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

[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.

Huh? What's the whole point? The conclusion drawn is not conclusive. It's amazing how one belief stacks upon another for confirmation bias. It's hard to overcome and it may be impossible for Lessans.

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 iThe 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.

I don't agree. What I am saying is that there are other causes than seeing Jupiter's io in delayed time. We will have to agree to disagree, which is the status quo.

Peacegirl, look at the diagram in the link. Even a kindergartner could understand it, and what it means. It means when earth is farther away from Jupiter and Io it takes a longer tine for the light to reach our eyes to enable us to see what is going on, thus completely ruling out real-time seeing. Your astonishing display of willful ignorance on these matters is the worst I have ever seen, even worse than that of young-earth creationists.

What can I say? I believe Lessans was right not because daddy said so but because it makes sense. You still haven't understood anything because you're too busy trying to dispute it, so you have no room to talk.

It makes no sense at all, and you have been shown why repeatedly over the years in multiple fora.

You inhabit a one-person cult of willful ignorance.

 

[peacegirl]

Except where it doesn’t, as with quantum indeterminism.

Referring, of course, to Steve’s physical causality remark.

There's no way to prove this. When it says everything being fixed, this is impossible because can't go back in time to the exact moment a choice was made. This is all conjecture, supposition, hypothesis, guesswork, nothing of substance.

 

[peacegirl]

The USA will live on no matter who becomes president. Hopefully, all of the issues that are most important will be on the forefront of the president's agenda and make America great again, and healthy again.

Right, you are a Trump supporter and an anti-vaxxer. And your Orange Monster, who is the very antithesis of not hurting others, has put anti-vaxxer RFK Jr. in charge of the nation’s health. Very good, peacegirl. Now you and RFK Jr. may get your fondest wish, the recurrence in a big way not just of Covid but of measles, smallpox and polio, to name but three. Diseases that in the past have killed and maimed countless people but all went away because of … vaccines.

It's not just the measles vaccine; it's the combination of many vaccines in one jab, including the MMR. Pertussis has caused serious issues with some children. It should never be mandatory if there is the slightest risk something could go wrong. It's about parental consent, not about government telling people what to do. And Covid? Do you know how many young people are suddenly getting very ill from heart complications or even dying? They think it's because of the Mrna vaccine? I'm not making this stuff up. Please don't bring RFK Jr. into this, thank you very much. Do you not see the chronic illnesses that adults and children are getting due to ultra processed food by Big Agriculture? Are you that blind? Diabetes in children is growing at an alarming rate. Also fatty liver. I feel so sad for our kids. The junk that is sold in grocery stores across the U.S. (I'm only talking about the U.S.) is sickening. Parents have to fight their kids every day to eat healthy because this ultra processed food is addictive. These companies don't really want our children to be healthy because if they did, they wouldn't need government oversight by JFK Jr. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is what's happening and something has to change for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Yale study reveals insights into post-vaccine heart inflammation cases

In a new study, Yale scientists have identified the immune signature of rare cases of myocarditis among those vaccinated against COVID-19 with mRNA vaccines.

news.yale.edu

 

[peacegirl]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain.

That is if your model of delayed time is correct. If we see the object in real time. the image is not formed in the brain even though the retina and optic nerve are essential for sight. You're just repeating what you believe is happening, but you're not proving anything.

Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

I do not believe that these physics experiments with frame of references prove that we see in delayed time. Obviously, if there is no light, there would be no sight. As soon as night turns into day, we see the world in real time. This is going to go round and round without any resolution. Images only mean the wavelength that the object supposedly reflects which scientists believe then travel through space/time rather than the wavelength revealing the object when we observe it. This doesn't mean light doesn't travel; it just means the information (i.e, image) doesn't travel.

 

[bilby]

There are no nerve endings that receive the stimulus, which is the first clue.

"What is the optic nerve?"

'Human body' for 400 please, Alex.

 

[steve_bank]

The models are true in that the models are predicative.

The computer you use is designed using models of physics including how light propagates. Maxwell's Equations. Been there done that.

The GPS system is affected by time dilation and time delay of light. Satellites at a different gravitational potential and speed than ground stations. It has to be corrected for or the GPS system would not work.

We have not had a science denier on the forum in a long time. The efficacy of science is manifested in all the technology you use and do not understand.

When you fly on a jet onboard weather RADAR to find storms, voice radio, and GPS. VOR aviation navigation system. Very High Frequency Omni Directional Range.

Nothing in your posts or the book offers a testable predictable model for what you claim.

So, deny away. It is not a violation of the constitution or forum rules.

 

[pood]

The USA will live on no matter who becomes president. Hopefully, all of the issues that are most important will be on the forefront of the president's agenda and make America great again, and healthy again.

Right, you are a Trump supporter and an anti-vaxxer. And your Orange Monster, who is the very antithesis of not hurting others, has put anti-vaxxer RFK Jr. in charge of the nation’s health. Very good, peacegirl. Now you and RFK Jr. may get your fondest wish, the recurrence in a big way not just of Covid but of measles, smallpox and polio, to name but three. Diseases that in the past have killed and maimed countless people but all went away because of … vaccines.

It's not just the measles vaccine; it's the combination of many vaccines in one jab, including the MMR. Pertussis has caused serious issues with some children. It should never be mandatory if there is the slightest risk something could go wrong. It's about parental consent, not about government telling people what to do. And Covid? Do you know how many young people are suddenly getting very ill from heart complications or even dying? They think it's because of the Mrna vaccine? I'm not making this stuff up. Please don't bring RFK Jr. into this, thank you very much. Do you not see the chronic illnesses that adults and children are getting due to ultra processed food by Big Agriculture? Are you that blind? Diabetes in children is growing at an alarming rate. Also fatty liver. I feel so sad for our kids. The junk that is sold in grocery stores across the U.S. (I'm only talking about the U.S.) is sickening. Parents have to fight their kids every day to eat healthy because this ultra processed food is addictive. These companies don't really want our children to be healthy because if they did, they wouldn't need government oversight by JFK Jr. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is what's happening and something has to change for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Yale study reveals insights into post-vaccine heart inflammation cases

In a new study, Yale scientists have identified the immune signature of rare cases of myocarditis among those vaccinated against COVID-19 with mRNA vaccines.

news.yale.edu

Food and vaccines are two separate issues. Why don’t you complain to your gorgeous golden fat freak of an elected president about food, a fool who who subsists on a diet of junk food and sugary soda?

As to vaccines, you know nothing about this, as you know nothing about light and sight. ALL vaccines carry a VERY SLIGHT RISK of bad reactions. This tiny risk is vastly outweighed by the benefits, things like banishing measles, smallpox, and polio, which utterly ravaged previous generations. That you don’t know this is appalling.

 

[bilby]

You are being too quick to negate what he says as false. If you still don't agree after you have heard him out, that's okay, but by golly give the man half a chance.

"The man" isn't here - you are. And if you want me to hear out your position (whose originator is not relevant to its content), then you need to present your position, and answer the questions that arise when you do so.

The reason I think your position is false is simple - you haven't made your case. You have made apparently nonsensical claims, and when I ask for details of how the situation you describe could possibly work, you respond with complaints about being rejected, where information that might prevent that rejection would have been more warranted, and a better use of your time.

It's like arguing with Vicki Pollard. "Yeah, but there's this whole other thing that you don't know nothin' about, so shut up!" is not a persuasive rhetorical device.

 

[pood]

Except where it doesn’t, as with quantum indeterminism.

Referring, of course, to Steve’s physical causality remark.

There's no way to prove this. When it says everything being fixed, this is impossible because can't go back in time to the exact moment a choice was made. This is all conjecture, supposition, hypothesis, guesswork, nothing of substance.

So you agree choices are not fixed by determinism?

 

[pood]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain.

That is if your model of delayed time is correct. If we see the object in real time. the image is not formed in the brain even though the retina and optic nerve are essential for sight. You're just repeating what you believe is happening, but you're not proving anything.

No. We have demonstrated the facts to you repeatedly. You simply reject reality.

Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

I do not believe that these physics experiments with frame of references prove that we see in delayed time. Obviously, if there is no light, there would be no sight. As soon as night turns into day, we see the world in real time.

Nope.

This is going to go round and round without any resolution. Images only mean the wavelength that the object supposedly reflects which scientists believe then travel through space/time rather than the wavelength revealing the object when we observe it. This doesn't mean light doesn't travel; it just means the information (i.e, image) doesn't travel.

Gobbledygook as usual, whenever you attempt to explain what you think you mean.

By the way, lightning that occurs a mile away will be visible to the human eye in 5.3 microseconds. That means we see the lightning as it was in the past, like everything else.

 

[bilby]

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these are doorways in — awakensWha the brain so that the child can look through them at what exists around him.

OK. So, when a child sees the stars, is it the sound, taste, texture, or smell of them that lets him know they are there?

What are you talking about bilby?

I am asking a simple question. When anybody sees the stars for the first time, or indeed, any subsequent time, what informs him that they are there? Which sense is being employed? If none are, how dies he know the stars exist?

When a baby is born, he cannot focus his eyes until there is a desire to see due to the other senses stimulating this desire.

Leaving aside that this is a bald assertion, and that: a) That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence; And b) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, it even fails to be a response to my question, which was not about babies at all.

This is exactly why READING THE ENTIRE CHAPTER is the only way you will be able to understand his full explanation. Without it, you're just guessing what he means.

Turnabout is fair play; Your response here is clearly not to the actual question I asked, but to a vaguely related question that you had a boilerplate answer for.

This is exactly why READING THE ENTIRE QUESTION is the only way you will be able to formulate a coherent response. Without it, you are just guessing what you have been asked.

Try again:

When anybody sees the stars for the first time, or indeed, any subsequent time, what informs him that they are there? Which sense is being employed? If none are, how does he know the stars exist?

 

[pood]

Putting RFK Jr. in charge of the nation’s health would be like putting your writer in charge of NASA.

 

[pood]

There are no nerve endings that receive the stimulus, which is the first clue.

Nerve endings that receive stimulus in the eyes.

Bumped for peacegirl.

 

[pood]

I wonder if peacegirl noticed that in the Yale article she quoted, the risk of acquiring myocarditis was greater for those not vaccinated against Covid than for those that were, and that the cases were very rare in the vaccinated. However, I’m sure she did not actually read the article, but just googled a title she could snag off the internet and crow, “See? I told you so!”

 

[DBT]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain. Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

Lightning has the physicai properties of matter/energy. Matter can be converted to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. Matter and energy are interchangeable.

That's not what I read. They said they are working on it, but regardless, for the purposes of this thread it's not important because the example showed lightning which is electromagnetic energy.

https://www.science.org/content/article/presto-light-creates-matter

It doesn’t matter what it is. We can't see, feel, taste or smell anything before our senses acquire the information and the brain processes it, and that is a sequence of events that takes time.

You keep bringing this up. This is not what he is referring to. We are talking about delayed sight versus real time sight, not processing. There is a difference between these two mechanisms. If it is established finally that we see in real time, no one is going to say that processing the information means there is a processing delay that keeps delayed vision in place.

Processing information is a part of the delay between the event and seeing the event, where light information from the event takes nanoseconds to arrive at eyes and milliseconds for the brain to process and convert into conscious form.

 

[peacegirl]

You didn't read the book either Pood.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that anyone who doesn't agree with the book must not have read the book. This is absolutely false, for any book.

But it widely believed by religionists, of their own favourite book(s).

No one has read the book, bilby, not even Pood. I will bet my right arm that he hasn't read it because he doesn't own it, he never did. All these years he just grabbed excerpts and made fun of the author when it was taken out of context. The author also created some humor as comic relief. But as time went on, the aggression got worse and worse. I'll never go through that again.

 

[pood]

You didn't read the book either Pood.

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that anyone who doesn't agree with the book must not have read the book. This is absolutely false, for any book.

But it widely believed by religionists, of their own favourite book(s).

No one has read the book, bilby, not even Pood. I will bet my right arm that he hasn't read it because he doesn't own it, he never did. All these years he just grabbed excerpts and made fun of the author when it was taken out of context. The author also created some humor as comic relief. But as time went on, the aggression got worse and worse. I'll never go through that again.

You took all the humor out, the best stuff in the book, about the “juicy, juicy C’s,” the ur-Penis etc.

And yes, I have read all of the relevant stuff about light and sight, and it’s wrong, for reasons indicated.

 

[peacegirl]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain. Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

Lightning has the physicai properties of matter/energy. Matter can be converted to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. Matter and energy are interchangeable.

That's not what I read. They said they are working on it, but regardless, for the purposes of this thread it's not important because the example showed lightning which is electromagnetic energy.

https://www.science.org/content/article/presto-light-creates-matter

It doesn’t matter what it is. We can't see, feel, taste or smell anything before our senses acquire the information and the brain processes it, and that is a sequence of events that takes time.

You keep bringing this up. This is not what he is referring to. We are talking about delayed sight versus real time sight, not processing. There is a difference between these two mechanisms. If it is established finally that we see in real time, no one is going to say that processing the information means there is a processing delay that keeps delayed vision in place.

Processing information is a part of the delay between the event and seeing the event, where light information from the event takes nanoseconds to arrive at eyes and milliseconds for the brain to process and convert into conscious form.

Processing is not what they're talking about when they say we see in delayed time. The light is either bringing the world to us in delayed time, or the world is being revealed to us by light's presence.

 

[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.

It's more than 'a present theory.' It is observed and tested fact. The speed of light has been measured.

A scientific theory is not arbitrary, but a narrative that explains a set of facts.

The narrative may be altered if new information comes along, yet the facts remain: light does in fact have a speed,

Correct.

and what we see is in fact delayed by the distance travelled.

No. The speed of light is what they say it is. Asserting the thing that is being refuted is wasted bandwidth.

But that's the point of my question.....that if light travels at the given speed and therefore takes time to arrive, how are distant events, supernova, etc, instanty visible with 'light at the eye?'

You need to think in terms of the eyes looking at the object before thinking about light. If you see the object, then the light is at the eye instantly or you wouldn't see the object, without any distance or time being involved.

 

[pood]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain. Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

Lightning has the physicai properties of matter/energy. Matter can be converted to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. Matter and energy are interchangeable.

That's not what I read. They said they are working on it, but regardless, for the purposes of this thread it's not important because the example showed lightning which is electromagnetic energy.

https://www.science.org/content/article/presto-light-creates-matter

It doesn’t matter what it is. We can't see, feel, taste or smell anything before our senses acquire the information and the brain processes it, and that is a sequence of events that takes time.

You keep bringing this up. This is not what he is referring to. We are talking about delayed sight versus real time sight, not processing. There is a difference between these two mechanisms. If it is established finally that we see in real time, no one is going to say that processing the information means there is a processing delay that keeps delayed vision in place.

Processing information is a part of the delay between the event and seeing the event, where light information from the event takes nanoseconds to arrive at eyes and milliseconds for the brain to process and convert into conscious form.

Processing is not what they're talking about when they say we see in delayed time. The light is either bringing the world to us in delayed time, or the world is being revealed to us by light's presence.

He is talking about processing in addition to delayed-time seeing. Yes, the world is being revealed to us by light’s presence, but it takes the light time to get to us to do that, and the greater the distance, the longer it takes. A good demonstration of this is found in Io and Jupiter, which disproves real-time seeing.