A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Are you incapable of following a line of reasoning? You said that:

For which all those things you mentioned pretty much contradict. Stop weasling and changing the subject. All we need to see an object is light - not an object at all.

I also said you can exchange the term "object" for any substance in the atmosphere that interacts with light, including raindrops. It doesn't change anything Dragar in terms of this account.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I also said you can exchange the term "object" for any substance in the atmosphere that interacts with light, including raindrops. It doesn't change anything Dragar in terms of this account.

That doesn't address what I said at all. If the light reaching our eyes is 'as if' it came from an object, we see an object. That's an Astute Observation and mathematically true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

That doesn't address what I said at all. If the light reaching our eyes is 'as if' it came from an object, we see an object. That's an Astute Observation and mathematically true.

So where's the conflict? We know that light comes from the object, and we know the light has to be at our eyes. What people are failing to understand is why in this closed system there is no delay. I think people are getting confused between the speed of light which takes time to reach Earth, and real time seeing, which does not take time. Maybe the confusion arose from Lessans saying we see the Sun instantly. Obviously, the photons have to travel to a certain point for us to be within optical range, but this resolution occurs instantaneously because the travel time of this light is in nanoseconds, not 81/2 minutes. The idea that the inverse square law allows us to see the image 93 miles away from the original object that reflected this light, may be the source of the confusion.

[Artemis Entreri]

Please explain what you mean by closed system.
Please explain how this closed system eliminates time and distance in relation to vision.

That's why I said distance in relation to time doesn't apply. I also said that to be in optical range, light has to travel just like with the candle.

So would the candle (or sun) not be in optical range until the light has traveled the distance from the candle (or sun) to the eye?
If so then you wouldn't see the sun turned on at noon.
If not then you would have an object "in optical range" but no light on the eye.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So where's the conflict? We know that light comes from the object, and we know the light has to be at our eyes. What people are failing to understand is why in this closed system there is no delay. I think people are getting confused between the speed of light which takes time to reach Earth, and real time seeing, which does not take time. Maybe the confusion arose from Lessans saying we see the Sun instantly. Obviously, the photons have to travel to a certain point for us to be within optical range, but this resolution occurs instantaneously because the travel time of this light is in nanoseconds, not 81/2 minutes. The idea that the inverse square law allows us to see the image 93 miles away from the original object that reflected this light, may be the source of the confusion.

Jesus Christ, you are stupid.

...the travel time of this light is in nanoseconds, not 81/2 minutes.

No the travel time of photons from the sun is NOT "in nanoseconds," it is in eight and a half minutes. Which means we see the sun as it was eight and a half minutes in the past. Even if it WERE in nanoseconds, that would still mean that we do NOT see the sun instantly, but as it was nanoseconds in the past!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Please explain what you mean by closed system.
Please explain how this closed system eliminates time and distance in relation to vision.

I gave the example with the box. Regardless of the size of the box, it doesn't apply in this account. What matters is the size of the object in relation to the viewer within the box, for then the light (the inverse square law that allows us to resolve the image in relation to how far away the object is) will be at our eyes just as quickly as the light from the candle is at our eyes. So if you want to expand this concept, any object no matter how far away it is would still allow us to see in real time once that nanosecond of light has reached our eyes. You cannot expand this concept in terms of distance and time for then it won't make sense and you would come to the conclusion that this cannot be correct.

That's why I said distance in relation to time doesn't apply. I also said that to be in optical range, light has to travel just like with the candle.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

So would the candle (or sun) not be in optical range until the light has traveled the distance from the candle (or sun) to the eye?
If so then you wouldn't see the sun turned on at noon.
If not then you would have an object "in optical range" but no light on the eye.

I can accept that. The point is we are not decoding the light into an image; we are seeing the real object as a result of light's presence. We would not see an object if there was no light at our eyes, but this account does not require us to wait for the light to arrive from 93 million miles away (or 81/2 minutes) even though light is traveling at this speed.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would not see an object if there was no light at our eyes, but this account does not require us to wait for the light to arrive from 93 million miles away (or 81/2 minutes) even though light is traveling at this speed.

We would have to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to reach earth. Even if you believed that once the light reached the eye efferent vision would then somehow allow instant vision, you can't have light reach the eye sooner unless it travels faster.

What matters is the size of the object in relation to the viewer within the box, for then the light (the inverse square law that allows us to resolve the image in relation to how far away the object is) will be at our eyes just as quickly as the light from the candle is at our eyes.

The speed of light is constant. It does not increase due to the source being bigger and brighter. The light from a candle and the light from the sun both travel at the same speed covering VASTLY different distances so the time of travel is likewise vastly different.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So where's the conflict? We know that light comes from the object, and we know the light has to be at our eyes. What people are failing to understand is why in this closed system there is no delay.

Yes, tell us: why in this 'closed system' is there no delay? We're not failing to understand, we just don't believe your random assertion that there's no delay. Answer Spacemonkey's questions, for example.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, the photons have to travel to a certain point for us to be within optical range, but this resolution occurs instantaneously because the travel time of this light is in nanoseconds, not 81/2 minutes.

That's just nonsense. I don't care how long it takes: if it takes nanoseconds for the light to reach us, it's hardly instant, is it? There's no confusion on our part, you just don't even have a coherent account of things any more.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't be serious? Do you actually think I'm going to continue the conversation with you after you do the very thing I asked you not to do? Call me whatever you want but don't expect a response from me.

I never expect responses from you. Because you are a liar and a weasel who will ignore and evade relevant questions no matter how you are treated.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did I ever mention instant transfer of light?

Every single time you've said the photons are at the film or retina instantly you have mentioned instant transfer of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A closed system does resolve this if it's truly a closed system.

You are using these words in an entirely meaningless way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I said distance in relation to time doesn't apply. I also said that to be in optical range, light has to travel just like with the candle. People can't seem to get why distance and therefore time don't play a part in this account...

If the light travels then time and distance apply, because travel ALWAYS involves time and distance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't mind the objections...

Of course you don't. You just ignore them.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So where's the conflict? We know that light comes from the object, and we know the light has to be at our eyes.

The conflict, dingbat, is that you still need that light to be there before it has had time to get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What people are failing to understand is why in this closed system there is no delay.

Because you don't understand it either, and have been unable to explain how it could work without any delay.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think people are getting confused between the speed of light which takes time to reach Earth, and real time seeing, which does not take time.

Yes, because your own account of real-time seeing requires light to be at the film or retina on Earth, and it cannot get there by any means other than traveling there, which takes time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe the confusion arose from Lessans saying we see the Sun instantly. Obviously, the photons have to travel to a certain point for us to be within optical range, but this resolution occurs instantaneously because the travel time of this light is in nanoseconds, not 81/2 minutes.

That is stupidly wrong and nonsensical. The 'certain point' photons need to travel to is the film or retina on Earth, and photons cannot travel that distance in nanoseconds without traveling faster than light. Resolution cannot occur instantaneously, because it does take photons from the Sun 8min to get from the Sun to the film or retina on Earth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The idea that the inverse square law allows us to see the image 93 miles away from the original object that reflected this light, may be the source of the confusion.

Maybe the source of the confusion lies with the individual who is so utterly incapable of learning that she still thinks the Sun reflects rather then emits light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

We would have to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to reach earth. Even if you believed that once the light reached the eye efferent vision would then somehow allow instant vision, you can't have light reach the eye sooner unless it travels faster.

This is not about instant vision. This also has nothing to do with light reaching the eye sooner due to a change in light speed. It does mean that in this closed system if we see the object the light would already be at the retina when we're gazing in that direction. The belief as it now stands is that the image (coming from the light, this is not a strawman so don't go there) that is supposedly decoded from the light would take 93 million miles for us to receive it. At that point the light would not even give us an image due to the inverse square law. There would be nothing to resolve on our photoreceptors.

What matters is the size of the object in relation to the viewer within the box, for then the light (the inverse square law that allows us to resolve the image in relation to how far away the object is) will be at our eyes just as quickly as the light from the candle is at our eyes.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

The speed of light is constant. It does not increase due to the source being bigger and brighter. The light from a candle and the light from the sun both travel at the same speed covering VASTLY different distances so the time of travel is likewise vastly different.

No one is saying the speed of light has to increase. You're still thinking in terms of actual distance, which doesn't work. The time it takes for the light to travel doesn't change. What does change is the time it takes to see the object due to the light already being at our eyes since the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth is not what we're going by. We're following the reasoning of efferent vision which changes the timing of what we see. What makes the candle and Sun examples similar is the mechanism which puts the mirror image onto our photoreceptors regardless of how close or how far away the object actually is. I realize there is a lot of repetition in this thread. I can only hope that you will one day grasp the concept, even if you aren't sure as to its accuracy.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave the example with the box. Regardless of the size of the box, it doesn't apply in this account.

You haven't explained how time and distance are not relevant in your box example. You've merely asserted it. All the same problems apply with the candle or box, only at a smaller scale.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What matters is the size of the object in relation to the viewer within the box, for then the light (the inverse square law that allows us to resolve the image in relation to how far away the object is) will be at our eyes just as quickly as the light from the candle is at our eyes. So if you want to expand this concept, any object no matter how far away it is would still allow us to see in real time once that nanosecond of light has reached our eyes.

Light cannot get from the Sun to the retina or film on Earth in nanoseconds without either teleporting or traveling faster than light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can accept that...

What?? Which part do you accept? That you won't see the newly ignited Sun in real-time? Or that your account involves seeing things even when there is no light at the retina?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not about instant vision. This also has nothing to do with light reaching the eye sooner due to a change in light speed. It does mean that in this closed system if we see the object the light would already be at the retina when we're gazing in that direction.

If light from the Sun is already at the retina before it has had time to travel there at light speed, then either you have made the light travel faster, or you have the light changing location by some means other than traveling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The belief as it now stands is that the image (coming from the light, this is not a strawman so don't go there) that is supposedly decoded from the light would take 93 million miles for us to receive it. At that point the light would not even give us an image due to the inverse square law. There would be nothing to resolve on our photoreceptors.

The actual inverse square law does nothing at all to prevent us from resolving an image of the Sun from the arriving light. You are simply making this up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is saying the speed of light has to increase.

Speed is distance divided by time. So it is an undeniable mathematical truth that if you increase the distance (from a few feet to millions of miles) without any change in time (still just nanoseconds according to you) then you have increased the speed of light. The only other option is for you to say that this light is no longer traveling light (despite the fact that you know ALL light must be traveling light).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still thinking in terms of actual distance, which doesn't work.

And yet there is an actual distance, so your account doesn't work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does change is the time it takes to see the object due to the light already being at our eyes since the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth is not what we're going by.

And yet the actual distance between the Sun and the Earth is what you have to deal with if you want light from the Sun to be at the eyes, so all you are doing is ignoring and evading the problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What makes the candle and Sun examples similar is the mechanism which puts the mirror image onto our photoreceptors regardless of how close or how far away the object actually is.

What mechanism is that? You haven't shared one with us yet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So where's the conflict? We know that light comes from the object, and we know the light has to be at our eyes. What people are failing to understand is why in this closed system there is no delay.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yes, tell us: why in this 'closed system' is there no delay? We're not failing to understand, we just don't believe your random assertion that there's no delay. Answer Spacemonkey's questions, for example.

I have answered these questions numerous times and I'm done responding to him. He has absolutely no understanding of this model at all. He even said it has no relevance if we see the actual object, it still takes time for the light to reach Earth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, the photons have to travel to a certain point for us to be within optical range, but this resolution occurs instantaneously because the travel time of this light is in nanoseconds, not 81/2 minutes.

Originally Posted by Dragar

That's just nonsense. I don't care how long it takes: if it takes nanoseconds for the light to reach us, it's hardly instant, is it? There's no confusion on our part, you just don't even have a coherent account of things any more.

All I'm saying is that however long it takes for the light from the Sun to travel to the other side of this enclosed box (or visual landscape that we're viewing the Sun from), we obviously wouldn't be able to see the Sun if the light was not already at our retinas. The connection between light and the Sun has to be there, but if the information is not in the light itself, then waiting for it to give us that information doesn't even add up. Moreover, it would seem to me that by the time light traveled this great distance there would be nothing to be resolved due to the inverse square law. This is the major difference between the afferent and efferent accounts of vision which changes delayed time seeing into real time seeing without any violation
of the laws of physics.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered these questions numerous times...

You are lying again. You have not answered my questions at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He has absolutely no understanding of this model at all.

Neither do you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He even said it has no relevance if we see the actual object, it still takes time for the light to reach Earth.

Which is perfectly true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I'm saying is that however long it takes for the light from the Sun to travel to the other side of this enclosed box (or visual landscape that we're viewing the Sun from), we obviously wouldn't be able to see the Sun if the light was not already at our retinas. The connection between light and the Sun has to be there, but if we're not just waiting for the light to decode which takes 812 minutes...

It's not the decoding that takes 8min, but the arrival of the traveling light - which you just agreed needs to occur. So you have not eliminated the time delay even in your own account.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the time it would take to see the Sun would be instantaneous only because we are looking at the real thing. That is the difference between afferent and efferent...

No, it isn't a difference between afferent and efferent vision. We look at real things under afferent vision too. Looking at real things does not explain how the process could possibly be instantaneous.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

I've reposted this over 50 times, and not once have you properly addressed it. So for you to now say that you have answered my questions is a big fat lie.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If light from the Sun is already at the retina before it has had time to travel there at light speed, then either you have made the light travel faster, or you have the light changing location by some means other than traveling.

The actual inverse square law does nothing at all to prevent us from resolving an image of the Sun from the arriving light. You are simply making this up.

Speed is distance divided by time. So it is an undeniable mathematical truth that if you increase the distance (from a few feet to millions of miles) without any change in time (still just nanoseconds according to you) then you have increased the speed of light. The only other option is for you to say that this light is no longer traveling light (despite the fact that you know ALL light must be traveling light).

And yet there is an actual distance, so your account doesn't work.

And yet the actual distance between the Sun and the Earth is what you have to deal with if you want light from the Sun to be at the eyes, so all you are doing is ignoring and evading the problem.

What mechanism is that? You haven't shared one with us yet.

I just want to say that this guy is totally confused; has no conception of what this model is about, and thinks his mathematical ability is better than my father's was, which it isn't by any means. The fact that he has to call me names should tell you something. He is extremely overconfident on the verge of extreme arrogance. This is why I can't talk to him, not because I can't answer his questions. He won't listen to my answers unless they are the answers he wants to hear, and then goes right back to his afferent position telling me that delayed time seeing is the only logical conclusion. The only thing is: he's wrong.

I want to mention again (because it is related) that he also understands nothing of why man's will is not free, and that you can't create definitions of free will to make it appear that these two opposing views are compatible. He also accused my father of making a presupposition that everyone is, by nature, perfect in conscience, which is completely wrong because there were no presuppositions. He was an astute observer and he followed up his observations with sound reasoning. And yes, I will change the subject if it suits me. Actually, I would like to get off of this subject because no one is getting it, and I don't think anyone will. Is anyone other than Spacemonkey and LadyShea interested in hearing, once again, why determinism does not turn us into robots but will offer us a life never dreamed possible? If no one is, there's no point in my remaining.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Maybe the source of the confusion lies with the individual who is so utterly incapable of learning that she still thinks the Sun reflects rather then emits light.

WOW! what a novel idea, Peacegirl is incapable of learning. I'll have to mark this down on the calender, of the day of this discovery.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, I would like to get off of this subject because no one is getting it, and I don't think anyone will. Is anyone other than Spacemonkey and LadyShea interested in hearing, once again, why determinism does not turn us into robots but will offer us a life never dreamed possible? If no one is, there's no point in my remaining.

Actually I believe there are several of us who would like to continue hearing your explanations of these points.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just want to say that this guy is totally confused...

Confused by your contradictory and nonsensical claims, yes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...has no conception of what this model is about...

Everyone here understands your non-model at least as well as you do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and thinks his mathematical ability is better than my father's was...

Well I did get the answer to his mathematical problem correct while he did not. Besides, I think a dead fish would have greater mathematical ability than your father.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that he has to call me names should tell you something.

I called you a dingbat after you called yourself a dingbat and said it was okay. Get over it. And stop being such a dingbat.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is extremely overconfident on the verge of extreme arrogance. This is why I can't talk to him, not because I can't answer his questions.

No, it is quite obvious that it is because you cannot answer my questions. You aren't fooling anyone. Not even yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He won't listen to my answers...

What answers? You don't have any, remember?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to mention again (because it is related) that he also understands nothing of why man's will is not free, and that you can't create definitions of free will to make it appear that these two opposing views are compatible...

Another pathetic attempt to change the subject.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is anyone other than Spacemonkey and LadyShea interested in hearing, once again, why determinism does not turn us into robots but will offer us a life never dreamed possible? If no one is, there's no point in my remaining.

There has never been any point in your remaining. You stay because you are incapable of leaving.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

WOW! what a novel idea, Peacegirl is incapable of learning. I'll have to mark this down on the calender, of the day of this discovery.

All ideas are novel to Peacegirl, no matter how many times they are presented and explained to her.

[Artemis Entreri]

Peacegirl are you saying that math regarding time speed and distant are not correct?

You keep sayin that light is "already at the eye" but never give an explanation on how it gets there. Ive said before that this just seems circular; efferent vision puts the light instantly at the eye and the light is instantly at the eye because of efferent vision.
By what mechanism does actual physical light instantly arrive at the eye?



Also, I'll bite; how can man understanding that he has no freewill lead to world peace?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are lying again. You have not answered my questions at all.

I have, and I'm not getting caught up in your little web of traveling photons, as if this explains what I'm even talking about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He has absolutely no understanding of this model at all.

Neither do you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He even said it has no relevance if we see the actual object, it still takes time for the light to reach Earth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which is perfectly true.

No it's not true that this light is what gives us sight. We would see the Sun before we would see each other.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I'm saying is that however long it takes for the light from the Sun to travel to the other side of this enclosed box (or visual landscape that we're viewing the Sun from), we obviously wouldn't be able to see the Sun if the light was not already at our retinas. The connection between light and the Sun has to be there, but if we're not just waiting for the light to decode which takes 812 minutes...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's not the decoding that takes 8min, but the arrival of the traveling light - which you just agreed needs to occur. So you have not eliminated the time delay even in your own account.

Well then you misunderstood me. He was very clear that light only had to be coming from the object or light source. It did not have to arrive on Earth. That's why he said we would see the Sun at noon, but each other at 12:08.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the time it would take to see the Sun would be instantaneous only because we are looking at the real thing. That is the difference between afferent and efferent...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it isn't a difference between afferent and efferent vision. We look at real things under afferent vision too.

What a liar you are turning out to be.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Looking at real things does not explain how the process could possibly be instantaneous.

It's as instantaneous as instantaneous can be while still acknowledging that light travels at 186,000 miles a second. Light from the object does not have to get to Earth to be received by the observer. If you can't understand how this mechanism works, oh well. I've tried to explain it but you refuse to listen.

Your immaturity in being unable to talk about this topic without namecalling makes this whole conversation unenjoyable for me, so it needs to come to an end.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Peacegirl are you saying that math regarding time speed and distant are not correct?

I'm not saying the math is wrong, but I am saying that there is a lack of understanding as to how this phenomenon works and why it works the way it does.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

You keep sayin that light is "already at the eye" but never give an explanation on how it gets there. Ive said before that this just seems circular; efferent vision puts the light instantly at the eye and the light is instantly at the eye because of efferent vision.
By what mechanism does actual physical light instantly arrive at the eye?

I've tried to explain that being able to see the object, not just the image due to traveling photons, changes the phenomenon regarding light's function when it comes to vision. There is a reason why he believed we see in this way, and his observations were spot on. He also knew this would cause a major backlash against him. He was right. I can only suggest that you don't give up on this model of sight, and continue to try to understand why he had to explain that we would see the Sun instantly in order to distinguish between the two accounts. I am not denying that light travels but this does not prove we receive nonabsorbed photons in delayed time which are then turned into an image in the brain, as has been theorized.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Also, I'll bite; how can man understanding that he has no freewill lead to world peace?

Were you here for any of this discussion? It's a big challenge for me to start over again explaining his observations, but I will give you an overview if you're interested or just plain curious.