Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

eIImcxc t1_j1dwlkl wrote

Reply to comment by a4mula in Can we truly know the age of the universe? by Geodad478

>While it is true that the speed of light is a constant

Here is the problem. That is not even true. We're basing everything on things that we ~suppose~ true. We don't even know for sure if the speed of light is not dependent on direction or on anything else that we can't grasp as limited beings.

Now that's just one foundation on what we're measuring the age of the universe. Now imagine that every single other principle is also keen to a complete misunderstanding.

−1

a4mula t1_j1dwzbo wrote

I'm sure there are many fundamental aspects of reality we get wrong, or could be more precise with, or could understand better.

I'm not sure the speed of light in a vacuum is one, but I do agree with the premise you're presenting.

But it's important to understand this isn't about Truth. It's about approaching it. It's not about defining reality. It's about creating models of it that help us to interact with it.

There can be no denying that we have increased our understanding, it's directly reflected in the fact that technology increases and works.

That's the benefit. Not the truth of any given statement. But how these models can advance our understandings.

2

eIImcxc t1_j1dywa4 wrote

Completely agreed but OP's question was about questioning our measure of the universe's age.

Considering what we just said, I think that the range park that we got has close to no chance to be right. Our entire theory is based on the observable universe and our very vicinity, be it in time or space.

All things considered, we're pretty much toddlers trying to find the Earth's radius.

0

a4mula t1_j1e0697 wrote

Perhaps, and we're all offered the same opportunity to observe our reality and put forth theories regarding it.

If the theories we propose do a better job of explaining the observed data and do not introduce any new problems. Those theories are typically accepted to represent a piece of the model.

Explore and plunge and theorize. Because maybe you're the next person that helps us to understand better.

Science doesn't claim to be correct. It's just a framework that is in place to judge the accuracy of predictions, and when it works properly the best predictions are kept, and the ones that are less successful are discarded.

It's certainly not a perfect system. Humans control it. But it's a good system in that it's iteratively accepting of new facts, while discarding any that have been shown to be incorrect.

1

eIImcxc t1_j1ek2ew wrote

> Science doesn't claim to be correct.

That's what the vast majority don't get.

Thanks for the encouragement but as an analogy I'm more a watch it from the couch kind of guy. I guess also a coach since I'm tutoring students (Maths and Physics), so maybe one of them will make a breakthrough :)

2

a4mula t1_j1fehth wrote

Most of us will never provide to the frameworks of science. Not directly. We could, but it requires an understanding of formalized language that most do not possess, including myself.

But we can contribute towards the concepts and ideas and goals. We can encourage one another to have considerations towards the basic principles. Be fair. Be honest. Be critical minded. Try to minimize bias.

And we don't know how that ripples through reality, but I'd like to believe it's a positive influence overall.

I appreciate your time in educating the youth. It's a very important job, and I'm glad that it's being done by someone that does consider these things.

1

eIImcxc t1_j1fgyxn wrote

>I appreciate your time in educating the youth. It's a very important job, and I'm glad that it's being done by someone that does consider these things.

Thanks for that. Be assured that I do it with passion.. and I'm quite lucky that they give me back the positivity.

2