Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 219 posts

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#191

Post by techslave »

tzs wrote: post #156
johnhenry wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of that story about Archimedes. For anyone unfamiliar: supposedly, while bathing; he suddenly realized the principals of buoyancy. He then jumped out of the bath and ran down the street -- without clothes -- yelling "Eureka!" (I have found it). Not sure if this is true or just a legend, but I doubt we'll ever find out what happened to that Nutella bread either...

Probably should include what problem Archimedes has been stuck on until his realization of the principles of buoyancy gave him a solution. The King had order a gold crown, and after receiving it suspected that the goldsmith may have replaced some of the gold with cheaper silver. The King asked Archimedes to figure out if the crown was pure gold. Archimedes could do that by figuring out its density, but to do that he…

and the crown? or is the crown akin to the Nutella bread.

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#192

Post by kragen »

Retric wrote: post #190
kragen wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a means to making money, not a viable third alternative.

It’s not just cheaper products, self driving cars are another advantage to machines taking and interpreting their own photos. Extend this to asteroid tracking and it may be the difference between human survival and extinction.

Again, you are offering ways that photography can be a useful means to an end that we previously accept as good for other reasons, not ways that photography can be a good in itself. Suppose the humans were already extinct; would you then consider it a good in itself for machines to be taking and interpreting photos? Would you set up a video camera with a solar panel in a park, endlessly taking 60 photos per second, then deleting them, because photography is good even if nobody looks at it and it produces nothing else outside of itself?

I am fond of the humans and so I would like them to survive, but only because that is a means for them to be conscious, at least in some cases.

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#193

Post by kragen »

taneq wrote: post #155
kragen wrote: post #94

There are various people speculating on the economic significance of this solution, which, to me, is rather missing the point. It's like measuring the significance of the excavation of Tutankhamen's† tomb by the tourist revenues of museums. The point of economics is that it keeps us alive so we can do math and also think in other ways; the point of consciousness is not to make money. I don't think there is any econom…

> The point of economics is that it keeps us alive so we can do math and also think in other ways; the point of consciousness is not to make money. The point of consciousness absolutely is to make money - or rather, to improve the organism's efficiency and thereby survivability by making it capable of introspection and self-optimisation.

It is true that evolution optimizes organisms' efficiency and survivability. Chemical reactions, similarly, optimize the potential energy of assortments of compounds, and gravity optimizes the potential energy of assortments of masses. Would you therefore say that the point of an iron bridge in air is to rust and collapse?

An individual human consciousness, its genes, and its memes have different goals which sometimes come into conflict. I suggest you choose sides in these conflicts, and not against yourself.

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#194

Post by kragen »

microcolonel wrote: post #178
kragen wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since they put the paper on the arXiv, any mere mortal with internet access can download and read it, and some of them will find that worthwhile. The economy is an important part of society, but only part of it.

arXiv works because of a combination of abundance and game theory; it's lovely that we all have access to such a tremendous resource, but it's not as though it gets to live "outside" the economy.

This is phrased as if it were a disagreement with something I have said. Why?

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#195

Post by VMG »

kragen wrote: post #111
VMG wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. But there are things besides money and math. Like photography!

I thought the point of photography was primarily so that you (people, in general, not necessarily just you individually) could look at the photos, i.e., experience them consciously, and secondarily to consciously experience the process of photography itself. But perhaps you have a different reason for considering photography worthwhile, other than the conscious experience of the photographs and of the photography pro…

Higher quality affordable lenses yield more conscious enjoyment of photographs. Hence the question of economic applicability.

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#196

Post by Retric »

kragen wrote: post #192
Retric wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just cheaper products, self driving cars are another advantage to machines taking and interpreting their own photos. Extend this to asteroid tracking and it may be the difference between human survival and extinction.

Again, you are offering ways that photography can be a useful means to an end that we previously accept as good for other reasons, not ways that photography can be a good in itself. Suppose the humans were already extinct; would you then consider it a good in itself for machines to be taking and interpreting photos? Would you set up a video camera with a solar panel in a park, endlessly taking 60 photos per second, t…

Efficiency can turn something from useless to useful, which means the outcome is not inherently useful.

Thus if photography is required and the only thing that makes it possible then it as a means becomes and end to it's self.

Consider, in a pure nitrogen environment animals will suffocate under no great distress. The goal has become separated from the result.

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#197

Post by soganess »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #151
soganess wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's both! https://www.amazon.com/Ferrero-Nutella-Hazelnut-Spread-26-5/...

Yes, I'm aware that it's made with hazelnuts. But in order for someone to refer to it as a "hazelnut spread", hazelnuts would have to be the dominant flavor. They're barely there at all. (Compare the consistency of nutella to the consistency of peanut butter.)

Since we are splitting hairs, the container list the product as; "Hazelnut Spread with Cocoa". Quite prominently, in fact.

Why would your definition be more valid than the manufacturers?

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#198

Post by kragen »

VMG wrote: post #195
kragen wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the point of photography was primarily so that you (people, in general, not necessarily just you individually) could look at the photos, i.e., experience them consciously, and secondarily to consciously experience the process of photography itself. But perhaps you have a different reason for considering photography worthwhile, other than the conscious experience of the photographs and of the photography pro…

Higher quality affordable lenses yield more conscious enjoyment of photographs. Hence the question of economic applicability.

Your comment seems to be an attempt to answer my questions, but I can't figure out how it relates to them. Do you have a different reason for considering photography worthwhile, other than the conscious experience of the photographs and of the photography process? Or do you consider photography to be a good-in-itself, even if nobody ever sees the photos or experiences the process of taking them?

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#199

Post by Retric »

kragen wrote: post #192
Retric wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not just cheaper products, self driving cars are another advantage to machines taking and interpreting their own photos. Extend this to asteroid tracking and it may be the difference between human survival and extinction.

Again, you are offering ways that photography can be a useful means to an end that we previously accept as good for other reasons, not ways that photography can be a good in itself. Suppose the humans were already extinct; would you then consider it a good in itself for machines to be taking and interpreting photos? Would you set up a video camera with a solar panel in a park, endlessly taking 60 photos per second, t…

A legacy that lives past humanity seems better than one that does not. If something views or does not view that legacy is effectively irrelevant as humans would never know.

PS: As to your final central point, some feel keeping a loved one alive even if they never recover consciousness is a net good.

Re: Goodbye Aberration: Physicist Solves 2,000-Year-Old Optical Problem

#200

Post by p1esk »

avmich wrote: post #176
grenoire wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern macroeconomists will disagree.

You can perhaps do math without economics. It's well known that Soviet Union didn't really have economics, right? Now it's only left to prove that it had math.

It's well known that Soviet Union didn't really have economics

Huh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-type_economic_planning

Post reply on HN