> No, not that complicated

Well, it does seem that way to me, I'm glad you know the answer.

It cannot be visually complicated as the question regarding the age of the universe can be answered with astophysics. The maths here has nothing do with visuals.

Carbon-14? Don't know.

More precisly, it's about radioactive decay.

Gödel showed that the attempt to create a complete and coherent mathematical system was impossible.

Very good. Since Gödel's incompleteness theorems are prohibiting us from creating complete and coherent mathematical systems, we cannot study the geology of old rocks, the formation of constellations and nebulas, very slow chemical reactions in the universe etc leading us to some meaningful results. We cannot even talk about approximate values. Cosmology becomes kaputt.

Since the determination of the the age of very old rocks is based on the calculation of radioactive decay, the formula is :

https://byjus.com/radioactive-decay-formula/Heisenberg's equation :

So, what's the mathematical connection of Heisenberg's formula with the radioactive decay? This equation does not stop us from calculating the age of the universe.

It will not even stop you from getting the result of your blood analysis.

Philosophy is not exact, it varies with society and time. This caused quite a stir at the time, but if we think about it a bit.

Determining the age of the universe is about physics and mathematics. Nothing related to philosophy.

Again, I rephrase my question : what's the age of the universe according your calculations and experiments?