4 ms·

Acclaimed science author Carl Sagan illustrated this challenge with his “dragon in the garage” analogy. If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, si

by chistev 9mo ago

Acclaimed science author Carl Sagan illustrated this challenge with his “dragon in the garage” analogy. If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, silent, intangible, and undetectable by any means, there is no practical difference between the dragon’s existence and non-existence. Similarly, without verifiable evidence, the existence of an immortal soul remains unproven. https://www.rxjourney.net/the-possibility-of-life-after-death https://www.rxjourney.net/the-possibility-of-life-after-deat...

nobody9999 9mo ago
>If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, silent, intangible, and undetectable by any means, there is no practical difference between the dragon’s existence and non-existence. “Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact wholly unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated, there is no need for us to discuss it any further here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely different way.” ― Stanisław Lem, The Cyberiad
- chistev 9mo ago
  https://youtube.com/shorts/CEEHjtVJHYs?si=H_muwqpJTIndywr8 https://youtube.com/shorts/CEEHjtVJHYs?si=H_muwqpJTIndywr8
  - stefanfisk 9mo ago
    So gender is a strict binary but dragons kinda-sorta exist, got it (＠_＠)
- mdallastella 9mo ago
  Love that book!
qsera 9mo ago
The dragon in the room is the hidden qualifier for "undetectable by any means" is "that is currently known to humanity". That makes Carl Sagan's claim some what Balonish. Not sure why the smart Sagan fell for it.
- ekjhgkejhgk 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - nobody9999 9mo ago
    >Not sure why this comment got downvoted, but after all this is HN: very pro-tech while at the same time anti-science. Computers do everything so knowledge doesn't matter. As Dr. Sagan (quite correctly) pointed out: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Whether there's any particular method right now, next week or next year for such "detection" isn't relevant in this context for several reasons: 1. Sagan's example was a metaphor for an unfalsifiable hypothesis; 2. Dragons (okay, kimodo dragons do, but that's orthogonal to the discussion) don't actually exist; 3. Even if dragons with the properties posited by Sagan actually do exist, Evidence must be provided to confirm the "garage dragon" hypothesis or it's irrelevant. If it cannot be detected, it may as well not exist. While it's true that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," not being able to verify the non-existence of something doesn't confirm its existence. I suggest you use the rest of the tools provided in Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" (helpfully linked above) to help you get the point. I'd also point out that the guidelines[0] say: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - ekjhgkejhgk 9mo ago
      [flagged]
      - nobody9999 9mo ago
        >It IS relevant to me and to most scientists. And you sound like someone who stops giving up at the first obstacle. QFT posits that the graviton (as a particle-like excitation in a "gravity field") exists. We do not currently (although there are some potential future experiments that might be able to confirm the existence of the graviton) have the means to detect gravitons. Does the graviton exist? I don't know and neither do you. And we won't, unless and until we have the ability to detect gravitons. While we have a theoretical basis for gravitons, we have no experimental or observational evidence. Does that mean we should stop looking? No. How about dark matter. What exactly is dark matter? We have a bunch of evidence that something that doesn't interact via the photon (the particle-like excitation of the EM field), but does interact gravitationally with itself and other fermions and bosons. We don't know what that "dark matter" might be, but we continue looking for it, as there is both theoretical and observational evidence of its existence. As for the "garage dragon," there is no theoretical, experimental or observational evidence for it. There is also none of that for my claim of the absolute existence of a gremlin living inside your skull chowing down on your brain. But we should definitely saw open your skull to prove it, right? I'm partial to circular saws, but we can go with a chainsaw if you like. >you sound like someone who stops giving up at the first obstacle. It's not clear what ad-hominem attack you're making against me here as the words, as strung together don't make sense, but who I am or what I will or won't do is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Are you unable to make a better argument and so attack me personally instead? >> I'd also point out that the guidelines[0] say: >I had already removed it by the time you commented, so that's on you. Did you? Thanks for finally following the site guidelines. Perhaps next time you won't need to be reminded.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
RcouF1uZ4gsC 9mo ago
Doesn’t silent, invisible, intangible also apply to software? You can’t really tell a particular piece of hardware is running software by a direct physical measurement. You can only infer that indirectly.
- Zigurd 9mo ago
  Having debugged code with a logic analyzer, I'm pretty sure the voltage on those CPU pins is real, and really the consequence of the code I think I'm running.
  - the__alchemist 9mo ago
    This. Try it! LAs are cheap and easier to use than a scope, even if it has digital features.
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 9mo ago
    This is like arguing I can hear humans talk, therefore the souls must exist. You can wire voltage to CPU pins without software.
    - donkeybeer 9mo ago
      The visible part of em spectrum by which we interact with computers daily needs no multimeters.
- dghf 9mo ago
  What? Yes you can. I know my laptop is running a web browser because I can see it and interact with it. That's a physical measurement.
  - donkeybeer 9mo ago
    Won't be surprised if he's one of those that think "radiation" is some kind of harmful beams instead of also what the computer screen emits and we detect it to interact with it.
CGMthrowaway 9mo ago
The dragon is just a gauge. Gauge symmetry
- BeetleB 9mo ago
  Good one!
the__alchemist 9mo ago
A parking lot dragon? This sounds familiar. [Assuming not a Dragon of Eden, nor one who farts nerve gas] I believe it is a parable about cause and effect; consistency of the world's state. A parking garage, poured in modern times from reinforced concrete, might have been found to be structurally unstable during a renovation. If this turned out to be rooted in a massive [dragon, dinosaur, etc] skeleton being embedded in the concrete (As it was being poured?) surely this would be a contradiction, if people (workers, onlookers) witnessed the garage's construction. There would be evidence from the reinforcement efforts; materials sourced to reinforce it due to structural flaws introduced by the skeleton; wear on the truck tires carrying them, memories in brains etc. If suddenly the skeleton were to have vanished, would there be logical consistency problems with the world state? Quite a thing to ponder! I would like to clarify that this is purely a thought experiment. It is not possible that any group of people, no matter how secluded, could either A: Will such a reptile into existence while maintaining cosmological consistency, nor B: Remove it from our cosmos after evidence over its existence has propagated.
krapp 9mo ago
> If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, silent, intangible, and undetectable by any means, there is no practical difference between the dragon’s existence and non-existence. Unsurprising that the longest subthread here is one criticizing the premise.

by chistev 9mo ago

nobody9999 9mo ago

>If someone claims to have a dragon that is invisible, silent, intangible, and undetectable by any means, there is no practical difference between the dragon’s existence and non-existence. “Everyone knows that dragons don’t exist. But while this simplistic formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the scientific mind. The School of Higher Neantical Nillity is in fact wholly unconcerned with what does exist. Indeed, the banality of existence has been so amply demonstrated, there is no need for us to discuss it any further here. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each non-existed in an entirely different way.” ― Stanisław Lem, The Cyberiad

chistev 9mo ago
https://youtube.com/shorts/CEEHjtVJHYs?si=H_muwqpJTIndywr8 https://youtube.com/shorts/CEEHjtVJHYs?si=H_muwqpJTIndywr8
- stefanfisk 9mo ago
  So gender is a strict binary but dragons kinda-sorta exist, got it (＠_＠)
mdallastella 9mo ago
Love that book!

qsera 9mo ago

The dragon in the room is the hidden qualifier for "undetectable by any means" is "that is currently known to humanity". That makes Carl Sagan's claim some what Balonish. Not sure why the smart Sagan fell for it.

ekjhgkejhgk 9mo ago
[flagged]
- nobody9999 9mo ago
  >Not sure why this comment got downvoted, but after all this is HN: very pro-tech while at the same time anti-science. Computers do everything so knowledge doesn't matter. As Dr. Sagan (quite correctly) pointed out: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Whether there's any particular method right now, next week or next year for such "detection" isn't relevant in this context for several reasons: 1. Sagan's example was a metaphor for an unfalsifiable hypothesis; 2. Dragons (okay, kimodo dragons do, but that's orthogonal to the discussion) don't actually exist; 3. Even if dragons with the properties posited by Sagan actually do exist, Evidence must be provided to confirm the "garage dragon" hypothesis or it's irrelevant. If it cannot be detected, it may as well not exist. While it's true that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," not being able to verify the non-existence of something doesn't confirm its existence. I suggest you use the rest of the tools provided in Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" (helpfully linked above) to help you get the point. I'd also point out that the guidelines[0] say: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - ekjhgkejhgk 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - nobody9999 9mo ago
      >It IS relevant to me and to most scientists. And you sound like someone who stops giving up at the first obstacle. QFT posits that the graviton (as a particle-like excitation in a "gravity field") exists. We do not currently (although there are some potential future experiments that might be able to confirm the existence of the graviton) have the means to detect gravitons. Does the graviton exist? I don't know and neither do you. And we won't, unless and until we have the ability to detect gravitons. While we have a theoretical basis for gravitons, we have no experimental or observational evidence. Does that mean we should stop looking? No. How about dark matter. What exactly is dark matter? We have a bunch of evidence that something that doesn't interact via the photon (the particle-like excitation of the EM field), but does interact gravitationally with itself and other fermions and bosons. We don't know what that "dark matter" might be, but we continue looking for it, as there is both theoretical and observational evidence of its existence. As for the "garage dragon," there is no theoretical, experimental or observational evidence for it. There is also none of that for my claim of the absolute existence of a gremlin living inside your skull chowing down on your brain. But we should definitely saw open your skull to prove it, right? I'm partial to circular saws, but we can go with a chainsaw if you like. >you sound like someone who stops giving up at the first obstacle. It's not clear what ad-hominem attack you're making against me here as the words, as strung together don't make sense, but who I am or what I will or won't do is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Are you unable to make a better argument and so attack me personally instead? >> I'd also point out that the guidelines[0] say: >I had already removed it by the time you commented, so that's on you. Did you? Thanks for finally following the site guidelines. Perhaps next time you won't need to be reminded.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9mo ago

Doesn’t silent, invisible, intangible also apply to software? You can’t really tell a particular piece of hardware is running software by a direct physical measurement. You can only infer that indirectly.

Zigurd 9mo ago
Having debugged code with a logic analyzer, I'm pretty sure the voltage on those CPU pins is real, and really the consequence of the code I think I'm running.
- the__alchemist 9mo ago
  This. Try it! LAs are cheap and easier to use than a scope, even if it has digital features.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9mo ago
  This is like arguing I can hear humans talk, therefore the souls must exist. You can wire voltage to CPU pins without software.
  - donkeybeer 9mo ago
    The visible part of em spectrum by which we interact with computers daily needs no multimeters.
dghf 9mo ago
What? Yes you can. I know my laptop is running a web browser because I can see it and interact with it. That's a physical measurement.
- donkeybeer 9mo ago
  Won't be surprised if he's one of those that think "radiation" is some kind of harmful beams instead of also what the computer screen emits and we detect it to interact with it.

CGMthrowaway 9mo ago

The dragon is just a gauge. Gauge symmetry

BeetleB 9mo ago
Good one!

the__alchemist 9mo ago

A parking lot dragon? This sounds familiar. [Assuming not a Dragon of Eden, nor one who farts nerve gas] I believe it is a parable about cause and effect; consistency of the world's state. A parking garage, poured in modern times from reinforced concrete, might have been found to be structurally unstable during a renovation. If this turned out to be rooted in a massive [dragon, dinosaur, etc] skeleton being embedded in the concrete (As it was being poured?) surely this would be a contradiction, if people (workers, onlookers) witnessed the garage's construction. There would be evidence from the reinforcement efforts; materials sourced to reinforce it due to structural flaws introduced by the skeleton; wear on the truck tires carrying them, memories in brains etc. If suddenly the skeleton were to have vanished, would there be logical consistency problems with the world state? Quite a thing to ponder! I would like to clarify that this is purely a thought experiment. It is not possible that any group of people, no matter how secluded, could either A: Will such a reptile into existence while maintaining cosmological consistency, nor B: Remove it from our cosmos after evidence over its existence has propagated.

krapp 9mo ago