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

[pood]

As to the block world ... Travel to the past can be achieved by theoretical closed timelike curves. If backward time travel is theoretically possible then there must exist a past to travel to.

In his book, A World Without Time, Palle Yourgrau notes that, as a consequence of relativistically possible worlds which Gödel demonstrated, the past can be revisited, but, "by Gödel's light" this means "that time itself - hence speed and motion - is but an illusion. ... For Gödel, if there is time travel, there isn't time. The goal of the great logician was ... to demonstrate that if one follows the logic of relativity further than its father was willing to venture, the results will not just illuminate but eliminate the reality of time."

Gödel was not intending a reductio. As Yourgrau puts it, "For Gödel, the devices of formal proof are too weak to capture all that is true in the world of numbers" but "[w]hen it came to relativistic cosmology, however, he took the opposite tack. ... relativity is just fine".

Yourgrau goes on to note that "the relativistic establishment, in the person of Stephen Hawking, tried to get around the embarrassing consequences introduced by the Gödel universe ... with their awkward chronologies permitting closed temporal loops and causal chains with no beginning."

What is interesting about the closed temporal loops and their necessary entailment of causal chains without beginnings is that if one travels to a past, and if that relatively future traveler was not at that past when it is/was a present, then that traveled-to past is not identical to the past that passed; it would, therefore, be a new future rather than a passed past.

On the other hand, given the stasis of a universe presumed as static, the relatively future traveler would never have not been at the traveled-to past. Were it otherwise, the past could not rightly be regarded as determinate and determined. If the past can be not-determinate and not-determined, then there is no place (or time) which could be other than not-determinate and not-determined.

As Yourgrau reports, John Wheeler attempted "to summarize" Gödel's viewpoint by saying "there could exist world lines (space-time histories) that closed up in loops. In such a universe, one could, in principle, live one's life over and over again." With regards to that summary, Yourgrau says, "Wheeler, unfortunately, has conflated a temporal circle with a cycle" since in an actually static universe there is no actual cycling, thereby "precisely missing the force of Gödel's conclusion that the possibility of closed, future-directed, timelike curves, i.e., time travel, proves that space-time is a space, not a time in the intuitive sense. ... the time traveler's journey is not over time".

Yourgrau adds, "Wheeler should have known better. As he himself pointed out, an 'unsettling consequence of Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity is that time is relative.' And not just relative but 'static,' for 'the other thing that special relativity did for time is join it with space ... [and] a consequence of this new space-time view is that motion through time, or motion of time ... is replaced by static time.' But as Gödel showed, a time that is relative or static is no time at all."

This time which is no time at all relates to what Yourgrau says is "One of Einstein's claims to fame ... his uncanny ability not only to provide new descriptions of old phenomena but new definitions as well. ... Everything is really something else; time is really space; gravity is really geometrical curvature; energy is really mass. How can one not love such a thinker?"

The re-definition of time ties in with Gödel's realization regarding "the inability of the formal presentation to capture the intuitive concept. ... the variable that represents the temporal component of four-dimensional space-time cannot bear the standard interpretation of time in the intuitive sense."

And, still, for Gödel, "relativity is just fine" apparently as a consequence of his mathematical Platonism. Yourgrau addresses this saying, "the Gödel universe, after all, is not the actual world, only a possible one. Can we really infer the nonexistence of time in this world from its absence from a merely possible universe? In a word, yes. Or so Gödel argues. ... His mathematical Platonism, which committed him to the existence of a realm of objects that are not accidental ... but necessary, implied immediately that if a mathematical object is so much as possible, it is necessary, hence actual."

Apparently, then, "relativity is just fine" because its mathematics is just fine; anything possible by relativity is mathematically possible, and anything mathematically possible is necessary; so, anything possible by relativity is necessary; therefore, the time which is not time at all is necessary - is necessarily the case - since it is mathematically, relativistically possible. Or something like that?

A great post though I have to mull over some of it. Good launching point for more discussion. The Wheeler-Dewitt equation omits time altogether.

 

[peacegirl]

As has been repeatedly explained to @peacegirl, GPS must take into account both general and special relativity or it would not work. As usual she has ignored these disproofs of her monumental ignorance.

I am not denying that there are practical applications. All I am saying is that time itself is not a dimension like space. Time indicates change. We can use time to measure something. Time is nothing more than the perception of a relation between two points. The past or future cannot exist; however, when we are not moving between two points, a beginning and an end (or an arrow of time)... we are in motion in the present.

 

[pood]

As has been repeatedly explained to @peacegirl, GPS must take into account both general and special relativity or it would not work. As usual she has ignored these disproofs of her monumental ignorance.

I am not denying that there are practical applications. All I am saying is that time itself is not a dimension like space. Time indicates change. We can use time to measure something. Time is nothing more than the perception of a relation between two points. The past or future cannot exist; however, when we are not moving between two points, a beginning and an end (or an arrow of time)... we are in motion in the present.

GPS disproves real-time seeing.

 

[peacegirl]

As has been repeatedly explained to @peacegirl, GPS must take into account both general and special relativity or it would not work. As usual she has ignored these disproofs of her monumental ignorance.

I am not denying that there are practical applications. All I am saying is that time itself is not a dimension like space. Time indicates change. We can use time to measure something. Time is nothing more than the perception of a relation between two points. The past or future cannot exist; however, when we are not moving between two points, a beginning and an end (or an arrow of time)... we are in motion in the present.

GPS disproves real-time seeing.

It does no such thing.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Good launching point for more discussion.

Assuming I got somewhat close to being right with regards to Gödel's mathematical Platonism basis for the actuality of time as no time at all, then what might someone who is not a mathematical Platonist say about the relativistic actuality of such a non-time time?

That person would have to allow for the possibility of a time which is not time at all if Gödel's universe(s) cannot be shown to be not relativistically possible. But on what basis could the denial of the actuality of such a possible non-time time be based? The lack of evidence? As in the fact that no one has traveled to the past?

Okay, so that would make the person agnostic no matter how much and how stridently the person doubts the possibility of there ever being actual traveling to the past.

And, given acceptance of relativity validity, that would leave this person with, as Wheeler pointed out, regarding time as only relative or only static. But that leaves relativity time just as disconnected from - and, indeed, just as incompatible with - intuitive or experienced time as Gödel says it is.

I reckon Gödel would then say that would still end up leaving the objecting person with the same temporal idealism position which Gödel apparently held.

But how is temporal idealism compatible with the stasis which some hold as necessitated by and following from relativity theory?

I guess a way to cure the incompatibility would be to say that, rather than absolute rest, stasis in this context only indicates that the intuitive time of phenomenal experience is not a physically objective and independent feature of reality. That is an odd and wholly unnecessary way to define and use stasis, but it would still allow for the reality - the actuality - of motion, phenomena, entropy, etc.

However, in that case the static block universe would not be static so much as it would simply not have experienced time as an objective, mind-independent feature, aspect, or component. Consequently, static is just a terrible description of a concept. But this is not necessarily a problem for science even if it does pose a lack of expressive and conceptual rigor. It is not necessarily a problem for science because concepts can be modified and improved. But, Yourgrau says that according to Gödel, "Science does not analyze concepts, as does philosophy. [Science] applies them."

And that could be a segue back to the philosophy in science issue.

With that in mind, here is another passage from the Yourgrau book: Yourgrau quotes Gödel as saying, "the concept of existence ... cannot be relativized without destroying its meaning completely. ... The notion of existence is one of the most primitive concepts with which we must begin as given." Yourgrau adds, "We can have a world in which there is time or a world in which there is existence, but not both. Gödel made the only rational choice: a world without time."

 

[DBT]

We have a world that constantly changes, where the rate of change is our measurement of time.

 

[steve_bank]

Ok, 'My ideas are as undeniable as science and math', but that gets you nowhere.

Instant real time vision is a contraction.

Spence ad math have been undergoing change, evolution, revision since the ancient beginnings,.

There is nothing absolute about science.

Scientific claims have repeatable experimental evidence. Lessans posses observational subjection interpretation as evidence which it is not.

There is no possible physical experiment to demonstrate instant vision. Or determinism.

I’m not selling you a bill of goods!

But you are. We look in the book and do not see what you clam is there.

Remember the old Wendy's burger commercial, 'Where's the beef?' The book is all bun and no beef,

]

This is so insane to me. Someone who didn't read the book tells me the book has no beef. You are displaying an ignorance that I can't overcome.

Another non answer.

At this point after all the years is it really a mystery why you get nowhere with your ideas?

You are supposed to be the expert. You are trying to convince us.

I have said that coming here was never the right venue. If you believe there is nothing of value in the book (that you didn’t read), then let’s call it quits.

Again a non answer.

Call it quits? Nothing personal as I do not really know who you are, this is all an exercise in logic and reason. A mental treadmill, improves endurance..

If I ask a car salesman what the gas mileage on a new car is and he says 'read the owner's manual' I won't think much of the salesman.

I did read through what you lined to, but not in detail. Most of it is nonsensical and poorly written. Which is why we ask YOU to explain. You are the expert.

If you say relativity dies not disprove Lessans that is the first step. The next step is to detail the eperiment and conclussions.

You still haven't described specifically what you mean by efferent vision.

 

[bilby]

I don’t know why we lack a toast emoji.

No need to be lack-toast intolerant.

 

[peacegirl]

Ok, 'My ideas are as undeniable as science and math', but that gets you nowhere.

Instant real time vision is a contraction.

Spence ad math have been undergoing change, evolution, revision since the ancient beginnings,.

There is nothing absolute about science.

Scientific claims have repeatable experimental evidence. Lessans posses observational subjection interpretation as evidence which it is not.

There is no possible physical experiment to demonstrate instant vision. Or determinism.

I’m not selling you a bill of goods!

But you are. We look in the book and do not see what you clam is there.

Remember the old Wendy's burger commercial, 'Where's the beef?' The book is all bun and no beef,

]

This is so insane to me. Someone who didn't read the book tells me the book has no beef. You are displaying an ignorance that I can't overcome.

Another non answer.

At this point after all the years is it really a mystery why you get nowhere with your ideas?

You are supposed to be the expert. You are trying to convince us.

I have said that coming here was never the right venue. If you believe there is nothing of value in the book (that you didn’t read), then let’s call it quits.

Again a non answer.

Call it quits? Nothing personal as I do not really know who you are, this is all an exercise in logic and reason. A mental treadmill, improves endurance..

If I ask a car salesman what the gas mileage on a new car is and he says 'read the owner's manual' I won't think much of the salesman.

I did not just say “read the text” , but in order to get a full understanding, you’d need to READ the text. I’m sure the salesman would have given you the gas mileage, but to really get familiar with the car and its requirements, you’d need to READ the manual.

I did read through what you lined to, but not in detail.

That’s exactly why you never had a question. You skimmed.

Most of it is nonsensical and poorly written. Which is why we ask YOU to explain. You are the expert.

It’s easy to say something is poorly written when you’re not the writer. It’s cheap.

If you say relativity dies not disprove Lessans that is the first step. The next step is to detail the eperiment and conclussions.

You still haven't described specifically what you mean by efferent vision.

I don’t have to derail relativity’s experiments and conclusions. I only need to give you Lessans’ claim and the reasons for it. Hopefully, there will be other ways to prove that he was right all along.

 

[bilby]

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

How?

The way he described.

It is a condition of sight.

Why?

Because of efferent vision, he described his observations regarding how we become conditioned. Conditioning does not come through the light, and it does not come out of thin air. There is a cause. The cause has to do with words and how we are able to project and attach them to real substance. For example, we can accurately say that we see a woman with a hat on, which is an accurate description (the words " woman and hat" exist and can be called real substances), but when we say we see a beautiful woman with a hat on, the word "beautiful" is not descriptive of real substance. It is a word that our culture attached to specific features (it doesn't matter which culture, the same mechanism applies) We are taught from an early age that certain features are associated with the word beautiful (given a positive inflection)l and certain features are associated with the word ugly (given a negative inflection) and from this a host of evils have followed until today. He believed this idea of beauty and ugliness started during the time of Aristotle, when the eyes were named as one of the senses. It was then not difficult for a standard of beauty and ugliness to develop because, once this conditioning took place, no one could deny that these beautiful and ugly people did not exist, since we could see them with our very eyes, and our eyes don't lie. If he was wrong about his observations, that would be another story, but so far, no one has disproved him.

I am rather impressed that in that very long "explanation" of why light is a condition of sight, you mentioned light only once, and in passing:

Conditioning does not come through the light

Why is light a condition of sight?

What does light do, such that it is a condition of sight?

Telling us what it does NOT do, is not even an attempt to address the question.

Why is light a condition of sight? What is light doing when we see something, such that in the absence of light, we cannot see that thing?

 

[bilby]

As to the block world, we know that relativity theory allows for future-directed time travel. A person traveling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light may experience only a year of clock time on ship yet return to an earth on which thousands or millions of years have passed depending on how fast the traveler was moving. Travel to the past can be achieved by theoretical closed timelike curves. If backward time travel is theoretically possible then there must exist a past to travel to

Given that forward time travel is possible, there must exist a past to travel from.

Two-way travel is not necessary to show that past and future must exist; One way travel is sufficient.

 

[bilby]

All I am saying is that time itself is not a dimension like space. [...] We can use time to measure something.

Today you learned that "dimension" means 'any scale we can use to measure something'.

All you are saying is that time is not a dimension like space, it is a dimension unlike space.

Which we all knew (except you, because until you read this post, you had zero clue what the word 'dimension' actually means).

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

Einstein wrote a few small books intended to explain his theories to the masses. Read it. He did have a gift for reducing the complex to simple terms.

Preface
(December, 1916)

Albert Einstein 5
Preface
(December, 1916)
The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of
Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view,
are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of
theoretical physics. The work presumes a standard of education corresponding to that of a
university matriculation examination, and, despite the shortness of the book, a fair amount
of patience and force of will on the part of the reader. The author has spared himself no
pains in his endeavour to present the main ideas in the simplest and most intelligible form,
and on the whole, in the sequence and connection in which they actually originated. In the
interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I should repeat myself frequently,
without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of the presentation. I adhered
scrupulously to the precept of that brilliant theoretical physicist L. Boltzmann, according to
whom matters of elegance ought to be left to the tailor and to the cobbler. I make no
pretence of having withheld from the reader difficulties which are inherent to the subject.
On the other hand, I have purposely treated the empirical physical foundations of the theory
in a "step-motherly" fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the
wanderer who was unable to see the forest for the trees. May the book bring some one a few
happy hours of suggestive thought

Compared to this Lessans is gibberish.

You still have not explained how efferent vision is supposed to work, maybe you can't.

 

[DBT]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have no conclusions. How the world works is not my conclusion.

The world, demonstrably, does not work in the way your author claimed.

Being wrong, the claims of instant vision, tweaked determinism and world peace have no merit. The author was mistaken. That's all.

No, that's not all. The fact that you can say his tweaked definition (which is more accurate) means nothing, implying that world peace has no merit, WHEN YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK JUST LIKE STEVE HASN'T, is a dead giveaway. It explains why you had not one relevant question, I wonder who the hell I am wasting my time with!

I didn't say the idea of world peace has no merit. I said that the authors idea on how world peace is to be achieved has no merit.

Light at the eye/instant vision has no merit. The idea of tweaked determinism as a path to peace is inexplicable, so has no merit.

Even how it's supposed to work has not been adequately explained. Quoting from the book doesn't help, because what has been quoted so far makes no sense.

If people can't make sense of the book, how does that help bring about world peace.

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

 

[steve_bank]

I think DBT has summed it up nicely.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg

Einstein wrote a few small books intended to explain his theories to the masses. Read it. He did have a gift for reducing the complex to simple terms.

Preface
(December, 1916)

Albert Einstein 5
Preface
(December, 1916)
The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the theory of
Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view,
are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of
theoretical physics. The work presumes a standard of education corresponding to that of a
university matriculation examination, and, despite the shortness of the book, a fair amount
of patience and force of will on the part of the reader. The author has spared himself no
pains in his endeavour to present the main ideas in the simplest and most intelligible form,
and on the whole, in the sequence and connection in which they actually originated. In the
interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I should repeat myself frequently,
without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of the presentation. I adhered
scrupulously to the precept of that brilliant theoretical physicist L. Boltzmann, according to
whom matters of elegance ought to be left to the tailor and to the cobbler. I make no
pretence of having withheld from the reader difficulties which are inherent to the subject.
On the other hand, I have purposely treated the empirical physical foundations of the theory
in a "step-motherly" fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the
wanderer who was unable to see the forest for the trees. May the book bring some one a few
happy hours of suggestive thought

Compared to this Lessans is gibberish.

You still have not explained how efferent vision is supposed to work, maybe you can't.

Forgot the link.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf

Several other titles on Project Gutenberg.

Books: einstein

Project Gutenberg offers 78,228 free eBooks for iPhone, iPad, Kobo, Android and Kindle.

www.gutenberg.org

 

[peacegirl]

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

How?

The way he described.

It is a condition of sight.

Why?

Because of efferent vision, he described his observations regarding how we become conditioned. Conditioning does not come through the light, and it does not come out of thin air. There is a cause. The cause has to do with words and how we are able to project and attach them to real substance. For example, we can accurately say that we see a woman with a hat on, which is an accurate description (the words " woman and hat" exist and can be called real substances), but when we say we see a beautiful woman with a hat on, the word "beautiful" is not descriptive of real substance. It is a word that our culture attached to specific features (it doesn't matter which culture, the same mechanism applies) We are taught from an early age that certain features are associated with the word beautiful (given a positive inflection)l and certain features are associated with the word ugly (given a negative inflection) and from this a host of evils have followed until today. He believed this idea of beauty and ugliness started during the time of Aristotle, when the eyes were named as one of the senses. It was then not difficult for a standard of beauty and ugliness to develop because, once this conditioning took place, no one could deny that these beautiful and ugly people did not exist, since we could see them with our very eyes, and our eyes don't lie. If he was wrong about his observations, that would be another story, but so far, no one has disproved him.

I am rather impressed that in that very long "explanation" of why light is a condition of sight, you mentioned light only once, and in passing:

Conditioning does not come through the light

Why is light a condition of sight?

What does light do, such that it is a condition of sight?

Telling us what it does NOT do, is not even an attempt to address the question.

Why is light a condition of sight? What is light doing when we see something, such that in the absence of light, we cannot see that thing?

Light as a condition of sight was the conclusion, hence the reason why light and its workings were mentioned only once. If you didn't follow me this whole time, then you will keep insisting that he was wrong because he didn't explain how light works. Light does what light does, bilby. It travels at 186,000 miles a second. In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing. He never said we could.

 

[pood]

Light does what light does, bilby. It travels at 186,000 miles a second. In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing. He never said we could.

Great. So therefore:

How is it possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you concede that it takes light time to get to the eye?

 

[peacegirl]

Light does what light does, bilby. It travels at 186,000 miles a second. In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing. He never said we could.

Great. So therefore:

How is it possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you concede that it takes light time to get to the eye?

Light does what light does, bilby. It travels at 186,000 miles a second. In the absence of light, we cannot see that thing. He never said we could.

Great. So therefore:

How is it possible for light to be at the eye instantly even as you concede that it takes light time to get to the eye?

Give it up Pood. You don’t get it. I’m sorry.

 

[peacegirl]

This may not seem related to the discussion but there are elements that are.