On Nothing in a void.

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

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I believe that, yes.
    Yes they do. At nano scale the shape of the nano particle determines it's reflective colors. Gold turns to red at nano scale. Look at old cathedral windows. The red panes are made from gold.
    It's not just a matter of reflection , there is also absorbtion and refraction.
    question: does air have a color or does it have refractive properties? Witness a rainbow. Do hydrogen and oxygen have colors? Yet when light shines through it is refracted into it's componenet color wavelengths.
    Have to have light to what we perceive as color.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No EM waves, no color.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Then why do they mate at all? And in higher level organisms why do they seek mates? Clearly there is a compulsion at work. That's why stallions can only be penned by 6' high fences built with 2x6 planks. A pen constructed from 2x4s won't last 5 minutes.

    My spayed female Minpin (dog) occasionally tries to hump one of my castrated male cats. I have two castrated male cats, which sleep in each other's arms. Apparently the urge to bond exists, even when not for sexual contact, for the sole purpose of parsimony (pleasure). I believe in QM this is called self-organizational optimal bonding, at all levels.
    No one claims that gravity has anything to do with this. Although the stone still comes "to rest" at the bottom of the hill. Optimal parsimony.
    Watch the clip, the pictured single cells are obviously not making casual contact, but seek the maximum possible physical contact, though they may meet by random chance a that level. And yes, Hameroff actually mentioned the term "porno movie" of two single cells mating....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And interestingly, the nano tubulars of the single cells display both cognitive and reactive motor functions, similar to flagellas, which may be used to establish optimal parsimony between the two organisms.
    True, IMO potential energy may well be a result of tensors and stressors in dynamical geometric patterns. An Implication of that which may become expressed in our reality .[/QUOTE]

    p.s. Hameroff proposes not a feeling of "love" as we understand it, but a form of quantum cognition, which also addresses the question of "uncertainty" how this cognition is expressed. That's why he and Penrose hooked up to begin with. Penrose was looking for a quantum computer, Hameroff proposed nano tubulars behave like (are) tiny organic quantum (2 way) computers, which process information and perform motor functions in response. Hameroff sees the wave-collapse on "receptors" as moment of "Bing". I prefer the term "Ping"...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , an abstract form of cognitive abilities.
    Does something like this happen in the brain's mirror neural network, or perhaps already at quantum level?
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    And to prove that color is a subjective experience.....watch some of the amazing optical illusions which spontaneously appear seem to acquire color by imprinting a black and white image with complementary (opposite) colors, then removing these colors and subjectively experience the black and white image having acquired color.

    Conclusion: the surface of things do not possess colors in and of themselves. They possess quantum wave information which reflects or refracts light waves and is perceived (experienced) by our optical neural network as colors. This cognition may be different in individual brains.

    Further research and phenomena, may be found in this Ted Talks clip.

    It's all about little Pings of cognition.
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
  8. river

    Nothing is the opposite of something .

    Nothing has no depth , breadth , space .

    Nothing has no potential to evolve , into something .

    Nothing has no movement .

    Nothing can never exist , because if could , the Universe would not exist , nor any Universe , in any dimension .
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Pure reactionary

    After two weeks in Bali with girlfriend for company - enjoyment

    Noooooooo. PHYSICS

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Why does the reaction take place? Non-intelligent cognition?
    Also identified as "parsimony".
    And what does PHYSICS do? or is it an area of inquiry into the workings of the universe?

    Using the term "Physics" has no meaning other than to identify an area of inquiry. Moreover at this point we are talking about PSYCHOPHYSICS!
    Well, these inquiries have brought us to this point of knowledge of how the brain generates subjective "conscious experiences".
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
  11. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    So when you said in post #180 that snow is white, you were incorrect according to yourself. You forgot to specify the lighting conditions.

    Light in and of itself doesn't absorb or refract, so I don't know why you bring up those?

    Not sure about the color, but it obviously has refractive properties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Refractive_index

    There are water droplets involved with a rainbow, not just air.

    Under what lighting conditions?

    This is incoherent according to you: light doesn't have color wavelengths, as color depends on reflection, absorption, and refraction, all three photons in and of themselves don't do.

    Are you talking about color in and of itself (in which case I disagree), or the (human) perception of color (in which case I agree)?

    And thus your original claim was that color is a mathematical value made physical is now disproven by yourself. If color doesn't exist without EM waves, then obviously it is not derived purely from a mathematical value.

    I agree that the perception of color is a subjective experience, but I don't agree that color itself is. And I don't think you do either, because if you believe that color itself is subjective, your own statements about "red wavelengths" become incoherent.

    So when you said that snow is white (without qualifiers) you were wrong according to yourself.

    Then please stop talking about "red wavelengths" or the color of unobserved objects, because that then is incoherent. Additionally, if color is purely perceived, it's clearly not a mathematical value, but a physical thing.

    Right, so when you talk about color, you must specify who is doing the observing, otherwise your statement is nonsensical.

    Around 6:40, your own video explicitly states that colors are properties of objects.
    Around 8:15, colors are equated to wavelengths, without explicit mention of any observer, clearly indicating color is objective, not subjective.

    In your original statement you said that the color white is a (mathematical) value that is (or became) physical. You are now claiming that color is subjective. Are you therefore also claiming mathematical values are subjective?
  12. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    just musing here ...
    interesting thought...
    perceptive concepts...
    a rainbow also has un-seen colours ?
    assuming that there is also infrared & ultraviolet yet when looking at a rainbow those colours are not imediately visible.
    in the process of making them visible, do we change anything(Schrödinger etc?)
    thus the rainbow consists of content that is present but not expereinced ? does one count sun burn or vitamin D creation as experiential concepts ?

    thus; would it be scientifically reasonable given the quantified/measured repeatable process that defines (im using the word colour) light as being the example that there must be a signifigant probability to a measured content of "stuff" that is real but not known(for pure arguement sake teleportation or light speed engines etc etc)
    • is there some type of mathamatical formula that predicts the probability of existing unknown physics ? (obviousely i wont comprehend the math, i am postulating a thought/question)
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Right. was sloppy. Perhaps I should have specified "appears white in sunlight". Better?
    Four possible sources and ability for observation of light (in the visible spectrum): a) emission, b) refraction, c) reflection, d) absorbtion
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Refractive_index . We agree.
    We agree, (refraction).
    IMO, a rainbow is caused by refraction of direct sunlight.
    You are correct, but don'tforget the source of Emission.
    IMO, color in and of itself is composed of mixtures and harmonics of 3 fundamental mathematical wave frequencies. Not all light is white, only the proper mathematical wavelength values combine to form white light.
    All EM waves have mathematical values expressed in hertz, as far as I know..
    Right. The point I was trying to make is that the reception of observed wave lengths and their values, causes a collapse in the wave functions and is subjectively perceived as a color, a "ping".
    If the wave functions of the original values of the emitted light was altered due to absorbtion, reflection and refraction, the resulting objects become visible as having a distinct of values, each corresponding to a color as we perceive them, those values will be subjectively translated into a "best guess" of a particular color, and helps us make distinctions in shape as well.
    Yes, It seems that snow reflects light with minimal absorbtion and therefore appears as white as sunlight.
    Well, when their is light the wave functions within the visible spectrum collapse on the receptor and only its mathematical values are processed, which are experienced as colors (when there is light).
    Again, my error, for brevity. Insects are sensitive to wave lengths which we cannot "cognize", and insentive to some of our colors.
    In a sense each object absorbs or reflects specific wavelengths, making it uniquely distinct from other objects.
    We say; "the box is blue" or "the box is red" as properties of each box. Wrong but convenient.
    No, the mathematics of the wave lenths have been equated by us as types of colors, i.e ultra-violet (invisible), al the wave lengths within the visible spectrum, infra-red (invisible but warm).
    No I claimed that the color white is a sum of mathematical values of light. (see # 208 above).
    And no, mathematical values are only subjective experiences by the observer, regardless if they are humans or rocks. Paint is a perfect example .

    The collapse of the wave function creates the physical expression (quantum cognition or "ping", in all things at quantum scales. Some particles are so small, they are undectable and pass right through our bodies, without us being consciously aware, but may affect the nano tubulars in our cells. Nuclear radiation is clearly destructive to our cells.

    Hazeroff proposes that ultrasound waves (lower frequency), to avoid heat build up are more benign and if administered in small measured doses, targeted at the right brain area, might have a stimulating effect and cause a spontaneous self re-assembly, repair, and possible new growth of nano tubulars, hopefully restoring cell damage in brain cells of Alzheimer patients.

    Last but not least, "colors" are human invented symbolic terms, symbolic of certain phenomena we are able to reconize and symbolize by their mathematical values which we have named "the colors spectrum".
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2018
  14. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    I guess; they are your claims.

    Light doesn't need to be observed for it to exist, so I still don't understand why you are bringing those up?

    So your original statement was incomplete and thus misleading, and you knew it. Thank you for admitting that.

    Rainbows also happen due to other lightsources, so your statement is wrong.

    That only makes it more incoherent: photons don't emit photons.

    So color is purely defined by humans? Because there are animals that can see light with wavelengths we humans cannot, but according to you, those apparently aren't colors.

    False, according to you. White is a color, and thus light cannot be white, because light cannot be observed reflecting (etc.) off of light.

    This reads as if you are claiming photons are purely made up of mathematical wavelength values. If this is not your claim, and you please rephrase that?

    (No, they have properties that can be expressed as mathematical values. EM waves don't have physical mathematical values, because those don't exist.)
    This is moving the goalposts. We were talking about color, not if all EM waves have a mathematical value in Hertz.


    False. No collapse of any wave function is needed; light can be described according to Maxwell's equations; no quantum wave function needs to be invoked. Additionally, (and that is my point) you can define color just fine without any observer being present. In fact, you have done this very thing throughout this thread when you were talking about objects and light having color without specifying the observer.

    This is gibberish. Original values (whatever those are exactly) don't have wave functions.

    Please give concrete examples of these "distinct of values"; what are they?
    And no, we don't need to subjectively translate them into a "best guess"; just measure the wavelength of the photon, and there's your color.

    You are missing the point: the snow can't be white, because white-ness is (according to you) not something that can be assigned to an object without an observer being defined. No observer was defined, ergo the snow can't be said to be white.

    False. The receptors in our eyes do not process mathematical values. Additionally, "the wave functions within the visible spectrum collapse on the receptor" is word-salad.

    Indeed, and thus your statement about "red wavelengths" are nonsense according to yourself, because without an observer (or even a receptor) there isn't anybody around to experience/interpret the color, and thus no color can be assigned.

    No, you cannot skip the observer for brevity. You claim that color is subjective, so every time you use a color you must specify the subjective framework (i.e. the observer) in which that color is interpreted. An omission of that framework makes your statement about color meaningless.

    False, according to you. Color is (according to you) a mix of 3 fundamental wavelengths, so insects cannot be sensitive to other wavelengths when it comes to color.

    Exactly; each object has its own color; something you don't agree with.

    Exactly; each object has its own color; something you don't agree with.

    Exactly; the wavelength of the photon determines its color; no observer needed; something you don't agree with.

    And you also claimed that color is subjective, so this sum of mathematical values is subjective. Since a sum is a well-defined mathematical operation without any subjectivity, its inputs must therefore be subjective. QED.

    And here you directly claim that mathematical values are indeed subjective. Which is it?

    How so?

    Again, no need to introduce the collapse of a wave function into this discussion: light is pretty well described classically. Also, this appears to be quantum woo-woo.



    You mean, just like mathematical numbers and values are?

    Right, but those symbols happen to stand for something physical, and thus for something objective. If I say an object is "red", someone may use different words or terminology, but we both agree that if white light shines onto that object, most of the reflected photons will have a wavelength in the 625-740 nanometer range. That is not subjective; it's objective and measurably true. However, you apparently don't agree with that, because according to you color is subjective, including the values of the wavelengths of the photons.

    (Note: Due to a substantial edit by Write4U after I had written my reply, some of my quotes might be off. Those are based on his original response.)
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    I never claimed that light is visible while in transit unless it interacts with an object. It may not be visible to the object, but the wave collapse is a quantum event, a "ping", affects part or the whole of that object and does make it visible for observation.
    Of course, if I make a mistake I am happy to correct it.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Well, a light source (emitter) is a light source, right?
    I did not claim that. I claimed an "emitter" (an emitting source) , which you agree with and which you yourself stated in the above sentence.
    Just as mathematics are the human symbolic translation of values, the term colors are also a human symbolic translation of values in the visible EM spectrum. Other bio-organisms have no symbolic language for mathematical functions
    Of course animals are able to experience colors, they just don't have names for it. But ask yourself, why do flowers come in all shapes and colors. Is that not to attract pollinating insects? Thus insects can see colors (reflected wavelengths), some outside the range of human perception.
    Don't we call this "wave interference"?
    Not necessary as light propagates via a wave function, with specific properties, such as frequency. When the wave function collapses or is refracted, the values become visibly expressed.
    Values need not be physical, they can be potentials becoming expressed during wave collapse.
    The mathematical values of an object.
    Then what are you complaining about? And is Maxwell's equation not a mathematical equation of values? Moreover, how many shades or hues of red exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_red

    to be continued.
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    page 2.
    Yes they do, wave functions have (are) mathematical values.
    Then it is no longer subjective (as in human perception), as apart from using objective mathematical measuring devices.
    Does a falling tree create sound wave functions, even if there is no observer?
    Apparently you still have not watched the Hameroff clip. If you do, perhaps you will discover my perspective.
    That's correct, a rose is not always red, there is a variety of rose colors, including "white" roses.
    I believe I have given several examples of subjective frameworks.
    That's true. The visible color spectrum is based on the human limits of human receptors. Insects have a different range of visual reception an interpretation, specifically evolved to find food sources. They are not human, their brains are very small and selected for optimal functionality.
    Depending on the light source.
    Now you are making generalized statements without identifying the type of light. i.e infra-red or ultra-violet. Of course the wavelength of the photon determines the potential color expressions, but they are variable dependend on the wavelength.
    To the human visual range, yes. Other animals or organisms may perceive a different color, beyond human visual abilities.
    To humans they are subjective dependend on the ability to "experience" the mathematical values. Obviously a color-blind person is unable to "experience" the correct color.
    Yes, it is well described for humans by means of external measuring devices. But the wave function collapse is a quantum event. Ping.
    I defer to Penrose. I don't think he spouts woo-woo.
    They are symbolic translations of natural phenomena, but they seem to work very well in both theory and application, which would suggest we are doing it right.
    That was in reference to the subjective processing of objective information by humans. Our "best guesses" without the aid of external measurement devices. Again, I can cite color-blindness here.
    Yes, sorry about that . I should edit more carefully before posting. My bad.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Depends on how you define sound

    If you define sound as alternating waves of air pressure - YES

    If you define sound as alternating waves of air pressure causing the ear drum to vibrate causing nerve stimulation to be sent to the brain where processing occurs and the perception reaction of the brain identifies the nerve stimulation as sound then - NO

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Write4U likes this.
  18. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Indirectly, you have. You have multiple times said that "white light" and "red light" exist. You also believe that color can only be if an object (a photon in this case) is shone upon, and the resulting light enters human eyes, and is interpreted by the brain. Combining the two statements results in the claim that light can be observed mid-flight.

    False. A wave function collapse is no needed for an object to be visible: classical physics works just fine.

    Glad that I could teach you that water is involved in a rainbow.

    Yes, but there is only one particular lightsource that emits direct sunlight, which is what you claimed produces rainbows.

    Ah, so you ignored the statement I made, only to nitpick one small omission you yourself introduced in post #201. Can you now please also respond to the statement as a whole?

    So because other animals can't speak, we are not allowed to name those things? What?

    Yes, but we (humans) can still assign a name! If they experience the colors in more or less the same way we do, it only makes sense to name them.

    This is false, according to you. While it is true that insects see the reflected photons with specific wavelengths, you say that the perception of color is subjective (i.e. dependent on the observer). However, you also say that insects have no symbolic language for this, and thus insects cannot see/assign color. Thus, the objects the photons are reflecting cannot be said to have color.

    No, because interference is not reflection.

    Note: A classical wave function that has nothing to do with the quantum wave function that collapses upon observation!

    (Now I understand why you keep talking about the collapse of the wave function; you are mixing up the different types of wave function!)

    So your answer is: "no"; your usage of the word "form" was just ambiguous.

    (Oh yeah, I almost forgot. You are using a personal definition of the word "potential"...)
    That is not a proper response. I said that mathematical values cannot ever be physical, and you simply say the equivalent of "nuh-uh".

    And I see you've ignored by statement about you moving the goalposts.

    No, properties are physical, not human-defined symbolism.

    Erm, the sheer inconsistency in your arguments? You are making all kinds of claims about color, and then contradicting yourself constantly.

    No. First of all, there are four equations involved, not one. Second, apart from several constants (which you can probably get ride of by choosing specific units), there are no numbers in the equations, only variables, many of which depend on position and time and thus cannot be said to generally have a value.

    I don't see how that is relevant, but according to you, it must depend on the observer. So, what observer are you talking about?
  19. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    Let's look at this a bit closer. You say that:
    1) Original values have wave functions.
    2) Wave functions have (are) mathematical values.

    One cannot have a have-relation that goes both ways; that's illogical. Thus, the second statement must use its "are". In which case the first statement was sloppy, and has to be "are" too. Wave functions are not the same as mathematical values. Look up the definitions of the words; you are wrong.

    (I see you've ignored my request for a "distinct of values"?)
    Exactly, and that is how color is defined in science.

    What is a "objective mathematical measuring device"?

    Obviously not, because a falling tree doesn't create wave functions; at best it creates waves. But you've dodged the question; how can you meaningfully talk about color, if color can only be defined in relation to an observer, if you don't specify the observer?

    I was mainly responding to the nonsensical "maths is real" and collapse-bits; but we've just established you are mixing up wave functions, so that explains that part.

    You have missed the point, and have committed the same mistake again. A "red rose": red according to whom?

    Sure, but when you make a statement about a subjective thing and you neglect to mention which particular framework you are using, your statement becomes meaningless. That's my point.

    Ah, I misread your original statement. I thought you were saying insects could see other colors. My mistake!

    (And the observer.)
    We both agree that you can't. Thus, from now on, please specify the lightsource and observer everything you want to assign color to an object.

    No, I switched to the scientific definition of color. Sorry this confused you. Although this surprises me; you've mentioned this exact usage yourself before...

    I don't understand the point you are trying to make. If A determines on B, then B depends on A. Well, duh.

    So mathematics is subjective too, according to you. Then please call it something different, because (once again) your definitions don't line up with the scientific or the colloquial ones.

    False, according to you. Color is only possible if one can symbolize the mathematical values (according to you), and humans are the only organisms capable of that (according to you). Thus, color is (at the moment) a human-only thing.

    Then please stop calling it mathematics, because it's not mathematics you are talking about.

    You have missed my point. Please re-read my statement.

    (That's an argument from authority.)
    At the very least it's unproven and partially falsified, and some do call it woo-woo ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo#History and https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness )

    But they are subjective (according to you), which was my question.

    Yes, and I switched to the scientific definitions of the words to contract how science works.

    Why would external measurement devices not be allowed? Our eyes are external measurement devices; they may be part of our bodies, but they are not part of our minds (which is where the interpretation happens).

    No problem; I (have to) do the same sometimes.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    1) In context of light, the emitter produces an original wave function with specific values.
    2) Wave functions also are causal in specific mathematical ways and as such produce dynamical mathematical results, such as wave interferences and also act on other media in specific ways. Thus one can say that waves have both specific inherent mathematical values but only their mathematical values are causal to change when acting on another object.
    All equations are applicable both ways. They say the same thing, but from a different perspective or mathematical function.
    2 + 2 = 4, an addition
    2 x 2 = 4, a multiplication.
    I used this definition;
    A camera? A spectrometer? An antenna?
    Obviously the observers would have to be of the same type or species.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Doesn't the "collapse-bits" convert the wave function into natural mathematical values.
    According to human symbolic language.
    This is why I beg your indulgence for my shortcomings.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I'll try, but hope that you will allow me some leeway and try to see things from my perspective. I do try to stay in context of the present discussion.
    All equations ( = ) do.
    Human mathematics are subjective symbolic representations of objectively observable regularities and patterns in nature.
    No, clearly that is not what I said.
    I said the symbolic names we have given to various colors are human inventions. Similar to human symbolic maths are human inventions. Nature does not name its values, functions and patterns, but they are all mathematical in essence.
    Yes I am.
    Color names are human inventions. "a rose is a rose by any other name"
    What is unproven? I am discussing the influence of QM and the collapse of the wave function in context of reflected or refracted or absorbed colors. Is QM not involved in this context?
    To a living organism they are.
    But consider a digital camera, how does it reproduce a colored picture? Does it translate the mathematical values into binary language and pixels?
    Or even a conventional film camera produces a negative in the form of opposing (complimentary) colors and you need to shine white light through the negative in order to reproduce the original colors and hues.
    And also how nature works , without the labels.
    Of course external devices are allowed. We would not have a lot of science if it were not for "more sensitive" instruments than the eye. However, even most external instruments translate the observed phenomenon into symbolic mathematical values.
    No, you are misrepresenting my post. Color of an object can only become manifest when photons strike (shine upon) that object........difference.
  21. NotEinstein Valued Senior Member

    This is word-salad when using the scientific definitions of the words involved.

    This is word-salad when using the scientific definitions of the words involved.

    You know, if you are not going to invest the effort of using words in an understandable way, why do you expect me to invest the effort of understanding you?

    Those are is-relations, and they indeed work both ways. Have-relations don’t. Please learn the meaning of the word "is" and "have".

    False; this definition doesn't have an observer-dependent component, and thus cannot be your usage of the word.

    No, those do not measure mathematics. Please give examples of "objective mathematical measuring devices".

    In that case you still need to specify the observer; in this case perhaps not an individual, but a species. You've merely shifted the problem. Question: are color-blind humans of a different species than non-color-blind humans?

    This quote is incompatible with your believes: you believe that bees cannot see color, because they cannot symbolize.

    No, using the normal definitions of those words it does not. In fact, the very thing you are suggesting is word-salad.

    So all humans have the same symbolic language, including color-blind people? OK.

    Then why do you keep dodging questions left and right, ignoring parts of my posts, and refusing to correct already pointed out mistakes? Why do you insist on using words and terms in ways incompatible with colloquial and scientific usages, without explaining them first? Why are you unable to use (and often even understand) words and terms in their colloquial and scientific usages?

    You have a lot of learning and growing to do, but for as long as I have interacted with you here, you seem to have made little progress.

    I am trying to see things from your perspective, but it is so inconsistent and incomplete, sometimes even violating basic logic, that one cannot speak of "understanding" in a meaningful way.

    Sure, but we weren't talking about an "is"-relation; this is a dependency-relation.

    So your answer is "yes".

    We have not been talking about the naming of colors; in fact, in post #204 you clearly equate color to the perception of quantum wave information, and not to its name.

    No, because mathematics cannot be experienced under the colloquial and scientific definitions of the word.

    I have not been talking about color names. Please re-read my statement.

    No, that was not what you were talking about; please stop misrepresenting my position.

    As I've pointed out numerous times now, QM isn't required to explain color.

    Yes, one needs a living (conscious?) organism for subjectivity to have meaning. Not sure why you'd feel the need to point that out..

    By measuring the wavelengths of the incoming photons, and recording that in a digital format.

    No, not under the colloquial and scientific definitions of those words.

    And, according to you, there needs to be an observer to see that light, because otherwise it doesn’t have a color. That was (part of) my point.

    So what you've been saying in this thread isn't how nature works?

    Except for example an optical spectrometer, which does nothing of the sorts.

    No, you yourself in this thread have clearly stated that color is subjective, and thus cannot be a property of an object.

    And subsequently is observed (you keep forgetting that part of your own explanation!).

    Also, please re-read your own post #198, where you explicitly agree with what I just said. I am clearly not misrepresenting your post or position, unless you have changed your mind about what you wrote in that post.


    Look, if you don't understand how to or refuse to use words and terms in their colloquial and/or scientific sense, fine, but please keep that restricted to the Fringe-sections of this forum. You acknowledge that you have shortcomings, but at the same time refuse (or are unable) to grow out of them, for whatever reason. Many of your statements are trivially true, simply wrong, or plain word-salad. Often, there is no meaningful communication occurring because you are (quite literally) speaking another language, a language that seems not to adhere to basic logic at times. Basically, we're arguing definitions and interpretation of semantics here, with you (seemingly) unable to understand or use the colloquial and scientific version, and me unwilling/unable to understand your version of words. Until the time comes that you are able to communicate your view of the world in an understandable, clear, and consistent way, I don't think there's much use for us to continue these discussions in this manner. This doesn't mean that I'm going to stop responding to you; in fact, quite the opposite. But I'm done playing Sisyphus trying to educate you. I will be pondering how to change my approach with you in the next few days; see you around!
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    No, they just do not have receptors that are sensitive to wave lengths which make up what we have named "red".
    OTOH, humans do not have receptors that are sensitive to ultra violet wave lengths. So we had to make spectrometers which are sensitive to ultra violet. But how do they display the results? Mathematically, no?
    Emitters emit photons. Photons don't appear from nothing.
    Right, because they deal with visible light

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    vs an ultraviolet spectrometer:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    or an infrared spectrometer

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Which shows that when we cannot directly observe the frequencies of certain wave lengths, we resort to instruments that translate the observed wave lengths into symbolic mathematical language.
    We can also represent visible light as mathematical values.

    In fact, all known natural phenomena have been translated into mathematical terms i.e. values, functions, patterns, which IMO proves that the natural world is an assembly of mathematical constituents.

    We can argue the merits of subjective observation and experience, but objectively it's all mathematical in essence, including the entire EM spectrum.

    The term QM is short for Quantum "Mechanics", the term BM stands for Bohmian "Mechanics", etc.
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2018
  23. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps some other people reading this thread have had the opportunity to see the new "quantum dot" flat-screen TVs?

    These have conventional LED emitters with a further layer of passive elements, which the manufacturers call quantum dots. The extra layer certainly seems to affect the LED output, the images are very realistic, the colours are clear and very close to "lifelike".

    So what do these quantum dot thingies do to the LED colour output, such that our subjective experience changes? You can clearly see the difference between the quantum dot screens and conventional LED screens when they're next to each other; the conventional devices appear somewhat washed-out and less "real" by comparison.

Share This Page