My rock challenge

[Kylie]

I create two rocks ex nihilo. I create one with two million years of embedded age and the other with none.

When you study them, your analysis shows that one rock is new and the other rock is old, despite the fact they are both the same age.

Am I being deceptive in making it look like one rock is older than the other?

 

[jacks]

No you're not being deceptive, you're being extremely creative.

 

[Kylie]

How big are they?

Irrelevant.

 

[USincognito]

What kind of rocks are they?

 

[EternalDragon]

I create two rocks ex nihilo. I create one with two million years of embedded age and the other with none.

When you study them, your analysis shows that one rock is new and the other rock is old, despite the fact they are both the same age.

Am I being deceptive in making it look like one rock is older than the other?

You need to first explain how you would create a rock with no apparent age.

Are you creating it from cooled lava and does that lava have no age?

Are you creating it from fused minerals which themselves have no age?

Are you creating the rock from existing materials and adding heat and pressure?

Just how are you creating a rock with no age exactly?

 

[Englandlied]

You need to first explain how you would create a rock with no apparent age.

Are you creating it from cooled lava and does that lava have no age?

Are you creating it from fused minerals which themselves have no age?

Are you creating the rock from existing materials and adding heat and pressure?

Just how are you creating a rock with no age exactly?

It's ex nihilo, out of nothing. It's just a hypothetical.

My answer is yes, it is deceptive.

 

[EternalDragon]

It's ex nihilo, out of nothing. It's just a hypothetical.

My answer is yes, it is deceptive.

Even if they said it was created just now, with no age? Where is the deception?

Also, is it even possible to create a rock without age? You can't just say "it's hypothetical", so there are no rules. As I assume this is really about an ID creating something. So they would be operating within universal laws and constants if they are creating it in our reality.

 

[Englandlied]

Even if they said it was created just now, with no age? Where is the deception?

Also, is it even possible to create a rock without age? You can't just say "it's hypothetical", so there are no rules. As I assume this is really about an ID creating something. So they would be operating within universal laws and constants if they are creating it in our reality.

But what if they said the opposite? You're right, though: we could use a little more information (including the point being made by the question).

 

[Kylie]

What kind of rocks are they?

Rocks for which radioactive dating can be used.

 

[Kylie]

You need to first explain how you would create a rock with no apparent age.

I believe AV is the expert with this sort of thing. He's done it lots of times with his apple challenges.

Are you creating it from cooled lava and does that lava have no age?

Are you creating it from fused minerals which themselves have no age?

Are you creating the rock from existing materials and adding heat and pressure?

As I said, creation ex nihilo, or from nothing. I just snap my fingers and the rocks appear.

Just how are you creating a rock with no age exactly?

The process is irrelevant. If you really want to know, I'll refer you to AV, as I said, as he's the expert.

 

[Kylie]

Even if they said it was created just now, with no age? Where is the deception?

Did you miss the bit where I said that I created one of the rocks with two million years o embedded age?

Also, is it even possible to create a rock without age? You can't just say "it's hypothetical", so there are no rules. As I assume this is really about an ID creating something. So they would be operating within universal laws and constants if they are creating it in our reality.

I laid down the rules in the OP.

 

[Kylie]

But what if they said the opposite? You're right, though: we could use a little more information (including the point being made by the question).

The point is that creating something that is brand new and yet appears to be older is inherently deceptive.

 

[AV1611VET]

I create two rocks ex nihilo. I create one with two million years of embedded age and the other with none.

When you study them, your analysis shows that one rock is new and the other rock is old, despite the fact they are both the same age.

Am I being deceptive in making it look like one rock is older than the other?

I think you're somewhat confused.

You first say one rock is new and the other rock is old.

Then you say they are both the same age.

Which is it?

If you're invoking existential age, then you're correct.

Both rocks are new existentially.

But one is much old than the other physically.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is that creating something that is brand new and yet appears to be older is inherently deceptive.

What if you created it old, but it looked brand new?

 

[Kylie]

What if you created it old, but it looked brand new?

Isn't that what I did?

 

[Kylie]

I think you're somewhat confused.

You first say one rock is new and the other rock is old.

Then you say they are both the same age.

Which is it?

If you're invoking existential age, then you're correct.

Both rocks are new existentially.

But one is much old than the other physically.

No, they are the same age physically because they have both been physical objects for the same period of time.

But one has age embedded into it, as is your hobby, making it appear much older.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, they are the same age physically because they have both been physical objects for the same period of time.

But one has age embedded into it, as is your hobby, making it appear much older.

If you created granite, you can't test either rock for age.

If it is testable rock, does your newly created rock contain all uranium and the older one all lead, or does the new one have no isotope elements?

Did you choose to add uranium or choose to remove it? For what purpose? In other words, why create a rock with no isotopes in it? Why put isotopes in the old one? Wouldn't both come out the same?

Say you created a ripe orange right now. Why include the rind which shows history as a thickening of the ovary wall and the part you eat, showing growth history as well? It is not possible to create it without apparent (embedded) history. So your newly created rocks would both have the same levels of isotopes presumably.

 

[Kylie]

I feel you are being too picky with the details. It is sufficient to say that one of the rocks dates to 2 million years old and the other dates to modern times.

Can you answer the question?

 

[juvenissun]

I create two rocks ex nihilo. I create one with two million years of embedded age and the other with none.

When you study them, your analysis shows that one rock is new and the other rock is old, despite the fact they are both the same age.

Am I being deceptive in making it look like one rock is older than the other?

It depends. If you want to test people to see if they can tell the ages you assigned to the rock, you are not deceptive.

I gave a question to students, some of them answered it wrong. Am I deceptive?

 

[juvenissun]

No, they are the same age physically because they have both been physical objects for the same period of time.

But one has age embedded into it, as is your hobby, making it appear much older.

An "embedded" age is an age. There must be a method to find out what the embedded age is. It is not easy to do that.

I give you a rock and ask you to find out the "embedded" age of it. Can you do it?

If the embedded age is older than 100 million years, then I can not use that rock. When the rock is determined to have an embedded age only 30 million years, could I use it? If I do, then I found the rock I want to use. Where is the deception? Why do I need to care about its real age?