Operational Definition of Image: Does Presence Matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter parya23
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the question of whether a person must be present for an image to exist, specifically using an operational definition of an image. Participants explore various interpretations of what constitutes an image, including its relation to physical objects and visual representations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that an object must be present for an image to exist, defining an image as the reflection of an object in a mirror or shiny surface.
  • Another participant suggests that images can be generated through computer graphics, implying that presence may not be necessary for an image to exist.
  • A later reply questions the definition of "image" being used in the discussion and highlights a potential difference in understanding between participants regarding the terms "person" and "object."

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus, as multiple competing views regarding the necessity of presence for an image to exist are presented.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals ambiguity in the definitions of "image," "person," and "object," which may affect the interpretations of the claims made.

parya23
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Does a person have to be present for an image to exsit? (use operational definition of an image)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
for this question I said that, an object need to be present for an image to exsit since an image is the reflection of an object in a mirror or any other shiney surface (its something visual and not physical)
 
You can generate an image using computer graphics.

Then, if you want, you can reflect that screen image of a mirror.
 
parya23 said:
Does a person have to be present for an image to exsit? (use operational definition of an image)


You said "use operational definition of an image".

Okay, what definition of "image" are you using. Fermat just gave a response that was, I think using a very different definition of "image" than the one you intend. Also, by the way, what is the difference between a "person" and an "object"?
 

Similar threads

JavaScript Links from navbar made with React don't work
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Engineering Do Identical Histograms Remain the Same After Applying a Smoothing Mask?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
High School Does light ever go from the eye to the image?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
High School Power & Velocity: Physics Explained
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Undergrad Why do ##t## and ##-i\hbar\partial_t## not satisfy the definition of a linear map/operator in Hilbert space?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School What principles does a photostat machine use to operate?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Difficulties in Measuring the Contact Angle of a Sessile Droplet
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad A strange definition for Hermitian operator
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Undergrad Do spin operators 'appear' to commute for an entangled spin state?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad On two definitions of locally compact
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K