Live data from Hacker News

Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

esa.int

291–300 of 310 posts

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buddhism is deeply rooted in reincarnation and the progression of a common person to an enlightened being through different ranks over the span of multiple lifetimes. I am pretty sure there is a dimension of life that we have yet to discover and learn about. And for the time being Buddhism is the only “religion” that openly discusses this progression. Hinduism has the same but in my experience it’s a lot more reserve…

I think any view of life consistent with its emergence by evolution isn't consistent with reincarnation, or certainly doesn't support it. But given the universe in total may be unimaginably larger than our observable universe, and the total universe may well be an insignificant feature of an unimaginably larger reality, its quite possible that versions of us appear in a fractal-like way, over and over across reality.…

> I think any view of life consistent with its emergence by evolution isn't consistent with reincarnation,

Why?

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#292
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are lucky that we live in a sweet-spot era where the universe is old enough that we have 13 billion years to look back on, but young enough that all the galaxies haven’t receded behind the cosmic horizon yet due to the accelerated expansion of the universe. In some billion years, intelligent beings will only have historic records, if anything at all, to look back to how the observable universe used to be filled wi…

I don't understand people that aren't filled with dread with this concept. And I understand why so many humans fall back to something like religion to cope. It's the only way it seems to become complacent with our role in the cosmic horror. I know all the intellectual arguments for optimistic nihilism. I vote in elections even though my "one vote" doesn't matter amongst millions, and in some degree my single human li…

Considering that I used to experience that dread, and how I used to think, and the patterns I see in your speech -- I'd say that dread is not a response to the concept, but due to over intellectualizing.

The dread is precisely the intellect recoiling at its limits. It reaches for other intellectual theories to rescue it but this is of course in vain.

The way out is to seek answers in other complimentary areas and ways of seeing the world.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#293
post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly things that exist without other concrete explanations. Consciousness in humans and animals. A lack of contact with other intelligent life. The constants of the universe being such that the universe can exist at all and not do something like collapse on itself. The common report of having met non-human entities, especially when on psychedelics. Our own tendency to creat artificial worlds (farms, zoos) and simul…

I understand you're not saying this is a proof of anything. However, I have a hard time understanding the connection between those things you list and "... and therefore this may be evidence of a constructed universe." I just don't see it. For example, things "without concrete explanations" are more easily chalked to our lack of understanding. Or even better, to the idea that there's no "why" to the universe, it just…

If there were highly advanced beings that constructed the universe, and designed it to obfuscate that very fact, what would evidence of that look like?

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#294
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One or more beings with power and intelligence many orders of magnitude higher than our own. To call it god or gods gives a religious tone to it that totally derails the discussion and I’m specifically avoiding. This isn’t about going to church on Sundays. There are a few answers to the “Where are they?” question. One is that the parameters to the Drake equation mean life is so rare we actually are alone (as another…

Have you read the dark forest trilogy?

Remembrance of Earth's Past trilogy, The Dark Forest is the 2nd book.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#295
post #44

The amount of faint Galaxies in the final image is absolutely astounding, there's no way we are alone.

Lightcone theory [1] explains to us how we're likely prevented from ever actually "meeting" the others. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone

Funny timing – I just ran into this great Veritasium video which speaks of Lightcone theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6akmv1bsz1M

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#298
post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand you're not saying this is a proof of anything. However, I have a hard time understanding the connection between those things you list and "... and therefore this may be evidence of a constructed universe." I just don't see it. For example, things "without concrete explanations" are more easily chalked to our lack of understanding. Or even better, to the idea that there's no "why" to the universe, it just…

If there were highly advanced beings that constructed the universe, and designed it to obfuscate that very fact, what would evidence of that look like?

If they are perfect at hiding their hand, we wouldn't be able to tell.

But that kind of thinking is akin to solipsism, a mental dead end. What if you're the only real person and the rest is simulated or a dream? Would you be able to tell?

What if god left all those dinosaur fossils as a joke, and big dinos never really existed? Well, it's possible, but it's a thought-terminating idea, so best not considered.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think any view of life consistent with its emergence by evolution isn't consistent with reincarnation, or certainly doesn't support it. But given the universe in total may be unimaginably larger than our observable universe, and the total universe may well be an insignificant feature of an unimaginably larger reality, its quite possible that versions of us appear in a fractal-like way, over and over across reality.…

> I think any view of life consistent with its emergence by evolution isn't consistent with reincarnation, Why?

Evolution is environmental selection, in a context of reproduction with error. We have chemical, geological, genetic and morphological evidence of its history. And the history of the things it produces, our bodies, and then nervous systems, and our minds. Our minds being constructed biologically, implemented with neurons that maintain its activity and memories.

So we know how our eyes, brains and hair came to be with a truly remarkable amount of evidence.

The theory of evolution is also mathematically tractable, to the point of being a tautology. It explains vast amounts of phenomena, and can be tested in the lab and with computer models.

It is a highly robust theory in practice. Useful for doing such things as optimizing aircraft wing geometry.

We know how information flows in evolution, encoded in form and blueprints, how they are maintained and duplicated. Where there is information continuity, where there is not and why.

--

Reincarnation proposes a different form of continuity, that is not just unsupported by evolution, it is in stark contrast to everything we have learned about it and from it.

Reincarnation isn't even a well defined concept, and has no evidence for it. It has no explanatory power or any proposed connection to evolution that makes sense.

It is not only not supported by evolution, but violates everything we know about how life develops and reproduces.

What is reincarnation exactly? There are nothing but vague definitions, which violate any principle of the information flows, we call survival and reproduction, as explained by evolution.

What part of continuity does it maintain? Why does it happen? How does it happen? How and why would it appear and evolve? What was the initial process? In what initial form? How would it progress? What maintains its existence as a phenomena?

Why would it happen at death? Given death isn't a simple event, how does it "know"? Why not continuous reincarnations? Why not merged reincarnations? What constraints what can reincarnate into what? How would any of this work?

Nobody has been able to propose construction, reproductive, selection or adaptation mechanisms for anything that looks even vaguely like reincarnation.

Nobody has been able to propose tests that would identify a reincarnation event vs. non-event, its presence or effects that others can work with.

Nobody has created an experiment to initiate or monitor a reincarnation.

Nobody has a formal model for it. Or even an informal model beyond hand waving. In contrast to the unending number of worlds that don't exist, but mathematicians have no trouble exploring.

Reincarnation is an incoherent psychologically motivated conjecture.

Like many other such culturally generated and valued ideas, it is also interesting, fascinating, imaginative and inspirational. A positive contribution to stories and dreams. Even a comfort, to those who don't require their beliefs and values to be well formed or verifiable.

Re: Webb captures iconic Horsehead Nebula in unprecedented detail

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I get your general critique I am not quite clear if you are critiquing me, including me with the science inspired confabulators. Just in case you were including me in that: For the record, the many worlds interpretation just sticks with the field equations of quantum mechanics (extremely well tested). It doesn’t invent the quantum collapse, which actually isn’t necessary to interpret them and which raises many…

I think it's interesting (though not surprising) that your long response avoided every single piece of your text that I quoted, as well as my question and other text (ie: the unknowable) of my critique.

I wasn't quite sure what you were saying.

Trying again:

> Is this yet another one of those scientific facts that does not require a proof?

Quantum mechanics is full of unintuitive, amazing effects, that get hyped by non-experts into imagined meanings. The latter isn't science.

But the actual quantum field equations themselves are as hard science as it gets.

> I'm sorry to be such a party pooper, but when religious or mystical people make epistemically unsound claims, the knives almost always come out for them, a little in the opposite direction shouldn't hurt too much. And besides: "science" claims to welcome criticism, much like religious people claim to follow their scriptures. But then, who doesn't like to have their cake and eat it too?

> "science" claims to welcome criticism

Science welcomes well thought out analytical or experimental challenges. Not criticism without merit, contrariness based in ignorance of the subject, ideological attacks, or simple negativity - all those just waste time.

Think informed critique, not just any "criticism".

> much like religious people claim to follow their scriptures.

Science only works to provide the best, incomplete, but most useful model we have of the truth, at any given time, backed up by independent evidence and math. It is subject to new evidence, a deliberate awareness and focus on current limitations - which is where scientists spend most of their time - with the expectation that today's best understanding will be eclipsed.

In stark contrast, Scriptures claim to be the stable truth without need for justification. Scriptures often frame "doubt" as undesirable, and their authority as above evidence. Unbelievers are often cast as morally compromised. Religions are rarely known for encouraging the discovery and sharing of contra-evidence, or the search for alternate and better viewpoints.

Very different.

> But then, who doesn't like to have their cake and eat it too?

Not sure what the cake and eating it too is? Science for being hypocritical like religion? (Not my view, but trying to understand yours.)

Post reply on HN