So in conclusion, I think the universe is at least 94 years old.
You could then progressively add more to it. First, consider for example old tombstones with a date engraved. There are also even older historic texts that make case of a year date. There are also radiometry and carbon isotopes who can date geologic layers, or alternatively, plate tectonics who will tell you the minimal age of a certain tectonic plate. Etc. etc.
Now, I can't know for sure if anything existed before I did. Some people might be skeptical, but I'm willing to take that leap of faith.
You could then progressively add more to it. First, consider for example old tombstones with a date engraved. There are also even older historic texts that make case of a year date. There are also radiometry and carbon isotopes who can date geologic layers, or alternatively, plate tectonics who will tell you the minimal age of a certain tectonic plate. Etc. etc.
To ad to this in regard to the point above, since we are using objectively verifiable empirical evidence, it doesn't take faith to determine that something existed before you did.
Lets just say that the universe is just as old as the size of it. Which makes: INFINITE
The universe is growing, though, which means that it had to have a starting point for its growth (the beginning of the universe age)
Plus...I don't think infinite works with a starting age. Undefined does, however (I understand the scientific belief of when the Big Bang was and then we know the age from there...I'm thinking in terms of before the Bang, however)
First, consider for example old tombstones with a date engraved. There are also even older historic texts that make case of a year date.
Ahh, but how can I be sure that those things really are that old? For all I know, those "old" tombstones, or the pyramids, were created that way 94 years ago when my grandmother was born. I knew my grandmother, I know she was old, but if I'm just seeing something for the first time, I can't know for sure how old it is.
since we are using objectively verifiable empirical evidence
Are we though? The question of the thread is leaves it open for me to opine. It is not asking how well we are able to read and comprehend the readily available scientific facts. I interpreted the question as more of a philosophical prompting since by its very nature it assumes that the answer is subjective. There are different levels of knowledge available then, including first-hand (which I chose). I am also vaguely familiar with the brand of 'knowledge' that seems to have the most trouble accepting the common scientific answers. see here
Ahh, but how can I be sure that those things really are that old? For all I know, those "old" tombstones, or the pyramids, were created that way 94 years ago when my grandmother was born. I knew my grandmother, I know she was old, but if I'm just seeing something for the first time, I can't know for sure how old it is.
Now...what about the memories your grandmother has of her grandmother?
The OP might not be but given your argument of requiring faith, this isn't the case.
I interpreted the question as more of a philosophical prompting since by its very nature it assumes that the answer is subjective.
Though the age of the universe isn't a subjective matter. We have objective evidence to work with.
There are different levels of knowledge available then, including first-hand (which I chose).
Which can be very misleading. Our perception can be very wrong. This is why it's good to rely on objectivity and repeatability to the best of our ability.
I am also vaguely familiar with the brand of 'knowledge' that seems to have the most trouble accepting the common scientific answers.
Lets just say that the universe is just as old as the size of it. Which means the answer is putting 8 to sleep. Which makes: INFINITE
Nothing is infinite, everything is finite. Can you give me a plausible answer that makes something infinite?
Yeah it's called denying facts.
I don't think so. "Facts" change all the time. Every 100 years or so scientific facts are proven to be false, and another "fact" takes it's place. Do you know what I'm talking about. Soooo... having trouble accepting the common scientific answers is certainly not unreasonable.
The universe is only infinitely old so far as it boggles the mind to even consider how old it must be. But it is not ageless. I'm a firm believer of the theory that the universe is constantly expanding, until it reaches critical mass and collapses back in on itself. Then starts to expand again.
The universe is only infinitely old so far as it boggles the mind to even consider how old it must be.
So, simply, to try and specify the exact "beginning" of the universe (which would thus find the age) is so difficult that it is a waste of time to try and do so?
So, simply, to try and specify the exact "beginning" of the universe (which would thus find the age) is so difficult that it is a waste of time to try and do so?
im whit deviodless here, what we do when we know the age? its just a number fact. like the speed of light. i know speed of light is usefull. but how is the age usefull?
I don't think so. "Facts" change all the time. Every 100 years or so scientific facts are proven to be false, and another "fact" takes it's place. Do you know what I'm talking about. Soooo... having trouble accepting the common scientific answers is certainly not unreasonable.
It is always god to be critic towards deductions from facts, but you picture it as if all of our knowledge just periodically overthrows itself. The cold hard numbers are based on our instruments build with our technological knowledge. The instruments don't suddenly spew out completely different numbers each 100 years, they just get more and more precise and may thus reveal new aspects, which in turn may indeed change some theories. But we can be quite certain of the results we get from the instruments, as we built them and know what sort of data they assess. The interpretation of those results is where it gets interesting.
No facts don't change. Our interpretation and understand of them can. For instance let's say the theory of gravity is shown to be wrong. The fact that things on Earth fall towards it wouldn't change.
The universe is only infinitely old so far as it boggles the mind to even consider how old it must be. But it is not ageless. I'm a firm believer of the theory that the universe is constantly expanding, until it reaches critical mass and collapses back in on itself. Then starts to expand again.
Already been over how this isn't likely given the shape of the universe.
