# Thread: is a screen inversely proportional to real life

1. Ok this was locked on the raspberry pi forum. Good forum by the way.

Because what we see on screen = what we see in real life and one projects the image yet the other gets looked upon. Does that make it inversely proportional.

In what reality is this true?

2.

3. Originally Posted by jran1216
Does that make it inversely proportional.
Does that make what inversely proportional?
What measurements are you comparing?

4. Luminosity I suppose. And the detail in colour. So reactivity.

5. You are making absolutely no sense...

6. Originally Posted by jran1216
Luminosity I suppose. And the detail in colour. So reactivity.
The luminosity of the screen is not inversely proportional to the luminosity we see.
The colour details of the screen are not inversely proportional to the colour details we see.

I am not sure what you mean by "reactivity".
Do you mean chemical reactivity?

7. Well although the focus of two comparitively similar images in external world and computer screens are different, the two can be compared identically comparing on the quality of image. But the method, which is where we have to compare signs, which would be the focus are different. So I suppose disparity would be dividing luminosity or vice versa? Is this true, the logics there. I shall think a little harder.

8. Originally Posted by jran1216
Well although the focus of two comparitively similar images in external world and computer screens are different
What do you mean by 'focus'?

Originally Posted by jran1216
the two can be compared identically comparing on the quality of image.
No. The image quality of a screen is far below the image quality we see when looking.

Originally Posted by jran1216
But the method, which is where we have to compare signs, which would be the focus are different.
That doesn't make any sense.

Originally Posted by jran1216
So I suppose disparity would be dividing luminosity or vice versa?
That doesn't make any sense.

9. So this might make a little more sense how do we project an image from memory into the external world and Disparitise that from perception of matter. The two must be identical but the focus of images swaps place. So when we perceive an external the picture is first. And a picture external comes first. If this is philosophy, ill go elswhere and develop.

10. Originally Posted by jran1216
Ok this was locked on the raspberry pi forum
For good reason. It belongs in Trash.

11. As something is further away our pupils contract to I suppose concentrate information. So its the same, but how physically? Does a reference frame prove unreality. Now if the two are identical, it would be luminosity, however the difference is disparity. Now the cognition must be the same but one is concentrated on and the other expands latter being the picture.

12. And what is your reason exactly. Perhaps if I am disproved correctly the question will cease to exist.

And lets look at this in more detail disparity is a recognition of the distance right. The two are different and as you have to perceive the right screen at a marginally right distance to recognise it. The disparity of our perceived world is being observed at some cognitive disparity. However reflections although absorbed in particles are more complex in the external world and yet still the cognitive function remains the same. Now what is the physical difference, to me they are opposite. One scattered one not. And cognitively they are the same.

13. Originally Posted by jran1216
As something is further away our pupils contract to I suppose concentrate information.
No, they don't contract when something is further away.
And eyes don't concentrate information - unless you are using the loosest of definitions of concentrate and information.

Originally Posted by jran1216
So its the same, but how physically?
No, it is not the same.

Originally Posted by jran1216
Does a reference frame prove unreality.
No.

14. Alright ill go to a psychology forum. But I still remain that if reference frames dont prove unreality, this is still physics, because if the two focus differently, they must be from two different references, but the recognition is the same. Meaning physically, there must be similarities and inversely references are physically different, but cognitively we realise that what we see is identical to an image previously perceived and the two join together. You have two seperate reference frames, but I suppose what your saying is that the recognition is far more intense in external and so the two cant be compared. So that's quickly ruined my idea of computing. Lol.
Thanks

15. Originally Posted by jran1216
Alright ill go to a psychology forum.
Better to go to psychiatry forum.

16. Originally Posted by jran1216
but I suppose what your saying is that the recognition is far more intense in external and so the two cant be compared.
tbh, the main thing I would say is that little of what you have written makes any sense.