5 ms·

Kurzgesagt just posted a video that speculates that life was possible every where when the entire universe was at the temperature range of liquid water as it co

Kurzgesagt just posted a video that speculates that life was possible every where when the entire universe was at the temperature range of liquid water as it cooled after the big bang. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOiGEI9pQBs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOiGEI9pQBs

Minor49er 3y ago
[flagged]
- jjjjoe 3y ago
  I'm unclear whether you disagree with the linked video or just Kurzgesagt as an outlet. If it's the latter, I suppose we should also link their response: https://www.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/comments/10jlyyk/kurzgesagt_statement_to_the_conflict_of_interest/ https://www.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/comments/10jlyyk/kurzges... Either way I don't see why one should care about funding/sponsorship in the context of a "gee whiz" video.
- emkoemko 3y ago
  what are you trying to say? did you watch the video ? what was wrong with it?
  - Minor49er 3y ago
    Why watch a known propaganda outlet when sources are available elsewhere?
- Prickle 3y ago
  This would fall under the logical fallacy of attacking the character of the outlet, and not actually criticising the content. The content of the video that was linked, can be described as "in theory the universe was xyz so abc could have been a thing". Also known as non-serious entertainment. Your link is irrelevant in this conversation, as the criticisms involved are entirely political. If the linked video was related to renewables, nuclear energy, etc then it might have been relevant.
  - Minor49er 3y ago
    In other words, it's okay to give positive attention to entities who have subverted their audiences in the past, so long as what they're currently saying is warm and fuzzy? Quite an interesting, yet dangerous stance
    - Prickle 3y ago
      Vice versa actually. The reputation and/or background of a source should not affect the criticism of the content. If the content of an article or video is good, the reputation of the source is not that relevant. Vice versa again, a outlet having a good reputation should not prevent you from judging a bad article as bad.
      - Minor49er 3y ago
        This is a recipe for enabling scammers
dredmorbius 3y ago
That is one of the more mind-bending hypotheses I've seen, and ... there's some plausibility to the argument. Proof would be exceedingly challenging to come by, though sample returns from extra-solar-system bodies which show evidence of common-ancestor biology might occur. Contradictory evidence might be the establishment of proto-genetic sequences which are capable of encoding at least simple proteins, and some evidence that the development of such capabilities in a biologically-naive environment (that is: without any competition from existing life forms) is more rapid than subsequent evolutionary development. A key concept that needs to be kept in mind when considering the evolution of any system --- biological, technological, informational, etc. --- is that primordial species and forms need not be competitive against any current exemplars with which we're familiar, but only those which exist in their own contemporaneous environment. It's a lot easier to get started when things are just getting started.... I do note that the idea that the entire Universe on average was within the Golidlocks temperature zone might well also mean that localised places and times were subject to vastly greater levels of ionising or other radiation which would be highly disruptive to life. That said ... the idea that conditions suitable for biological activity literally once pervaded the Universe and are now only found in very localised circumstances orbiting a small subset of stars and limited to rocky planets with significant water ... is both epic and poetic. Literally sparks fading from an all-encompassing explosion.... The main source for the hypothesis appears to be:L Loeb, A. (2014): "The habitable epoch of the early Universe". International Journal of Astrobiology, vol. 13, 4." <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/abs/habitable-epoch-of-the-early-universe/114595C6E860A5002A9B783875602106 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journa...> Additional sources: <https://sites.google.com/view/sources-big-bang-life/ https://sites.google.com/view/sources-big-bang-life/>
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  It's been pointed out to me elsewhere that "Abraham Loeb" of Harvard University is in fact the same person as "Avi Loeb", of the same institution. Who ... has a certain fixation on extraosolar intelligences. Which somewhat takes the shine / bloom off this for me.
spennant 3y ago
I just watched this video last night and thought to myself, “seems plausible”… then I bought a calendar from their store.
mongol 3y ago
Once in a while you hear something you never heard or thought of before. This was one such time, and I cherish those moments that seem to become rarer and rarer. It is not that I know everything, but on a shallow level I have heard about a lot. This especially goes for history. When I was young, I did not have much continuity in my understanding of history. I knew some events here and there, but mostly there were voids in my knowledge. Over time, I have filled in many of the voids. Not to some deep level, but to a level that when someone mentions something in common contexts, I have usually heard about it before. It is always possible to go deeper, but I would like it better to learn more breadth-first so to say.

Minor49er 3y ago

[flagged]

jjjjoe 3y ago
I'm unclear whether you disagree with the linked video or just Kurzgesagt as an outlet. If it's the latter, I suppose we should also link their response: https://www.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/comments/10jlyyk/kurzgesagt_statement_to_the_conflict_of_interest/ https://www.reddit.com/r/kurzgesagt/comments/10jlyyk/kurzges... Either way I don't see why one should care about funding/sponsorship in the context of a "gee whiz" video.
emkoemko 3y ago
what are you trying to say? did you watch the video ? what was wrong with it?
- Minor49er 3y ago
  Why watch a known propaganda outlet when sources are available elsewhere?
Prickle 3y ago
This would fall under the logical fallacy of attacking the character of the outlet, and not actually criticising the content. The content of the video that was linked, can be described as "in theory the universe was xyz so abc could have been a thing". Also known as non-serious entertainment. Your link is irrelevant in this conversation, as the criticisms involved are entirely political. If the linked video was related to renewables, nuclear energy, etc then it might have been relevant.
- Minor49er 3y ago
  In other words, it's okay to give positive attention to entities who have subverted their audiences in the past, so long as what they're currently saying is warm and fuzzy? Quite an interesting, yet dangerous stance
  - Prickle 3y ago
    Vice versa actually. The reputation and/or background of a source should not affect the criticism of the content. If the content of an article or video is good, the reputation of the source is not that relevant. Vice versa again, a outlet having a good reputation should not prevent you from judging a bad article as bad.
    - Minor49er 3y ago
      This is a recipe for enabling scammers

dredmorbius 3y ago

That is one of the more mind-bending hypotheses I've seen, and ... there's some plausibility to the argument. Proof would be exceedingly challenging to come by, though sample returns from extra-solar-system bodies which show evidence of common-ancestor biology might occur. Contradictory evidence might be the establishment of proto-genetic sequences which are capable of encoding at least simple proteins, and some evidence that the development of such capabilities in a biologically-naive environment (that is: without any competition from existing life forms) is more rapid than subsequent evolutionary development. A key concept that needs to be kept in mind when considering the evolution of any system --- biological, technological, informational, etc. --- is that primordial species and forms need not be competitive against any current exemplars with which we're familiar, but only those which exist in their own contemporaneous environment. It's a lot easier to get started when things are just getting started.... I do note that the idea that the entire Universe on average was within the Golidlocks temperature zone might well also mean that localised places and times were subject to vastly greater levels of ionising or other radiation which would be highly disruptive to life. That said ... the idea that conditions suitable for biological activity literally once pervaded the Universe and are now only found in very localised circumstances orbiting a small subset of stars and limited to rocky planets with significant water ... is both epic and poetic. Literally sparks fading from an all-encompassing explosion.... The main source for the hypothesis appears to be:L Loeb, A. (2014): "The habitable epoch of the early Universe". International Journal of Astrobiology, vol. 13, 4." <https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/abs/habitable-epoch-of-the-early-universe/114595C6E860A5002A9B783875602106 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journa...> Additional sources: <https://sites.google.com/view/sources-big-bang-life/ https://sites.google.com/view/sources-big-bang-life/>

dredmorbius 3y ago
It's been pointed out to me elsewhere that "Abraham Loeb" of Harvard University is in fact the same person as "Avi Loeb", of the same institution. Who ... has a certain fixation on extraosolar intelligences. Which somewhat takes the shine / bloom off this for me.

spennant 3y ago

I just watched this video last night and thought to myself, “seems plausible”… then I bought a calendar from their store.

mongol 3y ago

Once in a while you hear something you never heard or thought of before. This was one such time, and I cherish those moments that seem to become rarer and rarer. It is not that I know everything, but on a shallow level I have heard about a lot. This especially goes for history. When I was young, I did not have much continuity in my understanding of history. I knew some events here and there, but mostly there were voids in my knowledge. Over time, I have filled in many of the voids. Not to some deep level, but to a level that when someone mentions something in common contexts, I have usually heard about it before. It is always possible to go deeper, but I would like it better to learn more breadth-first so to say.