Jump to content
Science Forums

Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?


Recommended Posts

On 2/16/2021 at 6:20 PM, Evolute said:

No, I'm not basically saying that, I AM saying that. The dynamic you say you are fearing occurs on a scale the size of microns. Divide an inch into centimeters (2.54) now divide the centimeters into millimeters (250). Now take one of those millimeters and divide it into a one million micron segments along a straight line. That will equal about 500,000 rods or cones. Turn the line into a circle, and fill the circle with about 125 million MORE rods and cones. One red blood cell is approximately 10 microns. Can you see one with the naked eye ? Rods and cones are 1 quarter of that size, but even that small each one will catch millions of photons.

 

I see how you are trying to help me but frankly it's only making it worse.

I know that photo-receptors are tiny and the signals coming of them would be tiny. If human perception does work like that, the number of possible images our eyes could see would be immense. But to me, that does not make even the slightest bit of difference. Because it still means there are a finite number of images we can possibly see.

I can see the way you think, it's a finite number but such a large number it's not worth bothering about because you'll never exhaust it in your lifetime. But I don't think like that and I don't want to think like that.

The infinite possibilities of art is one of the reasons I love it and if it's not infinite then I won't feel good about it. Simple as that.

I didn't start this thread to change my way of thinking or look at it another way. I wanted to know if photoreceptors does work like the diagram I found and put at the start of this thread. 

Do they? 

And if so, I also want to know if we know this for sure and how we know it. Have scientists ever observed the signals coming through the optic nerve? Or what those signals contain?

Or is this vision of vision just an educated guess? Is it something that is considered bad science?

Are photo receptors and their workings something of a mystery?

I ones ran this same concern through someone else I know and he said that "No one really understand the signals going along the optic nerve, because no one's been able to plug an eye into a computer." But for all I know, someone has. Or has done something similar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ok, I'll give it my last shot, being as there is no YES or NO answer. It is both KINDA and KINDA NOT. The eye has individual photoreceptors that are akin to pixels. There are 125 million of them

Your Question: “Is there a finite number of different images we can possibly see?”   You requested a Yes or No response and, in my opinion, the answer is No. In case you are interested

Light does not have a infinite number of frequencies you can see in the equation E=hf  that the frequency of light times the plank's constant is the energy and from that surmise that energy levels are

Posted Images

Art may be as infinite as the Human brain has the ability to invent it. Or as shades, tones and hues will allow- at least on THIS planet, in THIS reality. Visual perception is another matter. I see no solutions to the finer points that you make. But it may help to exchange the word fear with the word awareness and create art for art's sake, for you love of producing it. Understand that if you cannot notice what is missing in the visual representation, then chances are those that appreciate and love art, even at the highest, most discerning level, will still see a seamless landscape- mainly because our eyes are not frozen or static, they move, and when we look at art our eyes move across and around various mediums, whether canvas or sculpture. I really doubt we would miss a millionth of what is concerning you. We are constantly scanning, therefore we really do end up seeing it all.

Edited by Evolute
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

I find it to be a strange system since the chronon will have different values for different particles.

HAH! Got that right, but I get it now that a chronon nonetheless has a relative value rather than a fixed one. Good stuff, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Omni;

We don't have to know how things work, to experience the benefits. People watch TV for entertainment or educational purposes, without understanding the electronic processes that produce it. You don't have to know chemistry to bake a cake. PBS provides access for me to musical performances at places like Lincoln Center, which wouldn't be available otherwise. The enjoyment is in the hearing, and doesn't require any analysis on the part of the listener (unless you are a music critic). It's also a case of the total being greater than the sum of its parts (if in an auditorium for a live performance).

In natural occurring art, you never see all the details, but can appreciate what you do see. I have never seen a painting of a sunset, to match the real ones seen, since a painting is only a representation of something. The image of the Eiffel tower is not equivalent to seeing the Eiffel tower.

My point is, you can't expect to see an ideal world, since that is a mental construct of ideal forms, and relations. The real physical world, outside the mind, has variations/irregularities.

As an example, looking at a full moon with no instruments, your brain presents a bright circle with a smooth perimeter/circumference, and blotchy surface.

Using a small telescope with more light gathering ability than your retina, your brain presents a bigger bright circle, but with an irregular perimeter, indicating craters, hills, etc., and more detail of the surface facing you. The circle in the first case is gone.

If you were an anaut on the surface, your brain presents irregularities in the sloping sides of the craters, and small boulders and rocks at random locations. The brain constructs a mental image based on the amount of detail it receives. Bees can detect ultraviolet radiation thus you can't see what they see.

The conclusion is, you never see all the detail that exists, and it depends primarily on the distance to the subject matter, and less on the structure of the eye. The detail was there but the resolution wasn't. So we depend on auxiliary tools, telescope or microscope, to compensate.

The eye was not designed to see everything, since there was no necessity.
Welcome to the real world.

I second the thought from Evolute. Don't get fixated on an imaginary problem, enjoy the things that enrich your life.

_______________________________________

That word 'infinite' keeps popping up. It's a meaningless term that confuses issues, when used in the context of measurement/quantity.
Its meaning in the language of origin is 'without limit. I.e., if you have had a zillion visual experiences then you can always have more. To me that should be a reassuring thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 8:33 PM, Evolute said:

Understand that if you cannot notice what is missing in the visual representation, then chances are those that appreciate and love art, even at the highest, most discerning level, will still see a seamless landscape- mainly because our eyes are not frozen or static, they move, and when we look at art our eyes move across and around various mediums, whether canvas or sculpture.

I have considered before what you've said about eye movement. But it occurred to me that if muscles move when stimulated by electric signals, is there a minimum amount a muscle can move? Thus still making our perception finite?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what the last 2 members said but it doesn't change anything for me. 

I must insist that you give yes or no answers to the following questions.

Do photo receptors work like they do in the picture at the start of this forum? Yes or no?

If yes, is this something proven beyond all doubt? Yes or no?

Can humans see any one of an infinite number of images? Yes or no?

I don't see how I can make it any simpler to answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Omnifarious said:

I must insist.....

Do you now.

2 hours ago, Omnifarious said:

Do photo receptors work like they do in the picture at the start of this forum? Yes or no?

Generally, yes. But it's not to scale 😉

2 hours ago, Omnifarious said:

If yes, is this something proven beyond all doubt? Yes or no?

Not trying to be flip here but what do you think? Do you have doubts? Or do you think science just makes stuff up? Looks like something you could easily research on your own? Plenty of scientific papers on the subject as well as a high school biology textbook.

2 hours ago, Omnifarious said:

Can humans see any one of an infinite number of images? Yes or no?

Of course, but it would be better if you would define what you mean by "images". Size=distance, so how big?, How small? In what colors, or only gray tones? What kind of lighting? In what medium? Real life, photos, or applied art?

2 hours ago, Omnifarious said:

I don't see how I can make it any simpler to answer.

At least it's simpler than describing the color blue. But you're still not seeing or understanding the answers but prefer to go around in circles. And in doing so, I respectfully have to say that you keep moving the goal posts. I addressed the question that some photons will fall outside of a rod or cone which means if one stares straight ahead then an image in it's entirety at the quantum level will be incomplete. BUT! since our eyes are not static and do move around then all of an image will eventually register in the brain. I take a long time to look at artwork in a museum for that reason.

And that's my last comment on the issue. You came here expressing a certain fear that your entire art piece will somehow be diminished by a Human eye's physical limitations. And I'm saying your fear in unfounded due to the Human eye's ability to scan across artwork.

That isn't good enough for you? Then you need to kindly do some research until you are satisfied. My sneaking suspicion, however, is that you won't be, since you seem to fail to grasp the important points almost as if they had never been mentioned. So, good luck in your endeavors. Since I'm not an expert, let me know what you find. Hopefully you'll return in a more joyful state.

Edited by Evolute
Link to post
Share on other sites

Omni;

Science is still discovering new things in all fields. That is enough to conclude science doesn't have complete knowledge of everything.

Photo receptors are biological structures and pixels are electro-mechanical devices that work to simulate that portion of vision. Similar but not equivalent.

The graphical representations are according to current understanding in medical science. 

Science as in all knowledge is a process of constant refinement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Answer whether there was a smallest length or not and if the universe was infinite I posted the thread (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-planck-length-the-smallest-length-possible.999993/), the answer we got was a "I don't know", but I still lean toward the idea that the universe is not infinitely divisible since the answer is not known, because nothing we know of is infinite, which means there could be a minimum length at some point which is just smaller than the Planck scale. So, the final answers for now is no you cannot see a infinite amount of anything because the Universe nor Multiverse is infinite, in my opinion. Even barring that the human brain still cannot process an infinite amount of information thus you could never perceive a image that was infinite, just as my protein folding computer can only perceive a finite amount of "images"/states of proteins because of its fixed processing power of several teraflops. So, the final answer is NO! Nothing is infinite that the brain can perceive.

"Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist."

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VictorMedvil said:

......the answer we got was a "I don't know"........

Yep, that works. And I've always appreciated this quote from Paul R. Hill: "As is usually the case when facts are in short supply, emotions have ruled." And for the most part, as far as what I have observed? The "emotions have ruled" part tends to fall more on the side of fear.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 5:59 PM, Evolute said:

 

Not trying to be flip here but what do you think? Do you have doubts? Or do you think science just makes stuff up? Looks like something you could easily research on your own? Plenty of scientific papers on the subject as well as a high school biology textbook.

 

I don't know what you are saying here.

Are you saying that it's true and common knowledge?

On 2/20/2021 at 5:59 PM, Evolute said:

 

Of course, but it would be better if you would define what you mean by "images". Size=distance, so how big?, How small? In what colors, or only gray tones? What kind of lighting? In what medium? Real life, photos, or applied art?

 

I'm thinking of any image that can fit in our field of vision.

 

On 2/20/2021 at 5:59 PM, Evolute said:

At least it's simpler than describing the color blue. But you're still not seeing or understanding the answers but prefer to go around in circles. And in doing so, I respectfully have to say that you keep moving the goal posts. I addressed the question that some photons will fall outside of a rod or cone which means if one stares straight ahead then an image in it's entirety at the quantum level will be incomplete. BUT! since our eyes are not static and do move around then all of an image will eventually register in the brain. I take a long time to look at artwork in a museum for that reason.

I understand the answers you gave me, I just don't think they fix my problem.

I don't think I "move the goal posts." If anything I think I've only made the question clearer. 

Through my research I found that eyes do constantly move and at first I thought that solved the problem but then I wasn't so sure.

Edited by Omnifarious
improvement
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Omnifarious said:

You're no an expert? Are you at least someone who knows about these things?

"Expert" is relative...as in compared to what or whom? I consider myself an excellent logician. Does that count? I am a didactic in that I learn and study in depth the things that interest me the most. I reached out to you initially because of your expressed fear. Other than that, I have no real interest in your concerns regarding whether or not organisms are somehow short-changed by quantum mechanics. But hey, at least I'm engaging you in your dialogue, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 11:13 AM, Omnifarious said:

I didn't start this thread to change my way of thinking or look at it another way. I wanted to know if photoreceptors does work like the diagram I found and put at the start of this thread. 

It's not the receptors that do the work as in the diagram. It's the brain that interprets the EM signals which transport information to the brain. The brain does not "see" anything! The diagram is misleading unless accompanied by an explanation of the actual process taking place. 

Anil Seth touches on all those details in his condensed lecture.  The evolved purpose of the brain is to navigate a world full of danger and opportunity. It is a "survival mechanism".  The "fight or flight" impulse is the first act of imaginary (artistic) interpretation, contemplating the presence of an imaginary danger, based on the sound or visual movement in the brush.  

The brain can interpret many things after being trained in the symbolism of the coded patterns. This does not come from imagination alone. The brain, versatile and flexible as it is,  must have a prior reference to an object or it cannot "recognize" it.

As Seth observes, we create our reality from the inside out as much as from the outside in. The brain uses "controlled hallucinations" (imagination) to make sense of the information being transmitted by the sensory organs.

I have given you two examples of: a) the brain creates an false image of the chess squares from an evolutionary survival mechanism, and: b) the brain can instantly integrate new knowledge and modify its expectation and verification of what it knows as part of understanding its environment.

The brain is unable to create its own separate reality without stimulation. Extended periods in a sensory deprivation chambers can result in complete madness. The brain begins to create uncontrolled hallucinations and eventually will lose contact with reality.

But a trained brain which has been exposed to a great variety of sensory experiences is able to form expectations of what it observes.  As Seth states; " only when our controlled hallucinations agree do we call that reality".

I really don't think it has anything to do with the properties of EM waves and function. I trust we have studied this phenomenon ad nauseam and have a pretty good idea how it works.

The electromagnetic wave equation is a second-order partial differential equation that describes the propagation of electromagnetic waves through a medium or in a vacuumis the speed of light (i.e. phase velocity) in a medium with permeability μ, and permittivity ε, and ∇2 is the Laplace operator. In a vacuum, vph = c0 = 299,792,458 meters per second, a fundamental physical constant. The electromagnetic wave equation derives from Maxwell's equations.

image.png.b66357847c2a7c5e8fd2b17a20da5288.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation#
 

Edited by write4u
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mathematical Modeling of the Functions of the Human Brain

Quote

 

Understanding the functions of the human brain is one of the most important goals of contemporary science. Sciences that engage in studies of brain function include biology, medicine, psychology, psychiatry, chemistry, biochemistry, computer science, mathematics, etc. Most studies about brain function are based on biological and medical sciences using biochemistry. On the other hand there are some studies that are based on computer science and mathematics. There is very little overlap between these two basic groups. Medical books describe human brain without mathematics or they use only a few very simple equations. These equations describe only certain brain parts. Mathematical analyses do not use the actual functionality of neurons, in most examples.

Quote

Rather, they simplify neuronal function using simple models that are easy to include in other deductions. These books often attempt to explain brain function using higher neural functions such as in the visual system.

Quote

My book Neural Computing and Neural Science (NCNS), begins with the simplest functions of the neuron and neural channels. It then attempts to go beyond these simple functions to include the general functionality of the brain. The analyses in my book required the study of mathematics, computer science, medical psychology and other sciences. In it, I attempt to join all these sciences into one system that can describe function of the brain. The initial idea of the theory described is the theory of movement. Movement is one of the most basic functions of living matter. There is no life without movement. When we talk about any kind of life we must talk about movement. When we talk about movement we have to talk about differential equations......more

http://www.agces.cz/ncns02.htm

Edited by write4u
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This person is mentally ill, having posted exactly the same stuff elsewhere 18 months ago, under the name Tailspin:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/biology/49276-what-mechanics-perception-does-limit-our-perception.html

I'll have you know your post came in while I was talking to my therapist about this very issue and I told here what you just said. She said I was not mentally ill and that you a rude and abusive bully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...