“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[peacegirl]

Peacgirl

You keep coming back to a zero time delay.

Every day in electronics the speed of electromagnetic waves in slower mediums than space are measured, it i routine.

Keep in mid visible light is only a small fraction of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Radio waves are 'light', with different frequencies/wavelengths.

In common usage light can refer to the entire spectrum with visible spectrum boning specif.

Radio and TV station transitions are the same phenomena as visible light. So your idea would have to apply to radio and TV receivers. And your cell phones.

Electromagnetic spectrum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The electromagnetic spectrum is the full range of electromagnetic radiation, organized by frequency or wavelength. The spectrum is divided into separate bands, with different names for the electromagnetic waves within each band. From low to high frequency these are: radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays. The electromagnetic waves in each of these bands have different characteristics, such as how they are produced, how they interact with matter, and their practical applications.

A fundamental principle is that nothing propagates faster than the speed of light. Maybe some day, as of today there is no known way to get around that limit.

When you say zero delay you violate C.

Yes science questions and evolves. Some theories can be demonstrated and succeed, others do not.

As to light in the 19th century there were competing theories to explain electric and magnetic phenomena. Maxwell put it all together and succeeded. He predicted how light would propagate and C the speed of light as a constant. Eventually as technology evolved his theory was demonstrated. The rsult all the electronic technology we have today.

I see no way to take your father's thought experiment to actual physical testing.

It is not jut science when an engineer designs something it has to be testable.

Theories about airplane wings and lift had to be tested.

This has nothing to traveling faster than the speed of light. All he could do was share his observations, which no one has read or understood.

 

[peacegirl]

It's not so much ''delayed time,'' but the time the light takes to travel from its source to the eye, the eyes to transmit information to the brain and the brain to process and act on that information.

A process that is not instant at any stage.

Processing of information is not what he was referring to when he claimed we see in real time. Nothing changes in how we process the information. Call it delayed if it suits you.

What we see is not instant. Light is not instant. Light is not instantly at the eye, that is the point.

You still don't get why efferent vision changes the direction. I understand but this back and forth is wasteful. If you can't entertain the possibility that we see in real time even though all other processes remain the same, this is not going to get us anywhere. Let's agree to disagree because that's the easiest way out for both of us.

It is not a possibility. It is logically impossible.

Right, just like determinism is logically impossible. Your logic fails.

 

[pood]

You admit it takes light 8.5 minutes to reach the earth from the sun. The eye is on the earth. How can the eye detect the light at the sun instantly, if it takes the light 8.5 minutes to reach the earth, where the eye is?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

Functionally there is no difference between a digital camera and the eye. Optic nerves do not interreor integrate images, they are essentially electrical wires.

The retina essentially digitizes a picture into pixels.

The human retina doesn't have a pixel count in the way a digital camera does, but it's estimated to have a visual resolution equivalent to about 576 megapixels, according to scientists and photographers. This is a theoretical maximum based on the density of photoreceptor cells in the retina, specifically the fovea, which provides the highest resolution.

I see you are picking up the jargon, like photons. You still don't really comprehend.

You are creating, making things up, as you go along without really understanding what you are saying. You are larning from experince.

There was a guy Universal Soldier on the forum for a while.

He claimed he read books on math qualifying him as a mathematician. He went on to argue math had it all wrong and he knew what was right. We were conditioned by the establishment.

Like you he told us we did not get it. Yet he could not do straightforward math like calculus.

Work with me if you would.

Two photons from a light source bounce off a rock. One arrives at the lens of an eye, the other at the lens of a digital cornea. Both take a finite amount of time to arrive at each lens, do you agree?

No, a camera would work the same way as the eye; so would a telescope.

Each photon takes a finite amount of time to pass trough the eye lens and camera lens and reach the retina and focal plane arrive. Do you agree?

Again, no. Like I said, light travels but when you are taking a picture of something or seeing something, both are snapshots of a real time object or event, not the past. Obviously, if we were reading from a history book, the pictures in the book would be from the past. Do you see the difference?

It takes a finite amount of time for the photon to be converted to electric current in the retina and focal plane array. Do you agree?

Yes, I agree. But this in no way disproves real time vision or the fact that a camera or telescope is viewing a snapshot of the object or event in real time.

It takes a finite amount of time for the retina and focal plane array signals to reach the brain and computer processor through nerves or wires. Do you agree?

I go along with that, but what you're saying, once again, does not prove that we are receiving light (or images) from millions of light years ago which strikes the retina, gets processed like a word processor, and is then converted into an image. I understand that there is a connection between the retina, the optic nerve, and the visual cortex, but the question still remains as to whether what we are seeing is the image formed in the brain from the internal processing that takes place (i.e., the connecting circuits) or the real deal using the processing to make sense of what we are seeing as we integrate it with our personal experiences.

The signal from the retina are processed in brain to create an image, the signals from the focal plane array are converted to an image in the processor. Processing in both cases takes a finite amount of time. Do you agree?

Whether the transduction creates an image through chemical changes or not does not change the fact that light at the retina does not involve distance or time if the eyes are efferent. If you understood his reasoning, you may have a different point of view, but I'm at a total and complete disadvantage. It's like talking blind because no one here has attempted to read his explanation.

Note our facial recognition in our brains is both genetically programmed and leaned from experience.

Facial recognition comes from experience through the use of words that are used to identify (such as mommy, daddy, etc.). These words help distinguish not only who certain individuals are, but who they are not. Animals can't do this because they don't have the same language ability as humans. There was a case where a border collie had an uncanny ability to connect object/word associations and could pick out a stuffed toy when asked to find it amidst hundreds of other toys. This shows how words form relationships that allow for distinguishing between one thing and another. Even the world's smartest dog (according to Wikipedia) didn't come close to having the capacity of higher-level cognition that humans have.

Video: Smartest Dog Ever Can Pick Out 1,022 Toys By Name

Bet your Christmas puppy won't be able to do this. Actually, you'd better hope it can't, because your dog-toy needs might break the bank. A border collie named Chaser has learned the names of 1,022 individual items — more than any other animal, even the legendary Alex the parrot.

www.popsci.com

 

[peacegirl]

You admit it takes light 8.5 minutes to reach the earth from the sun. The eye is on the earth. How can the eye detect the light at the sun instantly, if it takes the light 8.5 minutes to reach the earth, where the eye is?

Our eyes don't fly away to some ethereal place Pood. They are here on Earth. The only difference is that we are not receiving traveling light which is then interpreted as a virtual image. We are seeing the real deal in real time, which is why we would see the Sun turned on instantly (if it met the requirements for sight) before we would see each other 8.5 minutes later.

 

[steve_bank]

Again, no. Like I said, light travels but when you are taking a picture of something or seeing something, both are snapshots of real time, not the past.

Ok, back to debates on time and what is past, now, and future. HeeHee.

Under your paradigm RADAR would not work.

The processes of the eye are not a snapshot, it is a continuous process.

In a picture photons cause a chemical change in film or are converted to electricity and stored in electronic memory. That does not get you anywhere. In either case it is not instantaneous, it takes time to occur and it is never an exact moment in time.

Nothing happens without a delay, incurring taking a picture. Effect can never occur before or simultaneous to a cause.


"Two photons from a light source bounce off a rock. One arrives at the lens of an eye, the other at the lens of a digital camera. Both take a finite amount of time to arrive at each lens, do you agree?"

You said no, again a violation of C.

Philosophize is one thing. To get the abstention of science you would have to express the idea numerically as a set of equations.

velocity = ds/dt meters per second.

Imagine you want to cross 100 keters. In this simple example velocity = 100 /dt.

As dt the change in time approachess zer, velocty goes to infinity,a singlarity. An imopoosble situation. That is the knd of tnings you will run into with you ideas,

 

[pood]

You admit it takes light 8.5 minutes to reach the earth from the sun. The eye is on the earth. How can the eye detect the light at the sun instantly, if it takes the light 8.5 minutes to reach the earth, where the eye is?

Our eyes don't fly away to some ethereal place Pood. They are here on Earth. The only difference is that we are not receiving traveling light which is then interpreted as a virtual image. We are seeing the real deal in real time, which is why we would see the Sun turned on instantly (if it met the requirements for sight) before we would see each other 8.5 minutes later.

But the light takes 8.5 minutes to reach the earth where our eyes are. How can it reach our eyes instantly if it takes 8.5 minutes to reach them?

 

[bilby]

What gives you the right to be so condescending?

I am supported by all of the evidence, and you are supported by none.

That is what gives me that right.

If you don't like it, you need to stop being so obviously and utterly wrong about how reality works.

 

[bilby]

You don’t have to be the guardian to protect people who may accept this “claptrap.”

Yeah, I really do. People have a right not to be defrauded by your kind of charlatan, and some are sufficiently naïve as to require protection.

Protecting those who cannot protect themselves is everyones moral duty.

You don't have to take money from gullible people in exchange for valueless verbiage. You could get a proper job, doing something productive.

 

[peacegirl]

Again, no. Like I said, light travels but when you are taking a picture of something or seeing something, both are snapshots of real time, not the past.

Ok, back to debates on time and what is past, now, and future. HeeHee.

Under your paradigm RADAR would not work.

The processes of the eye are not a snapshot, it is a continuous process.

Yes, we see snapshots in real time that are constantly changing from moment to moment.

In a picture photons cause a chemical change in film or are converted to electricity and stored in electronic memory. That does not get you anywhere. In either case it is not instantaneous, it takes time to occur and it is never an exact moment in time.

I am only referring to seeing the outside world, not the conversion in a picture. Everything we do takes time. Processing something takes time. Going from point A to point B takes time. I am only referring to how the brain and eyes work in relation to light. That's it. Please don't bring everything but the kitchen sink into this.

Nothing happens without a delay, incurring taking a picture. Effect can never occur before or simultaneous to a cause.

I'm not saying it does. But... if light is not carrying the image (the wavelength) through space/time, but rather it is there when a telescope, camera, or a person's eyes are focused on the object, then we would be seeing said object (if the requirements were met) because the wavelength that is reflected off of the object would be at the lens or the retina instantly.

"Two photons from a light source bounce off a rock. One arrives at the lens of an eye, the other at the lens of a digital camera. Both take a finite amount of time to arrive at each lens, do you agree?"

You keep talking about bouncing off of... That's where there is a problem. The image is not being reflected or bouncing. It is there, as I said, when as telescope, a camera, or a person's eye is focused on the object. If the object meets the requirements, it is obvious that the wavelength would have to be at the lens or eye, or we wouldn't be able to see it from any instrument.

You said no, again a violation of C.

It does not violate the speed of light. It's not even being measured in this account, so how can there be a violation?

Philosophize is one thing. To get the abstention of science you would have to express the idea numerically as a set of equations.

I think he gave enough to warrant a full inquiry and investigation. Whether that will ever take place is not up to me.

velocity = ds/dt meters per second.

Imagine you want to cross 100 keters. In this simple example velocity = 100 /dt.

As dt the change in time approachess zer, velocty goes to infinity,a singlarity. An imopoosble situation. That is the knd of tnings you will run into with you ideas,

I cannot repeat enough that what he observed does not violate physics in any way, shape, or form. It has nothing to do with velocity or distance, so you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[peacegirl]

You don’t have to be the guardian to protect people who may accept this “claptrap.”

Yeah, I really do. People have a right not to be defrauded by your kind of charlatan, and some are sufficiently naïve as to require protection.

Protecting those who cannot protect themselves is everyones moral duty.

You don't have to take money from gullible people in exchange for valueless verbiage. You could get a proper job, doing something productive.

If I could lower the price to $0, I would, but Amazon won't let me.

 

[pood]

@peacegirl, the universe is 13.8 billion years old. We have images of the very early universe.If real-time seeing were true, we could not have these images. Follow the link and read how the Webb telescope sees far back in time.

 

[steve_bank]

In technology real time is a relative term, it doe not mean without delay.

When I listen to a local radio station it i real time, there is a short delay between speaking into the microphone and my hearing it. If I watch video from Mas it i not real time, a long delay.A lot can happen between the video transition and reception on Earth.

We do not see the Sun in real time. A lot can happen on the Sun in in 8 minutes.

When we talk on a cell phone we consider it real time, but there is always a delay. The minimum possible delay is the speed of light.

 

[steve_bank]

You don’t have to be the guardian to protect people who may accept this “claptrap.”

Yeah, I really do. People have a right not to be defrauded by your kind of charlatan, and some are sufficiently naïve as to require protection.

Protecting those who cannot protect themselves is everyones moral duty.

You don't have to take money from gullible people in exchange for valueless verbiage. You could get a proper job, doing something productive.

If I could lower the price to $0, I would, but Amazon won't let me.

How much would pay me to read t?

 

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl, the universe is 13.8 billion years old. We have images of the very early universe.If real-time seeing were true, we could not have these images. Follow the link and read how the Webb telescope sees far back in time.

Sure.

 

[pood]

Afraid to read the link?

 

[peacegirl]

You don’t have to be the guardian to protect people who may accept this “claptrap.”

Yeah, I really do. People have a right not to be defrauded by your kind of charlatan, and some are sufficiently naïve as to require protection.

Protecting those who cannot protect themselves is everyones moral duty.

You don't have to take money from gullible people in exchange for valueless verbiage. You could get a proper job, doing something productive.

If I could lower the price to $0, I would, but Amazon won't let me.

How much would pay me to read t?

Nope, it would be like someone being chosen to be on a jury with a complete bias against the defendant.

In technology real time is a relative term, it doe not mean without delay.

I understand that real time is a relative term and can mean different things. So can free will mean different things to different people. That's why we have to define our words carefully, so there is clear communication.

When I listen to a local radio station it i real time, there is a short delay between speaking into the microphone and my hearing it. If I watch video from Mas it i not real time, a long delay.A lot can happen between the video transition and reception on Earth.

We do not see the Sun in real time. A lot can happen on the Sun in in 8 minutes.

When we talk on a cell phone we consider it real time, but there is always a delay. The minimum possible delay is the speed of light.

I understand that there is a lapse in time when you're talking about radio transmission. And I also understand that watching a video from Mars would not be in real time. Talking on the phone involves soundwaves, which takes travel time. But comparing a video or a radio transmission to what Lessans observed in terms of how the brain and eyes work are not one and the same. I am sure you will continue to think he was a crackpot, which would ruin any chances of offering a fair and balanced review.

 

[pood]

You don’t have to be the guardian to protect people who may accept this “claptrap.”

Yeah, I really do. People have a right not to be defrauded by your kind of charlatan, and some are sufficiently naïve as to require protection.

Protecting those who cannot protect themselves is everyones moral duty.

You don't have to take money from gullible people in exchange for valueless verbiage. You could get a proper job, doing something productive.

If I could lower the price to $0, I would, but Amazon won't let me.

How much would pay me to read t?

Nope, it would be like someone being chosen to be on a jury with a complete bias against the defendant.

In technology real time is a relative term, it doe not mean without delay.

I understand that real time is a relative term and can mean different things. So can free will mean different things to different people. That's why we have to define our words carefully, so there is clear communication.

When I listen to a local radio station it i real time, there is a short delay between speaking into the microphone and my hearing it. If I watch video from Mas it i not real time, a long delay.A lot can happen between the video transition and reception on Earth.

We do not see the Sun in real time. A lot can happen on the Sun in in 8 minutes.

When we talk on a cell phone we consider it real time, but there is always a delay. The minimum possible delay is the speed of light.

I understand that there is a lapse in time when you're talking about radio transmission. And I also understand that watching a video from Mars would not be in real time. Talking on the phone involves soundwaves, which takes travel time. But comparing a video or a radio transmission to what Lessans' observed in terms of how the brain and eyes work are not one and the same. I am sure you will continue to think he was a crackpot, which would ruin any chances of offering a fair and balanced review.

Radio is light, peacegirl.

 

[peacegirl]

Afraid to read the link?

Not at all, but there is a lot of theory involved in the early formation of the universe, just as there is a lot of theory in archeology when it comes to our origins. It's all controversial.

 

[peacegirl]

You don’t have to be the guardian to protect people who may accept this “claptrap.”

Yeah, I really do. People have a right not to be defrauded by your kind of charlatan, and some are sufficiently naïve as to require protection.

Protecting those who cannot protect themselves is everyones moral duty.

You don't have to take money from gullible people in exchange for valueless verbiage. You could get a proper job, doing something productive.

If I could lower the price to $0, I would, but Amazon won't let me.

How much would pay me to read t?

Nope, it would be like someone being chosen to be on a jury with a complete bias against the defendant.

In technology real time is a relative term, it doe not mean without delay.

I understand that real time is a relative term and can mean different things. So can free will mean different things to different people. That's why we have to define our words carefully, so there is clear communication.

When I listen to a local radio station it i real time, there is a short delay between speaking into the microphone and my hearing it. If I watch video from Mas it i not real time, a long delay.A lot can happen between the video transition and reception on Earth.

We do not see the Sun in real time. A lot can happen on the Sun in in 8 minutes.

When we talk on a cell phone we consider it real time, but there is always a delay. The minimum possible delay is the speed of light.

I understand that there is a lapse in time when you're talking about radio transmission. And I also understand that watching a video from Mars would not be in real time. Talking on the phone involves soundwaves, which takes travel time. But comparing a video or a radio transmission to what Lessans' observed in terms of how the brain and eyes work are not one and the same. I am sure you will continue to think he was a crackpot, which would ruin any chances of offering a fair and balanced review.

Radio is light, peacegirl.

I meant digital signals that are converted into radio waves.

A Complete Guide On Mars Rover and the Earth

How do Mars rovers compare to Earth’s technology? Learn about their mission, discoveries, and impact on space exploration in our latest blog!

www.starscapes.zone