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

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

You are in a dark room and switch on a light source.

According to Lessans when and where in the process shown does the image appear to us after light is turned on?

t0 immediately when light is turned on?
t1 when light reaches object?
t2 when light leaves object>
t3 when light reaches eye?
t4 when nerve signals reaches brain?
t5 after delay for brain to work?

Not presentation quaiity but good enough to talk to.


t0 when light is swi

 

[bilby]

You cannot abide by anything that would prove your god (Einstein) incorrect.

On the contrary, it is very clear from what he has written that Pood, like myself, would welcome such a thing.

But he MAY be incorrect with some of his theories.

He is almost certainly incorrect; Relativity is incompatible with Quantum Field Theory, and one or both of these theories must therefore be wrong.

His stature, though, doesn't allow anyone to question.

Practically the whole of physics in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has consisted of people questioning Einstein's theories. His public comments about quantum mechanics have mostly been shown to be incorrect and rash.

They are looked at as fools.

No. Fools are looked at as fools. Questioning Relativity by looking at as-yet untested areas for ways to reconcile it and QFT is a noble and worthy effort. Questioning Relativity by proposing internally contradictory twaddle is what gets people looked at as fools.

Who is right and who is wrong would depend on whether there is an actual conflict with some of Einstein's theories and Lessans' take on how we see,

Not really. The first test any idea must face is whether it is logically valid; The second whether it is logically sound. Only after passing these tests is it worth the effort to consider which of the competing ideas is better able to predict the outcomes of experimental observations.

and if there is, to determine who is right by studying both, not leaving Lessans out in the cold because it conflicts with Einstein.

Lessans is out in the cold because he conflicts with reason, logic, and reality. He isn't conflicting with Einstein; Only people with non-batshit ideas that contradict neither themselves, nor simple observations any schoolboy could make, can do that.

 

[bilby]

Again, you cannot just assume that the eyes work the way you believe because of space/time and relativity, as if everything theorized is absolute fact.

Again, nobody is making any such assumption.

 

[bilby]

I don't have a communication problem.

Oh, you really, really do; But it is dwarfed by your denial problem, and your inability to reason problem; And these are symptoms of your believing things without evidence problem, which you are leveraging into your projection problem.

 

[peacegirl]

It would be silly to argue that because I exist HERE, on earth, that Mars does not exist THERE, just not HERE.

Similarly, relativity, fusing space and time, shows that dinosaurs exist EARLIER than me, and future entities exist LATER than me. But we all exist on equal footing. And the problem is?

Well, if places that are a long way away actually exist, why can't I see them?

Because they are a long way away. Bingo!

When I travel "between" England and Australia, they make me spend a day in a closed metal tube, which they tell me is a "flying machine", but as they only have tiny windows, and even those are covered up for much of the "flight", I have no reason to believe the thing actually flies*. They could easily arrange to project images onto the "windows", and just jolt the tube every so often to simulate "turbulence". While I am inside they have a whole day to get rid of the towns and cities, bring in some kangaroos and kookaburras, and turn up the thermostat.

If you try to open the window shade, the staff will make you close it again, which is a dead giveaway.

It's obvious that the only place that exists is where I am, and that "other places" are a conspiracy invented to sell airline tickets.

You have no reason to believe the thing actually flies other than having flown the same route 100 times before. I hope you get your money back. After all, they have fooled you into believing that you are going somewhere just to sell tickets, since "other places" don't really exist. The thing is, "other places" do exist, and "flying machines" help get us there.

* I discretely tried to push one once, and it didn't budge at all. So they are obviously too heavy to fly. Of course, they got wise to that, and if you try to get close enough to try to push one of these so-called "airliners" these days, they arrest you and accuse you of being a terrorist. It's obvious they have something to hide.

They could get you to believe you are in a "flying machine" by simulating the sounds, images, temperature, and turbulence, but the giveaway is that the only place that exists is where you are, and where you are will be in Australia once the tube you're in actually takes off and arrives approximately 16-20 hours later. Your silly scenario made me laugh, but it certainly didn't do anything to nullify real-time seeing.

 

[bilby]

It would be silly to argue that because I exist HERE, on earth, that Mars does not exist THERE, just not HERE.

Similarly, relativity, fusing space and time, shows that dinosaurs exist EARLIER than me, and future entities exist LATER than me. But we all exist on equal footing. And the problem is?

Well, if places that are a long way away actually exist, why can't I see them?

Because they are a long way away. Bingo!

When I travel "between" England and Australia, they make me spend a day in a closed metal tube, which they tell me is a "flying machine", but as they only have tiny windows, and even those are covered up for much of the "flight", I have no reason to believe the thing actually flies*. They could easily arrange to project images onto the "windows", and just jolt the tube every so often to simulate "turbulence". While I am inside they have a whole day to get rid of the towns and cities, bring in some kangaroos and kookaburras, and turn up the thermostat.

If you try to open the window shade, the staff will make you close it again, which is a dead giveaway.

It's obvious that the only place that exists is where I am, and that "other places" are a conspiracy invented to sell airline tickets.

You have no reason to believe the thing actually flies other than having flown the same route 100 times before. I hope you get your money back. After all, they have fooled you into believing that you are going somewhere just to sell tickets, since "other places" don't really exist. The thing is, "other places" do exist, and "flying machines" help get us there.

* I discretely tried to push one once, and it didn't budge at all. So they are obviously too heavy to fly. Of course, they got wise to that, and if you try to get close enough to try to push one of these so-called "airliners" these days, they arrest you and accuse you of being a terrorist. It's obvious they have something to hide.

They could get you to believe you are in a "flying machine" by simulating the sounds, images, temperature, and turbulence, but the giveaway is that the only place that exists is where you are, and where you are will be in Australia once the tube you're in actually takes off and arrives approximately 16-20 hours later. That silly example made me laugh, but I hope it wasn't a sneaky way to try to nullify real-time seeing.

My argument for the nonexistence of other places is at least as good as any arguments you have made for the nonexistence of other times.

 

[peacegirl]

We can not go back to a previous state or to a future state of the inverse they do not exist.

We can't go back, but that doesn't mean the past doesn't exist, any more than the fact that we can't go to Sirius (and may never be able to) means that Sirius doesn't exist*.

I travelled here from 1970 to tell you that it is definitely possible to move forwards in time. In fact, stopping or slowing down seem to be fairly tricky.

I envisage myself moving through time like an asteroid moving through deep space; I move at a constant rate, because I cannot get any purchase on anything, so cannot apply any force to change my rate of progress on the T-axis.




* And interestingly, the Sirius I see when I look up at it tonight is Sirius in the past - on the 14th July 2019, to be precise. I may not be able to travel to the past, but as I can see the past with my own eyes, it seems perverse to say that it doesn't exist.

At FF, we explained to her that you could travel the far future in an arbitrarily short period of time as measured by the ship clock.

You could, for example, by accelerating to a certain fraction of c, age one year, but return to the earth as it is 50,000 years in the future.

Travel to the past? Closed timelike curves, if they exist.

These examples alone make it clear that the past and future exist along with the present. There is nothing privileged about the “present” — it’s an indexical, just like “here.”

She was outraged and incredulous when these things were explained to her at FF, and wholly and irrationally rejected them.

Clocks don't speed up or slow down time itself. Everything believed to be true must follow from sound premises, or the rest will fail, which we all know.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

Where in the diagram and when do we perceive an image relative to when the light is turned on?

Take your tie and think it through carefully. If you think I am missing something I will update the drawing.

Your question why believe eyeopeners as current science ssys it does? because it can be checked externally.

I had am MRI looking for a neural cause to my vision problem. The eye, retina, and nerves running to the barn;s vision center are well mapped. here is no mystery. We know if there is damage to particular areas in he brain vision is affected.

Every year I get a laser scan image of my retinas. High resurrection details.

There is no processing in the eye, only conversion from light to signals in the optic nerves. Image is constructed in the brain.

There is a rare condition where audio and optic nerves get entangled.Color vision changes with sound.

Lessan's theory also has to expin vision problems. Opticasl problems iike astigmatism. Retinsdamage like diabetic retinopathy. Nere and brain damage. My MRI was looking for inflammation of optic nerves.

Current science explains a lot, and most importantly leads to effective treatments for eye and vision problems.

 

[peacegirl]

'how difficult this knowledge was to convey. '

So he did it by his own volition and free will, no one forced him to do it? Or was he the e result of a series of casualties leading to what he did and he had no choice?

Both are good questions. He did something that hurt another (which people are concerned about and why this debate is so important since it has to do with moral responsibility) of his own volition, because it gave him greater satisfaction to do it. The reason his definition is more accurate is that the present definition says he was caused to do it by antecedent events, but how can that be true if the past doesn't exist? Nothing from the past could cause him to do anything. In any situation that requires contemplation to make a decision, we use stored memories in determining which choice will be the better one, but that is not the same thing as being caused, which implies we are being forced, against our will. Once a choice is made and acted upon (this is important since we always have the option to change our minds before an act is committed), we could not have chosen otherwise since any other choice at that moment would have been less satisfying, giving us no real choice at all. IOW, if B was an impossibility under the circumstances because it would have given him less satisfaction, choice A would not be free. Free will, therefore, is a realistic mirage because we can only move in one direction, not two. When you ask if his actions were the result of a series of casualties leading to what he did, that is true, but again, it does not mean that because will is not free, he was forced to do what he did against his will. He wanted to do what he did because it was his preference under his particular circumstances. Lessans had to tweak the definition for accuracy, which brings up the other side of this equation, that states nothing has the power to make us do what we make up our minds not to do. This is within our control, where our movement toward greater satisfaction is not. When you put these two principles together, you will see how it works in practice.

 

[pood]

We can not go back to a previous state or to a future state of the inverse they do not exist.

We can't go back, but that doesn't mean the past doesn't exist, any more than the fact that we can't go to Sirius (and may never be able to) means that Sirius doesn't exist*.

I travelled here from 1970 to tell you that it is definitely possible to move forwards in time. In fact, stopping or slowing down seem to be fairly tricky.

I envisage myself moving through time like an asteroid moving through deep space; I move at a constant rate, because I cannot get any purchase on anything, so cannot apply any force to change my rate of progress on the T-axis.




* And interestingly, the Sirius I see when I look up at it tonight is Sirius in the past - on the 14th July 2019, to be precise. I may not be able to travel to the past, but as I can see the past with my own eyes, it seems perverse to say that it doesn't exist.

At FF, we explained to her that you could travel the far future in an arbitrarily short period of time as measured by the ship clock.

You could, for example, by accelerating to a certain fraction of c, age one year, but return to the earth as it is 50,000 years in the future.

Travel to the past? Closed timelike curves, if they exist.

These examples alone make it clear that the past and future exist along with the present. There is nothing privileged about the “present” — it’s an indexical, just like “here.”

She was outraged and incredulous when these things were explained to her at FF, and wholly and irrationally rejected them.

Clocks don't speed up or slow down time itself. Everything believed to be true must follow from sound premises, or the rest will fail, which we all know.

There is no such thing as “time itself.” The “passage” of time is measured by clocks, and clocks are observed to run slower in a frame moving relative to a rest frame. This is easily demonstrated by the thought experiment of a light clock, and has been observed to take place in nature and in the lab (muon decay). If relativity were not correct, our GPS would not work.

As usual you haven’t a clue what you are talking about, yet feel uninhibited in espousing utter bullshit.

 

[DBT]

We can not go back to a previous state or to a future state of the inverse they do not exist.

We can't go back, but that doesn't mean the past doesn't exist, any more than the fact that we can't go to Sirius (and may never be able to) means that Sirius doesn't exist*.

I travelled here from 1970 to tell you that it is definitely possible to move forwards in time. In fact, stopping or slowing down seem to be fairly tricky.

I envisage myself moving through time like an asteroid moving through deep space; I move at a constant rate, because I cannot get any purchase on anything, so cannot apply any force to change my rate of progress on the T-axis.




* And interestingly, the Sirius I see when I look up at it tonight is Sirius in the past - on the 14th July 2019, to be precise. I may not be able to travel to the past, but as I can see the past with my own eyes, it seems perverse to say that it doesn't exist.

At FF, we explained to her that you could travel the far future in an arbitrarily short period of time as measured by the ship clock.

You could, for example, by accelerating to a certain fraction of c, age one year, but return to the earth as it is 50,000 years in the future.

Travel to the past? Closed timelike curves, if they exist.

These examples alone make it clear that the past and future exist along with the present. There is nothing privileged about the “present” — it’s an indexical, just like “here.”

She was outraged and incredulous when these things were explained to her at FF, and wholly and irrationally rejected them.

Clocks don't speed up or slow down time itself. Everything believed to be true must follow from sound premises, or the rest will fail, which we all know.

Instant vision is an unsound premise. An assumption that has no basis.

 

[southernhybrid]

I sometimes scroll this thread while only reading a few lines and while being amazed at the repetition, and I sometimes write what I call five minute poems, not great poetry but it takes me about five minutes to write them. And, though I tried not to post the following one here, I don't have much free will, so forgive me for putting it here. I couldn't help myself. This five minute poem was inspired by the old hit from the early 60s. called, "Go Away Little Girl", though it is kind of hard to sing it to that tune. Sorry.....maybe it I had taken ten minutes to write it, you could sing it. Oh well. As someone here said, There are only 24 hours in a day, but why does that someone spend so many hours here and why do so many encourage that someone? I guess it's evidence that free will either doesn't exist or it's complicated.

Please leave her alone



She needs to find a new home



Peace to you girl, now go away



and sell your book else where



No one's interested right here



Before you spout more BS



in this crazy, lenthy thread



Best to ignore what's been said



Go away Peace Girl..........................if you start with this line, you can sing it to Go Away Little Girl. At least I can.



Go away Peace Girl



There must be something



better for you to do



Nobody wants to read that book



so, please take a look



At how crazy you seem



Your dad's work is a dream



Find something better to do



This isn't helping you



So go away peace Girl



Before those attacking you



beg you to stay

 

[pood]

Einstein’s relativity in action — GPS.

As explained, GPS must take into account both gravitational time dilation and velocity time dilation.

Keeping in mind that the theory of relativity could not even have been formulated in a world of real-time seeing.

 

[peacegirl]

I want to add here that having the free will to change (which we have given a different set of conditions) does not mean we have freedom of the will to do otherwise, once a choice has been made. We could not have done differently, but that does not mean we cannot do differently the next time a similar situation presents itself. Determinism doesn't stop us from saying, "I did this of my own free will, which only means 'I did this because I wanted to." Nothing made me do it against my will. It's a colloquial expression that he uses throughout the book but it does not mean will is free. THERE IS NO DETECTED CONTRADICTION. I hope you get this soon so we can move forward.

As pointed out, this is just basically compatibilism, except for the part in which it is claimed that we could not have done otherwise after the fact, which is a modal fallacy. So your author was basically a compatiblist without knowing it.

You are wrong. Compatibilism is a bait and switch. They say that we have no free will, and yet we can be blamed and punished if we don't have a gun to our head (according to their definition). According to them, we could have chosen otherwise since we had free will not to do whatever we were being judged for. This is libertarianism cloaked as determinism.

 

[pood]

I want to add here that having the free will to change (which we have given a different set of conditions) does not mean we have freedom of the will to do otherwise, once a choice has been made. We could not have done differently, but that does not mean we cannot do differently the next time a similar situation presents itself. Determinism doesn't stop us from saying, "I did this of my own free will, which only means 'I did this because I wanted to." Nothing made me do it against my will. It's a colloquial expression that he uses throughout the book but it does not mean will is free. THERE IS NO DETECTED CONTRADICTION. I hope you get this soon so we can move forward.

As pointed out, this is just basically compatibilism, except for the part in which it is claimed that we could not have done otherwise after the fact, which is a modal fallacy. So your author was basically a compatiblist without knowing it.

You are wrong. Compatibilism is a bait and switch. They say that we have no free will, and yet we can be blamed and punished if we don't have a gun to our head (according to their definition). According to them, we could have chosen otherwise since we had free will not to do whatever we were being judged for. This is libertarianism cloaked as determinism.

Totally wrong description of compatibilism.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, try inverting a monocular so you can project an image of the sun onto a blank white surface, where the image is sharp enough to see sunspots. Where the eyes are detecting the light of the sun as its being projected onto the screen forming an image, light that was radiated by the sun, which took eight minutes and twenty seconds to arrive.

I'm not sure where this proves 8 minutes and 20-second delay. Can you show me a video of this?

The speed of light is measurable. It has been measured. The distance to the sun has been calculated, parallax, etc.
quote
"The Earth is on opposite sides of the Sun every six months. From these different vantage points, a celestial object will appear to be in different parts of the sky. Scientists can calculate the distance to a heavenly object by measuring the angle between those two positions. The greater the shift in the position, the closer the object is to Earth. The smaller the shift, the farther away it is. This method, formally described by the Greek mathematician Hipparchus in the second century B.C.E., laid the groundwork for future advances."

So given the distance to the sun and the speed of light, it comes to eight minutes and twenty seconds, give or take, depending on orbital variations.

There is no dispute here, DBT. Distance to the Sun and the speed of light can be calculated.

 

[peacegirl]

I want to add here that having the free will to change (which we have given a different set of conditions) does not mean we have freedom of the will to do otherwise, once a choice has been made. We could not have done differently, but that does not mean we cannot do differently the next time a similar situation presents itself. Determinism doesn't stop us from saying, "I did this of my own free will, which only means 'I did this because I wanted to." Nothing made me do it against my will. It's a colloquial expression that he uses throughout the book but it does not mean will is free. THERE IS NO DETECTED CONTRADICTION. I hope you get this soon so we can move forward.

As pointed out, this is just basically compatibilism, except for the part in which it is claimed that we could not have done otherwise after the fact, which is a modal fallacy. So your author was basically a compatiblist without knowing it.

You are wrong. Compatibilism is a bait and switch. They say that we have no free will, and yet we can be blamed and punished if we don't have a gun to our head (according to their definition). According to them, we could have chosen otherwise since we had free will not to do whatever we were being judged for. This is libertarianism cloaked as determinism.

Totally wrong description of compatibilism.

Okay, tell me where I'm wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

He did not say that light isn't necessary. It is a vital condition in order to see anything.

Is it? Why? What is the light doing that makes it vital, and how does it do it?

In particular, how does it do it before it arrives?

Bilby, that's what you're missing. If the brain looks through the eyes, as a window,

The eyes are not windows.

Well, that’s yet to be determined, and you’re not the one to do it.

Not me, but well known facts, with which you are blissfully and ignorantly unacquainted.

to the outside world, then his explanation would make sense,

No, it makes no sense under any circumstance. It is completely and utterly and hopelessly wrong.

No it is not hopelessly wrong. I gave so many examples of how words influence what we see, which only occur if the brain acts as a movie projector.

Ah, that’s right. The eyes are windows and the brain is movie projector! Wow! I now recall your idiot author writing something about how the brain projects something or other onto a “screen of undeniable substance.” Can you tell us what the hell that even means? Of course not.

Be careful what you say, Pood. I won't talk to you if you dare call him an idiot again. He was anything but, and much more of a thinker than you.

And, if the eyes are windows and the brain is a movie projector, can I project my favorite movies onto this unspecified “screen of undeniable substance?” That way I would not have to pay for them!

OMG, this just shows me that you read nothing. You just happen to recall. Well, that's not good enough.

You have no idea what he meant and you have no idea what you are talking about, and you know it.

You can’t stand that he could be right. I think it would destroy the fictional world you reside in!

Pure projection, as usual. You are the one who is terrified of having your idiot author proved wrong, as he has been proved wrong for 25 years.

I will say again, don't call this man, who gave mankind a way to create a world that we all want, an idiot.

but what you're doing is trying to apply your understanding regarding the speed of light traveling with the object's light or wavelength (call it either one, just as long as you understand the concept) to the eye.

Light does not carry an object’s “wavelength” or “light” to the eye. Light is light, it does not carry or bring a wavelength, it HAS a wavelength.

Leave it alone, Pood. We will get nowhere.

Just another inadvertent confession that you have no idea what you are talking about. That is why you want me to “leave it alone.”

That's not why. I'm tired of hearing your broken record.

I have said over and over that light strikes the object and that light follows the angle of incidence, but it does not travel with the wavelength of the object.

An object does not have a wavelength to carry. (Well, actually, it does have a wavelength, but light does not carry it).

You know what I meant.

I have no clue what the fuck you are talking about, and more important, neither do you.

It reveals the object when we are looking at it, as long as it meets the requirements for sight, which are enough light and size.

The requirements for sight are unequivocally that light from a source or from a reflection reaches the eye, which takes time. It takes light from the sun about 8.5 minutes to reach the eye, so we always see the sun some 8.5 minutes as it was in the past. It takes light from the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest galactic neighbor, about 2.5 million years to reach the eye, so we always see that galaxy as it was 2.5 million years ago.

Believe what you want.

These are not beliefs but facts. Your author was wrong.

If it's too small, we won't see it. If it's too dim, we won't see it. Telescopes magnify, which doesn't turn real time into delayed time.

We can see the earliest moments of the universe in our telescope, as it was some 13 billon years ago. It looked very different then, from what it does now.

Whatever!

Oh, what an impressive rebuttal!

I'm tired of your repetitions.

No one seems interested in whether his version of sight is correct.

We are not interested because it is not correct. It is total rubbish.

Not if you understood it. We cannot be conditioned without words that are projected. You tried to dismiss it by talking about different beliefs and ways of thinking, but nothing could explain how our eyes are conditioned to seeing values that have turned into standards.

Absolute gobbledygook. WTAF are you talking about? You yourself have no idea.

Let's go over it then. You tried to explain how values have nothing to do with delayed vision, but it didn't answer the question of how we see beauty and ugliness if we are not receiving them through our sense of sight.

They just don't like his claim because it would upset the applecart.

Yes, here you go again. I already noted your M.O. in this regard. It’s all our fault because we don’t want our world view challenged. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that your author’s claims are total rubbish.

I would LOVE to have my interpretations of reality challenged by a stunning new theory backed by evidence. Your father’s crap ain’t it.

Of course not. You want challenge that supports your basic beliefs but brings new ideas added on.

Wrong again.

And of course it is you who can’t stand to have your beliefs challenged, even though you don’t have the slightest idea how to explain them other than posting copy-pasta from your father’s book.

There is nothing wrong with posting from my father's book. You're criminalizing it when there's no reason to. And it certainly doesn't mean I don't understand what he wrote, which is another false conclusion. You're wrong about so many things, I need more fingers to count them all.

People are trying to prove him wrong by using astronomy. That's not how it works.

It is not just astronomy that proves him wrong, it is everything — physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology, etc. Everything proves him wrong.

It actually doesn’t but it’s counterintuitive to think that the entire scientific consensus of how the world works rests on thin ice.

Yes, it does. Every branch of science rejects your father’s claims. They cannot survive ANY scientific test, whether astronomical, cosmological, mathematical, biological or chemical.

False. None of these have anything to do with what he claimed, which is why you can't disprove him this way. You have to see if there is truth to his claim about how we see by looking at it. You haven't even looked at it with an unbiased eye (pun intended)

If he is correct, then anything that would be amiss in astronomy would need to be reevaluated.

He isn’t correct and nothing needs to be reevaluated.

Says Poid, I mean Einstein! Haha

Yeah, it’s funny how your author mentioned Einstein in his book while being blissfully ignorant of how Einstein’s relativity already invalidated his claims about light and sight years before he wrote them down.

Here’s what I think. By now you know perfectly well that his claims about light and sight were false. You just can’t admit that.

Then why are you here? You could be doing more productive things than try to convince me that I was wrong.

 

[peacegirl]

It appears that Faith, no matter what it relates to, is hard to relinquish.

His discoveries have nothing to do with faith.

Under the reign of free will this transition to a cooperative earth was a mathematical impossibility because no one knew what the better alternative was, although many thought they knew. Consequently, force was an absolute requirement to prevent further harm, but not anymore since this knowledge prevents those very acts of evil for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. If this discovery did not come to light, man would, sooner or later, destroy himself. Since man’s will is not free, he has absolutely no say in this matter whatsoever, which proves that God is a mathematical reality that can no more be denied. The great humor is that religion is founded on faith in God, and the moment we discover that God is an undeniable reality by delivering us from all evil, faith is no more necessary, just as it is impossible to have any more faith that the world is round because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it is. As I stated before, the clergy will be completely displaced.

 

[DBT]

It appears that Faith, no matter what it relates to, is hard to relinquish.

His discoveries have nothing to do with faith.

Under the reign of free will this transition to a cooperative earth was a mathematical impossibility because no one knew what the better alternative was, although many thought they knew. Consequently, force was an absolute requirement to prevent further harm, but not anymore since this knowledge prevents those very acts of evil for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. If this discovery did not come to light, man would, sooner or later, destroy himself. Since man’s will is not free, he has absolutely no say in this matter whatsoever, which proves that God is a mathematical reality that can no more be denied. The great humor is that religion is founded on faith in God, and the moment we discover that God is an undeniable reality by delivering us from all evil, faith is no more necessary, just as it is impossible to have any more faith that the world is round because we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it is. As I stated before, the clergy will be completely displaced.

If something is believed without the support of evidence, it is being believed on the basis of faith.

As it happens that the assumption of real time/instant vision has no evidence to support it, those who do believe in it hold their belief on the basis of faith.

If there is evidence, that evidence should be shown.