Imagine if humanity, instead of doomscrolling on Twitter and looking at yoga pants on Instagram and TikTok, would look at stuff like this all the time, and constantly make it more acessible and exciting via creative web apps...
First images from Euclid are in
361–370 of 404 posts
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
Q1: What is the chief end of man? Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him for ever. The Christian belief is that creation was made for God and not the other way around. It's actually profoundly not focused on the self.
It actually is incredibly human-centered, to the point that humans were made in _his_ image and the Sun is supposed to turn _around_ the Earth. But all this makes sense when you realize it’s a primitive human myth made by primitive people with limited understanding of the universe and the world around them.
Geocentrism is not a particularly Christian belief. It's also as true as heliocentrism.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#363So many solar systems out there, life evolved in many planets for sure. No proof but no doubt.
What religion do you consider that to be? It's a widely expressed belief, but I don't think I know the name of it.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#364Re: First images from Euclid are in
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
So we are rather “large” beings and not small ones. Are these orders of magnitude scaled by 10 to go from one to the next?
Powers of 10 is the classic presentation: https://youtu.be/0fKBhvDjuy0
I haven't seen this in many years, it really is a spectacular way of making you feel the vastness of the universe and the difference in scales.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s even more “massive” down below. There are only 27 orders of magnitude between human size and the size of the observable universe, but 35 orders of magnitude between human size and the Planck length. ;)
It could really be much larger beyond the observable horizon though? But I guess we will never know.
It could also be much smaller below the planck scale, but not causally connected to our level. That is, nothing in known physics prevents their being entire universes of particles that are so small that it is impossible to ever detect them with any of the Standard Model particles.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the universe can have "meaning" in the human sense, because any potential "meaning" is outside of our field of observation or understanding. If something indeed created the universe or some definitive sequence of events spurred it into existence, I think that would constitute "meaning" enough for humans to be satisfied. But there is almost certainly not way to observe that fact because it is outside of…
I think this is why Christians posit that the Creator actually entered into humanity, so we could understand--or at least be as much less wrong in our speculations as we can handle, small as we are. They even got as far as describing God as "uncaused causality" centuries ago, which lined up pretty well with the translation of the name God reportedly gave one of their forbearers from a burning bush, "I am who am," or…
Sure, but it is a meaningless take. It posits into existence this being with this property, when you can just as easily posit that the universe itself has this property.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that too. That it's surely meant to be something. But sometimes I think what does "meaning" even mean? Does universe really have any "meaning", the term that humans invented and that even they are unsure of? Then, I think it's a big randomness, a random accident, a big joke, just happening with nothing to make sense of.
>> I think it's a big randomness +1. A big randomness, following the laws of Physics that are themselves possibly rooted in something. With that big randomness, by some chance, intelligent life has happened that can wonder. Where's more to be uncovered are in the laws of Physics (and why are they what they are), and thereby better matching the probabilities of the said randomness.
I don't think there's any reason to believe that there can be an explanation for the laws of physics in this sense. Just like the laws of logic, they might just be.
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been convinced that random is so maximally inclusive that there is no error category. Obviously uniformity is an anti-random condition that would bait the label "error" but I think it's still perfectly random to flip a coin tails 2, 4, 6, 6k times consecutively and the uniformity is simply a shocking instance of random. To your point, I don't think random implies balance though I understand that statistically th…
Randomness and probabilities can be incredibly hard to wrap our heads around. A deck only has 52 cards, but you shuffle it properly, it's essentially guaranteed that nobody in human history has ended up with the same order as you just did.
I guess properly is important there, in reality certain initial orderings are more common and we use certain techniques for shuffling with our hands making it less random than "properly".
Re: First images from Euclid are in
#370Some of that zooming in made me feel pretty damn uncomfortable. It really is f'ing massive out there huh. Makes me wonder what this is all about, I'm sure it's something, I wonder what. :)
What really gets me is how much of that virtual infinity is completely, utterly off-limits to us for all eternity. Trillions upon trillions of planets and stars that will just wink out one day, never to be seen again.
Short of some extremely radical new physics, humans will never, ever reach these other galaxies. Maybe the Magellanic Clouds, and Andromeda (which is coming to us).
Even the most optimistic sci-fi like Star Trek balks at traversing intergalactic space and they have warp drive, wormholes and sometimes go to other dimensions!