Does Science Truly Represent Reality?

But that would only give the reference between 2 points which doesn't change anything. As Percy pointed out GR tells us that there is no such thing as absolute velocity. I agree with Percy, but that being true there is also no such thing as absolute time.When we say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old we are relating it to time as we perceive it on Earth. The rate of time as we perceive it is dependent on our velocity. I know that we know our velocity in regards to our rotation and speed around the sun but as far as I know we have no idea of the speed that our solar system or our galaxy is moving at which would presumably affect the rate at which we move through time. Even if we could measure all of the velocities of the Earth it would have to be relative to some absolute time which I think we agree doesn't exist anyway.I suppose to a photon wearing a wrist watch the world is only 10 to the minus 43 seconds old. So, in the end I don't understand how we can definitively say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

But this is off-topic here. Why don't you go back to that thread and actually address the points and data that crashfrog brought up? Ignoring the substantive points in that thread, just saying "nuh-uh", and then crowing in a different unrelated thread how it's just a fairy tale seems to be...rather creationist.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

No, it is using two different references to measure the same thing. While using one set of references may give us a different number then using a second reference, the thing being measured, in this case the age of the universe, is still the same. The answer is that the age of the universe is something greater than 14.5 billion years using our reference. The Photons life is from the moment it is created. It's universe is a statement that seems to have no meaning.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Each reference might give us less or more. My point is that all of our measurements of time are made from our perspective hear on Earth. We can only say that the universe is 13.7 billion years old as measured by someone on a planet that has the same cumulative velocity of Earth. Someone on another planet with a greater accumulative velocity would presumably view the universe as being much older than we do.I'll go back to the beginning. We use the senses and the wisdom that we have to perceive the world in a particular way from our particular vantage point on Earth.We have no way of knowing how we might perceive our environment if we had acquired a different set of senses. Maybe there aren't other senses to be had but we don't know.I'll repeat by the way, that I am not a YEC and am NOT trying to show how we can have a 6000 year old Earth. I also agree that this is much more philosophic than it is scientific.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

No, not true.You are mistaking the measuring system and the thing being measured.If someone uses the metric system to measure an object, while another person uses the English system, they will get two different answers. Each answer is correct related to the reference they use. Irrelevant.We do know what we have. Knowledge of the universe is evolutionary, over time we learn more. However that has nothing to do with the reality itself.Science truly represents reality, but it is just what WE know about reality, not the reality itself.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

How delightful, AO. You've managed to roll ad hominem, strawmen, begging the question, argument from ignorance, and just plain wrong-headedness into one steaming pile of a post. Congratulations on your accomplishment! Can't know, probably. But that's not an excuse to jump to whatever woo conclusion one would like to - like, "there's a cat in the Steere Nursing Unit who can see the future."Or "there's a God, and he's called Jesus." Or "dead people come back as ghosts." The limits of human empirical knowledge are not an excuse to just make up whatever is past those boundaries, but that's exactly what GDR is trying to do - we don't know everything, therefore we can just make up things like Gods and ghosts. That's not what confirmation bias is. I wonder if this is the same level of ignorance from which you approach everything else. It certainly obviates any claim on your part to be engaged in

Yes, there is actually It is a hang-over from SR that gives the incorrect impression that time is relative. The Universe itself provides a standard of time - that measured by a 'comoving' observer. We are such an observer, ignoring our non-relativistic motion caused by our Galactic orbit, and Galactic local peculiar velocity. It is certainly possible to measure a smaller time since the BB, simply by ensuring a constant relativistic motion (or equivalently hanging out on the fringe of a black hole since the BB), but you cannot get a longer time. The 13.7 billion years is the maximum time it is possible to measure since the BB. This makes sense in relativity as the longest distance between two points in space-time is a straight line - i.e. a non-accelerating observer.

I'm not talking two different measuring systems. I'm talking about one measuring system that gives different results depending on your location in the universe. I'm just using the age of the universe as an example. From our perspective we view the universe as being 13.7 billion years old and some hypothetical being on some planet in a distant galaxy might well perceive the universe as being 20 billion years old. Both are correct from their vantage point but what is the reality? I agreeOne scientific theory is that consciousness is a fundamental characteristic of the universe. I think this is what Penrose and Hameroff are suggesting.This is a brief discussion on the idea that consciousness is fundamental.
This Blog has Moved to NovaSpivack.com: Is Consciousness as Fundamental as Space, Time and Energy?What would a universe without consciousness look like or would it exist at all?Heizenberg's Uncertainty Principle as I understand it tells us that particles don't exhibit their characteristics until they are observed or measured. If there weren't some form of consciousness, (I'm not limiting it to human consciousness) to interact with basic particles would it mean that change would cease to happen and thus time would cease to exist? (I,m not making a statement, I'm asking a question.)

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

That the universe is as old as they perceive based on their reference. Sorry but that seems to be simply a meaningless question.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thank you. I actually understand that. (Except for a little problem with the straight line in space time. ) The Galactic orbit is non-relativistic because it is the universe expanding and not the same thing as velocity. Is that correct?Can we eliminate the Galactical local peculiar velocity because the velocities are too small to be significant?Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

By Galactic orbit I simply mean the orbit of the Sun around the Galaxy centre - which is far too slow to be of interest. 'motion' created by the expansion of the Universe is not motion at all - as you say, not the same thing as velocity. Exactly.

It wouldn't look like anything because no one would be looking. It would not be perceived to exist.The absence of observers poses no inherent problem with its existing.If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears... you know.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

The problem is, it also poses no problem for it not existing.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

​

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

How is that a problem?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Because one can make any assumption that one likes. Something not observed could be assumed to not exist, or it could be assumed to exist, or it could be assumed to be part-way between existing and not.We can only be sure of something existing once we observe it. Else, it can't be said to exist or not, as either will be an assumption.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today! We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.

​

Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!