Hacker News Reader

blueprinton Gravity Helps Show Strong Force Strength in the Proton

so does that make the quote I included totally correct?

blueprinton Can Earthquakes Be Predicted? (2022)

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3

blueprinton Gravity Helps Show Strong Force Strength in the Proton

"Protons are built of three quarks that are bound together by the strong force."

Except, not. The number of "quarks" isn't even a constant.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04998-2

blueprinton A Wild Claim about the Powers of Pi Creates a Transcendental Mystery

yeah in fact pi isnt technically even "known" by anyone

blueprinton The Earthquake That Will Devastate the Pacific Northwest (2015)

yes, a large threat I have also identified is displaced people trying to survive.

blueprinton The Earthquake That Will Devastate the Pacific Northwest (2015)

https://www.oregon.gov/oem/Documents/01_ORP_Cascadia.pdf

looks like I slightly exaggerated a couple figures and understated others. 3 years to restore healthcare in the valley zone.

blueprinton The Earthquake That Will Devastate the Pacific Northwest (2015)

this is virtually my strategy too - but keep in mind when the event happens, chances are you won't be able to drive super far without going off road, and even then, you may end up blocked. roads and highways are expected to have massive damage. people dont realize that e.g the entire valley zone of Oregon will have no restoration of infrastructure until potentially more than a year after the event (coming straight from a study I could cite if needed). we're talking no hospitals, no police, no water, no sewer... for more than a year...

blueprinton Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

I would like to give you an example in that which is visible for your understanding.

in order for a tree to reproduce, it must sprout first, and have a life in which it produces a flower, which gets pollinated, generally speaking. The important point is that from that flower which is pollinated, eventually, a fruit is formed. When the fruit is formed and detaches, that detached fruit is the state of death. even if the tree dies, it can revive through what it stored within its fruit.

blueprinton Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

life is the state that a consciousness is combined with a body.

at death the consciousness separates from the body.

consciousness is composed of energy so it doesn't just disappear at death.

blueprinton Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

> It is amazing this (perhaps pithy) comment is so down voted

Socrates, Jesus, Lao-tzu, Bodhidharma, Buddha - all were outright killed or expelled and lived very lonely lives.

blueprinton Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

that's called interfacing with a "body"

thanks for the downvotes, philosophy noobs

blueprinton Apple dials back car's self-driving features and delays launch to 2028

OK, but none of those companies are going to be differentiating themselves by making their own silicon. and probably not their own self driving software from the looks of things.

blueprinton Is the emergence of life an expected phase transition in the evolving universe?

"life is the process from birth until death"

"life is the way to make anything happen to you"

without a body (via life), a consciousness cant do anything

blueprinton Warp drive's best hope dies, as antimatter falls down

no, it is actually a property of the flux of energy density, which occurs across space and time, whatever those are.

blueprinton Long Covid Symptoms Can Emerge Months After Infection

what do you mean by a formal society?

blueprinton The real cost of a preventive health scan goes well beyond the price tag

here, take this pill, you'll soon forget your worries (and get new ones)

blueprinton How Indian artists transformed the Buddha’s absence into presence

> The buddha himself says that very clearly that he is walking on the same old path treaded by others before him.

It is essential that people transmit the words of the masters exactly as they are so that we don't damage the truth of them.

So, can you provide any citation as to where you believe you heard this "buddha himself" say that? What was he saying it about?

He was not saying it about the people in "Hinduism" as you appear to be trying to take it out of context to say.

I have read of him, however, saying it about the other Tathagatas that have appeared and will appear in other worlds and eras.

quite different, sir.

blueprinton How Indian artists transformed the Buddha’s absence into presence

buddha was written as having been fairly clear that his teaching would disappear in the world after 1-2k years. It's an entire meaning behind why the wheel of the dharma needs a buddha to turn it.

But.. meditation, I hate to break it to you, is not how Buddha was enlightened. It was merely when he calmed down that he realized he had already attained it long ago. After that he thought deeply as to how to skillfully lead such ignorant and arrogant beings to his knowledge. that was his purpose in life. He didn't spread the meditation you learned and practice. If it were not the case then there would be even one to have achieved perfect, supreme enlightenment and to have come from your practice, but there are none who have. Buddhism means Buddha's teaching. If what you know doesn't contain any ways for living beings then that's dead Buddhism. A living teaching always has the ways in it. If you ask me the difference btwn Buddhism today and Buddha's teaching I can say that Buddha taught us to save ourselves through the truth of the world and to live forever, whereas most people who think they learned Buddhism have learned to throw away their own self and to die forever.

blueprinton How Indian artists transformed the Buddha’s absence into presence

you the real mvp. Thanks for what you're doing. Though may I caveat your description? The self may be a thing but it is not what we colloquially call a self. It doesn't exist independently - in the sense people think self means. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have existence and even undergo reincarnation too.

blueprinton How Indian artists transformed the Buddha’s absence into presence

> The difference between philosophy and science is that, to understand someone else's philosophy you need to possess similar intellect. Where as average student of science can study and understad ideas of genius like Einstein.

where on earth or from who did you learn this abject nonsense?

Based on what you said, whatever you learned is not actually philosophy.

Philosophy is not someone's thoughts or ideas. Reducing it to that makes it equivalent to some random person's random ravings and trivializes the word.

The reason why you can't understand all of philosophy is because you have learned from someone who didnt really know.

Philosophy is easily defined when you actually know.

Or perhaps you think you are expert enough of all philosophy to be able to state so boldly that all of them require some level of intellect. I hate to break it to you, but that is an immensely arrogant thing to say, aside from being obviously self-contradictory and produced by someone who speaks of his thoughts rather than what is known.

meanwhile you're attempting to rob humanity of real philosophy, which is not at all apart from science. Philosophy and science are both part of the same object - two sides of one coin. Philosophy is the study of what is in the truth. We call truth that way because it's fixed and can be confirmed through literally anything.

But whatever you learned is actually a tool to deceive people who don't know any better.

There is a phrase: "buddha's teaching is so simple that can be learned by a three year old boy, but it cannot be practiced by an 80 year old man."

> This is true for nearly all religions and especially for philosophies.

Remove the word philosophy and I'll agree with you.

> This is not true about Hinduism. It isn't one of those "take all or none" philosophies you can pick your parts without ever reading about many other parts which you still hold in high regard due to tradition.

I'm wondering if you decided to completely ignore everything I previously wrote or if you've got something controlling you to be unable to correctly understand what you read of what I wrote. Chances are you are another person who does not actually want to know the truth. The best way to remain in ignorance is to falsely convince yourself that you actually do want to know.

There is blatant evidence that Buddha's teaching is thrown away. He himself says the Lotus Sutra is the one sutra that is rejected by the majority of people, even while he's alive.

Maybe if you had a basic amount of regard for him and even perhaps yourself then you wouldn't so obviously deny how deeply in denial you are.

I will explain something for you. Buddhism is not under the umbrella of Santanadharma, however much you try to neuter Buddha's real teaching so as to stay so comfortable in your own ideas. Buddha admitted the existence of Gods because they are equivalent to aspects of nature or because they don't really exist or are metaphors and he uses them entirely as such. The mere fact that you are possessed by a god justifies Buddha's using the term - because you are a servant of a dead God , it was accurate to call you one. But Buddha was clear that there are no beings. If you knew even a little of his real teaching then you would notice how silly you sound claiming that what you know even approaches his level. Buddha used words like bodhisattva or deva even though he is later clear about the true nature of those terms. You're the one who missed the point. Buddha basically intentionally trolled you.

Besides, if you really knew the nature of a real Krishna, you would see that the truth of those concepts do not originate in "Hinduism", whatever that is.

Are you aware of the fact buddha said, "in all of heaven and earth, only I exist"?

Stop changing his words if you want to convince the future humanity you actually respect him.

The fact is, for now, you are lying to people. The Gita makes repeated claims about Buddha that he either directly contradicted or which he never made. That's a sin.

The mere fact that you place his painting in the Gita and tell innocent people that you know he's an incarnation means you lied about him.

QED.

blueprinton How Indian artists transformed the Buddha’s absence into presence

Please read my comment.. it answers your question fairly well. Though I'm wondering if you really want to know?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37210062

blueprinton How Indian artists transformed the Buddha’s absence into presence

You say you honor his teaching.

what is the teaching of Buddha's?

blueprinton How Indian artists transformed the Buddha’s absence into presence

from my point of view, you are correct, that they have taken the name of Buddha in order to promote their own thoughts and ideas. If it were really true that they revered Buddha, then his special teaching should still be present within the material studied by e.g. Krishna devotees. I recently went to have around 10 deep conversations with such devotees and I confirmed that they know next to nothing about his real teaching. While they insist they know, they repeatedly describe the essence of his teaching as "non-violence". However this is virtually nothing to do with Buddha's special teaching, and as a matter of fact, only someone who already has the extraordinarily high level to differentiate true from false and, put it into practice by never telling any untruth, would be capable of even practicing non-violence. His teaching is far more profound and constructive than the idea of non-violence. In fact, saying his teaching merely amounted to non-violence and co-opting his name, portrait, and tacit approval of their usage of his name, calling him an incarnation of the deity of their choice, while he cannot come to correct them, is nothing other than blatant and dear violence against Gautama Buddha. This is while they insist that the words in the gita from Krisha to Arjuna that it is literally impossible to kill are remotely valid. It's merely delusion in order to further avoid the truth that Buddha left. It seems narcissistic at best and murderous at worst. Buddha called himself a self-born, not an incarnation of vishnu, and his teaching wasn't non-violence, but rather, he even stated once that he was here to destroy delusions. it would make sense that, for a person like him, with massively superior wisdom, to have come and tamed all those around him in debate on such matters, who also said that he is the only one who exists between all of heaven and earth, thus superseding the deities of the current religions, would have to be co-opted by those religions. misinforming people is the only way for religious people to maintain their position of influence over others and over their own subconscious.

What saddened me even more was only the children I met in that large group of devotees were able to admit they had doubts about the Gita and were able to listen a bit.

Buddha also was extremely clear in the Lotus Sutra that even "nirvana" is not his real teaching. He states repeatedly and very unmistakably that he used the concept of nirvana as a temporary resting spot for beings who would be too arrogant or too ignorant to accept the truth if he told them as he knew they wouldn't be able to understand without much more of his cultivating them. So he lets them play with the concept of nirvana, and when he sees them cultivated, he tells them that what they thought was nirvana was no true final resting spot and that real nirvana resides with omniscience. He claimed knowledge of the true nature of reality and was very clear in his explanation of the fundamental laws and theories of existence: reincarnation and the law of cause and effect. How a good or bad thing happens. How to live well or how to become worse. Lying, for example, is not good for people. He revealed the ways from the problems to the results. As you can see this is a far cry from such a thing as ordering people not to be violent and not explaining how they can actually accomplish it.

suppose you were to hear that real nirvana is with omniscience... you'd probably have thrown it away too. or suppose you are a Krishna devotee who calls said deity to help or take control of your life - and Buddha comes and calls you "the blind who have eyes"... the main answer for people who remain in denial is to co-opt his name and deny that you're in denial.

it rather reminds me of modern Christians believing themselves saved from sin just through faith in their own ideas without ever having met Jesus and having listened to him scold them on their wrong ideas and practices. why do we think humanity killed people like Jesus and Socrates? just because we pretend to be part of a gentle religion does not exempt us from the same tendency. Buddha in reality was very lonely when he was here in this world.

as a matter of fact, modern Buddhism as well is not the real, living teaching of Buddha anymore - most people I met interested in Buddhism are also co-opting his name. He was very clear this would happen in the Lotus Sutra. that's why he intentionally withheld the true Dharma from people until right before he died. Buddha's teaching is not to kill your consciousness and to die forever (no more rebirths). Buddha is clear that he made up that he dies or that he won't be reborn and says in fact he is reborn many times. Buddha's real, living teaching goes in the opposite way of dying forever - he taught people how to save their lives and live forever. It's obvious when you really understand what he left but what he left has been changed so much to the point that even the higher level explanations have been polluted by words of ordinary people.

blueprinton JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

Well, you are still talking about models. The creation and annihilation operators are also mathematical structures. That does not mean, as you seem to imply, that "particle" physics cannot be conceptualized outside of QFT. QFT may be superseded someday and the physical systems we try to describe will still be exactly as they are. I'm not sure if you'll agree with me since I suspect you've got a reason not to.

blueprinton JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

I'm pleased to talk with you given that you're familiar with the topic.

> The state space of the free EM field simply is the photon Fock space.

but I'm not sure what your point in mentioning this is. When people hear things like "particles exist between their emission and measurement", they might get the idea that there could be said to be any reality to the existence of particles in transit. They simply aren't particles the way people think of them - they are probability waves. A great example we could discuss is the HBT experiment in which photon bunching was seen. If the bunched photons were really "particles" by any sense of the word, they wouldn't bunch in time of detection merely by the fact they are entangled with each other. That would be like saying entanglement affects the flight of a particle which is simply not able to be said.

blueprinton JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

good to know you're informed, but it doesn't mean we're communicating effectively.

what i said is not backwards unless you use the inverse understanding of "exist". and how can photons exist without interaction? they don't. they're localizations by detectors. until then, they only "exist" as the probability wave. that's due to nothing localizing them. that's how i mean "exist". so it's not really meaningful to use that word.

btw "any other particle" doesn't fall out of EM fields.

blueprinton JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

so, you're trying to tell me that such reasoning about "dog shit" applies to the ignorance of humanity in general? The reality is the very few people actually understood what they were talking about and a lot of people went around operating on what they didn't really know. So while you call me an asshole for correcting a number of incorrect people in this thread who are themselves rather overconfident, I have to again insist that because I am correcting them or destroying their delusions does not make me hostile and there's a very good chance that you're projecting that impression. The definition of hostility includes the intent to do harm or to be unfriendly, which is in fact what the people I am replying to are doing by spreading misinformation, as if they know. If that's too difficult for you to accept, then best that you do not reply to me, because it would be a waste in both of our time. "falsehood travels a great distance in one night before the truth even crosses the threshold of the door". And the masses sentences Socrates to death just because he called them hypocrites. It's a good thing I know these truths or I would have been damaged by you. It still makes me sad though.

and for what it's worth I don't believe the paper you linked says what you think it says.

blueprinton JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

"in fact", that was not the very start of quantum mechanics. Einstein's work was preceded by 5-10 years by investigation into the cause of quantized black body radiation. that's why we have Planck's constant and the notion of quantized oscillators. why are you going around talking with such authority? QM and nature is more amazing than you realize. particles are not waves "and vice versa". particles don't exist nor do any classical waves of energy in the way you keep saying as if they're facts. only the wavefunction travels. please be more careful about posting so authoritatively. comments such as yours are why it takes people so long to stumble onto the reality of nature, if they ever are so lucky.

blueprinton JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

so it's the tone of my textual words? i think you're mistaking my laughter at their blatant and willful ignorance for hostility, and quite honestly it sounds like you're projecting that hostility. from the start I've been incorrectly downvoted and critiqued while being the primary commenter in this child thread providing a semblance of correct view. to be quite frank i deserve an apology, not some nitpick that comes from your personal assumption about my tone. but i know i won't get one because it's not hostility you care about at all. a lot of you commenters here are pretty hilarious. but not in a good way.

blueprinton JWST spots giant black holes all over the early universe

photons dont exist, dude, except in connection with and at the site of the detector. study some qft and then you can go talk about it on the internet with authority.

and yes direct observation exists. that's what measurement is. and that's all you can ever "observe" unless you incorporate the wavefunction, which also doesn't "exist".