Star triangle paradox

Magical Realist said:
I'm simply saying that light shows us what is really there--a star or a door existing in the past. It isn't showing us the illusion of a star or door existing in the past.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that the original "past" state still exists -- is that where you're differing from the rest?
 
Enmos said:
It seems that you are saying that if you can't see it it isn't there.
Click to expand...

Not quite as radical as that. I'm saying that in the case of seeing, light shows us what's THERE, not what WAS there or isn't there. This seems an basic underlying presupposition of all our empiricle experience, otherwise we are all trapped in impenetrable darkness.


But you may object: to someone next to the star the star is NOT in the past as we see it. True..It is not in OUR past. It is in THEIR present. That's because there is a REAL difference in spacetime between where the star actually is and where we are.
That's my proposition at least..
 
Magical Realist said:
Can you prove light shows us what WAS there instead of what IS there? It seems to assume a perceptual state of the star as existing without it's light reaching us. IOW, a star abstracted from it's starlight--at an instant in time and so "in the dark" so to speak. Do such dark and totally imperceivable stars exist? How would we prove it?


In point of fact, we CAN imagine flying towards the star at the speed of light (but no faster as then we'd be going back into time.). But at no point do we encounter a dark simultaneous star separate from it's light. All we see is a star becoming less and less in our past until we reach it's point in spacetime where it is simulataneous with us. Where was dark star that was supposed to be existing separately from it's light? It was never there.
Click to expand...

Okay, you're avoiding the hypostatisation of the brains' manifestation and conception of "star", a product of neural processing.
 
Hmm maybe this is something along the lines of wtf he is talking about.

Two Inventions:

Instant travel to 100 LYA - without time effects.
"Telescope" that can make out human sized individuals from 100LYA(way)

You could literally "peer" into the past.
 
Last edited:
C C said:
Are you suggesting that the original "past" state still exists -- is that where you're differing from the rest?
Click to expand...

Yes..I'm saying that there is a real ontic difference in time between the star and us. And that difference in time is revealed thru the light that is emitted from the star. It's part of a more general metaphysical notion I posted on about there being no entities at an instant in time. The star is extended over time and space thru it's own light. A star existing frozen in time otoh would be in total darkness--not really even a star at all anymore since it's very fusion process requires time and extended forces and interactions of atoms over time. What we in fact see thru the starlight IS in fact the star in it's immediate process of being, and since that takes time (100 years in fact from our standpoint) then we SEE it as really being in our past.
 
nietzschefan said:
Hmm maybe this is sometime along the lines of wtf he is talking about.

Two Inventions:

Instant travel to 100 LYA - without time effects.
"Telescope" that can make out human sized individuals from 100LYA(way)

You could literally "peer" into the past.
Click to expand...

YES! You've got it! To suggest otherwise is to say there is some difference between the real past and the light thru which it is revealed to us. But I'm seeing no distinction here. What we see is exactly what is going on. BUT..bear in mind THE past is no more absolute than THE present. IOW, we are only seeing the past because it is still happening from our pov. From the pov of the star itself, WE are in the past. Time iow bifurcates into two "simultaneous" pasts the further two objects are in spacetime. This is because, fundamentally speaking, it always takes time for things to happen. There is no being at an instant (all things happening at the same time)..
 
C C said:
Okay, you're avoiding the hypostatisation of the brains' manifestation and conception of "star", a product of neural processing.
Click to expand...

Yes..I think :) Considered as one process (falling back on Whitehead a little here) the star's existence goes from it's own fusion process, thru it's traveling light waves, and into the perceiving brain that is observing it. We can insert tidy divisions in this process at any point and create pure abstractions (static images or entities "frozen in time")..in line with a sort of scientifically popular "entity realism." But the whole process is seamless in reality. But what we experience is the true messy organic reality.
 
Last edited:
Let me see if i got the gist of this or discovered something somewhat unrelated:

The premise and understanding of lightyears is being used wrongly by nearly every member who responded.

The lightyear is the time it takes the light to reach the observer and does not necessarily mean that viewing the light source what you see is actually in the past and not right in the present. BIG mistake there.
 
John99 said:
The premise and understanding of lightyears is being used wrongly by nearly every member who responded.
Click to expand...
Nope.

The lightyear is the time it takes the light to reach the observer and does not necessarily mean that viewing the light source what you see is actually in the past and not right in the present. BIG mistake there.
Click to expand...
Wrong. A lightyear is a measure of distance, and it means exactly that what you see now is what it was in the past. But I must admit, you do work hard at maintaining your ignorance.

John99 said:
Dont think so.;)
Click to expand...
And you're wrong again.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Nope.


Wrong. A lightyear is a measure of distance. But I must admit, you do work hard at maintaining your ignorance.


And you're wrong again.
Click to expand...

When you can still see an object it is still physically present...saaaame way you are seeing it. No time difference and no delay. Its just that simple.
 
John99 said:
When you can still see an object it is still physically present...saaaame way you are seeing it. No time difference and no delay. Its just that simple.
Click to expand...
Oh wrong again.
When you see an object you see it as it was when the light that reaches your eyes left it. If something is 100 LY away (i.e. it's taken 100 years for light to get to your eyes) then you're seeing it as it was one hundred years ago.
Fail. As usual.
 
John99 said:
Let me see if i got the gist of this or discovered something somewhat unrelated:

The premise and understanding of lightyears is being used wrongly by nearly every member who responded.

The lightyear is the time it takes the light to reach the observer and does not necessarily mean that viewing the light source what you see is actually in the past and not right in the present. BIG mistake there.
Click to expand...

The star and it's light are one thing. The star does not exist as an entity separate from it's light (freezeframed at the same time as when you are seeing its light). What you see is exactly what's there--a star in the past. How could it be otherwise?
 
Dywyddyr said:
Oh wrong again.
When you see an object you see it as it was when the light that reaches your eyes left it.
Click to expand...

Reaches your eyes? That is the problem right there, that premise is a big mistake, it is faulty.

If something is 100 LY away (i.e. it's taken 100 years for light to get to your eyes) then you're seeing it as it was one hundred years ago.
Fail. As usual.
Click to expand...

If i can see an object either aided or unaided the OBJECT (not necessarily the light) is in real time. This is reality.
 
John99 said:
Reaches your eyes? That is the problem right there, that premise is a big mistake, it is faulty.
Click to expand...
Why?
Light doesn't travel? It doesn't have a speed?

If i can see an object either aided or unaided the OBJECT (not necessarily the light) is in real time. This is reality.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Go away and learn something.

You yourself have stated that a "lightyear is the time it takes the light to reach the observer" i.e. if something is a 1 LY away it takes light 1 year to reach the observer. This directly contradicts BOTH of the above contentions by you.
Can you not understand your own "reasoning"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top