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

[peacegirl]

Do you understand how he came to this finding?

It is increasingly apparent that he pulled it from his arse.

You’re so wrong.

Certainly his "finding" owes nothing to any study of how sight, or eyes, or light, or anything else works.

He explained it and I posted part of it. Your attitude is very confrontative and it’s a turnoff! So forget it!

To repeat: we see the object when it is in our field of view and is large enough and bright enough to be seen. Where Lessans diverged from the standard view (based on his astute observations regarding words) is that the light does not bounce off of the object taking the information (or wavelength) with it through space/time.

So what is his claimed mechanism? Saying what it is not isn't actually saying anything.

You don’t read and I’m not going to be bullied by you, so move on.

I am fairly confident that "what is his claimed mechanism?" isn't bullying.

"the light does not bounce off of the object taking the information (or wavelength) with it through space/time".

OK, so what does happen?

Over here, we have a large bright object.

Over there is a person, who can see the object. He says "I know there's a large bright object over there, because I can see it".

How, exactly, does the knowledge of the object get from the object, to the person seeing it, according to Lessans?

He explained not this, but why this is inaccurate. You don’t know because you refuse to read. This is such a joke!

 

[pood]

Do you understand how he came to this finding?

It is increasingly apparent that he pulled it from his arse.

You’re so wrong.

Certainly his "finding" owes nothing to any study of how sight, or eyes, or light, or anything else works.

He explained it and I posted part of it. Your attitude is very confrontative and it’s a turnoff! So forget it!

To repeat: we see the object when it is in our field of view and is large enough and bright enough to be seen. Where Lessans diverged from the standard view (based on his astute observations regarding words) is that the light does not bounce off of the object taking the information (or wavelength) with it through space/time.

So what is his claimed mechanism? Saying what it is not isn't actually saying anything.

You don’t read and I’m not going to be bullied by you, so move on.

I am fairly confident that "what is his claimed mechanism?" isn't bullying.

"the light does not bounce off of the object taking the information (or wavelength) with it through space/time".

OK, so what does happen?

Over here, we have a large bright object.

Over there is a person, who can see the object. He says "I know there's a large bright object over there, because I can see it".

How, exactly, does the knowledge of the object get from the object, to the person seeing it, according to Lessans?

He explained not this, but why this is inaccurate. You don’t know because you refuse to read. This is such a joke!

No, we did read. He’s wrong.

 

[pood]

The speed of light is finite, but the same as measured in all reference frames. This has the following consequence. A train is speeding by. Person A is seated in the middle of the train, equidistant from the back and front of it. Person B is on the embankment. When the train arrives at a point where Person A, on the train, and Person B, on the ground, are facing each other, Person B sees lightning flashes striking the front and back of the train simultaneously.

What does Person A, on the train, see?

An object on the train, such as a ball rolling in the direction of the train’s motion, will add the train’s motion to its own motion. It’s called Galilean additivity. But light doesn’t do that. Because it does not add the train’s motion to its own, it follows that the person on the train will see the lightning flash at the front of the train first, and then sometime later the flash at the back.

So Person A and Person B disagree on when the flashes occur. Person A, on the train, thinks the occur sequentially. Person B thinks they occur simultaneously. Who is actually right? They both are. This phenomenon, the relativity of simultaneity, also accounts for time dilation and length contraction.

This is Einstein’s special theory of relativity in a nutshell. It has been tested and verified innumerable different ways over the last 120 years.

This phenomenon is ONLY possible because of delayed-time seeing. If Person A and Person B saw light instantly, they would never disagree on when the lightning flashes struck the train. So we know that what the author claims has no connection to reality.

But this has been explained to you.

 

[peacegirl]

I just went through every single one on your list, and it does not disprove what you think it does. Most of the experiments were to find out the speed of light. What does this have to do with his claim?

Everything on that list disproves his claims.

Where?

Nothing on the list that Pood offered did either.

They ALL demonstrate that we see, indeed must see, things as they were in the past. Einstein’s special theory of relativity could never even have been formulated if we saw in real time. We explained why that is to you, too.

Einstein would have been the first to admit that he didn't have all the answers. He had a lot of theories, some were true, some weren't. You can't use someone else's theory (even Einstein) to disprove a claim that you don't like because it could disrupt present day thinking.

Ad hom and false.

Then it's ad hom in your eyes, but it's true that anyone (not just you) who dares to disagree with Einstein would be laughed at.

You have to disprove the claim, not say he's wrong because Einstein was right about everything.

Right. That has been done.

No it hasn't.

 

[peacegirl]

Do you understand how he came to this finding?

It is increasingly apparent that he pulled it from his arse.

You’re so wrong.

Certainly his "finding" owes nothing to any study of how sight, or eyes, or light, or anything else works.

He explained it and I posted part of it. Your attitude is very confrontative and it’s a turnoff! So forget it!

To repeat: we see the object when it is in our field of view and is large enough and bright enough to be seen. Where Lessans diverged from the standard view (based on his astute observations regarding words) is that the light does not bounce off of the object taking the information (or wavelength) with it through space/time.

So what is his claimed mechanism? Saying what it is not isn't actually saying anything.

You don’t read and I’m not going to be bullied by you, so move on.

I am fairly confident that "what is his claimed mechanism?" isn't bullying.

"the light does not bounce off of the object taking the information (or wavelength) with it through space/time".

OK, so what does happen?

Over here, we have a large bright object.

Over there is a person, who can see the object. He says "I know there's a large bright object over there, because I can see it".

How, exactly, does the knowledge of the object get from the object, to the person seeing it, according to Lessans?

He explained not this, but why this is inaccurate. You don’t know because you refuse to read. This is such a joke!

No, we did read. He’s wrong.

That's a bunch of crock!

 

[pood]

I just went through every single one on your list, and it does not disprove what you think it does. Most of the experiments were to find out the speed of light. What does this have to do with his claim?

Everything on that list disproves his claims.

Where?

Nothing on the list that Pood offered did either.

They ALL demonstrate that we see, indeed must see, things as they were in the past. Einstein’s special theory of relativity could never even have been formulated if we saw in real time. We explained why that is to you, too.

Einstein would have been the first to admit that he didn't have all the answers. He had a lot of theories, some were true, some weren't. You can't use someone else's theory (even Einstein) to disprove a claim that you don't like because it could disrupt present day thinking.

Ad hom and false.

Then it's ad hom in your eyes, but it's true that anyone (not just you) who dares to disagree with Einstein would be laughed at.

No, they would not, if they actually showed Einstein was wrong. Your author did not do that. He even invoked Einstein’s name, without realizing that his absurd claims are in direct variance with what Einstein showed. Nobody who is rational thinks “because Einstein said it, it must be true.” That is, however, what you think about your author. Einstein was also a hard determinist. He was wrong. He also said there were hidden variables to account for the results of quantum mechanics. He was wrong about that, too. See? I’m disagreeing with Einstein.

You have to disprove the claim, not say he's wrong because Einstein was right about everything.

Right. That has been done.

No it hasn't.

Yes, it has. Sorry.

 

[peacegirl]

Do you understand how he came to this finding?

It is increasingly apparent that he pulled it from his arse.

You’re so wrong.

Certainly his "finding" owes nothing to any study of how sight, or eyes, or light, or anything else works.

He explained it and I posted part of it. Your attitude is very confrontative and it’s a turnoff! So forget it!

To repeat: we see the object when it is in our field of view and is large enough and bright enough to be seen. Where Lessans diverged from the standard view (based on his astute observations regarding words) is that the light does not bounce off of the object taking the information (or wavelength) with it through space/time.

So what is his claimed mechanism? Saying what it is not isn't actually saying anything.

You don’t read and I’m not going to be bullied by you, so move on.

I am fairly confident that "what is his claimed mechanism?" isn't bullying.

It is your disrespect by the way you said it's coming out of his arse. I won't talk to you anymore if you keep talking this way. Whether you understand the mechanism or not, this way of speaking is out of line and I won't tolerate it.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

I have to think back to when I knew little science. You are being hit with new concepts you are unfamiliar with in a short period of time.

The obscure theories of your guru just do not match what we observe and demonstrate by experiment.

You are not going to convince us. If you keep posting you will get the same response and then express displeasure with responses.

Buddha said 2300 years ago we make our own suffering by attachments we make. If you continue to try and convince us you will make yourself unhappy. Not our problem.

The cliche is that insanity is repeating the same failed approach expecting a different outcome.

 

[pood]

Peacegirl

I have to think back to when I knew little science. You are being hit with new concepts you are unfamiliar with in a short period of time.

The obscure theories of your guru just do not match what we observe and demonstrate by experiment.

You are not going to convince us. If you keep posting you will get the same response and then express displeasure with responses.

Buddha said 2300 years ago we make our own suffering by attachments we make. If you continue to try and convince us you will make yourself unhappy. Not our problem.

The cliche is that insanity is repeating the same failed approach expecting a different outcome.

I fact, they are not new to her. All of these concepts have been explained to her many times over the years, at several different boards. She simply rejects them. She rejects reality. It’s a fascinating phenomenon.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

I have to think back to when I knew little science. You are being hit with new concepts you are unfamiliar with in a short period of time.

The obscure theories of your guru just do not match what we observe and demonstrate by experiment.

You are not going to convince us. If you keep posting you will get the same response and then express displeasure with responses.

Buddha said 2300 years ago we make our own suffering by attachments we make. If you continue to try and convince us you will make yourself unhappy. Not our problem.

The cliche is that insanity is repeating the same failed approach expecting a different outcome.

I posted that I want to end the conversation. No one read the chapter which showed why he came to this conclusion. I never wanted to bring this up, but Pood couldn't wait. I was looking at each one of these and I'd like to go through each one to see if there is an alternate explanation than the one given. After all, it's very easy to start off with a premise that is, in and of itself, inaccurate which unfortunately leads to what appears to be airtight.

Aberration (astronomy) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[pood]

Peacegirl

I have to think back to when I knew little science. You are being hit with new concepts you are unfamiliar with in a short period of time.

The obscure theories of your guru just do not match what we observe and demonstrate by experiment.

You are not going to convince us. If you keep posting you will get the same response and then express displeasure with responses.

Buddha said 2300 years ago we make our own suffering by attachments we make. If you continue to try and convince us you will make yourself unhappy. Not our problem.

The cliche is that insanity is repeating the same failed approach expecting a different outcome.

I posted that I want to end the conversation. No one read the chapter which showed why he came to this conclusion. I never wanted to bring this up, but Pood couldn't wait. I was looking at each one of these and I'd like to go through each one to see if there is an alternate explanation than the one given. After all, it's very easy to start off with a premise that is, in and of itself, inaccurate which unfortunately leads to what appears to be airtight.

Aberration (astronomy) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

What you just linked supports what we are telling you.

 

[pood]

As the article notes, aberration, along with several other things including the Fizeau experiment, already explained to you, contributed to the special theory of relativity, which would not exist in a world of real-time seeing.

 

[bilby]

Do you understand how he came to this finding?

It is increasingly apparent that he pulled it from his arse.

You’re so wrong.

Certainly his "finding" owes nothing to any study of how sight, or eyes, or light, or anything else works.

He explained it and I posted part of it. Your attitude is very confrontative and it’s a turnoff! So forget it!

To repeat: we see the object when it is in our field of view and is large enough and bright enough to be seen. Where Lessans diverged from the standard view (based on his astute observations regarding words) is that the light does not bounce off of the object taking the information (or wavelength) with it through space/time.

So what is his claimed mechanism? Saying what it is not isn't actually saying anything.

You don’t read and I’m not going to be bullied by you, so move on.

I am fairly confident that "what is his claimed mechanism?" isn't bullying.

"the light does not bounce off of the object taking the information (or wavelength) with it through space/time".

OK, so what does happen?

Over here, we have a large bright object.

Over there is a person, who can see the object. He says "I know there's a large bright object over there, because I can see it".

How, exactly, does the knowledge of the object get from the object, to the person seeing it, according to Lessans?

He explained not this, but why this is inaccurate. You don’t know because you refuse to read. This is such a joke!

What part of it is inaccurate?

Is the object not over here?

Is the observer not over there?

Does the observer not know about the object?

Which of these elements is he saying is wrong?

I am not "refusing to read", I am asking for clarification of what I have read, because it doesn't seem to me to actually address this. He says a lot about what is not happening, and about how wrong our traditional understanding is, but provides few details about what actually is happening, according to his new way of understanding.

There is a person; A large bright object (for example the Sun), and a distance between them. The person knows about the object. How did the knowledge overcome that distance?

Is the distance an illusion? If so, how do we explain the fact that the Sun doesn't burn the person to a crisp?

Is the Sun an illusion? If so, how do we explain the fact that the person doesn't freeze to death?

Is the person an illusion? If so, why are you (or is he) trying to explain anything to an illusion?

If none of these are illusions, then how does the knowledge of the Sun's existence and direction reach the person?

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl

I have to think back to when I knew little science. You are being hit with new concepts you are unfamiliar with in a short period of time.

The obscure theories of your guru just do not match what we observe and demonstrate by experiment.

You are not going to convince us. If you keep posting you will get the same response and then express displeasure with responses.

Buddha said 2300 years ago we make our own suffering by attachments we make. If you continue to try and convince us you will make yourself unhappy. Not our problem.

The cliche is that insanity is repeating the same failed approach expecting a different outcome.

I posted that I want to end the conversation. No one read the chapter which showed why he came to this conclusion. I never wanted to bring this up, but Pood couldn't wait. I was looking at each one of these and I'd like to go through each one to see if there is an alternate explanation than the one given. After all, it's very easy to start off with a premise that is, in and of itself, inaccurate which unfortunately leads to what appears to be airtight.

Aberration (astronomy) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

What you just linked supports what we are telling you.

I know that, and I'm trying to see if there are any other ways of seeing why these aberrations occur.

 

[peacegirl]

The only way we see anything is when the light from it, either as a source or reflected, reaches our eyes. So necessarily we see everything as it was sometime in the past. It’s that simple, and it doesn’t matter if you or your author say differently. You and your author are wrong.

There is definitely a conflict between Lessans' observations and seeing in delayed time. Who is right is yet to be determined. He was not an astronomer or a physicist, but that doesn't make him automatically wrong. His observations came from a different source and need to be carefully examined. The following is interesting, not that it proves anything but if an orbit is elliptical, that could have an effect on the timing of when Io exited the eclipse and not have to do with the difference between the length of time light arrived and delayed sight.

Although Io always points the same side toward Jupiter in its orbit around the giant planet, the large moons Europa and Ganymede perturb Io's orbit into an irregularly elliptical.

Io: Facts - NASA Science

Introduction Jupiter’s rocky moon Io is the most volcanically active world in the solar system, with hundreds of volcanoes, some erupting lava fountains dozens of miles (or kilometers) high. Io’s remarkable activity is the result of a tug-of-war between Jupiter’s powerful gravity and smaller but...

science.nasa.gov

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

I have to think back to when I knew little science. You are being hit with new concepts you are unfamiliar with in a short period of time.

The obscure theories of your guru just do not match what we observe and demonstrate by experiment.

You are not going to convince us. If you keep posting you will get the same response and then express displeasure with responses.

Buddha said 2300 years ago we make our own suffering by attachments we make. If you continue to try and convince us you will make yourself unhappy. Not our problem.

The cliche is that insanity is repeating the same failed approach expecting a different outcome.

I posted that I want to end the conversation. No one read the chapter which showed why he came to this conclusion. I never wanted to bring this up, but Pood couldn't wait. I was looking at each one of these and I'd like to go through each one to see if there is an alternate explanation than the one given. After all, it's very easy to start off with a premise that is, in and of itself, inaccurate which unfortunately leads to what appears to be airtight.

Aberration (astronomy) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I am not going to read the book or chapter, or look at your links. I know optics and I understand enough of biology and neuroscience to understand how the eye works, all supported by experiment.

It is what doctors go by. I see a retinal specialist once a year.

The author you are promoting appears to have been a lone eccentric with no sconce traning or knowledge.

Eccentric is not a disqualification. Eisenstein, Feynman, and others all had their quirks. But they were solid in science and math.

There are always people who claim to have a perpetual motion machine.

Yiur author is not unique.

 

[pood]

How Roemer calculated the speed of light via Jupiter eclipsing Io.

It has nothing to do with any elliptical orbits. All orbits are elliptical. It has to do with the fact it takes longer for the eclipse to be detected the farther away earth is from Jupiter. Earth’s distance from other planets is always changing. Roemer not only was able to approximately calculate the speed of light, it was proof positive that we do not see in real time.

 

[DBT]

I'm still curious as to how instant vision, 'light at the eye,' is supposed to work. Because if Lessan also argued for determinism, and he is not contradicting himself, his 'light at the eye' proposition must have a physical, determinist explanation.

 

[peacegirl]

The speed of light is finite, but the same as measured in all reference frames. This has the following consequence. A train is speeding by. Person A is seated in the middle of the train, equidistant from the back and front of it. Person B is on the embankment. When the train arrives at a point where Person A, on the train, and Person B, on the ground, are facing each other, Person B sees lightning flashes striking the front and back of the train simultaneously.

What does Person A, on the train, see?

An object on the train, such as a ball rolling in the direction of the train’s motion, will add the train’s motion to its own motion. It’s called Galilean additivity. But light doesn’t do that. Because it does not add the train’s motion to its own, it follows that the person on the train will see the lightning flash at the front of the train first, and then sometime later the flash at the back.

So Person A and Person B disagree on when the flashes occur. Person A, on the train, thinks the occur sequentially. Person B thinks they occur simultaneously. Who is actually right? They both are. This phenomenon, the relativity of simultaneity, also accounts for time dilation and length contraction.

This is Einstein’s special theory of relativity in a nutshell. It has been tested and verified innumerable different ways over the last 120 years.

This phenomenon is ONLY possible because of delayed-time seeing. If Person A and Person B saw light instantly, they would never disagree on when the lightning flashes struck the train. So we know that what the author claims has no connection to reality.

But this has been explained to you.

I don't know how this proves what you think it does. They would see the lightning either simultaneously or sequentially depending on their frame of reference. Time dilation and length contraction are theories that try to explain the reasons behind this. Time is a measurement of change. It is not a dimension. Someone on the train and someone on the ground saw the lightning strike differently because one was in a stationary position, and one was in a moving position. I don't know where this disproves seeing in real time. That being said, I'm not getting into astronomy and physics because that's not where this claim came from. It's important to see if his demonstration is valid, yet no one cares to give his observations a serious look. This whole discussion has gone in a direction I'm uncomfortable with because, like I said, I'm not an astronomer and I cannot prove he was right coming from this angle. I can only share what he observed in order to determine if his observations carried any weight. If people can't even read his work because they have already made up their minds he is wrong, then we're at a dead end.

What Did Einstein Mean By Time is an Illusion?

When you think about it, time is an arbitrary construct — it's our way of making sense of growing up and growing old. It's only a stubborn illusion that helps make sense of the world.

interestingengineering.com

 

[peacegirl]

I'm still curious as to how instant vision, 'light at the eye,' is supposed to work. Because if Lessan also argued for determinism, and he is not contradicting himself, his 'light at the eye' proposition must have a physical, determinist explanation.

He shows that we see in the present. How does this relate to determinism? His demonstration regarding determinism showed that antecedent events are what we use to make decisions. But these antecedents don't cause the present, which would make it seem that we are being forced to do something against our will. Lots of people have a problem with this. This is what distinguishes Lessans' definition from the standard definition because he says nothing from the past causes the present since the past doesn't exist in reality. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate. I don't think his thought process connected his knowledge of determinism with his observations regarding the senses, although I'm not really sure.

It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?