6 ms·

I was drawn to that passage as well. The author goes on: > Sadly, this star’s passing likely went unnoticed by our ancestors. I mean, I get it, but why is it

I was drawn to that passage as well. The author goes on: > Sadly, this star’s passing likely went unnoticed by our ancestors. I mean, I get it, but why is it sad? Is it because it feels like a "missed connection" with our ancestors? Tangential, but I feel like the answer to this question connects with why people study astronomy in the first place, and I'm just curious if others relate to this sentiment. :)

Heliosmaster 9y ago
Sadly because our ancestors missed the opportunity to see such an event, as rare as we think it to be.
- d33 9y ago
  Actually perhaps it's better that way. Otherwise they could base some superstitious thinking on it that would stick if we were unlucky enough and there'd be yet another case of irrational thinking to be undone.
  - alex_duf 9y ago
    I would chose a belief about a moving star in a heart beat compared to a talking bush and a dude walking on water. Edit: my point being, humans are superstitious in unpredictable way; A moving star wouldn't be more surprising than an eclipse. I'm sure our cultures and religions would have been roughly the same
  - vanattab 9y ago
    I have never been able to understand why so many other scientists and "rationalist" look back on humans early "superstitious" ideas with contempt. To my mind these superstitious ideas are the beginning of the rationalist mindset. These ideas are people's attempts to explain and understand how the world works. I am certain that some of the ideas that many of us hold now will be thought quite silly in a few hundred years.
    - rhapsodic 9y ago
      > am certain that some of the ideas that many of us hold now will be thought quite silly in a few hundred years. Yes, like the theory that we're actually living in a simulation, espoused by Elon Musk and other respected, ostensibly science-minded people. It's basically Creationism in modern form.
      - tskaiser 9y ago
        It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel.
        rhapsodic 9y ago
        >It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel. Of course not. "Gospel" is a religious concept. They're claiming that it's a plausible, scientifically-supportable theory. I don't think it's an interesting idea at all, nor do I think it's a good starter for philosophical thinking. I think it's Creationist nonsense.
        tskaiser 9y ago
        Okay.
        torstenvl 9y ago
        A "scientifically-supportable theory"* is one that describes a phenomenon that can be observed sufficiently to form a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis by experiment. In what way would you propose to test the simulation hypothesis by experiment? (* I'm assuming you're using the word "theory" loosely here.)
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - UrukParthian 9y ago
        I wouldn't think of it as a theory. More like an off-the-cuff hypothesis, based on seeing and creating simulations of systems, that we ourselves are creations of a simulation. A single universe could be host to innumerable amounts of capsuled simulations. The point is "could" because a complete simulation of "the world" would require another world much the same way that complete map of the world would constitute another world if trying to capture a full level of detail. It's only silly in the sense that such an explanation is just one out of infinite possible, and coherent, propositions about the mechanics of "our world". In hindsight, the timescales of Hindu and Buddhist mythology don't seem absurd.
24gttghh 9y ago
Well astronomy is very much time travel in the search for knowledge. There's all this stuff going on/has been going on out in the multiverse, but it is just so damn far away most of the time. Some people figured out that a star visited our solar neighborhood only 70K y/a and at that time there were proto-humans on the cusp of grasping a better understanding of themselves and eventually the universe. It puts into perspective our fragile existence.

Heliosmaster 9y ago

Sadly because our ancestors missed the opportunity to see such an event, as rare as we think it to be.

d33 9y ago
Actually perhaps it's better that way. Otherwise they could base some superstitious thinking on it that would stick if we were unlucky enough and there'd be yet another case of irrational thinking to be undone.
- alex_duf 9y ago
  I would chose a belief about a moving star in a heart beat compared to a talking bush and a dude walking on water. Edit: my point being, humans are superstitious in unpredictable way; A moving star wouldn't be more surprising than an eclipse. I'm sure our cultures and religions would have been roughly the same
- vanattab 9y ago
  I have never been able to understand why so many other scientists and "rationalist" look back on humans early "superstitious" ideas with contempt. To my mind these superstitious ideas are the beginning of the rationalist mindset. These ideas are people's attempts to explain and understand how the world works. I am certain that some of the ideas that many of us hold now will be thought quite silly in a few hundred years.
  - rhapsodic 9y ago
    > am certain that some of the ideas that many of us hold now will be thought quite silly in a few hundred years. Yes, like the theory that we're actually living in a simulation, espoused by Elon Musk and other respected, ostensibly science-minded people. It's basically Creationism in modern form.
    - tskaiser 9y ago
      It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel.
      - rhapsodic 9y ago
        >It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel. Of course not. "Gospel" is a religious concept. They're claiming that it's a plausible, scientifically-supportable theory. I don't think it's an interesting idea at all, nor do I think it's a good starter for philosophical thinking. I think it's Creationist nonsense.
        tskaiser 9y ago
        Okay.
        torstenvl 9y ago
        A "scientifically-supportable theory"* is one that describes a phenomenon that can be observed sufficiently to form a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis by experiment. In what way would you propose to test the simulation hypothesis by experiment? (* I'm assuming you're using the word "theory" loosely here.)
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - UrukParthian 9y ago
      I wouldn't think of it as a theory. More like an off-the-cuff hypothesis, based on seeing and creating simulations of systems, that we ourselves are creations of a simulation. A single universe could be host to innumerable amounts of capsuled simulations. The point is "could" because a complete simulation of "the world" would require another world much the same way that complete map of the world would constitute another world if trying to capture a full level of detail. It's only silly in the sense that such an explanation is just one out of infinite possible, and coherent, propositions about the mechanics of "our world". In hindsight, the timescales of Hindu and Buddhist mythology don't seem absurd.

24gttghh 9y ago

Well astronomy is very much time travel in the search for knowledge. There's all this stuff going on/has been going on out in the multiverse, but it is just so damn far away most of the time. Some people figured out that a star visited our solar neighborhood only 70K y/a and at that time there were proto-humans on the cusp of grasping a better understanding of themselves and eventually the universe. It puts into perspective our fragile existence.