Oldest fossils on Earth found in Australia, provides proof of life on planet 3.4 billion years ago

发布者 Atik

Look we're discussing it! Communication involves the transfer of ideas, not the transfer of realities. There no reason not to talk about any idea!

...

damn you...

*taps ground*

发布者 Skreeran

As for the nihilistic quandary, it's really only a philosophical curiosity, not a powerful argument.

Not quite. It's irrelevant to the 'real world', but it's a firm argument - there is no feasible way to prove that the Earth is what we perceive it to be, so why waste our time thinking about such things? Does it really matter whether we think that it's 4.4 or 4.5 billion years old? It has no material impact on our understanding of consequential issues.The whole of science is based around forming a more accurate mental model of our universe.

We may not exist, or we may all just be a single brain in a vat, but naturally we cannot perceive this, and thus it doesn't matter. "What if it all doesn't exist" does nothing to help shape our mental model of the universe we perceive.

Some people may be satisfied with focusing purely on the practical, on the here and now that effects your day to day life, but not me, and not many other people. I have a passion for science and desire my personal mental model of the universe to be as accurate as possible, so knowing that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old rather than 6000 years old does make a difference to me, even if it doesn't directly affect my life. I want to know about the universe and how it works and how we got here and how it all came to be. Sure I expend extra effort in attempt to gain this knowledge, and sure I will most likely not get much return on my investment (at least in the "age of the earth" case; other scientific discoveries have greatly increased the standard of living for most humans), but that doesn't stop me. I don't live my life looking for what will help me squeeze the absolute last drop of profit from my actions; whether I like it or not, my passion is for knowledge and understanding, not personal gain.

发布者 Squishalot

发布者 Skreeran

That's just a different form of profit from your actions (since absorbing knowledge *is* your personal gain). I understand what you're saying, however, the concept of the earth's age is even moreso a philosophical curiosity than the general concept of perception vs reality.But it's not a philosophical curiosity, it's a scientific one. Yes, philosophy and science often have the same questions and goals, but science deals with learning about the universe we live in, whereas philosophy deals with more general (and often purely hypothetical) questions of logic.

There's nothing to be learned from asking "How do we know it even exists?" except that it's difficult to prove the universe "truly" exists, whereas learning that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, rather than 6000-10,000 years old, as was traditionally thought, tells you lots of things, from the simple fact of the Earth's age, to the time period life had available to begin, and the opportunity to learn more about the Earth's formation.

发布者 Jubilee

发布者 Skreeran

Has science ever measured anything by how difficult it is to achieve? =P That seems quite unscientific at least to me. I'm sure if we're in a simulation there is some way to demonstrate it, and if we were able to demonstrate it, that would have massive ethical consequences.Perhaps. But there's nothing we've seen thus far to lead us to conclude that we might be in some sort of simulation. And as long as there's no evidence to suggest that we're in a simulation, only the possibility, then that possibility is just as likely, as far as we know, that we might be in a dream, or be a brain in a vat, or another of an infinite number of possibilities we wouldn't even understand (given that you have to factor in the fact that the "real" universe wouldn't necessarily have the same rules as the one we perceive).

Until evidence comes along to show that such a possibility might be worth looking into, we'll continue to operate under the assumption that what we observe to be true is in fact true.

发布者 166779

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

发布者 Squishalot

发布者 Skreeran

But it's not a philosophical curiosity, it's a scientific one. Yes, philosophy and science often have the same questions and goals, but science deals with learning about the universe we live in, whereas philosophy deals with more general (and often purely hypothetical) questions of logic.

I disagree. Philosophy is just as much about knowledge of the universe as science is. The reason I say it's a philosophical curiosity is that your desire is for the knowledge itself, not for its practical, physical usefulness. What is it like to be a bat? That's a philosophical question that has its roots in learning about the universe we live in.

Your desire for knowledge is just as meaningful as the desire for knowledge of the meaning of life, or the number of gods in the universe. You just want to know the answer.

That, regardless of whether there's a (meta)physical manifestation of your question, is why I think it's a philosophical curiosity.I think I see your point. There is a philosophical backing behind my very desire to know about the universe, which in the face of pure logic would seem unhelpful. Imagine there is a scientific answer for why I want to know more, rooted in my ancestor's desires to know more helping them survive to reproduce.

I said that questions like "What is none of it is real?" is a philosophical curiosity because to me such a question doesn't provide any answers. It's an interesting to imagine for a moment, but provides no lasting intellectual stimulation. Sure we might be inside the Matrix, but until someone can show us evidence that we do, we might as well work under the assumption that what we see is what we get.

As I said, science is entirely built upon the desire to better align one's internal model of the universe with the actual universe. Suggesting that the actual universe might not exist at all, while briefly interesting, does nothing to further that goal. Even if the universe "isn't" there, it might as well be there. Explain to me how one tells the difference between a universe that does not exist and a universe that does. A universe that does not exist but is perceived to be and a universe that does exist would appear exactly the same, and can thus be treated exactly the same.

发布者 166779

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

发布者 xaratherus

I have a very practical interest in knowing an accurate age for the planet: So that I can rub it in the faces of Young Earth Creationists. :P

发布者 OverZealous

发布者 xaratherus

I have a very practical interest in knowing an accurate age for the planet: So that I can rub it in the faces of Young Earth Creationists. :P

Now that might actually be the most useful part about this discovery!

On a serious note though; yes, I believe it is very accurate. The methods used to date the Earth are very reliable, and though they might + / - several hundred thousand years or more, when discussing billions, it is fairly insignificant.
Yes, I think the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

Sadly, YECs rationalize this in one of two ways:

They either refuse to actually learn anything about radiometric dating (and then claim that it's highly inaccurate, or (more frequently) they claim that we're using carbon dating, which simply shows their ignorance since a quick glance at carbon dating shows that it's only ever used for items thought to be no more than 40,000 years old (as beyond that it's highly inaccurate)), or they claim that the results are "accurate" but that it's really a trick by Satan to tempt us.

发布者 OverZealous

Sadly, YECs rationalize this in one of two ways:

They either refuse to actually learn anything about radiometric dating (and then claim that it's highly inaccurate, or (more frequently) they claim that we're using carbon dating, which simply shows their ignorance since a quick glance at carbon dating shows that it's only ever used for items thought to be no more than 40,000 years old (as beyond that it's highly inaccurate)), or they claim that the results are "accurate" but that it's really a trick by Satan to tempt us.

Which is where it usually falls apart.
They're much like the Flat Earth Society (or was it Flat Earth Association?) - they ignore all facts that speak against their ideas, and it is impossible to reason with someone who will throw all evidence you possess back in your face because they don't want to believe it, or because they dislike being proved wrong.

发布者 pezz

Side note for a pezz pet peeve here: I'm not saying anyone here is guilty of this, I know from past threads most of you wouldn't do this, but if you like to talk down to YECs and all of your data comes from your jaded 6th grade science teacher who was always one chapter ahead of you in the book, you are a hypocrite. Most YECs have studied the issue more than you.

发布者 xaratherus

Anyhow - I agree with Berelain and OverZealous. While I've never worked with radiometric dating myself, I have done enough research into it to know that it is accurate enough when used appropriately.

While it may have a "confidence interval" of +/- a few hundred-thousand years, on the scale of millions or billions of years, that differentiation simply disappears in the static.

发布者 134377

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

发布者 Adamsm

So here's an interesting question about this: Did that lifeform show up before or after the formation of the Moon?

Oldest fossils on Earth found in Australia, provides proof of life on planet 3.4 billion years ago

发表回复