Operational Definition of Image: Does Presence Matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter parya23
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether a person must be present for an image to exist, with the operational definition of an image being a key focus. One viewpoint asserts that an object must be present for an image to exist, as it is a visual reflection rather than a physical entity. The conversation also highlights the potential for generating images through computer graphics, which complicates the definition further. Participants question the definitions being used, particularly the distinction between "image," "person," and "object." This debate emphasizes the need for clarity in definitions when discussing the nature of images.
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"?
 
Back
Top