Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1+1=?
I'm a fan of the interpretation presented in this paper. It seems a bit weird at first reading, but I think it makes more sense than the Copenhagen or many worlds.
eStatic said:
I'm a fan of the interpretation presented in this paper. It seems a bit weird at first reading, but I think it makes more sense than the Copenhagen or many worlds.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1+1=?
It was not meant as critique against physical models or anything
you have said. It is common however amongst engineers,
physicists and other natural scientists to overlook the fact
that the physically correct models/solutions may not always
be suitable when human perception is involved. My original
post, which I linked to, on colour theory was just intended
to illustrate this point and I thought eStatic might find it
interesting, although not exactly the same thing he was
talking about.
BTW, the NCS model i mentioned is, although based on
perception, a mathematical model and I think it should be
possible to define a (non-linear) mapping back from it
to many of the physically based model like CES, except that
they do not cover exactly the same colour spaces.
Prune said:
It was not meant as critique against physical models or anything
you have said. It is common however amongst engineers,
physicists and other natural scientists to overlook the fact
that the physically correct models/solutions may not always
be suitable when human perception is involved. My original
post, which I linked to, on colour theory was just intended
to illustrate this point and I thought eStatic might find it
interesting, although not exactly the same thing he was
talking about.
BTW, the NCS model i mentioned is, although based on
perception, a mathematical model and I think it should be
possible to define a (non-linear) mapping back from it
to many of the physically based model like CES, except that
they do not cover exactly the same colour spaces.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.