 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
It's the same world upside down or not. If I say your "paradox" is
paradoxical we'd be heading in the general direction of thought you
implied. Which is why I have to believe there isn't really a reason to
figure in such a way that leads to nonsense.
On the POV-Ray aspect of this possibly is the way objects, etc., can
be hidden completely from view (no reflection or shadows in the scene
to show otherwise) and yet still be there. A sound in a forest if a
tree falls kind of thing. Of course there's sound, but did the tree
fall if no ones there to hear it? Yes.
Hope you'll all please excuse me for even trying to write this.
Philosophy was never my forte.
Bob (<<< not a emoticon)
Larry Fontaine <lfo### [at] isd net> wrote in message
news:37CEE20E.C50F9EA4@isd.net...
> Nothing can be proven without an assumption.
> For example, numbers can only be defined using numbers. Numbers were
> made up by humans out of thin air. This thought came about from
> something my math teacher was saying about college courses where 1=1
> cannot be assumed. As part of a psychology class required for
becoming a
> teacher, there was a test that said, "Prove to me that there's a
tree
> outside that window." The only person who got an A wrote, "Prove to
me
> there's a window."
> Going along this tangent, one can also argue that morals cannot
exist
> without bias. A religious value of right vs. wrong takes the
position
> that good is good and evil is evil, period, but from the "evil"
> perspective, good is evil and evil is good. Kind of like the way
maps
> from the Southern hemisphere show North going downward.
> All this could lead to the idea that everything is a paradox.
> Actually, that would then make this theory self-defeating, bringing
down
> everything mankind believes with it. Which is maybe why arguments
always
> seem to end with irrational statements and nothing gained.
>
> How does this relate to POVray? Some may say it doesn't, but it goes
> along the same line as the discussion about "Eve's first morn" in
p.b.i
> that asks, "What makes something appear real?" That's why I decided
to
> post it, anyway.
>
> Post your reactions to my paradoxism thoery. It's always fun to hear
> people argue.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ...a test that said, "Prove to me that there's a tree
>outside that window." The only person who got an A wrote, "Prove to
me
>there's a window."
something appear real in a work of art ?." and the corollary : "How
the heck can I achieve through the medium that is raytracing ?"
>
>Post your reactions to my paradoxism thoery. It's always fun to hear
>people argue.
>
What was in question there was the notion of "proof" and the
limits of our reasonning, not reality itself. That's why throwing the
teacher through the window hoping that he hits the tree on his way out
deserves an "F".
BTW I loved your comments in the former thread "Eve's first
morning". Even if I disagree about the randomness of the process
(trees's growth might have something to do with genetics and
environment : my guess ; accidents in painting stay apparent only if
the artist chooses to leave them there) your description of the artist
painting not simply any tree but the idea of tree was enlightening.
And you made a very vivid portrait of the shape of reality with its
irregularities and accidents. Thanks.
Jean
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
>
> Nothing can be proven without an assumption.
> For example, numbers can only be defined using numbers. Numbers were
> made up by humans out of thin air. This thought came about from
> something my math teacher was saying about college courses where 1=1
> cannot be assumed. As part of a psychology class required for becoming a
> teacher, there was a test that said, "Prove to me that there's a tree
> outside that window." The only person who got an A wrote, "Prove to me
> there's a window."
> Going along this tangent, one can also argue that morals cannot exist
> without bias. A religious value of right vs. wrong takes the position
> that good is good and evil is evil, period, but from the "evil"
> perspective, good is evil and evil is good. Kind of like the way maps
> from the Southern hemisphere show North going downward.
> All this could lead to the idea that everything is a paradox.
> Actually, that would then make this theory self-defeating, bringing down
> everything mankind believes with it. Which is maybe why arguments always
> seem to end with irrational statements and nothing gained.
>
> How does this relate to POVray? Some may say it doesn't, but it goes
> along the same line as the discussion about "Eve's first morn" in p.b.i
> that asks, "What makes something appear real?" That's why I decided to
> post it, anyway.
>
> Post your reactions to my paradoxism thoery. It's always fun to hear
> people argue.
It's a load of bollocks, espoused by college students who have become so
tangled up in theories that they've abandoned reality. For instance, in
the example you give, anybody can bloody well see that there's a window,
and therefore there's no point in proving it. Likewise, 1 most certainly
equals 1; that's the whole point of having a 1 in the first place.
In the case of realism, the answer is simple. In the real world, light
interacts with matter in various predictable ways, and that matter has
properties which are potentially definable. To make your scenes more
realistic, determine the behavior and nature of light and matter, and
then try to make the numbers match.
-Xplo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This thought came about from
> something my math teacher was saying about college courses where 1=1
> cannot be assumed.
1 is arbitrary. 1=1 is redundant arbitration.
> As part of a psychology class required for becoming a
> teacher, there was a test that said, "Prove to me that there's a tree
> outside that window." The only person who got an A wrote, "Prove to me
> there's a window."
Prove to me that course existed and I might believe you passed it. I hated
professors like that. Had an art teacher that forever berated me about
doing anything realistic, so I drew slop with my eyes closed and he say I
improved. Bah!
> Going along this tangent, one can also argue that morals cannot exist
> without bias. A religious value of right vs. wrong takes the position
> that good is good and evil is evil, period, but from the "evil"
> perspective, good is evil and evil is good.
Evil is when you do something to someone else what you wouln't want done
back to you. The exception being evil people who generally don't care about
anything or anyone. But, you say, I could live in a world of evil because
evil would be good! Well, since murder is considered evil from a good
perspective, it would be good to murder in the evil world, therefore you
wouldn't be alive for very long at all.
> Kind of like the way maps
> from the Southern hemisphere show North going downward.
> All this could lead to the idea that everything is a paradox.
There is a North and a South but there's no rule that says one is up or
down. And very few things are two game birds.
> Actually, that would then make this theory self-defeating, bringing down
> everything mankind believes with it. Which is maybe why arguments always
> seem to end with irrational statements and nothing gained.
Sometime people agree to disagree, while other times they use a bit of what
little they do agree on to come to a better conclusion. I think you just
brought this up so you could steal my precious!
> Post your reactions to my paradoxism thoery. It's always fun to hear
> people argue.
I think blue is the best color.
-Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Sep 1999 21:45:22 -0500, Mike <pov### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>I think blue is the best color.
But Mauve has the most RAM.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike wrote:
>
> > This thought came about from
> > something my math teacher was saying about college courses where 1=1
> > cannot be assumed.
>
> 1 is arbitrary.
Yes and no, saying that "one" or "1" (seen as a sequence of sounds or
symbols on the paper) refers to the notion of unity is indeed arbitrary,
but the notion itself is something else entirely...
> 1=1 is redundant arbitration.
I noticed that "=" is not defined here, so 1=1 is not redundant, it's
just a partial definition of "equality". :) (This argument can go on for
ever since it has been proven that no language can completely describe
itself)
>
> > As part of a psychology class required for becoming a
> > teacher, there was a test that said, "Prove to me that there's a tree
> > outside that window." The only person who got an A wrote, "Prove to me
> > there's a window."
>
> Prove to me that course existed and I might believe you passed it. I > hated
> professors like that. Had an art teacher that forever berated me about
> doing anything realistic, so I drew slop with my eyes closed and he say > I
> improved. Bah!
Well, art is as much in the process of creation as in the way people
see it... If your teacher saw your first tries as very bad attempts as
realism and the last one as better abstraction, his remarks are
understandable.
>
> Evil is when you do something to someone else what you wouln't want done
> back to you. The exception being evil people who generally don't care > about
> anything or anyone. But, you say, I could live in a world of evil > because
> evil would be good! Well, since murder is considered evil from a good
> perspective, it would be good to murder in the evil world, therefore you
> wouldn't be alive for very long at all.
Unless you murdered everyone before that :) May I simply point out that
the opposite of "murder is evil" isn't "murder is good" but rather
"murder is either good or neutral". Keep in mind that the world isn't
simply black and white, there are also shades of gray...
>
> > Kind of like the way maps
> > from the Southern hemisphere show North going downward.
> > All this could lead to the idea that everything is a paradox.
>
> There is a North and a South but there's no rule that says one is up or
> down. And very few things are two game birds.
True.
>
> > Actually, that would then make this theory self-defeating, bringing > down
> > everything mankind believes with it. Which is maybe why arguments > always
> > seem to end with irrational statements and nothing gained.
>
> Sometime people agree to disagree, while other times they use a bit of > what
> little they do agree on to come to a better conclusion. I think you > just
> brought this up so you could steal my precious!
>
> > Post your reactions to my paradoxism thoery. It's always fun to hear
> > people argue.
>
> I think blue is the best color.
So do I :)
>
> -Mike
Jerome
--
*******************************
* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it. *
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote in message <37CEE20E.C50F9EA4@isd.net>...
>Post your reactions to my paradoxism thoery. It's always fun to hear
>people argue.
Let S be the set that contains a set x if the set x does not belong to
itself
S={x|x not an element of x}
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Xplo Eristotle wrote in message <37C### [at] unforgettablecom>...
>Likewise, 1 most certainly
>equals 1; that's the whole point of having a 1 in the first place.
Actually, that cannot be proven (I think). It is one of those basic
assumptions that all of mathematics is based on. If someone could prove
that 1 does not equal 1, then all of mathematics would be invalid :-)
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
>
> Nothing can be proven without an assumption.
That is poppycock ! If I smash your foot with a large brick one may
think I have an assumption that you will feel pain when I do so (unless
of course you are dead when it happens). The truth is that through
repeated observations and from personal experience I need no assumptions
to know that you are going to feel pain. Lots and lots of glorious,
excruciating, deep down to the bone, face whincing, voice screaming,
oh wonderful, beautiful pain.
If I were to set up a demonstration in front of an audience that has
no idea as to what will happen you can be assured that when I raise the
brick and bring it down forcefully upon you bare naked foot that everyone
in attendance will KNOW that you have just experienced pain. There will
be no presumption on anyone's part where that is concerned. If anyone
doubts it (which is not the same as an assumption) they are welcome to
examine the severe distress on your face, your cries of anguish, and may
even examine the damaged member for evidence of tissue damage. I am not
assuming this because there is nothing that prevents me from knowing
otherwise.
Ergo assumption is not the burden of proof.
> Going along this tangent, one can also argue that morals cannot exist
> without bias. A religious value of right vs. wrong takes the position
> that good is good and evil is evil, period, but from the "evil"
> perspective, good is evil and evil is good.
The definition of evil is easy to explain because it is inextricably
tied to self preservation. It is in the common interest of everyone
to define that which may cause us harm and do what is necessary to
reduce the likelihood that it will do so. That which is harmful is
most often associated with evil.
People fear harm much as they do pain, physical or emotional, ergo
evil is bad, pain is bad, pain = evil, and one still equals one.
: )
> How does this relate to POVray? Some may say it doesn't, but it goes
> along the same line as the discussion about "Eve's first morn" in p.b.i
> that asks, "What makes something appear real?" That's why I decided to
> post it, anyway.
I have posted my thoughts on what is needed to make a human figure
appear more life like on this server in the past and it was a long
winded oration indeed. I instead invite you to take a good long look
at your own skin. Note how the light plays off of it, of how the
patterns look in the shadows and in the direct light. Note the
complexity of it's surface texture and definition. Draw your own
conclusions. Mine say that it takes a very skillful artisan to
recreate a life like figure and not the least of which is defining
the cover of the figure let alone it's shape.
--
Ken Tyler
See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A thought one that I cannot answer.
Which depicts reality better?
A picture of a car moving with the wheels drawn as if they were still or one
where the wheels are blurred?
Mick
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
