How old is the universe?

[zorkan]

Base this on the title of a book I own by David Weintraub.

Is it reliable to accept what the science says, like 13.8 billion earth years or whatever estimate they come up with next?
Been thinking about this for a long time.
I'll exclude the bible estimate, but might go for more like the 5 minute hypothesis.
https://reasonsforgod.org/was-the-universe-created-five-minutes-ago/
Just forget the religion here, and concentrate on why your memories are unreliable.

if parallel worlds do exist, and there is good reason for thinking they do, it suggests the current universe was created only a Planck time second ago.

"The Planck time is the length of time at which no smaller meaningful length can be validly measured due to the indeterminacy expressed in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Theoretically, this is the shortest time measurement that is possible. Planck time is roughly 10−43 seconds."

[billy rubin]

does our inability to measure something mean that it does not exist?

[Asmodean]

How does a Planck time second differ from a second? Or are you referring to a single Planck unit of time?

How does it relate to "parallel" worlds?

[zorkan]

There is a big division in science here.
Some scientists will only consider quantum physics.
I don't know either, but I contemplate the different interpretations.
For what it's worth, I don't believe time actually exists, and motion doesn't either.
The idea of parallel worlds can explain the confusion.
The universe keeps its secrets, and I wish I knew why it exists and what shape it is.
If it does have a shape it should have a centre, but the centre is most likely outside the universe.
Is the universe finite or infinite?
What I think exists is an infinite number of copies.

Planck time  is the smallest unit of what we call time, 10^-43 of our seconds.

[Asmodean]

There is a big division in science here.

Mmh... Yes, but not really. If you look at it from the perspective of a theoretical physicist, perhaps there is a big division. If you look at it as a layman, the devil tends to fade into the details.

Some scientists will only consider quantum physics.

With respect to what? I'm sure they would consider chemistry, astronomy, mathematics and a whole slew of other ologies and onomies if needed.

Are we talking about gravity here? Some aspect of cosmology? (which?)

For what it's worth, I don't believe time actually exists, and motion doesn't either.

Time can be affected by for instance gravity or speed. If it "does not exist," it does so in broadly the same way as wind does not exist. (Wind being a gas in motion with relation to the object experiencing it)

Motion is change in position relative to a coordinate system. How does that not exist?

The idea of parallel worlds can explain the confusion.

It really does not. What I am confused about, is how you define a parallel world? Is it a sum of all "choices" not made here?

The universe keeps its secrets, and I wish I knew why it exists and what shape it is.

Why it exists is about as meaningful a question as "why does that snow bank *point* exist?" It just does - there is no "why" if used properly. How did it come to exist is a far more valid question.

That said, it's shape is probably a spheroid.

If it does have a shape it should have a centre, but the centre is most likely outside the universe.

I think there are coordinate systems where it would be meaningful to define Big Bang as the origo.

Is the universe finite or infinite?

An interesting question. I would suggest that it is finite since for it to be otherwise would require an infinite energy Big Bang. I do may be wrong about this though.

What I think exists is an infinite number of copies.

What's being copied?

Planck time  is the smallest unit of what we call time, 10^-43 of our seconds.

Yes, my question was what a Planck time second was. I assume from your answer that you were referring to a single Planck time unit, in which case the universe is far older than that.

[zorkan]

Getting too drawn into this will do no good.
Scientists who have questioned the idea of time passing include Richard Feynmann, John Wheeler, Julian Barbour.
Make up your own mind, based on personal experience.
That's what my own religion of Zorkanism is all about: science and personal experience. A matter of opinion.

Shape of the universe is unlikely to be a spheroid.
More likely it is a torus, which means its centre is outside the universe.

We don't have a proven theory of quantum gravity.

I can only think of reality is what we don't see - unseen particles obeying no rules.
What you see of anything is only an average of the sum of copies in parallel worlds.

[zorkan]

If creationists believe the world is 6K years old, then imagine their outrage if it was proved that time does not exist.
It could be that we do not exist in time - time exists in us.
What happens if time stops? There is no guarantee it won't and the universe will freeze.
There is no clock at its centre which regulates all of time.
Why is time different for place and movement?
Is an arrow that leaves a bow the same arrow that hits the target? The Greeks suspected it cannot reach its target, based on half way there, half way there again and so on.
Based on 10^79 particles in the 'known universe', a very big number but the ways of rearranging them suggest statistically there should be at least one copy of you out there in a quantum universe or multiverse.
Copies of the universe would have started with the Big Bang.
Like someone once said, there are known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns.
Based on our knowledge, the chances that any one of us have ever existed is 1 in 2^thousand trillion.

In other words, nothing makes any sense.

[Asmodean]

I shall revisit for a longer reply as I am on the phone at the moment, but I'd like to point out that the center of a torus can be meaningfully defined as a ring rather than a point. That ring is within its geometry, not without. A point without the torus would not be its anything in that sense.

[zorkan]

Still waiting for your reply.
Meanwhile, I'll try and explain why the universe has no age at all, and time does not exist.
This is because the numbers are artificial and nobody could ever have existed.
The odds you exist are 1 in 2 raised to the power of at least a quadrillion. An impossible number.

To make you, the big bang had to happen.
Atoms had to form.
The laws and  forces of nature had to be in place.
A supernova had to explode near a cloud of gas and dust.
A shock wave was needed to form our very own solar system.
A planet had to form with all the right ingredients for life.
The dinosaurs had to be wiped out and humans evolve.
Your ancestors had to survive plague, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
Your parents, grandparents had to meet.
In fact, everyone in your family tree had to meet and make the right decisions.
All this and much more leads to the impossible number of roughly a quadrillion decisions and events that had to take place just to be you.
An impossibility.
 

[billy rubin]

if i drop a marble from a height onto a football pitch, the odds against it striking any particular blade of grass are impossibly large.

yet the idds of it not striking one of the blades of grass are impossibly small.

[Asmodean]

Yes, I forgot which thread it was, so was waiting for it to reactivate so I would find it.

Scientists who have questioned the idea of time passing include Richard Feynmann, John Wheeler, Julian Barbour.
Make up your own mind, based on personal experience.

I was trying to define your scope of inquiry because it made little sense. What do you mean when you say that time does not exist? What then do you measure with a wristwatch? Do you mean that time is a dimension of space, for instance, existing the way "depth" exists? Or something else entirely?

That's what my own religion of Zorkanism is all about: science and personal experience. A matter of opinion.

Well, only one of those things is a matter of opinion - what your religion is or is not all about. Science is a toolset while your personal experience is a series of subjective events and observations.

Shape of the universe is unlikely to be a spheroid.
More likely it is a torus, which means its centre is outside the universe.

What are the reasons behind that conclusion?

Mine are that lacking other competing forces, objects in motion tend stay in motion. Thus, if objects started from "the same place*" in "every direction*," they would form a spheroidal cloud. (*no reason to assume otherwise that I know of, minor localised variations notwithstanding)

I can only think of reality is what we don't see - unseen particles obeying no rules.

You don't see wind either, yet all it does is "obey the rules."

What you see of anything is only an average of the sum of copies in parallel worlds.

What is the logic behind you seeing the average, rather than a single sample?

If creationists believe the world is 6K years old, then imagine their outrage if it was proved that time does not exist.
It could be that we do not exist in time - time exists in us.

It would not matter to the creationists in the slightest.

What happens if time stops? There is no guarantee it won't and the universe will freeze.

If time stops, you are traveling at the speed of light. Then... To put it thusly, "all" of your motion is directed "spaceward," and "none" of your motion is directed "timeward.

Light can be said to keep the universe from freezing. something to think about.

There is no clock at its centre which regulates all of time.

That's... Sigh. It's not inaccurate, but completely beside the point. There is no thermometer at the centre of the universe that regulates whether it will snow tomorrow, either, and yet it will. Time in what seems to be the sense you use is not a global constant, like the speed of light in vacuum seems to be - it is a global variable.

Why is time different for place and movement?

What do you mean by different for "place and movement?" Time is affected by speed and gravity. You move faster, time slows. Move at C, and it stops.

Is an arrow that leaves a bow the same arrow that hits the target?

In terms of exact sciences, it is assuming the following: the archer hit his mark, it is the same mark as being examined for the sameness of the arrow and the arrow has not been tampered with in flight. Assuming those, "every" component of the arrow moved from the bow to the target.

The Greeks suspected it cannot reach its target, based on half way there, half way there again and so on.

A simple 1/x function will never cross x=0 and y=o. Well, so what? there are plenty of functions that can. 1/(x+1) will cross the y-axis, for instance, while still adhering to the same sort of principle.

I see what you are trying to demonstrate, but the underlying philosophical experiment is as fallacious today as it was in ancient Greece.

Based on 10^79 particles in the 'known universe', a very big number but the ways of rearranging them suggest statistically there should be at least one copy of you out there in a quantum universe or multiverse.

How does the number of particles in the observable universe speak to a statistic need for there to exist a copy of my own sweet self in another universe?

Copies of the universe would have started with the Big Bang.
Like someone once said, there are known knowns, known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns.
Based on our knowledge, the chances that any one of us have ever existed is 1 in 2^thousand trillion.

Actually, that too is a fallacious philosophical experiment. You exist, therefor the chance of your existence is 1.

Here is a better experiment; if you go out and have sex tonight, then never contact your sexual partner again, what are the chances that in precisely 20 years, your son Walther will be driving his Honda to buy paracetamol for his head ache?

[zorkan]

if i drop a marble from a height onto a football pitch, the odds against it striking any particular blade of grass are impossibly large.

Football team I watch can't even strike the back of the net.

[zorkan]

@Asmo:
I don't think you can expect me to refute your opinions when I don't think anything other than the laws and forces of nature do exist.
But I guess consciousness must exist and it might be a function of what we call time and matter.
Carlo Rovelli believes nothing exists. He has his reasons.
Christian Scientists don't believe matter exists, and they are probably right.
They are good at building up anecdotes to convince them that prayer works.
But they ignore the times it doesn't work, because that was a NO from god.

[Asmodean]

@Asmo:
I don't think you can expect me to refute your opinions when I don't think anything other than the laws and forces of nature do exist.

No, I don't expect you to refute my arguments and refutations.

I see that you have done some intellectual weightlifting on this, while "most people" avoid scratching those surfaces. I approve of curiosity and free-thinking - even when it takes you in strange directions. What I'm trying to do, is to add to your list questions worth answering and phenomena worth pondering by using the best of my own knowledge.

[zorkan]

I don't think anything exists.
What we think is real is an illusion.
Plato's cave analogy explains this.
I came into this world out of the darkness (of 'time') and I will return to the darkness (of 'time').
We are all somewhere in a long line for a coffin on a planet which is a graveyard for all life.
The atoms that made us are just passing through.