How much data does a painting hold? I mean, how much information is stored on a painting? Is it quantifiable?
How much data does a painting hold? I mean, how much information is stored on a painting? Is it quantifiable?
Levi Scott
Other urls found in this thread:
researchportal.port.ac.uk
twitter.com
Jason Flores
As much data as a painting can hold
Eli Flores
About tree fiddy
Carter Butler
What a stupid question.
Information? What do you mean in the context?
Wyatt Barnes
>Is it quantifiable?
Yes. If you take any finite amount of mass or energy and would put it into a closed system, you could describe the state of that mass or energy with a finite amount of information. Similarly, we can observe the mass/energy in our enclosed system and determine a finite amount of properties. To put it simply, every existing atom with its electrons and bonds to its neighbors, its position, velocity etc. can be used to encode information. We can go levels deep and do the same for protons/neutrons or even quarks. However, we are obviously limited by what the laws of nature dictate, including the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which severely limits our ability to accurately measure all the information. We can therefore only make an estimate on how much mass/energy we need to encode n bits of information.
A cite from the abstract of a recent paper:
>it is shown that the mass of a bit of information at room temperature (300K) is 3.19 10-38 Kg.
So, assuming the guys writing this paper did no mistake we can say that at room temperature the information content if we could look onto that painting in an enclosed system would be equal or less than /(3.19*10^-38) bits.
researchportal.port.ac.uk
Kayden Cook
am i the only retard who directly looked at her boobs and didn't even notice the painting
Jonathan Ross
High IQ response.
Dylan Williams
why do people like you exist? you write so much and say so little.
Isaiah Miller
OP here, I know this (or at least take it for granted):
>If you take any finite amount of mass or energy and would put it into a closed system, you could describe the state of that mass or energy with a finite amount of information. Similarly, we can observe the mass/energy in our enclosed system and determine a finite amount of properties
And also this:
>every existing atom with its electrons and bonds to its neighbors, its position, velocity etc. can be used to encode information
But there's a jump between these two concepts that I don't understand. On the one hand you talk about how much information it takes to describe a system, and on the other hand you talk about how much information a system can store. Are these principles the same or different? Can a system always store less data than it takes to describe the system? Taking a 2TB hard drive for example, it can store 2TB of data, but that is clearly much less than how much information it takes to describe a hard drive in detail. Yet on the other hand, a compressed file stores more information than it takes to describe. But is that thinking about it the wrong way?
Samuel Carter
I reckon you'd have to 3D scan the entire presentation surface (inc. correct colors) at an infinite depth to properly render the "traditional" technique/texture under whatever simulated light
which would be fucking huge
there's probably some depth standard for 3D scanning, like ppi for 2D documents
Dylan Wood
I also question the appropriateness of using bits as a unit of measurement to describe analog systems, and also as a unit of measurement to describe how much data a painting can hold. Part of my original question is whether this is really the case. Bits seem to be a unit of measurement of digital information only, but don't seem readily applicable to describe analog systems at all. To "describe" an analog system within a digital system, doesn't the size of the description entirely depend on how the information is encoded and how it's compressed, and how compressible the information is? Don't some physical systems have more digitally compressible descriptions than others? Doesn't the supposition that the state of any physical system can be described directly in bits (rather than incidentally described inside a digital computer) presuppose that the universe IS fundamentally digital in nature?
Jason Reed
At least 2
Hunter Thomas
I was looking at her square shaped head, but close enough anime poster user.
Cooper Sullivan
damn thats a nice painting
Wyatt Fisher
HOLY manjaw, what a chad with a 10 inch cock
Julian Garcia
>How much X does Y contain
>Doesn't state the value of Y to calculate the value of X
Retard
Cooper Bell
>Yet on the other hand, a compressed file stores more information than it takes to describe.
compression only works if the data is not fully random. however, to describe the amount of information needed to store any possible state of a system, you must assume random data, no compression possible.
i.e. a 10000x10000 all-white PNG is still only 1KiB or so. that doesnt help you quantify how much information is actually stored in a PNG of that size.
>I also question the appropriateness of using bits as a unit of measurement to describe analog systems
you can accurately digitally describe any analog system, however increasing accuracy means you need more data to describe the system. this user implied to describe the system down to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. do you need such accuracy? it depends. for a painting surely not. to replicate the state of a running double-slit experiment you would.
Ayden Kelly
Asking so many inappropriate questions and understanding so little. Failing to exist in any meaningful sense is the only way to describe it, the phenomenon underpinning the illusion of self creates a circular logic. There is nothing to (You). A void, to be avoided.
Jonathan Watson
not enough information in the prompt to determine
Lucas Miller
god i want to insert into her so badly why do women have to be so beautiful
Wyatt Lee
didn't read
Benjamin Green
It is known.