http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Sen1HTu5o
We can not be trusted to observe reality accuately.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 09, 2013, 05:29:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Sen1HTu5o
We can not be trusted to observe reality accuately.
Can't see the video, but as for your comment, if the fucking thing would PICK A STATE, we'd be able to observe it. It's not US, it's the fucking UNIVERSE.
"Is the fucking cat alive or is it dead? I'm on a schedule, here."
- Thanatos
It's a video of an optical illusion.
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/12/06/greysquares_illusion.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg)
The two oblongs are the same color.
(http://40acresandacubicle.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/google-image-result-for-http-www-photos8-com-walls-black_and_white_handshake-other.png)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 09, 2013, 06:59:48 PM
It's a video of an optical illusion.
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/12/06/greysquares_illusion.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg)
The two oblongs are the same color.
No they aren't.
(http://i.imgur.com/e31iIW1.png)
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 09, 2013, 09:10:43 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 09, 2013, 06:59:48 PM
It's a video of an optical illusion.
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/12/06/greysquares_illusion.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg)
The two oblongs are the same color.
No they aren't.
They are, aside from the shaded area on the top one and the highlighted area on the bottom one.
NOPE.
I don't know about you guys but I'm going to trust the Holy Man on this one.
Quote from: Pæs on December 09, 2013, 09:31:07 PM
I don't know about you guys but I'm going to trust the Holy Man on this one.
And the Holy Man™ is
THINKING WITH HIS GUT. I don't need any of that "logic" or "science" or any of that shit. I'm trusting my eyes, the same way Smilin' George Bush trusted Donald Rumsfeld's eyes.
HOWEVER, in a sense it's a semantical illusion rather than a purely optical one, and it "cheats" by using illumination angles that would, in life, make the top section necessarily darker than the lower section. "techically", it's the same color, but in a sense that isn't really relevant other than being an interesting exercise in perception and interpretation of how we expect things to behave assuming they're subject to the physics of the real world.
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 09, 2013, 09:33:38 PM
HOWEVER, in a sense it's a semantical illusion rather than a purely optical one, and it "cheats" by using illumination angles that would, in life, make the top section necessarily darker than the lower section. "techically", it's the same color, but in a sense that isn't really relevant other than being an interesting exercise in perception and interpretation of how we expect things to behave assuming they're subject to the physics of the real world.
This is why you can't trust these ivory tower types. Always running around being sneaky, associating with known Semantics...And fooling people just because they can, to show how book smart they are.
If it were up to me, all Semantics would be sent back where they came from.
In other words, if the same shade of gray is used to represent the illumination of a darker object and the shadow of a lighter object, are those portions of the object really the same color?
If the object exists, then no. Only the color used to represent the two parts of the object are the same.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on December 09, 2013, 09:35:44 PM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 09, 2013, 09:33:38 PM
HOWEVER, in a sense it's a semantical illusion rather than a purely optical one, and it "cheats" by using illumination angles that would, in life, make the top section necessarily darker than the lower section. "techically", it's the same color, but in a sense that isn't really relevant other than being an interesting exercise in perception and interpretation of how we expect things to behave assuming they're subject to the physics of the real world.
This is why you can't trust these ivory tower types. Always running around being sneaky, associating with known Semantics...And fooling people just because they can, to show how book smart they are.
If it were up to me, all Semantics would be sent back where they came from.
:lulz:
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 09, 2013, 09:35:58 PM
In other words, if the same shade of gray is used to represent the illumination of a darker object and the shadow of a lighter object, are those portions of the object really the same color?
If the object exists, then no. Only the color used to represent the two parts of the object are the same.
So this really IS a visual explantion of one half of the BIP. It's just the other half. :lulz:
(Also explains chapter 3 of Revelation X)
I found the video more interesting than the image. The video is a chess board in which one of the dark squares is the same colour as one of the light squares, but one is highlighted and the other is in shade.
Quote from: Pæs on December 09, 2013, 09:38:07 PM
I found the video more interesting than the image. The video is a chess board in which one of the dark squares is the same colour as one of the light squares, but one is highlighted and the other is in shade.
I'll have to check that out when I get home.
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 09, 2013, 09:33:38 PM
HOWEVER, in a sense it's a semantical illusion rather than a purely optical one, and it "cheats" by using illumination angles that would, in life, make the top section necessarily darker than the lower section. "techically", it's the same color, but in a sense that isn't really relevant other than being an interesting exercise in perception and interpretation of how we expect things to behave assuming they're subject to the physics of the real world.
Um.
This is the singularly most awesome response to this illusion I've ever seen.
As well as the follow up.
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 09, 2013, 09:35:58 PM
In other words, if the same shade of gray is used to represent the illumination of a darker object and the shadow of a lighter object, are those portions of the object really the same color?
If the object exists, then no. Only the color used to represent the two parts of the object are the same.
Nigel, I'd really love to invite you over for dinner parties at my place.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 10, 2013, 05:00:10 AM
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 09, 2013, 09:33:38 PM
HOWEVER, in a sense it's a semantical illusion rather than a purely optical one, and it "cheats" by using illumination angles that would, in life, make the top section necessarily darker than the lower section. "techically", it's the same color, but in a sense that isn't really relevant other than being an interesting exercise in perception and interpretation of how we expect things to behave assuming they're subject to the physics of the real world.
Um.
This is the singularly most awesome response to this illusion I've ever seen.
As well as the follow up.
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on December 09, 2013, 09:35:58 PM
In other words, if the same shade of gray is used to represent the illumination of a darker object and the shadow of a lighter object, are those portions of the object really the same color?
If the object exists, then no. Only the color used to represent the two parts of the object are the same.
Nigel, I'd really love to invite you over for dinner parties at my place.
Awww. :) Thanks!
I would hell of love to dinner party at your house.