Resolution limit possible to break?

On 19/10/2016 15:37, PeterN wrote:
On 10/17/2016 9:26 PM, Davoud wrote:
Me:
Not that the act of viewing the image alters the state of it -it's
neither high nor low resolution until you take a look?

Hah! According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the image
isn't even thee until someone looks at it.


But is was there a few minutes after you tried to look at it.



I haven't figured out what is really is - so trying to think about what
is once was just makes my head hurt.
You're getting way deep into existential philosophy there, in my opinion
of course, unless that was a typo.

On 2016-10-19 03:19:35 +0000, Me said:

On 19/10/2016 15:37, PeterN wrote:
On 10/17/2016 9:26 PM, Davoud wrote:
Me:
Not that the act of viewing the image alters the state of it -it's
neither high nor low resolution until you take a look?

Hah! According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the image
isn't even thee until someone looks at it.


But is was there a few minutes after you tried to look at it.



I haven't figured out what is really is - so trying to think about what
is once was just makes my head hurt.

You and Bill Clinton.

You're getting way deep into existential philosophy there, in my
opinion of course, unless that was a typo.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 19/10/2016 16:29, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-19 03:19:35 +0000, Me said:

On 19/10/2016 15:37, PeterN wrote:
On 10/17/2016 9:26 PM, Davoud wrote:
Me:
Not that the act of viewing the image alters the state of it -it's
neither high nor low resolution until you take a look?

Hah! According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the image
isn't even thee until someone looks at it.


But is was there a few minutes after you tried to look at it.



I haven't figured out what is really is - so trying to think about
what is once was just makes my head hurt.

You and Bill Clinton.

Are there photographs?

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 02:42:02 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 10:38:39 UTC+1, Me wrote:
On 18/10/2016 14:34, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-18 01:26:36 +0000, Davoud said:

Me:
Not that the act of viewing the image alters the state of it -it's
neither high nor low resolution until you take a look?

Hah! According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the image
isn't even thee until someone looks at it.

As I said, it has the smell of Schrodinger's cat.

This is optics - you don't smell a cat to determine if it's alive or
not.

But if you can't see it that's the whole thing about Schrodinger's cat.
That you don;t know whether it is there or not until you look at it, I've always found this a bit odd as there are other ways of determining such a thing via noise, weight, smell etc.

You look at the stupid thing.

you ever tried looking at a cat it changes the experiment the cat then knows which means it's time to feed it.

It's always time to feed it.

If it's alive, you shoot an
animated GIF, upload it and get a million up-votes on Reddit. If it's
dead, you get lynched by PETA activists.
What you've proposed is a red herring interpretation, which does work on
a couple of levels.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 20/10/2016 08:50, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 02:42:02 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 10:38:39 UTC+1, Me wrote:
On 18/10/2016 14:34, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-18 01:26:36 +0000, Davoud said:

Me:
Not that the act of viewing the image alters the state of it -it's
neither high nor low resolution until you take a look?

Hah! According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the image
isn't even thee until someone looks at it.

As I said, it has the smell of Schrodinger's cat.

This is optics - you don't smell a cat to determine if it's alive or
not.

But if you can't see it that's the whole thing about Schrodinger's cat.
That you don;t know whether it is there or not until you look at it, I've always found this a bit odd as there are other ways of determining such a thing via noise, weight, smell etc.

You look at the stupid thing.

you ever tried looking at a cat it changes the experiment the cat then knows which means it's time to feed it.

It's always time to feed it.
To what - if it's dead?

On 2016-10-20 00:18:11 +0000, Me said:

On 20/10/2016 08:50, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 02:42:02 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 10:38:39 UTC+1, Me wrote:
On 18/10/2016 14:34, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-18 01:26:36 +0000, Davoud said:

Me:
Not that the act of viewing the image alters the state of it -it's
neither high nor low resolution until you take a look?

Hah! According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the image
isn't even thee until someone looks at it.

As I said, it has the smell of Schrodinger's cat.

This is optics - you don't smell a cat to determine if it's alive or
not.

But if you can't see it that's the whole thing about Schrodinger's cat.
That you don;t know whether it is there or not until you look at it,
I've always found this a bit odd as there are other ways of determining
such a thing via noise, weight, smell etc.

You look at the stupid thing.

you ever tried looking at a cat it changes the experiment the cat then
knows which means it's time to feed it.

It's always time to feed it.
To what - if it's dead?

What if it was never there?
Just because you are told that it was there does not mean that was
actually true.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/18/2016 11:19 PM, Me wrote:
On 19/10/2016 15:37, PeterN wrote:
On 10/17/2016 9:26 PM, Davoud wrote:
Me:
Not that the act of viewing the image alters the state of it -it's
neither high nor low resolution until you take a look?

Hah! According to some interpretations of quantum mechanics, the image
isn't even thee until someone looks at it.


But is was there a few minutes after you tried to look at it.



I haven't figured out what is really is - so trying to think about what
is once was just makes my head hurt.
You're getting way deep into existential philosophy there, in my opinion
of course, unless that was a typo.

Not a typo. I was wondering about quantimization of the time-space
continuum.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/space-and-time-warps.html


--
PeterN