator, which is philosophically problematic, but otherwise it is a legitimate paradox.

However, I mentioned one way of disproving it, using the vehicle of relativity simultaneity to show that any chosen Creation Point is defined only with respect to a single individual and is undefined relative to the rest of the universe, since there is no universally absolute reference frame.

The other way of disproving it is similar, but (I think) a little bit cooler.

Consider a photon traveling from Alpha Centauri. Classically, we could say this proves nothing; the photon could merely have been created in transit. But relativity changes things. Via relativity, we recognize that a photon's reference frame is lightlike, not timelike; it experiences no passage of time and touches both its origin and its destination simultaneously, because the entire universe is compressed (in its reference frame) into a single plane normal to its velocity vector.

How is this possible? It's possible because time is a dimension just like space. We experience time as something that passes, but in the realm of physics, time's forward and backward dimension are as simple as those of space itself. Physical processes are conservative and reversible. Future and past are interchangeable; our experience of a single slice of time is an anomaly. If our point in time exists, then all other points of time exist simultaneously, past and future; we simply happen to be restricted to one solitary instant. If all of reality was created this morning at 7 am, then all of reality includes both the past and the future, so events which happened before the creation "event" are every bit as real as events which happened after it.

[Green Baron]

Where is the paradox in believing the world was created this morning ? A paradox needs a basis, apparent facts that are interpreted the wrong way. There are no facts pointing to the claim. In contrary, everything points to a 4.5 billion year old world in a ~13.8 billion year old universe.

And it is the same with creators, there are NO facts pointing to such a thing, only the thoughts of gurus/certain leaders and manipulative discussion techniques. There is NO science in this, i now really assume that you @Orion Kerman are a creationist trying to stir up this forum.

I kindly again ask you: bring forth evidence for your claim. It's the rule of this forum (i guess).

Edit: peace, love & understanding and so on :-)

 

Edited April 15, 2017 by Green Baron
Corrections in dates

[sevenperforce]

6 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

Where is the paradox in believing the world was created this morning ? A paradox needs a basis, apparent facts that are interpreted the wrong way. There are no facts pointing to the claim. In contrary, everything points to a 4.2 billion year old world in a ~13billion year old universe.

And it is the same with creators, there are NO facts pointing to such a thing, only the thoughts of gurus/certain leaders and manipulative discussion techniques. There is NO science in this, i now really assume that you @Orion Kerman are a creationist trying to stir up this forum.

The paradox is that we intuitively assume it should be easy to prove that the past is not an illusion, but in fact it is nearly impossible.

There's no reason whatsoever to think that the OP is a creationist trying to stir something up. One could consider it trolling, in a very harmless sort of way, but he's not actually claiming that the past is an illusion. As I see it, he's just bringing up that proposition as a demonstration that it is impossible to prove a negative.

[MiffedStarfish]

29 minutes ago, Orion Kerman said:

I will try and make a better way of doing this paradox to make it more interesting.

I dont think he is trying to make a claim, he never said he believed it himself, I think he is just trying to pose an interesting question and see our responses. If i'm right I think this should be in forum games.

[Green Baron]

1 minute ago, MiffedStarfish said:

... this should be in forum games.

Good idea. That'll take the pressure out ;-)

[Firemetal]

Alright the first bit of evidence here is that this post is in the Science and Spaceflight forum...Wait a minute... Shouldn't it be in The Lounge? Yes! Yes has 3 letters. 3 has 5. 35... 8. 8(3^2 * 5) = (3 * 3 * 5) = (45) = (8 * 45 = 360).

Correct my math but I think the world is 360 years old...

Spoiler

Yup I think I'm going to go with the 4.543 billion years old theory...

Fire

[Orion Kerman]

I am not a creationist. I am simply enjoying that there is not that many pieces of evidence to prove that such a stupid idea is wrong. There will be plenty but that would usually go into deep science.

[YNM]

Yeah, I guess we all were a bit carried away.

The idea behind that-belief-of-instant-by-instant-creation is that there's no philosophical way to throw it out of question, hence the "paradox". (I'll admit this is how I percieve/believe higher power(s) as well : no way to prove or disprove so it's OK so far). Though now, given how we realize things from relativity, it goes absurd.

But, to an even stricter context, any information that we receive and perceive is about (or definitife of) the current ("now") : the Whirlpool galaxy really is colliding, the freeing of radiation from matter is still ongoing, flares and bursts are happening, black hole mergers are occuring etc. . They are all current, not the past or the future. There's no way to tell what has just happened as much as you can't tell what will happen soon; therefore, you don't know what it really was. You just live in "now".

But thank physics (and whoever did the universe) and memories and notes that at least it all looks logical and continuous, so this thinking is just soo useless it's terribly close to be untrue.

Edited April 15, 2017 by YNM
Correction(s)(s)

[Green Baron]

Thanks, @Firemetal, i was a little upset and gave wrong numbers. I corrected and apologize :-)

[Orion Kerman]

So what paradox should we solve next

How about we do a what should be a simple one.

Or not...

[Findthepin1]

2 minutes ago, Orion Kerman said:

So what paradox should we solve next

How about 'Can we prove the universe (besides your (the reader(s) of this comment) mind) exists?'

That's a good one, it's difficult to solve like the first one.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Findthepin1

[MiffedStarfish]

or "can you prove that you are not in a coma and everything not is a production of your subconsicous?"

[Orion Kerman]

We will do can you prove the universe exist then after one person solves this or we give up

@Findthepin1

Then that after @MiffedStarfish

Edited April 15, 2017 by Orion Kerman

[Green Baron]

7 minutes ago, Orion Kerman said:

I am not a creationist. I am simply enjoying that there is not that many pieces of evidence to prove that such a stupid idea is wrong. There will be plenty but that would usually go into deep science.

Which science exactly ? Which evidences exactly ?

Hm ?

 

[Orion Kerman]

@Green Baron the answer to your questions are the answer to your questions.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Orion Kerman

[Green Baron]

@Orion Kerman, this is not a paradox. A paradox needs a factual base.

 

[Orion Kerman]

Better?

[YNM]

7 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

@Orion Kerman, this is not a paradox. A paradox needs a factual base.

Not when it's philosophical. Well these are not really paradoxes, they're "paradox"es.

@Orion Kerman Regarding 2nd "paradox" : I have no idea how you all will reply and I'm shocked, *shocked* of some of them I'm sure my mind isn't making this up.

Also, this is 69th post in the thread !

Edited April 15, 2017 by YNM

[Orion Kerman]

1 minute ago, YNM said:

Not when it's philosophical. Well it's not really a paradox, it's a "paradox".

@Orion Kerman Regarding 2nd paradox : I have no idea how you all will reply and I'm shocked, *shocked* of some of them I'm sure my mind isn't making this up.

That might prove to @Findthepin1you are not in a coma not find the pin @MiffedStarfish

Edited April 15, 2017 by Orion Kerman

[tater]

It's a flawed argument (making a claim that the universe was made yesterday to trick us), then demanding that it be disproved. Claims do not need to be disproved, they need to be proved.

You can make any claim by the OP rationale.

Failure to demonstrate the claim means there is no reason to believe the claim true, and poof, it's gone.

Aliens are everywhere, and the Men in Black get us with the flashy thing (  ) if we ever see any, so we just think they are not here. Prove me  wrong. The trick is that I have to prove my claim true, not the other way around.

Edited April 15, 2017 by tater

[Findthepin1]

Just now, Orion Kerman said:

That might prove to @Findthepin1you are not in a coma 

Just to be clear to everyone, I don't actually believe the paradox I suggested, I only suggested it cause it's interesting

[Orion Kerman]

The only reason i put this "puzzle?? Paradox???" On is that it's funny because it's hard to prove wrong even though its stupid

[MiffedStarfish]

6 minutes ago, YNM said:

Regarding 2nd "paradox" : I have no idea how you all will reply and I'm shocked, *shocked* of some of them I'm sure my mind isn't making this up.

Thats why its called your SUBconsicous.  You are not aware of your subconscious making up everything.

Edit: same thing @Findthepin1 said.

Edited April 15, 2017 by MiffedStarfish

[YNM]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

It's a flawed argument (making a claim that the universe was made yesterday to trick us), then demanding that it be disproved. Claims do not need to be disproved, they need to be proved.

You can make any claim by the OP rationale.

Failure to demonstrate the claim means there is no reason to believe the claim true, and poof, it's gone.

Aliens are everywhere, and the Men in Black get us with the flashy thing (  ) if we ever see any, so we just think they are not here. Prove me  wrong. The trick is that I have to prove my claim true, not the other way around.

All the fuss of Russel's teapot are also like that. (We often change it down here to a floating lunch box somewhere between here and object body (or bodies).

Edited April 15, 2017 by YNM

[Orion Kerman]

@Green Baron is the title better???