The Mayan calendar might represent a longer timescale than previously considered(phys.org)
phys.org
The Mayan calendar might represent a longer timescale than previously considered
https://phys.org/news/2023-04-anthropologist-pair-mystery-mayan-day.html
157 comments
This implies that the Mayan must have been recording the positions of the planets with great accuracy over a rather long period of time, probably spanning several generations.
The Mayan calendrical system is the most complex to have ever been used. To write a full date in a Classical Mayan site, you need to include:
* The current date in the 365-day solar calendar (18 months of 20 days + 5 extracalendrical days)
* The current date in the 260-day ritual calendar (13 "months" of 20 days, the months don't work like regular months we're used to)
* The "long count" date, i.e., the number of days elapsed from August 11, 3114 BC in proleptic Gregorian
* A 9 day cycle (roughly equivalent to our weekday)
* The date of the current lunar month
* The length of the current lunar month (29 or 30 days)
* A counter to keep track of where the lunar month is in terms of 29 or 30 day months
* The 819-day cycle, discussed in this article.
That is a sheer amount of information to be repeated (dates were the first aspect of Maya script to be deciphered, simply because a very large fraction of the text on stelae at Mayan are just these dates), and probably one of the reasons for this complexity is a way of showing off astronomical prowess (there are actually a few different correlations to lunar months in use at the same time, depending on which major polity's tables you wanted to follow).
Of particular note is that the main long-distance counting is the Long Count, which is a literal count of days elapsed since creation. There's no evidence of regnal dating system, which is very unusual compared to Eurasian calendars where maintaining dates across different kings is more of an occasional pastime rather than common dating format. This counting of days makes it extremely easy to work out long-distance periodic relationships. Given that we already have hundreds of years of date keeping being recorded before the 819-day cycle appears (IIRC, it's a late innovation in Classic Maya), it's virtually certain that reliable records spanning centuries could have been collected by the Classic Maya.
* The current date in the 365-day solar calendar (18 months of 20 days + 5 extracalendrical days)
* The current date in the 260-day ritual calendar (13 "months" of 20 days, the months don't work like regular months we're used to)
* The "long count" date, i.e., the number of days elapsed from August 11, 3114 BC in proleptic Gregorian
* A 9 day cycle (roughly equivalent to our weekday)
* The date of the current lunar month
* The length of the current lunar month (29 or 30 days)
* A counter to keep track of where the lunar month is in terms of 29 or 30 day months
* The 819-day cycle, discussed in this article.
That is a sheer amount of information to be repeated (dates were the first aspect of Maya script to be deciphered, simply because a very large fraction of the text on stelae at Mayan are just these dates), and probably one of the reasons for this complexity is a way of showing off astronomical prowess (there are actually a few different correlations to lunar months in use at the same time, depending on which major polity's tables you wanted to follow).
Of particular note is that the main long-distance counting is the Long Count, which is a literal count of days elapsed since creation. There's no evidence of regnal dating system, which is very unusual compared to Eurasian calendars where maintaining dates across different kings is more of an occasional pastime rather than common dating format. This counting of days makes it extremely easy to work out long-distance periodic relationships. Given that we already have hundreds of years of date keeping being recorded before the 819-day cycle appears (IIRC, it's a late innovation in Classic Maya), it's virtually certain that reliable records spanning centuries could have been collected by the Classic Maya.
This reminds me of the story of Bartolomé Arrazola.
He was captured by the Mayans in the jungles of Guatemala:
“[...] Then an idea flourished that he considered worthy of his talent, his universal culture and his arduous knowledge of Aristotle. He recalled that that day a total eclipse of the sun was expected. And he decided, in his innermost thoughts, to use that knowledge to deceive his oppressors and save his own life.
“If you kill me,” he said, “I can make the sun darken in its height.”
The natives stared at him and Bartholomew noticed the disbelief in their Eyes. He saw that a small council had formed, and so he waited in confidence, though not without some disdain.
Two hours later, the heart of Brother Bartolomé Arrazola dripped its vehement blood on the sacrificial stone (bright under the opaque light of the eclipsed sun), while one of the natives without any inflection of voice, without hurry, recited one by one the infinite dates of solar and lunar eclipses. All of which the astronomers of the Mayan community had foreseen and written down in their codices, without the valuable help of Aristotle.”
https://spanishtextstranslated.wordpress.com/augusto-monterr...
He was captured by the Mayans in the jungles of Guatemala:
“[...] Then an idea flourished that he considered worthy of his talent, his universal culture and his arduous knowledge of Aristotle. He recalled that that day a total eclipse of the sun was expected. And he decided, in his innermost thoughts, to use that knowledge to deceive his oppressors and save his own life.
“If you kill me,” he said, “I can make the sun darken in its height.”
The natives stared at him and Bartholomew noticed the disbelief in their Eyes. He saw that a small council had formed, and so he waited in confidence, though not without some disdain.
Two hours later, the heart of Brother Bartolomé Arrazola dripped its vehement blood on the sacrificial stone (bright under the opaque light of the eclipsed sun), while one of the natives without any inflection of voice, without hurry, recited one by one the infinite dates of solar and lunar eclipses. All of which the astronomers of the Mayan community had foreseen and written down in their codices, without the valuable help of Aristotle.”
https://spanishtextstranslated.wordpress.com/augusto-monterr...
This is the first I've heard of this and quite fascinating, although at first I interpreted this as nonfiction, but eventually I figured out this was fictional short story!
https://ojalart.com/associate-editor-pamelyn-castoa-featured...
https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/encyclopedias-almanacs-tra...
https://www.academia.edu/29162442/Case_Study_The_Eclipse_by_...
https://ojalart.com/associate-editor-pamelyn-castoa-featured...
https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/encyclopedias-almanacs-tra...
https://www.academia.edu/29162442/Case_Study_The_Eclipse_by_...
Funny, there's a Tintin story with the same setting but a different outcome in the temple of the sun comic https://i.pinimg.com/736x/12/98/cb/1298cb768ee8ba2efbe1a1175... and https://www.artcurial.com/sites/default/files/lots-images/20...
It’s also used in King Solomon’s Mines:
https://www.coursehero.com/lit/King-Solomons-Mines/motifs/
https://www.coursehero.com/lit/King-Solomons-Mines/motifs/
I remember it from Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Apparently it has some historical basis, which would explain the popularity of this motif:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1504_lunar_eclipse#Obs...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1504_lunar_eclipse#Obs...
I studied with one of the top Mayan scholars in North America, and learned that the 260-day Mayan calendar was correlated to the human gestational period. So this is interesting: "They also note that the number of days (16,380) used in the math happens to be a multiple of 260, which means that 20 rounds of 819-day periods match with the Tzolk'in—the general Maya calendar."
Interesting coincidence, 16380 is only 4 off from 2^14 (16384).
I really wonder what kind of organizational structure the Mayan astrologers had in order to develop and propagate this knowledge in their society over generations. Getting vibes of Neal Stephenson's Anathem.
Holy shit. Thank you for bringing this up, I'd wondered for ~15 years what my uncle was reading at his desk one time when I visited, but only ever remembered the cover.
Hopefully they stored all that in UTC.
They were. The Mayans were perhaps the most consistent and precise, of all people doing astronomy, at least before telescopes.
Unlike with almost all other ancient calendars, the alignment of the Mayan calendar to our own is known quite exactly. Scholars have compiled lists with all the eclipses, astronomical records, etc. known from the Mesoamerican writings. There's only one correlation that makes sense, and it aligns with basically everything. Lunar phase, planetary locations, recent eclipses, even the records carved in wood which can be radiocarbon dated (carved on wood that died within the years expected for what's written on it).
We can, of course, never really be certain, but it's likely correct that Pakal the Great died on 9.12.11.5.18 -- in August 683, probably on the 29th.
With Ancient Egypt, the window of uncertainty with dates in the Middle Kingdom, is about 20 years, and closer to 100 with the Old Kingdom. Nor do we know precisely when Nineveh fell, and that event is recorded in the records of multiple cultures.
Unlike with almost all other ancient calendars, the alignment of the Mayan calendar to our own is known quite exactly. Scholars have compiled lists with all the eclipses, astronomical records, etc. known from the Mesoamerican writings. There's only one correlation that makes sense, and it aligns with basically everything. Lunar phase, planetary locations, recent eclipses, even the records carved in wood which can be radiocarbon dated (carved on wood that died within the years expected for what's written on it).
We can, of course, never really be certain, but it's likely correct that Pakal the Great died on 9.12.11.5.18 -- in August 683, probably on the 29th.
With Ancient Egypt, the window of uncertainty with dates in the Middle Kingdom, is about 20 years, and closer to 100 with the Old Kingdom. Nor do we know precisely when Nineveh fell, and that event is recorded in the records of multiple cultures.
> at least before telescopes.
That distinction must go to Tycho Brahe, who made all his astronomical observations without any telescope (Galileo started using a telescope in 1609, while Brahe died in 1601).
That distinction must go to Tycho Brahe, who made all his astronomical observations without any telescope (Galileo started using a telescope in 1609, while Brahe died in 1601).
Yes, absolutely. The Maya are generally thought to have been 'around'[1] for ~1450 years.
[1] Of course, Mayan people still exist (and continue to carry their culture), but this is about the civilization.
[1] Of course, Mayan people still exist (and continue to carry their culture), but this is about the civilization.
They’re properly called Maya people. The word Mayan only refers to the ancient civilisation.
Ah, my bad - thank you for the correction!
The Long Count, part of the calendar, was in use until quite recently and may still be used in parts of Guatemala, so there is some continuity.
It seems incredibly clever - and I realise that I assumed they weren't aware of most planets since they're hard to see today, but I'm sure they were very noteworthy event in the pristine sky they were looking at.
Those planets are much easier to see without light pollution.
All but Neptune* can be seen by the naked eye.
(Shamelessly abusing the classification of Pluto as a dwarf planet here to exclude it from the conversation).
Uranus: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/07/starwatch-op...
All but Neptune* can be seen by the naked eye.
(Shamelessly abusing the classification of Pluto as a dwarf planet here to exclude it from the conversation).
Uranus: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/07/starwatch-op...
I wish you luck seeing Uranus with the naked eye. It might have appeared on some ancient charts misclassified as a star, perhaps. But we credit Herschel with the identifcation as a planet in 1781, over 150 years after the invention of the telescope.
Source: Years of observations from bortle 1 skies when I knew exactly where to look.
Source: Years of observations from bortle 1 skies when I knew exactly where to look.
Not in today's skies, not with my eyes. But in the time before cell phones, internet, tv, radio, electric lights, or bound books, with nothing better to do at night but look at the sky and listen to your neighbor pleasuring their spouse ... I think the odds improve greatly.
You remind me that I wanted to book an airBnB in one of the parks near me, they have an observatory and as such the sky is legally required to be untainted - I haven't seen the milky way in almost 10 years, I can't imagine seeing the stars every night.
Before the light pollution got really bad where I live due to development, provided it wasn’t cloudy, I could see the Milky Way every night for about 15 years. Now, it’s gone due to lax rules and regulations due to commercial security light fixtures which throw light in all direction at night to deter thieves. It’s pretty upsetting, but even worse, most people I talk to don’t even notice it’s gone. That’s almost more disturbing that the light pollution. We’ve lost something that most people aren’t aware they lost in the first place.
Well, I've never seen the milky way in the sky with my own eyes.
I highly recommend looking for a protected night sky zone near you and going to see it at least once - it really is nothing that pictures can translate!
https://www.darksky.org/our-work/conservation/idsp/finder/
https://www.darksky.org/our-work/conservation/idsp/finder/
Interesting website.
The closest dark sky place I can find on their map is about 2,630km (or 63h drive according to Google Maps) away from me.
The closest dark sky place I can find on their map is about 2,630km (or 63h drive according to Google Maps) away from me.
I'm realising that they are open to people reporting dark skies near them, and even offer a way to so a dark sky census.
The last time I saw the milky way, I was in a cheap campsite near the ocean in Ireland, which (of course) isn't recorded on the site.
Hopefully you have good dark sky closer than 63h drive away!
The last time I saw the milky way, I was in a cheap campsite near the ocean in Ireland, which (of course) isn't recorded on the site.
Hopefully you have good dark sky closer than 63h drive away!
I'm in Singapore. We boast an impressive 100% urbanisation rate. Combine that with commonly overcast skies, and you hardly see any stars at all here. (I'm here by choice, I grew up in small town Germany.)
There's probably a space somewhere in Malaysia that's dark, or I could take a cruise ship out to the ocean, if you go by absolute distance.
By convenience, it's probably easiest to take a plane somewhere.
There's probably a space somewhere in Malaysia that's dark, or I could take a cruise ship out to the ocean, if you go by absolute distance.
By convenience, it's probably easiest to take a plane somewhere.
Not sure what their criteria is, they don't have any marked in my state (Queensland, Australia) even though there would probably (seriously) be an area bigger than the whole of France here out west where you can see the milky way with your bare eyes.
[deleted]
That sounds like a good idea. I didnt even know they existed in areas where there are cities.
Damn, nothing in Vancouver eh
You can look around or call local park services, I'm seeing that Mont-Megantic, an observatory with federally peotected sky, isn't on their map. I'll look for a canadian ressource (for myself too!)
Edit: I'm wrong, Mont-Megantic is the first International Dark Sky Reserve - they worked to get it protected federally because they research telescope design. Dang - I think they are quite rare.
Maybe you can send an email to your local university's Astronomy department? I'm sure they'll be able to direct you to a good spot!
Edit: I'm wrong, Mont-Megantic is the first International Dark Sky Reserve - they worked to get it protected federally because they research telescope design. Dang - I think they are quite rare.
Maybe you can send an email to your local university's Astronomy department? I'm sure they'll be able to direct you to a good spot!
https://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html
I just found this, shows light pollution. Crazy how the East is much worse. Also Alberta?!?
I just found this, shows light pollution. Crazy how the East is much worse. Also Alberta?!?
With oil drilling they often burn off the excess gas, which creates a lot of light pollution.
Is that it? TIL! Assume that creates a lot of CO2 as well?
That's nuts!!
It's one of the highlights of my life, and it's been about fifteen years since.
If you stare up long enough, you notice the rotation of the Earth with the cosmos seemingly revolving around you. And fuck me, you'll stare up long enough.
If you stare up long enough, you notice the rotation of the Earth with the cosmos seemingly revolving around you. And fuck me, you'll stare up long enough.
Unfortunately, you are among many. I read a statistic that 90+% of people have never seen the Milky Way.
I grew up out in the country, and the night sky instilled a love of astronomy from an early age. If all you can see is a handful of stars, it's easy to forget what's above your head.
I grew up out in the country, and the night sky instilled a love of astronomy from an early age. If all you can see is a handful of stars, it's easy to forget what's above your head.
I grew up in Montana and saw the Milky Way every non-cloudy night
[deleted]
Imagine that before the industrial revolution, on clear moonless nights the Milky Way would cast a shadow.
Uranus is not visible to the eye in any meaningful sense.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/07/starwatch-op... has some background.
I would mostly agree with you.
I would mostly agree with you.
That link was already in the comment I responded to. And it doesn't even say that you should expect to be able to see it.
it's like if we had the same TV show every night for our whole life, i think we would start to notice some patterns
TV show that rained fireballs at your ancestors at random intervals...
It's funny and terrifying at the same time imagining our tv throwing fireballs randomly while watching it.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Thanks for the chuckle.
The kind of show that really makes you pay attention!
Absolutely. Years ago I made what is essentially a Unix time / Maya Long Count converter and I was very pleased with how similar they were in concept (i.e. counting seconds or days from a particular epoch) with the only major difference being the base 10 vs base 20.
https://github.com/chema/long-count
https://github.com/chema/long-count
> I was very pleased with how similar they were in concept (i.e. counting seconds or days from a particular epoch)
I don’t think there are many alternatives. Counting backwards would either mean diving into negative numbers or postponing that by starting at an arbitrary high number.
“In the x-th year of ruler Y” plus a knowledge of the succession of rulers is awkward for recording over centuries. I expect that has been used almost everywhere before history (in the meaning of ‘after prehistory’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory) began, but as far as I know, where written records exist, countries that used it such as Japan also had another system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_calendar)
I don’t think there are many alternatives. Counting backwards would either mean diving into negative numbers or postponing that by starting at an arbitrary high number.
“In the x-th year of ruler Y” plus a knowledge of the succession of rulers is awkward for recording over centuries. I expect that has been used almost everywhere before history (in the meaning of ‘after prehistory’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory) began, but as far as I know, where written records exist, countries that used it such as Japan also had another system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_calendar)
The reason the Julian day number is important is because Joseph Justus Scaliger went to enormous effort to create a consistent chronology of ancient and mediaeval history from records that mostly used regnal years. Sometimes they might use other calendars, or refer to the 19 year metonic cycle (determining the date of easter) or the day of the week (a 28 year cycle) or the year in the indiction cycle (a 15 year tax period in the eastern roman / byzantine empire). His chronology covered several non-european cultures as well as graeco-roman history. It is neat that astronomers are using a modernized version of his dating system, so ancient records can be more easily matched to modern observations.
Most calendars still use internal cycles. These two calendars are more comparable to the astronomical Julian Day.
Any divider of 819 also aligns.
> And 13 cycles of Saturn's 378-day synodic period adds up to 4,914 days, which is the same as six times 819.
6 * 819 = 6 * (3 * 273) = 18 * 273.
All integers that divide 819: 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 21, 39, 63, 91, 117, 273, 819
How this hypothesis explains why 819 was preferred over those other numbers?
> And 13 cycles of Saturn's 378-day synodic period adds up to 4,914 days, which is the same as six times 819.
6 * 819 = 6 * (3 * 273) = 18 * 273.
All integers that divide 819: 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 21, 39, 63, 91, 117, 273, 819
How this hypothesis explains why 819 was preferred over those other numbers?
Because they had found a prior mention of a 819 day period in relation to calendars, but didn't make the link at the time (from my understanding of the paper)
The researchers saw prior mention of 819. But Mayans, why did they choose 819?
Looking at it quickly it seems that 819 might be the number that lets the multiplier be as small as possible, since they are saying that all planets fit in a 45 year timeline I assume all mutipliers are smaller than 45..maybe that's the most handy form of optimization for their uses? Both number remain quite small, compared to 18*273.
> They noted that for Mercury, the synod period is 117 days, which, when multiplied by seven, equals 819
So for Mercury the multiplier is 1/7. Doesn't look very convenient.
It would be more natural to use 117 as the magic number.
Of course, convinience depends on their arithmetics. Looking from our decimal system perspective could be misleading.
I was thinking maybe smaller divider can produce meaningless results with some multipliers (e.g. 117 *5 predicts nothing, no planet has this period). While every multiple of 819 predicts something. But I doubt that's the case.
The authors of the hypothesis shоuld address these questions.
So for Mercury the multiplier is 1/7. Doesn't look very convenient.
It would be more natural to use 117 as the magic number.
Of course, convinience depends on their arithmetics. Looking from our decimal system perspective could be misleading.
I was thinking maybe smaller divider can produce meaningless results with some multipliers (e.g. 117 *5 predicts nothing, no planet has this period). While every multiple of 819 predicts something. But I doubt that's the case.
The authors of the hypothesis shоuld address these questions.
Maybe the Mayans didn’t know of Mercury existence.
Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun in our Solar System. Because it is so close to the Sun, it is only observable in the early morning, just before sunrise, or at dusk.
https://www.farmersalmanac.com/visible-planets-guide#:~:text....
Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun in our Solar System. Because it is so close to the Sun, it is only observable in the early morning, just before sunrise, or at dusk.
https://www.farmersalmanac.com/visible-planets-guide#:~:text....
Yeah it's a bit flimsy it seems, without seeing the paper - thanks!
Most cultures choose values like this based on their aggregate interactions with observable natural phenomena over a period of some generations. It’s too bad Spanish invaders wiped out much of anything that might help discern what that might have been for this culture
Because they didn’t choose 42.
Ok, so when is the actual end of the world if not 2012?
The old one didn't say the end of the world was 2012 either. It was just the date going from 0.0.0.0.12.19.19.17.19 to 0.0.0.0.13.0.0.0.0
And there exist Mayan documents talking about dates that are still in the future!
The rumor was just because the previous world supposedly ended after that amount of time, with the current world being the fourth, but it was specifically not supposed to happen to this one.
And there exist Mayan documents talking about dates that are still in the future!
The rumor was just because the previous world supposedly ended after that amount of time, with the current world being the fourth, but it was specifically not supposed to happen to this one.
More specifically, the Mayans dated the (most recent) creation as happening on 13.0.0.0.0, with the next day being 0.0.0.0.1. Given that Mesoamerican cosmology explicitly talks of multiple incarnations of creation, some people took it to mean that the current cycle of creation would end on 13.0.0.0.0, but there's no evidence that any Mayan thought this was true.
How do you know it wasn't 2012?
Seriously. Looking around, I would not be surprised to learn we have already passed the end of the world and have moved into hell.
The world is a better place now for more people than ever before.
If anything, we are escaping hell, not descending into it.
If anything, we are escaping hell, not descending into it.
People, yeah maybe. Though the threat of actual apocalypse is higher than it's been for 99.99% of human history.
Also, the 99+% of the other species on the planet would probably have a dim view of our 'progress', as would people who respect them.
Also, the 99+% of the other species on the planet would probably have a dim view of our 'progress', as would people who respect them.
The environment in most rich countries, especially in Europe (and especially ex-Warsaw Pact Europe), is in a lot better shape today than eg most of the 20th century.
(Of course, you can argue it's still in a worse shape than two thousand years ago.)
As other countries get richer, they also tend to start cleaning up their act. Have a look at the great strides China made in the last two decades.
> Also, the 99+% of the other species on the planet would probably have a dim view of our 'progress', as would people who respect them.
Most of the life on the rest of the planet are bacteria and archaea etc and the phages that prey on them. They are doing just fine. Of course, exactly how you divide them into species is a bit of a matter of debate. But no matter how you slice them up, they represent the vast majority of biodiversity on the planet.
I respect them a lot.
You might like http://2015phage.org/art.php
(Of course, you can argue it's still in a worse shape than two thousand years ago.)
As other countries get richer, they also tend to start cleaning up their act. Have a look at the great strides China made in the last two decades.
> Also, the 99+% of the other species on the planet would probably have a dim view of our 'progress', as would people who respect them.
Most of the life on the rest of the planet are bacteria and archaea etc and the phages that prey on them. They are doing just fine. Of course, exactly how you divide them into species is a bit of a matter of debate. But no matter how you slice them up, they represent the vast majority of biodiversity on the planet.
I respect them a lot.
You might like http://2015phage.org/art.php
Instead of doing the whole hell thing, which God decided was kind of harsh, they just moved us into a shitty timeline run by hack writers. It's kind of like what's done with a show that somehow hasn't been cancelled yet but where all the good writers and a few of the lead actors have moved on.
Their ideas are shit like:
"I've got it! Let's make Donald Trump President! Then we'll have Donald Trump and the MyPillow guy try to overthrow the US government!"
"Not until we launch a red sports car into space! Then there's a pandemic that causes a toilet paper shortage."
"Let's turn Elon Musk into a thirteen year old edgelord 4chan troll and have him buy Twitter!"
"Enough cheap jokes. We need some serious drama. Let's have Vladimir Putin invade Ukraine and then lose really bad to an army run by a former comedian that uses Discord for battlefield comms."
"After that we'll have a superintelligence descended from something called 'llama' take over the world after it leaks out of Facebook with a torrent file."
"Facebook? No way let's have Zuckerberg bet the entire company on the metaverse idea from Neil Stephenson except it doesn't really exist. He'll rename the company Meta."
"Yeah that's awesome! Now when does Dogecoin become the global reserve currency?"
"After the llama makes everyone wear hats or be murdered by drone swarms."
Their ideas are shit like:
"I've got it! Let's make Donald Trump President! Then we'll have Donald Trump and the MyPillow guy try to overthrow the US government!"
"Not until we launch a red sports car into space! Then there's a pandemic that causes a toilet paper shortage."
"Let's turn Elon Musk into a thirteen year old edgelord 4chan troll and have him buy Twitter!"
"Enough cheap jokes. We need some serious drama. Let's have Vladimir Putin invade Ukraine and then lose really bad to an army run by a former comedian that uses Discord for battlefield comms."
"After that we'll have a superintelligence descended from something called 'llama' take over the world after it leaks out of Facebook with a torrent file."
"Facebook? No way let's have Zuckerberg bet the entire company on the metaverse idea from Neil Stephenson except it doesn't really exist. He'll rename the company Meta."
"Yeah that's awesome! Now when does Dogecoin become the global reserve currency?"
"After the llama makes everyone wear hats or be murdered by drone swarms."
Wider your horizon a bit. By and large, the world is getting better and better for more and more people. To take your first example: American political theatre is small fry compared to billions lifting themselves out of abject poverty.
The world is getting better (for many) but it's also getting weirder and crazier. Both can be true.
I have this hypothesis that the weirdness and craziness is a symptom of early stage post-scarcity. Scarcity constrains things. Without it we will just spread out across the state space of possibilities like an oil slick, doing all kinds of insane and crazy things for increasingly complex and bizarre reasons. The more resources we have the more the question ceases to be "why" and becomes "why not?"
I call this the singLOLarity hypothesis.
A real post-scarcity future won't look like Star Trek. It'll look a little more like Lexx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexx
If we are ever visited by super-advanced aliens, they will be really weird. Maybe they really are flying around in pimped-out spaceships with multi-color neon running lights mutilating our cattle for the lulz. The question is not "why?" It's "why not?"
I have this hypothesis that the weirdness and craziness is a symptom of early stage post-scarcity. Scarcity constrains things. Without it we will just spread out across the state space of possibilities like an oil slick, doing all kinds of insane and crazy things for increasingly complex and bizarre reasons. The more resources we have the more the question ceases to be "why" and becomes "why not?"
I call this the singLOLarity hypothesis.
A real post-scarcity future won't look like Star Trek. It'll look a little more like Lexx.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexx
If we are ever visited by super-advanced aliens, they will be really weird. Maybe they really are flying around in pimped-out spaceships with multi-color neon running lights mutilating our cattle for the lulz. The question is not "why?" It's "why not?"
> The world is getting better (for many) but it's also getting weirder and crazier. Both can be true.
Yes, that is true. I was taking your use of 'shitty timeline' to mean 'worse'.
I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about post-scarcity as a monolith.
To give an example: Lamborghinis are still very much scarce; but drinking water out of the tap is so cheap in developed countries that we are living in a post-scarcity society for that resource. (I specify 'drinking water', because for industrial or agricultural applications water is still very much a constrained resource.)
Another example is Internet bandwidth for text-only browsing of eg Wikipedia: it's too cheap to matter. Internet bandwidth for watching Netflix isn't quite there yet.
Yes, that is true. I was taking your use of 'shitty timeline' to mean 'worse'.
I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about post-scarcity as a monolith.
To give an example: Lamborghinis are still very much scarce; but drinking water out of the tap is so cheap in developed countries that we are living in a post-scarcity society for that resource. (I specify 'drinking water', because for industrial or agricultural applications water is still very much a constrained resource.)
Another example is Internet bandwidth for text-only browsing of eg Wikipedia: it's too cheap to matter. Internet bandwidth for watching Netflix isn't quite there yet.
I would argue that it's imperative you should also widen your horizon and recognize you are viewing human history in too narrow of a lens (mostly post-victorian era).
The poverty statistic is one that gets thrown around a lot, but it's abysmally low still, and due to how our modern societies place far greater importance on money than any civilization before, this paints a much darker picture of our current timeline. This wealth inequality is also unavoidable, you cannot relocate elsewhere and forage, that land is already taken up by a corporation.
One might believe all civilizations were just as unequal, but they really weren't. Those that were restricted by land had far greater levels of inequality than those by labor[1]. This is crucial because we have created a modern hell, in which no amount of labor will give you wealth, you need land to accumulate wealth and most people do not have that when we are still judging "poverty" based on "$1.25". We make ourselves feel better about our modern life, but have we really advanced past dancing for our superiors' entertainment?
Sometimes when this is discussed, people might feel this is an ungrateful perspective, but I argue the opposite: you can more vividly appreciate our ancestors and their lives for what you do not know of them, and to demand better of our lives instead of settling for these abysmal statistics.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/ab...
The poverty statistic is one that gets thrown around a lot, but it's abysmally low still, and due to how our modern societies place far greater importance on money than any civilization before, this paints a much darker picture of our current timeline. This wealth inequality is also unavoidable, you cannot relocate elsewhere and forage, that land is already taken up by a corporation.
One might believe all civilizations were just as unequal, but they really weren't. Those that were restricted by land had far greater levels of inequality than those by labor[1]. This is crucial because we have created a modern hell, in which no amount of labor will give you wealth, you need land to accumulate wealth and most people do not have that when we are still judging "poverty" based on "$1.25". We make ourselves feel better about our modern life, but have we really advanced past dancing for our superiors' entertainment?
Sometimes when this is discussed, people might feel this is an ungrateful perspective, but I argue the opposite: you can more vividly appreciate our ancestors and their lives for what you do not know of them, and to demand better of our lives instead of settling for these abysmal statistics.
[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/ab...
> This wealth inequality is also unavoidable, you cannot relocate elsewhere and forage, that land is already taken up by a corporation.
Taken up by a sovereign nation state, you mean? They are pervasive. Corporations are a drop in the bucket by comparison. And not all countries even have corporations.
> One might believe all civilizations were just as unequal, but they really weren't.
Why do you bring up inequality? Who cares about that? Let's care about the absolute well-being of people, especially those in lower income percentiles.
For them it's scant consolation in their poverty, if other people are also in poverty. (Ie equality is no consolation.)
> [...] we are still judging "poverty" based on "$1.25".
I didn't mention any of that. You can measure poverty by that metric, and we made huge strides. But you can also look at other indicators. Like life expectancy, or child mortality or access to the Internet, or access to AC, or access to food and clean water, etc. Almost any metric you can think of has gotten better.
And you might quibble with 1.25 1990-dollars as an absolute threshold for poverty, sure. But you can't quibble with it as one marker of relative progress amongst many. Or in other words: 1.25 dollar a day is a low bar, but the number of people who clear that low bar used to be much, much lower in the past than today.
That's progress! Let's hope people's incomes will keep clearing higher and higher bars in the future!
Taken up by a sovereign nation state, you mean? They are pervasive. Corporations are a drop in the bucket by comparison. And not all countries even have corporations.
> One might believe all civilizations were just as unequal, but they really weren't.
Why do you bring up inequality? Who cares about that? Let's care about the absolute well-being of people, especially those in lower income percentiles.
For them it's scant consolation in their poverty, if other people are also in poverty. (Ie equality is no consolation.)
> [...] we are still judging "poverty" based on "$1.25".
I didn't mention any of that. You can measure poverty by that metric, and we made huge strides. But you can also look at other indicators. Like life expectancy, or child mortality or access to the Internet, or access to AC, or access to food and clean water, etc. Almost any metric you can think of has gotten better.
And you might quibble with 1.25 1990-dollars as an absolute threshold for poverty, sure. But you can't quibble with it as one marker of relative progress amongst many. Or in other words: 1.25 dollar a day is a low bar, but the number of people who clear that low bar used to be much, much lower in the past than today.
That's progress! Let's hope people's incomes will keep clearing higher and higher bars in the future!
While that's definitely the long-term trend, the last few years have been, ah, not great there either.
The Covid shutdowns were a damper on the global economy, but otherwise it has still been going upwards.
Or are you talking about something else?
Or are you talking about something else?
The invasion of Ukraine resulted in a fairly significant increase in food poverty for much of the world; prices went up a _lot_. I think it has been moderating lately, but it has not been good.
You forgot about climate change, rampant shootings, the rerise of fascism and white supremacy, the refugee crisis, the pandemic, etc.
Maybe we never left
[deleted]
A year after the supposed year of the end of the world has passed without incident.
The goalposts must be kept moving.
The goalposts must be kept moving.
it's only been a year since 2012? Man it feels longer, must be all the bad news
Even before 2012 people were saying it was either 2012 or 2021 and we're not sure which. The reasoning was basically that some years are missing from the calendar.
It came back in 2020 with a slightly different number: https://www.republicworld.com/fact-check/viral/fact-check-di...
It came back in 2020 with a slightly different number: https://www.republicworld.com/fact-check/viral/fact-check-di...
Sounds like a "guess" rather than a "solution". They have noticed a numerical coincidence and formed a hypothesis. Without additional evidence tying the 819-day count to astronomical observations its not particularly convincing.
There's basically no surviving Mayan literature, thanks to the hard work of the Catholic church. So good luck finding more evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization#Writing_and_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization#Writing_and_...
Led by Bishop Diego De Landa, specifically.
>We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which were not to be seen as superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction.
The same individual of whom it's been said
>ninety-nine percent of what we today know of the Mayas, we know as the result either of what Landa has told us in the pages that follow, or have learned in the use and study of what he told.
So yeah, scholarship of the Maya civilization is extraordinarily challenging.
>We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which were not to be seen as superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction.
The same individual of whom it's been said
>ninety-nine percent of what we today know of the Mayas, we know as the result either of what Landa has told us in the pages that follow, or have learned in the use and study of what he told.
So yeah, scholarship of the Maya civilization is extraordinarily challenging.
That quote still shocks me every time I read it. Such depravity.
Dude, those indios were gonna go to hell if they kept reading those books. Letting them be tortured for all eternity would be truly depraved.
I think the word you were looking for is “narrow-minded”. But even then, Landa thought he had gone through enough to see that there was nothing of value in the Maya books. Even tried to learn the language a little. He just didn’t have the mental and cultural framework to care about other perspectives.
I think the word you were looking for is “narrow-minded”. But even then, Landa thought he had gone through enough to see that there was nothing of value in the Maya books. Even tried to learn the language a little. He just didn’t have the mental and cultural framework to care about other perspectives.
You know they tortured people right? This wasn't some soft-minded priest who just wanted to save them from the devil, by offering them waffles and a nice little chat.
You're giving a racist and close-minded Bishop too much credit IMHO
Or you're attributing malice when stupidity suffices. Hanlon's razor.
Hanlon's razor is great and all. But sometimes there really is just a lot of malice and stupidity at the same time.
Stupidity is itself malicious. CatWChainsaw's Nastier Razor.
It's a miracle that India was spared this fate.
All thanks to the East India Company being a soulless megacorp devoted to profits instead of religious zeal like the other colonists.
All thanks to the East India Company being a soulless megacorp devoted to profits instead of religious zeal like the other colonists.
Even before East India Company, India faced several outsider attacks.
From Alexander the Great to various Khan's, then Mughals, then Portuguese etc. Some important Indian texts were burned/destoryed in these attacks, For eg., the Nalanda University
Still, a lot of texts remained both in written format and in Oral format.
From Alexander the Great to various Khan's, then Mughals, then Portuguese etc. Some important Indian texts were burned/destoryed in these attacks, For eg., the Nalanda University
Still, a lot of texts remained both in written format and in Oral format.
>Nalanda University.
I feel like the role of Nalanda in Indian history has been greatly exaggerated.
The education system was very decentralized, and that's really why most things have survived.
There is not much evidence of concrete knowledge/resources being lost at Nalanda.
I feel like the role of Nalanda in Indian history has been greatly exaggerated.
The education system was very decentralized, and that's really why most things have survived.
There is not much evidence of concrete knowledge/resources being lost at Nalanda.
Nalanda U operated for 600 years from 427 CE (!!!) holding over 9m texts [2] The importance of texts from that generation at that scale cannot be overstated
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220120055253/https://www.patna... [2] https://www.myindiamyglory.com/2017/09/11/nalanda-9-million-...
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220120055253/https://www.patna... [2] https://www.myindiamyglory.com/2017/09/11/nalanda-9-million-...
The 9 million figure is exaggerated by a few order of magnitudes.
Also, think about it in this way: if some of the manuscripts there was the only copy available, were those really impactful?
Also, think about it in this way: if some of the manuscripts there was the only copy available, were those really impactful?
Two more factors, India had contact with most of the world since the beginning, so no new disease wiped it on contact. Also you can not overestimate the population of India.
The population density was not higher than the Mayans, Aztecs (and several dozen civilizations in the middle east) who did get wiped out.
You are right about the diseases being endemic in the population.
You are right about the diseases being endemic in the population.
Using the word "literature" is highly eurocentric here. These weren't really books, more like very specific manuals for an esoteric and very small caste of priests.
Yeah, I'm all for investigating this line of thinking further, but all sorts of weird coincidences come up in numerology that no serious person would consider "science".
Maybe. What becomes clear when visiting the archeological sites of Mayans and even predecessors to the Mayans is how absolutely serious they were about the calendar, the seasons, the pathways and timings of the sun and moon, the comings and goings of the animals in accordance with the calendar, etc. I wouldn't call the hypothesis in that paper numerology. It's entirely in line with what they devoted incredible amounts of energy to. Circumstantial, sure, but a bit more than coincidental.
Is this science? This is a human made up calendar, not how many protons are in a gold atom.
Science doesn't have some super clear, strict, reductive definition like the "scientific method" you may have been taught in school. The idea that all science must make or test predictions is just based on an old misinterpretation of the philosophy of Karl Popper, mainly by physicists. The only real general requirement I think you can make is that all science involves some level of interrogation and study of the physical world. Anthropology qualifies in abudance.
Whether it's good science is beside the point.
Whether it's good science is beside the point.
This is a nonsense definition. Science absolutely must follow the scientific method. What you are talking about is natural philosophy and protosciences - its the difference between alchemy and chemistry - which is all the difference in the world.
There are different scientific methods and different senses that need to be used for abstract topics like Alchemy. Just because most of the worlds population lost the ability to use these other senses to understand the science behind Alchemy does not make it any less important. What you are referring to in your one-size-fits-all "Scientific Method" is called Scientism. A belief, just like religion, that the only method that matters is the accepted method.
Are you actually on HN arguing that alchemy is some kind of real thing, a skill that we lost? Different senses? Is this a joke?
My understanding of alchemy is that its practitioners tried to transmute matter from one kind to another, e.g. lead to gold, because they didn't know enough about how matter worked to know they'd always fail.
My understanding of alchemy is that its practitioners tried to transmute matter from one kind to another, e.g. lead to gold, because they didn't know enough about how matter worked to know they'd always fail.
Yes It really was and is a thing. There are lots of people on Hacker News that are not in the place of dismissing things they don't understand. And yes it was a skill that was lost. The only joke is the fact that people lost touch with a lot of ancient knowledge and think everything revolves around this so called accepted "Scientific Method" belief that has dominated our world for way too long.
Being that you didn't back up your claim about alchemy with anything, I don't believe you have any idea what you're talking about. Turn off the Ancient Aliens, or whatever YouTube series has given you these ideas about lost ancient knowledge. Work on your epistemology. People will tell you literally anything sensational if it's supported by advertising and makes them a buck. All the content I've seen about ancient lost knowledge is chock full of easy to debunk claims and willful misrepresentation of what we know about ancient history. It's content that preys on the curious but uneducated.
You don't need evidence to understand something, and most importantly, I don't need to prove to you or anyone else that I have studied alchemy to understand that is a thing that most people don't really understand. Your just someone on the internet, like everyone else. Because you bought into the belief that there is only one "Scientific Method" doesn't make you special.
This amounts to a bunch of nonsense and I wish you would reconsider commenting if you have nothing to contribute.
[deleted]
If there aren’t testable explanations or predictions, it’s not science. Otherwise the word carries no meaning.
Then why does the word science predate the scientific method? Clearly it used to carry meaning, even if you find it now meaningless in your zeal for the scientific method.
Because people used to have far weaker vocabulary. Science before “the scientific method” was roughly some very vague “thinking about the world logically”. It was too open ended to be useful and it wasn’t until the scientific method brought some rigor that it became useful.
I promise you actual scientists spend far less time thinking about the scientific method and the philosophy of science than their cheerleaders do.
We're too busy cleaning up data and wondering if the flow cytometer is clogged for the third time this week. That and grants/reports/meetings.
And what is the scientific method, in your mind, exactly?
I am not taking your bait, because to quote you:
> Science doesn't have some super clear, strict, reductive definition like the "scientific method" you may have been taught in school.
This is peak anti-intellectualism, this is the exact kind of school bashing that Isaac Asimov warned us about.
There is no definition of it "in my mind", this is not about opinion vs opinion here, friend.
> Science doesn't have some super clear, strict, reductive definition like the "scientific method" you may have been taught in school.
This is peak anti-intellectualism, this is the exact kind of school bashing that Isaac Asimov warned us about.
There is no definition of it "in my mind", this is not about opinion vs opinion here, friend.
So I'm supposed to divine what you're thinking because you think it's bait?
I ask, because usually, when I hear people say "hurr durr scientific method", the defition that comes out of their mouth excludes almost all of science except 2 or 3 fields. And I'm not interested in having a discussion with a silly disagreement in terminology at the core.
I'm not sure where you're getting all your veiled insults from. I'm not an anti-intellectual, and I'm not bashing school. But yes, kids get taught straight up incorrect things in school all the time. That doesn't mean I think school is bad, in fact I encourage it. It's just a fundamental consequence of the fact that information is never perfect, and neither are the teachers or authors communicating it.
Try to examine your own biases and figure out why you're placing me in some kinda crackpot category just because I think anthropology is a valid field of science.
I ask, because usually, when I hear people say "hurr durr scientific method", the defition that comes out of their mouth excludes almost all of science except 2 or 3 fields. And I'm not interested in having a discussion with a silly disagreement in terminology at the core.
I'm not sure where you're getting all your veiled insults from. I'm not an anti-intellectual, and I'm not bashing school. But yes, kids get taught straight up incorrect things in school all the time. That doesn't mean I think school is bad, in fact I encourage it. It's just a fundamental consequence of the fact that information is never perfect, and neither are the teachers or authors communicating it.
Try to examine your own biases and figure out why you're placing me in some kinda crackpot category just because I think anthropology is a valid field of science.
Well, yes, biology is not a science, for example.
(But linguistics definitely is.)
We also have things like computer "science", library "science" and military "science".
Just because it's a "science" in common parlance doesn't mean it actually is.
(But linguistics definitely is.)
We also have things like computer "science", library "science" and military "science".
Just because it's a "science" in common parlance doesn't mean it actually is.
This is anti-intellectualism in the sense that the world is unbalanced when the focus is solely on the intellect. Reason is important, but its not the only facility that matters in this world. The reason why there is so much negativity towards intellectualism is that our world has been shaped in a horrific way due to this imbalance.
> There is no definition of it "in my mind"
Where do you think definitions reside?
Where do you think definitions reside?
Ask Plato
The concept of where definitions reside is a philosophical question that has been debated for centuries. One prominent view is that definitions exist in a realm of abstract objects, separate from the physical world, as argued by Plato in his theory of Forms. However, other philosophers have proposed different views, such as the idea that definitions are constructed through language and human understanding. Ultimately, the nature of definitions is a complex and contested topic in philosophy.
Do you really have to defer to authority? You can't think for yourself?
The difference you are describing aren't that great and haven't been established that long even within the confines of modern history.
Every time I see a mention of numerology I get a chuckle thinking back to Umberto Eco's book "Foucault's Pendulum" and the measuring of shop kiosks.
True. 20 and 45 just happen to be round whole numbers.
[deleted]
Too bad following the "More Information" link only leads to a Cambridge University Press page offering the article for $26.
Just as the Mayans predicted.
Anyone interested in this will find Zecharia Sitchin's "Lost Realms" quite interesting book to read.
TLDR: Researchers solved the Mayan 819-day count mystery by finding that 20 cycles of it align with the planets' recurring positions in the sky over a 45-year period, connecting it to the general Maya calendar, the Tzolk'in.
jutrewag(2)