7 ms·

If only we could somehow share a physical entity of known dimensions to reference together with the drawing so that we did not need to use a physics riddle to i

If only we could somehow share a physical entity of known dimensions to reference together with the drawing so that we did not need to use a physics riddle to indicate scale...

mjd 2y ago
We did that too. There is a cartoon of Pioneer itself, drawn to the same scale.
- arghwhat 2y ago
  (I was sarcastically pointing to the plaque itself, a physical entity of a well known size to anyone capable of observing the drawing on it, unlike the space craft or physics riddles.)
aylmao 2y ago
Unsure what the tone of this message is, so I don't know if you're aware, but that's included too: > Behind the figures of the human beings, the silhouette of the Pioneer spacecraft is shown in the same scale so that the size of the human beings can be deduced by measuring the spacecraft. It's good to have redundancy, not just so someone interpreting the plaque can confirm their hypothesis, but also in case one of the messages fail. In this case, the spacecraft could break, but we can assume quantum transitions will always be observable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque
- arghwhat 2y ago
  I sarcastically referenced the plaque itself, which is a convenient disc of a known size to anyone observing the drawing, unlike the space craft or physics riddles. Using quantum transitions is quite ridiculous in my opinion due to requiring not only the observer to have a perfectly compatible understanding of physics (even a more advanced understanding might not be compatible - maybe they don't categorize elements by electrons, or even treat elemental particles as a quantifiable entity), combined with the sheer number of deductions required to understand what was meant with two circles and a few lines. I doubt we would ever have decoded this had we been the recipient rather than author, and that's with a perfectly compatible understanding of physics.
  - spullara 2y ago
    Do you think that physics is somehow subjective? We absolutely would have decoded the message.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - cuttothechase 2y ago
      Our understanding evolves, course corrects, spins off etc., we can use some static value as purported from the dark ages or by newtonian or later einstenian points of view. They all are measurably correct for the problems that they are trying to solve for the people who lived during those times. A million years from now would these values still be relevant or be considered as having the same value of importance or will they be replaced by even more finer and precise and contextually different values that could be more precise and more accurate etc.,
      - arghwhat 2y ago
        Indeed. Say, maybe a civilization didn't start out with trying to build the world of particles of progressively finer size, but started directly with a model of fields, waves and charges and therefore never had a concept of a discrete elemental particle, and in turn a system built around that to categorize elements. Or to them, an atom is as large an arbitrary macro structure as proteins are to us, and so they would never consider two empty circles with a single line to represent something so big and chaotic. Or maybe they had the crazy idea of building everything of vibrating strings! Who knows what the abstractions and approximations would be when the foundation of it all isn't "getting hit on the head by an apple".
    - monadINtop 2y ago
      As a theoretical physicist, yes physics could definitely be subjective between different species. Physics is the way HUMANS describe nature to themselves. I don't doubt that it describes some greater nature outside of us that is invariant, but it is only a description - not the thing itself. Like mathematics it is an anthropocentric conceptualization that has many arbitrary and historically contingent choices in its choice of representation and its chosen objects of study. How could we ever be certain than another intelligence (whatever that means) would be capable of understanding the intended message? Unless of course we are already starting off with the major assumption that the only things that can be intelligent are things like us. I'm not even sure that intelligent has any meaning aside from denoting behavior "similar to us".
linschn 2y ago
The plaque also provided a drawing of the probe itself next to the two human figured, at scale.
pdabbadabba 2y ago
Yeah. It would be pretty funny if an alien reader of the plaque concluded that 1 refers to the actual length of the line between the two circle thingies and concluded, therefore, that we're only a few cm tall.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Pixelbrick 2y ago
Banana!

If only we could somehow share a physical entity of known dimensions to reference together with the drawing so that we did not need to use a physics riddle to indicate scale...

mjd 2y ago

We did that too. There is a cartoon of Pioneer itself, drawn to the same scale.

arghwhat 2y ago
(I was sarcastically pointing to the plaque itself, a physical entity of a well known size to anyone capable of observing the drawing on it, unlike the space craft or physics riddles.)

aylmao 2y ago

Unsure what the tone of this message is, so I don't know if you're aware, but that's included too: > Behind the figures of the human beings, the silhouette of the Pioneer spacecraft is shown in the same scale so that the size of the human beings can be deduced by measuring the spacecraft. It's good to have redundancy, not just so someone interpreting the plaque can confirm their hypothesis, but also in case one of the messages fail. In this case, the spacecraft could break, but we can assume quantum transitions will always be observable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_plaque

arghwhat 2y ago
I sarcastically referenced the plaque itself, which is a convenient disc of a known size to anyone observing the drawing, unlike the space craft or physics riddles. Using quantum transitions is quite ridiculous in my opinion due to requiring not only the observer to have a perfectly compatible understanding of physics (even a more advanced understanding might not be compatible - maybe they don't categorize elements by electrons, or even treat elemental particles as a quantifiable entity), combined with the sheer number of deductions required to understand what was meant with two circles and a few lines. I doubt we would ever have decoded this had we been the recipient rather than author, and that's with a perfectly compatible understanding of physics.
- spullara 2y ago
  Do you think that physics is somehow subjective? We absolutely would have decoded the message.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - cuttothechase 2y ago
    Our understanding evolves, course corrects, spins off etc., we can use some static value as purported from the dark ages or by newtonian or later einstenian points of view. They all are measurably correct for the problems that they are trying to solve for the people who lived during those times. A million years from now would these values still be relevant or be considered as having the same value of importance or will they be replaced by even more finer and precise and contextually different values that could be more precise and more accurate etc.,
    - arghwhat 2y ago
      Indeed. Say, maybe a civilization didn't start out with trying to build the world of particles of progressively finer size, but started directly with a model of fields, waves and charges and therefore never had a concept of a discrete elemental particle, and in turn a system built around that to categorize elements. Or to them, an atom is as large an arbitrary macro structure as proteins are to us, and so they would never consider two empty circles with a single line to represent something so big and chaotic. Or maybe they had the crazy idea of building everything of vibrating strings! Who knows what the abstractions and approximations would be when the foundation of it all isn't "getting hit on the head by an apple".
  - monadINtop 2y ago
    As a theoretical physicist, yes physics could definitely be subjective between different species. Physics is the way HUMANS describe nature to themselves. I don't doubt that it describes some greater nature outside of us that is invariant, but it is only a description - not the thing itself. Like mathematics it is an anthropocentric conceptualization that has many arbitrary and historically contingent choices in its choice of representation and its chosen objects of study. How could we ever be certain than another intelligence (whatever that means) would be capable of understanding the intended message? Unless of course we are already starting off with the major assumption that the only things that can be intelligent are things like us. I'm not even sure that intelligent has any meaning aside from denoting behavior "similar to us".

linschn 2y ago

The plaque also provided a drawing of the probe itself next to the two human figured, at scale.

pdabbadabba 2y ago

Yeah. It would be pretty funny if an alien reader of the plaque concluded that 1 refers to the actual length of the line between the two circle thingies and concluded, therefore, that we're only a few cm tall.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Pixelbrick 2y ago

Banana!