St Luke concludes five more days of debate with same person

Our Lady of the Rosary to today, debate between a geocentric thomist and some heliocentrics
St Luke concludes five more days of debate with same person
Why would they be that anyway? (Quantum Physics & mind debate)
OrchOR - what is that?

Link to trigonometry lesson about astronomy and with diagrams

If he answers, I prefer putting further debates as a part III, so as not to clutter this part.

Scripsi ego/Ego=I (wrote).
Scripsit ille/Ille=he (wrote).

Day 1
Day 2
Day 3
Day 4
Day 5



Scripsi ego: My dear, earth standing still is not a geocentric analysis of what I see, it is a description. Item for sun and moon moving behind objects known to stay in place and behind horizons. I propose limiting discussion to one set sub-aspect of geocentrism question per day, today I propose:

=======earth staying immobile and sun and moon moving behind horizons or "tall" objects (trees, houses, even a stone if you lie down below it) _are_ immediate sensory data=======

Tomorrow u propose one. That makes three subaspects per person for the next six days starting from today (i e today and next five). Amending "immediate sensory data" to "most obvious immediate experience of sensory data" and adding "to observers on earth".

=======earth staying immobile and sun and moon moving behind horizons or "tall" objects (trees, houses, even a stone if you lie down below it) _are_ most obvious immediate experience of sensory data to observers on earth=======

Taking it?

Scripsit ille: Ok, I did another little experiment today actually. I observed myself sitting perfectly still in a moving bus -thereby proving that motion is completely relative to reference frame!

Therefore we both win! Depending on your reference frame and not adding in center of mass the Earth being fixed is completely identical to the Sun being fixed depending on your frame of reference! Thus we are both right! "Fixed" then only means anything when it is "fixed" relative to something else.

This is how BTW we can still use paralax to find stars in a geocentric model. The stars simple move elliptically about the Earth depending on how close or far we are to them at a given point in time allows us to triangulate their position anyway.

Scripsi ego: Wait with that until tomorrow, to me that is already another theme.

Have you anything to add to todays one?

Scripsit ille ad primam sententiam: They are connected though. One can not say that the Sun does not move relative to the Earth without saying that the Earth moves relative to the Sun. However yes I see the earth as stationary relative to myself, but that does not mean it is absolutely stationary -if it was there would be no motion in the entire universe.

Scripsi ego: I did not say the themes were not connected, but that one is already another one, I would like more on first one before going on to that.

Scripsit ille: Ok, yes it is stationary relative to my reference frame. How does this disprove heliocentrism though?

Ego: Todays theme is not about disproving heliocentrism. It is only saying any system leaving earth perfectly stationary is so far in more immediate accord with sense data.

Ille: Ok fair enough. But you are letting in an unsaid equivocation through the backdoor. "Perfectly stationary" doesn't mean anything at all unless it is perfectly stationary to a given reference frame.

Ego: That might be another theme for tomorrow. No wait, I will include it in today.

Aristotle:

When I am in a boat, I move in a boat and I move with a boat that moves in a sea or lake, river or canal. Whatever is most outside is stationary as it is contained by nothing inside which it could move.

Which is why I do NOT say the earth is stationary in relation to me. I am on it and therefore either stationary or moving in relation to it.

I will add: We do not see a FRAME in which earth is moving. SO FAR that is quite compatible with earth being perfectly stationary.

Ille: Yes we do. That is implicit in all observations. Whenever we make an observation we also observe by definition that that observation is relative to our reference frame.

You can't dissociate observation from the frame in which it is observed they are two parts of the same thing. The reference frame is part of the observation.

"perfectly stationary."

What does that mean?



Ego: I repeat: we do not see any frame in which earth is moving.

Whether there be one or not is another matter, we do not see one.

"Perfectly stationary" means: without movement.

New day - you set the theme. Or continue this line of argument if that is what you wish.

Before you get on to it, I will add this: there is a very solid reason why we know that the bus is moving on the earth, rathre than the earth moving under it. That is why the immediate sight impressions from bus window are reinterpretated as oneself moving with the bus, though not in the bus.

Movement without frame is meaningless. Not so lack of movement.

Ille: "I repeat: we do not see any frame in which earth is moving."

The astronauts do.

"Perfectly stationary means: without movement."

In whose frame? Our's or the Niel Armstrong's? You haven't seemed to have gotten your mind around this reference frame thing. "Perfectly stationary" is a purely relative term.

"That is why the immediate sight impressions from bus window are reinterpretated as oneself moving with the bus, though not in the bus."

No I was sitting still. The earth was moving under me. That was my immediate sense impression. You can't deny immediate sense impressions.

"Movement without frame is meaningless. Not so lack of movement."

Lack of movement IS movement in a different frame. You can't say that movement without frame is meaningless without also saying that lack of movement in frame one is movement in frame two. Movement only makes sense in terms of a frame because we happen to arbitrarily pick one frame over another. Since this picking is arbitrary we could just as well pick a frame where the earth is moving to one in which it is standing perfectly still.

Since these two frames describe the situation equivalently we can have both heliocentrism and geocentrism at the same time! Hence we both win and this argument was really a misunderstanding.

Ego: "The astronauts do."

But they can be considered as themselves moving along with an object (spaceship or the moon or MIR or whatever).

Perfectly stationary means - without movement. Not what SEEMS to be so within a moving frame oneself is moving along with, but what really is so.

In the bus journey yesterday, the seat before you looked stable, right? But you know it was moving along with the bus.

"No I was sitting still. The earth was moving under me. That was my immediate sense impression. You can't deny immediate sense impressions."

I agree that was your immediate sense impression. I say there are very solid reasons for reinterpreting it as yourself moving with the bus, but not within the bus.

Lack of movement looks like movement from an observer that is moving.

Ille: "I agree that was your immediate sense impression. I say there are very solid reasons for reinterpreting it as yourself moving with the bus, but not within the bus."

Why though?If we were to remove extraneous forces such as friction there would be no physical experiment you can do that says that the frame on the bus is any more or less preferred than the frame on the ground.

Ego: I do say that lack of movement within the bus is lack of movement absolutely only if the bus stands still on an earth that stands still. I also say that it is a participation in the movement of the bus, when it is rolling, which is verifiable. It would be participation in the movement of earth if that was true and verifiable.

Ille: "But they can be considered as themselves moving along with an object (spaceship or the moon or MIR or whatever)."

The moon felt quite stationary under Armstrong's feet.

"Perfectly stationary means - without movement. Not what SEEMS to be so within a moving frame"

How do you tell which frame is moving and which frame is not moving? "SEEMS" is all we have.

"but what really is so."

There is no "really moving." Let me tell you a little secret from quantum gravity. As it turns out when I did my calculations motion is nothing more than space contracting or expanding between objects.

"the seat before you looked stable, right? But you know it was moving along with the bus."

That's confusing the issue with friction. The pebbles on the road underneath weren't stable either as they moved under the bus -despite the fact that they were stationary with respect to the frame of the ground.

Ego: "The moon felt quite stationary under Armstrong's feet."

We have Armstrongs word for it. And it was an experience that was exceptional, if he had tried to live there he would have died.

"How do you tell which frame is moving and which frame is not moving? "SEEMS" is all we have"

I tell the bus is moving because the ground is obviously not moving.

" As it turns out when I did my calculations motion is nothing more than space contracting or expanding between objects."

That is what it looks like on calculations. In reality space between objects neither expands nor contracts without one or other or both of them moving.

Ego: "I do say that lack of movement within the bus is lack of movement absolutely only if the bus stands still on an earth that stands still."

That's fine you are a geocentrist and so you pick the earth as standing still and everything else as moving. But I don't see why such a frame of reference should be in any sense preferred by the laws of physics over any other frame of reference.

"I also say that it is a participation in the movement of the bus, when it is rolling, which is verifiable."

Not particularly. Perhaps it is just bumpy in the bus because of the motion of the pebbles and gravel underneath.

"It would be participation in the movement of earth if that was true and verifiable."

It was. The ground was moving under us.

"The bus moves on the ground. That is how moving is perceived."

That's not how the people in the bus perceived it.

"Since we learn to walk, we learn to see that a seemingly moving ground below us is in reality a ground on which we are moving."

No, well at least not anymore than insofar as the two situations are completely equivalent in every respect.

Ego: The calculations may be less simple with the friction, but it is not confusing the issue.

"That's fine you are a geocentrist and so you pick the earth as standing still and everything else as moving. But I don't see why such a frame of reference should be in any sense preferred by the laws of physics over any other frame of reference."

Geocentrism is an immediate sense impression which so far you have not refuted. Ground moving under bus is refuted long ago for both of us and for all men alive.

"Not particularly. Perhaps it is just bumpy in the bus because of the motion of the pebbles and gravel underneath."

Even in a non-bumpy bus, even in a TGV train, we know the earth stands still below because of general experience . BBL, I hope.

Ille: "We have Armstrongs word for it."

Yes, but there is no reason he would have lied.

"And it was an experience that was exceptional, if he had tried to live there he would have died."

So? That is completely besides the point. If the moon had an atmosphere with plant life he would not have died or for that matter if there was a moon base there he would not have died. If he was a robot instead of a biological organism he wouldn't have died there either.

None of this pertains to motion.

"the ground is obviously not moving."

Not moving relative to which reference frame? You have to specify your frame of reference if you are to say something about motion.

" As it turns out when I did my calculations motion is nothing more than space contracting or expanding between objects."

"That is what it looks like on calculations. In reality space between objects neither expands nor contracts without one or other or both of them moving."
Reality is based on calculations. Everything can be described by explained by the Theory of Everything, which is entirely calculation based.

[BBL, time on café out ... - Ok, well have a good one.]

"The calculations may be less simple with the friction, but it is not confusing the issue."

Yes it is, because the only reason we "feel" that we are moving rather than not moving is because of friction.

"Geocentrism is an immediate sense impression which so far you have not refuted."

I didn't need to remember? Because we are both right since Galilean relativity is true!

"Ground moving under bus is refuted long ago for both of us and for all men alive."

Ground moving under the bus is an immediate sense impression by bus-goers which so far you have not refuted.

"Even in a non-bumpy bus, even in a TGV train, we know the earth stands still below because of general experience."

What general experience? The general experience of the people on the train or the general experience of the people on the ground? And what if the train has no windows? How will you tell if it is moving with respect to the earth or not moving with respect to the earth?



Ego: And it was an experience that was exceptional, if he had tried to live there he would have died.

"So? That is completely besides the point. If the moon had an atmosphere with plant life he would not have died or for that matter if there was a moon base there he would not have died. If he was a robot instead of a biological organism he wouldn't have died there either.

None of this pertains to motion."

It does pertain to the pertinence of his perceptions though.

You may feel the emotional perception of reality we have when using laughing gas is quite as real as the ordinary one: but we cannot go on living if breathing laughing gas.

Ditto for LSD or for alcohol: one cannot go on living being high on LSD all the time, and if you try to be always drunk, you'll have to settle for "a little" drunk and after some time it will not modify your perceptioon of reality so much. If you try to drink more, you will have to raise doses and either that will kill you or at last you will get drunk on even a very little, and you will not even have a normal perception of what drunkenness is.

"If the moon had an atmosphere with plant life he would not have died ..." - which is not the case. That is part of what makes the moon the moon.

"or for that matter if there was a moon base there he would not have died" - which is not the case either, and if it were, how many could it keep for how long?

"If he was a robot instead of a biological organism he wouldn't have died there either."

A robot has no perceptions.

the ground is obviously not moving.

"Not moving relative to which reference frame? You have to specify your frame of reference if you are to say something about motion."

Unless what I am saying is about its absense. Motion is meaningless without a frame, not so absence of motion.

"As it turns out when I did my calculations motion is nothing more than space contracting or expanding between objects."

That is what it looks like on calculations. In reality space between objects neither expands nor contracts without one or other or both of them moving.

"Reality is based on calculations. Everything can be described by explained by the Theory of Everything, which is entirely calculation based."

A - Reality and your theory of reality are two different things. Number is not substance, but secondary to substance.

B - A calculation may be totally correct and yet a bad translation of the reality it is supposed to be about. As an example, I was once teaching maths, there was this nice young oaf who asked me why his answer did not correspond to the right answer, and I had to see he had translated the case before him badly into mathematics.

In that vein, there are two ways in which a calculation may deviate from the reality it is supposed to translate: either in a way that gives a wrong answer you can check, or one where the wrong is involved in a parametre you are not checking.

The calculations may be less simple with the friction, but it is not confusing the issue.

"Yes it is, because the only reason we "feel" that we are moving rather than not moving is because of friction."

That is where friction adds clarity to issue. But as in a TGV train, the bumpyness that makes us feel we are moving is not the primary evidence. When a train starts very slowly it does not yet feel like it is moving, yet I know already when I see the buildings move that the trains are moving.

Geocentrism is an immediate sense impression which so far you have not refuted.

"I didn't need to remember? Because we are both right since Galilean relativity is true!"

Sorry, you may think it true, but that does not make it so.

Ground moving under bus is refuted long ago for both of us and for all men alive.

"Ground moving under the bus is an immediate sense impression by bus-goers which so far you have not refuted."

Not in this discussion, yet, but we are approaching: Even in a non-bumpy bus, even in a TGV train, we know the earth stands still below because of general experience.

"What general experience? The general experience of the people on the train or the general experience of the people on the ground? And what if the train has no windows? How will you tell if it is moving with respect to the earth or not moving with respect to the earth?"

The people in the train are themselves more often people on the ground. Which means that the more general experience is that of people on the ground. Just as surely as people on earth enjoy a more general experience than Armstrong did when walking on the moon. Even Armstrong has more often in his life been on earth than walked on the moon.

In a train without windows and without bumps there would be no way inside to know whether at a given moment when noone is going on or off it is moving or not. Actually a door opening to let people go on or off would constitute a window. BUT: one would know that it had moved if one had gone on in one place and gone off in another.

The refutation against people in the train thinking they stand still and ground moves is of course the general experience outside trains and vehicles that the ground does not move.

When I stand on the ground and see someone approaching in a car, I know the car is moving and the ground under my feet and under his wheels is not, but his wheels are moving on the ground. Whenever I sit in a car, I use that knowledge to discount the vision of ground moving as an optic illusion of the parallactic sort.

Just as heliocentrics do with heavens moving - but when have they been "on the ground" to see earth move? Of course they have not, and Armstrong's experience cannot count as such, since as obviously he is more like someone in a car.



Ego: No takers?

Shall this be taken as an admission from my estimated codebater, that he found me right on the side of knowability or rather not of his system of relativity?

NO, HERE CAME ANSWER:

Ille: @my:"It does pertain to the pertinence of his perceptions though."

No it doesn't. He has perceptions. It doesn't matter if they are on the moon or if they are on earth because the laws of physics are the same everywhere. If we disallow perceptions on the moon why not just as well disallow perceptions on the earth?

@my: "but we cannot go on living if breathing laughing gas."

But the astronauts are not on mind-altering drugs when they go up. I can't see how this could possibly pertain to the issue.

@my: "- which is not the case. That is part of what makes the moon the moon."

That's besides the point. Vegetation or lack of vegetation has nothing to do with motion on the moon. One is botany the other is physics. However it is theoretically possible for the moon to have the same living conditions as the earth.

@my: "and if it were, how many could it keep for how long?"

With a hydroponic garden and a water replenishing device powered by the sun -indefinitely.

@my:"A robot has no perceptions."

Ok, a robot with an Orch-OR based quantum computer then.

@my: "the ground is obviously not moving."

Obviously not moving relative to which reference frame? You haven't specified yet.

@my:"Motion is meaningless without a frame, not so absence of motion."

That's ridiculous. The whole POINT of motion being meaningless without a frame necessarily ENTAILS that absence of motion is also meaningless without a frame. If motion is defined in terms of a frame what then does "absence of MOTION" mean?

@my: "That is what it looks like on calculations. In reality"

You DO of course understand that there are some calculations which exactly model reality right? -That at some level "what the calculations look like" is the same as "what reality looks like."

@my: "space between objects neither expands nor contracts" [MISQUOTE, HE LEFT OUT QUALIFICATION: "without either one or other object moving or both et c"]

That's not what quantum gravity says -or actually quantum mechanics either when you look at it closely.

@my: "A - Reality and your theory of reality are two different things. Number is not substance, but secondary to substance."

This has to do with the philosophy of ontology and not science however as it turns out "platonic stuff" is primary and there is no such thing as substance at root. Here's why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg0AxuDcoEE

This is how there can be a natural and a supernatural yet have the both of them interact. Since monism is necessarily true, if matter existed then neither could God, souls, angels etc. Since they do matter can't exist -at least not as normally conceived. Rather Bishop Berkeley was right -we are in God's dream. (though this was not the argument in the video)

@my: "and I had to see he had translated the case before him badly into mathematics."

Yes but there is abstract math "out there" which describes the world -even if we haven't found it yet. This math is perfect and not flawed. Why? It exists independently of us. This math includes all parameters.

"The calculations may be less simple with the friction, but it is not confusing the issue."

Um yes it is. Friction =/= motion. What kinds of physics classes have you taken?

"yet I know already when I see the buildings move that the trains ar...e moving."

How do you know the train is not making the earth move beneath you? Scratch that. What EXPERIMENT could you perform that would tell you that the train is not making the earth move beneath you and not vice-versa?

"Sorry, you may think it true, but that does not make it so."

Ok, I will prove it:

To define "stillness" we must first define what motion is relative to an absolute reference frame. To determine an absolute reference frame we must determine the reference frame of the center of the universe. To do this we have to find the center of the universe (which you say is Earth).

To do this we have to measure off infinity from both sides of the universe and find the center. Except half of infinity is also infinity and so the center is both on the Earth and on the Sun, and on the moon and Jupiter, Alpha Centauri, the Andromeda galaxy etc. etc. because since half of infinity is also infinity the center of his absolute reference frame is infinitely far away from itself. Hence all points in the universe are the "center of the universe" -that is if you take "infinitely faraway from itself" to mean anything.

Hence this notion of their being a center of the universe is internally contradictory, and by default the only remaining conclusion is that motion and location are relative to reference frames.

"Ground moving under bus is refuted long ago for both of us and for all men alive."

No, because they have no way to tell which frame is the correct one. Just because there are more things on the earth's frame than in the bus doesn't make the earth's frame preferred. I'd like to see your argument that this does make it preferred.

"we know the earth stands still below because of general experience."

A.) "General experience" is not scientific. General experience tells us that heavy objects fall faster than light ones.
B.) The only way they could tell this is if they had a basis to tell what the correct frame is a priori. They don't.

"Which means that the more general experience is that of people on the ground."

So what? Science is not a democracy.

"Even Armstrong has more often in his life been on earth than walked on the moon."

So? How do you explain his experiences on the moon?

"BUT: one would know that it had moved if one had gone on in one place and gone off in another."

Ok, let's say that we have someone born on a train and never let off their entire life. This train has a solar powered hydroponic garden and an internal water system, and is on a track that never deviates on its course all the way around the earth. How would this person know that the train is moving and the earth is standing still?

"the general experience outside trains and vehicles that the ground does not move."

Yes they are MUTUALLY refuting. Hence this kind of thinking is inherently internally contradictory. Which is of course why scientists abandoned notions of absolute motion centuries ago.

"Of course they have not, and Armstrong's experience cannot count as such, since as obviously he is more like someone in a car."

Um yes it can -they only brought cars to the moon on Apollo 15. He was standing still before that. And it is not at all obvious that someone can be moving like a car when in fact there are no cars up there.

‎"Shall this be taken as an admission from my estimated codebater, that he found me right on the side of knowability or rather not of his system of relativity?"

Uh no, it's evidence I was busy yesterday. Frankly you are not knowledgeable at ...all. Aside from our discussion of Galilean relativity, and your immediate objections to heliocentrism based on Tycho Brahe's model, there are plethora other things that either directly or indirectly contradict your model from science that you apparently know nothing about or are in denial on. Such as:

1.) The fact that we have been able to observe stellar parallax. (this should be impossible under geocentrism at least according to you)
2.) The composition of and mechanism behind stars and starlight.
3.) Kepler's laws, the accurate predictions of Newtonian gravitation in a heliocentric system.
4.) And relativity.(which we have confirmed on the earth)

Now I might at some point stop talking. But that is not because I think you are right. You don't even know that friction is irrelevant to the study of motion -which means you haven't taken a basic physics class. It would be because I've gotten tired.



Ego: Instead of going to a detailed refutation of your points singly, I will restate briefly what I believe you are wrong on before getting to your four major points.

I firmly believe perceptions are always bound to some sort of reality, even a hallucination in sleep is bound to the reality of dreaming.

I also firmly believe that perceptions that are not hallucinations can be real as real or optical illusions, two of which are perspective and parallactic seeming motion in objects observed by moving observers.

I also believe a certain caution is due to observations made under very unusual circumstances, I believe God created us and our universe such that the ordinary circumstances of observation are enough to get a good grasp of reality.

Hence, I believe that the six billion pairs of eyes observing moon moving around us are more pertinent to question of which is moving than are the very few and brief observations by men made from the moon. God did not mean us to be observing our universe regularily from there, but from here.

Which brings us to your point 4 about relativity which you suppose to have been confirmed on earth. It has not. Your confirmation is an equivocation.

Every movement is only meaningful within a frame - yes. Not so every lack of movement. A lack of movement only relative to moving frames has been observed, that does not mean that all lack of movement is only relative to frames that are moving.

Your point 1, parallax:

If each early March Virgo was twice its apparent size for when disappearing or reappearing behind sun around early September, and if each early September Pisces were twice the apparent size for when disappearing and reappearing behind sun around early March, and so on for all the other signs of the zodiak, then indeed parallax would prove that the earth moved around the sun, and also how far away the "sphere of the fixed stars" is. Indeed, then the sphere of fixed stars would be an obvious fram relative to which earth would obviously be moving and we would have Aristotelic principle of movement only existing in relation to a frame - a bodily one - as proof for heliocentrism.

We both know very well this is not the case, and that was one point made by St Robert Bellarmine when judging Galileo.

What we do see in the order of "parallax" is however something else, and parallax is the heliocentric terminology for it, I will still use it, but it will be only as to avoid making a terminology of my own, too easily misunderstood, not because I believe that apparent movement to be due to the optic illusion of parallax, i e the one we experience in busses and trains.

What we do see is that - according to an astronomy book from 1980 - 10,000 stars have observed parallax, the rest have not. Of these, none have a greater parallax than proxima Centauri, i e back and forth each half year 0.76 seconds of a circle. A second being 1:60 of a minute, a minute 1:60 of a degree and a degree 1:360 of a full circle.

I calculated this as equal roughly to the angle of two perpendicular lines to each other that on surface of earth are 30 metres apart and that meet in centre of earth.

We also observe 200 stars with annual "proper movements" ranging between 1 and 10 seconds.

These proper movements are proper movements, there is nothing indicating them to be parallactic. But if stars can have proper movements why could the so called parallactic ones not be so too?

An angel moving mars could very well be dancing around the angle moving the sun. If so-called "sphere of fixed stars" is not a solid sphere - and observations indicate it is indeed not - each star could also be guided by an angel and the 10,000 ones showing parallax might be angels dancing in time with the sun.

Your point 2 and your point 3 go beyond purely optic evidence, and constitute speculation on causality, of a manner very materialistic and mechanistic, i e based on a denial - of course "self-evident" to any atheist of Dawkin's school - that celestial movements even could be explained by God or angels.

Except of course the argument from accuracy.

A little logic: if two things vary in parallel, either A depends on B or B on A or both on X.

Calculations on celestial movements, based on the presumption of their purely mechanistic causes may as yet coincide in the results with the dance moves of celestial dancers.

A man who had never seen a dance and observed the dancers only during the dance, but who had seen robots - what a funny man by the way, very unlike most of us, especially throughout history before there were robots - would arrive maybe to the conclusion that the dancers were robots, because he would after a while be able to foresee their moves.

He would still be wrong.

A little correction of your logic: "The whole POINT of motion being meaningless without a frame necessarily ENTAILS that absence of motion is also meaningless without a frame. If motion is defined in terms of a frame what then does "absence of MOTION" mean?"

If motion is defined in terms of a frame, obviously absence of motion could be either of two things: non-movement within frame or non-frame in which to move.

The refutation of solid but transparent spheres is an argument against using heavens as "a frame" in which earth could be moving.

I have not denied that two objects one or other of which move, or both of which move, but in different directions or at a different pace will at a level look like space between them expanding or shrinking.

I do however firmly deny that this ...would be a better description of movement than the frame in which they are coordinated and in which at least one of them moves.

That difference is a non-mathematic parametre. You see, number, weight and measures are not all the predicates there are nor all the ones that are true about reality.

I do know very well that friction is discounted when studying motion in physics classes. I do know very well they would confuse issue of added speed (when a weight is taken off a model train). I know therfore more than well that some theoretical conclusions are never really observed, because when we observe them, it is only after "discounting the friction".

That does not mean a sensation of bumpiness caused by friction under bus wheels would confuse issue about which of bus and self is moving.

You said monism is "necessarily true", but that is not a valid conclusion from your studies, it is only a concept you bring to them.

And your "proof for God" by "Universal Orch-OR" seems now you have said that to be a "proof" for the kind of god a monist could accept, as I already suspected it was based on a concept of consciousness that was more or less materialist or monist.

What does it matter if you call "matter" and illusion, if you define mind as something working according to the observed workings of such a - supposed - illusion?



Ille: "I firmly believe perceptions are always bound to some sort of reality, even a hallucination in sleep is bound to the reality of dreaming."

Hmm, philosophically we may have more in common than scientifically then. Being a modal realist and an information monist I agree with you! I view lucid dreams to be information constructs that are not ontologically any different than the information constructs in the waking world.

"I also firmly believe that perceptions that are not hallucinations can be real as real or optical illusions, two of which are perspective and parallactic seeming motion in objects observed by moving observers."

Yet, you assume that perceptions of stillness on the ground are real as real and ARE NOT illusory. How do you distinguish between which one is real and which one is not?

How I do it is what Ockham's razor. The simplest explanation is the best. Since it is much easier to say that the earth moves than to imagine all of the numerous ad hoc premises that would be needed to maintain a geocentric model, I opt for a heliocentric model.

"I also believe a certain caution is due to observations made under very unusual circumstances, I believe God created us and our universe such that the ordinary circumstances of observation are enough to get a good grasp of reality."

It is superstitious to believe that God would create a universe that had capriciously different laws of physics elsewhere -and all just happening to be based merely on where he happened to put us. Supposing God put life elsewhere (which seeing His creativity and the vastness of space is not implausible) we may very well have another Johanan and another Hans out there having this very same conversation. Which Hans is correct? The the little gray one that says that the universe revolves around a planet in Sirius B or the human one that says the universe revolves around Earth?

"God did not mean us to be observing our universe regularily from there, but from here."

Your assumptions of what God would and would not do are purely speculative though. You have no way to show them experimentally.

"Which brings us to your point 4 about relativity which you suppose to have been confirmed on earth. It has not. Your confirmation is an equivocation."

I meant Einsteinian relativity. Not Galilean relativity. And yes Einsteinian relativity has been confirmed on earth.

"A lack of movement only relative to moving frames has been observed, that does not mean that all lack of movement is only relative to frames that are moving."

Sure it does. In principle how do you tell the difference between the two? If you can't this would show that their differences are meaningless.

Ego: "Yet, you assume that perceptions of stillness on the ground are real as real and ARE NOT illusory. How do you distinguish between which one is real and which one is not?

How I do it is what Ockham's razor. The simplest explanation is the best. "

And as it is simpler to assume percieved stillness as stillness and perceived movement as movement, I reserve the reverse interpretation for occasions that really call for it.

As for train movement, I see it as movement nearly as soon as I see the perceived reverse movement of trees and buildings, i e because I have a general knowledge that trains are supposed to move and trees and buildings remain rooted in the ground.

"Since it is much easier to say that the earth moves than to imagine all of the numerous ad hoc premises that would be needed to maintain a geocentric model, I opt for a heliocentric model."

First of all you confuse premiss with explanation.

Second of all the explanations needed for geocentrism are not very numerous:

1) God has put the earth firmly in the centre of his visible universe after creating its surroundings, a k a heavens.

2) He is pushing or leading the dance of the stars one full circle each 23 h and you know how many minutes.

3) He has confided stars and planets, including the big ones from here, sun and moon, to angels, one of which is following but dragging sun behind so much that it goes around zodiak once a year, and that the sun around earth becomes a full 24 h, another does the corresponding for moon, but its faces depend on relation to sun, which is why lunations are more complex than years, other ones get their confided heavenly bodies around the sun in other periods, making for real epicircles and making the retrograde movements in the added-up movement (sun's plus own around sun), other ones rush a bit ahead or back or whatever outside "solar system" making for the 200 proper movements exceeding 1 second and getting up to 10 seconds yearly, others move in time with the sun, parallelling direction and not necessarily paralleling size of sun's yearly movement, adding up to 0.76 seconds movement in a half year (proxima Centauri), and all of them are doing this dance with the bodies confided to them to honour their maker and - also - to make him evident to us.

Note that if "explanatory premiss" nr 3 has many details, it is still one explanation. 2 is two alternative ones.

Either three 1-2-3 or three 1-2b-3 does not seem to me to be much more complex than explanations required by heliocentrism.

Third of all, the three explanations are not even ad hoc, but:

1 God creating
2 God directing directly or by angels
3 Angels moving material things in complex or seemingly irregular ways

are the mainstay of Christian cosmology as far as earth is concerned too.

‎"It is superstitious to believe that God would create a universe that had capriciously different laws of physics elsewhere -and all just happening to be based merely on where he happened to put us. Supposing God put life elsewhere (which seeing His creativity and the vastness of space is not implausible) we may very well have another Johanan and another Hans out there having this very same conversation. Which Hans is correct? The the little gray one that says that the universe revolves around a planet in Sirius B or the human one that says the universe revolves around Earth?"

If My three explanatory principles are correct, Sirius B is guided by an angel, a planet revolving around it is also that, it need have no inhabitants, and if it has, they are probably blessed departed after resurrection or Henoch and Eliah. I e persons knowing very well they are not still but dancing with stars or sitting in carroussels.

If one instance of my explanatory principle 3 is correct, Sirius B and the planet around it are maybe nearer and smaller than supposed by scientists, and therefore not a real parallel to sun with earth.

God did not mean us to be observing our universe regularily from there, but from here, I said, and you answer:

"Your assumptions of what God would and would not do are purely speculative though. You have no way to show them experimentally."

The experiment being the fact that we are here. Of course with theistic interpretation of experiment.

Ille: On Parallax:

"then indeed parallax would prove that the earth moved around the sun,"

"and also how far away the "sphere of the fixed stars" is."

No sphere of fixed stars has been observed.

"Indeed, then the sphere of fixed stars would be an obvious fram relative to which earth would obviously be moving"

"We both know very well this is not the case, and that was one point made by St Robert Bellarmine when judging Galileo."

But this IS the case! Just that there wasn't any discernable change in size of the stars because the orbit of the earth and the distance of the stars is too small and too great respectively to notice any. I mean the closest star is 4.3 light years away. How could we notice this at that distance. Just because the effect does not make the stars so big doesn't mean it isn't there. This has already been confirmed by astronomers in 1838.

"because I believe that apparent movement to be due to the optic illusion of parallax, i e the one we experience in busses and trains."

Which comes back to which observations we take to be illusory and which ones we do not. This is science we can't randomly pick and choose our observations as valid or illusory based on some unverifiable ad hoc premises.

"according to an astronomy book from 1980 - 10,000 stars have observed parallax, the rest have not."

Well of course. Or overlapping methods of determining star distance tell us that most stars are many thousands and millions and billions of light years away. How can we possibly find the tiny amount of parallax on these?

"These proper movements are proper movements, there is nothing indicating them to be parallactic."

Except for the fact that they all happen to be moving at exactly the same time -although being many light years apart. Just us Ockham's razor and you will see that it is vastly more sensible to view them as parallactic.

"An angel moving mars could very well be dancing around the angle moving the sun." "each star could also be guided by an angel and the 10,000 ones showing parallax might be angels dancing in time with the sun."

This is a joke right?

"that celestial movements even could be explained by God or angels."
"Except of course the argument from accuracy."

So it wasn't a joke. Oh boy. Ok, so we DO need ad hocery with an angel for each and every star to make sure that it JUST HAPPENS to move in such a way to make the earth seem to go about the sun.

1.) Why would God deceive us like that?

2.) Is it also the case that magic fairies move objects such that they JUST HAPPEN to appear to obey Newton's laws?

3.) Why hold to a vastly complex model with millions of purely ad hoc premises (at least one for each angel on each star) when one could just hold to a very simple model that explains astronomical observations on a few premises?

"Calculations on celestial movements, based on the presumption of their purely mechanistic causes may as yet coincide in the results with the dance moves of celestial dancers."

Yes but we have no evidence that angels (who are described as human size) are doing all of this -and in such a way that we just coincidentally can't see them.

On Motion:

"obviously absence of motion could be either of two things: non-movement within frame or non-frame in which to move."

What would non-frame even mean? There is no such thing as a non-frame. Things have their own frames by definition.

"The refutation of solid but transparent spheres is an argument against using heavens as "a frame" in which earth could be moving."

Stars have been observed to exist at vastly different distances from 4.3 ly out to 13 billion yl out. Hence they are not on any transparent sphere. Neither has any such sphere been observed to exist.

Ego:  "No sphere of fixed stars has been observed."

It had up to 1838.

"But this IS the case! Just that there wasn't any discernable change in size of the stars because the orbit of the earth and the distance of the stars is too small and too great respectively to notice any. I mean the closest star is 4.3 light years away. How could we notice this at that distance. Just because the effect does not make the stars so big doesn't mean it isn't there. This has already been confirmed by astronomers in 1838."

Precisely not, since heliocentric interpretation invalidated the theory of a sphere of really fixed stars.

According to what was observed EITHER it must be that earth revolving yearly gets very different parallaxes from very differently distanced stars OR that stars approaching a sphere move in time with sun at different spacing or not at all. BOTH explanations fit parallax observations 1838 - 1980 perfectly. Which, by the way, is the logical observation that convinced me of geocentrism a few years ago.

A lack of movement only relative to moving frames has been observed, that does not mean that all lack of movement is only relative to frames that are moving.

"Sure it does. In principle how do you tell the difference between the two? If you can't this would show that their differences are meaningless."

Movement itself being precisely a difference (in position, relative to a frame), a lack of frame makes precisely also movement meaningless.

Lack of frame*, you said yourself: "No sphere of fixed stars has been observed. " Since 1838, either not fixed or not constellated in any kind of sphere.

‎"Ok, so we DO need ad hocery with an angel for each and every star to make sure that it JUST HAPPENS to move in such a way to make the earth seem to go about the sun. "

As said, it is not ad hoc at all. Angels moving things are also responsible for unforeseen things on earth, including "butterfly effects".

Also, to me it does not at all seem as if the 10 of 1000s of stars with a movement labelled parallectic among 100 or 200 of 1000s of stars oberved with no observable parallax at all proved RATHER a yearly movement of earth THAN existence of angels.

"1.) Why would God deceive us like that?"

Why would God deceive someone aching to be deceived so much he takes any equivocal evidence with a possibly heliocentric explanation as a univocal evidence of heliocentrism?

Free will. God left us free to chose what we want to consider.

The number of people deceived by your reasoning equal not mankind as such, but your school of thought plus the modern masses that were dragged along into accepting it in a few generations of compulsory school with compulsory inclusion of heliocentrism, in some countries of materialism or anti-Christian thought too.

"2.) Is it also the case that magic fairies move objects such that they JUST HAPPEN to appear to obey Newton's laws?"

Should I thank you for "magic fairies"? At least that is getting the fact my explanation is neither materialistic or otherwise monistic.

I gave an example of a man observing dancers as if they were robots. The dance moves as such need not refute him. If you chose to regard the universe as a big robot of gravitation and masses, the dance moves of "magic fairies" might coincide with the calculations you make.

Especially if they are not at present changing their moves, and you took observations of them in account when calculating.

"3.) Why hold to a vastly complex model with millions of purely ad hoc premises (at least one for each angel on each star) when one could just hold to a very simple model that explains astronomical observations on a few premises?"

And the real materialistic explanation would not be thousands of times more complex with forces of each atom? But if you count atoms as one explanation, despite the numbers of them, cannot I count angels as one explanation despite the numbers of them?

If you count angels as "ad hoc" although I profess their work is to be seen on earth as well, why cannot I count atoms as "ad hoc" although you say they are there all through earthly existing things as well?

A premiss (whether of explanation or of proof) is one or many not by the number of things of one kind in one capacity it involves, but if it involves one kind in one capacity, making it one premiss, or one kind in many capacities, or many different kinds, either of which makes it different premisses.

A premiss is "ad hoc" not by differring from scientific materialism, but by not being usable in any other context, having to be replaced by quite a different one in that other context, and yet a different one in a third context. Or being replaced by opposite kind in every other context.

You misunderstood this: I firmly believe perceptions are always bound to some sort of reality, even a hallucination in sleep is bound to the reality of dreaming.

I did not mean lucid dreaming. I included dreams not seen as such before waking from them and dreams presumably had under observed (by other person) REM sleep but completely forgotten.

CSL: everything is real, the real question is "a real what?" - A real monster or a real nightmare?

Heliocentrism is also a real thing, but is it a real science or a real pseudoscience?

Footnote on frames: it is not in the definition of a created thing to must needs have a frame, whatever is outermost has none. DIXI.