Thread: Everything in the universe is the same age

Deep.

Well if you want to get technical...

The law that matter can't be created nor destroyed makes this hold true...

Hahaha, that was the funniest thing I've seen all day, and I've been watching Scrubs. But serriously, how did the large body of text that must have inevitably existed disappear?

It was a picture, but the format distorted it, so I am now remaking it. Grr...

Just gotta upload it.

Fixed

mhmmm, what about relativity?

Originally Posted by ExoByte

Well if you want to get technical...

The law that energy can't be created nor destroyed makes this hold true...

Fixed.

Matter will most likely eventually be destroyed, one way or another.

The main fallacy I'm seeing is, "everything has a beginning."

Find the definitive beginning of any one thing, and we'll talk.

When elements are formed in a star, do they "begin" then?

When they say a star is a certain age, they mean when the matter that forms it began existing as a single unit known as the star.

It's just semantics.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

It's just semantics.

Is it? People get pretty worked up over when and how certain things began.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Is it? People get pretty worked up over when and how certain things began.

Yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with reality. Humans use a grid-like system to organize the snake-like universe in their heads.

How 'old' an object is, is not determined by the age of the matter that it consists of (which is indeed the same for all objects and what this thread implies) but rather the form of the matter and the symbolic name that humans apply to this specific formation of matter.

The age of a human is the time that passed since matter first formed in a human-like way (birth) and stayed that way (survival).

The age of an X is the time that passed since matter first formed in an X-like way and stayed that way.

Matter can be said to form in an X-like way if the matter that forms in such a way is described by the definition of X.

'Object', as referenced in the picture presented in this thread, is already an artificial separation of reality that is in itself defined by being of an Object-like formation.

Thus, the image only applies to those kinds of matter that do not consist of formed matter in itself, namely sub-atomic particles. Every sub-atomic particle is the same age. NOT chairs.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

When elements are formed in a star, do they "begin" then?

When they say a star is a certain age, they mean when the matter that forms it began existing as a single unit known as the star.

It's just semantics.

That is exactly WHY everything is the same age. Think about a single object's existence, then think about that. It fits .

Seis:

Interesting take, but it doesn't really work for everything... only bits of matter. While you might make the argument that the parts make the whole, I think I can find an example or two for you that might make you revise the theory.

Consider Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, completed in 1808. How old is it? A mere 199 years. Quite a bit shy of age of the universe.

Oh I see. Ideas.

But Ideas aren't matter. Unless you count the instruments used or the neurons that created and memorised it.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

But Ideas aren't matter.

Just the point. I believe the subject was "every thing." Of course changing it to "every bit of matter" sort of neuters the impact, but it would be more precise.

True I guess.

But then again do ideas really exist? If they aren't matter or energy, then what?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

True I guess.

But then again do ideas really exist?

Of course they do!

I don't remember any definition of "existence" requiring physical tangibility. An idea exists as long as there is a record of it.

Yes, the RECORD exists, but does the actual IDEA exist.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Yes, the RECORD exists, but does the actual IDEA exist.

Yes.

Beethoven created his 5th symphony. Creation brings something into existence. What's more, he did not write a 10th symphony, so Beethoven's 10th does not exist. If they both were non-existant, how could we even talk about which one he wrote?

The problem with ideas is that they don't have an external material equivalent - only symbols that might by connected with them. However, when talking about a specific chair, this chair is external and therefore recognizable as an object.
Both are equally illusionary. The chair is only in your mind, just as the idea, but it is the general consensus that the chair is external and therefore not in your mind. What happens with an idea, if you lose it. It's in your subconscious for a while, so it still exists. You can apply the same principle to chairs as with ideas.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Oh I see. Ideas.

But Ideas aren't matter. Unless you count the instruments used or the neurons that created and memorised it.

so..thoughts aren't real either?

every time we think something, that's not real?

if anything, this just goes to show that maybe things exist outside of our comfort zone of atoms - such as the consciousness

He didn't say it wasn't real.

Again, theory of relativity anyone? Objects moving faster would age more slowly, no?

There is evidence for the more-or-less uniform development of the universe, from the microwave background radiation, which is constant to some 0.001 % throughout the sky. I somehow draw a parallel between this and the fact that the whole universe has developed at the same speed - in the same time scale. I read a good explanation on this topic but seem to have forgotten everything (The fabric of the cosmos, Brian Greene)

Relativity should be considered. Anything moving at light speed does not experience the passage of time. So all the light that exists now or in any other time, would not have aged at all. There is one answer to your question - motion does indeed imply that things do not age at the same time. Or let's consider the well known twins paradox, that if one twin goes on a spaceship and accelerates near light speed. When he comes back, he will find his twin to be considerably older that him (since he underwent accelerated motion).

Then again, relativity also implies, that all observers are on equal footing to claim to be at rest (in general relativity, this applies even to accelerated motion, with help from gravity). Although he has traveled into his twin's future, his subjective experience of time is identical in length to that of his twin - he has not experienced more of life that his twin. If the twin who stayed on earth managed to read x number of books in his life, the twin in the spaceship would also have managed to read x amount of books.

There is more that arises from the relativity theory, such as time is not flowing, but all points of time exist simultaneously (at least this is one interpretation, I have not encountered others).

I think the human ideas and concepts of time are simply flawed, and illusionary. Talking about time is like discussing whether the number 5 is sad.