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

[bilby]

It cannot be at the eye unless it is bright enough and large enough to be seen. I've said this a thousand times. If the star cannot be seen with the naked eye or a telescope, the light has diminished to where no telescope can magnify it.

But as I pointed out, ALL stars are bright enough and large enough.

You even responded by claiming to be unable to argue with facts.

Yet, despite their vast size and intense luminosity, some stars are invisible to the naked eye, or even to smaller telescopes.

Which contradicts what you are claiming here.

How and why does light 'diminish', if it is not traversing the distance between star and eye?

 

[pood]

I am not disputing this. The ONLY thing being disputed is that light gets reflected off of objects. It does not bounce, taking the information with it. Rather, it reveals the external world as we gaze in a particular direction. People are getting bent out of shape for no reason. This makes much more sense if you think about it.

Light does bounce off objects, your author’s claims make no snese at all, and LIGHT DOES NOT DIMINISH WITH DISTANCE. What, do think it runs out of gas???

 

[pood]

What does happen is that light spreads out over time, and telescopes are used to rectify that. But it does not “diminish,” whatever the hell that is even supposed to mean.

 

[peacegirl]

If the star cannot be seen with the naked eye or a telescope, the light has diminished to where no telescope can magnify it.

The problem is your failure of scale, and in understanding the physics of light.

No, it's your failure to understand what the author's claim was.

A particle of light is not like a balloon deflating as distance increases to an object, slowly letting out energy until it's entirely depleted, and being sampled from some growing field, which is how you seem to be treating it.

No one said light is like a balloon that deflates. That's not how I'm treating it.

Rather, it's like a shotgun blast, but the pellets never lose speed or momentum (ok, they do a little through red shift due to expansion, but not much at most reasonable scales).

The reason distant things are difficult to see is that in the arc width of the emission surface, there are only so many photos and there is a lot of dust in that mostly empty space that will catch much of it. It will be received by whatever receives it in a compressed emissions spectrum (pesky redshift...).

From the qualities of this light we can make inference about what is there: the emission spectra may match a compressed hydrogen spectra, so we know there is hydrogen; the spectra is so compressed so we know how far.

We don't need many photons, or frequent photons, to infer these facts. All we need is the occasional one or two! All we need is a few lucky survivors that miss all the obstacles.

We can see all the way to the quark-gluon plasma epoch of spacetime, albeit that epoch of a region very far away from us, with mere photons (we don't strictly know how big our gravity cone is...). The only places we cannot see in the universe are not due to light attenuation but due to space and matter at that time and place being *opaque* to all light, as a literal wall.

We can even infer how long the light has been traveling from the shift, and we use this (ok, a similar) principle commonly with laser ring gyroscopes, which are what keep a plane from losing track of its orientation. We literally can time how long the laser takes to travel the ring.

All of this is very interesting, and there is so much we can learn about our universe thanks to understanding light and its properties, but this alone does not negate the claim that we see in real time. Light does not peter out, as you seem to think the author was saying. He was not. The only thing that changes is that light reveals the external world; it does not bring the external world to us by traveling with the information to our eyes.

 

[peacegirl]

I am not disputing this. The ONLY thing being disputed is that light gets reflected off of objects. It does not bounce, taking the information with it. Rather, it reveals the external world as we gaze in a particular direction. People are getting bent out of shape for no reason. This makes much more sense if you think about it.

Light does bounce off objects, your author’s claims make no snese at all, and LIGHT DOES NOT DIMINISH WITH DISTANCE. What, do think it runs out of gas???

No Pood. That's not what he said, and that's not what I'm communicating. Light travels at 186,000 miles a second. You know that he didn't deny this, but light does not get reflected such that the information is being transmitted through space/time. We see the object because it is there to be seen due to light's presence and the fact that the celestial object (or any object) is bright enough and large enough to be seen. If it isn't, a high-powered telescope is used for this purpose, but this changes nothing in regard to his claim because we are seeing the object (although enlarged), not an image of the object that is being sent to us through light across millenia.

 

[peacegirl]

What does happen is that light spreads out over time, and telescopes are used to rectify that. But it does not “diminish,” whatever the hell that is even supposed to mean.

To repeat: When light disperses, it is true that we cannot see the object because of the reasons i've tried to explain over and over again. No one wants to hear the same thing that they have already disregarded. They will ignore anything I have to say because of repetition. It's obvious to why the present theory of light is incorrect if explained in a way that makes absolute sense. Lessans was not someone who threw out ideas without a reason. This was not his aim and never was. This is so degradating and sad. He will never be shown to have made a discovery, and more importantly, this knowledge will never be able to help mankind because of words that have stratified people into layers of importance. It's truly a devastation. This breaks my heart. This is not an appeal to sympathy without understanding why this lack of understanding hurts everyone.

 

[peacegirl]

It cannot be at the eye unless it is bright enough and large enough to be seen. I've said this a thousand times. If the star cannot be seen with the naked eye or a telescope, the light has diminished to where no telescope can magnify it.

But as I pointed out, ALL stars are bright enough and large enough.

Not all stars are bright enough and large enough to be seen even by a telescope.

You even responded by claiming to be unable to argue with facts.

I am talking to you right now. This is a fact.

Yet, despite their vast size and intense luminosity, some stars are invisible to the naked eye, or even to smaller telescopes.

Which contradicts what you are claiming here.

No it doesn't. It just means that these stars, although they have a vast size and intense luminosity, are still invisible to the naked eye or smaller telescopes. Maybe a larger telescope could magnify the star to where it could be seen, but it doesn't mean it's an image that has traversed time and space.

How and why does light 'diminish', if it is not traversing the distance between star and eye?

Light diminishes because, once again, as we become further and further away from the object, our photoreceptors don't have enough photons to see the object. We either have to get closer by way of a telescope, or the object has to become brighter. This is not rocket science, but because we have been taught to believe that light transfers information through space/time, it's hard for people to grapple that this is not the case.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's literally claiming light is magic.

I'm done here. Peacegirl, no. Any number of photons greater than zero in quantity is enough photons to carry inference.

When one photon is not enough to trigger the sensor switch of the telescope, we in fact pass that photon through a laser substrate of some kind. This is a material which is charged in such a way that photons of certain bandwidths *excite secondary parallel photon releases* in charged atoms they hit.

Usually with space telescopes a charged ruby is used, and it is a microwave bandwidth photon that is usually amplified; at short cosmic distances, microwave radiation interacts with less of the space dust, and at large distances even hot things attenuate to microwave spectra.

Anyway, the ruby gets hit with a single photon and is transparent to it, except for the fact that some bit of the matrix has just enough energy to be released without drawing ANY energy from the passing photon that strikes it out of the electron shell. One photon goes in, two identical ones come out.

The overall quality of photons does not "diminish", only their probability of reaching the other end.

Light has a rate of motion. It is well and truly studied the process by which light is produced, reflects/refracts/shifts, interacts with a receptor dye in the eye, converts that interaction into a signal on a neuron, and then this signal gets processed, such that the thing your perceived yourself seeing happened *in the past*.

I have in the past said that the past cannot reach out and touch you, but I suppose this is untrue. It can, but only at the specific range where it's past is still your present.

Light very much does not confer instant awareness of distant states. It is exactly causal determinism and phenomenal/causal responsibility that allows us to "see" because only certain things can be responsible for creating certain spectra.

 

[peacegirl]

That's literally claiming light is magic.

I'm done here. Peacegirl, no. Any number of photons greater than zero in quantity is enough photons to carry inference.

When one photon is not enough to trigger the sensor switch of the telescope, we in fact pass that photon through a laser substrate of some kind. This is a material which is charged in such a way that photons of certain bandwidths *excite secondary parallel photon releases* in charged atoms they hit.

Usually with space telescopes a charged ruby is used, and it is a microwave bandwidth photon that is usually amplified; at short cosmic distances, microwave radiation interacts with less of the space dust, and at large distances even hot things attenuate to microwave spectra.

Anyway, the ruby gets hit with a single photon and is transparent to it, except for the fact that some bit of the matrix has just enough energy to be released without drawing ANY energy from the passing photon that strikes it out of the electron shell. One photon goes in, two identical ones come out.

The overall quality of photons does not "diminish", only their probability of reaching the other end.

Light has a rate of motion. It is well and truly studied the process by which light is produced, reflects/refracts/shifts, interacts with a receptor dye in the eye, converts that interaction into a signal on a neuron, and then this signal gets processed, such that the thing your perceived yourself seeing happened *in the past*.

That's where the author disagreed. You say that the process is well and truly studied. Converting the receptor into a signal where that signal gets processed, such that the thing you perceived yourself seeing happened is "in the past" is a theory as to what the brain does.

I have in the past said that the past cannot reach out and touch you, but I suppose this is untrue. It can, but only at the specific range where it's past is still your present.

You say one's past can still be one's present if it's at a specific range, which cannot be true when the past has no existence other than in memory.

Light very much does not confer instant awareness of distant states.

It actually does. The brain doesn't process signals that are converted into images. The author’s observations tell a different story.

It is exactly causal determinism and phenomenal/causal responsibility that allows us to "see" because only certain things can be responsible for creating certain spectra.

Light is responsible for creating certain spectra, but light is not responsible for bringing the image to us through space/time. It IS a condition of sight only, not a cause..

 

[pood]

That's literally claiming light is magic.

I'm done here. Peacegirl, no. Any number of photons greater than zero in quantity is enough photons to carry inference.

When one photon is not enough to trigger the sensor switch of the telescope, we in fact pass that photon through a laser substrate of some kind. This is a material which is charged in such a way that photons of certain bandwidths *excite secondary parallel photon releases* in charged atoms they hit.

Usually with space telescopes a charged ruby is used, and it is a microwave bandwidth photon that is usually amplified; at short cosmic distances, microwave radiation interacts with less of the space dust, and at large distances even hot things attenuate to microwave spectra.

Anyway, the ruby gets hit with a single photon and is transparent to it, except for the fact that some bit of the matrix has just enough energy to be released without drawing ANY energy from the passing photon that strikes it out of the electron shell. One photon goes in, two identical ones come out.

The overall quality of photons does not "diminish", only their probability of reaching the other end.

Light has a rate of motion. It is well and truly studied the process by which light is produced, reflects/refracts/shifts, interacts with a receptor dye in the eye, converts that interaction into a signal on a neuron, and then this signal gets processed, such that the thing your perceived yourself seeing happened *in the past*.

I have in the past said that the past cannot reach out and touch you, but I suppose this is untrue. It can, but only at the specific range where it's past is still your present.

Light very much does not confer instant awareness of distant states. It is exactly causal determinism and phenomenal/causal responsibility that allows us to "see" because only certain things can be responsible for creating certain spectra.

Nice post. Trust me, she will never understand a word of it, or if she does, she will reject it because her writer said otherwise (even though he did not know jack shit about light or sight).

 

[peacegirl]

That's literally claiming light is magic.

I'm done here. Peacegirl, no. Any number of photons greater than zero in quantity is enough photons to carry inference.

When one photon is not enough to trigger the sensor switch of the telescope, we in fact pass that photon through a laser substrate of some kind. This is a material which is charged in such a way that photons of certain bandwidths *excite secondary parallel photon releases* in charged atoms they hit.

Usually with space telescopes a charged ruby is used, and it is a microwave bandwidth photon that is usually amplified; at short cosmic distances, microwave radiation interacts with less of the space dust, and at large distances even hot things attenuate to microwave spectra.

Anyway, the ruby gets hit with a single photon and is transparent to it, except for the fact that some bit of the matrix has just enough energy to be released without drawing ANY energy from the passing photon that strikes it out of the electron shell. One photon goes in, two identical ones come out.

The overall quality of photons does not "diminish", only their probability of reaching the other end.

Light has a rate of motion. It is well and truly studied the process by which light is produced, reflects/refracts/shifts, interacts with a receptor dye in the eye, converts that interaction into a signal on a neuron, and then this signal gets processed, such that the thing your perceived yourself seeing happened *in the past*.

I have in the past said that the past cannot reach out and touch you, but I suppose this is untrue. It can, but only at the specific range where it's past is still your present.

Light very much does not confer instant awareness of distant states. It is exactly causal determinism and phenomenal/causal responsibility that allows us to "see" because only certain things can be responsible for creating certain spectra.

Nice post. Trust me, she will never understand a word of it, or if she does, she will reject it because her writer said otherwise (even though he did not know jack shit about light or sight).

Pood, this observation did not come from cosmology. Just because someone comes here and details things about light -- which I have no problem with -- does not prove that images are formed in the brain. You know that, but now you feel all powerful. You did that in FF too when I was down for the count.

 

[Jarhyn]

That's literally claiming light is magic.

I'm done here. Peacegirl, no. Any number of photons greater than zero in quantity is enough photons to carry inference.

When one photon is not enough to trigger the sensor switch of the telescope, we in fact pass that photon through a laser substrate of some kind. This is a material which is charged in such a way that photons of certain bandwidths *excite secondary parallel photon releases* in charged atoms they hit.

Usually with space telescopes a charged ruby is used, and it is a microwave bandwidth photon that is usually amplified; at short cosmic distances, microwave radiation interacts with less of the space dust, and at large distances even hot things attenuate to microwave spectra.

Anyway, the ruby gets hit with a single photon and is transparent to it, except for the fact that some bit of the matrix has just enough energy to be released without drawing ANY energy from the passing photon that strikes it out of the electron shell. One photon goes in, two identical ones come out.

The overall quality of photons does not "diminish", only their probability of reaching the other end.

Light has a rate of motion. It is well and truly studied the process by which light is produced, reflects/refracts/shifts, interacts with a receptor dye in the eye, converts that interaction into a signal on a neuron, and then this signal gets processed, such that the thing your perceived yourself seeing happened *in the past*.

That's where the author disagreed. You say that the process is well and truly studied. Converting the receptor into a signal where that signal gets processed, such that the thing you perceived yourself seeing happened is "in the past" is a theory as to what the brain does.

And his disagreement is why he is wrong. We have fully and completely observed the process.

That theory has been borne out by observation of the phenomena and process happening, if not all at once, in each of the specific characters of interaction.

We observe the photon hitting the dye. We observe the dye having it's structure changed electromagnetically, we observe the dye exciting the neuron under it. We observe the neuron changing state to fire.

Once we have observed the mechanism of the eye, it is trivial to compare the action of one mechanism that generates nerve pulses to another (these are the same mechanism at this point). At that point all you need to do is compare the action of neural groups in general on neural signals to know what neurons do with signals.

This is why you are so hopelessly wrong about the implications of decoding a fly brain to understand how brains process signals, because we have isolated that it's "signals" and "processing" happing of both kinds of eyes, and both kinds of brains respectively.

I have in the past said that the past cannot reach out and touch you, but I suppose this is untrue. It can, but only at the specific range where it's past is still your present.

You say one's past can still be one's present if it's at a specific range, which cannot be true when the past has no existence other than in memory.

You are mixing modal scopes badly here. Please stop that.

Light very much does not confer instant awareness of distant states.

It actually does. The brain doesn't process signals that are converted into images. The author’s observations tell a different story.

The author's observations are of the inside of his eyelids while using powerful hallucinogens. They tell a story no more true than one I know of a school called Hogwarts...

It is exactly causal determinism and phenomenal/causal responsibility that allows us to "see" because only certain things can be responsible for creating certain spectra.

Light is responsible for creating certain spectra, but light is not responsible for bringing the image to us through space/time. It IS a condition of sight only, not a cause..

No, light is not responsible for creating certain spectra.

Certain spectra are created by electrons discharging electromagnetic phenomena called photons with specific energies. These photos are carriers of that information, and they very much are carried through space and time, and their interactions and the resulting interactions together very much do "cause" sight.

"Sight" is the noun that describes all things defined by a verb interaction implying inference from the nature of a photon captured by a switch of some kind in a way that preserves directional information.

The photon, given the context of the sensor, is the cause. The photon travels through space and time. Deal with it.

 

[peacegirl]

That's literally claiming light is magic.

I'm done here. Peacegirl, no. Any number of photons greater than zero in quantity is enough photons to carry inference.

When one photon is not enough to trigger the sensor switch of the telescope, we in fact pass that photon through a laser substrate of some kind. This is a material which is charged in such a way that photons of certain bandwidths *excite secondary parallel photon releases* in charged atoms they hit.

Usually with space telescopes a charged ruby is used, and it is a microwave bandwidth photon that is usually amplified; at short cosmic distances, microwave radiation interacts with less of the space dust, and at large distances even hot things attenuate to microwave spectra.

Anyway, the ruby gets hit with a single photon and is transparent to it, except for the fact that some bit of the matrix has just enough energy to be released without drawing ANY energy from the passing photon that strikes it out of the electron shell. One photon goes in, two identical ones come out.

The overall quality of photons does not "diminish", only their probability of reaching the other end.

Light has a rate of motion. It is well and truly studied the process by which light is produced, reflects/refracts/shifts, interacts with a receptor dye in the eye, converts that interaction into a signal on a neuron, and then this signal gets processed, such that the thing your perceived yourself seeing happened *in the past*.

That's where the author disagreed. You say that the process is well and truly studied. Converting the receptor into a signal where that signal gets processed, such that the thing you perceived yourself seeing happened is "in the past" is a theory as to what the brain does.

And his disagreement is why he is wrong. We have fully and completely observed the process.

That theory has been borne out by observation of the phenomena and process happening, if not all at once, in each of the specific characters of interaction.

We observe the photon hitting the dye. We observe the dye having it's structure changed electromagnetically, we observe the dye exciting the neuron under it. We observe the neuron changing state to fire.

Once we have observed the mechanism of the eye, it is trivial to compare the action of one mechanism that generates nerve pulses to another (these are the same mechanism at this point). At that point all you need to do is compare the action of neural groups in general on neural signals to know what neurons do with signals.

This is why you are so hopelessly wrong about the implications of decoding a fly brain to understand how brains process signals, because we have isolated that it's "signals" and "processing" happing of both kinds of eyes, and both kinds of brains respectively.

I have in the past said that the past cannot reach out and touch you, but I suppose this is untrue. It can, but only at the specific range where it's past is still your present.

You say one's past can still be one's present if it's at a specific range, which cannot be true when the past has no existence other than in memory.

You are mixing modal scopes badly here. Please stop that.

No I'm not. Modal scopes don't allow the past to exist when it doesn't.

Light very much does not confer instant awareness of distant states.

It actually does. The brain doesn't process signals that are converted into images. The author’s observations tell a different story.

The author's observations are of the inside of his eyelids while using powerful hallucinogens. They tell a story no more true than one I know of a school called Hogwarts...

Be careful what you say. That was an ad hominem. Please stop, or you will be reported to the moderators.

It is exactly causal determinism and phenomenal/causal responsibility that allows us to "see" because only certain things can be responsible for creating certain spectra.

Light is responsible for creating certain spectra, but light is not responsible for bringing the image to us through space/time. It IS a condition of sight only, not a cause..

No, light is not responsible for creating certain spectra.

Certain spectra are created by electrons discharging electromagnetic phenomena called photons with specific energies. These photos are carriers of that information, and they very much are carried through space and time, and their interactions and the resulting interactions together very much do "cause" sight.

Says Jarhyn!

"Sight" is the noun that describes all things defined by a verb interaction implying inference from the nature of a photon captured by a switch of some kind in a way that preserves directional information.

The photon, given the context of the sensor, is the cause. The photon travels through space and time. Deal with it.

The photon, given the context, is the condition. The photon travels through space and time, but it does not bring information from the object to the eye. It reveals the object when we look at it due to light's presence. Deal with it.

 

[pood]

Be careful what you say. That was an ad hominem. Please stop, or you will be reported to the moderators.

No, it NOT ad homimen, and anway even if it were, it is not directed against a member. The no-ad hom rule applies to ad hom against MEMBERS. In this case, your pontificating jackass of an author is being characterized, and he is NOT a member here. Finally, what a fat shit-ton of nerve you have!! Do you want me to go back a report the INNUMERABLE rule-violating ad hom posts you have made? The only reason I haven’t done so is because you ain’t worth the trouble.

It is exactly causal determinism and phenomenal/causal responsibility that allows us to "see" because only certain things can be responsible for creating certain spectra.

Light is responsible for creating certain spectra, but light is not responsible for bringing the image to us through space/time. It IS a condition of sight only, not a cause..

No, light is not responsible for creating certain spectra.

Certain spectra are created by electrons discharging electromagnetic phenomena called photons with specific energies. These photos are carriers of that information, and they very much are carried through space and time, and their interactions and the resulting interactions together very much do "cause" sight.

Says Jarhyn!

No, says REALITY. You can’t deal with reality. You believe what’s true is adjudicated by authority figures. We don’t.

"Sight" is the noun that describes all things defined by a verb interaction implying inference from the nature of a photon captured by a switch of some kind in a way that preserves directional information.

The photon, given the context of the sensor, is the cause. The photon travels through space and time. Deal with it.

The photon, given the context, is the condition. The photon travels through space and time, but it does not bring information from the object to the eye. It reveals the object when we look at it due to light's presence. Deal with it.

You’re wrong. Deal with it.

 

[peacegirl]

Be careful what you say. That was an ad hominem. Please stop, or you will be reported to the moderators.

No, it NOT ad homimen, and anway even if it were, it is not directed against a member. The no-ad hom rule applies to ad hom against MEMBERS. In this case, your pontificating jackass of an author is being characterized, and he is NOT a member here. Finally, what a fat shit-ton of nerve you have!! Do you want me to go back a report the INNUMERABLE rule-violating ad hom posts you have made? The only reason I haven’t done so is because you ain’t worth the trouble.

You have gotten rude and nasty since Jarhyn stepped in, just like when Chuck made his entrance at FF. It was horrible, and I won’t put up with it! This was an ad hom and I don’t care about rules that say this only applies to members. These comments don’t belong here. It is an attempt to hurt an author who cannot defend himself.

It is exactly causal determinism and phenomenal/causal responsibility that allows us to "see" because only certain things can be responsible for creating certain spectra.

Light is responsible for creating certain spectra, but light is not responsible for bringing the image to us through space/time. It IS a condition of sight only, not a cause..

No, light is not responsible for creating certain spectra.

Certain spectra are created by electrons discharging electromagnetic phenomena called photons with specific energies. These photos are carriers of that information, and they very much are carried through space and time, and their interactions and the resulting interactions together very much do "cause" sight.

Says Jarhyn!

No, says REALITY. You can’t deal with reality. You believe what’s true is adjudicated by authority figures. We don’t.

This has nothing to do with authority, Pood. You have been harboring anger toward this author which is sad. He did nothing but demonstrate why the eyes are not a sense organ and you hate him for it because it messes up your worldview. I will talk to others but not to you. Bye bye.

"Sight" is the noun that describes all things defined by a verb interaction implying inference from the nature of a photon captured by a switch of some kind in a way that preserves directional information.

The photon, given the context of the sensor, is the cause. The photon travels through space and time. Deal with it.

The photon, given the context, is the condition. The photon travels through space and time, but it does not bring information from the object to the eye. It reveals the object when we look at it due to light's presence. Deal with it.

You’re wrong. Deal with it.

No, you’re wrong! We don’t see the past. Deal with it. If you want to keep this back and forth stupidity going, save your breath. Just go to another thread, which you won’t do because you can’t. Your will is not free to do otherwise because you get greater satisfaction being here.

 

[Jarhyn]

The worst part of this is... I actually took classes to learn all this. I took chemistry classes and biology classes, I took psychology classes, and logical reasoning classes... I took my entire major so that I could eventually have the prerequisites for my classes studying the learning and inference process itself.

I did all this because the topics around building, understanding agency and autonomous action are... Well, it's "The Secrets of Life and Death". It is to accomplish The Great Work and to push back against death itself.

Watching someone then say "all the authors of centuries who tirelessly and often thanklessly toil to the fulfillment of that great work are wrong; All their evidence is wrong; All the experiments and observations you did in your own education to hear our the truth of their discoveries are wrong; hell, you are wrong for even thinking it's more than inexplicable magic"? Get real.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Sight" is the noun that describes all things defined by a verb interaction implying inference from the nature of a photon captured by a switch of some kind in a way that preserves directional information.

The photon, given the context of the sensor, is the cause. The photon travels through space and time. Deal with it.

The photon, given the context, is the condition. The photon travels through space and time, but it does not bring information from the object to the eye. It reveals the object when we look at it due to light's presence. Deal with it.

You’re wrong. Deal with it.

So, I've been trying my hardest to figure out what thought process she's using to get to her conclusions and I think I'm kind of able to see it? It's still wrong, but here goes:

The object IS always there, seen or unseen, light or not. The photon only allows us to discover it.

The failure is in thinking that the event of the photon revealing the existence of the object, through its existence as an artifact of that object, somehow prevents this from being an act of informational exchange.

 

[bilby]

light does not get reflected such that the information is being transmitted through space/time.

So, how do mirrors even work?

 

[bilby]

Not all stars are bright enough and large enough to be seen even by a telescope.

No star is less than 1.6x1029kg, or 160,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes; No star is less luminous than 8x10-7L⊙, or 300,000,000,000,000,000,000W. So they are not invisible because they lack size or luminosity.

ALL stars are brighter and larger than ANY artificial light source; What makes a searchlight a few miles away more visible at night than a red dwarf a few thousand light years away is not its size or luminosity; It is the distance that the light has to travel.

The light has to travel; No explanation that says it does not is in concord with the simple observations we can all make.

 

[pood]

"Sight" is the noun that describes all things defined by a verb interaction implying inference from the nature of a photon captured by a switch of some kind in a way that preserves directional information.

The photon, given the context of the sensor, is the cause. The photon travels through space and time. Deal with it.

The photon, given the context, is the condition. The photon travels through space and time, but it does not bring information from the object to the eye. It reveals the object when we look at it due to light's presence. Deal with it.

You’re wrong. Deal with it.

So, I've been trying my hardest to figure out what thought process she's using to get to her conclusions and I think I'm kind of able to see it? It's still wrong, but here goes:

The object IS always there, seen or unseen, light or not. The photon only allows us to discover it.

The failure is in thinking that the event of the photon revealing the existence of the object, through its existence as an artifact of that object, somehow prevents this from being an act of informational exchange.

She doesn’t have a thought process on this. Her writer had no thought process, either. He just proclaimed it. And she believes the writer because the writer is her father. She said at another board that if her father had been wrong, he would have said so; since he didn’t say he was wrong, he must have been right.

Go try and reach a mentality like that. You can’t. It’s magical thinking and Obedience to Authority, just like in all the retarded religions.