Half Life and Double Time

Half Life and Double Time

*I now offer you a speculation which I present as a philosophy to point out logical paradoxes with consequences in a manner not unlike Zeno, that should make us question some of our most cherished physics notions.

*There has been some reports that atomic radiation, a measure we use fairly reliably by the half life in carbon dating at leas for a few thousands of years into to the past, varies, speeding up or slowing down by perhaps hidden mechanisms by which we do not notice by some parallel environs of changes. Assume this is true.

*In which case, in the short or long run, does it make any sense to try to determine the age of our earth and universe? or the young or old earth debates politically?

*On what physicality could we base this? How could this be a better explanation than a universe Intelligently created when about the only measure seems to be something could be said to exist or not as known or unknown, its property of existing also hidden or not?

*For if the value changed, we can imagine it changing exponentially and rapidly in expanding, as in our Inflation Cosmologies. In that such changes relate to that physically present and observable by some unknown mechanism and this inflation part of the physics and mechanism actively or by default, could not the evolution of the earth and creatures in it take only a few thousand years to give us what could seem instantly what we see now? Thus argument can doubly apply if in some sense our solar system is fractal like in isolated regions in descending and ascending scales. There is not good reason to assume some elements of hypercube as endless in infinite extent and the others finite but for our fixity of view and uncertainty if in the remote ideal these can cosmically loop back to some beginnings.

*Thus the arguments from design, be they arising indefinite in extent by a nothingness or a Creator or in general default sense of uncertainty and a creation like physics, or that as still not dreamed of, should at least show us the debate without intelligible grounding save it just a political agenda addressing more our desires and comforts rather than the science and philosophy in itself, the attractor and the absolute of enquiry.

*Clearly, the universe seems, while the experience of it at least, as relatively intelligible and hauntingly questionable in terms that would connect abstract notions and mechanism to our ideas of how they connect and apply, deriving our familiar and even classical scale of things. This level of abstraction seems to have different answers, working paradoxes, as if this itself an intelligible question.

* * *