Jump to content

PARADOX solving.


Orion Kerman

Recommended Posts

The whole point of this thread is that i found it funny that you can't prove it wrong. Because i could just say it was created that way, you mind was given a memory. It was after i watched a video on YouTube. It was by Vsauce. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It is a abrevation of another question. 

Can you convice me that if i die the universum will continue?

You can't because the universum like it is is my personal witness. If i die the main defition for this universum fades. Because my universum is defined by my thougths and can only exists as long i exist. Your world may be here but my never more.

Very philosophical:cool:

Funny Kabooms

Urses

Edited by Urses
Misspealing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

children aged 7 usually ask these questions. What has this to do with Science or Spaceflight ?

Children aged 77 do this, too, since the Ancient Greece. Still no clear answer.

4 minutes ago, Urses said:

Can you convice me that if i die the universum will continue?

Don't make him test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The universe was sneezed out and we all live in fear of the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief (Douglas Adams)

The world was not created this morning but during 6 days ~4500 yrs ago (Bishop Usher)

... the list is long ..., as is the list of mythologies, be it historical or popular culture.

2 minutes ago, Orion Kerman said:

The whole point of this thread is that i found it funny that you can't prove it wrong. Because i could just say it was created that way, you mind was given a memory. It was after i watched a video on YouTube. It was by Vsauce. 

No. The other way round. You are not willing to accept scientific findings, such simple things as physical dating of rocks. I CAN prove you wrong if go accompany me to a laboratory for rock dating. You can take the sample here from the ocean floor, you pay the accelerator time on tenerife in the volcanologic institute (a few hundred bucks) and you get your date and was not "this morning".

The problem is your will to accept science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love philosophy.

I could just say the rocks were made that way. But i wont. The only reason i made this thread is that i found it funny there is no proof according to this thought of the universe was made then. They only have to say it was created that way. I know it's an absolutely stupid idea though @Green Baron

Edited by Orion Kerman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Green Baron said:

The universe was sneezed out and we all live in fear of the Coming of the Great White Handkerchief (Douglas Adams)

The world was not created this morning but during 6 days ~4500 yrs ago (Bishop Usher)

First quote: Yes! All hail Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy!

second quote: what do say to rocks dated to have existed before that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Green Baron

It is as you said you can do science to prove something but if your contrahent is stubborn on a point and go philosophical or (much annoying) theological you are somewhere on the point to decide "it is worth to diskuss with him?"

And how it comes you forgot the Great turtle mating (Diskworld)?:wink:

Funny Kabooms 

Urses 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Orion Kerman said:

Exactly!!! I bet no one on the forums could do it.

This is an old chestnut. It's a meaningless question, similar to "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Bertrand Russell's teapot might also be floating around in the Oort cloud, and there would be no way we could know that either. But the assumption that the universe is what it appears to be and it's not trying to trick us seems like a useful assumption. What has happened in the past can help tell us what will happen in the future.

The assumption that it's all "the Matrix" or that some Creator decided to create it today but with all the signs (including our memories) of ancient history is not a useful assumption. It adds no value to predicting what might happen next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

51 minutes ago, Orion Kerman said:

The whole point of this thread is that i found it funny that you can't prove it wrong. Because i could just say it was created that way, you mind was given a memory. It was after i watched a video on YouTube. It was by Vsauce. 

 

http://catacombes.web.free.fr/Reseau14/CarrefourMorts.html ... ... ...

Edited by WinkAllKerb''
T_T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say it clear:

This is a typical creationist tactic you show here, to call for a proof to a thing that cannot be proved, and it is as old as religion. No scientist can disprove creation at whatever time, but that is not a scientists task. Working with data at hand, building hypothesis that can be proved or disproved, making theories describing part of natural processes is harder work than just believing in creation.

The good thing is that you have demonstrated well this creationist tactic today and maybe a few honest forum users are better aware now. If that was your intention then well done. But somehow i have a bad feeling about this ...

Edited by Green Baron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The universe could not have been created on 14th April 2017 at 7:00 in the morning, because I just created it less than ten minutes ago at 8:35 UTC on 15 April 2017. Yes, I created it with all of you and your memories in place, and all of the geological strata and dinosaur bones in place. Yes, I created light and other signals already in place on their way in transit to us now from distant objects. Yes, I created all outgoing signals that are heading away from Earth as if we had been here all along. Yes, I created all the recordings of 'past events' already in place, including all of the posts on this forum. And, yes, I created Orion Kerman and his memory of starting this thread (which he obviously didn't, since the universe didn't exist that early last morning...as I'm sure he will agree he can't dispute).

Sorry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Orion Kerman For all it's worth, it might even be that the whole world blinked into existence and then dissapeared every single instant - which sort of fits the planck terms (shortest time possible to see / observe in between) - but what gives ? It doesn't (really) change anything. Why even bother ? (no offence to the quantum guys - it really doesn't bother in the long run.)

Also, I read the question of the vote wrong (thought it was the event, not the proof). Explains why it's more or less in a tie ?

Off topic : apparently michael of vsauce was sick or something ?

Edited by YNM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MiffedStarfish said:

Proof: That we can see stars in the sky. If it was created at 7:00 am, we wouldn't be able to see stars for another 4 years. You're faking memory's, not changing the laws of physics.

You see just photons. Stars of them will be created 4 years later.

1 hour ago, MiffedStarfish said:

what do say to rocks dated to have existed before that?

And to jazz having existed before the rock(s).

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Bertrand Russell's teapot might also be floating around in the Oort cloud

Somebody must at last send a teapot into the Oort cloud. This will allow us to get sure if it exists.
That solar probe looks an ideal candidate for me. 7 years (?) of gravity slalom, then 200 km/s and after ten years there is a proven Russell teapot.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Somebody must at last send a teapot into the Oort cloud. This will allow us to get sure if it exists.

That solar probe looks an ideal candidate for me. 7 years (?) of gravity slalom, then 200 km/s and after ten years there is a proven Russell teapot.

Just to be completely, unnecessarily pedantic, Russell's teapot is actually supposed to be between Earth and Mars, nowhere as exciting and distant as the Oort cloud.

Also, since the inner edge of the Oort cloud is - by many estimates - almost a light year away, then even the Solar Probe is not going to get there any time soon.

Edited by Steel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you prove to me that you are not just a simulated AI designed to make us think that you are a real person asking a question on a forum?

Bet you can't !!!

Edited by Nibb31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone is coming down a little overly hard on @Orion Kerman. He has nowhere suggested that he actually believes in this particular strain of Omphalos/Last Thursdayism; he simply proposed a common-enough paradox and asked everyone to discuss it. I suspect that versions of Last Thursdayism are every bit as ancient as Xeno's paradox.

Offering proofs in the form of radiometric dating or memory or any other piece of evidence demonstrates a lack of understanding of the paradox. By definition, physical evidence of the past is simply part of the illusory creation. The OP is correct to not accept those things, because they don't actually prove anything. The OP isn't saying those things are false (and the OP hasn't even suggested the universe was actually created at all; the question is merely for the sake of this paradox), only that they fail to demonstrate anything for these purposes.

It's a legitimate paradox: you cannot prove a negative, particularly one like Omphalos. Yet it seems like you should be able to, right? No reason to fault the OP for pointing this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright. But you must really throw away all that you've learned from late childhood on and give in to the simple way of believing a single thought. Also, calling for a proof of an obviously silly claim (and that's what it is to assume the world created this morning) is bad conduit and manipulative. Usually the claimer must make plausible what sprung off his mind, that is what modern philosophy demands. Read Karl Popper for example. Natural science is even more strict, it needs a hypothesis that has a reasonable base and can be verified or negated, maybe not right away but in the future.

Ok, and now, sir, woud you expand a little on the claim of the op and formulate a hypothesis that we can discuss about ? Or will the Langoliers come and eat it all up ;-)

 

Edit: not attacking you personally, OP, trying to give some "ammo" to people caught in such "discussions".

 

Edited by Green Baron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There not being mean there just saying what they think.

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

And however asked why is this in science and spacecraft it's because this is science

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...