←back to thread

First images from Euclid are in

(dlmultimedia.esa.int)
1413 points mooreds | 5 comments | 21 Oct 24 20:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.831s | source
Show context
neom ◴[22 Oct 24 00:08 UTC] No.41909872[source]▶
Some of that zooming in made me feel pretty damn uncomfortable. It really is f'ing massive out there huh. Makes me wonder what this is all about, I'm sure it's something, I wonder what. :)
replies(18): >>41910015 #>>41910437 #>>41910440 #>>41910444 #>>41910670 #>>41910845 #>>41911871 #>>41912134 #>>41913189 #>>41913514 #>>41913608 #>>41914208 #>>41914357 #>>41916581 #>>41918228 #>>41919777 #>>41924732 #>>41925552 #
wayoverthecloud ◴[22 Oct 24 01:59 UTC] No.41910437[source]▶
I think that too. That it's surely meant to be something. But sometimes I think what does "meaning" even mean? Does universe really have any "meaning", the term that humans invented and that even they are unsure of? Then, I think it's a big randomness, a random accident, a big joke, just happening with nothing to make sense of.
replies(7): >>41910601 #>>41911668 #>>41913445 #>>41913522 #>>41913544 #>>41914113 #>>41927557 #
imchillyb ◴[22 Oct 24 02:25 UTC] No.41910601[source]▶
So many rules, laws, and systems for all of this to be random. Seems a waste of good code if everything is random.

Is an ecosystem random? What happens when one outside force is added to an ecosystem? There's plenty of examples around the globe of this.

Life doesn't 'find a way' and balance. The ecosystem is damaged, and often times destroyed by adding a single non-native species. That doesn't seem random does it?

Randomness should have error correction, as it's random. Doesn't seem to though.

replies(9): >>41910671 #>>41910727 #>>41911203 #>>41911218 #>>41911587 #>>41911788 #>>41912847 #>>41913552 #>>41916483 #
1. felizuno ◴[22 Oct 24 04:28 UTC] No.41911203[source]▶
I've been convinced that random is so maximally inclusive that there is no error category. Obviously uniformity is an anti-random condition that would bait the label "error" but I think it's still perfectly random to flip a coin tails 2, 4, 6, 6k times consecutively and the uniformity is simply a shocking instance of random. To your point, I don't think random implies balance though I understand that statistically this is the expected outcome of large set randomness such as ...the universe... (OP)

Many of my thoughts on randomness are seeded by David Deutsch's "Beginning of infinity" which is an interesting read FWTW

replies(1): >>41911582 #
2. semi-extrinsic ◴[22 Oct 24 05:59 UTC] No.41911582[source]▶
Randomness and probabilities can be incredibly hard to wrap our heads around.

A deck only has 52 cards, but you shuffle it properly, it's essentially guaranteed that nobody in human history has ended up with the same order as you just did.

replies(3): >>41913005 #>>41913715 #>>41924668 #
3. grvbck ◴[22 Oct 24 10:45 UTC] No.41913005[source]▶
> A deck only has 52 cards, but you shuffle it properly, it's essentially guaranteed that nobody in human history has ended up with the same order as you just did.

That fact still messes me up every time! Like, I know very well that 52! is a ridiculously huge number. And still, it feels like "but it's just 52 cards, give me an afternoon and I'll do it, how many combinations can there be?"...

4. fsagx ◴[22 Oct 24 12:51 UTC] No.41913715[source]▶
52! even has its own website:

https://czep.net/weblog/52cards.html

5. Zitrax ◴[23 Oct 24 13:04 UTC] No.41924668[source]▶
I guess properly is important there, in reality certain initial orderings are more common and we use certain techniques for shuffling with our hands making it less random than "properly".