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

[peacegirl]

peacegirl, let’s look at your hypothetical example of an object (say, a flower) turning from red to blue. When the flower changes, it stops emitting photons of the red wavelength and begins emitting photons of the blue wavelength. You claimed that as soon as it turns blue, the blue wavelength is "now at our photoreceptors." For that to happen instantaneously, those newly emitted photons would have to travel the distance between the flower and the eye in zero time (t = 0 for d > 0), which implies an infinite speed (v = infinity). This directly contradicts your own acknowledgment that light has a finite speed. You cannot claim light travels at a finite speed while simultaneously arguing that information about a color change reaches the eye instantaneously.

You’re getting confused over the speed of light.

I am not confused over the speed of light, you contradicted yourself.

That’s what Pood keeps misunderstanding.

pood does not keep misunderstanding something, you contradicted yourself.

It’s not like the blue flower has to travel faster than the speed of light to pass the red.

There is one flower that had changed from red to blue. The photons are traveling.

You are still thinking in affected t vision where there is a delay.

No, I am not. I showed you why your instantaneous vision claim contradicted your finite speed of light claim. Both claims are understood and they contradict one another.

This is why you compared this to traveling by plane and the time it takes to go from where you are to where you’re going. Please remember: this account has nothing to do with reaching, which implies a time delay.

No, I used YOUR HYPOTHETICAL and THE WORDS YOU USED to show why you were contradicting yourself.

Let's review: You cannot simultaneously maintain that light travels at a finite speed and that new visual information is received instantaneously. If the object changes its state at t = 0 and distance d > 0, the photons of blue wavelength require a travel time of t = d / c to reach the observer. By claiming the observer's photoreceptors receive these new photons of blue wavelength "the instant" the flower changes, you are mathematically asserting that t = 0 for a distance d > 0, which necessitates an infinite velocity (v =infinity). This directly invalidates your previous admission that light is limited to a finite speed, creating a fundamental logical contradiction.

You cannot take back the contradiction. It is too late.

It is not too late.

No, it is too late to retract those words; they are recorded.

What you just offered as proof that the author was contradicting himself

This is primarily about your own words contradicting themselves. As an open-minded person, I started by reading what you had to say. When you were vague, your claims were incoherent; when you finally supplied technical details, your claims became explicitly contradictory.

may be too late for you to understand that there is no conflict between light traveling at 186,000 miles per second and the fact that we see in real time using light as a condition.

The contradiction is not about your "light as a condition" hypothesis; it is about your granular claim that blue-wavelength photons arrive at the photoreceptors instantly. That claim requires the speed of light to be infinite, which violates the very 186,000 miles-per-second limit you also claim to support. Both cannot be true. You are attempting to use "light as a condition" as a shield to avoid the mathematical reality of the photons you described.

We're talking at each other, not to each other,

No, I am writing directly to you. You are simply refusing to address the technical details of your own posts, resorting to vague phrases about "understanding" instead of explaining how your photons can arrive instantly while traveling at a finite speed.

and I've given up the hope that we will ever see eye to eye (pun intended) on this important topic.

I have not given up hope that you will eventually be forced to address the internal inconsistency of your own logic. Once you stop avoiding the "granular" details, the contradiction will become as clear to you as it is to everyone else.

Let's review what you wrote:

The object suddenly changes color from red to blue. ... We see blue the instant red changes to blue because the blue wavelength/frequency is now at our photoreceptors, ...

In order for the photons of blue wavelength to be at our photoreceptors instantly they need to travel in zero time across a non-zero distance. This requires infinite speed, but you also claim the speed of light is finite. Therefore you have contradicted yourself. Using the basic physics formula for velocity, v = d / t, we substitute your values: v = d / 0. Any positive distance divided by zero time results in an infinite velocity v = infinity. You are simultaneously claiming light travels at a finite speed (186,000 miles per second) and that it travels at an infinite speed (v = infinity). Your two claims are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled.

There is no internal inconsistency if you follow his reasoning. I asked you a question earlier. Do you know why he made this claim? Did you read the chapter when I posted it? All you are doing is trying to square real-time vision with delayed vision by using the fact that light travels at a finite speed. He was not claiming that light is infinite. It's not even related. If real-time vision were dependent on traveling light, then of course blue would come after red, and his claim would be nonsense. But if light is not bringing the image of the object to the eye through space/time (i.e., his claim), then seeing in real time and light speed would not be contradictory. Light still does what it does, but the eyes don't do what science claims they do, which changes everything.

 

[pood]

peacegirl, let’s look at your hypothetical example of an object (say, a flower) turning from red to blue. When the flower changes, it stops emitting photons of the red wavelength and begins emitting photons of the blue wavelength. You claimed that as soon as it turns blue, the blue wavelength is "now at our photoreceptors." For that to happen instantaneously, those newly emitted photons would have to travel the distance between the flower and the eye in zero time (t = 0 for d > 0), which implies an infinite speed (v = infinity). This directly contradicts your own acknowledgment that light has a finite speed. You cannot claim light travels at a finite speed while simultaneously arguing that information about a color change reaches the eye instantaneously.

You’re getting confused over the speed of light.

I am not confused over the speed of light, you contradicted yourself.

That’s what Pood keeps misunderstanding.

pood does not keep misunderstanding something, you contradicted yourself.

It’s not like the blue flower has to travel faster than the speed of light to pass the red.

There is one flower that had changed from red to blue. The photons are traveling.

You are still thinking in affected t vision where there is a delay.

No, I am not. I showed you why your instantaneous vision claim contradicted your finite speed of light claim. Both claims are understood and they contradict one another.

This is why you compared this to traveling by plane and the time it takes to go from where you are to where you’re going. Please remember: this account has nothing to do with reaching, which implies a time delay.

No, I used YOUR HYPOTHETICAL and THE WORDS YOU USED to show why you were contradicting yourself.

Let's review: You cannot simultaneously maintain that light travels at a finite speed and that new visual information is received instantaneously. If the object changes its state at t = 0 and distance d > 0, the photons of blue wavelength require a travel time of t = d / c to reach the observer. By claiming the observer's photoreceptors receive these new photons of blue wavelength "the instant" the flower changes, you are mathematically asserting that t = 0 for a distance d > 0, which necessitates an infinite velocity (v =infinity). This directly invalidates your previous admission that light is limited to a finite speed, creating a fundamental logical contradiction.

You cannot take back the contradiction. It is too late.

It is not too late.

No, it is too late to retract those words; they are recorded.

What you just offered as proof that the author was contradicting himself

This is primarily about your own words contradicting themselves. As an open-minded person, I started by reading what you had to say. When you were vague, your claims were incoherent; when you finally supplied technical details, your claims became explicitly contradictory.

may be too late for you to understand that there is no conflict between light traveling at 186,000 miles per second and the fact that we see in real time using light as a condition.

The contradiction is not about your "light as a condition" hypothesis; it is about your granular claim that blue-wavelength photons arrive at the photoreceptors instantly. That claim requires the speed of light to be infinite, which violates the very 186,000 miles-per-second limit you also claim to support. Both cannot be true. You are attempting to use "light as a condition" as a shield to avoid the mathematical reality of the photons you described.

We're talking at each other, not to each other,

No, I am writing directly to you. You are simply refusing to address the technical details of your own posts, resorting to vague phrases about "understanding" instead of explaining how your photons can arrive instantly while traveling at a finite speed.

and I've given up the hope that we will ever see eye to eye (pun intended) on this important topic.

I have not given up hope that you will eventually be forced to address the internal inconsistency of your own logic. Once you stop avoiding the "granular" details, the contradiction will become as clear to you as it is to everyone else.

Let's review what you wrote:

The object suddenly changes color from red to blue. ... We see blue the instant red changes to blue because the blue wavelength/frequency is now at our photoreceptors, ...

In order for the photons of blue wavelength to be at our photoreceptors instantly they need to travel in zero time across a non-zero distance. This requires infinite speed, but you also claim the speed of light is finite. Therefore you have contradicted yourself. Using the basic physics formula for velocity, v = d / t, we substitute your values: v = d / 0. Any positive distance divided by zero time results in an infinite velocity v = infinity. You are simultaneously claiming light travels at a finite speed (186,000 miles per second) and that it travels at an infinite speed (v = infinity). Your two claims are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled.

There is no internal inconsistency if you follow his reasoning. I asked you a question earlier. Do you know why he made this claim? Did you read the chapter when I posted it? All you are doing is trying to square real-time vision with delayed vision by using the fact that light travels at a finite speed. He was not claiming that light is infinite. It's not even related. If real-time vision were dependent on traveling light, then of course blue would come after red, and his claim would be nonsense. But if light is not bringing the image of the object to the eye through space/time (i.e., his claim), then seeing in real time and light speed would not be contradictory. Light still does what it does, but the eyes don't do what science claims they do, which changes everything.

Total twaddle.

 

[peacegirl]

The argument is so far from being compelling that it can't be taken seriously.

I disagree. There is nothing contradictory about the claim. Light travels at 186,000 miles a second. Light is used for measurement, but his claim regarding efferent vision changes the past tense to the present tense, even if you can't see it. Reality doesn't care.

I suggest that you brush on the function of efferent and afferent neurons.

Here, I'll help.

Afferent: Carries signals toward a central organ or structure (e.g., sensory nerves carrying messages from the body to the brain).

Efferent: Carries signals away from a central structure (e.g., motor nerves carrying commands from the brain to the muscles).

"Neurons never function in isolation; they are organized into ensembles or circuits that process specific kinds of information. Although the arrangement of neural circuits varies greatly according to the intended function, some features are characteristic of all such ensembles.

The synaptic connections that define a circuit are typically made in a dense tangle of dendrites, axons terminals, and glial cell processes that together constitute neuropil (the suffix -pil comes from the Greek word pilos, meaning “felt”; see Figure 1.3).

Thus, the neuropil between nerve cell bodies is the region where most synaptic connectivity occurs.

The direction of information flow in any particular circuit is essential to understanding its function. Nerve cells that carry information toward the central nervous system (or farther centrally within the spinal cord and brain) are called afferent neurons; nerve cells that carry information away from the brain or spinal cord (or away from the circuit in question) are called efferent neurons.

Nerve cells that only participate in the local aspects of a circuit are called interneurons or local circuit neurons. These three classes—afferent neurons, efferent neurons, and interneurons—are the basic constituents of all neural circuits..."

Neural Circuits - Neuroscience - NCBI Bookshelf

His use of these terms was absolutely appropriate.

af·fer·ent
[ˈaf(ə)r(ə)nt]
adjective
noun
afferent (adjective)
physiology

1. conducting or conducted inwards or towards something

ef·fer·ent
[ˈɛf(ə)r(ə)nt]
adjective
noun
efferent (adjective) to
physiology

1. conducted or conducting outwards or away from something

That doesn't support your claim.

It isn’t meant to support. It’s just a definition.

The given definitions of neuron function refute the claim. Neuronal function doesn't allow it. There are no means or mechanisms by which instant vision could be possible. For that reason, it's not even a possibility. The claim has absolutely no merit.

Again, the definition he used was coined by him because there was no better definition he could have used to explain what he was demonstrating. That doesn't make his claim have no merit. It just adds a second definition to the word. He didn't disrupt neuronal function just because we see in real time. Photoreceptors are still engaged. The only thing he disputed was that the optic nerve receives impulses that are transduced into reconstructed images. I mean, this isn't something that is so far out that science couldn't have been mistaken because but this theory has been accepted as truth for so long that it has hardened into scientific fact. This makes it almost impossible for Lessans to be taken seriously. That's unfortunate and goes against the very meaning of scientific theory.

Photoreceptors: The First Neurons in Vision​

The process begins in the retina, a light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye, which contains specialized neurons called photoreceptors. scienceinsights.org+1.

Light sensitive receptors have evolved to detect light. Light that is emitted or reflected by objects.....light that has speed and travel time.

That is how it works, which is why we see an object as it was in the past, as it was at the moment of reflection or emission and not as it is when the eyes detect that light.

It may be how light works, but it's NOT HOW THE EYES WORK.

Yes, it is how the eyes work. You even wrote it yourself:

The process begins in the retina, a light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye, which contains specialized neurons called photoreceptors.

_______====>BEGINS<====_________


_______====>BEGINS<====_________
_______====>BEGINS<====_________
_______====>BEGINS<====_________​

He was not omitting the photoreceptors from the equation. OMG!!! He was not omitting the optic nerve either. He was just saying it works through a different mechanism than the way it has been described. Do you even grasp what his claim was and why?

I did not claim he was omitting anything in the post you responded to. I showed that EVEN YOU admitted there is a process that BEGINS with detecting light in the retina after receiving the light which had traveled in time.

It is important to understand that there is a finite speed of light, which takes time to arrive, and simultaneously, we can see the world in real time without a violation of physics because there is no time involved. If it did, then we'd have a problem. The two are mutually exclusive phenomena. One does not negate the other.

Turn the light source off and it is dark, we see nothing.

We don't see the object, we see the light coming from the object......aaaand light has travel time.

With travel time, there can be no instant vision.

There is no instant vision.

You also don't understand why he explicitly said that if the Sun were just turned on, we would see it turned on instantly because it would have met the requirements of brightness and size before we would see each other 8.5 minutes later. If the light source were turned off, we would see nothing, because light doesn't travel independently of its source. To give you another hypothetical example, if a star suddenly died, we would not see a delayed image of that star for billions of years. We would see nothing because light doesn't bounce off of matter, bringing the image of the object to us through space/time in a delay, which is the very theory Lessans disputed. This doesn't challenge the fact that light travels at c in a vacuum ad infinitum.

 

[pood]

The argument is so far from being compelling that it can't be taken seriously.

I disagree. There is nothing contradictory about the claim. Light travels at 186,000 miles a second. Light is used for measurement, but his claim regarding efferent vision changes the past tense to the present tense, even if you can't see it. Reality doesn't care.

I suggest that you brush on the function of efferent and afferent neurons.

Here, I'll help.

Afferent: Carries signals toward a central organ or structure (e.g., sensory nerves carrying messages from the body to the brain).

Efferent: Carries signals away from a central structure (e.g., motor nerves carrying commands from the brain to the muscles).

"Neurons never function in isolation; they are organized into ensembles or circuits that process specific kinds of information. Although the arrangement of neural circuits varies greatly according to the intended function, some features are characteristic of all such ensembles.

The synaptic connections that define a circuit are typically made in a dense tangle of dendrites, axons terminals, and glial cell processes that together constitute neuropil (the suffix -pil comes from the Greek word pilos, meaning “felt”; see Figure 1.3).

Thus, the neuropil between nerve cell bodies is the region where most synaptic connectivity occurs.

The direction of information flow in any particular circuit is essential to understanding its function. Nerve cells that carry information toward the central nervous system (or farther centrally within the spinal cord and brain) are called afferent neurons; nerve cells that carry information away from the brain or spinal cord (or away from the circuit in question) are called efferent neurons.

Nerve cells that only participate in the local aspects of a circuit are called interneurons or local circuit neurons. These three classes—afferent neurons, efferent neurons, and interneurons—are the basic constituents of all neural circuits..."

Neural Circuits - Neuroscience - NCBI Bookshelf

His use of these terms was absolutely appropriate.

af·fer·ent
[ˈaf(ə)r(ə)nt]
adjective
noun
afferent (adjective)
physiology

1. conducting or conducted inwards or towards something

ef·fer·ent
[ˈɛf(ə)r(ə)nt]
adjective
noun
efferent (adjective) to
physiology

1. conducted or conducting outwards or away from something

That doesn't support your claim.

It isn’t meant to support. It’s just a definition.

The given definitions of neuron function refute the claim. Neuronal function doesn't allow it. There are no means or mechanisms by which instant vision could be possible. For that reason, it's not even a possibility. The claim has absolutely no merit.

Again, the definition he used was coined by him because there was no better definition he could have used to explain what he was demonstrating. That doesn't make his claim have no merit. It just adds a second definition to the word. He didn't disrupt neuronal function just because we see in real time. Photoreceptors are still engaged. The only thing he disputed was that the optic nerve receives impulses that are transduced into reconstructed images. I mean, this isn't something that is so far out that science couldn't have been mistaken because but this theory has been accepted as truth for so long that it has hardened into scientific fact. This makes it almost impossible for Lessans to be taken seriously. That's unfortunate and goes against the very meaning of scientific theory.

Photoreceptors: The First Neurons in Vision​

The process begins in the retina, a light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye, which contains specialized neurons called photoreceptors. scienceinsights.org+1.

Light sensitive receptors have evolved to detect light. Light that is emitted or reflected by objects.....light that has speed and travel time.

That is how it works, which is why we see an object as it was in the past, as it was at the moment of reflection or emission and not as it is when the eyes detect that light.

It may be how light works, but it's NOT HOW THE EYES WORK.

Yes, it is how the eyes work. You even wrote it yourself:

The process begins in the retina, a light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye, which contains specialized neurons called photoreceptors.

_______====>BEGINS<====_________


_______====>BEGINS<====_________
_______====>BEGINS<====_________
_______====>BEGINS<====_________​

He was not omitting the photoreceptors from the equation. OMG!!! He was not omitting the optic nerve either. He was just saying it works through a different mechanism than the way it has been described. Do you even grasp what his claim was and why?

I did not claim he was omitting anything in the post you responded to. I showed that EVEN YOU admitted there is a process that BEGINS with detecting light in the retina after receiving the light which had traveled in time.

It is important to understand that there is a finite speed of light, which takes time to arrive, and simultaneously, we can see the world in real time without a violation of physics because there is no time involved. If it did, then we'd have a problem. The two are mutually exclusive phenomena. One does not negate the other.

Turn the light source off and it is dark, we see nothing.

We don't see the object, we see the light coming from the object......aaaand light has travel time.

With travel time, there can be no instant vision.

There is no instant vision.

You also don't understand why he explicitly said that if the Sun were just turned on, we would see it turned on instantly because it would have met the requirements of brightness and size before we would see each other 8.5 minutes later.

Again, total twaddle.

We don’t “understand” this because it is laughably wrong. As anyone can verify for themselves by watching the sun rise in the morning.

 

[peacegirl]

The argument is so far from being compelling that it can't be taken seriously.

I disagree. There is nothing contradictory about the claim. Light travels at 186,000 miles a second. Light is used for measurement, but his claim regarding efferent vision changes the past tense to the present tense, even if you can't see it. Reality doesn't care.

I suggest that you brush on the function of efferent and afferent neurons.

Here, I'll help.

Afferent: Carries signals toward a central organ or structure (e.g., sensory nerves carrying messages from the body to the brain).

Efferent: Carries signals away from a central structure (e.g., motor nerves carrying commands from the brain to the muscles).

"Neurons never function in isolation; they are organized into ensembles or circuits that process specific kinds of information. Although the arrangement of neural circuits varies greatly according to the intended function, some features are characteristic of all such ensembles.

The synaptic connections that define a circuit are typically made in a dense tangle of dendrites, axons terminals, and glial cell processes that together constitute neuropil (the suffix -pil comes from the Greek word pilos, meaning “felt”; see Figure 1.3).

Thus, the neuropil between nerve cell bodies is the region where most synaptic connectivity occurs.

The direction of information flow in any particular circuit is essential to understanding its function. Nerve cells that carry information toward the central nervous system (or farther centrally within the spinal cord and brain) are called afferent neurons; nerve cells that carry information away from the brain or spinal cord (or away from the circuit in question) are called efferent neurons.

Nerve cells that only participate in the local aspects of a circuit are called interneurons or local circuit neurons. These three classes—afferent neurons, efferent neurons, and interneurons—are the basic constituents of all neural circuits..."

Neural Circuits - Neuroscience - NCBI Bookshelf

His use of these terms was absolutely appropriate.

af·fer·ent
[ˈaf(ə)r(ə)nt]
adjective
noun
afferent (adjective)
physiology

1. conducting or conducted inwards or towards something

ef·fer·ent
[ˈɛf(ə)r(ə)nt]
adjective
noun
efferent (adjective) to
physiology

1. conducted or conducting outwards or away from something

That doesn't support your claim.

It isn’t meant to support. It’s just a definition.

The given definitions of neuron function refute the claim. Neuronal function doesn't allow it. There are no means or mechanisms by which instant vision could be possible. For that reason, it's not even a possibility. The claim has absolutely no merit.

Again, the definition he used was coined by him because there was no better definition he could have used to explain what he was demonstrating. That doesn't make his claim have no merit. It just adds a second definition to the word. He didn't disrupt neuronal function just because we see in real time. Photoreceptors are still engaged. The only thing he disputed was that the optic nerve receives impulses that are transduced into reconstructed images. I mean, this isn't something that is so far out that science couldn't have been mistaken because but this theory has been accepted as truth for so long that it has hardened into scientific fact. This makes it almost impossible for Lessans to be taken seriously. That's unfortunate and goes against the very meaning of scientific theory.

Photoreceptors: The First Neurons in Vision​

The process begins in the retina, a light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye, which contains specialized neurons called photoreceptors. scienceinsights.org+1.

Light sensitive receptors have evolved to detect light. Light that is emitted or reflected by objects.....light that has speed and travel time.

That is how it works, which is why we see an object as it was in the past, as it was at the moment of reflection or emission and not as it is when the eyes detect that light.

It may be how light works, but it's NOT HOW THE EYES WORK.

Yes, it is how the eyes work. You even wrote it yourself:

The process begins in the retina, a light-sensitive layer at the back of the eye, which contains specialized neurons called photoreceptors.

_______====>BEGINS<====_________


_______====>BEGINS<====_________
_______====>BEGINS<====_________
_______====>BEGINS<====_________​

He was not omitting the photoreceptors from the equation. OMG!!! He was not omitting the optic nerve either. He was just saying it works through a different mechanism than the way it has been described. Do you even grasp what his claim was and why?

I did not claim he was omitting anything in the post you responded to. I showed that EVEN YOU admitted there is a process that BEGINS with detecting light in the retina after receiving the light which had traveled in time.

It is important to understand that there is a finite speed of light, which takes time to arrive, and simultaneously, we can see the world in real time without a violation of physics because there is no time involved. If it did, then we'd have a problem. The two are mutually exclusive phenomena. One does not negate the other.

Turn the light source off and it is dark, we see nothing.

We don't see the object, we see the light coming from the object......aaaand light has travel time.

With travel time, there can be no instant vision.

There is no instant vision.

You also don't understand why he explicitly said that if the Sun were just turned on, we would see it turned on instantly because it would have met the requirements of brightness and size before we would see each other 8.5 minutes later.

Again, total twaddle.

We don’t “understand” this because it is laughably wrong. As anyone can verify for themselves by watching the sun rise in the morning.

There is nothing about sunrise that disproves seeing in real time. NADA! We see an illusion of the Sun because of how light bends as it strikes the atmosphere.

Angle with respect to horizon​

[edit]
This diagram of the Sun at sunrise (or sunset) shows the effects of atmospheric refraction.
The stage of sunrise known as false sunrise actually occurs before the Sun truly reaches the horizon because Earth's atmosphere refracts the Sun's image. At the horizon, the average amount of refraction is 34 arcminutes, though this amount varies based on atmospheric conditions.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunrise#cite_note-Navy-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a>

 

[bilby]

You can't keep contradicting yourself forever without realizing it.

I bet she can. There seems to be no way to stop her.

Eventually, you will have to break your cycle of belief as the thinking settles in.

There is no evidence that any thinking is happening, so don't hold your breath.

Why the sarcasm bilby?

What sarcasm? I am being completely straightforward and honest here.

Is that all you have to offer when the going gets tough?

Straightforward honesty? I guess so. You could try it sometime.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In order for the photons of blue wavelength to be at our photoreceptors instantly they need to travel in zero time across a non-zero distance. This requires infinite speed, but you also claim the speed of light is finite. Therefore you have contradicted yourself. Using the basic physics formula for velocity, v = d / t, we substitute your values: v = d / 0. Any positive distance divided by zero time results in an infinite velocity v = infinity. You are simultaneously claiming light travels at a finite speed (186,000 miles per second) and that it travels at an infinite speed (v = infinity). Your two claims are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled.

There is no internal inconsistency if you follow his reasoning.

Regardless of the reasoning, you have a direct contradiction. You cannot claim light has a finite speed and then claim that blue-wavelength photons appear at the photoreceptors in zero time. The former dictates v = c ~= 186,000 miles per second, while the latter dictates v = infinity. These are as logically incompatible as saying 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 = 3 simultaneously.

I asked you a question earlier. Do you know why he made this claim?

If I haven't answered that, it is because it is irrelevant to the contradiction. If a person seriously states 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 = 3, it doesn't matter why they said it—the math is still broken. The justification is a distraction from the fundamental error.

Did you read the chapter when I posted it?

I read the chapter, and the claims are wrong. Again, this is irrelevant. You are claiming photons arrive at photoreceptors instantly. This is a claim about physical velocity, and it is contradicted by your own admission that light speed is finite. Your fixation on Lessans is like someone who, after being challenged on a mathematical error, asks, "Oh yeah? Well, did you read my favorite author?" It doesn't fix the math.

All you are doing is trying to square real-time vision with delayed vision by using the fact that light travels at a finite speed.

No. I am taking your claim that "blue-wavelength photons are at the photoreceptors in zero time" and pointing out that this contradicts the finite speed of light. This isn't about vision; it's about the velocity of light. v = d/t applies to a flower, a spectrometer, or a laser. You have provided two mutually exclusive answers for v.

He was not claiming that light is infinite. It's not even related. If real-time vision were dependent on traveling light, then of course blue would come after red, and his claim would be nonsense. But if light is not bringing the image of the object to the eye through space/time (i.e., his claim), then seeing in real time and light speed would not be contradictory. Light still does what it does, but the eyes don't do what science claims they do, which changes everything.

That "change" is scientifically impossible. Even if the eye is not "bringing the image," the photons still occupy the space between the flower and the eye. If the flower changes from red to blue, the new blue photons must traverse the distance d to reach the photoreceptors. If they reach the photoreceptors instantly, they must have traveled at infinite speed. "Changing what the eye does" does not make photons vanish from the distance d and reappear at the eye; they are bound by the same finite speed c that you claim to accept. You are trying to bypass the speed of light by redefining the eye as a magic receiver, but the photons themselves remain subject to the laws of physics.

 

[peacegirl]

In order for the photons of blue wavelength to be at our photoreceptors instantly they need to travel in zero time across a non-zero distance. This requires infinite speed, but you also claim the speed of light is finite. Therefore you have contradicted yourself. Using the basic physics formula for velocity, v = d / t, we substitute your values: v = d / 0. Any positive distance divided by zero time results in an infinite velocity v = infinity. You are simultaneously claiming light travels at a finite speed (186,000 miles per second) and that it travels at an infinite speed (v = infinity). Your two claims are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled.

There is no internal inconsistency if you follow his reasoning.

Regardless of the reasoning, you have a direct contradiction. You cannot claim light has a finite speed and then claim that blue-wavelength photons appear at the photoreceptors in zero time. The former dictates v = c ~= 186,000 miles per second, while the latter dictates v = infinity. These are as logically incompatible as saying 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 = 3 simultaneously.

Don2, you're not getting it. You keep insisting that lightspeed conflicts with seeing in real time. It does not. Assuming for a moment that we see in real time, we would be seeing the object, which would put the reflection of that object at our photoreceptor instantly. Light is a necessity, but it reveals what is out there; it does not travel with the object's wavelength beyond where it can be seen in real time. If we can't see THE OBJECT, there would be no light to reveal it. It's that simple. There is no time involved at all, and it does not conflict with the speed of light or its properties.

I asked you a question earlier. Do you know why he made this claim?

If I haven't answered that, it is because it is irrelevant to the contradiction. If a person seriously states 1 + 1 = 2 and 1 + 1 = 3, it doesn't matter why they said it—the math is still broken. The justification is a distraction from the fundamental error.

But there is no fundamental error. You're making an assumption and closing the door before you ever look inside. You must see his alternative explanation by giving him the benefit of the doubt. Einstein said not only is it not good enough to read a book through in a cursory fashion and expect it to have any long-lasting positive effects on one's worldview, but it also damages the intent of the author, especially if the writing is misunderstood. How can it not be misunderstood if it was never read or studied carefully? This is not the way of philosophy, is it? Philosophers dissect books first and then discuss them. That is not happening here.

Did you read the chapter when I posted it?

I read the chapter, and the claims are wrong. Again, this is irrelevant. You are claiming photons arrive at photoreceptors instantly.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Photons are not arriving anywhere, which implies time. When we look at the object, the reflected light is being replaced because photons travel (it's not like they stand still, which would be magic), but when we see the object, the photons at our photoreceptors are reflected back to the object (so to speak) as our gaze is focused on it. It literally works in reverse.

This is a claim about physical velocity, and it is contradicted by your own admission that light speed is finite. Your fixation on Lessans is like someone who, after being challenged on a mathematical error, asks, "Oh yeah? Well, did you read my favorite author?" It doesn't fix the math.

Of course, it doesn't, but that's not what is happening here. I'm not just saying 1 + 1 = 3 because my author said so.

All you are doing is trying to square real-time vision with delayed vision by using the fact that light travels at a finite speed.

No. I am taking your claim that "blue-wavelength photons are at the photoreceptors in zero time" and pointing out that this contradicts the finite speed of light. This isn't about vision; it's about the velocity of light. v = d/t applies to a flower, a spectrometer, or a laser. You have provided two mutually exclusive answers for v.

It has nothing to do with velocity, so V doesn't play a part.

He was not claiming that light is infinite. It's not even related. If real-time vision were dependent on traveling light, then of course blue would come after red, and his claim would be nonsense. But if light is not bringing the image of the object to the eye through space/time (i.e., his claim), then seeing in real time and light speed would not be contradictory. Light still does what it does, but the eyes don't do what science claims they do, which changes everything.

That "change" is scientifically impossible. Even if the eye is not "bringing the image," the photons still occupy the space between the flower and the eye. If the flower changes from red to blue, the new blue photons must traverse the distance d to reach the photoreceptors. If they reach the photoreceptors instantly, they must have traveled at infinite speed. "Changing what the eye does" does not make photons vanish from the distance d and reappear at the eye; they are bound by the same finite speed c that you claim to accept. You are trying to bypass the speed of light by redefining the eye as a magic receiver, but the photons themselves remain subject to the laws of physics.

You're still not getting it, and that's okay. I hope you don't give up because I believe you would actually enjoy the book if you could just get over this hurdle. It may take a little longer than expected to grasp why this claim does not conflict with physics. It is a foreign concept and challenges what you've been taught your entire life. I hope this doesn't stop you from learning about his other two discoveries on account of your skepticism regarding this claim. It would be unfortunate indeed.