4 ms·

As awe-inspiring as the imagery from the JWST is, along with what we stand to gain in understanding about the universe, I don’t see that causing any fundamental

As awe-inspiring as the imagery from the JWST is, along with what we stand to gain in understanding about the universe, I don’t see that causing any fundamental shift in human philosophical perspectives. We’ve had our “pale blue dot” moment several times, beginning with the Apollo missions. Then practically every subsequent probe has turned around and photographed Earth from increasing distances. Yet here we are, still largely consumed by trivial matters. Any meaningful effects that I think the author is touching on would require the sort collective shift in perspectives that I’m not sure the species is capable of. But perhaps I’m reading it wrong; I’m impatient with this sort of circumlocution.

infogulch 4y ago
If Everettian interpretation of QM is right we may face another pale blue dot universe scale realization.
- golergka 4y ago
  Can you please elaborate? I don't understand.
  - jahnu 4y ago
    They are referring to many worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics that argues that the quantum wave function is as real as anything. As real as say electromagnetic fields. If this is true then the mathematics say that the universe branches or splits at each quantum event. Here’s a very very good explanation of this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgalPdfHxM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgalPdfHxM
    - thaw13579 4y ago
      Curious though, how does this relate to the JWST?
      - mmusson 4y ago
        It was implied that we would see another Earth. But that is a science fiction trope.
        thaw13579 4y ago
        Right, I’m not sure whether this refers to finding another earth-like planet with JWST (interesting and plausible though not related to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum), or seeing another version of the Earth with JWST that followed a different path in possible many-worlds quantum outcomes (seemingly impossible!).
    - causality0 4y ago
      To the best of my knowledge there's no way for branched universes to ever interact with each other again, so why would a layman even care that they exist, let alone be profoundly changed by that fact?
      - freshbakedbread 4y ago
        I don’t know the science of this possibility, but you should check out the short story Anxiety is the Dizziness of Freedom by Ted Chiang. He writes directly about a future where we have a tool to communicate between branches universes.
        _a_a_a_ 4y ago
        Why should I check it out? Is it illuminating, or just a good story, or what?
        freshbakedbread 4y ago
        Sorry I didn’t clarify. It is fiction, but I think it describes a plausible reaction of the general public (the layman of the comment I replied to) to this hypothesis if it was discovered to be true. Don’t want to spoil the good part of the story beyond that!
        _a_a_a_ 4y ago
        Ok, and appreciated! Will dig it up, thanks.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
        Literally everything written by Ted Chiang is worth reading because he is a hell of a story teller.
        mr_mitm 4y ago
        That's science fiction, though. The Everettian Many Worlds Interpretation is just that: An interpretation of a set of equations. And pretty much by definition the worlds cannot interact in any way. Even if there were some obscure way to differentiate between MWI and, say, the Copenhagen interpretation, I wouldn't expect it to become feasible anytime soon. But as far as I know there cannot be any experiments differentiating between the two (or other interpretations), because they're simply different interpretations of the same equations. They predict the same experimental outcomes.
    - jeezfrk 4y ago
      I think retro-causality explains QM better.
  - infogulch 4y ago
    To connect the dots that sibling comment nicely laid out, if the universe splits at every decoherence event then its total size is incomprehensibly more enormous than the jump to "the observable universe" when we discovered other galaxies.
scotty79 4y ago
Not sure if JWST is capable of that but I believe next step in furthering our insignificance will be concluding (due to looking closer and closer to the Big Bang and finding contradicting evidence like huge, very old galaxies) that Big Bang was not a creation event just a "small", "local" annihilation of "some" amount of matter and anti-matter that kinetically blew remaining stuff apart sort of dragging the deformed space-time along. So we can't have any hopes of seeing any evidence of actual beginning of the universe or even any proof that it wasn't eternal.
- jadbox 4y ago
  Indeed. It seems there's some mounting research that the universe may have always existed, and this awareness calls into question our physical and philosophical notions of nothingness (or lack of absolute nothing in the universe).
- hirundo 4y ago
  > I believe next step in furthering our insignificance The next step seems to be coming from the computer science department rather than astronomy or biology, with the growing demonstrations that intelligence can emerge from simple mechanical operations.
  - scotty79 4y ago
    This seems to be the current step rather than next one.
jacooper 4y ago
Because these trivial matters aren't trivial. Putting food in the table isn't trivial, finding jobs isn't trivial either. Once life becomes guaranteed, our outlook will change.
- 9dev 4y ago
  Still, all the fuss about maximum individualism, petty politics and celebrities feels so utterly irrelevant, it’s frustrating for me sometimes. Here we sit, apes with a giant brain, the most complex structure in the known universe, and we use it to haggle commodities, shift borders a bit and stare at short videos on people’s opinion on other people? Don’t you ever get that sad revelation that we’re all just moving in a spinning wheel, a dead end? The Fermi paradox being nothing but stagnation after a convenience threshold?
  - simonh 4y ago
    You need to cut us a bit of slack. We’ve only just barely developed the very beginnings of a technological society. By definition, we have the absolute lowest level of sentience necessary to achieve that, otherwise we’d have done it earlier. On a scale of general Intelligence necessary for civilisation from the minimum of 1 to hundreds, or thousands, or even more we score a 1. And that’s at best, arguably the general population are riding on the coat tails of the few geniuses that actually develop our technology. So most of us are actualy below that.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      Certain aspects of modernity do seem to support that conclusion but it also seems to have very far reaching implications.
    - 9dev 4y ago
      That’s a good perspective, thank you.
- slfnflctd 4y ago
  When I realized my partner was (mostly) both able and willing to support me through what turned out to be a prolonged mental health crisis that few would've had sympathy for, it completely changed my life. The amount of suicidal ideation I experienced plummeted. I was no longer crippled by fear that I'll be abandoned and imprisoned/homeless if I can't always live up to some externally imposed standard of output. I eventually became more able and willing myself again to 'give back', but with a new & improved perspective. Unfortunately, far too many have nothing like this. I am extraordinarily privileged and have to continually process the guilt which comes along with that fact. None of us asked to be born. In any truly forward thinking culture, the option to receive the basic essentials of life without being overly marginalized for not always having anything substantial to offer in return should 100% be a requirement. I believe many if not most 'deaths of despair' would be obliterated by such an approach, and that a large number of people who would've otherwise died could ultimately give back to their communities in enough ways to make the long term costs justifiable to even the most cynical economist.

infogulch 4y ago

If Everettian interpretation of QM is right we may face another pale blue dot universe scale realization.

golergka 4y ago
Can you please elaborate? I don't understand.
- jahnu 4y ago
  They are referring to many worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics that argues that the quantum wave function is as real as anything. As real as say electromagnetic fields. If this is true then the mathematics say that the universe branches or splits at each quantum event. Here’s a very very good explanation of this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgalPdfHxM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgalPdfHxM
  - thaw13579 4y ago
    Curious though, how does this relate to the JWST?
    - mmusson 4y ago
      It was implied that we would see another Earth. But that is a science fiction trope.
      - thaw13579 4y ago
        Right, I’m not sure whether this refers to finding another earth-like planet with JWST (interesting and plausible though not related to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum), or seeing another version of the Earth with JWST that followed a different path in possible many-worlds quantum outcomes (seemingly impossible!).
  - causality0 4y ago
    To the best of my knowledge there's no way for branched universes to ever interact with each other again, so why would a layman even care that they exist, let alone be profoundly changed by that fact?
    - freshbakedbread 4y ago
      I don’t know the science of this possibility, but you should check out the short story Anxiety is the Dizziness of Freedom by Ted Chiang. He writes directly about a future where we have a tool to communicate between branches universes.
      - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
        Why should I check it out? Is it illuminating, or just a good story, or what?
        freshbakedbread 4y ago
        Sorry I didn’t clarify. It is fiction, but I think it describes a plausible reaction of the general public (the layman of the comment I replied to) to this hypothesis if it was discovered to be true. Don’t want to spoil the good part of the story beyond that!
        _a_a_a_ 4y ago
        Ok, and appreciated! Will dig it up, thanks.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
        Literally everything written by Ted Chiang is worth reading because he is a hell of a story teller.
      - mr_mitm 4y ago
        That's science fiction, though. The Everettian Many Worlds Interpretation is just that: An interpretation of a set of equations. And pretty much by definition the worlds cannot interact in any way. Even if there were some obscure way to differentiate between MWI and, say, the Copenhagen interpretation, I wouldn't expect it to become feasible anytime soon. But as far as I know there cannot be any experiments differentiating between the two (or other interpretations), because they're simply different interpretations of the same equations. They predict the same experimental outcomes.
  - jeezfrk 4y ago
    I think retro-causality explains QM better.
- infogulch 4y ago
  To connect the dots that sibling comment nicely laid out, if the universe splits at every decoherence event then its total size is incomprehensibly more enormous than the jump to "the observable universe" when we discovered other galaxies.

scotty79 4y ago

Not sure if JWST is capable of that but I believe next step in furthering our insignificance will be concluding (due to looking closer and closer to the Big Bang and finding contradicting evidence like huge, very old galaxies) that Big Bang was not a creation event just a "small", "local" annihilation of "some" amount of matter and anti-matter that kinetically blew remaining stuff apart sort of dragging the deformed space-time along. So we can't have any hopes of seeing any evidence of actual beginning of the universe or even any proof that it wasn't eternal.

jadbox 4y ago
Indeed. It seems there's some mounting research that the universe may have always existed, and this awareness calls into question our physical and philosophical notions of nothingness (or lack of absolute nothing in the universe).
hirundo 4y ago
> I believe next step in furthering our insignificance The next step seems to be coming from the computer science department rather than astronomy or biology, with the growing demonstrations that intelligence can emerge from simple mechanical operations.
- scotty79 4y ago
  This seems to be the current step rather than next one.

jacooper 4y ago

Because these trivial matters aren't trivial. Putting food in the table isn't trivial, finding jobs isn't trivial either. Once life becomes guaranteed, our outlook will change.

9dev 4y ago
Still, all the fuss about maximum individualism, petty politics and celebrities feels so utterly irrelevant, it’s frustrating for me sometimes. Here we sit, apes with a giant brain, the most complex structure in the known universe, and we use it to haggle commodities, shift borders a bit and stare at short videos on people’s opinion on other people? Don’t you ever get that sad revelation that we’re all just moving in a spinning wheel, a dead end? The Fermi paradox being nothing but stagnation after a convenience threshold?
- simonh 4y ago
  You need to cut us a bit of slack. We’ve only just barely developed the very beginnings of a technological society. By definition, we have the absolute lowest level of sentience necessary to achieve that, otherwise we’d have done it earlier. On a scale of general Intelligence necessary for civilisation from the minimum of 1 to hundreds, or thousands, or even more we score a 1. And that’s at best, arguably the general population are riding on the coat tails of the few geniuses that actually develop our technology. So most of us are actualy below that.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    Certain aspects of modernity do seem to support that conclusion but it also seems to have very far reaching implications.
  - 9dev 4y ago
    That’s a good perspective, thank you.
slfnflctd 4y ago
When I realized my partner was (mostly) both able and willing to support me through what turned out to be a prolonged mental health crisis that few would've had sympathy for, it completely changed my life. The amount of suicidal ideation I experienced plummeted. I was no longer crippled by fear that I'll be abandoned and imprisoned/homeless if I can't always live up to some externally imposed standard of output. I eventually became more able and willing myself again to 'give back', but with a new & improved perspective. Unfortunately, far too many have nothing like this. I am extraordinarily privileged and have to continually process the guilt which comes along with that fact. None of us asked to be born. In any truly forward thinking culture, the option to receive the basic essentials of life without being overly marginalized for not always having anything substantial to offer in return should 100% be a requirement. I believe many if not most 'deaths of despair' would be obliterated by such an approach, and that a large number of people who would've otherwise died could ultimately give back to their communities in enough ways to make the long term costs justifiable to even the most cynical economist.