A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

We discussed Louis Savain's crackpottery 6 months ago. He is not at all credible or convincing, seeing as how he is a nutter, why would you post him again?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know NASA agrees with you, not me. If their disagreement proved that Lessans was wrong, I wouldn't be discussing this, but disagreement is not proof that they are right.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, using Third-Grade-level math that even you can understand, if NASA were wrong and Lessans were correct, our space probes would miss the target planets entirely. The fact that NASA disagrees with you -- and yet nonetheless manages to hit their targets with near-pinpoint accuracy -- does indeed demonstrate that Lessans was wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you being so rude? I am not being rude to you. I do not believe that this adjustment in light correction is a game changer. I know you are trying to make me look foolish because I am not an astrophysicist, and you think that you will catch me in a contradiction, or worse, an ignorant response. All I can tell you is that I do not believe this correction has the kind of impact on the claim of efferent vision that you think it does. If you want to explain the following in more detail, be my guest.

Planetary aberration

Planetary aberration is the combination of the aberration of light (due to Earth's velocity) and light-time correction (due to the object's motion and distance), as calculated in the rest frame of the Solar System. Both are determined at the instant when the moving object's light reaches the moving observer on Earth. It is so called because it is usually applied to planets and other objects in the solar system whose motion and distance are accurately known.

Aberration of light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't see it discussed. Maybe I didn't look in the right places.

This goes back to the basic dispute as to whether matter is interpreted from light afferently, or whether we can see matter in real time. I know NASA agrees with you, not me. If their disagreement proved that Lessans was wrong, I wouldn't be discussing this, but disagreement is not proof that they are right.

Let's say Suzie manages to book some time on a really big telescope to look at some very distant star for her very important research. She is told she can have it from midnight to 2am 6 months from now. She must send the operators the exact sky coordinates to program into the computer to point the telescope for her at her appointed time, she cannot make any adjustments herself, whatever she sends is what will be used. If it's not pointed correctly, she will not see what she needs to.

Her calculations need to include what factors, peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We discussed Louis Savain's crackpottery 6 months ago. He is not at all credible or convincing, seeing as how he is a nutter, why would you post him again?

No no no LadyShea, you are not going to hide behind a curtain of certainty that isn't there. Who says he is a nutter, you? You are not the determiner of who is knowledgeable and who is not. Do you get that, or are you so self-righteous that you cannot see beyond your nose?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As has been repeatedly pointed out, using Third-Grade-level math that even you can understand, if NASA were wrong and Lessans were correct, our space probes would miss the target planets entirely. The fact that NASA disagrees with you -- and yet nonetheless manages to hit their targets with near-pinpoint accuracy -- does indeed demonstrate that Lessans was wrong.

I don't believe the light/time differential will make the difference that you are depending on. There are other adjustments that do affect the trajectory of our probes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's say Suzie manages to book some time on a really big telescope to look at some very distant star for her very important research. She is told she can have it from midnight to 2am 6 months from now. She must send the operators the exact sky coordinates to program into the computer to point the telescope for her at her appointed time, she cannot make any adjustments herself, whatever she sends is what will be used. If it's not pointed correctly, she will not see what she needs to.

Her calculations need to include what factors, peacegirl?

There is nothing wrong with her calculations in that she is looking at a particular part of the sky. But the results do not negate real time seeing. When it's morning, we see light approaching, true? In other words, if the Sun is lightyears away, we would see morning after 8 minutes. But light does not produce an image; it just produces full spectrum light. Light itself would not give us an image of matter because images, or the partial spectrum, is not being reflected. We are seeing the object due to light's presence ONLY. The wavelength that allows us to see said object does not travel through space/time as believed. Do you get what I'm saying? I doubt it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As has been repeatedly pointed out, using Third-Grade-level math that even you can understand, if NASA were wrong and Lessans were correct, our space probes would miss the target planets entirely. The fact that NASA disagrees with you -- and yet nonetheless manages to hit their targets with near-pinpoint accuracy -- does indeed demonstrate that Lessans was wrong.

It really doesn't Lone Ranger. There are people who disagree with special relativity. Just because it's been accepted by science does not mean that any disagreement is wrong. I have learned not to judge anyone's analysis based on present day knowledge. You, as a biology professor, should understand this. Here is an article that disagrees with SR. I don't like that he calls Einstein a clown, nevertheless, he has important points to consider. The point here is that once something is established as fact in the scientific community, it is difficult if not impossible to refute without being laughed at. I hope you listen to the argument (even if you feel it's blasphemy) before jumping to conclusions like you have done with my father?

Einstein, That Clown: Special Relativity Refuted at Bull's Smokin' BBQ | San Diego Reader

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that in philosophical terms, the phrase "free will" has an explicit meaning.

That is simply not true

There is no strawman argumentation. There is only a clear analysis of the facts.

What facts are you drawing on to conclude that the only understanding anyone has and the only definition anyone uses of free will is the contra-causal kind?

As I said, there may be thousands of definitions, but when it comes to philosophical debate, there is a core definition of what freedom of the will is, a core definition of determinism is, and they are mutually exclusive.

No, there are no core definitions, if there were there wouldn't be any debate.

You cannot be compelled to do what you do, and be free to do what you do.

Where did the word compelled come from?

You are not listening at all. Maybe you are doing this to try to draw out in me a better way to explain what I'm trying to say, I'm not sure.

You are the one that's not listening. There are different understandings and conceptions of free will that are not contra-causal...in fact MOST people do not mean contra-causal when they discuss free will. By dismissing the majority of conceptions, you are constructing a strawman. You are arguing against the one most extreme concept that few people adhere to.

Definitions mean nothing if they do not reflect true reality. One of them is right and one of them is not.

There is no "true reality" or right and wrong to be described in this discussion, at all, because we are talking about immaterial concepts with subjective understandings and definitions.

Is there are right or wrong definition or "true reality" of the concept of love? No, because every individual has their own experience and understanding of it. It's the same will free will and determinism.

Oh my gosh, I don't know what to say. I'm dumbfounded by your response. The ability to choose what is preferred is the very reason our will is not free because we cannot choose what is not preferred, rendering all other choices under those same exact conditions, IMPOSSIBLE.

Impossible according to whom?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This goes back to the basic dispute as to whether matter is interpreted from light afferently, or whether we can see matter in real time. I know NASA agrees with you, not me.

Great, so you're not going to start pretending NASA does a calculation different to how we say they should, right?

So, back to disproving your Dad's nutty ideas: isn't it odd how NASA corrects of something Lessans says we shouldn't need to correct for, and yet still manages to land probes on distant planets.

Heck, isn't it weird that according to you the actual position of an object viewed through an optical telescope is different to it's apparent position when located via radio telecopes or X-ray or IR. Why is that, peacegirl?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with her calculations in that she is looking at a particular part of the sky.

Which part of the sky?

Let's say she's using an instrument like a radio telescope. She can't see the celestial object directly through it, so the telescope records her readings. Should she be pointing* it at where the planet actually is actually is, or where it will only appear to be due to the finite speed of light?

She swaps to an optical telescope. Now she can look through it directly. Where should she point this telescope? The same place or a different one?

*as much as one can point with a radio telescope...

[The Lone Ranger]

Ah, so now you're back to claiming that mysterious, unknown forces just happen to exist, and that these completely-undetectable forces just happen to deflect the paths of our space probes by the exact amount necessary to create the illusion that a planet's apparent position is different from its actual position. What's more, these mysterious, undetectable forces are carefully tailored to keep the illusion up, no matter which extraterrestrial object we aim our probe at -- meaning that the degree of deflection changes depending upon where our probe happens to be at the moment.

It's really remarkable. If we are to take Lessans seriously, we must believe that the entire Universe is somehow involved in a gigantic, carefully-tuned conspiracy to trick us into believing that we see differently than we do. Clearly, the gods have it in for us Earthlings.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As has been repeatedly pointed out, using Third-Grade-level math that even you can understand, if NASA were wrong and Lessans were correct, our space probes would miss the target planets entirely. The fact that NASA disagrees with you -- and yet nonetheless manages to hit their targets with near-pinpoint accuracy -- does indeed demonstrate that Lessans was wrong.

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I don't believe that the light-time correction proves conclusively that the probe would miss the planet altogether.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Which part of the sky?

Let's say she's using an instrument like a radio telescope. She can't see the celestial object directly through it, so the telescope records her readings. Should she be pointing* it at where the planet actually is actually is, or where it will only appear to be due to the finite speed of light?

She swaps to an optical telescope. Now she can look through it directly. Where should she point this telescope? The same place or a different one?

*as much as one can point with a radio telescope...

Ah-em, Much as I don't want to do it, I need to point out that radio waves, X-rays, etc. all travel at about the speed of light. So all the various telescopes would need the same correction to view the target, I think?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I told you that in philosophical terms, the phrase "free will" has an explicit meaning.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is simply not true

Oh yes it is. Ask Spacemonkey what freedom of the will refers to in philosophical terms.

There is no strawman argumentation. There is only a clear analysis of the facts.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What facts are you drawing on to conclude that the only understanding anyone has and the only definition anyone uses of free will is the contra-causal kind?

What other kind is there? How can a person have free will (which, by definition, IS contra-causal) and not have free will?

I have only repeated what others believe free will to be; i.e., the ability to choose what one prefers. Others have given definitions of free will, but it has never been proven to actually exist.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But you have only argued against one definition of free will, contra-causal or Libertarian, as if that is the only and correct one, and even made a big deal out of it being the only and correct one. It's not even the most commonly held opinion, and nobody here adheres to it, so you are arguing against a strawman version of free will that nobody here believes we have or has argued for.

There is one main definition LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, there is not.

As I said, there may be thousands of definitions, but when it comes to philosophical debate, there is a core definition of what freedom of the will is, a core definition of determinism is, and they are mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, there are no core definitions, if there were there wouldn't be any debate.

Of course there would be a debate. You don't have to have thousands of definitions to debate two separate worldviews?

You cannot be compelled to do what you do, and be free to do what you do.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did the word compelled come from?

If you are caused to do something, aren't you compelled to do it? These two words are interchangeable. The only difference is the word "cause" can make it appear as if something other than you is causing you to do something whereas the word "compelled" does not give the same connotation.

There is no free will that is not contra-causal.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are definitions and understandings of free will that are not contra-causal, such as the compatibilist conception of free will.

You are not listening at all. Maybe you are doing this to try to draw out in me a better way to explain what I'm trying to say, I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are the one that's not listening. There are different understandings and conceptions of free will that are not contra-causal...in fact MOST people do not mean contra-causal when they discuss free will. By dismissing the majority of conceptions, you are constructing a strawman. You are arguing against the one most extreme concept that few people adhere to.

But what people adhere to is not really free will at all. That is the problem; they are using a definition that may be useful in the judicial system because it claims that the person was free enough to not do what he did, but it does not in any way prove that what a person did was freely done.

free will implies that we could have done otherwise under the exact same circumstances.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Only according to some definitions and understandings, not all.

Definitions mean nothing if they do not reflect true reality. One of them is right and one of them is not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no "true reality" or right and wrong to be described in this discussion, at all, because we are talking about immaterial concepts with subjective understandings and definitions.

Somewhere along the line you have come to believe that observation means nothing, and that the workings of the brain mean nothing if you can't see or measure it. That is completely false.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is there are right or wrong definition or "true reality" of the concept of love? No, because every individual has their own experience and understanding of it. It's the same will free will and determinism.

You cannot compare the concept of love, which is subjective, to determinism. Love is a feeling, determinism is not.

No LadyShea. Choosing what we prefer does not mean we have free will.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It does if free will is understood to mean "the ability to choose what is preferred"

Oh my gosh, I don't know what to say. I'm dumbfounded by your response. The ability to choose what is preferred is the very reason our will is not free because we cannot choose what is not preferred, rendering all other choices under those same exact conditions, IMPOSSIBLE.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Impossible according to whom?

To anyone who understands this law of our nature, it is impossible to choose what is less preferable when something more preferable is available as an option. If you don't understand this concept, you will give the kind of response you just did.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I don't believe that the light-time correction proves conclusively that the probe would miss the planet altogether.

It's not my opinion. It's 3rd grade math. Shall we go through it?


Let's do it for Mars, the closest extraterrestrial planet. (It gets worse for Lessans if we do it for more distant planets.)


Mars has an orbital velocity of 24 kilometers per second. That is, it moves in its orbit a total of 24 kilometers every second. With me so far?

Mars has a radius of 3,396 kilometers.

At its closest to Earth, Mars is 55.7 million kilometers distant. It takes light 298 seconds to travel that distance.

Still with me? Feel free to check my math. (I've rounded in your favor, by the way.)


So, Lessans says that when we look at Mars, we see it where it is right now. According to NASA, when we look at the planet, we're seeing it where it was a minimum of 298 seconds ago.


So, how far does Mars travel in 298 seconds? That's important, because, when aiming its probe, NASA is assuming that Mars' actual position is different from its apparent position. How different? However far Mars travels in its orbit during 298 seconds.


Here's where the math gets really hard, so try to keep up:

298 seconds x 24 kilometers/second = 7,152 kilometers.

So, if Lessans is right and NASA is wrong, their targeting will be off by a minimum of 7,152 kilometers when aiming a probe at Mars, since NASA is targeting its probe on the assumption that Mars is a minimum of 7,152 kilometers distant from its apparent position.

So if, in order to maximize their chances of hitting the planet, they aim for its center, NASA's probe will miss the planet entirely by more than 3,700 kilometers. [Here's the really hard math, just to prove it: 7,152 - 3,396 = 3,756.]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Which part of the sky?

Let's say she's using an instrument like a radio telescope. She can't see the celestial object directly through it, so the telescope records her readings. Should she be pointing* it at where the planet actually is, or where it will only appear to be due to the finite speed of light?

She swaps to an optical telescope. Now she can look through it directly. Where should she point this telescope? The same place or a different one?

*as much as one can point with a radio telescope...

She would see the celestial object through the optical telescope in real time, therefore the telescope would be pointed to where the object actually is, whereas the radio telescope readings would be in delayed time, therefore she would be pointing the telescope to where it only appears to be.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

She would see the celestial object through the optical telescope in real time, therefore the telescope would be pointed to where the object actually is, whereas the radio telescope readings would be in delayed time, therefore she would be pointing the telescope to where it only appears to be.

Then why do people point their optical telescopes at the same place they point all their other sorts of telescopes?

Fail again for Lessans! By ignoring him we can not only point our spacecraft in the right direction, but our telescopes too! He's really not worth listening to if you care about doing anything, is he?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's not my opinion. It's 3rd grade math. Shall we go through it?


Let's do it for Mars, the closest extraterrestrial planet. (It gets worse for Lessans if we do it for more distant planets.)


Mars has an orbital velocity of 24 kilometers per second. That is, it moves in its orbit a total of 24 kilometers every second. With me so far?

Mars has a radius of 3,396 kilometers.

At its closest to Earth, Mars is 55.7 million kilometers distant. It takes light 298 seconds to travel that distance.

Still with me? Feel free to check my math. (I've rounded in your favor, by the way.)

So, Lessans says that when we look at Mars, we see it where it is right now. According to NASA, when we look at the planet, we're seeing it where it was a minimum of 298 seconds ago.


So, how far does Mars travel in 298 seconds? That's important, because, when aiming its probe, NASA is assuming that Mars' actual position is different from its apparent position. How different? However far Mars travels in its orbit during 298 seconds.


Here's where the math gets really hard, so try to keep up:

298 seconds x 24 kilometers/second = 7,152 kilometers.

So, if Lessans is right and NASA is wrong, their targeting will be off by a minimum of 7,152 kilometers when aiming a probe at Mars, since NASA is targeting its probe on the assumption that Mars is a minimum of 7,152 kilometers distant from its apparent position.

So if, in order to maximize their chances of hitting the planet, they aim for its center, NASA's probe will miss the planet entirely by more than 3,700 kilometers. [Here's the really hard math, just to prove it: 7,152 - 3,396 = 3,756.]

I can't argue with your math, so I won't. As you said, the math is based on extremely precise numbers with a very small margin of error. Whether it is the light-time correction that is making the difference as to whether we hit the target or not, I'm still not 100% convinced. 3,152 kilometers is less than the kilometers it would take to go from Ontario, Canada to Miami (4437 kilometers). That distance is extremely small from a cosmological perspective. Could it be that the light-time correction may not be as important as you are suggesting in determining whether the probe hits the target?

[thedoc]

I must apologize for my post #34463, I was under the mistaken impression that Drager was suggesting that optical telescopes were aimed differently than X-ray or radio telescopes, but I see now that he was referring to Peacegirls claim.


As to post #34468, was I asleep? Where did 3,152 Kilometers come from? Nowhere in TLR's post was that figure mentioned. I really think Peacegirl has a serious problem with reading comprehension, or maybe she just isn't paying attention to anything but the noise in her head. And 3,152 kilometers would still be enough for the probe to miss the target area, even if NASA were aiming at one side of the planet, from our perspective, it would hit the other side. A failed mission, and how many of those have there been?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh yes it is.

No, it isn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ask Spacemonkey what freedom of the will refers to in philosophical terms.

I've already corrected you on this as well. Free will has multiple definitions in the philosophical literature. Libertarian contra-causal free will is only one of them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What other kind is there?

Compatibilist free will. This kind is not contra-causal.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can a person have free will (which, by definition, IS contra-causal) and not have free will?

Free will is not contra-causal by definition. Only one kind of it is. Your argument fails because you keep myopically focusing upon one single definition to the exclusion of all others, and then pretending it's the only one. It isn't.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't argue with your math, so I won't. As you said, the math is based on extremely precise numbers with a very small margin of error. Whether it is the light-time correction that is making the difference as to whether we hit the target or not, I'm still not 100% convinced. 3,152 kilometers is less than the kilometers it would take to go from Ontario, Canada to Miami (4437 kilometers). That distance is extremely small from a cosmological perspective. Could it be that the light-time correction may not be as important as you are suggesting in determining whether the probe hits the target?

No, that couldn't be the case. Explain to us how we could make a correction of thousands of kilometers for an effect you think shouldn't be corrected for at all, and still hit exactly where we where aiming for.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with her calculations in that she is looking at a particular part of the sky. But the results do not negate real time seeing. When it's morning, we see light approaching, true? In other words, if the Sun is lightyears away, we would see morning after 8 minutes. But light does not produce an image; it just produces full spectrum light. Light itself would not give us an image of matter because images, or the partial spectrum, is not being reflected. We are seeing the object due to light's presence ONLY. The wavelength that allows us to see said object does not travel through space/time as believed. Do you get what I'm saying? I doubt it.

Do you? Do you have any idea what you just said?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh yes it is.

No, it isn't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ask Spacemonkey what freedom of the will refers to in philosophical terms.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've already corrected you on this as well. Free will has multiple definitions in the philosophical literature. Libertarian contra-causal free will is only one of them.

What are the multiple definitions of free will other than a person can choose what he prefers, or that he has no physical or emotional limitations stopping him from choosing what is right? On a practical level compatibilism serves a purpose, but upon deeper analysis it fails. You have not let me show you how not holding people to account actually increases responsibility to a much higher degree, and without the need for any kind of blame.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What other kind is there?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Compatibilist free will. This kind is not contra-causal.

How can you blame someone for their actions if their actions are determined by forces beyond their control? If you tell me a person's actions are not fully determined under the conditions of compatibilism, then you are not a determinist. You are a libertarian.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can a person have free will (which, by definition, IS contra-causal) and not have free will?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Free will is not contra-causal by definition.

Of course it is.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Only one kind of it is.

You are lost in the recesses of your faulty logic. And this argument is so emotional for you that I will never be able to convince you of its flaws.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your argument fails because you keep myopically focusing upon one single definition to the exclusion of all others, and then pretending it's the only one. It isn't.

What others are there? If you blame someone for their actions (whatever actions you deem are free ones), you are not a determinist because determinism is a universal law that says ALL actions are beyond one's control, and as such no one is worthy of blame. Let me repeat: On a practical level, compatibilism seems like the best choice of the three because you can have your cake and eat it too. You can adhere to the philosophy of determinism and yet hold that people are free enough to be held morally responsible. The only problem is that being free of physical and psychological constraints is still not free in the sense that a person could have done otherwise under those exact same conditions, even with the knowledge that he would be punished if caught. So where is the freedom if he could not have done any differently Spacemonkey?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you? Do you have any idea what you just said?

Yes I know exactly what I said and I'm not going to be intimidated by you. I refuse to get into this conversation again. I do not care what you think about Lessans' claim regarding the eyes. You can think whatever you want. I believe he was right even if, by all appearances, it looks like he was wrong. Appearances are sometimes wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I know exactly what I said...

Then do you have any idea how stupid it was?

For instance, how many light years away is our Sun?