Re: About the thread "The color that doesn't exist"
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 7:24 am
I only asked questions, made multi-choice suggestions, and stated a personal opinion - there were no truth statements for anyone to contradict (on purpose!)tulamide wrote:And not true.
We have receptors for quantum objects containing certain specific amounts of energy. Even calling them "particles" or "waves" cannot really be the physical truth, as those intuitive models are contradictory; but they're convenient labels because, depending which experiment you do, they can exhibit the properties of either. Red, green, blue, etc. are similar "convenient labels", just intuitive categories (not independent physical properties) into which humans might sort these quantum objects, based on their subjective correlation with the perceptual effects which gave rise to the names in the first place. The map is not the territory.We have receptors for red, green and blue!
I promise you, I have never seen total blackness, even though I used to be a caver, so have been in plenty of places where photons of visible light cannot reach. And that's when I'm not having a migraine!tulamide wrote:without light you won't see a color...
Yes, tautologies have a habit of being trivially true like that!tulamide wrote:Of course "redness" is a property of red light!
Indeed. The mods around here have got quite enough on their plate with the spammers - I don't mind a bit of banter, but lets try to keep the ranting in check, please, folks.k brown wrote:Since this has now degenerated...