The light is in our eyes...

true .. but you are talking about focus and sharpness.

I am referring to granulation of space, and substance...

Like the difference between celluloid film and digital recordings (infinite gradient and pixelized gradient)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

QQ, what is your point or premise? That we can't actually see? There is no unanswered question here (except perhaps here in woo land).

Is the answer, possibly, that you just don't know what you are talking about and don't really care to?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One can only imagine what it would be like to have a noticeable time lag as one turned their line of sight and added light intensity and color adaptation to it..

Weird for sure....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I am talking about the number of individual light receivers per unit area.
That is, literally, resolution.

What's confusing you is that pixels have well-defined boundaries with dead spaces between them and line up on a grid.
Our receptors are not on a grid, and they overlap.
It may look like you see infinite resolution, but it is not.

 

So you think there is a perpetual log jam situation? Nope. Of course the human brain is poor at some tasks easily performed by even a modest PC - like performing maths calculations. But it is supremely efficient at what it needs to be - visual perception being prime example. The fact billions of humans all see essentially the same way just testifies to the reliability of the basic model. If you want to drill down to fine details, no two individuals would have precisely the same visual capacity - but such fine differences don't generally matter. Except for specialized fields where say a fighter pilot has to have exceptional capacity to take in a scene and quickly and accurately assess exactly what is going on and how to instantly react.
Just where you get the idea of 'infinite resolution' from I don't know, but seems it's based on that we don't 'see pixels' therefore 'pixel density' must be infinite! Err, no. How about simply a case of the brain employing interpolation and smoothing? Sounds reasonable? Hope so.

 

Well I don't know what your definition of 'missing' is QQ. What do you think is missing there - important and relevant info I mean.

 

but do you experience a processing caused time lag ?

 

time lag allowing for processing such an enormous amount of new data is missing for one...

 

It is clearly possible because we know it happens. The question is how it happens which we do not yet completely understand. We are learning more & more. Most of what is stated in this thread is recent knowledge. Hopefully we will learn much more.
Is there something to it we would not suspect at this time? Maybe.
Stop saying it is impossible.
Are you trying to say it is evidence of gods or what?

<>

 

Yes of course - we all do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision

 

A confusion of conflating data density in an 'optical fibre network' with signal delay from point A to point B in that network

 

How is that relevant?
All you have done is suggest just another aspect that has to be processed further adding to any processing time lag, Which has not been proven to exist.

 

Sigh. I think you need to have a mystery aspect to the subject QQ. Have a nice rest of the day.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Look.. it isn't that difficult...
rhetorical questions:

How long does it take for a camera to create a 2 dimensional image of the field it is exposed to? not long...
When panning a camera from left to right the data is recorded almost immediately with little delay.

But this is merely a recording of what is there not a reconstruction.

For the camera to reconstruct the field of exposure and then record it would take how long?
Obviously way too long to function in any way useful... IMO

 

If you mean processing and reconstructing so much data...no we don't know that it happens we only theorize that it happens. I am suggesting that it has not been evidenced that we have that god like capacity. That the light effect theories that drive the notion are themselves questionable for surely we see what we see...

 

We do know it happens.
Why do you call it god like?

<>

 

Given the amount of time required to recreate what we later claim to see and the absence of such time lag being evidenced, tell you straight away that there is a problem not with our visual experience but with the theories that attempt to explain it.
It is impossible for us to process that amount of data continuously with out any significant time being experienced.. to do so would make us all God like. ( paranormal)

 

Just to be specific and clarify:

What do you know happens?

It takes time to do the recreating and there is no evidence of that time being needed so...therefore there is no recreating needed.

We are just an organic 4 d motion recording device ( just like a camera) no creation needed.

 

Just to be specific and clarify :
Why do you call it god like?

<>

 

Most persons reading this Physics and math fora are not inclined towards the reality or not of an existent unproven God.... to use the term God like in this context is to say to those readers that what science is proposing is tantamount to granting humans god like abilities ( impossible - non-existent)
It's a deliberate conflation on my part highlighting what I perceive as significant irony.