The Universe is Probably Older than 10,000 Years

Vote bump

I would if I wasn't afraid of her awesome powers

Why don't you tell the witch to her face she is unfalsifiable

Yes then that is not solipsist argument, but it sounds unfalsifiable

I assume others exist. The witch had to put us under this spell, so she exists also.

If the logical conclusion of that model is "the self is all that can be known to exist" then it is a solipsist argument.

I don't disagree with that. You stated you wanted to assume the reality of the universe. The nature of reality can be doubted by a non solipsist. I was just pointing out your definition of solipsist might be overly broad and paint people who think we are in a witches spell and mass hallucination as solipsists. I don't want anyone who thinks we are in a collective witches reality distorting spell to be painted as crazy solipsists.

Well I can use induction to verify confidence in the claim that there are minds other than my own. Does that mean epistemic certainty? Of course not. But does it describe the phenomenon of other actors we don't have control over in a testable, parsimonious way? Yes.

Solipsism would be working with the assumption that you can only prove your own existence. Brain in a vat theory would be a solipsist like theory, but other theories about the nature of reality that assume other consciousnesses would not

You're good lol

I asked for no solipsism because it is more annoying than anything ever. I also, anticipated a potential solipsist that doesn't care how I feel and so I added "probably" so that we can weigh what model is more reliable. We are assuming reality is real lol

I'm just joking. Had lots of coffee today. Sorry

I might run a kritik for why I should be allowed to use a solipsist argument. Tabula Rasa judges will be forced to consider my arguments.

Why did you state no solipsism or kritika? You do know that a kritika would be an argument for why your "rules" should be ignored and could very well use solipsism?

Yes that is solipsism.

Fauxlaw, you can't argue that something, anything is certain so long as any possibility it exists is wrong. Good luck proving you are not currently in a dream and anything you perceived and know is definitely not because of your current dream state

That would be a terrible argument

Well thank you for your comments.

So, malleable as they are, why have a 'probably' argument? Take a stand. But, no, I don't insist. I do not have an interest in the debate sufficient to engage it with you. Just making aside comments.

I can remove the probably if you really insist, but it's actually more specific to say probably.

Inductive "certainty" is never absolute knowledge. We can only say that one model is a likely explanation since there will likely be updates to it in the future, and all good models of reality are potentially falsifiable.

What's the "probably?" Either the Universe is, or is is not older. If you cannot be positive in your argument, why should we oppose?

Thank you, fixed.

can I argue instead that the universe is DEFINITELY older than 10,000 years? XD