upvote
This comment encapsulates how poorly we humans are at accepting unknowns. For me, that explains a lot of our belief systems. The fact we can’t just take the unknown but instead have to fill in the blanks with what ifs. and create a narrative like we know anything about the unknown thing. It helps us feel like we understand it more. That’s literally how religions and a lot of other things get created, it’s a pattern, then the logical person sees the patterns and say it’s a simulation. A quite predictable filling of another blank.
reply
"dunno" is just a really unsatisfying answer to anything

Currently we don't know a lot of things - but without trying out new ideas how are you ever going to know?

reply
Trying is fine. Saying you don’t know or don’t understand something is not mutually exclusive with trying to learn more
reply
> and create a narrative like we know anything about the unknown thing. It helps us feel like we understand it more.

In fairness, this very often helps us understand the unknown thing more.

reply
It’s how science and discoveries are done too…
reply
who made you the Pope of deciding what can and cannot be known?
reply
That would be me.
reply
deleted
reply
Abdication syndrome.
reply
>But perhaps we're the only intelligent species in the entire universe. That is also a possibility. Some big names in astrophysics, such as David Kipping, suggest strongly that we should not rule out that hypothesis

They may be planted by alien AI to lull us into false sense of security.

reply
As Lynn Margulis reminded us we are not the main show. Our individual intelligence is highly over rated. The brain itself is kludge upon kludge accumulating over thousands of years, to solve problems that keep changing with time and environmental changes. Its quite a piece of crap actually if you tabulate all the accumulated junk. We arent as interesting as we think we are. Some of the tech and knowledge generated might be interesting. But compare it with to photosynthesis or butterfly metamorphosis or the fact that microbes can double their population in a few hours, all of which is happening without needing any human intelligence. So they may very well be watching but are more curious about a rose or a redwood tree than all the random and superficial activity the chimp brain produces.
reply
Cynical atheists never cease to make me laugh. Life is miraculous on every level. Sentience even more so. Calling our brain a piece of junk is just baffling.
reply
I'd be impressed if those microbes or butterflies visited the moon and came back to tell about it.
reply
> But compare it with to photosynthesis

Artifical solar capture systems exist. Synthetic biology also bridges that gap as well and the genetic basis is known and has been manipulated. Granted, coming up with more efficient photosynthesis is very hard, but I don't share your "we humans are stupid" opinion here at all whatsoever.

> or butterfly metamorphosis

Nothing fascinating here. It is just a genetic program. Viruses have similar programs too - yes, no metamorphosis, but take retroviruses and the syncytium. Mammals only reproduce thanks to retroviruses (not 100% correct, but look at this here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0707873105)

> or the fact that microbes can double their population in a few hours

Wow, we humans surely do not have cells that double. Oh wait ... nevermind. Humans consist of cells. Who would have thought...

Yes, microbes are much faster, but they don't have to coordinate as much as humans do in 3D, not even in a bacterial biofilm. And we have to double a lot more DNA than bacteria do, so of course they are faster.

> about a rose or a redwood tree than all the random and superficial activity the chimp brain produces

That comparison is weird. A rose is thinking as much as a chimp brain?

The human brain is special. Chimps are very clever too but humans have very solid abstract thinking. Animals have this too, to some extent (predator hunting prey, chimps have hunting strategies) but e. g. look at mathematics - animals don't waste their time coming up with higher order theorems.

reply
I doubt any new physics will be needed, just computational imaging, meta-optics, very long baselines (multi AU, or even light years).
reply
If they let me watch the videos of our dinosaurs, I would happily let them use my hemes for their calculations.
reply