‘I am a visual artist and from time to time I ask myself is picture drawing painting etc nothing more than modelling a fake reality…. as many physicist argue ….
The thinking of Ridley Scott:
Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, released in 1982, was a towering landmark of cyberpunk cinema that spawned decades of imitations, redefined dystopian sci-fi, and questioned what it means to be human. (see here )…
How a physicist think:
…”Alan Bustany, Trinity Wrangler, Triple A Science Student
Answered Oct 22, 2016 ……………”Which statement is more accurate: “an electron is neither a particle nor a wave”; or “an electron is both a particle and a wave”?
Both statements are misleading. And they are misleading for a very fundamental reason, the understanding of which will enhance your appreciation of the scientific method and what fundamental science is all about.
They are misleading because you and I think we understand what a particle or a wave is. That is, we have an intuitive, or even a sophisticated, understanding of classical particles and classical waves. In circumstances not too far removed from our everyday experience, reality plays by well-behaved rules that generally conform to the intuitions our brains have developed over millions of years of evolution. Even then we can occasionally be fooled by various forms of illusion.
The scientific method aims to replace our intuition, analogies, and models with measurable, verifiable, independent evidence – especially in situations far removed from everyday experience: scales of atoms; speeds approaching that of light; large gravitational fields; and so on. In dealing with extreme situations, thinking of analogies like “little billiard balls” or “waves reflecting off a wall” can be positively detrimental. That is certainly the case when you consider Quantum Field Theory (QFT) for subatomic particles like an electron.
The Decoherencer create a Falling Angel,,,
In QFT (Quantum Field Theory) you have some mathematical model of reality that predicts certain measurable effects that correspond with astonishing accuracy to actual measurements. Some effects, such as quantum entanglement, are very counterintuitive but nevertheless seem to express what is actually going on. Some of the mathematical objects in QFT can, under certain circumstances, be interpreted as particles or particle-like. Others can be interpreted as waves or wave-like. Some can be interpreted as particle-like in some circumstances and wave-like in other circumstances.
What, then, is really going on underneath? Unfortunately this question does not even make sense. A scientific theory incorporating a mathematical model is just that, a model of reality. We can never know in principle whether it is the correct model or even if such an entity exists”... See Quora,,,
So this is quite a subjective science fiction story ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If innovation, mystery and human ambiguity are references points, then for example:
..Is it not still a long way until the Japanese new fashion model robot will have the look of former top model Carla Bruni and today’s wife of french president Nicolas Sarkozy. How can the french chic of such a beautiful women..be hardwired into a robot..
And further. Who does not remember the beautiful android in “Blade Runner“, the actress Sean Young as Rachael, a replicant with limited sexual memories.
Perhaps it’s not fair to compare the Japanese fashion robot with Sean Young as the replicant. In the love scene between her and Deckard, the scene suggest, that despite her inexperience in love matters, she has a human magic suggestivity lacking in our robot fashion HRP-4C in the role of a top fashion model . Rachael, as a replicant, has surely Carla Bruni’s class and much more. Whole audiences in the screening theaters are and where overwhelmed by her pervading emotional erotic charm.
The following comment ( You Tube) on the love scene between Rachael and Deckard, resume those emotions in a few keywords, love, human, android, soul, robot and technology. Our ambiguous feelings confered those attributes to Rachael and forget that she is pseudo human and not a perfect human replica:
“What I love the most about this movie and it’s” love” theme is two things: One… that, if human beings could reach such levels of technology and create a biological android does such creature have a soul? Or furthermore, Do they have a soul and second…can they love? Soul and Love. From a human perspective and as viewer we love Rachel and feel for her plight. We love her as a woman that potentially she is not from the outside but from the inside. Emotion is captivated more than a view. ” see here page 2.
The same can not be said about our new fashion robot:
..”For the first time ever, a robot walked a fashion runway today in Tokyo. Well it didn’t exactly walk, but sort of wobbled like someone waking from an anesthesia-induced stupor. Although this was a great feat in the robotics industry, don’t expect HRP-4C, the Cybernetic fashion model, to hit another catwalk anytime soon because her signature walk needs a lot of work.”.. see here.
So from the real fashion model robot HRP-4C, back in time to Philip K. Dicks novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” to Ridley Scott’s movie ‘ Blade Runner’ where android Rachael with the help of the Tyrell corporation is hardwired for humanlike acting, we come again to our own days where real initiatives are taken to creating acting robots. And indeed here is an example of such an initiative:
But Bilge Mutlu and colleague’s team at Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, is changing that with robots that “leak” non-verbal information through eye movements when interacting with humans. The eyes of a robot may not provide a window into its soul, but they can help humans guess the machine’s intentions.
Humans constantly give off non-verbal cues and interpret the signals of others – but without realising it at a conscious level, says Mutlu. The trembling hands of a public speaker betray their nerves even before a word is uttered, while poker players leak subtle signs such as eye flickers or twitches that can be used to spot bluffers.
But when faced with a robot all our interpretive skills are irrelevant. Robots leak no information, so it is virtually impossible to read their intentions, which makes them hard to get along with.”…
Anyway, human actors, like Sean Young as Rachael and Robin Williams in the ‘Bicentennial Man’, are playing the role of robots and androids much better than robots are playing the role of human beings. The bottom logic is that humans are programming the robots very badly,
But who knows what the future is hidden from us. It seems that to socialise with robots in Facebook in the future is not so unrealistic.. Or perhaps, in going one step further, humanlike robots will invent their own social network FaceRobots, where the real humans will be considered as an old invention of some evolutionary Darwinian process.
If you don’t believe me then please read this:
…”No name is linked more tightly to the idea of the Singularity, see here and here, than that of Vernor Vinge, 63, who for four decades has written stories about the ways humanity and its technologies are building a future that may be impossible for us even to imagine. “It seems plausible,” Vinge says, “that with technology we can, in the fairly near future, create or become creatures who surpass humans in every intellectual and creative dimension. Events beyond such a singular event are as unimaginable to us as opera is to a flatworm.”…see here.