5 ms·

I've always enjoyed this thought experiment and the loosely related one - Last Thursdayism[0]. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism https://ratio

I've always enjoyed this thought experiment and the loosely related one - Last Thursdayism[0]. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

725686 7y ago
Ha, ha, "whether Last Thursdayism is true has raged on ever since its inception last Thursday"
- mannykannot 7y ago
  I have it on good authority that the universe was actually created last Tuesday, but by Wednesday, Last-Thursdayism was already being considered.
trhway 7y ago
> is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. or it may have been just restored from a backup (with some bit rotting and missing pieces as evidenced by dark matter/energy and other inconsistencies)
- cosmojg 7y ago
  Heh, reminds me of this short story: http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2000 http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2000
- mr_toad 7y ago
  The dreams you recall are just artefacts of the restore process initialising your mind.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    I actually considered that as a realistic possibility -- that memories of dreams form as you wake up -- but I think that is didproved by people talking and moving in their sleep in ways consistent with what they report about their dreams when they wake up. PET and NMR scanning might be able to resolve the issue, if it has not done so already.
    - speakeron 7y ago
      Lucid dream research done in the 1970s had subjects signalling from within a dream using eye movement. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258201870_Lucid_dream_verified_by_volitional_communication_during_REM_sleep https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258201870_Lucid_dre...
- yellowapple 7y ago
  > with some bit rotting and missing pieces This explains why "Berenstein" is now spelled "Berenstain".
mannykannot 7y ago
"Omphalos", by Philip Gosse, is an interesting and bemusing footnote to the battle between creationism and evolution. It took a similar idea extremely seriously and to great lengths, in order to explain away fossil and other geological evidence, but earned its author nothing but ridicule, even from those nominally on his side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_%28book%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_%28book%29
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  > the battle between creationism and evolution I’ve always found any participation in this debate to be meaningless for reasons that last Thursdayism illustrates, but kinda misses at the same time. Any debate has to take place within an agreed upon set of axioms, if you don’t have that then any point raised by the other side is simply invalid no matter what. “Earth came to be naturally billions of years after the Big Bang” and “God created earth 6000 years ago” or “Earth came to be last Thursday” clearly don’t share any axioms on which to found a meaningful debate, it’s simply impossible. I also think it’s not necessary. If you believe earth was created last Thursday, instantaneously summoned into existence in a predetermined state (something you would expect an omnipotent being to be capable of), then studying the state of the universe is a still perfectly valid exercise. You can study what present day information reveals about points in time prior to creation, without compromising your faith that the universe was created last Thursday. In fact a th(ursday)eologian might argue that such study could further resolve your faith by revealing the intricacies of last Thursday’s creation. Another point (though not directly related to the young earth variety of creationist) is that if you have an omnipotent being, then you would expect such a being to be able to both: Summon the universe into existence in any state it wanted to, or if it preferred, initiate a Big Bang with the precise conditions required to eventually lead to any exact state (for instance the details of Islam’s creation story describe the latter scenario, according to some interpretations).
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    At the risk of debating something you think is meaningless to participate in... Having axioms is not a problem if the parties are prepared to reconsider them. At the time Omphalos was published, there were people who were genuinely prepared to change their minds -- Darwin himself started as a creationist (interestingly, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, an influential scholar in his own right, was an evolutionist, and drew the analogy between domestication and evolution that was helpful for Charles) -- and the fact that Gosse was ridiculed by creationists suggests that the debate had not ossified. These days, all the arguments have been made, and the only sensible course would be to agree to differ. I think most evolutionists, aside from Dawkins and a few others, would be happy to leave it at that, if it were not for the repeated attempts by creationists to subvert education. More specifically, “Earth came to be naturally billions of years after the Big Bang” is not an axiom, it is a conclusion drawn from evidence, and the axiom is more like "physical evidence never lies (even if it can be misconstrued)." The creationist axiom is more like "This book never lies", and “Earth came to be last Thursday” appears to be a tongue-in-cheek and apparently counterfactual claim made to trigger debate.
dilyevsky 7y ago
“Quantum immortality” is my personal favorite “theory” of loopy kind
duckerude 7y ago
Alternatively: > “Reformed Last Thursdayism,” a.k.a. “Next Thursdayism”: the belief that the world will be created ex nihilo, complete with fossils and cosmic microwave background and other signs of apparent age, next Thursday, and that we currently inhabit the precomputation. (https://a-point-in-tumblspace.tumblr.com/post/187371750052/ https://a-point-in-tumblspace.tumblr.com/post/187371750052/)

I've always enjoyed this thought experiment and the loosely related one - Last Thursdayism[0]. [0] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

725686 7y ago

Ha, ha, "whether Last Thursdayism is true has raged on ever since its inception last Thursday"

mannykannot 7y ago
I have it on good authority that the universe was actually created last Tuesday, but by Wednesday, Last-Thursdayism was already being considered.

trhway 7y ago

> is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. or it may have been just restored from a backup (with some bit rotting and missing pieces as evidenced by dark matter/energy and other inconsistencies)

cosmojg 7y ago
Heh, reminds me of this short story: http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2000 http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2000
mr_toad 7y ago
The dreams you recall are just artefacts of the restore process initialising your mind.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  I actually considered that as a realistic possibility -- that memories of dreams form as you wake up -- but I think that is didproved by people talking and moving in their sleep in ways consistent with what they report about their dreams when they wake up. PET and NMR scanning might be able to resolve the issue, if it has not done so already.
  - speakeron 7y ago
    Lucid dream research done in the 1970s had subjects signalling from within a dream using eye movement. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258201870_Lucid_dream_verified_by_volitional_communication_during_REM_sleep https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258201870_Lucid_dre...
yellowapple 7y ago
> with some bit rotting and missing pieces This explains why "Berenstein" is now spelled "Berenstain".

mannykannot 7y ago

"Omphalos", by Philip Gosse, is an interesting and bemusing footnote to the battle between creationism and evolution. It took a similar idea extremely seriously and to great lengths, in order to explain away fossil and other geological evidence, but earned its author nothing but ridicule, even from those nominally on his side: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_%28book%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_%28book%29

AmericanChopper 7y ago
> the battle between creationism and evolution I’ve always found any participation in this debate to be meaningless for reasons that last Thursdayism illustrates, but kinda misses at the same time. Any debate has to take place within an agreed upon set of axioms, if you don’t have that then any point raised by the other side is simply invalid no matter what. “Earth came to be naturally billions of years after the Big Bang” and “God created earth 6000 years ago” or “Earth came to be last Thursday” clearly don’t share any axioms on which to found a meaningful debate, it’s simply impossible. I also think it’s not necessary. If you believe earth was created last Thursday, instantaneously summoned into existence in a predetermined state (something you would expect an omnipotent being to be capable of), then studying the state of the universe is a still perfectly valid exercise. You can study what present day information reveals about points in time prior to creation, without compromising your faith that the universe was created last Thursday. In fact a th(ursday)eologian might argue that such study could further resolve your faith by revealing the intricacies of last Thursday’s creation. Another point (though not directly related to the young earth variety of creationist) is that if you have an omnipotent being, then you would expect such a being to be able to both: Summon the universe into existence in any state it wanted to, or if it preferred, initiate a Big Bang with the precise conditions required to eventually lead to any exact state (for instance the details of Islam’s creation story describe the latter scenario, according to some interpretations).
- mannykannot 7y ago
  At the risk of debating something you think is meaningless to participate in... Having axioms is not a problem if the parties are prepared to reconsider them. At the time Omphalos was published, there were people who were genuinely prepared to change their minds -- Darwin himself started as a creationist (interestingly, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin, an influential scholar in his own right, was an evolutionist, and drew the analogy between domestication and evolution that was helpful for Charles) -- and the fact that Gosse was ridiculed by creationists suggests that the debate had not ossified. These days, all the arguments have been made, and the only sensible course would be to agree to differ. I think most evolutionists, aside from Dawkins and a few others, would be happy to leave it at that, if it were not for the repeated attempts by creationists to subvert education. More specifically, “Earth came to be naturally billions of years after the Big Bang” is not an axiom, it is a conclusion drawn from evidence, and the axiom is more like "physical evidence never lies (even if it can be misconstrued)." The creationist axiom is more like "This book never lies", and “Earth came to be last Thursday” appears to be a tongue-in-cheek and apparently counterfactual claim made to trigger debate.

dilyevsky 7y ago

“Quantum immortality” is my personal favorite “theory” of loopy kind

duckerude 7y ago

Alternatively: > “Reformed Last Thursdayism,” a.k.a. “Next Thursdayism”: the belief that the world will be created ex nihilo, complete with fossils and cosmic microwave background and other signs of apparent age, next Thursday, and that we currently inhabit the precomputation. (https://a-point-in-tumblspace.tumblr.com/post/187371750052/ https://a-point-in-tumblspace.tumblr.com/post/187371750052/)