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

[DBT]

That explanation doesn't work. The reasons why it doesn't work have already been described too many times.

No it hasn’t.

That's not true. The problem is that you ignore any given explanation, only to reset and repeat the authors claims.

Claims that are not only not supported by evidence, but are contrary to the evidence that we do have (physics).

That is how faith is defined. That is how theists tend to defend their own faith.

 

[pood]

Perhaps peacegirl would like to explain why we see in real time, but that radio is delayed, given that RADIO IS LIGHT.

The ability to observe solar flare light with a telescope before radio waves reach Earth is due to the Sun's photosphere being the lowest observable layer of the solar atmosphere, which is relatively bright compared to the rest of the Sun's surface. This allows telescopes to detect the light emitted during a solar flare, even before the radio waves have reached Earth.
NASA

It has nothing to do with instant vision.

Funnily enough, the blue-linked quote does not even seem to appear in the essay to which it is linked!

But no matter. Anyone (just not peacegirl) can do a little research and discover that during solar flares, electromagnetic radiation is emitted in stages — the visible or x-ray light can precede the radio light. This fact in no way supports her daft claims.

 

[peacegirl]

Perhaps peacegirl would like to explain why we see in real time, but that radio is delayed, given that RADIO IS LIGHT.

The ability to observe solar flare light with a telescope before radio waves reach Earth is due to the Sun's photosphere being the lowest observable layer of the solar atmosphere, which is relatively bright compared to the rest of the Sun's surface. This allows telescopes to detect the light emitted during a solar flare, even before the radio waves have reached Earth.
NASA

It has nothing to do with instant vision.

It shows a discrepancy between a telescope detecting light from a flare before the time it takes for radio waves reach Earth.

I don't think so, you are misinterpreting.

due to the Sun's photosphere being the lowest observable layer of the solar atmosphere,

Any discrepancy regarding events and speed of light across the EM spectrum would be global news. Earth shattering. It would be that serious. Not just in theoretical science, across all of technology.

You have a history of posting links that do not support and/or refute your claims.

iou are not scientifically sophisticated enough to see it.

Did you read the link on the EM spectrum and do you understand radio waves and visible light are the exact same phenomena?

I read part of it. I'll try to read the rest later, but I'm not disputing that there is a discrepancy between the EM spectrum. What I am saying is that strong telescopes are able to see a solar flare before radio waves get to us. Scientists, of course, have their reasons as to why this occurs, and Lessans has his. His claim doesn't violate the speed of light on any part of the EM spectrum.

The reason we can see a solar flare with a telescope instantly and receive radio transmission moments later is due to the way electromagnetic radiation travels through space. Solar flares emit electromagnetic radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, X-rays, and gamma rays. The radiation emitted during a solar flare travels at the speed of light, meaning it can be observed instantly with a telescope. However, the radio waves, which are the most affected by the ionosphere's density, are received later because they interact with the ionosphere's particles, which are more abundant in the D-layer, causing them to lose energy and travel more slowly. This delay in reception is why radio transmissions are received after the visual observation of the solar flare.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration+5

 

[peacegirl]

That explanation doesn't work. The reasons why it doesn't work have already been described too many times.

No it hasn’t.

That's not true. The problem is that you ignore any given explanation, only to reset and repeat the authors claims.

Of course, I'm going to repeat his claims because people are trying to prove him wrong. This is what anyone would do if the present scientific explanation has flaws that haven't been brought to the forefront.

Claims that are not only not supported by evidence, but are contrary to the evidence that we do have (physics).

That, again, has to do with science explaining its narrative of what is occurring without realizing that there is a loophole when it comes to vision. This account DOES NOT violate physics, so stop telling me it does.

That is how faith is defined. That is how theists tend to defend their own faith.

This has nothing to do with faith because he has an understandable explanation.

He wrote: I know that 2+2=4; I don’t have faith or believe that this is true.”

The same goes for his proof of no free will and that the brain and eyes work differently than what was previously believed.

 

[peacegirl]

Perhaps peacegirl would like to explain why we see in real time, but that radio is delayed, given that RADIO IS LIGHT.

The ability to observe solar flare light with a telescope before radio waves reach Earth is due to the Sun's photosphere being the lowest observable layer of the solar atmosphere, which is relatively bright compared to the rest of the Sun's surface. This allows telescopes to detect the light emitted during a solar flare, even before the radio waves have reached Earth.
NASA

It has nothing to do with instant vision.

Funnily enough, the blue-linked quote does not even seem to appear in the essay to which it is linked!

But no matter. Anyone (just not peacegirl) can do a little research and discover that during solar flares, electromagnetic radiation is emitted in stages — the visible or x-ray light can precede the radio light. This fact in no way supports her daft claims.

It also doesn't prove him wrong either. They have their explanation and Lessans has his, but the fact that there is a discrepancy doesn't automatically prove their explanation right.

 

[steve_bank]

Here s one for you Pg

It takes a photon approximately 10,000 to 170,000 years (with some estimates up to 1 million years) to travel from the Sun's core to its surface. While light travels at, the extreme density of the Sun forces photons to constantly scatter and absorb, creating a slow "random walk" to the surface.

One of Eisenstein's revolutionary discoveries, gravity affects light. It was one of the demonstrations of relativity.

 

[peacegirl]

Here s one for you Pg

It takes a photon approximately 10,000 to 170,000 years (with some estimates up to 1 million years) to travel from the Sun's core to its surface. While light travels at, the extreme density of the Sun forces photons to constantly scatter and absorb, creating a slow "random walk" to the surface.

One of Eisenstein's revolutionary discoveries, gravity affects light. It was one of the demonstrations of relativity.

His discoveries are open to question. The name Einstein gives immediate acceptance, as if he were a godlike figure. Lessans was a contemporary, and Jewish, and if there is opposition, it has to be viewed fairly, not giving Einstein an edge because of his name.

 

[pood]

@peacegirl claims seeing instantly has nothing to do with distance or time. Really!

Yet she admits light travels about 186,000 miles per second. But she says we see in real time, with no delay.

So I ask again — she has never even tried to answer the question — How did we measure the speed of light at all, if we see in real time? If we saw in real time, we’d have to conclude that the velocity of light was infinite!

Velocity is calculated as distance over time. Therefore to calculate any velocity there must be a delay from to source to reception.

Now consider Fred. Fred has a car. He has a destination in mind — a parking lot sixty miles due east.

Fred starts his car and travels due east. Fred’s car has something called a speedometer — it tells him how fast he is traveling.

Let’s say Fred’s speedometer hangs steady at about 60. What does that mean? He is traveling 60 miles an hour!

See? Distance over time. Another way to put this is that he is traveling one mile per minute.

Of course this is an average, since Fred’s velocity is not inertial. There will be starts and stops, slowing down, speeding up, etc.

Fred gets to the parking lot in one hour. It’s the parking lot to a big-box store filled with useless crap that Fred intends to buy, but that is irrelevant to the issue it hand. (It just means that Fred is a big dummy.)

How should we analyze this situation according to peacegirl?

From point of view of the parking lot, Fred was there instantly, even though it took him an hour to get there.

Right!

 

[pood]

What it looks like from the photon's perspective at C is a matter of relativity and I would have to do some reading.

Light does not have a valid frame because it has no rest frame.

But if we wanted to make-believe that light were conscious, we’d have to conclude that from a photon’s perspective, the time between emission and absorption, and the distance between emission and absorption, would both be zero.

 

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl claims seeing instantly has nothing to do with distance or time. Really!

Yet she admits light travels about 186,000 miles per second. But she says we see in real time, with no delay.

So I ask again — she has never even tried to answer the question — How did we measure the speed of light at all, if we see in real time? If we saw in real time, we’d have to conclude that the velocity of light was infinite!

Velocity is calculated as distance over time. Therefore to calculate any velocity there must be a delay from to source to reception.

Now consider Fred. Fred has a car. He has a destination in mind — a parking lot sixty miles due east.

Fred starts his car and travels due east. Fred’s car has something called a speedometer — it tells him how fast he is traveling.

Let’s say Fred’s speedometer hangs steady at about 60. What does that mean? He is traveling 60 miles an hour!

See? Distance over time. Another way to put this is that he is traveling one mile per minute.

Of course this is an average, since Fred’s velocity is not inertial. There will be starts and stops, slowing down, speeding up, etc.

Fred gets to the parking lot in one hour. It’s the parking lot to a big-box store filled with useless crap that Fred intends to buy, but that is irrelevant to the issue it hand. (It just means that Fred is a big dummy.)

How should we analyze this situation according to peacegirl?

From point of view of the parking lot, Fred was there instantly, even though it took him an hour to get there.

Right!

OMG, this is not about Fred getting anywhere instantly. You're completely lost!

 

[peacegirl]

What it looks like from the photon's perspective at C is a matter of relativity and I would have to do some reading.

Light does not have a valid frame because it has no rest frame.

But if we wanted to make-believe that light were conscious, we’d have to conclude that from a photon’s perspective, the time between emission and absorption, and the distance between emission and absorption, would both be zero.

You are trying to say that Lessans violates physics, which I have said numerous times that this argument DOES NOT APPLY!

 

[steve_bank]

Here s one for you Pg

It takes a photon approximately 10,000 to 170,000 years (with some estimates up to 1 million years) to travel from the Sun's core to its surface. While light travels at, the extreme density of the Sun forces photons to constantly scatter and absorb, creating a slow "random walk" to the surface.

One of Eisenstein's revolutionary discoveries, gravity affects light. It was one of the demonstrations of relativity.

His discoveries are open to question. The name Einstein gives immediate acceptance, as if he were a godlike figure. Lessans was a contemporary, and Jewish, and if there is opposition, it has to be viewed fairly, not giving Einstein an edge because of his name.

Again

AE made his reputation for the Photo Electric Effect. An experiment that demonstrated light was quantized. The photon. Tjhat is what he got his Nobel for. Wave particle duality.

Relativity was initially considered too far out. It had to be porven which it was eventually. It took decades.

One thing about AE, he gave a lot of credit for relativity to his predecessors. He collaborated with peers and had help from mathematicians. He had peer reviews to find errors in relativity.

That Lessans was Jewish is irrelevant to anything.

I read AE's bio and watched documentaries. He was on the eccentric side no doubt about it. Many of them were and probably are today. AE was completely given over to physics totally consumed. 24/7.

Therer are many who get PHDs, only a few rise to the level of top theoretical scientist. It takes a great deal of work, and as a physicist I knew said a littleluck. Things have to line up for you.

You have to compet6e with peers to advance. That is why if there is a discrepancy eager PHDs would be a;l over it.

Relativity and quantum mechanics explained observation and experiment Newtonian physics could not.

So, Lessans may have had imagination but he lacked the basics in science and math.

 

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl claims seeing instantly has nothing to do with distance or time. Really!

Yet she admits light travels about 186,000 miles per second. But she says we see in real time, with no delay.

So I ask again — she has never even tried to answer the question — How did we measure the speed of light at all, if we see in real time? If we saw in real time, we’d have to conclude that the velocity of light was infinite!

Velocity is calculated as distance over time. Therefore to calculate any velocity there must be a delay from to source to reception.

Now consider Fred. Fred has a car. He has a destination in mind — a parking lot sixty miles due east.

Fred starts his car and travels due east. Fred’s car has something called a speedometer — it tells him how fast he is traveling.

Let’s say Fred’s speedometer hangs steady at about 60. What does that mean? He is traveling 60 miles an hour!

See? Distance over time. Another way to put this is that he is traveling one mile per minute.

Of course this is an average, since Fred’s velocity is not inertial. There will be starts and stops, slowing down, speeding up, etc.

Fred gets to the parking lot in one hour. It’s the parking lot to a big-box store filled with useless crap that Fred intends to buy, but that is irrelevant to the issue it hand. (It just means that Fred is a big dummy.)

How should we analyze this situation according to peacegirl?

From point of view of the parking lot, Fred was there instantly, even though it took him an hour to get there.

Right!

We see Fred instantly wherever he is at that moment. It has nothing to do with him traveling to be somewhere else, where we would see him in a different location.

 

[peacegirl]

Here s one for you Pg

It takes a photon approximately 10,000 to 170,000 years (with some estimates up to 1 million years) to travel from the Sun's core to its surface. While light travels at, the extreme density of the Sun forces photons to constantly scatter and absorb, creating a slow "random walk" to the surface.

One of Eisenstein's revolutionary discoveries, gravity affects light. It was one of the demonstrations of relativity.

I’m not sure where this disproves rest-time seeing. Please explain.

 

[peacegirl]

Here s one for you Pg

It takes a photon approximately 10,000 to 170,000 years (with some estimates up to 1 million years) to travel from the Sun's core to its surface. While light travels at, the extreme density of the Sun forces photons to constantly scatter and absorb, creating a slow "random walk" to the surface.

One of Eisenstein's revolutionary discoveries, gravity affects light. It was one of the demonstrations of relativity.

His discoveries are open to question. The name Einstein gives immediate acceptance, as if he were a godlike figure. Lessans was a contemporary, and Jewish, and if there is opposition, it has to be viewed fairly, not giving Einstein an edge because of his name.

Again

AE made his reputation for the Photo Electric Effect. An experiment that demonstrated light was quantized. The photon. Tjhat is what he got his Nobel for. Wave particle duality.

Relativity was initially considered too far out. It had to be porven which it was eventually. It took decades.

One thing about AE, he gave a lot of credit for relativity to his predecessors. He collaborated with peers and had help from mathematicians. He had peer reviews to find errors in relativity.

That Lessans was Jewish is irrelevant to anything.

I read AE's bio and watched documentaries. He was on the eccentric side no doubt about it. Many of them were and probably are today. AE was completely given over to physics totally consumed. 24/7.

Therer are many who get PHDs, only a few rise to the level of top theoretical scientist. It takes a great deal of work, and as a physicist I knew said a littleluck. Things have to line up for you.

You have to compet6e with peers to advance. That is why if there is a discrepancy eager PHDs would be a;l over it.

Relativity and quantum mechanics explained observation and experiment Newtonian physics could not.

So, Lessans may have had imagination but he lacked the basics in science and math.

He was a mathematician in his own right. For the 100th time, his claim has nothing to do with physics or science per se. He came to this conclusion from an entirely different angle. He had a sharp eye for seeing what others had missed.

 

[steve_bank]

Here s one for you Pg

It takes a photon approximately 10,000 to 170,000 years (with some estimates up to 1 million years) to travel from the Sun's core to its surface. While light travels at, the extreme density of the Sun forces photons to constantly scatter and absorb, creating a slow "random walk" to the surface.

One of Eisenstein's revolutionary discoveries, gravity affects light. It was one of the demonstrations of relativity.

I’m not sure where this disproves rest-time seeing. Please explain.

The point is AE's revolutionary ideas initially rejected were proven by experiment.

Lessans offered no such proof or evidence. He observed and undecided, heretofore it is true without question.

Polar opposites.

 

[pood]

What it looks like from the photon's perspective at C is a matter of relativity and I would have to do some reading.

Light does not have a valid frame because it has no rest frame.

But if we wanted to make-believe that light were conscious, we’d have to conclude that from a photon’s perspective, the time between emission and absorption, and the distance between emission and absorption, would both be zero.

You are trying to say that Lessans violates physics, which I have said numerous times that this argument DOES NOT APPLY!

Of course his claims violate physics.

As to Einstein, no one considers him a godlike figure, least of all me.

He was a hard determinist and I reject that for reasons stated many times. He believed that there are hidden variables that restore determinism to QM. Experiments after he died show that there are no such things. He tried to formulate a grand unified theory that explains the entire universe. He failed. It’s highly doubtful this can even be done. The universe is too complex for simplistic ideas and may be too complex for the human mind ever to fully comprehend.

Of course, we’ve been over this before. You read nothing and learn nothing.

Einstein is respected because his theories of relativity and the quanta (even though he rejected the indeterminism and nonlocality of QM later in life) brilliantly panned out. Your writer, otoh, has nothing.

 

[peacegirl]

Here s one for you Pg

It takes a photon approximately 10,000 to 170,000 years (with some estimates up to 1 million years) to travel from the Sun's core to its surface. While light travels at, the extreme density of the Sun forces photons to constantly scatter and absorb, creating a slow "random walk" to the surface.

One of Eisenstein's revolutionary discoveries, gravity affects light. It was one of the demonstrations of relativity.

His discoveries are open to question. The name Einstein gives immediate acceptance, as if he were a godlike figure. Lessans was a contemporary, and Jewish, and if there is opposition, it has to be viewed fairly, not giving Einstein an edge because of his name.

Again

AE made his reputation for the Photo Electric Effect. An experiment that demonstrated light was quantized. The photon. Tjhat is what he got his Nobel for. Wave particle duality.

Relativity was initially considered too far out. It had to be porven which it was eventually. It took decades.

One thing about AE, he gave a lot of credit for relativity to his predecessors. He collaborated with peers and had help from mathematicians. He had peer reviews to find errors in relativity.

That Lessans was Jewish is irrelevant to anything.

I read AE's bio and watched documentaries. He was on the eccentric side no doubt about it. Many of them were and probably are today. AE was completely given over to physics totally consumed. 24/7.

Therer are many who get PHDs, only a few rise to the level of top theoretical scientist. It takes a great deal of work, and as a physicist I knew said a littleluck. Things have to line up for you.

You have to compet6e with peers to advance. That is why if there is a discrepancy eager PHDs would be a;l over it.

Relativity and quantum mechanics explained observation and experiment Newtonian physics could not.

So, Lessans may have had imagination but he lacked the basics in science and math.

Quantum mechanics doesn't prove we have free will. It also doesn't disprove that we see in real time. When you say Ph.Ds would be all over it, that isn't true either. Look at how hard it was for anyone in history with a genuine discovery to see it brought to light in their lifetime. The more unusual the finding, the harder it would be for others to get on board, especially when the science had already been settled.

 

[peacegirl]

Here s one for you Pg

It takes a photon approximately 10,000 to 170,000 years (with some estimates up to 1 million years) to travel from the Sun's core to its surface. While light travels at, the extreme density of the Sun forces photons to constantly scatter and absorb, creating a slow "random walk" to the surface.

One of Eisenstein's revolutionary discoveries, gravity affects light. It was one of the demonstrations of relativity.

I’m not sure where this disproves rest-time seeing. Please explain.

The point is AE's revolutionary ideas initially rejected were proven by experiment.

Lessans offered no such proof or evidence. He observed and undecided, heretofore it is true without question.

Polar opposites.

He describes how the brain works and the reason why he came to this conclusion. If you refuse to look, that's not my problem.

 

[peacegirl]

What it looks like from the photon's perspective at C is a matter of relativity and I would have to do some reading.

Light does not have a valid frame because it has no rest frame.

But if we wanted to make-believe that light were conscious, we’d have to conclude that from a photon’s perspective, the time between emission and absorption, and the distance between emission and absorption, would both be zero.

You are trying to say that Lessans violates physics, which I have said numerous times that this argument DOES NOT APPLY!

Of course his claims violate physics.

As to Einstein, no one considers him a godlike figure, least of all me.

He was a hard determinist and I reject that for reasons stated many times. He believed that there are hidden variables that restore determinism to QM.

There's no need to restore determinism to QM as if you think this somehow proves determinism flawed. It does not.

Experiments after he died show that there are no such things. He tried to formulate a grand unified theory that explains the entire universe. He failed. It’s highly doubtful this can even be done. The universe is too complex for simplistic ideas and may be too complex for the human mind ever to fully comprehend.

Of course, we’ve been over this before. You read nothing and learn nothing.

Einstein is respected because his theories of relativity and the quanta (even though he rejected the indeterminism and nonlocality of QM later in life) brilliantly panned out. Your writer, otoh, has nothing.

You're wrong about the world being indetermined (no matter what QM says), and you're wrong about the eyes being a sense organ. You've been wrong for 25 years.

I will post this again because he makes more sense than most: This philosopher argued that QM could not prove determinism false.
-----------------------------------------------------

I will now refute two common mechanisms proposed by free will advocates to allow for free will. Firstly, the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics is often cited as a means by which the universe can be considered non-deterministic. This is true, at least for very small systems. However, it is actually unimportant whether or not quantum mechanical fluctuations result in any appreciable uncertainty in macroscopic systems. This is because the argument is based on the notion that a lack of determinism would prove the existence of free will. However, more accurately an agent being non-deterministic is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for free will. This mechanism merely introduces randomization into the decisions and will of the agent, this is not the same thing as freedom of will or choice. In fact, this randomization could potentially infringe upon their freedom of choice. To make this idea clearer, consider a game of roulette. Suppose that each number on the wheel is assigned to a different choice. The roulette wheel in spun and the agent makes the choice corresponding to the number the ball stops on. We could also play this game to determine the state of will of an agent, to the same effect. It is clear to our intuition that the choice and will of the agent are not free, though the outcome is unpredictable. This analogy could be criticized on the basis that it does not properly capture the nature of our non-deterministic decision-making. In particular, the spinning roulette wheel is independent of the agent, whereas the uncertainty of quantum mechanics directly involves the agent since it acts directly on their brain. Nevertheless, whether or not the random event directly involves the agent does not change the situation in any meaningful way. We could involve the agent directly in the random event by having them spin the roulette wheel, for instance. To our intuition it is clear that the outcome selected by the wheel would still be random and not represent free will.

An argument against free will: freedom of choice, but not of will

A central issue in the free will debate is confusion and disagreement about how the term is defined. The topic is clarified considerably when we distinguish freedom of choice from freedom of will. I...

www.sciencesnail.com