I found this quite interesting and related to encoding information of a larger 3D volume with a 2D surface, and all sorts of stuff I didn't really understandjohnnydeep wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:51 pmI can easily see images such as these, but never in the convex view. But I have never been able to see those double image cross-eyed stereograms that Chris posts from time to time to help those not possessing red/blue 3D glasses.zendae1 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 3:44 pmThank you for that. It explains why I've seen both ways.Chris Peterson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:58 pm
There are two ways you can merge an image like this. You can let your eyes drift apart (like looking through the image to something behind it), or you can cross your eyes a bit (like looking at something just in front of the image). And these images can be designed to use either method. This one is designed for the first way. That will show the teapot normally. Do it the second way (with crossed eyes) and your brain will still merge them, but now each eye is getting the wrong image, and you get that odd inverted look- as you say, more like a mold, concave instead of convex.
When these images first came out - I saw them at Spencer Gifts many moons ago - they all performed 'correctly' for me. The other way ended up being more favored I suppose.
As for the theory that "a surface can encode all the info in a 3D space", I call BS. Even assuming the volume and surface subdivisions are limited to Planck length granularity, the number of Planck volumes (i.e. the maximum bits of information) increases faster than the number of Planck faces enclosing it. So, if we must map Planck volumes one-to-one to Planck areas on the enclosing surface, in order to be able to represent all of them, we will run out. Hmm...unless...the number of possible volume bits can be encoded using 2number of faces, where each face encodes a 0 or 1, allowing 2number of faces permutations to encode whether each enclosed volume is a 0 or 1. In which case, 2number of faces will increase MUCH faster than the number of volume bits. But this feels a lot like cheating and is therefore probably wrong.
On the other hand, the math is beyond me, and I'm sure the smarter people have it all rationally explained to the satisfaction of many.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-spac ... -20190103/