Pixels for thought

If we accept or assu:e the are a fixed number of pixels possible for a photo, and each pixel has a fixed number of qualifiers or flavors, then there are a finite number of permutations. That being the case, even though we may not have put it together yet, does the perfect picture already exist? Is there already a combination of elements that is superior to any other photo. Next. The question is is it art or can the perfect specimen be created just by coo;cadence?

does the perfect picture already exist?

No. And it never will. Because there is no such thing as a perfect picture except as an ideal construct, having nothing to do with things that actually exist. IMO.

Is there already a combination of elements that is superior to any other photo.

Superior according to whom and by what standards?

The question is is it art or can the perfect specimen be created just by coo;cadence?

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Art can be created by coincidence, by accident, by serendipity or with a lot of intention. The perfect specimen, again, can't be created except in someone's mind, which is the only arena in which perfection exists.

But maybe that is assuming that we are the ultimate intelligence which might actually be very limited. We are only smart enough to be at the top of the pyramid in our small sphere of existence, it is not unreasonable to think that there is a superior intelligence that would have a far greater appreciation of art . We can only define art in terms of what we are capable of understanding. We still use the very primitive form of graphics or visual experience of what we can perceive or comprehend. And this is limited mathematically (and I do not think the human brain is capable of truly understanding mathematics). There are probably so many ways to express art that are far beyond us. I know that the statement is getting tired but there are perspectives far beyond our capabilities that exposing us to them is like taking a dog to a movie, it can see the screen but has no way of understanding what it is watching.

In an earlier era, the question was, "Can a hoard of monkeys, typing at random, eventually produce a novel?"

 

If each pixel can have 16mm possible shades (8 bit), and there are a finite number of pixels representing that photo, you could produce all possible photos given enough time. However the number of combinations is such an enormous number there isn't enough time left in the universe to complete the job if you take the time to examine each one for a second or so.

 

A philosopher once postulated that if you placed one grain of rice on the first square of a chess board, two on the second,, then 4 ... before you reached the 64th square you would have accumulated more rice than produced in the world. How many grains was that? When Gauss was posed that question as a young child (according to his own recollection), he solved it thus... 1+2+4+...+2^64 = 2^65-1.

 

What I really want to know is, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

In the meantime, donald_miller|5, keep shooting. Success is within your grasp ;) Ah, but the Empiricists say, beauty is in the perception, not the atoms and photons.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Ed_Ingold

it is not unreasonable to think that there is a superior intelligence that would have a far greater appreciation of art

 

That is indeed not unreasonable. In fact, I think it is a wrong human assumption to think we're top of the heap today - realistically, we have no clue whether we are. We're constrained here at what we can know, and as such, reasoning from our human bubble is more or less inevitable if we want to try understand one another.

Next, whether that intellegence has much to do with appreciation of art is yet another assumption. There are very intellegent people who fail to appreciate arts, and some that struggle at intellegence tests who do. Arguably, the way we test for intellegence is skewed towards a limited set of skills, and arguably, appreciation for art isn't an intellectual skill, but one that certainly involves emotional and empathic skills.

 

There is a finite combination of pixels, meaning there is a finite number of distinct different image files. Whether one of those is perfect..... perfect in what sense? Is a perfect all black or all white rectangle perfect? And how would the perfection relate to the quantity of possible pixel combinations? Meaning: if there are more (but finite) possibilities, are there more or less chances for that elusive perfect image to exist?

 

While I get the train of thoughts that caused your question, I think you're mixing things together that are not very much related. Yes, there is a finite amount of images at a given resolution, but that says nothing about the qualities of those images. The act of creating the image might not necessarily be a human action, but like with most creative arts, the arts as we know it are tuned to the human perception, so "understanding" the image and interpreting its meaning is very likely to be harder for non-human observers.

 

Another thought......Do we need a perfect image at all? Personally, I do not. Perfection is boring, and the whole idea it would exist would rob the fun of the quest. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of a finite amount of possible imperfect images - there are still plenty left to explore.

it is not unreasonable to think that there is a superior intelligence that would have a far greater appreciation of art

I actually think it's quite unreasonable to think this. What evidence do we have for it? Without evidence, it's a conspiracy theory, IMO.

and I do not think the human brain is capable of truly understanding mathematics

Mathematics is something the human brain came up with. The world is outside us but math isn't. We created math. It wasn't given to us.

There are probably so many ways to express art that are far beyond us.

Art, like math, is human. Art is perhaps the most human thing there is. There are no ways to express art that are far beyond us. Something beyond us wouldn't be art since art is defined as a human creative endeavor. The creation supposedly beyond us is the myth of Genesis, which we actually also created, though some like to pretend we haven't. I give humans a lot of credit. That doesn't mean I place us on the top of some pyramid, because I think we're merely part of a greater system. But I think we're capable of enough, especially in the realm of art, that I don't need to wonder about beings who are supposedly more capable than us at moving toward perfection. In any case, I'd stay away from them, since I find perfection a very flawed goal.

Oh, WOW.

 

Doesn't this one belong on the Philosophy Thread?

Doesn't this one belong on the Philosophy Thread?

Because how we categorize the very few threads left on PN is so-o-o-o-o important!!!

It belongs in the Absurdity Thread.

Because how we categorize the very few threads left on PN is so-o-o-o-o important!!!

 

Sure because counting how many pixels can dance on the head of a pin is even more important, apparently.

Sure because counting how many pixels can dance on the head of a pin is even more important, apparently.

This thread was important enough to Donald to start. It's only important enough to you to interrupt. If the topic of the thread doesn't interest you, move on to one that does.

Love it or leave it?

Where have I heard that before?

 

If my comment offends you, then you are also free to move on...

I only like images that contain exactly 34 pixels, in a straight line.

 

There are 76 times as many 8-bit 34-pixel images (of a straight line) than atoms in the universe.

 

Makes you think.

Where to start on which way this is going. Never expected any responses but I would still consider this a casual conversation. I will say that how many pixels on the head of a pin is easy. Just determine the size of the head and pixel and problem solved . But then agIn if pixels do not dance then the answer is non

Fred said: "Mathematics is something the human brain came up with. The world is outside us but math isn't. We created math. It wasn't given to us."

 

And Galileo said "nature is a book written in the language of mathematics".

 

Humans came up with the concept of pi, but the ratio of a circles circumference to diameter (pi) is the same anywhere in our (three dimensional) universe. So is the ratio of a proton's mass to an electron's mass the same. And basic algebra, such as 2+2 = 4 is true anywhere in our universe. Anywhere we look in our observable universe, objects obey the same laws of physics, which implies that the laws' mathematical underpinnings are the same. So, at least partially, mathematics was given to us, since it is the discovery of the language of nature. (Only partially, since some abstract concepts, such as infinite dimensional Hilbert space, probably have no expression in nature.)

 

If we ever make contact with an extraterrestrial intelligent life form, I think that the only chance that we will have to communicate is, at least, initially, through mathematics. Plus, thinking of Carl Sagan's Golden Record on Voyager spacecraft, sounds and PHOTOGRAPHS!. There, I got back to discussing photography.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Glenn McCreery

I would not say we invented math. It is a tool we use to quantify our surroundings. Newton’s math worked up to a point but then broke down and Einstein than gave us relativity which now has some things it can not answer. Quantum mechanics is a statistical treatment to get around the uncertainty principle. There probably are methods to answer that ir quantum pi. But our brains were only meant to insure the survival of the species and just are not equipped to answer ither things. Us looking at the universe is like taking a dog to a movie

:rolleyes:

But the human mind is capable of understanding concepts well beyond those for which we evolved to insure our survival. We evolved to be curious, and curiosity leads to a much broader and more interesting world than just survival of the fittest.

 

Why would I, as an amateur, pursue photography and spend thousands of dollars on the pursuit, since it has no survival value? Partially because of a love for the beauty of nature and a curiosity for understanding as much about the universe as I am capable.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Glenn McCreery

Yes, Galileo thought math was the language of God. Galileo was a genius and gave the world plenty to ponder and taught us a lot, but I'm not a big fan of this sort of idolizing and idealizing.

 

Plato and many of the ancients who preceded and followed him thought math was simply a DISCOVERABLE system underlining the universe. The more we understand numbers, they thought (think Pythagorus, for example), the more we understand the world and nature. Math exists, they thought, independent of humans.

 

Later and more contemporary thinkers consider math a human concept which corresponds to the universe. There are various of these more humanistic theories, all of which can be explored in books or online.

 

For me, the point is not so much to decide what's right when it comes to math or what's the perfect work of art. The point is to engage in thinking and let that, if it can, inspire me to shoot interesting photos, photos which may pose some questions and puzzles and not necessarily provide pleasing answers or pretty solutions.

 

The game is worth playing and isn't always about winning.

The OPs question reminds of a theology question a friend once posed to one of his teachers in a Catholic high school. "If gods power, capabilities and size are infinite, can he/she make a chili cheese dog so big that even god can't eat it?" Really, what answers are you expecting?

If god exists and is infinite, then he/she has chosen to run the universe according to physical laws, including the conservation of mass and energy, which limits the size of a chili cheese dog to a finite quantity (unless, perhaps, god is really-really hungry).

I'm with Sandy...:p

Really, what answers are you expecting?

Isn’t the point of genuine questioning not to know what to expect the answers will be, but instead to be open to and interested in how others might address the question?

I'm all for "genuine questioning", but (and sorry OP I know you are attempting to fuel a discussion) this is hard to take seriously, so sorry.

Actually there are plenty of answers already. Maybe I was asking if there is truly creativity or if there is nothing new in our existence. Maybe we are sorely lacking in conceptualizing. But it is all beautiful to take it in and so much we have to enjoy.