Assumptions based on trust? Don't trust, verify.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPA8v-N1qo
Printable View
Assumptions based on trust? Don't trust, verify.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPA8v-N1qo
certainly what we see is not always what actually IS. But there is the issue of SCALE. Scale is there even regardless of what we see.
The videos I have posted are about the geometry of vision, perception and perspective. Can you expand on scale and what effects you think it has on perception and perspective?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
What are you trying to prove Alpha? Enlighten us.
Just inquiring into the geometry of visibles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beanz
Consider also eerie examples of when you perceive
movement that is not real. Have you ever noticed
how the moon appears to be moving eerily across the sky
as clouds pass in front of it on a cloudy, windy, eerie night?
A similar effect can occur when you are sitting in a
car at an eerie stoplight and the vehicle next to you starts to
move forward. For a moment you may feel that you
are moving backwards. This is despite the fact that
your vehicle has not actually moved and the adjacent
vehicle is the source of real movement.
@Alpha
Yes the senses are not always reliable. It is much better to test the physical nature of tangible substances.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
The laws of perspective are rooted in geometrical optics and not, as widely assumed, in rules and conventions of “realistic looking” painting, nor in the art of delineating 3D objects onto a 2D planar canvas, paper or screen.
What physical laws and facts actually define and determine perspective? Are these real physical laws, or just theories or only conventions? Are they demonstrable or hypothetical? Are the laws actually correct? Are they confirmed in reality by common sense? Are the applications of any such laws, fully understood and correctly practiced?
Alpha I agree, but dont we need our senses to read and interpret the tests? It is a Catch-22.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaYes the senses are not always reliable. It is much better to test the physical nature of tangible substances.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
Not always reliable does not mean unusable at all. We use our eyes and other senses to verify things every day. This is about understanding the differences between the two geometries.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellAlpha I agree, but dont we need our senses to read and interpret the tests? It is a Catch-22.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaYes the senses are not always reliable. It is much better to test the physical nature of tangible substances.Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
The physical, tangible geometry where we can interact and move around things in 3D and the visual geometry where things like perspective and perception, light, angles, and distance etc can affect the way things appear.
Take the example of looking down a set of railway tracks. The physical tangible geometry is that they will always be parallel to each other. The visual geometry is that they will appear to converge into a vanishing point.
The physical, tangible geometry of the substance is what is really occurring. The visual geometry is how things appear to the observer.
it is well known by seers, sages and shamans, and in the Tibetan Book of The Dead, that an object is really another object: we recently saw in quantum coupling that an object can be an object which is not itself. Objects therefore cannot have any shape, as they may or may not be the object you name it, but another object in its place. and if you see that an atom is 99.999975% empty, then you will know that objects are mere illusions. If an atom was the size of a football field, there would be a nucleus at midfield so small you would need a microscope to see its protons and neutrons, and the orbitals of the electrons would be 100 meters out in orbits. 99.99975% of the footbal field would be pure empty space. Objects are therefore 99.99975% hollow. What you see is not really an object.
Deep.
Are you claiming objects are mere illusions?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
We are seeing what we are seeing, we are hearing what we are hearing, feeling and smelling and tasting what we are feeling I'm smelling and tasting, BUT.....
BUT.....
They are not indicative of what the objects really are.
So they are objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
Well I don't really know what an object is because an object is made out of billions of atoms which I just told you are 99.99975% hollow or empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaSo they are objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
What is the essential unit? For me it certainly would not be billions of atoms which form billions of molecules which then form what we think is an object.
If we could get to a unit that we could all agree is the smallest unit then and only then could we say that is an object.
Immutable.
So they split the atom and then they split the subatomic particles and now we are splitting particles smaller than those.
So I don't even know if those can be considered objects.
Is a brick a physical object of our shared objective reality or a mere illusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellWell I don't really know what an object is because an object is made out of billions of atoms which I just told you are 99.99975% hollow or empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaSo they are objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
What is the essential unit? For me it certainly would not be billions of atoms which form billions of molecules which then form what we think is an object.
If we could get to a unit that we could all agree is the smallest unit then and only then could we say that is an object.
Immutable.
So they split the atom and then they split the subatomic particles and now we are splitting particles smaller than those.
So I don't even know if those can be considered objects.
We both see and say "brick" but I don't know what you are seeing, and you don't know what I am seeing. Take the color blue or pink. I don't know if you are seeing the exact same "color" as I am. But we agree it's blue, so some sharing must be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaIs a brick a physical object of our shared objective reality or a mere illusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellWell I don't really know what an object is because an object is made out of billions of atoms which I just told you are 99.99975% hollow or empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaSo they are objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
What is the essential unit? For me it certainly would not be billions of atoms which form billions of molecules which then form what we think is an object.
If we could get to a unit that we could all agree is the smallest unit then and only then could we say that is an object.
Immutable.
So they split the atom and then they split the subatomic particles and now we are splitting particles smaller than those.
So I don't even know if those can be considered objects.
What do you think?
On a sensory note molecular wise that is! I wonder if an alien world were to ever contact us and their visual perception isn't just greater in seeing distances like a bird, but sensitive eyes likened to a microscope. Could that be why they won't contact us?:-\Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellWell I don't really know what an object is because an object is made out of billions of atoms which I just told you are 99.99975% hollow or empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaSo they are objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
What is the essential unit? For me it certainly would not be billions of atoms which form billions of molecules which then form what we think is an object.
If we could get to a unit that we could all agree is the smallest unit then and only then could we say that is an object.
Immutable.
So they split the atom and then they split the subatomic particles and now we are splitting particles smaller than those.
So I don't even know if those can be considered objects.
Because we look like a moving massive blob of ever flowing bacterial microbes!!! Eww!!! :o Those beings residing on that 3rd speck of dirt from their closet ball of gaseous fire are most hideous looking!!:cwm31::sd:
The query becomes, what are objects? How to define objects? How to divide the categories of objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellWe both see and say "brick" but I don't know what you are seeing, and you don't know what I am seeing. Take the color blue or pink. I don't know if you are seeing the exact same "color" as I am. But we agree it's blue, so some sharing must be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaIs a brick a physical object of our shared objective reality or a mere illusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellWell I don't really know what an object is because an object is made out of billions of atoms which I just told you are 99.99975% hollow or empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaSo they are objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
What is the essential unit? For me it certainly would not be billions of atoms which form billions of molecules which then form what we think is an object.
If we could get to a unit that we could all agree is the smallest unit then and only then could we say that is an object.
Immutable.
So they split the atom and then they split the subatomic particles and now we are splitting particles smaller than those.
So I don't even know if those can be considered objects.
What do you think?
Objects are shareable.
Physical Objects (matter, substance, body):
Fixed, planar, level, and plumb, scalar invariant, tangible, figure and extension, (length, area and volume), moves and resists in its constituent parts, figured, colored, hard or soft, that moves or resists, rough or smooth.
Physicals:
Materials
Substances
Corporeal bodies
Rational constructions
Engineer-able
Arithmetic
Euclidean Geometry
Visible Objects (color, figure, extension, signs)
Changing, spherical, great circles & semi-diameters, excess & defect, visible, figure & extension (length, area), colored, visible position
Sensibles:
Of Seeing
Of Hearing
Of Smelling
Of Tasting
Of Touching
Visible Geometry
Perceptions
Mental Objects (objects of thought, concepts, ideas, things signified)
Attachments, attention, perception, beliefs, no shape, no size, nor does they share any other attributes or properties of physicals and/or opticals
Mentals:
Ideas
Concepts
Imagination
Images
Representations
Mathematics (Ratio of quantity)
Language
Well those are categories but of what, really, besides the Euclidean geometries? Olfactory sensations and perceptions may or may not indicate a shareable object. Imaginary objects are something in a whole nother can of worms. If I imagine an object, there are no sense perceptions, do you feel the shadows in the cave were objects or just 2nd rate indications of objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaThe query becomes, what are objects? How to define objects? How to divide the categories of objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellWe both see and say "brick" but I don't know what you are seeing, and you don't know what I am seeing. Take the color blue or pink. I don't know if you are seeing the exact same "color" as I am. But we agree it's blue, so some sharing must be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaIs a brick a physical object of our shared objective reality or a mere illusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellWell I don't really know what an object is because an object is made out of billions of atoms which I just told you are 99.99975% hollow or empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaSo they are objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
What is the essential unit? For me it certainly would not be billions of atoms which form billions of molecules which then form what we think is an object.
If we could get to a unit that we could all agree is the smallest unit then and only then could we say that is an object.
Immutable.
So they split the atom and then they split the subatomic particles and now we are splitting particles smaller than those.
So I don't even know if those can be considered objects.
What do you think?
Objects are shareable.
Physical Objects (matter, substance, body):
Fixed, planar, level, and plumb, scalar invariant, tangible, figure and extension, (length, area and volume), moves and resists in its constituent parts, figured, colored, hard or soft, that moves or resists, rough or smooth.
Physicals:
Materials
Substances
Corporeal bodies
Rational constructions
Engineer-able
Arithmetic
Euclidean Geometry
Visible Objects (color, figure, extension, signs)
Changing, spherical, great circles & semi-diameters, excess & defect, visible, figure & extension (length, area), colored, visible position
Sensibles:
Of Seeing
Of Hearing
Of Smelling
Of Tasting
Of Touching
Visible Geometry
Perceptions
Mental Objects (objects of thought, concepts, ideas, things signified)
Attachments, attention, perception, beliefs, no shape, no size, nor does they share any other attributes or properties of physicals and/or opticals
Mentals:
Ideas
Concepts
Imagination
Images
Representations
Mathematics (Ratio of quantity)
Language
So you disagree with how I define objects and how I have divided the categories of objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellWell those are categories but of what, really, besides the Euclidean geometries? Olfactory sensations and perceptions may or may not indicate a shareable object. Imaginary objects are something in a whole nother can of worms. If I imagine an object, there are no sense perceptions, do you feel the shadows in the cave were objects or just 2nd rate indications of objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaThe query becomes, what are objects? How to define objects? How to divide the categories of objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellWe both see and say "brick" but I don't know what you are seeing, and you don't know what I am seeing. Take the color blue or pink. I don't know if you are seeing the exact same "color" as I am. But we agree it's blue, so some sharing must be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaIs a brick a physical object of our shared objective reality or a mere illusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellWell I don't really know what an object is because an object is made out of billions of atoms which I just told you are 99.99975% hollow or empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaSo they are objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
What is the essential unit? For me it certainly would not be billions of atoms which form billions of molecules which then form what we think is an object.
If we could get to a unit that we could all agree is the smallest unit then and only then could we say that is an object.
Immutable.
So they split the atom and then they split the subatomic particles and now we are splitting particles smaller than those.
So I don't even know if those can be considered objects.
What do you think?
Objects are shareable.
Physical Objects (matter, substance, body):
Fixed, planar, level, and plumb, scalar invariant, tangible, figure and extension, (length, area and volume), moves and resists in its constituent parts, figured, colored, hard or soft, that moves or resists, rough or smooth.
Physicals:
Materials
Substances
Corporeal bodies
Rational constructions
Engineer-able
Arithmetic
Euclidean Geometry
Visible Objects (color, figure, extension, signs)
Changing, spherical, great circles & semi-diameters, excess & defect, visible, figure & extension (length, area), colored, visible position
Sensibles:
Of Seeing
Of Hearing
Of Smelling
Of Tasting
Of Touching
Visible Geometry
Perceptions
Mental Objects (objects of thought, concepts, ideas, things signified)
Attachments, attention, perception, beliefs, no shape, no size, nor does they share any other attributes or properties of physicals and/or opticals
Mentals:
Ideas
Concepts
Imagination
Images
Representations
Mathematics (Ratio of quantity)
Language
No. I just felt those were definitions more of our sense perceptions rather than of the objects we feel we are perceivingQuote:
Originally Posted by AlphaSo you disagree with how I define objects and how I have divided the categories of objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellWell those are categories but of what, really, besides the Euclidean geometries? Olfactory sensations and perceptions may or may not indicate a shareable object. Imaginary objects are something in a whole nother can of worms. If I imagine an object, there are no sense perceptions, do you feel the shadows in the cave were objects or just 2nd rate indications of objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaThe query becomes, what are objects? How to define objects? How to divide the categories of objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellWe both see and say "brick" but I don't know what you are seeing, and you don't know what I am seeing. Take the color blue or pink. I don't know if you are seeing the exact same "color" as I am. But we agree it's blue, so some sharing must be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaIs a brick a physical object of our shared objective reality or a mere illusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBellWell I don't really know what an object is because an object is made out of billions of atoms which I just told you are 99.99975% hollow or empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaSo they are objects?Quote:
Originally Posted by NoSavingByTheBell
What is the essential unit? For me it certainly would not be billions of atoms which form billions of molecules which then form what we think is an object.
If we could get to a unit that we could all agree is the smallest unit then and only then could we say that is an object.
Immutable.
So they split the atom and then they split the subatomic particles and now we are splitting particles smaller than those.
So I don't even know if those can be considered objects.
What do you think?
Objects are shareable.
Physical Objects (matter, substance, body):
Fixed, planar, level, and plumb, scalar invariant, tangible, figure and extension, (length, area and volume), moves and resists in its constituent parts, figured, colored, hard or soft, that moves or resists, rough or smooth.
Physicals:
Materials
Substances
Corporeal bodies
Rational constructions
Engineer-able
Arithmetic
Euclidean Geometry
Visible Objects (color, figure, extension, signs)
Changing, spherical, great circles & semi-diameters, excess & defect, visible, figure & extension (length, area), colored, visible position
Sensibles:
Of Seeing
Of Hearing
Of Smelling
Of Tasting
Of Touching
Visible Geometry
Perceptions
Mental Objects (objects of thought, concepts, ideas, things signified)
Attachments, attention, perception, beliefs, no shape, no size, nor does they share any other attributes or properties of physicals and/or opticals
Mentals:
Ideas
Concepts
Imagination
Images
Representations
Mathematics (Ratio of quantity)
Language
The categories were good and I'm not saying I disagree. I can understand the logic that you use to make those categories. But the descriptions such as euclidean or planar seem to be more like descriptions of the object rather than indicative of types of objects
Because some objects will have more than one of those parameters or qualities but it doesn't make them more than one object. so I'm not really sure that the description of an object is an indication of the type of object
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress...orced-pers.jpg
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress...still-life.jpg
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress...int-source.jpg
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress...0/12/illum.jpg
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress.../invers-sq.jpg
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress...2/illusion.jpg
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress.../a-diorama.jpg
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress...l-illusion.jpg
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress...azzo-spada.jpg
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress...ersp-techn.jpg
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress...tem-stairs.jpg
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress...isual-perc.jpg
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress...otomontage.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha
Cezanne is not really about perspective. His genius is to allow viewers to disentangle themselves from the idea that painting is in any way truly representative. It is always someone else's perception from a particular viewpoint but in allowing his own feelings and ability to acknowledge the futility of photorealism he shows the viewer an impression that is uniquely his, including his emotional state in that rendering. Less really is more and there is far more truth in that painting than any photographer could ever hope to capture.
Acuity is about sharpness. That hunt for an edge has led to the lenses and sensors of today which many people find too cutting and not like how we see the world at all. What you focus on is very much governed by time and your own preconceptions but physics will never reveal that bias because it is uniquely individual. It is a big part of what makes us human.
We interpret signs and attribute meaning to everything. To think that 'natural science' could explain that is ludicrous.
As I've said before, this is an enquiry into visual geometry and the difference between visual and physical geometry.
Cezanne's painting is there because it is presented under forced perspective, which was what my previous post was about. As stated by Wikipedia:
https://mainlyboxing.files.wordpress...020/12/art.jpg
I'm not sure why you are bring up natural science in this thread unless you have practical demonstrations and practical reference points in this reality for me.
Visual geometry is different from physical geometry, e.g. railway tracks appear to converge at a vanishing point. The physical geometry is that parallel lines never intersect. The railway tracks only appear to be coming together, the reality is they are always the same distance apart.
Have a great New Year Beanz, all the best to you and your family.
visual geometry depends on eyeballs, optic nerves, rods, cones -- all physical geometries of their OWN. If I visually/physically observe an eye operation by a surgeon, I will visually perceive the eyeball, optic nerve, rods and cones --- they will seem to have their own physical geometry according to the visual geometry of my OWN eyeballs, optic nerves, rods and cones. It is a concentric circle of increasing intrigue.