How do you prove that Earth is older than 10,000 years?(backreaction.blogspot.com)
backreaction.blogspot.com
How do you prove that Earth is older than 10,000 years?
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-do-you-prove-that-earth-is-older.html
49 comments
The author seems to be unaware of the long-explored concept of "Last thursdayism" (described in e.g. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism) - any argument that would apply for a world that's created 10000 years ago with all the fossils already "placed there" would also apply for a world created yesterday with all of us (and our memories) placed there.
Last thursdayism is an interesting concept that really challenges what you can determine as truth. Fundamentally all we can really do is come up with some good probability estimates that reality is as we think it is.
Much like the matrix, if something is powerful enough to fool all of your senses, including your memory how do you even detect it?
At the end of the day I don't think it matters very much. If our reality is an elaborate trick or not science allows us to predict and manipulate the physical world in ways that improve our existence. So it's worth perusing and using as a tool but there are somethings you'll never know for sure.
Much like the matrix, if something is powerful enough to fool all of your senses, including your memory how do you even detect it?
At the end of the day I don't think it matters very much. If our reality is an elaborate trick or not science allows us to predict and manipulate the physical world in ways that improve our existence. So it's worth perusing and using as a tool but there are somethings you'll never know for sure.
I'm reminded of the Steven Wright joke: "Someone broke into my apartment last night and replaced everything with exact duplicates." (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/25236-last-night-somebody-b...)
No need for the fossils to be "placed there" as they would surely be ante-diluvian evidence in any coherent creationism.(2 Peter 3:5-6, among others)
Thanks for the Thursdayism link. Didn't know idea had been monikered. I first saw this as a young lad in Russell - the shilling shocker iirc. Or perhaps,...
Thanks for the Thursdayism link. Didn't know idea had been monikered. I first saw this as a young lad in Russell - the shilling shocker iirc. Or perhaps,...
She was right to avoid it, even if she knew of it; Last Thursdayism doesn't answer the question, it just makes a (teensy-bit smug) point about epistemology. I think she does a good job of explaining why it's not scientifically possible to refute the idea, but offering a philosophical reason it's not satisfying.
If the Almighty spawns worlds like Minecraft, and controls the sliders of time and physics, it's not clear how we Steves can ever figure out how our world was really spawned -- apart from direct intervention.
If the Almighty spawns worlds like Minecraft, and controls the sliders of time and physics, it's not clear how we Steves can ever figure out how our world was really spawned -- apart from direct intervention.
I think the targeted audience is important. This reads as an explanation of Last Thursdayism and why even if we were all created a week ago seems plausible to you why its not a good refutation of an older world, because it's considerably less simple than the alternative.
How do you prove you weren't born yesterday?
For someone making philosophical arguments the author sure seems ignorant on what philosophy already has to say about such things.
For someone making philosophical arguments the author sure seems ignorant on what philosophy already has to say about such things.
[deleted]
> Imagine planet Earth began its existence a mere 10,000 years ago, with all fossil records in place and carbon-14 well into decaying.
It's very subtle, but this is not the same as the Creationist myth prevalent in the U.S.
The Creationist myth looks more like this:
1. The believer appeals to authority by claiming that the Earth is 10,000 years old because that's what is written in the source of all truth-- the Bible.
2. A scientist asks for clarification by generously filling in the missing steps with the most obvious and logically sound interpretation she can muster-- namely, that this means God must have created the Earth "with all fossil records in place and carbon-14 well into decaying."
3. The believer answers, "Yes."
I know the author isn't claiming that her thought experiment is the same as the religious myth. But since millions of Americans actually believe the Creationist myth, I think it's important to keep in mind that it is practiced much less as a foray into the epistemology of science and much more like a simple phishing expedition.
It's very subtle, but this is not the same as the Creationist myth prevalent in the U.S.
The Creationist myth looks more like this:
1. The believer appeals to authority by claiming that the Earth is 10,000 years old because that's what is written in the source of all truth-- the Bible.
2. A scientist asks for clarification by generously filling in the missing steps with the most obvious and logically sound interpretation she can muster-- namely, that this means God must have created the Earth "with all fossil records in place and carbon-14 well into decaying."
3. The believer answers, "Yes."
I know the author isn't claiming that her thought experiment is the same as the religious myth. But since millions of Americans actually believe the Creationist myth, I think it's important to keep in mind that it is practiced much less as a foray into the epistemology of science and much more like a simple phishing expedition.
No need for the fossils to be "placed there" as they would surely be ante-diluvian evidence in any coherent creationism.(2 Peter 3:5-6, among others) - which the common creationism is not, as you note.
Is it me, or is this whole article failed out of the gate by the fact that you can't prove a negative?
"Prove that x didnt happen" is impossible.
Now, if he said to prove that the earth IS only 10,000 years old, that would be at least something to shoot for, but changes the whole scope of the article...
"Prove that x didnt happen" is impossible.
Now, if he said to prove that the earth IS only 10,000 years old, that would be at least something to shoot for, but changes the whole scope of the article...
To prove the earth is not 10k years old, you could simply prove that it is 4.5G years old, though. The inability to prove a negative is only valid for binary issues, this seems binary but is actually a statement about a value on a continuum - the age of the earth.
EDIT - obviously in the context of last-thursdayism being used in the article, this doesn't work...
EDIT - obviously in the context of last-thursdayism being used in the article, this doesn't work...
He's not saying anything didn't happen, just that our speculations about differing ideas about what happened should give more weight to the simpler explanations. He also seems to imply that simpler should be defined with some sort of complexity measure that borders on information content in the description. Yet no measure of complexity is given.
I know hes not making the claim, but the article itself is based around the hypothetical negative claim.
[deleted]
It’s unreasonable to reason with unreasonable people whom hold magical thinking memes with unquestioning beliefs, a priori.
cosmological autopoiesis | creator
- Former is not as magical?
This argument stems from the interpretation of a single Hebrew word found in the old testament... יום (yom). The definition of yom is 'a defined period of time'. Whereas the common use of yom is 'day', it could also be translated as 'epoch', 'age', 'year' etc.
Genesis reads that God created the heavens and the earth in 'six defined periods of time'. It's unfortunate that the original translators back in the 1600s used the word 'day', and even more unfortunate that so many cling so strongly to what was probably a single person's translation.
Genesis reads that God created the heavens and the earth in 'six defined periods of time'. It's unfortunate that the original translators back in the 1600s used the word 'day', and even more unfortunate that so many cling so strongly to what was probably a single person's translation.
Not really. That claim fails trivially to the "evening and morning" of each day.
The argument fundamentally stems from the Protestant belief in "Sola Scripture": that all Christian doctrine and belief derives from scripture. Since many protestants prefer a literal interpretation of scripture, they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 for consistency.
You can see this backed up if you watch any of the material from Answers in Genesis, as I watched at my church from elementary school onward.
You can also see this reinforced by the fact that young earth creationism literally did not exist as a phenomenon in the early church, or the medieval church, or in modern Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Many early church fathers (and before that, Jewish scholars) long wondered whether Genesis 1 recorded literal history, or if it was a literary story. In particular, they took note of the chronology and found it strange that God created day and night (the first day) before he created the sun (the fourth day).
The strongest argument against literal interpretation, I'm, is that the literary structure of Genesis 1 is so clear: God performance three acts of separation (day from night, waters above from waters below, and waters below from themselves with land) followed by three acts of decoration, where he decorates the previously separated things: sun and moon and stars in the sky, birds in the air and fish in water, and then land animals and man.
The argument fundamentally stems from the Protestant belief in "Sola Scripture": that all Christian doctrine and belief derives from scripture. Since many protestants prefer a literal interpretation of scripture, they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 for consistency.
You can see this backed up if you watch any of the material from Answers in Genesis, as I watched at my church from elementary school onward.
You can also see this reinforced by the fact that young earth creationism literally did not exist as a phenomenon in the early church, or the medieval church, or in modern Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Many early church fathers (and before that, Jewish scholars) long wondered whether Genesis 1 recorded literal history, or if it was a literary story. In particular, they took note of the chronology and found it strange that God created day and night (the first day) before he created the sun (the fourth day).
The strongest argument against literal interpretation, I'm, is that the literary structure of Genesis 1 is so clear: God performance three acts of separation (day from night, waters above from waters below, and waters below from themselves with land) followed by three acts of decoration, where he decorates the previously separated things: sun and moon and stars in the sky, birds in the air and fish in water, and then land animals and man.
If you dig a little deeper you'll discover that there are many folks (especially in the US) who think that the KJV was divinely inspired. So, alas, your argument, which also applies to many other important parts of the Bible, is well known and is unlikely to convince anyone from that camp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement
> and even more unfortunate that so many cling so strongly to what was probably a single person's translation
Yeah, so unfortunate. And then, every Sunday at Bible study, a new teacher will give a different interpretation of the same word.
Yeah, so unfortunate. And then, every Sunday at Bible study, a new teacher will give a different interpretation of the same word.
I’ve heard that, but the Genesis creation story also mentions evening and morning separating each “day.” Is that also a mistranslation?
Any adult with a cellphone, who still believes the earth is literally less than 10000yo is a lost cause. Give up. Focus on making sure that they dont infect future generations. Make sure the grandkids know that grandpa says strange things sometimes. One cannot argue reason to a true believer. It only makes them stronger.
Or buy them a seat on that flat-earth rocket.
Or buy them a seat on that flat-earth rocket.
You have a problem here. The various tests used to gain an insight into the age of the earth come back with wildly different answers. The various assumptions made as to the aging processes (radioactivity, mineral dispersal, etc) have been shown to be not according to the assumptions generally used. You need to read up on this research - it is fascinating.
From rocks that are expected to show a specific age of months for their formation and showing millions of years instead, to chemical processes that form crude oil in weeks.
Even the assumption that if the earth is only 10k years then the fossils would have to have been laid down at the start is only an assumption.
There are scientists who are highly trained who believe in a young earth, just as there are contemporaries of them who believe in an old earth.
There are no final arguments that will prove either way. Simply because all we can do is based our estimates on what we believe the evidence says, which in turn is based on the underlying assumptions we make about the evidence.
I have seen such conflicting evidence about how to determine the age of things long past and things today that it has become a subject where opinion is the guiding principle for most people because we just don't know how to properly interpret the evidence. One day we might and may then get a handle on how to age things properly.
As it stands, the entire subject is a storm in a teacup. We have much more important things to concern ourselves with than how old the earth is.
From rocks that are expected to show a specific age of months for their formation and showing millions of years instead, to chemical processes that form crude oil in weeks.
Even the assumption that if the earth is only 10k years then the fossils would have to have been laid down at the start is only an assumption.
There are scientists who are highly trained who believe in a young earth, just as there are contemporaries of them who believe in an old earth.
There are no final arguments that will prove either way. Simply because all we can do is based our estimates on what we believe the evidence says, which in turn is based on the underlying assumptions we make about the evidence.
I have seen such conflicting evidence about how to determine the age of things long past and things today that it has become a subject where opinion is the guiding principle for most people because we just don't know how to properly interpret the evidence. One day we might and may then get a handle on how to age things properly.
As it stands, the entire subject is a storm in a teacup. We have much more important things to concern ourselves with than how old the earth is.
Whatever inconsistencies or anomalies there may be in carbon dating, archaeology, or what have you, none of them lend any credence to the premise that the earth is 10,000 years old, as that age is derived from a numerological interpretation of old testament scripture.
Ya.. if god is trying to trick us id think he would do a better job and there would be no inconsistencies. So there is no trick. Lol.
The thing is, even if it were the case that "God" created everything, the case for a 10,000 year earth is still based entirely on mystical back-of-napkin BS. It's not even firmly grounded theologically. The Bible only says God created the world in six days, not that the world was created "some number of years ago."
And that's not even mentioning the assumption that the Judeo-Christian God would be the one that created the universe to begin with. Maybe the universe is a simulation created by some Lovecraftian entity whose nature and purpose are alien beyond our grasp, and human life is just a rounding error. Who knows?
And that's not even mentioning the assumption that the Judeo-Christian God would be the one that created the universe to begin with. Maybe the universe is a simulation created by some Lovecraftian entity whose nature and purpose are alien beyond our grasp, and human life is just a rounding error. Who knows?
Some have gone through the bible linking people and life expectancies. Starting with egypt (rulers there are known) and working back it comes to something like 4800bc.
For both you and krapp, you both make the mistake of not challenging your basic assumptions. Like I said above, if something that is known to be of a specific age and based on the specific understanding of the production of chemical processes, the age, as determined by those processes, comes out as many millions of times older, then one must question the basic assumptions underlying our understanding of the processes being studied. All age determination processes rely on very specific assumptions, the foremost being that there are no changes in past to environmental levels of those age determination factors. An example is that the assumption is made that rate of production of carbon 14 is the same back then as it is today. These kinds of assumption apply across all the age determination factors. It was earlier reported that one of the mineral migration processes in rock is different to what has been assumed and this will cause a difference in the dating of those rocks. At this point, no limits on the differences has been fully determined.
I don't know how old the earth is. For me it is not a thing of great importance. There are many other things that matter more to me. I have a belief of its age and I can argue the matter in various ways. But it's not important.
The use or misuse of technology, the use or misuse of medical processes, the care of people, the building of strong personalities to withstand the trials and problems of today - these are more important. When belief becomes dogma, then we have real problems on our hands. Entire avenues are then closed off and any benefits that could have been found are lost to us.
Finally, God doesn't trick us, we do. We are, in all essentials, ignorant and foolhardy. The inconsistencies come about because we believe things had to have happened in a specific way. The arguments around string theory or the idea of a multiverse vs a universe are simple examples of this.
The raised disputes regarding what we are seeing cosmologically are another area. Climate change being predominantly human caused or is a natural process is another area in which disputes have arisen and dogma reigns. In my region of the world, we have an ongoing dispute over a thing called "Safe Schools program", which is predicated on the belief that the only significant bullying that occurs in schools is related to gender identity. No other form of bullying is of any significance.
There are so many things that people have opinions on and believe that their opinion is the only one that matters. We have forgotten how to investigate and we do not allow those whose opinions are different to undertake their own investigation.
Sometime next year, I want to investigate a specific range of Vertical Axis Wind Turbine designs. I have been formulating the test regime to do this investigation. I have a specific belief as to what I will find. But until the experimental evidence is created, that will only be a belief.
I know of a number of other groups around the world who are doing similar kinds of investigations, though they are using or have been using alternative designs. Some interesting results have already been obtained both positive and negative.
When doing this kind of investigation, one must consider the various assumption one operating under and verify that they are potentially valid. This applies to every area of investigation.
I don't know how old the earth is. For me it is not a thing of great importance. There are many other things that matter more to me. I have a belief of its age and I can argue the matter in various ways. But it's not important.
The use or misuse of technology, the use or misuse of medical processes, the care of people, the building of strong personalities to withstand the trials and problems of today - these are more important. When belief becomes dogma, then we have real problems on our hands. Entire avenues are then closed off and any benefits that could have been found are lost to us.
Finally, God doesn't trick us, we do. We are, in all essentials, ignorant and foolhardy. The inconsistencies come about because we believe things had to have happened in a specific way. The arguments around string theory or the idea of a multiverse vs a universe are simple examples of this.
The raised disputes regarding what we are seeing cosmologically are another area. Climate change being predominantly human caused or is a natural process is another area in which disputes have arisen and dogma reigns. In my region of the world, we have an ongoing dispute over a thing called "Safe Schools program", which is predicated on the belief that the only significant bullying that occurs in schools is related to gender identity. No other form of bullying is of any significance.
There are so many things that people have opinions on and believe that their opinion is the only one that matters. We have forgotten how to investigate and we do not allow those whose opinions are different to undertake their own investigation.
Sometime next year, I want to investigate a specific range of Vertical Axis Wind Turbine designs. I have been formulating the test regime to do this investigation. I have a specific belief as to what I will find. But until the experimental evidence is created, that will only be a belief.
I know of a number of other groups around the world who are doing similar kinds of investigations, though they are using or have been using alternative designs. Some interesting results have already been obtained both positive and negative.
When doing this kind of investigation, one must consider the various assumption one operating under and verify that they are potentially valid. This applies to every area of investigation.
[deleted]
The author seems to equivocate between two different options for evaluating claims. First he says that flasification doesn't matter and that "usefulness" is what is really important. Then a few sentences later he switches to claiming that "simplicity of initial conditions" is what actually makes the 10k year theory less useful. That seems confused.
Usefulness is not a sound way to ground your epistemology. The creationist can rightly claim that their 10k year theory is useful in explaining fossils because the complexity of initial conditions is "evidence of the greatness of God". Since the creationist wants to believe, the theory is useful.
I don't think the author really believes anything different than Popper. I think Popper would say that the 10k theory is worse because it is much harder to falsify in principle. That is, there are fewer hypothetical experiments that could falsify it. The author seems like he would agree with that explanation.
Usefulness is not a sound way to ground your epistemology. The creationist can rightly claim that their 10k year theory is useful in explaining fossils because the complexity of initial conditions is "evidence of the greatness of God". Since the creationist wants to believe, the theory is useful.
I don't think the author really believes anything different than Popper. I think Popper would say that the 10k theory is worse because it is much harder to falsify in principle. That is, there are fewer hypothetical experiments that could falsify it. The author seems like he would agree with that explanation.
She, not he, by the way. (Given discussions about gender inequities in technology and the sciences over the last several years, it's important that we try to get this right.)
Thanks, good to know Hacker News commenters are doing their part to fix systematic injustice.
It seems that in his view, simplicity and "usefulness" are correlated, and that's what is important. In fact, he says the "simpler an explanation, the more useful it is". The mechanics of an omnipotent being are infinitely more complex than evolution, so I'm not sure that it would qualify as a "useful" explanation, at least according to his perspective.
How comes you both assume the author is male? She is called Sabine Hossenfelder.
How come you assume a person named Sabine must 100% be a woman?
And how come you assume that even if said person indeed has the XX chromosomes (to be nominally classified as a "woman"), that they also self-identify as a woman and prefer the adjective "she" over "he" or some other?
See how far this rabbit hole goes?
It's easy why they assumed the author is male: they don't care who the author is, and didn't read their name on the blog. I read the first 6-7 paragraphs of the post and didn't bother to read the name either. And even if I had, "Sabine" as a name doesn't tell me anything about the gender (not a name we have in my country, nor a very well know one, like Mary or Helen or something that everybody would guess). Heck, there are Spanish men called "Maria".
Had I made a comment I might have used either "they" or assumed it's a man, mostly because statically for things posted at HN, it would be true.
And how come you assume that even if said person indeed has the XX chromosomes (to be nominally classified as a "woman"), that they also self-identify as a woman and prefer the adjective "she" over "he" or some other?
See how far this rabbit hole goes?
It's easy why they assumed the author is male: they don't care who the author is, and didn't read their name on the blog. I read the first 6-7 paragraphs of the post and didn't bother to read the name either. And even if I had, "Sabine" as a name doesn't tell me anything about the gender (not a name we have in my country, nor a very well know one, like Mary or Helen or something that everybody would guess). Heck, there are Spanish men called "Maria".
Had I made a comment I might have used either "they" or assumed it's a man, mostly because statically for things posted at HN, it would be true.
I dunno about the rest of you, but I clicked on the link to her Twitter account, which so far has much higher quality stuff than this thread on HN.
Some fun links:
"Lightning makes new isotopes" http://www.nature.com/news/lightning-makes-new-isotopes-1.23...
"P-values--abused but not abandoned" (includes some nice background on p-values for those of us for whom the concept is a little fuzzy) http://sciencenordic.com/p-values-abused-not-abandoned
A cute video of Feynman answering the question of whether you're seeing an object, or only the light from an object, when looking at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo
A single-molecule magnet: https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119...
...and all that's just in the last 24 hours. She's got a fantastic Twitter feed for the science-interested.
Some fun links:
"Lightning makes new isotopes" http://www.nature.com/news/lightning-makes-new-isotopes-1.23...
"P-values--abused but not abandoned" (includes some nice background on p-values for those of us for whom the concept is a little fuzzy) http://sciencenordic.com/p-values-abused-not-abandoned
A cute video of Feynman answering the question of whether you're seeing an object, or only the light from an object, when looking at it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo
A single-molecule magnet: https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119...
...and all that's just in the last 24 hours. She's got a fantastic Twitter feed for the science-interested.
Sorry, I was not aware that Sabine is not obvious in english. The picture in the top right could also have been a hint.
It is not about it being "100% woman" but about "male" being the default. I think it is telling that the assumption seems to be physics -> male. If this would have been about social issues or fashion, maybe the people would have checked before assuming male gender?
I don't say it does not happen to me too, but if it happens, I think it is good to raise awareness.
It is not about it being "100% woman" but about "male" being the default. I think it is telling that the assumption seems to be physics -> male. If this would have been about social issues or fashion, maybe the people would have checked before assuming male gender?
I don't say it does not happen to me too, but if it happens, I think it is good to raise awareness.
>Sorry, I was not aware that Sabine is not obvious in english. The picture in the top right could also have been a hint.
Hmm, I managed to miss the picture too!
>It is not about it being "100% woman" but about "male" being the default
Is it the default because of bias though, or just because it's just more common -- and people tend to assume based on frequency?
Hmm, I managed to miss the picture too!
>It is not about it being "100% woman" but about "male" being the default
Is it the default because of bias though, or just because it's just more common -- and people tend to assume based on frequency?
The gender of the name "Sabine" is not obvious to me. I wish English had a good gender neutral pronoun. "He or she" is too formal sounding. "They/their/them" is too informal sounding.
I wonder why you feel that singular they is informal? There's nothing wrong with the construction. It's attested as far back as 14th century. And, as you mention, it certainly fills a void in the language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
Because I don't care enough to pay attention.
Note also the picture of her at the top of the page.
A human builds a house. Compared to the house, the human is omnipotent; it goes where it pleases and is free to create and destroy houses at will. Yet, Occam’s Razor does not agree that, after the human has left, the house was never engineered.
As humans, are we so ignorant to think that we are the apex of intelligence? That we could never be like the house, ignorant of how insignificant we are?
As humans, are we so ignorant to think that we are the apex of intelligence? That we could never be like the house, ignorant of how insignificant we are?
Additionally I allocate a piece of memory and don't bother to release it, my program runs fine when I execute from the terminal, therefore I can regularly call my program as a subroutine and face no issues.
I understand your analogy, but I'd like to understand the point behind your analogy. Would you be able to extend your analogy with a brief explanation?
Or is it /s to the point that I perhaps failed to explicitly explain the relevance of my comment to the parent comment? If so, I apologize. The parent comment said "The mechanics of an omnipotent being are infinitely more complex than evolution" and the point of the house analogy was to argue that it's based on viewpoint. The house may think that the mechanics of the human are infinitely more complex (i.e. the wiring of the house barely compares to a handful of neurons from the human), but from the perspective of the human there is nothing complex about the interaction. For the house to be self-bootstrapping from just soup would be curious and highly unlikely from their POV.
As a human our reasoning ability is influenced by our viewpoint (and that's not to say any one viewpoint is right or wrong), so we should always play devils advocate with the razor.
Or is it /s to the point that I perhaps failed to explicitly explain the relevance of my comment to the parent comment? If so, I apologize. The parent comment said "The mechanics of an omnipotent being are infinitely more complex than evolution" and the point of the house analogy was to argue that it's based on viewpoint. The house may think that the mechanics of the human are infinitely more complex (i.e. the wiring of the house barely compares to a handful of neurons from the human), but from the perspective of the human there is nothing complex about the interaction. For the house to be self-bootstrapping from just soup would be curious and highly unlikely from their POV.
As a human our reasoning ability is influenced by our viewpoint (and that's not to say any one viewpoint is right or wrong), so we should always play devils advocate with the razor.