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

[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.

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.

So what was his demonstration that explained what he believed was going on? You don't know Pood. Just say it, is it that hard? I DON'T KNOW.

 

[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,

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.

Which nonsense, as has been demonstrated by io/Jupiter, the special theory of relativity, GPS devices, and many other examples besides.

 

[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.

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.

Ideas as to the mechanism of how something works can look to be completely valid, but the conclusions can be wrong.

 

[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.

So what was his demonstration that explained what he believed was going on? You don't know Pood. Just say it, is it that hard? I DON'T KNOW.

No, I don’t know, because he didn’t given any demonstration! I’ve told you this a million times. Asserting that seeing is efferent (false), that dogs can’t recognize their masters by sight alone (false), and that “words are projected onto an undeniable screen of substance” (incomprehensible) are a “demonstration” of exactly nothing.

Bilby explained what a demonstration would be. So, demonstrate.

 

[peacegirl]

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?

No, I do not understand why this does’t apply, because there is nothing to understand. It is nonsense.

Light is an electromagnetic wave. We do not see light. We see the things light illumines.

In the case of Einstein’s train gedanken, the person on the ground sees the back and front of the train illumined and the air between the train and her eyes illumined simultaneously. The person on the train sees the front of the train and the back of the train and the air between them illumined sequentially. This is proof we do not see in real time. If we did, the train observer and the ground observer would agree when the lightning struck.

If there is a different frame of reference, we would see the object differently by the difference in the frame. But it doesn't change that regardless of the frame, we would still see the object in real time.

 

[pood]

Ideas as to the mechanism of how something works can look to be completely valid, but the conclusions can be wrong.

Show where they are wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

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 — awakens 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?

Now you're being silly. It's obviously light that allows us to see the stars if they are large enough and close enough to be seen. I know this is hard to get your head around but please keep trying.

 

[pood]

If there is a different frame of reference, we would see the object differently by the difference in the frame. But it doesn't change that regardless of the frame, we would still see the object in real time.

I don’t believe you even know what a frame of reference is, in relativity. Regardless, if we saw in real time, everyone would agree when the lights were visible. They don’t, so real-time seeing is shown to be false.

 

[pood]

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 — awakens 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?

Now you're being silly. It's obviously light that allows us to see the stars if they are large enough and close enough to be seen. I know this is hard to get your head around but please keep trying.

lol. Real hard to get your head around, eh, Bilby? But keep trying.

 

[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.

Second bump for peacegirl.

 

[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 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.

Turn off the light and we see nothing. In the absence of light there is absolute darkness. The eye evolved to detect light and the brain to generate vision.

 

[peacegirl]

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? 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. 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.

Except we did read it, and went over it with you at FF, including with the biologist The Lone Ranger. The author’s claim about a baby’s eyes is false. Notice once again, moreover, that he never attempts to demonstrate or provide evidence for this claim. He merely asserts it. And it’s false.

That's all you're doing. You're making assertions. What was his claim about a baby's eyes? How do you know he was wrong?

 

[bilby]

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.

The book is of no importance. The only important thing is the ideas, and we are discussing those, as presented here by you.

No part of that discussion can be improved by cryptic references to a text we have allegedly not even seen; If there's information or argument that you have, and that you believe is convincing, then the way to convince us is to present it.

"I have a completely compelling argument, and the only reason you disagree with me is that you don't know it" is a stupid claim to make in any debate. If you have that argument, bring it forth.

But don't imagine it won't be questioned.

And don't imagine that anyone will accept your arguments if you don't give complete and compelling answers to those questions.

That's the way people tell truth from nonsense.

 

[pood]

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? 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. 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.

Except we did read it, and went over it with you at FF, including with the biologist The Lone Ranger. The author’s claim about a baby’s eyes is false. Notice once again, moreover, that he never attempts to demonstrate or provide evidence for this claim. He merely asserts it. And it’s false.

That's all you're doing. You're making assertions. What was his claim about a baby's eyes? How do you know he was wrong?

No, peacegirl, this is entirely projection on your part. It is you who make assertions without evidence or argument to back them up. We counter with evidence and arguments that show the author’s claims to be false. The Lone Ranger already explained to you in detail what is wrong with his a claim about baby’s eyes. I’m not going to waste time giving you what he already gave.

 

[peacegirl]

peacegirl

There has been a lot of lengthy posts, if you would humor me please state clearly in your own words exactly what you mean by real time versus delayed sight.

Real time sight is a,b,c...
Delayed sight is d,e,f...

Don'trfefer me to yuur author, in your own words.

I've said this so many times, it's nauseating. Delayed light is when the light bounces or is reflected off of the object and the wavelength then travels for long distances and periods of time creating the belief that what we see is the past. Real time vision means that we would see the object as it is today, not yesterday, only because it is large enough and bright enough to be revealed in real time. If it could be seen, the wavelength of light would necessarily be at the eye, or we wouldn't see the object because it would be too far away or too small for any resolution. The event or object would be within our field of view or within the field of view of a camera or telescope. They work the same way even though we are dealing with instruments, not eyes.

 

[pood]

Indeed, the author’s claims, or peacegirl’s interpretation of them, are all the more bizarre when you consider in detail what she is actually telling us. It would be one thing to say that light travels infinitely fast. Then in that case, you could say that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it immediately, in real time. But that is not what she is saying. She is saying, rather, that if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it immediately, but nothing else for some eight minutes until the light from the sun arrived on earth. She also said earlier that light must be at the eye, for us to see, but at the same we can see the sun, even though the light from it will not arrive at our eye for some eight minutes. The upshot is that she is arguing that the light from the sun is both at, and not at, our eye at the same time, which is not just a physical but a logical impossibility.

 

[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 — awakens 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?

Now you're being silly.

No, I am pointing out that the claim "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 — awakens the brain" is silly.

It's obviously light that allows us to see the stars if they are large enough and close enough to be seen.

Yes, that's obvious.

It's also directly contradicting the quoted text. Sight is a response to light, and NOT due to "a sufficient accumulation of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell" after all.

So how does light allow us to see the stars, if it doesn't travel between where the stars are, and where we are?

I know this is hard to get your head around but please keep trying.

That's excellent advice. You really should take it.

 

[pood]

peacegirl

There has been a lot of lengthy posts, if you would humor me please state clearly in your own words exactly what you mean by real time versus delayed sight.

Real time sight is a,b,c...
Delayed sight is d,e,f...

Don'trfefer me to yuur author, in your own words.

I've said this so many times, it's nauseating.

Do you mean to say that you think repeating this nonsense will somehow make it true, or somehow get us to accept it? And it is making you nauseous that neither is happening?

, not eyes.

 

[pood]

So how does light allow us to see the stars, if it doesn't travel between where the stars are, and where we are?

As she has said many times, so many times it has made her nauseous, the light from the stars is at our eyes immediately when we look at them, even though it takes that light a long time to get here.

 

[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.

The speed of light is known by experiment to be not subject to receiver motion. All inertial frames will sureness the same C. C does not dend on the speed of the objct trasmitting light.

Shoot a bullet from a moving car in the line of travel and the velocity of the bullet is that of the car plus the exit velocity from the gun.

Fire a laser from a moving car and C remains constant.

What you are referring to is that the numerical value of C and the dimensions are set, which is true. In Systems International velocity is meters per second. C is 299,792,458 meters per second.

However the dimensions and values of C are set, C is constant velocity regardless of inetialframes.

Two space ships are traveling in the same line at different velocities. A laser pulse passes both ships. The velocity of the laser pulse looks the same to both ships.

BTW, in electronics the speed of light is routinely measured every day.

Interesting but really doesn't negate real time vision. Good try though.