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

[steve_bank]

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

Sounds like the philosophical musings of AE.

Here is his short book by AE on his theories. Time and light are essential parts of it. He had a gft for reducing complex to simple terms.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf

Preface
(December, 1916)
The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of
Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view,
are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of
theoretical physics. The work presumes a standard of education corresponding to that of a
university matriculation examination, and, despite the shortness of the book, a fair amount
of patience and force of will on the part of the reader. The author has spared himself no
pains in his endeavour to present the main ideas in the simplest and most intelligible form,
and on the whole, in the sequence and connection in which they actually originated. In the
interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I should repeat myself frequently,
without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of the presentation. I adhered
scrupulously to the precept of that brilliant theoretical physicist L. Boltzmann, according to
whom matters of elegance ought to be left to the tailor and to the cobbler. I make no
pretence of having withheld from the reader difficulties which are inherent to the subject.
On the other hand, I have purposely treated the empirical physical foundations of the theory
in a "step-motherly" fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the
wanderer who was unable to see the forest for the trees. May the book bring some one a few
happy hours of suggestive thought!
December, 1916
A. EINSTEIN

 

[pood]

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.

Right. And this is precisely because of the delay in seeing the light. The person on the train sees the light at the back of the train later than the light at the front of the train, because she is receding from the light in the back and it must take some finite amount of tine to reach her. So is seeing in delayed time. If everyone saw in real time like you claim, everyone would agree when the lightning flashes occur, and the theory of relativity would be impossible.

 

[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.

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 help us make decisions. But these antecedents that already happened don't cause the present. They are contained in our memories that are then remembered to help us make the best possible decisions based on the information we have. This is what separates Lessans' definition from the standard definition because nothing from the past causes us to do anything since the past doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate.

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 of free will 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?

That doesn't make sense, because if determinism is true, the past shapes the present and the present shapes the future, where past states become the present state of the world, where information in the form of light (or anything else) must have antecedents and behave according to the laws of physics.

Light simply being 'at the eye' contradicts determinism and the laws of physics.

Light, according to the laws of physics, cannot instantaneously be 'at the eye' without antecedents. It must be radiated or reflected, it must have a travel time, etc., consequently, the book has a contradiction.

 

[Crumb]

I posted that I want to end the conversation. ...

You have absolute power to end this conversation, peacegirl. Just like at FF, you can just walk away.

 

[bilby]

You have absolute power to end this conversation, peacegirl.

But not to have the last word, which I suspect is the reason for her not excercising that power.

 

[peacegirl]

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.

If orbits were elliptical and not round, the light would take longer or shorter to reach earth depending on where the moon was in its orbit.

 

[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 help us make decisions. But these antecedents that already happened don't cause the present. They are contained in our memories that are then remembered to help us make the best possible decisions based on the information we have. This is what separates Lessans' definition from the standard definition because nothing from the past causes us to do anything since the past doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate.

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 of free will 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?

That doesn't make sense, because if determinism is true, the past shapes the present and the present shapes the future, where past states become the present state of the world, where information in the form of light (or anything else) must have antecedents and behave according to the laws of physics.

I didn't say the past doesn't shape the present. I said the past doesn't exist except as a part of our memory, which we use to make decisions every time we contemplate. Memory is a large part of our identity and why people are so afraid of losing it.

Light simply being 'at the eye' contradicts determinism and the laws of physics.

I don't think it does and I'm not quite sure if it even contradicts Einstein's relativity because the author never said light is not finite and it is obvious that if there is a different frame of reference, we might see the light at different times because it would arrive at a different interval, but this does not prove the that objects (matter) are reflecting the image (or the information in the light) which is then carried through space/time where the past would be seen millions of years later. Much of this is theory (scientific theories regarding astronomy are changing all the time). To reject his claim without understanding why he made them in the first place just because it sounds impossible doesn't make it so. Again, no one has even read his book, let alone this one chapter. They just say nope, he couldn't have been right.

Light, according to the laws of physics, cannot instantaneously be 'at the eye' without antecedents. It must be radiated or reflected, it must have a travel time, etc., consequently, the book has a contradiction.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you have not understood his reasoning. No one here has so there's no way you can even begin to see whether his claims make sense or are correct. Obviously, light travels and it takes time to arrive from one point to another. He had no qualms with that. What he had qualms with is people believing the eyes were afferent when his observations told a different story. I appreciate your thoughts on this and if you're not interested to investigate further, that's fine also.

 

[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.

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 help us make decisions. But these antecedents that already happened don't cause the present. They are contained in our memories that are then remembered to help us make the best possible decisions based on the information we have. This is what separates Lessans' definition from the standard definition because nothing from the past causes us to do anything since the past doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate.

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 of free will 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?

That doesn't make sense, because if determinism is true, the past shapes the present and the present shapes the future, where past states become the present state of the world, where information in the form of light (or anything else) must have antecedents and behave according to the laws of physics.

I didn't say the past doesn't shape the present. I said the past doesn't exist except as a part of our memory, which we use to make decisions every time we contemplate. Memory is a large part of our identity and why people are so afraid of losing it.

Light simply being 'at the eye' contradicts determinism and the laws of physics.

I don't think it does and I'm not quite sure if it even contradicts Einstein's relativity because the author never said light is not finite and it is obvious that if there is a different frame of reference, we might see an object differently in a different frame of reference, but this does not prove the belief that objects reflect the image (or the light wave with the information) which is then carried through space/time where the past would be seen millions of years later.

Light, according to the laws of physics, cannot instantaneously be 'at the eye' without antecedents. It must be radiated or reflected, it must have a travel time, etc., consequently, the book has a contradiction.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you have not understood his reasoning. No one here has so there's no way you can even begin to see whether his claims make sense or are correct. Obviously, light travels and it takes time to arrive from one point to another. He had no qualms with that. What he had qualms with is the eyes being efferent, which changes everything in so far as what we see and at what time we see it. I appreciate your thoughts on this and if you're not interested to investigate further, that's fine too.

His reasoning is flawed for the given reasons. If he saw the world as being deterministic, then instantly seeing events light years away - light at the eye - contradicts determinism. It contradicts physics because there is no physical means by which light

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 help us make decisions. But these antecedents that already happened don't cause the present. They are contained in our memories that are then remembered to help us make the best possible decisions based on the information we have. This is what separates Lessans' definition from the standard definition because nothing from the past causes us to do anything since the past doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate.

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 of free will 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?

That doesn't make sense, because if determinism is true, the past shapes the present and the present shapes the future, where past states become the present state of the world, where information in the form of light (or anything else) must have antecedents and behave according to the laws of physics.

I didn't say the past doesn't shape the present. I said the past doesn't exist except as a part of our memory, which we use to make decisions every time we contemplate. Memory is a large part of our identity and why people are so afraid of losing it.

Light simply being 'at the eye' contradicts determinism and the laws of physics.

I don't think it does and I'm not quite sure if it even contradicts Einstein's relativity because the author never said light is not finite and it is obvious that if there is a different frame of reference, we might see the light at different times because it would arrive at a different interval, but this does not prove the that objects (matter) are reflecting the image (or the information in the light) which is then carried through space/time where the past would be seen millions of years later. Much of this is theory (scientific theories regarding astronomy are changing all the time). To reject his claim without understanding why he made them in the first place just because it sounds impossible doesn't make it so. Again, no one has even read his book, let alone this one chapter. They just say nope, he couldn't have been right.

Light, according to the laws of physics, cannot instantaneously be 'at the eye' without antecedents. It must be radiated or reflected, it must have a travel time, etc., consequently, the book has a contradiction.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you have not understood his reasoning. No one here has so there's no way you can even begin to see whether his claims make sense or are correct. Obviously, light travels and it takes time to arrive from one point to another. He had no qualms with that. What he had qualms with is people believing the eyes were afferent when his observations told a different story. I appreciate your thoughts on this and if you're not interested to investigate further, that's fine also.

Physics, the properties of matter/energy, space/time has been thoroughly investigated. There is just no way that light can be 'at the eye' as a means of instantly seeing events taking place light years away.

If the Author argues that the world is deterministic, yet proposes instantly seeing events light years away, light at the eye, he contradicts himself.

 

[steve_bank]

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 of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or comp

Peacegirl

We know that is false today. Nothing happens without a cause. Statistically we know if you grow up poor and lack a primary education you have a higher chance of ending up in jail. Environment does matter.

I pick up a rock and throw it at a window, with god like powers I have determined the fate of a window in the future. I have changed the course of the universe!!!

Past, present, and future are arbitrary words. A philosophical view. Physical reality including our brains are continuous physical processes.

Thoughts are the result of chemical presses in the brain.

 

[peacegirl]

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 of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or comp

Peacegirl

We know that is false today. Nothing happens without a cause.

Who says others Steve?

Statistically we know if you grow up poor and lack a primary education you have a higher chance of ending up in jail. Environment does matter.

Very true which is what discovery prevents!

I pick up a rock and throw it at a window, with god like powers I have determined the fate of a window in the future. I have changed the course of the universe!!!

You have caused the window to break. If you want to think of it as changing the course of the universe, it’s no different than any choice that is made.

Past, present, and future are arbitrary words.

Not really. We all know what these terms mean.

A philosophical view. Physical reality including our brains are continuous physical processes.

True

Thoughts are the result of chemical presses in the brain.

True. And???

 

[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

After all my time on the forum in general I no longer read trough links yours in detail, they all tend to take the same form. A conflation of philosophical ramblings mixed with a bit of science.

I can go back to my meanderings in the 70s.

Here is one for you. General Semantics which I think has a following today, GS claims to know what causes our ills and the cure.

https://ilam3d.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/alfred-korzybksi-science-and-sanity.pdf

So your author is not unique, but he is obscure compared to more enduing writers.

One of the more successful was L Ron Hubbard who started with his Dianetics and then created Scientology.

 

[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.

If orbits were elliptical and not round, the light would take longer or shorter to reach earth depending on where the moon was in its orbit.

Yes, peacegirl, if orbits were elliptical OR if they were circular it would take longer or shorter for the light to reach our eye so that we could see! That’s the whole point. Look at the picture in the linked page. E1 earth is closer to J1 Jupiter than E2 earth is to J2 Jupiter. Thus the light from J2 must travel a greater distance to E2, than the light from J1 must travel to E1. If we see everything instantly, as you keep telling us. this difference in distance would make NO DIFFERENCE. But there IS a difference! This is proof positive that we do not see in real time, but in delayed time. Edited to add: notice that the orbits are depicted as circular, even though they are actually elliptical. But circular or elliptical make no difference. The time differential in detecting the light conclusively rules out real-time seeing, because if we saw in real time, there would be no differential at all, regardless of whether the orbits were circular or elliptical.

 

[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

After all my time on the forum in general I no longer read trough links yours in detail, they all tend to take the same form. A conflation of philosophical ramblings mixed with a bit of science.

Philosophical ramblings? You mean like the Einstein link you posted above?

Anyway, if you read the paper linked above, rest assured it’s all science, no scary philosophy.

 

[pood]

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 help us make decisions. But these antecedents that already happened don't cause the present. They are contained in our memories that are then remembered to help us make the best possible decisions based on the information we have. This is what separates Lessans' definition from the standard definition because nothing from the past causes us to do anything since the past doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate.

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 of free will 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?

That doesn't make sense, because if determinism is true, the past shapes the present and the present shapes the future, where past states become the present state of the world, where information in the form of light (or anything else) must have antecedents and behave according to the laws of physics.

I didn't say the past doesn't shape the present. I said the past doesn't exist except as a part of our memory, which we use to make decisions every time we contemplate. Memory is a large part of our identity and why people are so afraid of losing it.

Light simply being 'at the eye' contradicts determinism and the laws of physics.

I don't think it does and I'm not quite sure if it even contradicts Einstein's relativity because the author never said light is not finite and it is obvious that if there is a different frame of reference, we might see the light at different times because it would arrive at a different interval,

Yes peacegirl, that’s the point! There is a difference in detecting the light because of relative motion. If we saw instantly, it would make NO DIFFERENCE what the relative motion was, or how far away we are from the light source. Everyone would see the same thing, because we would be seeing events INSTANTLY. Like the moons of Jupiter example, special relativity conclusively rules out real-time seeing.

 

[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 help us make decisions. But these antecedents that already happened don't cause the present. They are contained in our memories that are then remembered to help us make the best possible decisions based on the information we have. This is what separates Lessans' definition from the standard definition because nothing from the past causes us to do anything since the past doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate.

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 of free will 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?

That doesn't make sense, because if determinism is true, the past shapes the present and the present shapes the future, where past states become the present state of the world, where information in the form of light (or anything else) must have antecedents and behave according to the laws of physics.

I didn't say the past doesn't shape the present. I said the past doesn't exist except as a part of our memory, which we use to make decisions every time we contemplate. Memory is a large part of our identity and why people are so afraid of losing it.

Light simply being 'at the eye' contradicts determinism and the laws of physics.

I don't think it does and I'm not quite sure if it even contradicts Einstein's relativity because the author never said light is not finite and it is obvious that if there is a different frame of reference, we might see the light at different times because it would arrive at a different interval,

Yes peacegirl, that’s the point! There is a difference in detecting the light because of relative motion. If we saw instantly, it would make NO DIFFERENCE what the relative motion was, or how far away we are from the light source. Everyone would see the same thing, because we would be seeing events INSTANTLY. Like the moons of Jupiter example, special relativity conclusively rules out real-time seeing.

 

[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 help us make decisions. But these antecedents that already happened don't cause the present. They are contained in our memories that are then remembered to help us make the best possible decisions based on the information we have. This is what separates Lessans' definition from the standard definition because nothing from the past causes us to do anything since the past doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate.

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 of free will 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?

That doesn't make sense, because if determinism is true, the past shapes the present and the present shapes the future, where past states become the present state of the world, where information in the form of light (or anything else) must have antecedents and behave according to the laws of physics.

I didn't say the past doesn't shape the present. I said the past doesn't exist except as a part of our memory, which we use to make decisions every time we contemplate. Memory is a large part of our identity and why people are so afraid of losing it.

Light simply being 'at the eye' contradicts determinism and the laws of physics.

I don't think it does and I'm not quite sure if it even contradicts Einstein's relativity because the author never said light is not finite and it is obvious that if there is a different frame of reference, we might see the light at different times because it would arrive at a different interval,

Light has to be there for anything to be seen. If light hasn't arrived, we would not be able to see what is around us but the confusion is that light is a requirement, not a cause. It is very hard to see this truth when you are talking about light arriving and seeing what exists around us. It is obvious that without light, we could not see, but you are concluding that travel time of light proves that we see the past. This is false, sorry. Again, I'm so tired of defending him. If you feel he's wrong, then so be it. You can move on to another thread. Who would stay at a thread they feel is totally wrong? What a waste of time that would be.

Yes peacegirl, that’s the point! There is a difference in detecting the light because of relative motion. If we saw instantly, it would make NO DIFFERENCE what the relative motion was, or how far away we are from the light source.

It would make a difference because of our perception due to different frames, not because of delayed light.

Everyone would see the same thing, because we would be seeing events INSTANTLY. Like the moons of Jupiter example, special relativity conclusively rules out real-time seeing.

I know special relativity rules it out, but you cannot understand his perspective coming from the present theory of delayed time and sight. You will easily throw his claim out if you do it this way.

 

[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!

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.

You said you read it. So tell me what he demonstrated. That's all I'm asking.

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?

Efferent vision which eliminates time and distance.

Is the distance an illusion?

Of course not. It's just that we don't see the past in the light.

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

Because it's too far away. Nothing changes in this regard.

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

Because it's just far enough to allow for life on earth. Not too hot, and not too cold.

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

He never spoke about illusion when it comes to seeing in real time. In fact, he was emphasizing that we see reality, not a virtual reality due to seeing the past.

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

Through receiving the light from the Sun. Everything remains the same. The sun's photons travel to Earth and we receive the light and warmth that sustain us. I am only talking about sight and why efferent vision changes the direction we see. It is what lies behind this knowledge that matters. He never disputed that light travels at 186,000 miles a second.

 

[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

After all my time on the forum in general I no longer read trough links yours in detail, they all tend to take the same form. A conflation of philosophical ramblings mixed with a bit of science.

I can go back to my meanderings in the 70s.

Here is one for you. General Semantics which I think has a following today, GS claims to know what causes our ills and the cure.

https://ilam3d.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/alfred-korzybksi-science-and-sanity.pdf

So your author is not unique, but he is obscure compared to more enduing writers.

One of the more successful was L Ron Hubbard who started with his Dianetics and then created Scientology.

Nobody is saying he was unique, but his discovery, as far as I know, has not been observed by anyone as of yet. I could be wrong. Because this knowledge is part of the workings of the world, not something unique to him, others could make the same discovery in theory and he would welcome it. He was a humble man.

 

[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

Sounds like the philosophical musings of AE.

Here is his short book by AE on his theories. Time and light are essential parts of it. He had a gft for reducing complex to simple terms.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf

Preface
(December, 1916)
The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of
Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view,
are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of
theoretical physics. The work presumes a standard of education corresponding to that of a
university matriculation examination, and, despite the shortness of the book, a fair amount
of patience and force of will on the part of the reader. The author has spared himself no
pains in his endeavour to present the main ideas in the simplest and most intelligible form,
and on the whole, in the sequence and connection in which they actually originated. In the
interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I should repeat myself frequently,
without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of the presentation. I adhered
scrupulously to the precept of that brilliant theoretical physicist L. Boltzmann, according to
whom matters of elegance ought to be left to the tailor and to the cobbler. I make no
pretence of having withheld from the reader difficulties which are inherent to the subject.
On the other hand, I have purposely treated the empirical physical foundations of the theory
in a "step-motherly" fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the
wanderer who was unable to see the forest for the trees. May the book bring some one a few
happy hours of suggestive thought!
December, 1916
A. EINSTEIN

Interesting preface. He sounds like Lessans himself! Thanks Steve!

 

[steve_bank]

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 of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or comp

Peacegirl

We know that is false today. Nothing happens without a cause.

Who says others Steve?

Statistically we know if you grow up poor and lack a primary education you have a higher chance of ending up in jail. Environment does matter.

Very true which is what discovery prevents!

I pick up a rock and throw it at a window, with god like powers I have determined the fate of a window in the future. I have changed the course of the universe!!!

You have caused the window to break. If you want to think of it as changing the course of the universe, it’s no different than any choice that is made.

Past, present, and future are arbitrary words.

Not really. We all know what these terms mean.

A philosophical view. Physical reality including our brains are continuous physical processes.

True

Thoughts are the result of chemical presses in the brain.

True. And???

Past, present, and future are language concepts that we use for communication. Physically causality rules.