Sunday, January 23, 2005

IF THERE'S NO EYE, THERE'S NO IMAGE:

It dawned on me early this morning, as I was reading the sporting pages in the Sunday paper. It was a very clear image of a cricketers on the front page, nice depth of field and everything so that the player was crisp and the cheering face were just blobs of light...

That's it.

If there's no mechanical process to register an image, there's no image.

Only because the pixels on the sports cameraman's apparatus are aligned in such a way that we can scan them as an image, only because the rods and cones in our eyes are wired in such a way to our brains can we guess what light is.....

Without the eye, there'd be no visible universe. Yes, there would, say the physicists, there'd be electromagnetic radiation. Well, would there? Isn't it merely a case that the structure of the eye can pick up light, the structure of photographic film (or CCD) can pick up light or X-rays, that these phenomena exist?

What is a photon? Nobody has ever given a decent description of this. If you have a retina that vibrates towards a hand at the right frequency, you can count the pores in the skin; if you have a 'retina' that vibrates towards a hand at the right frequency, you can count the bones.

Without the aparatus to pick up light, it would NOT EXIST. Disprove that ... well, you can't.

No comments: