4 ms·

You didn't watch them perform an act in front of you, you watched them on a remote viewing device (telescope, youtube video, etc) which was in front of you. An

You didn't watch them perform an act in front of you, you watched them on a remote viewing device (telescope, youtube video, etc) which was in front of you. And no, you wouldn't deny it happened yesterday. If you were watching a live event in front of you you'd have the ability to interact with it, such as by asking your friend to stop. If you're viewing something that already happened, you don't have that ability to interact. Quantum theory and relativity aren't tools to decrease our specificity and understanding of the universe so they shouldn't be used to justify "all interpretations are valid" type statements.

anamexis 4y ago
A telescope isn't a remote viewing device, it's photons hitting my eyes just the same as if I were standing directly in front of whatever I'm observing. I'm not trying to do some new-agey "everything is valid" thing here. If I, like the photons, travelled from the source 671 million miles away to Earth at the speed of light, time would not have advanced for me at all. I would be telling you that what you are seeing is happening right this instant. And I would be right! And of course time on Earth has advanced considerably while I was traveling, from Earth's perspective. This is also true.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > A telescope isn't a remote viewing device, it's photons hitting my eyes just the same as if I were standing directly in front of whatever I'm observing. It is a remote viewing device because we're discussing using it to view remote events. And you're trying to say "just the same" despite that there are obviously some differences so it cannot be just the same. Try "somewhat analogously". > If I, like the photons, travelled from the source 671 million miles away to Earth at the speed of light, time would not have advanced for me at all. I would be telling you that what you are seeing is happening right this instant. And I would be right! No, because it took you 1 hour to get here, and if you went back you wouldn't be there at the time you left, so in no way are the events simultaneous. You're only describing subjective experience - and someone who travelled much more slowly in stasis would have the same subjective experience despite their report of objective simultaneity being even more obviously incorrect.

anamexis 4y ago

A telescope isn't a remote viewing device, it's photons hitting my eyes just the same as if I were standing directly in front of whatever I'm observing. I'm not trying to do some new-agey "everything is valid" thing here. If I, like the photons, travelled from the source 671 million miles away to Earth at the speed of light, time would not have advanced for me at all. I would be telling you that what you are seeing is happening right this instant. And I would be right! And of course time on Earth has advanced considerably while I was traveling, from Earth's perspective. This is also true.

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> A telescope isn't a remote viewing device, it's photons hitting my eyes just the same as if I were standing directly in front of whatever I'm observing. It is a remote viewing device because we're discussing using it to view remote events. And you're trying to say "just the same" despite that there are obviously some differences so it cannot be just the same. Try "somewhat analogously". > If I, like the photons, travelled from the source 671 million miles away to Earth at the speed of light, time would not have advanced for me at all. I would be telling you that what you are seeing is happening right this instant. And I would be right! No, because it took you 1 hour to get here, and if you went back you wouldn't be there at the time you left, so in no way are the events simultaneous. You're only describing subjective experience - and someone who travelled much more slowly in stasis would have the same subjective experience despite their report of objective simultaneity being even more obviously incorrect.