A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's exactly right. For him to go to such measures doesn't even make sense. So please be patient and step back. Take a moment before concluding that the world you imagine is what will occur in a world of no blame.

It's not the world Vivisectus is imagining, it's the world as described by Lessans in the book, aka Lessans Golden Age, that Viv is saying seems silly, boring, and devoid of passion and personality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not the world Vivisectus is imagining, it's the world as described by Lessans in the book, aka Lessans Golden Age, that Viv is saying seems silly, boring, and devoid of passion and personality.

But that is not the world Lessans is describing, and if he did not jump ahead, he would have known this.

[Vivisectus]

But that is not the world Lessans is describing, and if he did not jump ahead, he would have known this.

If I had accepted Jesus as my personal savior, the Bible would have made sense to me too. Religions tend to work that way.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that is not the world Lessans is describing, and if he did not jump ahead, he would have known this.

Lessans didn't describe the world he envisioned would result from the extension of the principles from his discoveries?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot continue the conversation with you because you are too invested in your belief that we can live in the past. If I win this argument, your whole world will crumble, and I really don't want to be messing up what gives you stability.

Why would David's whole world crumble if Lessans were right (and somehow Lessans ideas were not completely incompatible with reality)?

David didn't discover E=MC squared. David isn't known worldwide for confirming the speed of light. Neither his personal nor his professional reputation is tied to the Theory of Relativity being an accurate reflection of the world. He has no personal stake in being right, except the stake we all have in the Universe working as it does.

Nope, this sounds like a lot of projecting, because you have put Lessans reputation on the line, along with your own emotional and time investment in Lessans ideas. Your world is the one in danger of crumbling.

Also where did David say we (individual humans) can live in the past? You misunderstood something.

[ceptimus]

Before you can understand why faster than light seeing is paradoxical, you first have to understand that the concept of simultaneity doesn't follow your common-sense notions under special relativity.

However, special relativity is based on two founding principles:

1. Experiments carried out in any non-accelerating frames will always yield the same results (this means that if you're inside a sealed up box with no way of observing anything outside, then you cannot perform any test that will tell you whether that box is stationary or moving in a straight line at a constant speed).

2. Any observer measuring the speed of light (providing she does it accurately) will always obtain the same result. The measured speed is affected by neither the motion of the observer nor the light source.

The second principle is far from obvious. In fact no one believed that this would be the case, and it was only accepted grudgingly after repeated careful measurements showed it to be true. Scientists were trying to measure the 'absolute motion' of the Earth by looking for discrepancies in the measured speed of light in different directions, and were perplexed when they could find no differences.

Einstein's genius was to accept that the measurements were correct and work out the implications. Everything followed from that and he had to abandon many notions that had been accepted for thousands of years and which were 'obviously true'. For example:

• there is no such thing as universal time, and it's sometimes impossible for observers moving at different speeds to each other to agree on which of two events occurred first.
• If you take any object and accelerate it up to a fixed speed, it will then be heavier and shorter than it was before you accelerated it.
• moving clocks run slower than fixed ones.
• matter can be converted into energy and vice-versa: E=mc2.

Now special relativity has been shown to be true by countless experiments and technologies. If you accept that it's true, then I can show you how faster-than-light seeing would violate causality (to some observers, events would happen before the thing that caused them).

But the thought experiments that illustrate this typically involve moving spaceships (or railway carriages) with observers at each end and a light source at the centre. Peacegirl would never accept the part of the story about which observer sees the light source first, so it would probably be a waste of effort typing out the explanation.

[LadyShea]

But the thought experiments that illustrate this typically involve moving spaceships (or railway carriages) with observers at each end and a light source at the centre. Peacegirl would never accept the part of the story about which observer sees the light source first, so it would probably be a waste of effort typing out the explanation.

It's been explained using illustrations of the classic thought experiments. It's been explained using new thought experiments we here at came up with. It's been explained syllogistically, analogically, mathematically and Socratically.

She refuses to admit that seeing = transfer of information. In her view as long as nothing is being transferred, nothing is traveling and therefore Relativity is irrelevant.

Of course she has also refused to define seeing in a way that eliminates the transfer of information, as well.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If I had accepted Jesus as my personal savior, the Bible would have made sense to me too. Religions tend to work that way.

Vivisectus, that's true, it does sound like religion, but it's not because there is absolute proof that man's will is not free.

[Vivisectus]

There is absolute proof of jesus too. But you have to believe first, and then just keep an open mind until you die, when you will receive this proof. Just like the absolute proof for your claims will forever be in some distant future.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans didn't describe the world he envisioned would result from the extension of the principles from his discoveries?

Then where did the world he envisioned come from if not from an extension of the principles from his discovery?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would David's whole world crumble if Lessans were right (and somehow Lessans ideas were not completely incompatible with reality)?

David didn't discover E=MC squared. David isn't known worldwide for confirming the speed of light. Neither his personal nor his professional reputation is tied to the Theory of Relativity being an accurate reflection of the world. He has no personal stake in being right, except the stake we all have in the Universe working as it does.

Nope, this sounds like a lot of projecting, because you have put Lessans reputation on the line, along with your own emotional and time investment in Lessans ideas. Your world is the one in danger of crumbling.

Also where did David say we (individual humans) can live in the past? You misunderstood something.

I am not projecting LadyShea. You are trying to defend what you believe to be true (which is understandable), and Lessans will lose because he is at a disadvantage. That's why discussing efferent vision without more empirical evidence has been to his detriment and will be used against him.

Okay, let me change the last statement. According to afferent vision, we don't see the present; we see the past because of the slight delay in the image reaching our eyes. My world is not in danger of crumbling; the world is in danger of crumbling.

[LadyShea]

I said

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's the world as described by Lessans in the book, aka Lessans Golden Age, that Viv is saying seems silly, boring, and devoid of passion and personality.

So, what did you mean when you responded

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that is not the world Lessans is describing

?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is absolute proof of jesus too. But you have to believe first, and then just keep an open mind until you die, when you will receive this proof. Just like the absolute proof for your claims will forever be in some distant future.

No Vivisectus, you can't compare this knowledge to religion in any way, shape, or form. It just doesn't fly.

[Vivisectus]

Okay, let me change the last statement. According to afferent vision, we don't see the present; we see the past even a slight delay in the image reaching our eyes. My world is not in danger of crumbling; the world is in danger of crumbling.

We also smell the past, and hear the past. Why would sight be any different?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Vivisectus, you can't compare this knowledge to religion in any way, shape, or form. It just doesn't fly.

Well, the evidence will only come after we are dead, it promises a happy afterlife, the Big Change is going to happen in the future, but curiously did not happen when the prophet predicted it would, it contradicts scientific knowledge... the similarities are pretty huge.

Also, you have to accept it without evidence, on the say-so of someone who is proffered as an authority figure. The book that tells you about it is said to be infallible...

It pretty much ticks all the boxes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I said

So, what did you mean when you responded

?

The world Lessans describes will not be boring or devoid of passion. It's the exact opposite. It's true that there won't be crimes of passion, nor will there be jealousy, hatred, war and crime, but this does not a boring world make. It's just that we're so use to living in a dog eat dog world that it would seem unnatural if there was global harmony. Our world is developing and if we find solutions to these problems, nothing is going to stop progress. In other words, we aren't going to let war exist just because we're afraid we'll all get bored. There will be plenty of things to do when there is no more war and crime. We will have more time and money to find answers to other pressing problems like genetic illnesses, cleaning up the environment, etc.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We also smell the past, and hear the past. Why would sight be any different?

Now you're making fun of me and I'm not taking the bait. Why are you wasting my time?

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The world Lessans describes will not be boring or devoid of passion.

This is your opinion of the world as described by Lessans.

Vivisectus feels differently. He read the description and it sounded silly and boring to him.

It sounded completely like the Stepford Wives go global to me. I wouldn't want to live in Lessans Golden Age.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're making fun of me and I'm not taking the bait. Why are you wasting my time?

He's not making fun of you. Hearing and scent and tactile sensations are all afferent according to you and Lessans, correct? That means we experience those sensations after a slight delay between the sensory output at the source to the input in our ears/nose/skin then brain. Does this mean we hear and smell the past? Yes, it does.

Why is the mere thought of sight sharing that delay so hard for your to accept?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're making fun of me and I'm not taking the bait. Why are you wasting my time?

I am quite serious. When you see a flash of lightning, you can count the seconds. When you hear the thunder, you know that the lightning strike was roughly 1 km per 3 seconds away from you.

So we are hearing something that happened several seconds ago. The sound only just reached us. We are hearing an event from the past, not an event that is happening now.

Same with smell, only the tiny molecules our noses can smell and taste are not travelling at a fixed speed - or sometimes not travelling at all! We smell something that has happened in the past.

The only difference with light is that it travels a LOT faster - in fact it is the fastest thing in existence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Before you can understand why faster than light seeing is paradoxical, you first have to understand that the concept of simultaneity doesn't follow your common-sense notions under special relativity.

However, special relativity is based on two founding principles:

1. Experiments carried out in any non-accelerating frames will always yield the same results (this means that if you're inside a sealed up box with no way of observing anything outside, then you cannot perform any test that will tell you whether that box is stationary or moving in a straight line at a constant speed).

2. Any observer measuring the speed of light (providing she does it accurately) will always obtain the same result. The measured speed is affected by neither the motion of the observer nor the light source.

The second principle is far from obvious. In fact no one believed that this would be the case, and it was only accepted grudgingly after repeated careful measurements showed it to be true. Scientists were trying to measure the 'absolute motion' of the Earth by looking for discrepancies in the measured speed of light in different directions, and were perplexed when they could find no differences.

Einstein's genius was to accept that the measurements were correct and work out the implications. Everything followed from that and he had to abandon many notions that had been accepted for thousands of years and which were 'obviously true'. For example:

• there is no such thing as universal time, and it's sometimes impossible for observers moving at different speeds to each other to agree on which of two events occurred first.
• If you take any object and accelerate it up to a fixed speed, it will then be heavier and shorter than it was before you accelerated it.
• moving clocks run slower than fixed ones.
• matter can be converted into energy and vice-versa: E=mc2.

Now special relativity has been shown to be true by countless experiments and technologies. If you accept that it's true, then I can show you how faster-than-light seeing would violate causality (to some observers, events would happen before the thing that caused them).

But the thought experiments that illustrate this typically involve moving spaceships (or railway carriages) with observers at each end and a light source at the centre. Peacegirl would never accept the part of the story about which observer sees the light source first, so it would probably be a waste of effort typing out the explanation.

I still don't see where Einstein's SR automatically negates efferent vision. What Einstein discovered is probably true. But where does seeing an object in a moving or a still frame conflict with real time seeing? What I see in real time might not be what you see in real time depending on your frame of reference. A person could see lightning strike on a moving train differently than a person seeing that same lightning strike in a still position, and each person would be correct. So what. One doesn't cancel the other.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is your opinion of the world as described by Lessans.

Vivisectus feels differently. He read the description and it sounded silly and boring to him.

It sounded completely like the Stepford Wives go global to me. I wouldn't want to live in Lessans Golden Age.

The only difference between this world and the new world is that there will be no more war, crime, accidents and poverty. You are thinking that it will be boring because you are associating it with the Stepford Wives, as if everybody will be acting like robots. But that is not true. We're not turning into robots. But if you don't want to be a part of the new world you won't have to. No one will be forcing you to do anything. You keep imagining that there will be some kind of edict forcing everyone to enter the Golden Age. That would be a police state, which does not conform to the principles set forth.

[LadyShea]

What I see in real time might not be what you see in real time depending on one's frame of reference. So what?

There is no such thing as "real time".

Additionally, if you accept that frame of reference changes what one sees and when they see it, how can you possibly maintain that Lessans was correct that someone on RIGEL, 800 light years away, would share the same "real time"?

[ceptimus]

Well, special relativity doesn't have 'real time'. Each observer has a separate time of their own - all equally valid.

ETA: LadyShea beat me to that one!