What evidence is there that the world didn't come into existence 5 minutes ago and our memories, the fossils, the history books, etc came into existence back then?
What would evidence of that look like?
>>17046688you tell me. you're the scientist
>>17046687Anything that appears older than 5 minutes is evidence against your theory. Are you a literal retard? Do you struggle with the difference between evidence and incontrovertible proof?
unfalsifiable therefore no evidence could ever contradict it, the claim sits outside the realm of science
>>17046740>t. received public school "science" educationA tard like you... you probably even think Popper is relevant.
>>17046687Why 5 min, why not 1 Planck Time ago.There is a reason why history isn't science. Science deal purely in reproducible future predictions. The past is already the past and purposeful only insofar as it aids in the prediction of the future.
>>17046741breh, you didn't even exist 5 minutes agoyou're the one not relevant
>>17046746Another public/YouTube-educated retard talking about what it thinks "science" is about. It's meaningless to talk about predicting anything unless you believe the system evolves coherently, which rules out OP.
>>17046747Please tell me more about how establishing when/how the world began is unscientific. You can't even apply Pooper's opinions correctly.
>>17046749Your fraudulence has been exposed.It's over. You lost.Science has won again.
>>17046741>>17046749>impotent seething, no argumentsthought experiments like this are literal highschool school introduction topics to epistemology. Nobody who finished highschool should be impressed by baby shit like this. What's next, brain in a jar?
>>17046753>>17046754I don't know what your mentally ill babble is about. I'm just waiting for you to explain why "how do you know the world didn't begin at time T?" is an unscientific question depending on what the value of T is. Notice how you're forced to resort to generic botlike mumbling instead of answering this.
>>17046687>didn't~maybe in the server logs but you'll need root. i'd look for evidence of typos in the prompt, stuff that still looks blurry when you get close
>>17046740this guy falsified you retard >>17046739
>>17046759But that's my post, you utter retard. Also how does that falsify OP if OP is unfalsifiable (according to your previous post)?
>>17046746except that if the world came to be 5 minutes ago, most experiments haven't been done since. the michelson morley experiment that proves aether doesn't exist hasn't, for example>>17046762>previous postit's my first time posting in this thread
>>17046764>it's my first time posting in this threadOk, I see what happened. Nevermind, my mistake.
>>17046757>I don't understand We can tell, college dropout. Evidence exists, plenty. >>17046739 is right. >debate me!! please!!Nah. If all of existence as it is now was prepared in a sufficiently well crafted initial state (the means are irrelevant for the sake of argument here), it is indistinguishable from the past having happened. There is no experimental setup that could distinguish the two scenarios. >>17046764>but what if the past is a carefully crafted illusion and all laws of physics actually stop working in 4 seconds??These are the kinda gotchas "against" empiricism people learn about in high school philosophy retard. This entire thread is babbie's first epistemology
>>17046767>WeBack to the updoot place you go, cretin.>If all of existence as it is now was prepared in a sufficiently well crafted initial state (the means are irrelevant for the sake of argument here), it is indistinguishable from the past having happened.This has nothing to do with what you were asked. Good job confirming my prediction here:>Notice how you're forced to resort to generic botlike mumbling By the way, the post you're claiming is right is my own post. Which I knew would happen, I just jumped the gun here: >>17046762. The public-schooled are so predictable it's nuts,
>>17046772>botlike mumblingYou are a strange one with very limited/selective reading comprehension. If we both agree on OP being a tard, what the fuck compels you to, for example, fling shit at people agreeing with you? The one guy that calls OPs claim unfalsifiable (which is basically the same as my argument about initial state prep) are both orthogonal to your own argument (humoring OP more than you do) while simultaneously in agreement with you that OP is a tard.I can't tell if you are just ESL or spend about 0 seconds thinking before you post.
>>17046775>what the fuck compels you to, for example, fling shit at people agreeing with you?What compels you - a mentally ill retard - to contradict yourself blatantly? Because if you disagree with >>17046740, then you're the one doing what's in the greentext. But if you agree with it, you can't say >>17046739 is right, because these two posts contradict each other. For all I know, maybe OP isn't a moron, maybe he did this intentionally to bait you into the mistake you're making.
>>17046748>unless you believe the system evolves coherently>which rules out OPAnd why would a coherent system rules out OP?
4chan posts having a date and time is good enough for me
>>17046780Because physics implies the universe was in pretty much the same state at 5 minutes ago minus an infinitesimal time interval, as it was 5 minutes ago. Meanwhile OP implies a transition from nothingness to an arbitrary state. That's not a coherent evolution. It's not even an internally consistent system.
>>17046776Ah that explains it, you are literally autistic or something, because these two arguments are not contradictory but complementary.>unfalsifiable therefore no evidence could ever contradict itAssumes by "evidence" OP means something more to the tune of "proof". More specifically, what if the entire world/universe/whatever was prepared in a carefully crafted initial state that simply mimics there having been a past? It's the kinda thought experiment people get to mull over in high school philosophy classes, which I expected you to know.>evidence is not proofthis is your core argument which is correct. One side is willing to humor OP by overlooking an incorrect use of language, the other is not. The synthesis of both is "the question is either trivially answered or poorly posed and unscientific"I am frankly amazed you don't get that without having it explained.
>>17046784>Meanwhile OP implies a transition from nothingness to an arbitrary stateOP implies no such.
>>17046785Let me simplify it for your profoundly retarded ass. Which of the two following statements do you agree with?> no evidence could ever contradict [OP]> Anything that appears older than 5 minutes is evidence against [OP's] theoryIt should be one or the other, because the only way to make it both is if you're "literally autistic or something" and maintain that evidence against X doesn't contradict X. Strictly speaking, that's true, but then >>17046740 isn't addressing OP at all and that post's conclusion is a nonsequitur.Just realize you're unintelligent, take the L and walk away.
>>17046786You're a mentally ill retard so I don't care. Anyone remotely adequate can read that post and see that I'm right. Notice how your mental illness compels you to reply again, even though no one will read your post.
>>17046767>These are the kinda gotchas "against" empiricism people learn about in high school philosophy retard.>be me>have 6 apples>friend gives me 3 apples>I claim I have 9 apples now because 6+3=9>some retard in 4chan says I don't because I'm using elementary school maths and those aren't valid for some reasonOK, bro
>>17046788You really must be ESL if the concept of "someone uses a word incorrectly/sloppily" is so brain breaking for you. Literally no theory of mind.
>>17046791Your mentally ill seething doesn't change the fact that you're a mongoloid under any interpretation of that post.
>>17046687Amazing how a simple epistemological thread can buck break certain anon so hard.Well played OP.
>>17046793I have zero stakes in debating you. I agree with your sentiment, I see the complementary side that is perfectly coherent if you are willing to overlook an abuse of language, and all I am trying to do is explain to you what the other side of the argument is. I see what you think is a contradiction and have a trivial time seeing where you are coming from, and am able to resolve it. I think you will have a hard time with people who abuse notation and misuse language should you ever go into science, though.
>>17046796>a simple epistemological threadWhat epistemological implications do you think this thread has?
>>17046800>personal reddit dramaI don't care about your mental illness. The fact of the matter is that >>17046740 is wrong. If you agree with it, you're a moron.
>>17046802By your (correct) usage of words, it is. Where is the problem?
>>17046790Yes, that is the problem with epistemological debates. In the end I can still ask anyone holding these position whether I may hurl a brick in their direction and they will still say "no". It is a cute thought exercise for adolescents and nothing more
>>17046806Mentally ill retard, how many times do you need basic things spelled out for you: You've agreed with both of these statements:> no evidence could ever contradict [OP]> Anything that appears older than 5 minutes is evidence against [OP's] theoryIf both statements are true, that means X can be evidence against Y without actually contradicting Y. Fine. But then >>17046740 errs first by way of irrelevance and then by its nonsequitur conclusion, because things that can't be "contradicted" by evidence aren't necessarily outside the realm of science. On a basic level, OP is just asking "how do you know the world didn't come into existence X minutes ago?" which is a question scientists ask themselves all the time, so dismissing OP on the grounds of it being unscientific is obviously wrong even without further reasoning.
>>17046809Your mistake is "both use the same definition of evidence" while the reality is "they use mutually exclusive definitions of the word, one of them just happens to not be correct and requires making assumptions in good faith". I will not explain this again, ask your home school teacher or tard wrangler if you have further questions.
>>17046807>epistemological debatesThat's not happening anywhere ITT, though. The age of the universe is not an epistemological debate.
>>17046813>Your mistakeI'm not reading any more mentally ill mumbling. Sorry. It's obvious that I'm not making any mistake.
>>17046814>The age of the universe is not an epistemological debate.depends on the boldness of the assumptions you are willing to make. I don't care about navel gazing bullshit enough to explain further though, no good faith interpretation of OP is simultaneously scientific and interesting. Ask >>>/his/ if you want to know more, I am content remaining within the confines of empiricism.
>>17046814>How do we KNOW world didn't come into existence 5 min agoIt's epistemological.
>>17046818>>17046819In the same way as "how do we KNOW the Earth is not flat" is epistemological. Not everything to do with knowledge is an "epistemological debate". Then again, you still have retarded flat-earthers who think they're having an "epistemological debate" about the shape of the planet. I'm filing you in the same category.
>>17046822False equivocation. Proposition concerning the shape of the planet can be definitively verified with a camera launched far enough.As for OP, >>17046740 is right.
>>17046824>Proposition concerning the shape of the planet can be definitively verified with a camera launched far enough.Except if you apply Last-Thursdayism-style logic (which OP doesn't do, your botlike pattern matching failed you) you can come up with any number of ad hoc excuses for why the camera might be deceiving you. Watching retarded 90 IQ brown ants trying to argue is just surreal.
>>17046822unfathomably low IQ post, probably the same faggot that has a melty in this thread multiple times over>what are you talking about, this is not what OP was sayingThere are more than one kind of people in the world, NPCs who cannot infer from incomplete information and
>>17046830>seething nonsensical meltdownOk but my point still stands. The age of the universe is not an epistemological debate.
>>17046830By the way, actual Last Thursdayist style arguments don't spark any epistemological debates, either. There is a trivial and definite answer, which is that you don't know because the scenario is constructed so that you can't know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis
>>17046835>>17046837Shoo.
>>17046837>>17046840>retarded NPC can't reason its way through a simple propositionIf something can't be known by construction, what's the "epistemological debate" about? Nothing in your wiki article suggests any epistemological debate, it falls neatly in the same category as >>17046822.
>>17046841Read Russel if you want a more in-depth discussion of a such simple epistemological concept.>but a CONCEPT is not a DEBATEare you a child?
>>17046843>read russelHow much Russel do I need to read to know "what if all the evidence is fake?" doesn't elevate religious delusions into epistemological debates?
Padantic Cope
>>17046846just enough to have an in-depth discussion, anon. what IF all the evidence is fake? that has some seriously implications about what we can or cannot know, epistemologically speaking
If we can't know nuffin then we can't know nuffin. Debate me.
>>17046857Judging by that mouth breather, reading the first paragraph of a wiki article about Russel should be enough for an in-depth discussion. Maybe even the Simple English version.
