[creation] Virtual/created reality?

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:46:24 -0000

Dear Forum Members,
This item may be of interest to many of you especially Neville. I have scanned 
in a number of letters sent to New Scientist about concern regarding 
real/simulated data in the media and how to tell the difference.
Simulation signals

From Chris James

I strongly agree with Easter Russell (8 January, p 25). There should be a media 
code of practice requiring that all simulations, artist's impressions and so on 
are clearly marked as such. How authentic are the pictures of Titan we are 
being shown from Huygens? New Scientist could set a good example by stating 
when its pictures are not real - for example, that of comet Tempel i on p 28 of 
the same issue. Eastleigh, Hampshire, UK

From Roger Taylor 

I agree completely with Russell, and the sooner the better. Modern imaging 
technology is so powerful, and presumably will become more so, that it could 
lead to all manner of fraud and deception, and ultimately to an Orwellian 
rewriting of history. This is not something we should tempt our politicians 
with. Meols, Cheshire, UK

From Peter Strickland

 It is a mistake to think of films or photographs as real. When you take into 
account the choices that go into what to point the camera at and when to film, 
there is an enormous amount of subjectivity involved. Then there are choices 
about zoom, focus and aperture, which all affect what is seen and how it is 
portrayed. And then, of course, the resulting film or photograph will be 
edited, which will involve various digitally applied modifications, and, in 
film, choices about timing, sequences and so on. The difference between 
photography and digital imagery is more of a perceived idea about authenticity 
than any practical difference. Leeds, UK

From Stu Witner 

Once begun, where does one stop, I wonder? For example, all images from the 
Hubble Space Telescope are "simulated" in that the colours are computer 
generated. The colours are not only beautiful but enable researchers to learn 
much more from them than if they were "real".

Then there is the philosophical argument, "what is truth?", not to mention the 
obvious public taste for drama over reality. I'm afraid Russell may be tilting 
at windmills, 21st-century style. Seattle, Washington, US

There was also an amusing cartoon which I shall have to describe in the absence 
of a method for posting. 

It shows an office with a sign saying 'ECONOMY SPACE PROGRAMMES INC.' and an 
assitant showing round a bemedalled, uniformed 'top brass' type character. In 
the office is an artist painting and a lady sitting at a piece of electronic 
equipment. The assistant is saying to the visitor, 

"Ron does lurid images and Sue does crackly sound effects".

I wonder if any of these people have seen the video (available from myself on a 
CD) 'A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon'. Check out Neville's 
website, he has beaten the letter writers to it!


Other related posts: