 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine a écrit dans le message <37CEE20E.C50F9EA4@isd.net>...
> ...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
--
*******************************
* Always listen to experts, * Jérôme M. BERGER
* 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>1 is arbitrary. 1=1 is redundant arbitration.
Let x = y
It follows that:
x - y = 0
And that:
2x - 2y = 0
Therefore:
x - y = 2x - 2y
But:
x - y = 1(x - y) and...
2x - 2y = 2(x - y)
So:
1(x - y) = 2(x - y)
Dividing both sides by (x - y):
1 = 2
(I know it's a falcity but it's fun to look at ;)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Let 1=1 and end the argument :)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> 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.
>
To prove this, first disprove the various "brain-in-a-jar" theories, e.g. the
infamous "Matrix"...
>
> 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.
>
> : )
>
What is evil for one can be good to another. Dare I ask whose common interests
you are referring to? :)
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > Ergo assumption is not the burden of proof.
> To prove this, first disprove the various "brain-in-a-jar" theories, e.g. the
> infamous "Matrix"...
I am not altogether familiar with these theories and since I was referring
to human bodies with real foots that can and will feel pain I can only assume
they are invalid where this topic is concerned.
> > 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.
> What is evil for one can be good to another. Dare I ask whose common interests
> you are referring to? :)
>
> Margus
The individual of course but society tends to stick together on such issues.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch <lan### [at] usanet> wrote:
: x - y = 0
: 1(x - y) = 2(x - y)
: Dividing both sides by (x - y):
You can't do it, since by definition x-y = 0. That would result in a
division (x-y)/(x-y) which is 0/0 which is not defined.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ahh, but there's the rub.
These theories basically state this: our definition of reality is empirical.
What a person calls reality is what he perceives with his senses. Therefore, if
you provide this person with complete artificial sensory input, this could
become his reality. In essence, you could put a brain in a jar, attach wires to
feed it sensory impulses, and thus create an alternate world for this solitary
brain.
There's a myriad of books, movies etc. on this subject. You may shrug it off as
paranoid nonsense, but the point is you have no way of disproving it...
So then, prove to me that the leg is real, the person is real and the pain is
real.
Or better yet, prove that YOU are real, "Mr. Tyler" >:)
The opposite becomes more and more credible with the advances in VR, AI and
whatnot...
Margus
Someone get me a bigger jar! <twitch>
Ken wrote:
>
> I am not altogether familiar with these theories and since I was referring
> to human bodies with real foots that can and will feel pain I can only assume
> they are invalid where this topic is concerned.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And that is why it is a fallacy. :-)
Christopher J. Huff
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The one without the blurred wheels. The blurred wheel version depicts
our perception of reality better, though, so it looks more realistic.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
>
[Snip]
> Post your reactions to my paradoxism thoery. It's always fun to hear
> people argue.
Yeah, it is, but I think, that it's better, when such arguing is going
on in some other place, e.g. in some chat room. It would be better, when
this NG server will keep POVRay line, dealing with philosophical (or
para-toxical) questions here seems to be unappropriate.
I believe that POVRay users ain't so freaked, that they don't have Real
Life (TM) and therefore are in need to satisfy their communication and
social needs in this server NGs. Go outside, (take Your friend with You)
look to the clouds, or sea, or setting sun, take deep breath and think:
"How can I render it?"
Enough of off topic, me thinks...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On the other hand....
That's a scientist speaking and artist would go with the blurred wheel.
Or would he?
Mick
Chris Huff <Chr### [at] compuservecom> wrote in message
news:37CFE551.B453FFAD@compuserve.com...
> The one without the blurred wheels. The blurred wheel version depicts
> our perception of reality better, though, so it looks more realistic.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> >1 is arbitrary. 1=1 is redundant arbitration.
>
> Let x = y
> It follows that:
> x - y = 0
>
You shouldn't say that, it makes the error too visible! You should say
something like:
x = y therefore x + y = 2x
therefore x + y - 2y = 2x - 2y
therefore 1(x - y) = 2(x - y)
...
The result (and the reason it's a fallacy) are the same, but much more
hidden :)
Jerome
--
*******************************
* Always listen to experts, * Jérôme M. BERGER
* 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
At my previous home I'd often watch the traffic going by while lying on
the lawn. There was a picket fence between me and the road. The wheels
looked like they were going backwards (just like old westerns). Weren't
noticably blurred, but the effect was sure interesting
Xander
Chris Huff wrote:
>
> The one without the blurred wheels. The blurred wheel version depicts
> our perception of reality better, though, so it looks more realistic.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> I can prove 1 does not equal 1.
>
> Start with -1 = -1. (An assumption) (Note... to line up the equation
> processes, put this message on "fixed width" font.)
>
> -1 = -1 (assumption)
> -1/1 = 1/-1 (fraction form)
> sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(1/-1) (sqrt both sides)
> sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1) = sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1) (radicals)
> sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1)= sqrt(1)*sqrt(1) (cross-multiply)
> -1 = 1
>
> Here we have just shown that 1 = -1.
>
> And indeed, all mathematical proofs are based on thoery.
May I point out that sqrt(-1) isn't defined? sqrt is only a function
from the set of positive reals into itself... (I know, if you take the
complexes, you can find a number (well two actually, that's the problem)
whose square is -1, but since you couldn't know wich to choose you can't
define *the* square root)
Jerome
--
*******************************
* Always listen to experts, * Jérôme M. BERGER
* 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:
> > What is evil for one can be good to another. Dare I ask whose common interests
> > you are referring to? :)
> >
> > Margus
>
> EXACTLY!!!!!
> These are the very basis of the argument, which Ken seems to have entirely missed.
> To prove I am feeling pain, first prove I exist, Mr. Ken.
Sorry. I have been having too many problems convincing people here that
I exist without adding you to the equation. Besides I don't by into this
whole line of questionable existence anyway. It's fun in the classroom
and around the coffee houses but I need no other proof than what my own
senses tell me. 20 years ago I endlessly debated the same material and
agree that it's fun but it serves no practical purpose other than to
create intellectual discussion. It's not really practical in any other
sense where defining our exsistance is concerned.
Besides as Xander said where is the raytracing topic in this ?
Hmmm... no.... not that either... well none I guess.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
But people would assume the person who is experiecing brick against foot
is not a Leper.
Graham.
Ken wrote:
>
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
GRedway wrote:
>
> But people would assume the person who is experiecing brick against foot
> is not a Leper.
>
> Graham.
And do not lepers feel pain ? Do they not in fact suffer more pain in their
lives than most humans ever will ? I think you know the answers to these
questions as well as I do. Hmmm... how would I model skin afflicted with
leprosy... Iso surface patch to the rescue...
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> Maybe because people are so anxious to argue a point, I suppose what we
> all need is to find a good > chat room and all go there at the same time.
comp.graphics.rendering is probably the most unused and unsubscribed to
group that I know of. Off topic chats could be held there and there is
no one there who would complain. There is no one there period except for
Jon Cruz and myself.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>
> Besides I don't by into this
> > whole line of questionable existence anyway. It's fun in the classroom
> > and around the coffee houses but I need no other proof than what my own
> > senses tell me. 20 years ago I endlessly debated the same material and
> > agree that it's fun but it serves no practical purpose other than to
> > create intellectual discussion. It's not really practical in any other
> > sense where defining our exsistance is concerned.
> >
> > --
> > Ken Tyler
>
> Ok, yes it's getting off the topic. But the point is, we cannot rely on our
perception.
> What if the universe is four-dimensional, and we only percieve three? But this
brings up
> another VERY good point... indeed many philosophers define reality as what we
percieve.
> Because in essence, all we know is what we can percieve, and even if were in the
Matrix
> or something, it's real to us. (And indeed, how would the people pulled from the
Matrix
> know that it's not the other way around... the reality in which they battle the
alien
> ships and try to save humanity is the simulation?)
I think that you could debate yourself into insanity. A person needs to decide, at
some point, what is real and/or important to themselves. And the rest of the world
can take a hike. For me, a defination of good and bad needs a source outside
myself or that defination becomes merely conveince, nothing to live or die for.
I must accept most of what my senses give me. They are all I realy have.
Do I exist? "I think(raytrace,program,read, ect...), therefore I am."
People can debate my existance all they want, I won't go away.
Mr. Art
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Believe you just contradicted yourself... about the no complaints I
mean. <amused>
Bob
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message
news:37D044AC.68B32602@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Larry Fontaine wrote:
> > Maybe because people are so anxious to argue a point, I suppose
what we
> > all need is to find a good > chat room and all go there at the
same time.
>
> comp.graphics.rendering is probably the most unused and unsubscribed
to
> group that I know of. Off topic chats could be held there and there
is
> no one there who would complain. There is no one there period except
for
> Jon Cruz and myself.
>
> --
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob Hughes wrote:
>
> Believe you just contradicted yourself... about the no complaints I
> mean. <amused>
>
> Bob
Yes but we won't complain ;0
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Should there be a povray.ot.discussion sort of thingy?
If a topic goes OT then it gets booted over there and continued
or droped. And no, it is not OT in this ng becouse the root is
still povray.
Mr. Art
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> Yes I admit, way off the topic. Exactly why is it, though, that these things
> get so much attention and not the POVray itself? My lego phalanx and trapped
> images have a measly 2 or 3 responses. Maybe all you people could take a
> look at those, too, in p.b.i. And not a single response to my
> LEGO-generating macro since I moved it to p.t.s-f. Maybe because people are
> so anxious to argue a point, I suppose what we all need is to find a good
> chat room and all go there at the same time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
> I do. Hmmm... how would I model skin afflicted with
> leprosy... Iso surface patch to the rescue...
>
POV medical image gallery? Hmm...
Margus
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Don't be such a party-pooper Ken ;)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Ken wrote in message <37CF952D.7C9B3AB4@pacbell.net>...
>
>Let 1=1 and end the argument :)
>
>--
>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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks for correcting my spelling ;) hehehe™
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Chris Huff wrote in message <37CFE4D6.B83A631E@compuserve.com>...
>And that is why it is a fallacy. :-)
>
>Christopher J. Huff
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
UM, HELLO???
To all those people that responded saying it was impossible, didn't I
already say that it was?
>> (I know it's a falcity but it's fun to look at ;)
*with corrected spelling of course ;)*
Is everyone taking me just a BIT too seriously today/tonight? At least Mr
Huff has the idea :)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Margus Ramst wrote:
>
> Ahh, but there's the rub.
> These theories basically state this: our definition of reality is empirical.
> What a person calls reality is what he perceives with his senses. Therefore, if
> you provide this person with complete artificial sensory input, this could
> become his reality. In essence, you could put a brain in a jar, attach wires to
> feed it sensory impulses, and thus create an alternate world for this solitary
> brain.
Perfectly true, the only thing that can be concretely proven is the
old "cogito ergo sum" business. That is, if by "concretely proven"
we mean that no assumptions of any kind are ever made along the way,
including the assumption that our sensory data isn't hallucinatory,
or that our memories of the past aren't, to cite Douglas Adam's
Ruler of the Universe "merely a fiction designed to account for
the descrepency between my current physical sensations, and my state
of mind..."
However, Adams' fabulously wise Ruler also illustrates the only
good answer to such arguments; While accepting nothing as a concrete
fact, he acknowledges that "The Lord knows I am not a cruel man."
(He of course, means his cat, whom he calls "The Lord" and is kind to).
>>>>
"Aha!" shouted Zarniwoop, pressing home his point, "But how do you
know HE exists, or that he knows you to be kind, or enjoys what you
think of as your kindness?"
"I don't," said the old man, "It simply pleases me to behave in a
certain way to what appears to be a cat. Do you behave any
differently?"
<<<<
I laugh at the (currently fashionable once more) mindless slogan
"Never assume!" so idiotically spouted by business and government
---ahem--- "leaders" today, since, it is clear that assumption is
the fundamental basis of all sane, productive human thought. The
problem is not whether or not you assume, but whether or not the
assumptions you choose to cling to are reasonably safe ones. The
only way to find that out is continually test them until something
breaks. When it does, bite the bullet and QYA. Until then, I say:
chill out! (and get a better slogan...)
Charles
--
"Waiter! My food for thought has a fly in it!"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Or, you could just use the dandy world of Complex Numbers :)
By definition i = sqrt(-1)
Oh, and it's also interesting to note that all numbers are complex, it's
just that the imaginary i value has a co-efficient of 0.
By introducing this number any equation where there are negative sqrts can
be solved. (after all, if we didn't do that, the poor Julia and Mandelbrot
sets wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't want that now would we?)
;)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Larry Fontaine wrote in message <37D054E0.A679C841@isd.net>...
>> May I point out that sqrt(-1) isn't defined? sqrt is only a
function
>> from the set of positive reals into itself... (I know, if you take the
>> complexes, you can find a number (well two actually, that's the problem)
>> whose square is -1, but since you couldn't know wich to choose you can't
>> define *the* square root)
>
>You're right, it can be (0,1) or (0,-1). And those multiplied would be 1,
not
>-1. But that happens with positive numbers too. The square root of 1 is 1
or -1.
>And -1 times 1 is -1, not 1. Which would seem to imply that whichever
number you
>choose as the square root, you must use the same one when you square it
back,
>which makes sense because A^2 means A*A, not A*-A. So I don't think that's
an
>issue.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> Nothing can be proven without an assumption.
> ...
> 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.
>
That's why I find Kant's basis of morality so fascinating, he starts with
the assumption that there is a universal moral law, and uses that (along
with the assumption that good intentions are the only thing that could be
called good under all circumstances, which he does have an argument for to
back it up) to argue what such a law would have to be.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote in message <37D0396F.4A8C7993@isd.net>...
>Mark Wagner wrote:
>PS now the scientists think the universe is finite.
Actually, it could very easily be infinite and bounded, instead of finite
and bounded.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote in message <37cfb224@news.povray.org>...
>Lance Birch <lan### [at] usanet> wrote:
>: x - y = 0
>
>: 1(x - y) = 2(x - y)
>
>: Dividing both sides by (x - y):
>
> You can't do it, since by definition x-y = 0. That would result in a
>division (x-y)/(x-y) which is 0/0 which is not defined.
Actually, under some circumstances it is defined. For example, lim x->0
(x/x)
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote in message <37C### [at] pacbellnet>...
>
>
>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.
> 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.
And then, when the person in question just stands there waiting for
something to happen, you realize that you happened to pick one of the rare,
unfortunate people in the world whose nervous system is unable to detect
pain, and you realize that you were making assumptions all along.
>Ergo assumption is not the burden of proof.
Just disproven.
>> 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.
So evil is anything that interferes with self-preservation, eg:
I'm short on cash, and I need to buy food in order to keep from starving to
death. Therefore, I break into your house to steal some money. This is
Good, because if I didn't, I would not be able to buy food, thus interfering
with my self-preservation, which would be Evil. I pick up some cash, the
stereo, the television, and the top-of-the-line computer system, and am
walking out to my car with them when you come downstairs to see what is
going on. You are obviously about to stop me from walking away with the
stuff I am carrying, so I pull out a gun and kill you. This act is Good,
because not doing so would allow you to stop me from taking the items I need
to sell so I can buy food.
> It is in the common interest of everyone
>to define that which may cause us harm
Then why are things like birth control often considered evil? It would seem
like the alternative, unlimited population growth, would be evil, because
unlimited population growth will quickly lead to a shortage of food, which
would cause harm to a great many people.
>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.
People fear harm.
People fear pain.
Therefore, evil is bad.
Therefore, pain is bad.
Therefore, pain = evil.
What doesn't make sense here?
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Wagner wrote:
> >Ergo assumption is not the burden of proof.
>
> Just disproven.
Disproven ?!! Poppycock and bolderdash ! You have merely provided
evidence that there are exceptions to the rule and have done nothing
to disprove reality. You may banty words but you need to provide
stronger arguments than those you just provided to convince me otherwise.
> >The definition of evil is easy to explain because it is inextricably
> >tied to self preservation.
> >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.
>
> People fear harm.
> People fear pain.
> Therefore, evil is bad.
> Therefore, pain is bad.
> Therefore, pain = evil.
>
> What doesn't make sense here?
>
> Mark
You may have broadened the discussion but you have provided no evidence to
disprove my statements. Philosophical debate is not one of my stronger suits
but stubborn belief is one of my strongest character traits. Your going to
have to do better than that.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> <snip> Philosophical debate is not one of my stronger suits
> but stubborn belief is one of my strongest character traits. Your going to
> have to do better than that.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> See my 850+ Povray and 3D Rendering and Raytracing Links at:
> http://home.pacbell.net/tylereng/index.html
Ken, maybe you should use "steadfast" instead of "stubborn".
With steadfast, you hold onto what is right in spite of all the
fools that try to lead you astray. With sutbborn, you refuse
to give in even after you begin to belive the oposition.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
How about this:
-1 = (-1)^3 = (-1)^(6/2) = ((-1)^6)^(1/2) = 1^(1/2) = 1
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Lance Birch wrote:
>
> Or, you could just use the dandy world of Complex Numbers :)
>
> By definition i = sqrt(-1)
>
Not quite, i is just *a* number whose square is -1. sqrt(-1) is
undefined since the definition of sqrt is as follows: "sqrt is the
function wich to each *positive real* number x associates the *positive*
real number y such that y*y=x". You can't define *the* square root of a
negative (or complex non real positive) number because there are two and
no good way to differentiate them (you can always design a way, but it
won't have the interesting properties with regard to addition and
multiplication that real number ordering has).
--
*******************************
* Always listen to experts, * Jérôme M. BERGER
* 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"KARMA POLICE, arest this man, he talks in math!"
;)
OK, so it's not totally correct, but I'm just a naive student learning this
stuff as part of my high-school mathematics course, what more do you people
want from me??? ;)
We were taught that I is defined as sqrt(-1) because I^2 = -1. After all,
it all works doesn't it? :) Anyway, gotta run, I've got school...
(MUMBLEMUMBLE)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Jerome M. BERGER wrote in message <37D57C5C.AF827271@enst.fr>...
>Lance Birch wrote:
>>
>> Or, you could just use the dandy world of Complex Numbers :)
>>
>> By definition i = sqrt(-1)
>>
> Not quite, i is just *a* number whose square is -1. sqrt(-1) is
>undefined since the definition of sqrt is as follows: "sqrt is the
>function wich to each *positive real* number x associates the *positive*
>real number y such that y*y=x". You can't define *the* square root of a
>negative (or complex non real positive) number because there are two and
>no good way to differentiate them (you can always design a way, but it
>won't have the interesting properties with regard to addition and
>multiplication that real number ordering has).
>
>--
>*******************************
>* Always listen to experts, * Jérôme M. BERGER
>* 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:
> > We were taught that I is defined as sqrt(-1) because I^2 = -1. After all,
> > it all works doesn't it? :) Anyway, gotta run, I've got school...
> > (MUMBLEMUMBLE)
>
> Doesn't school suck? I know APUSH really sucks.
> Wouldn't it be a miracle if they could make a cough syrup that lasts even half
> the length of time between doses? Damn dry hack. I swear, I like pulled a
> muscle in a fit of coughing. And I'm sure the inch-thick layer of dust in the
> school doesn't help, but you know how they're all like Come to school unless
> you're on your death bed!
Really, I rather enjoyed APUSH, probably because the teacher was excellent
though. I can certainly agree with the cough syrup part, though I would find a
nasal decongestant / antihistamine that really worked even more useful in school.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> My mom says she's heard of people who cracked a rib coughind so violently. I hear
all
> the respiratory junk nowadays comes from city pollution. Who do I sue?
Wow, where do you live that has such a problem with pollution?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Larry Fontaine wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
>
> > Larry Fontaine wrote:
> >
> > > My mom says she's heard of people who cracked a rib coughind so violently. I
hear all
> > > the respiratory junk nowadays comes from city pollution. Who do I sue?
> >
> > Wow, where do you live that has such a problem with pollution?
>
> Earth. I don't know where THEY were from, though. I'm from Minneapolis. And there's
> certainly cities that have much more pollution than Minneapolis. Like Mexico City,
where
> the sky is always gray.
True enough, it's quite a pity too, air is something I'd really prefer to take for
granted
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> True enough, it's quite a pity too, air is something I'd really prefer to take for
> granted
I have lived in Southern California most of my life where smog is a way of
life in the inland cities (most of my time fortunately has been near the
coast) and I can relate to that comment. One could say that you can take
it for granted that the air is mostly bad. I once rendered a scene looking
out my window north towards Los Angeles and got the colors and look of the
sky perfect. It looked so unbelievable I scraped the idea and went for an
ideal sky instead because I felt no one here would accept the sky I portrayed
as "real". It's sad that the sky I live under is so boring and unreal looking
that no one from elsewhere would find it interesting or believable to look
at in my 3D work.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
