Povray implements a raytracing paradigm. As such its endpoint is depiction
not simulation.  Simulation is integral to, but only part of, its means ( a
raytracer's that is ).  As your question sketches out, there are some
interesting ways that the raytracing paradigm, (and by extension, povray's
excellent implementation of it ), causes us to revisite some intriguing
questions from the history of pictorial art and the world of phenonmena.
What achieves the greatest sense of "reality" in a depiction.  Does it
proceed from knowledge, is it synthesized from a depictional language, or
is it bound by the reception of pure phenonmena?  Do you present "reality"
by recording its associated phenonmena?  Or does its accurate depiction
extend from it's accurate understanding.  Is perception a matter of
sensation or concept.  These questions have stood behind the work of
imagemakers and their commentators to numerous to mention.

Post a reply to this message