DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I have been following along.
You've been ignoring some contributions addressing your concerns.
Nothing in this thread suggests science has done anything to anyone, let alone anything magical.
The light is in our eyes...
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
You've been ignoring some contributions addressing your concerns.
Nothing in this thread suggests science has done anything to anyone, let alone anything magical.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Of course.
Years ago ( maybe 10 or so) in the philosophy fora I started a thread "How to create an objective Universe - using robotics"
It demonstrated that an objective universe indeed could be created subjectively by it's creator. It made use of trillions of microscopic cameras that allowed the robots to record and move with in this space individually, uniquely and yet collectively.
However there was one significant failure in the system of using cameras...and that was the fact that a camera can not record vacant space as vacant space. leaving the robots to survive in a reconstructed 3 dimensional rendition of a 2 dimensional world. The processing time required to do this rendering was utterly impracticable.
If humans were robots then seeing vacant space would not be necessary. However, we are not robots and our visual field is not just light and "seeing" vacant space is absolutely necessary.
It demonstrated that an objective universe indeed could be created subjectively by it's creator. It made use of trillions of microscopic cameras that allowed the robots to record and move with in this space individually, uniquely and yet collectively.
However there was one significant failure in the system of using cameras...and that was the fact that a camera can not record vacant space as vacant space. leaving the robots to survive in a reconstructed 3 dimensional rendition of a 2 dimensional world. The processing time required to do this rendering was utterly impracticable.
If humans were robots then seeing vacant space would not be necessary. However, we are not robots and our visual field is not just light and "seeing" vacant space is absolutely necessary.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Sorry, why do we need to see vacant space?
You know it's not vacant, right? It's full of air. Transparent air.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
What does the size of the population have to do with how we see? Is it more amazing that 10 fish can swim than that one fish can swim?
What exactly is the "light effect model"? If it is a scientific theory then, by definition, the scientific method has been used.
yeah and you can see air yes? duh!
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
To be a crank you have to do the opposite of what everyone else is doing.
You have a theory of light? They'll have a theory of dark.
You see objects? They see empty space between objects.
You try to pin them down to something defensible and they'll insist that they have already explained it to you or that you just can't understand with your conventional outlook.
OK
Couple of points here
Precisely what vacant space is in our field of view?
Next MOST of what we see does NOT emit light
Most of light is reflective light from objects
Object which emit light - sun - TV - torch ARE seen by/from their emitted light
What do I need to do to be deserving?
No
If everybody who noticed a problem
and then waited for agreement that a problem existed
we would still be walking naked on grasslands
OMNEG just when I think it could not get stranger it does
So I await your reply about the vacant space you are concerned about
So you trash the threads question and then complain about it being trashed.... good one!
maybe go back to your "evolution" solution...and start again...
WHAT vacant space????
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
There is no question. That is the problem.
well.... if all you can come up with is evolution little wonder that hey?
already explained ...go read...
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Evolution is the answer to the extent that there is any real question. What have you come up with? Trillions of cameras linking robots with large rendering times?
How do you manage to get into and stay in the science forums? Nothing you have posted is scientific and most is so vague as to be unanswerable.
There is no question here. Legitimate links were provided early on. You ignore those and continue with nonsense. This is the definition of trolling. There is no physics or math in any of your posts.
the following image although for all intents and purposes quite correct, can be misleading:
It shows the reversed image on the retina and the source.
yet the following image describes all we actually experience:
According to well understood theory, we do not actually see the source we only see the light that the source emits. ( on our retina)
How are we able to say we are seeing the source?
How do our light effect models allow for us to see the source (at location, "over there") even if historical ( ie. astronomy).
The only answer to the above so far has been recreating our visual field so that the source can be "seen".
Claim:
The sheer volume of processing, time/energy it would take, renders this outcome ridiculous and absurd. (inc uniformity across billions of observers)
Are there any other possible solutions to the question?
It shows the reversed image on the retina and the source.
yet the following image describes all we actually experience:
According to well understood theory, we do not actually see the source we only see the light that the source emits. ( on our retina)
How are we able to say we are seeing the source?
How do our light effect models allow for us to see the source (at location, "over there") even if historical ( ie. astronomy).
The only answer to the above so far has been recreating our visual field so that the source can be "seen".
Claim:
The sheer volume of processing, time/energy it would take, renders this outcome ridiculous and absurd. (inc uniformity across billions of observers)
Are there any other possible solutions to the question?
Last edited:
that's funny... I was about to ask you the same question...
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I'm not a quack, quantum or otherwise so it's easy.
you know... every now and then you actually post something that makes good sense... well done!
do you have any thing to contribute to the topic? ( other than attempting to flame and troll?)
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
The observers aren't linked just as a point of fact. Nothing is rendered as we aren't talking about Autocad.the following image although for all intents and purposes quite correct, can be misleading:
It shows the reversed image on the retina and the source.
yet the following image describes all we actually experience:
According to well understood theory, we do not actually see the source we only see the light that the source emits. ( on our retina)
How are we able to say we are seeing the source?
How do our light effect models allow for us to see the source (at location, "over there") even if historical ( ie. astronomy).
The only answer to the above so far has been recreating our visual field so that the source can be "seen".
Claim:
The sheer volume of processing, time/energy it would take renders this idea absurd. (inc uniformity across billions of observers)
View attachment 1472