A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Because it is causation-by-nothing, which is the same as saying that it is not causation. All causation requires some form of contact as far as I am aware, although I hear some interesting debates are ongoing about certain QM particles.

I still don't follow. Why is causation-by-something-at-a-distance causation by nothing? It may be the case that causation requires contact as a matter of empirical fact, but that wouldn't make contact a required part of the meaning of causation, such that Peacegirl would no longer be talking about causation at all by challenging this. Unless I'm still missing something here. Causation at a distance still seems intelligible (unlike the rest of efferent vision) even if it never actually happens (which is exactly like efferent vision).

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I still don't follow. Why is causation-by-something-at-a-distance causation by nothing? It may be the case that causation requires contact as a matter of empirical fact, but that wouldn't make contact a required part of the meaning of causation, such that Peacegirl would no longer be talking about causation at all by challenging this. Unless I'm still missing something here. Causation at a distance still seems intelligible (unlike the rest of efferent vision) even if it never actually happens (which is exactly like efferent vision).

2 reasons were efferent sight is concerned:

1: Instant effects would mean effects can get back to us before the cause, if we accept relativity.

2: Causation at a distance has a link missing in the chain of events: something happens at the sun, which causes *nothing* to cross the intervening space, which in turn causes something on earth. That is the same as saying that nothing causes something on earth. The chain of cause and effect is interrupted.

[But]

Those two events are separated by 150 million kilometers and zero time, which is less than eight minutes. In the terminology of relativity theory, that means they are spacelike separated. That means that there is a reference frame that could apply to some moving observer in which the light acts on the retina before it was created. If the causation-at-a-distance happened more than eight minutes later, at least that problem would be gone.

Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

2 reasons were efferent sight is concerned:

1: Instant effects would mean effects can get back to us before the cause, if we accept relativity.

If your point is the same as But's then I think I follow. The idea is that by relativity there would then be some reference frame by which the effect preceded the cause, yes? A good point, but Peacegirl doesn't seem to much care about contradicting relativity (or anything else, including herself).

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

2: Causation at a distance has a link missing in the chain of events: something happens at the sun, which causes *nothing* to cross the intervening space, which in turn causes something on earth. That is the same as saying that nothing causes something on earth. The chain of cause and effect is interrupted.

This point though seems clearly question-begging. It presupposes that the chain of causation must match up with a chain of spatially contiguous events, which is the very point in question. Causation-at-a-distance would not be causing something by means of any spatially intervening 'nothing'.

[Vivisectus]

This point though seems clearly question-begging. It presupposes that the chain of causation must match up with a chain of spatially contiguous events, which is the very point in question. Causation-at-a-distance would not be causing something by means of any spatially intervening 'nothing'.

But how can you have causation-at-a-distance even as a theoretical concept if you ignore the actual distance it involves, the very thing that sets it apart? There would be no way to distinguish it from something that just happens to happen at the same time. (haha happens to happen)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But how can you have causation-at-a-distance even as a theoretical concept if you ignore the actual distance it involves, the very thing that sets it apart? There would be no way to distinguish it from something that just happens to happen at the same time. (haha happens to happen)

It would be distinguished in the same way that we distinguish regular causation - by an observed regular conjunction of event types. I agree that relativity creates problems for the idea, but I don't think the mere fact that distance is involved renders it incoherent.

[Vivisectus]

I still do not see how you can have action-at-a-distance without at one stage having *nothing* transfer the effect, thus effectively making it a case of something being caused by nothing. Something to think about for a bit I think and maybe do a spot of reading

[Vivisectus]

also, regular causation is not just distinguished by seeing the events happen in conjunction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As has already been explained to you, there are plenty of organisms that can form images with mirrors, not lenses. Many telescopes work that way, too.

Hubble works on the same principle as the first reflecting telescope built in the 1600s by Isaac Newton. Light enters the telescope and strikes a concave primary mirror, which acts like a lens to focus the light. The bigger the mirror, the better the image.

In Hubble, light from the primary mirror is reflected to a smaller secondary mirror in front of the primary mirror, then back through a hole in the primary to instruments clustered behind the focal plane (where the image is in focus).

HubbleSite - Hubble Is a Reflecting Telescope

[The Lone Ranger]

So, I take it that you now admit that some animals can and do form images with mirrors -- without using lenses -- something that you had earlier insisted cannot happen?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

By this reasoning if a tree falls down in the forest, and no-one is there to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound.

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. The phenomenon took place, but in order to observe this phenomenon we have to hear it. The same thing goes here. The light and the object interact in such a way that the conditions are met which allow us to see the that object when our eyes are looking in that direction. This is no different than afferent vision except that nothing in the light is traveling toward our eyes. We see the object (which is instantly on film) because the object is revealing itself due to light's presence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

So what exactly do we study on earth to know what is in the HDF images.

We have to know what's going on where we can manipulate the variables, which I said countless times. That means we need to rethink what is happening when we (or the lens of a camera) cannot focus light and get an image if the object is out of the field of view. This is a clue as to what's going on but no one is listening because they think it's too simple of an answer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Do you even realize how incoherent that sentence is?

No

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have to know what's going on where we can manipulate the variables, which I said countless times. That means we need to rethink what is happening when we (or the lens of a camera) cannot focus light and get an image if the object is out of the field of view. This is a clue as to what's going on but no one is listening because they think it's too simple of an answer.

What variables about the Hubble's design and construction by humans was not manipulated? Which variables about where the Hubble was pointed, and for how long, which was decided and performed by humans, was not manipulated?

We manipulated the variables and got an image from just light. That's the evidence. Explain it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. The phenomenon took place, but in order to observe this phenomenon we have to hear it. The same thing goes here. The light and the object interact in such a way that the conditions are met which allow us to see the that object when our eyes are looking in that direction. This is no different than afferent vision except that nothing in the light is traveling toward our eyes. We see the object (which is instantly on film) because the object is revealing itself due to light's presence.

The light causes a photochemical reaction effect on camera film. That is cause and effect. Your claim that it does so instantaneously at a distance without anything traversing that distance violates causality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

If it's not being reflected or absorbed and is in constant motion, then what? Does it go straight through? How would you use that light to see?

The light that is passing through or absorbed would not be used to let us see. It would be the non-absorbed light that is being used.

Light can pass through many different types of materials. The reason why light can't pass through metal, or some plastics is not due to anything but the chemical properties of the material and the physical properties. If the conditions are right, any form of light can pass through a given material.
The reason why the chemical properties matter is that certain atoms absorb certain frequencies of light more readily than others. This can mean the difference between passing through a material or being absorbed and remitted. Other than this, there is really no other chemical factor that prohibits the passing of light. For example, water absorbs low frequency light (infrared) better and more readily than visible light. This is why many plastics will appear opaque to our eyes, yet will absorb others and appear opaque.

The physical properties of the substance matters a great deal. The less dense a material is, the better the chance is that it will allow light to pass through it. Gasses are a great example. They let almost every frequency pass through. This is why when you use infrared cameras you cannot see the air, because it is not absorbing and releasing much of the radiation, but is letting it pass through, almost as if the medium wasn't there. Yet metals let few frequencies through, and are very compact. Many liquids filter the frequencies.

Ultimately it comes down to which frequencies are absorbed readily, and how dense is the material. Too dense and nothing will pass through. Ready to absorb many frequencies and it will not let any pass through.

Read more: Why does light reflect off most objects

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh? Which of the statements above, all of which are known and tested facts in optics, do you feel was ignorant?

Because I'm being accused of saying that light travels at an infinite speed, which I never said.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's because all you're doing is ignoring evidence and questions for which your non-model of efferent vision has no consistent answers.

Sure. I'd love for you to show me exactly which passages from his book specifically support what I listed as his presuppositions about conscience. (I don't care whether you agree that they are presuppositions. I just want you to show me what support he gives for the points I listed.)

Will you do this? Or do you have no interest in further discussion?

It all depends. I don't want to be told how to present this material. If you can't be patient and let me move forward the way I feel the material will be better understood, then this isn't going to work.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have to know what's going on where we can manipulate the variables, which I said countless times. That means we need to rethink what is happening when we (or the lens of a camera) cannot focus light and get an image if the object is out of the field of view. This is a clue as to what's going on but no one is listening because they think it's too simple of an answer.

peacegirl, it was a simple one sentence question and you answered it like a mindless automaton. Nothing is mentioned of anything on earth that we could compare to what is seen in the HDF.

You keep insisting that you brain is not broken but you keep posting as if it was.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It all depends. I don't want to be told how to present this material. If you can't be patient and let me move forward the way I feel the material will be better understood, then this isn't going to work.

By now you should know that it is never gonna happen here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

By now you should know that it is never gonna happen here.

Yes, that's absolutely true if you were the only one I was talking to. Thank god you're not, or we would forever be living in the dark ages.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, it was a simple one sentence question and you answered it like a mindless automaton. Nothing is mentioned of anything on earth that we could compare to what is seen in the HDF.

You keep insisting that you brain is not broken but you keep posting as if it was.

Huh??? This just shows that your attitude won't even let you understand the simplest explanation of why we need Earth examples to know what goes on in Space examples. The problem is not with me.

[LadyShea]

This just shows that your attitude won't even let you understand the simplest explanation of why we need Earth examples to know what goes on in Space examples. The problem is not with me.

Sure the problem is with you. There is no reason at all to have to explore examples separately and in some specific order, except your arbitrarily deciding that it is necessary. Nobody else, anywhere, finds that distinction between Earth and space in relation to optics in any way meaningful. It's YOUR distinction, only yours, therefore any problem with space examples is also yours.

A working model explains all examples. Optics currently explains all examples. You either need to explain the HDF images using your model or admit you don't have a working model.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this LadyShea. Nothing happens to it.

What do you mean nothing happens to it? It is light. It can't be destroyed. It can't remain stationary. Something must happen to it, or it must do something. What does it do after it encounters the leaf?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a non-absorbed wavelength.

(snipped irrelevant stuff about vision)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light that allows this to occur is in constant motion, so there is nothing that is contradictory to how light works. The only difference is that this non-absorbed wavelength is not being reflected.

If it's not reflected and not absorbed, and can't be destroyed nor can it remain stationary, what happens then? Where does this photon with a green wavelength go? What does it do?

Again, no lenses or vision are to be considered in answering this question. Something must happen to or be done by this light photon with a green wavelength. What is it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What variables about the Hubble's design and construction by humans was not manipulated? Which variables about where the Hubble was pointed, and for how long, which was decided and performed by humans, was not manipulated?

We manipulated the variables and got an image from just light. That's the evidence. Explain it.

How were the variables manipulated to know what's going on LadyShea? Yes, light was detected, but we don't know from this detection where this light is coming from, but, more importantly, what information this light holds.