3 ms·

On the other hand, nearly everyone believes in black holes, and there's no practical use for that information. The difference is that "we pointed a telescope at

On the other hand, nearly everyone believes in black holes, and there's no practical use for that information. The difference is that "we pointed a telescope at the sky and saw something" is easier for a layman to understand and requires somewhat less trust than "we did a bunch of complex statistical work on data from a machine you couldn't possibly hope to understand."

hn72774 2y ago
> there's no practical use for that information The information paradox is closer to us than we think! Joking aside, another perspective on practical use is all of the technology and research advanced that have spun out of black hole research. Multi-messenger astronomy for example. We can point a telescope at the sky where two black holes merged.
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  Has that been done?! Iirc there is only one multi messenger observation of LIGO results (of which there have been many) which casts doubt on LIGO
  - hn72774 2y ago
    It is still nascent according to this https://rubinobservatory.org/news/multi-messenger-astro https://rubinobservatory.org/news/multi-messenger-astro
throwawaymaths 2y ago
There's a lot of (warranted imo) skepticism there too. Im sorry I can't find the citation but there was a Japanese paper out this year that claimed the ml post processing of the EHT data produces a qualitatively similar image given random data.
6gvONxR4sf7o 2y ago
I think this is where it's worth differentiating between different types of "believes in" (and why I think modal logics are cool). I can convince myself that a thing seems safe to believe, or I can tangibly believe it, or I can believe it in a way that allows me to confidently manipulate it, or I could even understand it (which you could call a particular flavor of belief). Practical use seems to fit on that spectrum. I certainly don't believe in black holes in the same manner that I believe in the breakfast I'm eating right now.

hn72774 2y ago

> there's no practical use for that information The information paradox is closer to us than we think! Joking aside, another perspective on practical use is all of the technology and research advanced that have spun out of black hole research. Multi-messenger astronomy for example. We can point a telescope at the sky where two black holes merged.

throwawaymaths 2y ago
Has that been done?! Iirc there is only one multi messenger observation of LIGO results (of which there have been many) which casts doubt on LIGO
- hn72774 2y ago
  It is still nascent according to this https://rubinobservatory.org/news/multi-messenger-astro https://rubinobservatory.org/news/multi-messenger-astro

throwawaymaths 2y ago

There's a lot of (warranted imo) skepticism there too. Im sorry I can't find the citation but there was a Japanese paper out this year that claimed the ml post processing of the EHT data produces a qualitatively similar image given random data.

6gvONxR4sf7o 2y ago

I think this is where it's worth differentiating between different types of "believes in" (and why I think modal logics are cool). I can convince myself that a thing seems safe to believe, or I can tangibly believe it, or I can believe it in a way that allows me to confidently manipulate it, or I could even understand it (which you could call a particular flavor of belief). Practical use seems to fit on that spectrum. I certainly don't believe in black holes in the same manner that I believe in the breakfast I'm eating right now.