Perspectives on Things

Discussion concerning the first major re-evaluation of Dewey B. Larson's Reciprocal System of theory, updated to include counterspace (Etheric spaces), projective geometry, and the non-local aspects of time/space.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Perspectives on Things

Post by bperet »

It can be argued that human perspective does not change what is actually "out there". What is, IS. This may be the case, but these people do not consider that what they are consider to be "out there", is actually an illusion; a shadow on the wall of Plato's cave. They think this shadow is the unchanging reality, and thus assume that human perception does not change it.

Take a look at the following images of a cube. Both are computer generated with POV-ray, Figure 1 is "perspective", as a human being would see it and Figure 2 is "orthographic", the way it exists in 3-dimensional space (as defined in the model). The images have a green cube, and an infinite checkered plane that stretches beneath it.

The ONLY thing that changes here is ONE ASSUMPTION! Hard to believe, given how different the images look. The geometry hasn't changed at all, yet in the orthographic view, the right side of the cube becomes visible, which cannot be seen in the perspective view.

The assumption that changes is that in the perspective view, parallel lines converge at a point at infinity (the vanishing point of drawings) becoming radial, which is actually a "counterspace" view, because the flat surface of the image is the "plane at zero" and it projects radially to a point at infinity (the CSI). The orthographic projection changes the point at infinity to a plane at infinity, so parallel lines remain parallel, and do not converge at a vanishing point. That's it... the only thing that changes is that one assumption, and the picture changes drastically.

You can even take out a ruler and measure the edges on the cube in Figure 2 -- they are parallel, the exact same distance apart, yet the cube doesn't look "square", because the mind is expecting perspective, and in its attempt to transform the cube into an internal 3-d model, it is making errors because of a false assumption.

These are the things we are trying to account for in RS2, that Larson did not consider. Since we attach a geometric "strata" to a concept, we know what assumptions go into it, and can thus reconstruct the "reality" at the projective (scalar) stratum, which we can then transform into a perspective that the mind can understand and interpret correctly.

The underlying "reality" of this system is nothing more than:

Code: Select all

plane { // checkered floor

y, -1.5

texture {pigment {checker color rgb 1 color blue 1 scale 0.5}

finish {diffuse 0.8 ambient 0.1}}
}

box {-1,1 // box

scale .3 rotate -15*x rotate 10*y

texture {pigment {color Green}}
}
It is all a trick of the eye--and that is the problem with the majority of physical theories--they are tricked by the eye.
Attachments
Figure 1: Perspective View
Figure 1: Perspective View
perspective.gif (4.71 KiB) Viewed 7162 times
Figure 2: Orthographic View
Figure 2: Orthographic View
orthographic.gif (3.89 KiB) Viewed 7162 times
Every dogma has its day...
Post Reply