I give up Tom, you cannot see past your need to have a mathematical model, and to defien what you see by the metrics you understand.
So what is more likely?
The human eye is a perfectly calibrated piece of scientific equipment and we can trust the data as an accurate representation of scientific reality.
The human eye is the product of evolution and it's sole purpose is to give us the best chance of survival. You are looking at the real world but do you see it correctly.
Darwin was a scientist as well.
Absolutely, but it is not possible to talk about how the eye works, how the brain works, how depth perception works and all the other things that may be involved when we look at a photograph or when we look at a real scene without considering human cognitive function. And you continually do and relate that directly the the geometry of perspective. You are a walking contradiction of your own definitions and conclusions and yet you still don't see it.
Laugh if you want, but if you can't understand that that act of looking involves collecting and interpreting data through an interface, and you don't wish to accept that that interface involves human cognitive function. Or if you think you refusal to question the nature of this and rather assume that what you see must match a mathematical model, because talking maths makes you a scientist, then you carry on. But I'm not the one photographing purely 2D data (mathmatically described as a facimile) because:
Those are certainly some ifs to think about. Here's another one: If reality is only a simulation, as has been hypothesized, then humans are not necessarily “real” beings, but instead predetermined, coded constructs within the simulation. In that case, ourselves, perspective and all other aspects of our universe are just algorithms running in the simulation - not much more than mathematical models at all.
Well, this thread looks like it's run it's course, so I'll go along with this diversion. First of all, what is "real", if anything at all, is a whole can of worms, in and of itself. Secondly, simply because something can be described mathematically does not mean it is predetermined. As I'm sure we're all aware, probabilistic events are not predetermined, yet are described by quite a bit of mathematics. While some may say that there are no probabilistic events, that, instead, we use probability and statistics as an approximation for phenomena too complicated to be worked out exactly, Quantum Field Theory posits that "reality" is inherently random. Yet, despite this inherent randomness, we can make very precise predictions about any number of things.
Then leave out predetermined. I'm not sure why I had it there in the first place. The terms code and algorithms can allow for non-predetermined events - for example, if they include a random number generator.
OK, sure. But it still doesn't make a difference. First of all, you have to define what is "real". For example, in modern physics, an electron is a point particle. It has zero size. Yet it has angular momentum. That doesn't make any [classical] sense. A point "particle" isn't a particle at all. A particle would have to have some size. And yet, even given that a particle would necessary have size, it would also necessarily be made of something. But an electron isn't made of anything (again, per modern physical theories). It just is.
So, what's "real"? Why can't information be as "real" as something physical. And now that I bring it up, what does it even mean to be physical? I guess it's like the whole God thing -- rather than say God created the Universe, it's easier to say that the Universe just suddenly came into being on it's own or has always existed. After all, if God created the Universe, where did God come from? You're just adding an extra unnecessary step by introducing God into the equation.
Thus, it's probably best to simply think of "reality" as information, and that information is, so far, best described by mathematics. The question then is two-fold: why is the information described by the particular mathematics we have found (or, at least, very nearly described by this mathematics) and why are the initial conditions (need not be "initial", but conditions at any particular state of the Universe) for the solutions what they were? If you like, you can define God as The Equations of "Reality" and the Initial Conditions. 😁
Since we have a hard time with that word, I also put it in quotes and said not necessarily. It's open.
Actually, I think people who hypothesize about reality being a simulation eventually decide that it doesn't matter much unless we can identify a difference.
I think it was classical physics that described an electron as a point particle (or as I remember it, a point charge) and the incongruity of that in the physical world was one of many things that led to modern physics.
It's unfortunate that the word "particle" has been used to describe any sub-atomic entity. A particle, to me at least, describes something that has form in the physical world. As soon as we delve into the sub-atomic realm, entities, from electrons, protons, neutrons and beyond, are foundational constituents of the physical world. It is hard to even find the right words because our minds are typically so pre-programmed to think in terms of 3D space, time and object - what our senses present to us - and language has evolved to describe our experience in the physical world. How to describe / conceptualize something that exists beyond the framework of the descriptive mechanism?
You can use geometry to define exactly how an image is formed on the sensor or the retina. If a person is 170cm tall and standing 200m away he subtends a specific angle on the sensor, then with the assumption the second person is 170cm tall then we can assume how much further he is away by comparing angles. But you have to measure the angles on the photo, the actual physical data.
That mathematical relationship is not true if you run it through the human cognitive function because you are no longer looking at absolute data.
The only world you can ever see or experience is the image generated by the brain based on the data from the eye. It depends not only on how the human eye has biologically evolved but how we've learnt to decipher this data through purely empirical means. I don't know why we find it so difficult to understand that the human visual system doesn't present you with absolute data. As you walk into a room your understanding of your favorite armchair is knowledge and memory of a deep and happy relationship. It is built form walking all around and compiling the data from all views, it is built from your knowledge of doing the same with other chairs. From all that data you have a deeper understanding of its true 3D shape, one that's a lot freer from the distortion when viewed from a singular point in space as perspective demands. Look again at Beau Lotto's optical illusion. We are not seeing absolute data that's being interpreted, we are seeing modified visual data that clarifies our interpretation.
And yet we are still treating vision on the basis that everything is a single still photo and that the geometry that defines that is the absolute data we see.
You can only ever see the world through the layer of human cognitive function, you can only view photos through that same layer. When you view a photo against the real 3D world you are not comparing retinal images. You are not able to see your retinal image.
We cannot keep making the blind assumption that what we perceive (we see) is absolute data as defined by linear geometry, or jumping from that retinal image to the processed construct of the brain and not allow for that extra process.
Yet Tom keeps doing this. If you apply the wrong mathematical model then your conclusions will be flawed. And Tom's conclusions about how we process information in both the real world and in photos is flawed because he keeps trying to relate both to linear geometry.
In some cases we probably could justifiably make that assumption because not everyone's eyes and brain interact in exactly the same way in every situation.
And in some cases Tom's conclusions are totally valid because not everyone's eyes and brain interact in exactly the same way in every situation.
You are assuming a generalisation about how everyone perceives/sees in exactly the same way in every situation which in itself is a flawed generalisation because not everyone's eyes and brain interact in exactly the same way in every situation.
Can we get this straight once and for all: I do NOT think that and never have. If you think I have said that, you have misinterpreted my meaning.
Andrew, please stop lying about me. It is highly offensive.
I agree with that. However, the mathematical model is not wrong.
I have used the same mathematical model that has been used in the theory of perspective for five hundred years. It has been remarkably well tried and tested. I haven't added anything to it. It leads to correct conclusions as has been demonstrated for the past five hundred years.
My conclusions are not about how we process the information, they are about the information itself (the light rays that enter our eyes), before we process that information.
That was the whole point of my OP: the two photos I showed are the same (within some small errors in alignment and some barrel distortion in one lens).
Therefore, a person looking at them will perceive the same for both (assuming the same viewing conditions, of course). If they perceive depth in one, they will perceive the same depth in the other. If one looks like a flat piece of text with a small picture in the top right corner, the other will look like a flat piece of text with a small picture in the top right corner.
On the other hand, if an alien from another planet sees one as a meaningless jumble of shapes, the alien will see the other as the same meaningless jumble of shapes.
How individual people perceive them is irrelevant, but what someone perceives in one photo, they will also perceive in the other because the photos are the same. Surely we can all agree on that? It is about as basic as you can get.
Seems to me you're saying that if everyone's vision is slightly different then there must be cases where they align directly with linear geometry, assumption unproven by observation? Isn't the scientific method that if you use a device to observe and then detect variation or abnormalities in the data that you should then examine the nature of the equipment to understand the data? It would be foolish to use the same human eye to re-examine the data then declare, "I see where I made my mistake."
I'm not assuming here but basing this on the observation, evidence and conclusions of my peers. I can pretty much guarantee that I still misunderstand some of it, but that is not proof of your argument just as your word salad doesn't prove me correct.
All this means is that you can't say, "you can see for yourself. Hold a photo in front of you while you are looking at the landscape and as you move it back and forward you will see a point where their perspective matches exactly," as mathematical proof of the geometry of the centre of perspective.
The meaning is clear, if you can never see your retinal image then what you do see with the human eye never matches linear geometry. If you use the statement in quotes as proof of fact to explain telephoto compression then your conclusions will be flawed because you are in effect declaring that what is in fact the variable to be the absolute data. If you don't "see" telephoto compression in the real world but only "see" it in a photo you need to be clear about which one of those two views actually represents the distortion of linear geometry. It's not about "no mathematical model" but about being clear in understanding the limits of the model and how to apply them.
This is not a bad thing. Do the maths and work out exactly how the world of absolute data should appear. Remember that geometry describes the distortion of shape when you map it to a 2D plane form a single unique viewpoint, not the true 3D shape. The world you do see is far more consistent, stable, easier to understand, and easier to both navigate and predict because of human cognitive function.
1) Your examples are of a 2D image there is no depth to perceive, (the actual example is "if you make a facsimile of a 2D image it will be identical”) Yet:
See where you apply the information gathered by making a facsimile and expand it to include 3D perspective and explicitly include perception by referencing a visual comparison.
2) Then in the fifth sentence:
That's about as flawed as a statement can get. Your statement above actually says; "how individuals see is irrelevant, all people must see the same because the photos are the same."
How people perceive either photos or the real world is becomes highly relevant if you if you are using a specific mathematical model to describe and predict that behavior. (I make no distinction about "individual" but refer to human cognitive function as actually being fairly consistent.)
You make the assumption that as the images are the same we must see them the same, thus you can cancel perception out of the equation. And because in your mind the difference between what we see and how we see it is irrelevant you further fail to notice that you then start to relate perception directly to linear geometry and direct people to view photos as visual proof of mathematical fact. The whole OP is doing just that, using visual example to confirm mathematical fact.
And you can quit trying to claim some moral high ground and trying to paint me as being below it or I'll be telling you exactly where to get off.
Andrew, you are lying blatantly and persistently to misrepresent what I say. That is not an acceptable way to conduct any rational scientific argument.
I am not going to reply separately to the points you made in your last post as they all seriously misrepresent what I said and what I meant.
