Is there a pattern in/to our blindspots? What if all the action takes place in our blindspots. We would never know the truth. It's just a zany idea. Just let it flash by through your mind as you would a dull, vapid article in a journal/magazine. — Agent Smith

See, The Blind Spot. (I don't think it's dull or vapid.)

Thanks!

See, The Blind Spot. (I don't think it's dull or vapid.) — Wayfarer

:ok: Bookmarked the linked article for later.

:up: Arigato gozaimasu, sensei! :grin:

I think the word "history" is used to create the illusion of science, by the authors. By calling it "history", the metaphysics which consists of speculations about the early universe. is presented as if it might be science. — Metaphysician Undercover

What would you call it? Itstory?

See, The Blind Spot. (I don't think it's dull or vapid.) — Wayfarer

I read the article. It's meant for people with a higher IQ than mine.

Anyway...

1. There's subjectivity we need to take into account because, for some (silly?) reason, objectivity is held in higher regard. I suppose the former can be rephrased, with respect to me, the way I see the world and the latter as the world as it really is.

That the very scientists who've put objectivity up on a pedestal enjoy a novel (fiction & non-fiction) every now and then bespeaks the value of subjectivity - different perspectives offered by different people/characters provide valuable insights into reality. Plus, who's to say this world itself, that which we take to be reality, is itself not a storybook?

What I'm getting at is the simple truth that subjectivity is an essential aspect of our lives and to dismiss it or demote it is to abandon a defining characteristic of what it is to be alive and conscious. Science does that. It's wrong!


2. Hempel's dilemma: Either we accept that science, as it is now, can't explain consciousness or claim that a future science will do so but we have no idea what that'll look like i.e. we may have to concede that consciousness is nonphysical. Have I got that right?

1. There's subjectivity we need to take into account because, for some (silly?) reason, objectivity is held in higher regard. — Agent Smith

The reason is not silly.

we may have to concede that consciousness is nonphysical. — Agent Smith

Or that matter is immaterial.

The reason is not silly. — Wayfarer

It has to be no? To be conscious is to have a unique take on the world. If one, like scientists do, claims that, for the sake of objectivity, that "unique take" is inadmissible evidence as to the true nature of reality, might as well not call minds to the witness box, throw, like some judges do, the case out.

Or that matter is immaterial. — Wayfarer

:up: So many possibilities. I wonder if we can ever narrow then down to the truth.

It has to be no? To be conscious is to have a unique take on the world. If one, like scientists do, claims that, for the sake of objectivity, that "unique take" is inadmissible evidence as to the true nature of reality, might as well not call minds to the witness box, throw, like some judges do, the case out. — Agent Smith

Science is concerned with objective and measurable facts that are true for any observer. In the context of this particular thread, I'm finding it hard to think of any reason to take issue with that. I guess where this particular interchange started was with your comments about 'blindspots' - that reminded me of the article you've just read. But the point of that article is not to criticize science per se - it says 'some models and methods of investigation work much better than others, and we can test this.' Sure, we can't get 'see' back to the 'big bang event', and there are some aspects of the Universe that can never be known, but they're not the 'blind spot' that the article is referring to. And that is a very interesting discussion in its own right, but not in relation to The James Webb Telescope project.

Apologies for the irrelevance then.

Did you know that the Big Bang is deduced mathematically? Some assumptions as to the rate of change of cosmic expansion and the approximate location of the galaxies are made. Plug in these values into a mathematical formula, work backwards that is, and hey presto! There had to be a Big Bang, roughly 13.8 billion years ago.

I have no idea why I said that!

No apologies needed, it's just a matter of not diverting the thread.

I do know the theory now called 'the big bang theory' was originally the subject of a obscure scientific paper by a Belgian scientist named George Lemaître (who was also a Catholic priest). It didn't recieve much attention at the time but gradually became accepted. It was given the name 'big bang theory' by Fred Hoyle, who was scathingly dismissive of it, in a radio interview many decades later, I believe. I can't comment on the technicalities, which I'm sure are not intelligible to anyone without a degree in mathematical physics, but as an imaginative image, I have to say it sounds awfully close to creation from nothing. (So much so, in fact, that in the 1950's, the Pope started saying that the theory had 'proved' divine creation, which embarrased Lemaître tremendously; he was both a scientist and a devout Catholic, but enlisted the Pope's science advisor to stop repeating this line, which he did. Pity there wasn't much attention paid at the time, it would have made a great headline: 'Scientist advises Pope to Shut Up.')

Speaking of the launch, story in today's NY Times. 344 single points of failure. :yikes: :cry:

I just skimmed through the Wikipedia page on the James Webb telescope and what caught my eye is that it's a reflecting telescope (uses mirrors instead of lenses). Arguably, mirrors are better than lenses, less aberration or something like that.

My question is why aren't animal eyes, including human eyes, mirror-based too? :chin: Is evolution lagging behind human technology.

Also, did you notice the hexagonal mirrors. Reminds me of insect compound eyes.

Will get back to you if my mind registers anything interesting.

Most telescopes have been visible spectrum analyzers for a long time i.e. they were basically extensions of our eyes. The James Webb telescope is different, being tuned to the infrared spectrum of the EM spectrum. Skin in the game! About time, I say! About time!

Intriguingly, aging is largely a skin phenomenon and infrared light (James Webb telescope's shtick) is supposed to help us probe the past, the cosmic past.

The mirrors reflect light into the Optical Telescope Element for image capture. (I imagine if our eyes were mirrors then shaving or driving or all manner of household tasks would be a problem.)

Danke schön! :up:

Food for thought:

Imagine a lens L and a screen behind it. The lens focuses the world's (W) image (I) on the screen.

Now take a mirror M. It captures W on itself as R.

There's no difference at all between I and R (the former is the lens image and the latter is the reflection in the mirror).

Proposed hypotheses: Invisible mirror in the case of lens L and invisible lens in the case of mirror M.

:up:

REASON'S GREETINGS :victory:

MERRY SOLSTICE :sparkle:

25.12.21

https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive
Dec. 25, Saturday
(All times Eastern U.S. time = UTC-5.)
3 a.m. – Update on the fueling of the Ariane 5 rocket for the James Webb Space Telescope launch from Kourou, French Guiana
3:15 a.m. – James Webb Space Telescope highlights and launch pad views from Kourou, French Guiana
6 a.m. – Coverage of the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope on an Ariane 5 rocket from the Guiana Space Center in Kourou, French Guiana (launch scheduled at 7:20 a.m. EST) Goddard Space Flight Center/Space Telescope Science Institute/Kourou, French Guiana
9 a.m. – Webb Space Telescope post-launch briefing from Kourou, French Guiana

Good luck to the James Webb Telescope team. There's a lot of risk involved in this launch. What if it fails? How many billion dollars and man-hours down the drain? What I'm really worried about comsic censorship - all that's needed to scupper this launch is a single loose wire/nut!

She’s away 01:39 so far so good.

:fire: :cool: :up:

Separation! Brilliant, ESA/NASA! :clap:

JWST is on its way to L2 ...

Don't celebrate too early! I'm only gonna stop worrying after NASA releases the first "pictures", complete with an analysis.

Very, very cool. Everything perfect so far. Good thing we don't have to wait too long to get some data, some 6 months or so, which is not bad in terms of astronomical time.

I suspect that we might have to revise some of the best theories we have after we see results from this one. If I had to guess, either the big bang did not occur quite as we think it did, or we may appreciate better what dark matter/energy may be - that is, if it exists.

It's going to be awesome to watch, no matter what.

All my fingers and all of my toes are crossed (cramping has already set in) on behalf of the James Webb. What could go wrong? Alas, it is one more unwelcome cause of anxious anticipation, like the upcoming midterms, 2024 presidential election, future of the plague, the economy, present and future wars, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, heatwaves, droughts, burrowing worms, chewing grubs, and flying weevils, etc.

Last week, there were 15 tornadoes in Minnesota -- until then, Minnesota had never had so much as a chance of a tornado in December. Very little damage, but still... Omnia mutantur.

The happiest of holidays to you.

EDIT: on the other hand, NASA was able to send a rocket to Mars, pause the lander in its descent long enough to lower! the large vehicle to the surface--and then disconnect the cable and not have the lander crash on top of it's cargo. Inordinately complicated and it worked.

I've only celebrated (1) the launch. The riskiest phase is over; now there's (2) the month-long journey and deployment and testing of systems & instruments, then (3) arrival at Lagrange Point 2 and final unfolding of the telescope's mirrors. And several months from now, JWST will start (4) beaming photos back to Earth. I down, 3 more celebrations to go! :nerd: :up:

The Webb telescope... Siiiiiiigh. Looking at stuff a 100 million years ATB. Looking at stuff 90 billion of lightyears away. A few pictures will be sent to us. So what? I can already tell what they will see. The should point it at the dark side of the Moon. Who knows what evil is playing there? 10 billion dollars... They could have given each person a vaccination with that money. Down to Earth. And dark energy? Not to be found by Webb.

Go Webb Telescope!
What a delicate instrument, where so many parts can fail, being sent to such a precarious place.
If it works, it will change what we can ask about the universe.

A few pictures will be sent to us. So what? I can already tell what they will see. — AgentTangarine

The view up your own colon apparently fascinates you to no end. :sparkle: Merry Xmas :sparkle:

:starstruck:

Haha! Nothing beats the image I see when holding a mirror between my legs. That's a black hole as never seen before! Well, a brown dwarf actually...


Merry Christmas :heart:

The happiest of holidays to you. — Bitter Crank

You also BC! The weather has been crazy, a foretaste of seasons to come alas.

I've only celebrated (1) the launch. The riskiest phase is over; now there's (2) the month-long journey and deployment and testing of systems & instruments, then (3) arrival at Lagrange Point 2 and final unfolding of the telescope's mirrors. And several months from now, JWST will start (4) beaming photos back to Earth. I down, 3 more celebrations to go! — 180 Proof

:up: