No. But, like other theories that can neither be proved nor refuted, official science will discard this one as unnecessary. And I fully agree with her.
To answer this question, we must first prove that last Thursday really existed, and is not just an illusion of our mind, which tends to arrange everything in a sequential series of events and attribute some reality to this series.
Our memory is a product of our mind, so that a significant part of the images that it has to work with can be stored in the archive and retrieved only as needed. There it catalogues them by time, i.e. by some significant events and locations associated with images of some significant objects. Both are a kind of anchors (checkboxes, bookmarks), by which the mind easily finds what it needs. However, gradually we begin to perceive this catalogued archive in our minds as an independent reality. Well, what will you do, it's really convenient. The only problem is that when we get carried away with this reality, we forget that we created it ourselves.
Both difficult and easy at the same time. Because we still have a memory and we remember perfectly well that 7 years ago we lived exactly the same way. Or take substances that are clearly not enough weeks to form. The same garbage, plastic lying around somewhere, which is clearly recycled for more than a week, and if the universe appeared last Thursday, how could it have already been so recycled? no, and this means that the universe definitely did not form last Thursday
(stupid answer) It's pretty simple to prove. If you did something last Thursday, then the universe is already formed. If you live for more than a year , then this year the universe already existed, and on that Thursday, respectively.
No, since my knowledge here will be clearly insufficient, it will take 7 groups of cosmologists to prove the existence of the universe on each of the days of the week. However, if you try to prove otherwise, the paramedics will not agree with you.
No. But, like other theories that can neither be proved nor refuted, official science will discard this one as unnecessary. And I fully agree with her.
To answer this question, we must first prove that last Thursday really existed, and is not just an illusion of our mind, which tends to arrange everything in a sequential series of events and attribute some reality to this series.
Our memory is a product of our mind, so that a significant part of the images that it has to work with can be stored in the archive and retrieved only as needed. There it catalogues them by time, i.e. by some significant events and locations associated with images of some significant objects. Both are a kind of anchors (checkboxes, bookmarks), by which the mind easily finds what it needs. However, gradually we begin to perceive this catalogued archive in our minds as an independent reality. Well, what will you do, it's really convenient. The only problem is that when we get carried away with this reality, we forget that we created it ourselves.
Time is a subjectivity that humanity has created for itself to make its life easier. Accordingly, I can make my own concept of time.
140
Both difficult and easy at the same time. Because we still have a memory and we remember perfectly well that 7 years ago we lived exactly the same way. Or take substances that are clearly not enough weeks to form. The same garbage, plastic lying around somewhere, which is clearly recycled for more than a week, and if the universe appeared last Thursday, how could it have already been so recycled? no, and this means that the universe definitely did not form last Thursday
(stupid answer)
It's pretty simple to prove. If you did something last Thursday, then the universe is already formed. If you live for more than a year , then this year the universe already existed, and on that Thursday, respectively.
No, since my knowledge here will be clearly insufficient, it will take 7 groups of cosmologists to prove the existence of the universe on each of the days of the week. However, if you try to prove otherwise, the paramedics will not agree with you.