My pareidolia knows no bounds.

A negative is the more esoteric. Esoteric is pertaining to the chosen few. There are fewer negative originals (One.) There are more/exoteric/ digital files (an infinite number of exoteric duplicates possible. The esoteric is always the one of value, the one with the FEWEST number.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />Richard- Science? You must mean "old time science" before quantum physics. i was under the impression that Werner Heisenberg the great quantum physicist debunked that myth a long time ago.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I wouldn't attempt to debate quantum mechanics with you or anyone, (although I know enough about it to be dangerous). In the words of Clint Eastwood, "a man's got to know his limitations." However, there are forums on this site where there are people quite capable of debating it.

Regarding leaving "nut case" in your quote, that was merely a subjective delineation I made in choosing your quote. Don't take it too seriously though, and don't single yourself out, because many of us have been accused of being a little "nutty" ourselves.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />A negative is the more esoteric. Esoteric is pertaining to the chosen few. There are fewer negative originals (One.) There are more/exoteric/ digital files (an infinite number of exoteric duplicates possible. The esoteric is always the one of value, the one with the FEWEST number.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This is interesting, because you're right if you look at definitions (1) and (2) for "estoteric". But, when I said:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">True, it's a little more esoteric an original than a negative, but it's still an original, in my opinion.[rd] <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I was thinking about it in terms of definition (3):

3 : of special, rare, or unusual interest

I was speaking about the notion that a file can be an "original". I guess I figured not everybody knew that. Even though the data can be reproduced ad infinitum, doesn't mean that there wasn't an original file. That's an esoteric statement.



rd

If a file can't be distinguished as original by inspection it isn't original, according to definitions 1), 2), and 3). There is nothing rare/special/pertaining to the chosen few about a digital file. They are endlessly replicable/dead/and replicateable like a virus. Negatives are individual and sacred and esoteric and individual and alive, like all things one can see first hand. One can not see a computer file first hand. One needs a computer.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />If a file can't be distinguished as original by inspection it isn't original, according to definitions 1), 2), and 3). <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What I said was:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I was speaking about the <b>notion </b>that a file can be an "original". <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's what's esoteric. The <b>notion</b> that there is a way to tell which file was the first one. A notion is as concept. There's nothing esoteric about the file itself. Do you see what I'm saying? And anyway, what you're saying in this quote isn't exactly true. If one inspected the original file, at the programmers level, it <b>can be</b> distinguished as original. I worked in software for 20 years. I'm pretty sure of that. That's the esoteric part.

rd

Yes if you lock a dgital signiture onto it. But this is quibiling. In any case it would not compare to the originality of a negative and it's attempt at duplication which needs nothing added to it to make it indistinguishable from a copy of it.