[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/g/ - Technology


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: HUDF-JD2.jpg (613 KB, 3000x2400)
613 KB JPG
Does Anybody Else Look at Space Photos And Go "Damn I'm Really In This Bitch"
>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot
>>
>>109066214
No
>>
>>109066214
Yes.
>>
>>109066214
maybe
>>
>>109066214
I wanna no how there can be true nothingness and then something or if something always existed how the fuck that is.
>>
>>109066214
Space is full of ghosts. Look into the past.
>>
File: 1763564574236578.png (42 KB, 396x384)
42 KB PNG
dayum i be up in this bitch
>>
File: science cosby.png (332 KB, 500x431)
332 KB PNG
>>109066337
>>
>>109066214
How do I as a peasant with no advanced telescopes and image analysis technology myself actually know what the fuck it is I'm looking at? Maybe I'm a half wit but I just don't fucking know anymore, is that a real actual image? How do we independently verify it?
>>
just post big bang dust that clumped together, nothing exiting
>>
>>109066214
>Damn I'm Really In This Bitch
Please... exterminate yourself.
>>
>>109066218
https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Total_Perspective_Vortex
>>
>>109066214
to think even more crazier is that all of these were once in a tiny spot smaller that sand grain and then boom
>>
>>109066307
Your experience of reality is filtered through your mode of perception, which is immutable.
Your sense organs restrict your sensations to exactly those you were built to feel, and your brain processes these signals into a 3D simulation for your spirit to inhabit.
As such, you are restricted in your understanding of reality to understanding your simulation of reality. You can never go outside it, because to go outside it would mean to perceive something you cannot percieve.
Imagine a color you cannot see, or a flavor you cannot taste.

It is this limitation in our understanding that makes us ask mundane questions like, when did the universe begin, or was it always there. Because in our simulation, everything has a beginning and everything has an end. Even every action has a consequence, and a cause.

If you were born with pink glasses, you would wonder how it is that the whole universe is pink. If you were a robot programmed with 16x16 grid vision, you would wonder how everywhere you look, everything in the universe is perfectly arranged in a dot grid.

The Greeks inscribed upon the Temple of Apollo "Know Thyself". It is not that the self exists separate of the body, it is that the self is the only thing that can be proven to exist, and that existence itself is constrained to the self. Nothing outside the self can ever be proven to any degree of satisfaction, without relying on faith. Eventually in the chain of reasoning, there is some point where something must be taken on faith alone.

That there was nothing and then something should not be a surprising thing to you. After all, you were nothing and then you were something.
>>
I always liked the picture that contained a galaxy so large it shouldn't exist by our laws of physics. There's also voids out there with absolutely nothing in them
>>
>>109066580
Thanks ChatGPT
>>
File: 1780287920865108.png (1.54 MB, 640x1920)
1.54 MB PNG
everything led to this bowl of cereals I'm eating after a long (monday) night of blaming the jew
>>
File: iq5.jpg (35 KB, 580x381)
35 KB JPG
>>109066214
no, I have a much higher IQ reflection
>>
>>109066341

this piece of crap is so dumb whenever i see his face in youtube recommendations i immediately select not interested so algo doesnt ever show him to me again. i wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt then he opens his mouth about being an atheist and that was like alright into the low iq nigger pile you go
>>
>>109066214
masonic brainwhash to diminish humans
>>
>>109066214
This makes me even more racepilled. White men are meant to explore space, conquer planets and multiply within galaxies while other races are just meant to grovel in the dirt.
>>
>>109066214
Yes sister, I fucking live science! Let's go and post this on reddit!
>>
>>109066619
>tfw outside the displayed curve
though there is more to intelligence than IQ, honestly i've come to realize that i've relied too much on the left brain and intuition can be a lot more powerful than conscious decision making.
>>
>>109067017
when did it happen that zoomers became so mindbroken they associate science with reddit? was it the fedora meme?
>>
>>109067062
its part of the same thing retard, youre supposed to use both at the same time
>>
>>109067062
How old are you?
>>
>>109067136
>posting reconstructed pretty pictures of galaxies is science
>>
I've always loved space and have always been a little surprised there isn't more interest in it.
I think it's because of city light pollution, so normies never really see the stars like you do out in rural areas, so there's no real curiosity.
Which is a real shame.
>>
File: 1543804024438.jpg (50 KB, 460x333)
50 KB JPG
>>109066628
He's just Carl Sagan's token. Don't take it too seriously.
>>
>>109066580
You make some alright points but your analogies are only strong points in favor of the scientific method and why it's so important. We absolutely would have figured out by now that we have a rose colored tint on our eyes or that we perceive the universe as a grid. We have already found and acknowledged dark matter. Just need to keep poking at it to understand more. Higher dimensions are becoming a very serious possibility as well.
Through the scientific method we are able to not remove the rose tint, but understand it is a tint. And then some loser who didn't finish high-school can claim it's a mass conspiracy to make him feel as stupid as he is.
>>
>>109066214
Yes
>>
>>109068337
Sounds like another faith system.
>>
>>109066214
>does anyone else look at CG pictures and think space is real
only you and millions of other NPCs, OP
>>
>>109066214
Wow, a bunch of dots.
>>
>>109068337
>We have already found and acknowledged dark matter
no you haven't, shlomo
>Higher dimensions are becoming a very serious possibility as well
no they aren't, shlomo
>>
>>109066341
we wuz astronomers and shiett
>>
>>109066214
The more I think about it, the more I think about the cosmically low chances of my birth, of all the unlikely choices that my parents and all of my ancestors took, in order for me to be here right now... I feel duped.
I just had to be born in the worst timeline and in the worst time period.
>>
>>109068820
It's a punishment. Earth is a giant scam anyway.
>>
What fucks me is the anxiety of not knowing what my subjective experience will be once there's no way for me to experience anything anymore
>>
>>109068767
almost, the twist is that you hope the rituals says that you were wrong and need to think about it differently
>>
>>109066345
Telescopes arent even all that expensive nowadays and some dont even require you to know shit at all since its all GPS and app controlled and has automatic tracking.
a good telescope doesnt even cost as much as a gaming rig.
also you dont have to start with deep space observations, you could start with something easy like the moon or the sun. monitoring sunspots is also great fun.
>>
>>109068337
>We have already found and acknowledged dark matter.
they havent found shit, there is no such thing as dark matter, dark matter is a placeholder ad hoc explanation that jews came up with because their Newtonian Gravity model keeps failing.
but surely if you hand them a bunch of billion dollars they will surely figure it, just 2 more particle accelerators goyim
>>
>>109068820
that's because you fell for the jewish scam that is the materialist dogma
>>
>>109066424
https://spaceengine.org/
>>
>>109068337
The reason none of these analogies work perfectly is because they are examples of restrictions of your modes of understanding. We cannot understand a different understanding where our mode of understanding is a restriction of it.

E.g. it's not about being restricted to the current color spectrum and inventing a machine that can extend it. It is not being restricted to 3D space and finding some conceptualizations of higher dimensional spaces.

The closest fitting analogy I can think of is that we wear math-goggles so that everything has to behave mathematically. It is not possible for you to perceive anything that doesn't.
>>
>>109070563
It's possible to perceive things intuitively, but it's difficult to explain to others without the universal language of logic. It's just our way of quantifying the material universe. Do you think AI or humans are most likely to invent the next generation of mathematical systems?
>>
>>109066385
I think you meant:
>Please... Exterminate Yourself.
>>
>>109070642
On intuition, I think that's a good observation. The analogy I would make is that through some process, a lightwave of a certain color hitting your retina is turned into the qualitative sensation of the color blue. Zero scientific resources have gone into investigating how and why this happens, because the problem is immediately and obviously unresolvable. The problem obviously goes beyond our understanding. Intuition is a higher parameter version of this involving more stimuli.

On AI, AI doesn't invent anything. If a human prompt leads to a discovery, then that is a human discovery.
For AI to discover it has to be consciously making decisions. If we accept that AI is conscious, we also have to accept a lot of weird consequences like, consciousness can be paused, replicated, duplicated, and any turing complete system can become conscious in the right arrangement, including video games, chessboards, cave paintings, grains of sand, etc.

On quantifying the universe:
I mean we're getting into inane metaphysical stuff now, but we don't "quantify the universe". That concept has been deprecated since at least Descartes, but really put to death by Kant.

We are served the Universe through Qualia, and we quantify our Qualia. In the sense of the Allegory of the Cave, we're measuring shadows on the wall, not the things that cast them.

And then you'll say "but we can mathematically model the things that cast them even though we can't directly perceive them (in our sense space)." And I'm telling you that that step is faith.

There is no way to prove that our internal representation of reality is faithful and all encompassing. It is a matter of faith wether you think it is faithful because
A. it was made for you to experience (God)
B. reality is constrained to what a human can experience (Realism)
C. reality is unconstrained to what a human can experience (Idealism)
>>
>>109067179
test vastly favorize left brain thinking.
and no they aren't the same thing, i've met people with high IQ on paper that are absolute retards and people that's on paper not very bright but are surprisingly capable.

do you know what happens to someone if the right brain is damaged?
well, to put it simply, if you had to get a random spot on either side damaged, your odds would be better picking the left side, you even have a slight chance of acquiring savant syndrome.
right side issues could make you demented if you are lucky.

>>109067789
28.
>>
>>109070990
>There is no way to prove that our internal representation of reality is faithful and all encompassing.
but it is possible to find intuitionist proof for parts reality that are faithful and formal. this is not possible with classical logic
also your three choices are interdependent; A is overdetermined and you could replace it with C if you replace "god" with "something incomprehensible (which god is supposed to be)", which itself is equivalent to nature because no one understands all of that and thus equivalent to B, and the converse of B is just C again
congrats, you reinvented the trinity, you can become a tb envangelist now!
>>
>>109066214
I'm not in this bitch, I AM this bitch
>>
>>109071040
Yes, the God option depending on your religion is usually a mix of idealism and realism.

>intuitionist proof for parts (of) reality that are faithful and formal
No, the best you can do is proofs of your experience of reality, that can be internally validated. The leap from internal to external requires faith.

Without faith, I cannot even prove that you are conscious, and neither can you that I am. We're in an existential mexican standoff.
>>
Sometimes but it's more awe than feeling insignificant.
>>
>>109066214
space is fake
theyre just zooming in on the sky and seeing microscopic shit
>>
File: soyjak.png (15 KB, 644x800)
15 KB PNG
>>109066214
>oh my science! a bunch of lifeless space rocks are more interesting than a planet full of people and civilization!
>>
>>109066345
Start by going somewhere real dark (out in the boonies usually) and looking up at the clear night sky sometime. Take your time. Just appreciate how many stars there are when your eyes aren't full of urban or suburban light pollution. It's one of those things you can know about, but until you see it you don't appreciate just what a big universe it is. I know I didn't.
Then understand that using a cheap telescope lets you see more. Better telescopes let you see even more than that, but cost a load more too. But the sense of wonder? You can have that for the price of finding some dark sky.
It's wonderful.
>>
>>109070990
>The problem obviously goes beyond our understanding. Intuition is a higher parameter version of this involving more stimuli.
Over time we develop theories through intuition which lead us to investigate possibilities i.e. dissection of donor eyeballs or brain scans of living subjects as they are prompted with various visual stimuli. Trial & error and reiteration combined with deductive reasoning may result in a consistent, unchanging understanding which we would recognize as "the truth" or simply a fact. All from a thought that sparked you to wonder "what if?"
>AI doesn't invent anything
Right. It could find answers like a needle in a haystack that evade human detection because of exponential complexities of the datasets. In that sense it would be able to point to the invention without actually inventing it.
>we don't "quantify the universe"
That's exactly what we do when we measure things. We assign a non-arbitrary value that is purely symbolic relative to other values. Qualia -is- the universe. To observe is to estimate.
>>
>>109066628
>he opens his mouth about being an atheist
He calls himself an agnostic. That's the cop out when you don't want to alienate half of your audience.
>>
>>109066214

one human being is worth more than the rest of the universe
>>
Not really, it's inconsequential to my life whether or not there is a cool skybox at night.
>>
>>109066784
stfu americuck
>>
>>109066214
i have three scopes myself
>>
>>109072325
You don't get it, don't worry about it. It doesn't matter.
>>
>>109073799
We're both right for different reasons, and wrong for the same reason.
>>
>>109069943
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274518/
>>
File: literally who.jpg (66 KB, 547x345)
66 KB JPG
>>109072070
>oh my social studies degree! a bunch of people walking around spewing vacuous shit are more interesting than the infinite potential of outer space
>>
>>109066214
Stop speaking pidgin English you bum. I can feel my IQ drop a few points after reading and processing that sentence you just wrote.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.