5 ms·

I like this visualization, but it got me thinking about how we often portray the universe in media. It seems like we always end up with the same message: 'Look

I like this visualization, but it got me thinking about how we often portray the universe in media. It seems like we always end up with the same message: 'Look how small and insignificant we are.' It's like we're drawn to the idea that our existence is just a tiny blip on the universe's radar.I think this perspective is a bit one-dimensional. It seems almost nihilistic.

GJim 2y ago
> Look how small and insignificant we are ..... It seems almost nihilistic. It isn't nihilistic. It is a simple fact. As an aside, if you have not yet listened to the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy radio plays (and you should!) you will know this is a major plot device.
- andoando 2y ago
  You can look at it the other way. Compared to qubits, were fucking gods.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    We're the middle child of the universe.
- chgs 2y ago
  We’re Mostly harmless. We’re significant enough to have a researcher double the length of our entry in space-Wikipedia.
- mistermann 2y ago
  How does one measure significance? Science? Logic? Common sense? What's obvious? Some stories?
- narreme 2y ago
  >It is a simple fact. It is a simple fact that the Earth and solar system are small relative to the universe, because everyone agrees on how to measure dimensions and volumes. It is not as simple a fact that something more large is more significant -- whatever that means (if we knew what it meant, this claim would be settled). Physical size is such a universal metaphor for relevance/significance (eg, "it's a big deal", "it's a small matter") that they're implicitly treated as synonymous.
  - travelinmyblood 2y ago
    This is a good point. It’s an over-hang from the belief systems that came before us.
  - SiempreViernes 2y ago
    There is a well defined meaning of "insignificant" in this context: none of our activities have any material impact on what we see beyond the confines on Earth. So the precise claim is that to describe any interplanetary scale (or up) process you can completely neglect humanity in its entirely, because its contribution to the process is negligible. You are right that there's an unspoken step from "too small to impact the sun in any important way" to "insignificant to the universe", but it is not actually a very large step: being unable to affect one's surroundings is a classic sign of powerlessness.
  - SJC_Hacker 2y ago
    We're insignificant now. If we develop interstellar travel, we could start to become significant if we the visit/colonize the rest of the galaxy. Of course, even if we do fill up the galaxy, our galaxy is only a small sliver of the observable universe, so we'd have to move on to other galaxies. Not as crazy as it might sound, if given we would have the tech for interstellar travel, as intergalactic distances are only ~3 magnitudes off the span of a galaxy. e.g. Milky Way spans ~30k light years, Andromeda is ~3m light years away, 100 times. The leap from short hops of a couple light years to galaxy-wide distances is greater (Proxima Centauri is ~3 ly, vs. 30k light years = 5 orders of magnitude). Which is comparable to the jump from interplanetary to interstellar distances distances, which is about 4 orders of magnitude. So if we can reach the edges of the Milky Way, other galaxies should be within reach. But doing that before the Heat Death/Big Rip/etc. might be a challenge.
mattmaroon 2y ago
It’s actually comforting to non-believers in a way that religion is to believers. Except it has the benefit of being obviously true. https://www.oliverburkeman.com/nobigdeal https://www.oliverburkeman.com/nobigdeal
- GJim 2y ago
  > It’s actually comforting to non-believers in a way that religion is to believers Summed up rather nicely in the Galaxy Song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk
- mistermann 2y ago
  Technically true, but non-comprehensive / reductionist, and arguably misinformative. Also: religion is technically also "obviously" true, though what is "true" is a function of one's frame of reference.
  - scubbo 2y ago
    Go on, then, I'll bite - how is it misinformative to state that the scope of all human existence occupies only a vanishingly-small fraction of the physical space, or temporal lifespan, of the universe? > religion is technically also "obviously" true, though what is "true" is a function of one's frame of reference. I'm not even gonna touch that one :P
    - mistermann 2y ago
      >>> I like this visualization, but it got me thinking about how we often portray the universe in media. It seems like we always end up with the same message: 'Look how small and insignificant we are.' It's like we're drawn to the idea that our existence is just a tiny blip on the universe's radar.I think this perspective is a bit one-dimensional. It seems almost nihilistic. >> It’s actually comforting to non-believers in a way that religion is to believers. Except it has the benefit of being obviously true. vs >> how is it misinformative to state that the scope of all human existence occupies only a vanishingly-small fraction of the physical space, or temporal lifespan, of the universe For starters, look at the various differences in how you're reframed the question, which gives some additional insight into the nature of the problem. But getting back to the original comment, we have two claims: > It’s actually comforting to non-believers in a way that religion is to believers. The "a" saves the day here (yielding my "Technically true" comment), but this implies that the speaker happens to have some objective insight into the need for people to be "comforted" by simplified stories (surely true in some way, and to some degree), but as I said, it is non-comprehensive / reductionist, and arguably misinformative - this style of thinking can easily cause someone to believe that they understand what is going on, when they actually don't - what is actually going on is much more complicated than the enjoyable memes we share with each other on the internet. The second one (to which your normative (self-perpetuating) reaction is "I'm not even gonna touch that one"): > Except it has the benefit of being obviously true. Where do you even start with this? What claim is even being made? "Religion" "is not true"? And that this visualization "is true"? For each claim, what are the particulars? If you were asked to implement these functions, what would you have in your implementation? And: would it be an accurate representation of the reality it implies it is evaluating correctly (in a non-misinformative, non-reductive way)? And then there's the "obviously" true. Heuristics is what both religious and non-religious people lean on constantly to implement "is true". When someone says "science is true/false" or "religion is true/false", do you think they're running a comprehensive, fine-grained, bug-free analysis of all the attributes and characteristics of each, in subseconds? Or, might it perhaps be something more like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology... "In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased." I'd maybe also link an article on epistemology, but I'm like....whats the point? (In turn, demonstrating the pervasiveness of my point? lol) PS: > though I concede I was a little snarkier than I could have been Hubris like this is like syrup on top of an already delicious ice cream sundae. There are few things I enjoy more than watching humans making errors, and then watching them patting themselves on the back for it. No wonder you people can't even consider thinking of trying to get yourselves out of the mess you've gotten yourselves into, so thick is the delusion and how high the self-regard.
svieira 2y ago
It depends - that may be the takeaway that's meant to be taken away, but it's almost always "look how much we're loved" from my frame of reference.

GJim 2y ago

> Look how small and insignificant we are ..... It seems almost nihilistic. It isn't nihilistic. It is a simple fact. As an aside, if you have not yet listened to the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy radio plays (and you should!) you will know this is a major plot device.

andoando 2y ago
You can look at it the other way. Compared to qubits, were fucking gods.
- pixl97 2y ago
  We're the middle child of the universe.
chgs 2y ago
We’re Mostly harmless. We’re significant enough to have a researcher double the length of our entry in space-Wikipedia.
mistermann 2y ago
How does one measure significance? Science? Logic? Common sense? What's obvious? Some stories?
narreme 2y ago
>It is a simple fact. It is a simple fact that the Earth and solar system are small relative to the universe, because everyone agrees on how to measure dimensions and volumes. It is not as simple a fact that something more large is more significant -- whatever that means (if we knew what it meant, this claim would be settled). Physical size is such a universal metaphor for relevance/significance (eg, "it's a big deal", "it's a small matter") that they're implicitly treated as synonymous.
- travelinmyblood 2y ago
  This is a good point. It’s an over-hang from the belief systems that came before us.
- SiempreViernes 2y ago
  There is a well defined meaning of "insignificant" in this context: none of our activities have any material impact on what we see beyond the confines on Earth. So the precise claim is that to describe any interplanetary scale (or up) process you can completely neglect humanity in its entirely, because its contribution to the process is negligible. You are right that there's an unspoken step from "too small to impact the sun in any important way" to "insignificant to the universe", but it is not actually a very large step: being unable to affect one's surroundings is a classic sign of powerlessness.
- SJC_Hacker 2y ago
  We're insignificant now. If we develop interstellar travel, we could start to become significant if we the visit/colonize the rest of the galaxy. Of course, even if we do fill up the galaxy, our galaxy is only a small sliver of the observable universe, so we'd have to move on to other galaxies. Not as crazy as it might sound, if given we would have the tech for interstellar travel, as intergalactic distances are only ~3 magnitudes off the span of a galaxy. e.g. Milky Way spans ~30k light years, Andromeda is ~3m light years away, 100 times. The leap from short hops of a couple light years to galaxy-wide distances is greater (Proxima Centauri is ~3 ly, vs. 30k light years = 5 orders of magnitude). Which is comparable to the jump from interplanetary to interstellar distances distances, which is about 4 orders of magnitude. So if we can reach the edges of the Milky Way, other galaxies should be within reach. But doing that before the Heat Death/Big Rip/etc. might be a challenge.

mattmaroon 2y ago

It’s actually comforting to non-believers in a way that religion is to believers. Except it has the benefit of being obviously true. https://www.oliverburkeman.com/nobigdeal https://www.oliverburkeman.com/nobigdeal

GJim 2y ago
> It’s actually comforting to non-believers in a way that religion is to believers Summed up rather nicely in the Galaxy Song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk
mistermann 2y ago
Technically true, but non-comprehensive / reductionist, and arguably misinformative. Also: religion is technically also "obviously" true, though what is "true" is a function of one's frame of reference.
- scubbo 2y ago
  Go on, then, I'll bite - how is it misinformative to state that the scope of all human existence occupies only a vanishingly-small fraction of the physical space, or temporal lifespan, of the universe? > religion is technically also "obviously" true, though what is "true" is a function of one's frame of reference. I'm not even gonna touch that one :P
  - mistermann 2y ago
    >>> I like this visualization, but it got me thinking about how we often portray the universe in media. It seems like we always end up with the same message: 'Look how small and insignificant we are.' It's like we're drawn to the idea that our existence is just a tiny blip on the universe's radar.I think this perspective is a bit one-dimensional. It seems almost nihilistic. >> It’s actually comforting to non-believers in a way that religion is to believers. Except it has the benefit of being obviously true. vs >> how is it misinformative to state that the scope of all human existence occupies only a vanishingly-small fraction of the physical space, or temporal lifespan, of the universe For starters, look at the various differences in how you're reframed the question, which gives some additional insight into the nature of the problem. But getting back to the original comment, we have two claims: > It’s actually comforting to non-believers in a way that religion is to believers. The "a" saves the day here (yielding my "Technically true" comment), but this implies that the speaker happens to have some objective insight into the need for people to be "comforted" by simplified stories (surely true in some way, and to some degree), but as I said, it is non-comprehensive / reductionist, and arguably misinformative - this style of thinking can easily cause someone to believe that they understand what is going on, when they actually don't - what is actually going on is much more complicated than the enjoyable memes we share with each other on the internet. The second one (to which your normative (self-perpetuating) reaction is "I'm not even gonna touch that one"): > Except it has the benefit of being obviously true. Where do you even start with this? What claim is even being made? "Religion" "is not true"? And that this visualization "is true"? For each claim, what are the particulars? If you were asked to implement these functions, what would you have in your implementation? And: would it be an accurate representation of the reality it implies it is evaluating correctly (in a non-misinformative, non-reductive way)? And then there's the "obviously" true. Heuristics is what both religious and non-religious people lean on constantly to implement "is true". When someone says "science is true/false" or "religion is true/false", do you think they're running a comprehensive, fine-grained, bug-free analysis of all the attributes and characteristics of each, in subseconds? Or, might it perhaps be something more like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology... "In social psychology, naïve realism is the human tendency to believe that we see the world around us objectively, and that people who disagree with us must be uninformed, irrational, or biased." I'd maybe also link an article on epistemology, but I'm like....whats the point? (In turn, demonstrating the pervasiveness of my point? lol) PS: > though I concede I was a little snarkier than I could have been Hubris like this is like syrup on top of an already delicious ice cream sundae. There are few things I enjoy more than watching humans making errors, and then watching them patting themselves on the back for it. No wonder you people can't even consider thinking of trying to get yourselves out of the mess you've gotten yourselves into, so thick is the delusion and how high the self-regard.

svieira 2y ago

It depends - that may be the takeaway that's meant to be taken away, but it's almost always "look how much we're loved" from my frame of reference.