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

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

pood said:

His definition of determinism is that we are “compelled of our own free will” to “move in the direction of greater satisfaction.”

The very phrase is asinine, since “compulsion” and “free will” are opposites.

It is also obviously idiotic to suggest that past conditions, including our genetics, do not affect our present choices.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense in any way you look at it.

Click to expand...

It makes absolute sense if you understand that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction from the moment we get up in the morning to the time we go to bed. You are confused DBT. You are in a defensive position trying to protect determinism. We don't have free will, and the author demonstrated why, yet you don't trust him. It's a misconception on your part.
---------------------------

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it, for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is the direction life is compelled to take. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress, he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.

Suppose you wanted very much of two alternatives, A, which we shall designate as something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of your regular routine. Could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled, by their very nature, to prefer A? And how can they be free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer one of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man were free, he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction of his life and make him prefer the impossible.

Click to expand...

I have nothing to defend. How the eyes and brain work in generating sight is well enough understood to dismiss the authors claim of light at the eye/instant vision, including modified determinism in relation to world peace, as absurd.

These ideas are never going to be widely accepted, because they have no merit.

Click to expand...

All you are doing is defending the conventional definition, refusing to understand that there is another side which says that determinism cannot cause us to do anything we don't want to do (note: but please understand that this doesn't make our will free), which means that we are responsible for what we do because we can't shift what is our responsibility by saying determinism caused our behavior. Nothing can cause us to do anything we don't consent to. That is a fallacy. That was why it was necessary to make this important distinction. I can see that you have no questions or interest, but I can't hold you responsible because I know you are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, and for you to be satisfied, you have to defend your position, even though the author's clarification can bring about an enduring peace.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense. It's all over the place. It just looks like a case of making up a set of claims that are intended to appear like a discovery, but unfortunately happen to contradict both the laws of physics - how the world works - and how determinism is defined.

Click to expand...

I’m not selling you a bill of goods!

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

pood said:

His definition of determinism is that we are “compelled of our own free will” to “move in the direction of greater satisfaction.”

The very phrase is asinine, since “compulsion” and “free will” are opposites.

It is also obviously idiotic to suggest that past conditions, including our genetics, do not affect our present choices.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense in any way you look at it.

Click to expand...

It makes absolute sense if you understand that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction from the moment we get up in the morning to the time we go to bed. You are confused DBT. You are in a defensive position trying to protect determinism. We don't have free will, and the author demonstrated why, yet you don't trust him. It's a misconception on your part.
---------------------------

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it, for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is the direction life is compelled to take. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress, he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.

Suppose you wanted very much of two alternatives, A, which we shall designate as something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of your regular routine. Could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled, by their very nature, to prefer A? And how can they be free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer one of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man were free, he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction of his life and make him prefer the impossible.

Click to expand...

I have nothing to defend. How the eyes and brain work in generating sight is well enough understood to dismiss the authors claim of light at the eye/instant vision, including modified determinism in relation to world peace, as absurd.

These ideas are never going to be widely accepted, because they have no merit.

Click to expand...

All you are doing is defending the conventional definition, refusing to understand that there is another side which says that determinism cannot cause us to do anything we don't want to do (note: but please understand that this doesn't make our will free), which means that we are responsible for what we do because we can't shift what is our responsibility by saying determinism caused our behavior. Nothing can cause us to do anything we don't consent to. That is a fallacy. That was why it was necessary to make this important distinction. I can see that you have no questions or interest, but I can't hold you responsible because I know you are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, and for you to be satisfied, you have to defend your position, even though the author's clarification can bring about an enduring peace.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense. It's all over the place. It just looks like a case of making up a set of claims that are intended to appear like a discovery, but unfortunately happen to contradict both the laws of physics - how the world works - and how determinism is defined.

Click to expand...

DBT, I understand why it's hard to see that the present definition of determinism is causing an issue because it isn't able to reconcile "doing of one's own accord" (of one's own desire) and the fact that we couldn't choose (or decide) otherwise. There's nothing all over the place. The only thing that you can say is all over the place is the fact that I am forced to give you small excerpts, which is not giving you the full picture. Lessans was adamant when he said that this knowledge needs to be read in a step-by-step fashion.
-------------------------------------------------------------

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean “undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal with what has been termed the “exact sciences” to be exact and scientific. Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your IQ, your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet.

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

I'm trying to get my computer to work.

Click to expand...

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

pood said:

His definition of determinism is that we are “compelled of our own free will” to “move in the direction of greater satisfaction.”

The very phrase is asinine, since “compulsion” and “free will” are opposites.

It is also obviously idiotic to suggest that past conditions, including our genetics, do not affect our present choices.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense in any way you look at it.

Click to expand...

It makes absolute sense if you understand that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction from the moment we get up in the morning to the time we go to bed. You are confused DBT. You are in a defensive position trying to protect determinism. We don't have free will, and the author demonstrated why, yet you don't trust him. It's a misconception on your part.
---------------------------

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it, for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is the direction life is compelled to take. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress, he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.

Suppose you wanted very much of two alternatives, A, which we shall designate as something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of your regular routine. Could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled, by their very nature, to prefer A? And how can they be free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer one of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man were free, he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction of his life and make him prefer the impossible.

Click to expand...

I have nothing to defend. How the eyes and brain work in generating sight is well enough understood to dismiss the authors claim of light at the eye/instant vision, including modified determinism in relation to world peace, as absurd.

These ideas are never going to be widely accepted, because they have no merit.

Click to expand...

All you are doing is defending the conventional definition, refusing to understand that there is another side which says that determinism cannot cause us to do anything we don't want to do (note: but please understand that this doesn't make our will free), which means that we are responsible for what we do because we can't shift what is our responsibility by saying determinism caused our behavior. Nothing can cause us to do anything we don't consent to. That is a fallacy. That was why it was necessary to make this important distinction. I can see that you have no questions or interest, but I can't hold you responsible because I know you are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, and for you to be satisfied, you have to defend your position, even though the author's clarification can bring about an enduring peace.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense. It's all over the place. It just looks like a case of making up a set of claims that are intended to appear like a discovery, but unfortunately happen to contradict both the laws of physics - how the world works - and how determinism is defined.

Click to expand...

DBT, I understand why it's hard to see that the present definition of determinism is causing an issue because it isn't able to reconcile "doing of one's own accord" (of one's own desire) and the fact that we couldn't choose (or decide) otherwise. There's nothing all over the place. The only thing that you can say is all over the place is the fact that I am forced to give you small excerpts, which is not giving you the full picture. Lessans was adamant when he said that this knowledge needs to be read in a step-by-step fashion.
-------------------------------------------------------------

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean “undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal with what has been termed the “exact sciences” to be exact and scientific. Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your IQ, your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet.

Click to expand...

Science doesn't make up rules on what must be true or false. Science is a method, the study of how the world works through the means of observation and testing.

The world does not work in the way your author claims.

There is no 'light at the eye/instant vision.'

Determinism does not work in the way the author claims.

Neither claim, even if true, which it is not, could possibly lead to the transformation of human nature and world peace.

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

You are way too premature in your conclusions. Forget the eyes for a moment. You are using this claim against him. Step back, take a breath, and start over without the preconceived ideas that you hold, if that’s even possible.

Click to expand...

pood said:

peacegirl said:

You are way too premature in your conclusions. Forget the eyes for a moment. You are using this claim against him. Step back, take a breath, and start over without the preconceived ideas that you hold, if that’s even possible.

Click to expand...

We don’t have “preconceived ideas.” This is your nasty little ad hom conceit.

We read what he wrote.

It’s rubbish.

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

You are way too premature in your conclusions. Forget the eyes for a moment. You are using this claim against him. Step back, take a breath, and start over without the preconceived ideas that you hold, if that’s even possible.

Click to expand...

We don’t have “preconceived ideas.” This is your nasty little ad hom conceit.

We read what he wrote.

It’s rubbish.

Click to expand...

That is not an ad hom, Pood. You're stretching it. And, btw, general relativity and special relativity are not even related to this claim. It has nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

pood said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

You are way too premature in your conclusions. Forget the eyes for a moment. You are using this claim against him. Step back, take a breath, and start over without the preconceived ideas that you hold, if that’s even possible.

Click to expand...

We don’t have “preconceived ideas.” This is your nasty little ad hom conceit.

We read what he wrote.

It’s rubbish.

Click to expand...

That is not an ad hom, Pood. You're stretching it. And, btw, general relativity and special relativity are not even related to this claim. It has nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

Yes, as a matter of fact, they are. Shall I tell you why yet again?

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

You are way too premature in your conclusions. Forget the eyes for a moment. You are using this claim against him. Step back, take a breath, and start over without the preconceived ideas that you hold, if that’s even possible.

Click to expand...

We don’t have “preconceived ideas.” This is your nasty little ad hom conceit.

We read what he wrote.

It’s rubbish.

Click to expand...

That is not an ad hom, Pood. You're stretching it. And, btw, general relativity and special relativity are not even related to this claim. It has nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

Yes, as a matter of fact, they are. Shall I tell you why yet again?

Click to expand...

They are preconceived ideas, Pood. If they are not preconceived, he will tell me why they aren't, not you.

Click to expand...

steve_bank said:

Pg posts sections of the book like it is a talisman. It wards off our attacks and criticism.

Picture Wonder Woman deflecting bullets with her bracelets.

Or in Batman shows when the arch criminal throws down a smoke device and escapes leaving behind a clod of smoke.

Click to expand...

pood said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

pood said:

peacegirl said:

You are way too premature in your conclusions. Forget the eyes for a moment. You are using this claim against him. Step back, take a breath, and start over without the preconceived ideas that you hold, if that’s even possible.

Click to expand...

We don’t have “preconceived ideas.” This is your nasty little ad hom conceit.

We read what he wrote.

It’s rubbish.

Click to expand...

That is not an ad hom, Pood. You're stretching it. And, btw, general relativity and special relativity are not even related to this claim. It has nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

Yes, as a matter of fact, they are. Shall I tell you why yet again?

Click to expand...

They are preconceived ideas, Pood. If they are not preconceived, he will tell me why they aren't, not you.

Click to expand...

Who is “he”?

As to relativity, see above.

Click to expand...

pood said:

As was explained to @peacegirl years ago, we can review Einstein’s original relativistic train thought experiment to see why real-time seeing is impossible.

A train is rushing down the tracks.

An observer is on the train, sitting equidistant from the back and front of the train.

An observer is on the ground.

The train reaches a point where the two observers are facing each other.

At that moment, the observer on the ground sees two lightning flashes occur simultaneously — one striking the back of the train and one the front.

What does the train observer see?

The two postulates of relativity are: the laws of physics are the same for all inertial observers, and that the speed of light is measured to be the same in all inertial frames. These are facts that have been demonstrated to be true.

Thus the train observer will see the flash at the front of the train first, followed by the flash at the back of the train later. Because light speed is invariant it does not adhere to Galilean addition of velocities, and thus does not add the speed of the train going forward to its own speed. If it did, both observers would agree that the flashes happened at the same time and there would be a universal present.

Thus the ground observer finds the flashes to be simultaneous and the train observer deems them sequential. Who is correct? They both are.

What does this tell us?

First, that real-time seeing is non-existent. If it were real, both observers would agree on when the lightning flashes occurred and everyone would agree on a universal present. The phenomenon described above occurs precisely because it takes the light (information) from the back of the train time to catch up with the train observer. This would be impossible with real-time seeing.

Second, the future exists along with the past and present. The lighting flash at the back of the train is in the ground observer’s present, but in the future of the train observer. She doesn’t know it yet, but her future is inevitable. There will be a lightning flash in it and not, say, a taco. (though there may be tacos still later and I hope so. I like tacos and hope the train rider does, too. )

That is the block world.

Some dispute that the block world is entailed by relativity, though no sane person disputes delayed seeing.

Here is an interesting discussion of the block world and relativity and free will and determinism. I think a lot of the confusion about the block world, free will and determinism is terminological. The block world does not imply, as some seem to think, that past, present and future exist simultaneously, only that they exist, when they exist, but all are equally and eternally real.

Note too, intriguingly, how the linked article raises challenges to the very notion of causality in the block world.

This also raises the interesting notion of whether there is an objective, mind-independent reality. We can have two or more competing models of reality that have equivalent results. In the case of the block world, the physicist Max Tegmark likens the difference between the block world and our subjective experience of time as the bird’s view for the former and the frog’s view for the latter. The bird’s view, embodied by Minkowski’s maths, treats all times as being equally real. The frog’s view, embodied by us, treats only the present as being real and time passing sequentially. Yet these two perspective are not at odds but yield the same predictions.

Similarly, there are multiple interpretations of QM but they all yield the same predictions. The argument here, as in special relativity, is that reality is fundamentally perspectival.

Click to expand...

pood said:

I’ve had email exchanges about this subject with Vesselin Petkov, a physicist at the Minkowski Institute, who argues that the future “already” exists, that past, present and future exist “simultaneously” and that thus we have no free will. This is actualism, the concept that what happens is only whatever could have happened (peacegirl’s error). I think these are serious philosophical mistakes (the future does not “already” exist, but exists when it exists) but alas was unable to convince Petkov, who is a very smart man.

Click to expand...

steve_bank said:

But it dos conflict with relativity.

As you state it Pg

A - Light is required for vision and has a finite speed.
B - When a light source is switched on we see the object without delay

A and B are contradictory.

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

That’s what I meant when I said light reveals the external world.

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

It is a condition of sight.

Click to expand...

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

peacegirl said:

DBT said:

pood said:

His definition of determinism is that we are “compelled of our own free will” to “move in the direction of greater satisfaction.”

The very phrase is asinine, since “compulsion” and “free will” are opposites.

It is also obviously idiotic to suggest that past conditions, including our genetics, do not affect our present choices.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense in any way you look at it.

Click to expand...

It makes absolute sense if you understand that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction from the moment we get up in the morning to the time we go to bed. You are confused DBT. You are in a defensive position trying to protect determinism. We don't have free will, and the author demonstrated why, yet you don't trust him. It's a misconception on your part.
---------------------------

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are compelled to either live out our lives the best we can or commit suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical (undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action, from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is never satisfied or content to remain in one position for always, like an inanimate object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the present moment of time or life here, for the purpose of clarification, and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this present moment of time and space called here, and you are given two alternatives: either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot called there or remain where you are without moving a hair’s breadth by committing suicide.

“I prefer. . .”

Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is death or here, and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion is life. Consequently, the motion of life, which is any motion from here to there, is a movement away from that which dissatisfies; otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you would never have moved to there. Since the motion of life constantly moves away from here to there, which is an expression of dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here, is determined by a law over which we have no control, because even if we should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater satisfaction; otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the matter is that at any particular moment, the motion of man is not free, for all life obeys this invariable law. He is constantly compelled by his nature to make choices and decisions and to prefer, of whatever options are available during his lifetime, that which he considers better for himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it, for his motion, just being alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction, which is the direction life is compelled to take. Consequently, during every moment of man’s progress, he always did what he had to do because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping these type relations, so I will elaborate.

Suppose you wanted very much of two alternatives, A, which we shall designate as something considered evil by society, instead of B, the humdrum of your regular routine. Could you possibly pick B at that particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative when nothing could dissuade you from your decision, not even the threat of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A, which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B, that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the latter when the former is available as an alternative? If it is utterly impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled, by their very nature, to prefer A? And how can they be free when the favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction? To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able to prefer one of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction. In other words, if man were free, he could actually prefer of several alternatives the one that gives him the least satisfaction, which would reverse the direction of his life and make him prefer the impossible.

Click to expand...

I have nothing to defend. How the eyes and brain work in generating sight is well enough understood to dismiss the authors claim of light at the eye/instant vision, including modified determinism in relation to world peace, as absurd.

These ideas are never going to be widely accepted, because they have no merit.

Click to expand...

All you are doing is defending the conventional definition, refusing to understand that there is another side which says that determinism cannot cause us to do anything we don't want to do (note: but please understand that this doesn't make our will free), which means that we are responsible for what we do because we can't shift what is our responsibility by saying determinism caused our behavior. Nothing can cause us to do anything we don't consent to. That is a fallacy. That was why it was necessary to make this important distinction. I can see that you have no questions or interest, but I can't hold you responsible because I know you are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, and for you to be satisfied, you have to defend your position, even though the author's clarification can bring about an enduring peace.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense. It's all over the place. It just looks like a case of making up a set of claims that are intended to appear like a discovery, but unfortunately happen to contradict both the laws of physics - how the world works - and how determinism is defined.

Click to expand...

DBT, I understand why it's hard to see that the present definition of determinism is causing an issue because it isn't able to reconcile "doing of one's own accord" (of one's own desire) and the fact that we couldn't choose (or decide) otherwise. There's nothing all over the place. The only thing that you can say is all over the place is the fact that I am forced to give you small excerpts, which is not giving you the full picture. Lessans was adamant when he said that this knowledge needs to be read in a step-by-step fashion.
-------------------------------------------------------------

In order for this discovery to be adequately understood, the reader must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and false but understand the difference between a mathematical relation and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated through the years. For purposes of clarification, please note that the words “scientific” and “mathematical” only mean “undeniable” and are interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical, scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal with what has been termed the “exact sciences” to be exact and scientific. Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced and checkmate inevitable, but only if you don’t make up your own rules as to what is true and false, which will only delay the very life you want for yourself. The laws of this universe, which include those of our nature, are the rules of the game, and the only thing required to win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all costs. However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion, government, education, and all others want, which include the means as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This discovery will be presented in a step-by-step fashion that brooks no opposition. Your awareness of this matter will preclude the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to school, how many titles you hold, your IQ, your country, what you do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet.

Click to expand...

Science doesn't make up rules on what must be true or false. Science is a method, the study of how the world works through the means of observation and testing.

The world does not work in the way your author claims.

There is no 'light at the eye/instant vision.'

Determinism does not work in the way the author claims.

Neither claim, even if true, which it is not, could possibly lead to the transformation of human nature and world peace.

Click to expand...

You are way too premature in your conclusions. Forget the eyes for a moment. You are using this claim against him. Step back, take a breath, and start over without the preconceived ideas that you hold, if that’s even possible.

Click to expand...