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

[peacegirl]

Obviously, if two premises contradict each other, something is wrong, but nothing in his proof has contradicted itself.

P1: Light takes time to get to the eye.

P2: Light is at the eye instantly.

Light flows.

No, it moves in straight lines at c. Water flows.

The only thing that is at the eye instantly is the light that is reflected onto our photoreceptors.

That's nonsense. Reflected light is at the reflecting object, in the instant of its reflection, and then takes time to travel from there to the eye.

No, you're missing the concept entirely.

OK.

Light is reflected off the object.

At which instant, the light is "at the object", right?

ADDING TO THIS POST FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION: It isn't that light doesn't get reflected off the object. It's that we wouldn't see the object if that object's reflection weren't already at the eye. This reflection has nothing to do with the speed of light because the light is not what we're interpreting.

There is no time involved when looking at the object because light has to be at the retina in this version of sight or we would not be able to see said object. It's the necessary condition to see anything at all.

Well, there must be time involved, because light "at the object" is not also "at the eye" (given that the object is not "at the eye"). So time is required for the light to get from "at the object" to "at the eye".

If the light is at the object in that instant when it is reflected off the object, then it is NOT at the eye at that instant.

You're still not getting it. If we can see the object, the light has to be at the eye. There is no gap.

And "because light has to be at the retina in this version of sight or we would not be able to see said object", we therefore cannot see instantly.

Of course we can. It doesn't mean that light doesn't travel. It's just that we wouldn't see the object if light were not already at the eye.

This is unavoidable from what you yourself just said.

Light travels; therefore, you have concluded that what we see cannot be instantaneous, but that's not correct when seen from a different perspective.

So, to summarize, there is absolutely no gap between the object seen and the light because time is not involved, even though light travels.

That not only does not follow from what you wrote; It is directly opposed to what you wrote. It's not a "summary"; It's a contradiction of what you just finished saying.

There is no contradiction. Light travels, and we see in real time.

 

[peacegirl]

Why cling to an idea that is obviously wrong? Why not come to terms with it being wrong and let it go?

No DBT, not because I wouldn't let it go if it was wrong, but because IT'S NOT BEEN PROVEN WRONG.

It has been shown to be wrong. Physics falsifies it, biology falsifies it. There is no doubt that it's wrong.

If it’s important to you, believe whatever you like, but the world at large is never going to agree.

It may not. The resistance is palpable, especially when it disrupts a worldview that has never been challenged.

Resistance? You are saying that there is something wrong with our understanding of Physics or Biology?

How does an image of a distant object appear instantly at the eye?

How does it get there?

Have you been sleeping this whole time?

Oy!

Why oy? He must not be listening because I've explained my position clearly. It's like all my posts have been deleted in one fell swoop. It's disheartening.

 

[pood]

Why oy? He must not be listening because I've explained my position clearly. It's like all my posts have been deleted in one fell swoop. It's disheartening.

No, you have not. You have waffled, evaded, confabulated, and ignored questions.

How is light at the eye instantly, when you concede it takes light time to get to the eye?

 

[steve_bank]

She must think we are a bunch of schmucks.

Sher has been schlepping this stuff around for Lessans all her life complaining abut the burden.