20 ms·

You don't know any of that. We are primitive apes. We are all uniformly dumb.

by echelon 2mo ago

andrewflnr 2mo ago
It's inherent to the math that defines the entire concept of a black hole, or "spacetime" in general. So to the extent we can contemplate the question at all, we can be pretty confident that creating black holes is Very Hard. There's a lot we don't know, but the fact that the universe is consistent means it has to be consistent with what we do know already. Don't be so openminded your brain falls out.
- echelon 2mo ago
  > the fact that the universe is consistent We don't know this either. We are very limited in detection. Our energies are small. How "standard" are standard candles and other references? Are the facts that stand as the basis for our theories even correct? We are too primitive to be dealing in absolutes.
  - andrewflnr 2mo ago
    > > the fact that the universe is consistent > We don't know this either. See this is what I'm talking about as far as being too open-minded. Consider what it would mean for the universe to be inconsistent, particularly in relation to the astronomical observations that are the basis of this conversation.
    - strogonoff 2mo ago
      All we can say is that the universe has been consistent so far, during the brief time we observed a small part of it given the instruments we have. We update our model(s) so that it keeps being consistent and predictable to us (that’s human nature), but no model can be probably correct and complete.
      - andrewflnr 2mo ago
        You are not grappling with the full consequences of the universe being inconsistent. If the universe is inconsistent, science is dead. Why the fuck on HN of all places do I need to defend the idea that science is possible? Back to philosophy class, all of you.
        graceful6800 2mo ago
        Because you're being too narrow minded. Hubble Tension exists, the universe is not consistent. We take cosmological homogeneity as an axiomatic assumption and we keep being proved wrong. The only thing we can say with confidence is that the base laws of physics appear to be mostly consistent everywhere we've looked in the last hundred or two years. But also only across relatively recent history. The laws of physics were very different early on. The electic and magnetic field used to be separate things and now they aren't. None of this is incompatible with science as a concept.
        andrewflnr 2mo ago
        In case it wasn't clear, I'm only talking about whether the universe is logically consistent.
        strogonoff 2mo ago
        Finding consistency goes hand in hand with modeling reality, and every model by definition 1) is wrong (incomplete/incorrect/unprovable) and 2) exists in your head only.

You don't know any of that. We are primitive apes. We are all uniformly dumb.

by echelon 2mo ago

You don't know any of that. We are primitive apes. We are all uniformly dumb.

It's inherent to the math that defines the entire concept of a black hole, or "spacetime" in general. So to the extent we can contemplate the question at all, we can be pretty confident that creating black holes is Very Hard. There's a lot we don't know, but the fact that the universe is consistent means it has to be consistent with what we do know already. Don't be so openminded your brain falls out.

echelon 2mo ago
> the fact that the universe is consistent We don't know this either. We are very limited in detection. Our energies are small. How "standard" are standard candles and other references? Are the facts that stand as the basis for our theories even correct? We are too primitive to be dealing in absolutes.
- andrewflnr 2mo ago
  > > the fact that the universe is consistent > We don't know this either. See this is what I'm talking about as far as being too open-minded. Consider what it would mean for the universe to be inconsistent, particularly in relation to the astronomical observations that are the basis of this conversation.
  - strogonoff 2mo ago
    All we can say is that the universe has been consistent so far, during the brief time we observed a small part of it given the instruments we have. We update our model(s) so that it keeps being consistent and predictable to us (that’s human nature), but no model can be probably correct and complete.
    - andrewflnr 2mo ago
      You are not grappling with the full consequences of the universe being inconsistent. If the universe is inconsistent, science is dead. Why the fuck on HN of all places do I need to defend the idea that science is possible? Back to philosophy class, all of you.
      - graceful6800 2mo ago
        Because you're being too narrow minded. Hubble Tension exists, the universe is not consistent. We take cosmological homogeneity as an axiomatic assumption and we keep being proved wrong. The only thing we can say with confidence is that the base laws of physics appear to be mostly consistent everywhere we've looked in the last hundred or two years. But also only across relatively recent history. The laws of physics were very different early on. The electic and magnetic field used to be separate things and now they aren't. None of this is incompatible with science as a concept.
        andrewflnr 2mo ago
        In case it wasn't clear, I'm only talking about whether the universe is logically consistent.
        strogonoff 2mo ago
        Finding consistency goes hand in hand with modeling reality, and every model by definition 1) is wrong (incomplete/incorrect/unprovable) and 2) exists in your head only.