On Nothing in a void.

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Xelasnave.1947, Dec 22, 2016.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I have not yet discovered a specific paper by Tegmark on colors, but the NOVA presentation of "The Great Math Mystery" does have a quote
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,453
    ...which is apparently some sort of analogy for his notion of reality, but nothing whatsoever to do with the physics of light.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,453
    Oh really?

    There is something about colour perception here: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/Lesson-2/Color-Addition

    which points out you have got it wrong, once again. For mixing transmitted coloured lights (e.g. in a theatre or on a TV screen) to produce a full variety of colours, you need red green and blue, yellow being obtained by a mixture of red and green .

    For pigments (which work by absorbing everything except one colour range of light) you need "red" (properly magenta), "blue" (properly cyan) and yellow. There is a diagram showing the relationship.

    But again, this lower school-level article is all about how to achieve perception of a full range of colours in the human optical system. It should not be taken as telling you anything about the physics of light itself.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    But what does your inability to answer a simple question make you?

    For those keeping count, Write4U's post #273 missed the mark on at least the following:
    - Write4U still doesn't understand the difference between a frequency and a range of frequencies.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    For those keeping count? Am I that important? A rare object to be studied and analyzed?

    I'll save you the time. I took a MENSA test once and scored 70%. At another time I took an IQ test and scored 158. Of course I was younger and since then I may have experienced some neural loss, but I believe I am still capable of observation and processing of subtle and complicated ideas.

    OK, enough biography.

    In the previous posts, I have already shown the ranges of all the colors in the visible light spectrum in "nm", but I'll quote the narrative;
    and
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Units_and_measures

    and
    As a professional bassplayer for some 10 years I dealt with soundwaves and harmonics a great deal of the time. I do have a rudimentary theoretical and practical experience with "waves" and their properties.

    For those who are keeping count, is everyone satisfied?

    I see you as being obsessed with detail and unable to find "common denominators" in seemingly unconnected natural phenomena. This was David Bohm's complaint. Science studies bits and pieces without considering their connection to the "Wholeness" which displays an inherent motion which he and deBroglie named the universal "Pilot Wave".
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  9. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    It's not about IQ points; it's about how you use them.

    Wait, "a rudimentary theoretical and practical experience with "waves" and their properties"? So you admit you don't have a clue about the details and intricacies involved with waves?

    Yes, because that's where the devil is. You do know science has evolved so far, that the details have become extremely important?

    Except I don't. The thing is: seemingly unconnected natural phenomena that may be connected often aren't when you check the details.

    (Irrelevant.)

    And once again you've missed the point of frequencies and ranges of frequencies being different.
     
  10. Andrew256 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    100
    Unfortunately I can't spare the time to read the whole topic, but I think that the concept of "nothing" itself is a paradox. If "nothing" can exist, then it must be something.

    In my point of view, true "nothing" can't exist.
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,453
    Ah good, something you are familiar with. This may help. If you know something about musical sound you will be aware that you cannot generate a pitch of G by playing 2 Cs an octave apart. Or E by playing C and G together. Or indeed to synthesise, from a combination of two different pitches, any intermediate pitch.

    This analogy may help you understand (given your historical high IQ etc) that you cannot physically create yellow light out of a "mixture" of red and green, or violet out of a "mixture" of red and blue, and so forth.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Yes, and when the details reveal greater and greater connectivity , it should lead to refined and simpler equations.
    But that is not the case. We may now even have some predictive powers to prove the existence of heretofore never seen particles (bosons), which IMO, simplifies at least one aspect of the higher "unseen" order and its subsequent sub-orders.
    Ah, the difference between "additive" and "subtractive" colors? Projection and Absorption.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Additive color
    Additive color is a method to create color by mixing a number of different light colors, with shades of red, green, and blue being the most common primary colors used in additive color system.

    More Information on Wikipedia

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Subtractive color
    A subtractive color model explains the mixing of a limited set of dyes, inks, paint pigments or natural colorants to create a wider range of colors, each the result of partially or completely subtracting (that is, absorbing) some wavelengths of light and not others.
    More Information on Wikipedia
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,453
    Yes and neither of these has anything to do with the physics of EM radiation.

    Do you understand that now
    , from the analogy with sound waves that I pointed out?
     
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    So you agree with me that some level of obsession over details is important? Good.

    Why?

    Irrelevant.

    For those keeping count, Write4U has once again chosen to ignore responding to the matter of frequencies and ranges of frequencies being different.
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I have never said otherwise, my point was that finding common denominators in various phenomena allows us to simplify fundamental equations occurring naturally.
    Example: the Fibonacci sequence occurring in leafed plants, from which we can deduce that this sequence offers a survival advantage. The plant does not need to "know" the mathematics, it just is an evolutionary refinement of capturing maximum amount of light.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Because the more we know the more common denominators we discover. This makes the mathematics simpler, we need only refer to the previously developed mathematics and incorporate them into the "proof" of a particular hypothesis.
    Thus the expression
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants
     
  17. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Sure, but the only way to know whether the common denominators are actually connected, is to be "obsessed with detail".[/QUOTE]

    But how would you know that it's for the same reason for all leafed plants, unless you check the details?

    Are you claiming everything is connected to everything?
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I agree.
    They have. the sequence is physically observable not only on earth, but throughout the universe.
    In an hierarchical self ordering system all the parts follow the same paths these orders allow. The Fibonacci Sequence is not just found on Earth. It is observably spread throughout the universe! That's no accident, it is a self-orgazing mathematical pattern which is efficient in some particular mathematical way.
    https://www.goldennumber.net/spirals/

    These and all fundamentally significant mathematical patterns ("common denominators" ) have naturally occurred and have been expressed in the universe since the dawn of time.

    It's an "Orderly" (efficient) means of exchange of information (values and functions) without needing to be anything more.
    IMO, Mathematical functions are woven into the fabric of spacetime itself. It is a Potential (as in latent ability) of the Universe.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2018
  19. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Well, in that case, thanks for the compliment!

    Thank you for proving my point.

    Are you claiming the entire universe is a hierarchical self ordering system?
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Yep. It is a mathematically self-ordering system, IMO.

    p.s. that includes the mathematical function of entropy.
     
  21. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,986
    Ah, you're talking about the most trivial form of connectedness. Sure, in that sense, everything is connected. But that wasn't what we were talking about: we were talking about common denominators in natural phenomena.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Does it not follow that the ability to self organize demands some fundamental common denominators which allow the self organizing formation of recurring specific patterns in the first place?
    If not, why would mathematics be of any use at all?

    Hazen touched on that in his lecture recounting his walk through the Redwood forest and discussion of "organization" with Matt Scott.

    Start @ 43:40


    and this prior lecture I just found. Start @ 5:35
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2018
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    For what purpose would Trilobites already have eyes, unless they offered a survival advantage in their environment?
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2018

Share This Page