|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Aug 19, 2011 17:52:51 GMT 1
According to last week's Horizon - much-trailed, so we must take it that the BBC considers this authoritative - colour does not really exist "out there". Would anyone care to defend this bizarre default position of orthodox science?
Similarly, we are assured by Marcus de Sautoy that the universe is constructed according to some in-built mathematical "code", and any "real" knowledge entails the deciphering of said "code". This equal absurdity is also an essential ingredient of the orthodox metaphysics of the scientific worldview. Anyone care to argue for it?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Aug 19, 2011 19:00:38 GMT 1
In the eye of the beholder, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Aug 19, 2011 19:41:20 GMT 1
You're referring to value and aesthetic judgements, I surmise. That's a pregnant discussion too, no doubt. But this is a question that is more epistemoligcally central. What do we experience? What do we know? Of what does scientific knowledge consist? Any "knowledge" or "experience" for that matter. The current - by "current" I mean for 300 years at least - scientific paradigm is that the only reliable elements of claims to knowledge are "primary qualities" (those ingredients in the mind's interaction with the world that can be measured). "Seconary Qualities" - elements that are by definition dependant on sensory reception or evaluation - are widely considered to be "unreal".
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 19, 2011 20:32:23 GMT 1
If this is the programme, 'Do You See What I See?' www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b013c8tbI've just watched the programme, "colour does not really exist " I agree with that. StuartG
|
|
|
Post by principled on Aug 19, 2011 21:57:34 GMT 1
nickcosmo I saw both programmes. I felt they were designed to be thought provoking for the general viewer (like me) and to that extent they did their job (IMO). I'd like to take each point separately: The universe's mathematical code: The fact that nature appears to follow a set of rules which coincide with those in our mathematical system would seem to suggest a symmetry beyond pure coincidence. However, as a non-scientist I would have thought that if such fundamental codes did exist and control the universe, then such codes would hold true at all levels from macro to sub-atomic. And this seems- from my limited knowledge of QM- not to be the case. Of course, it may well be that either the QM "code" is wrong or our macro "code" is wrong. Perhaps, if we knew all the codes, then this discrepancy would be resolved along with the theory of everything?
Colour does not exist: I think one could argue that quite easily. What exists is energy in the form an electromagnetic wavelength. Colour is our (nature's) visual perceptual property of those wavelengths. Outside of those wavelengths we see no colour, yet we know other creatures do. I suppose the corollary of that could be that language also does not exist. I would suggest that this is also true. What was interesting in the programme- and something which I believe supports the argument that colour does not exist- was the hypothesis that language changes how a person perceives a colour. If colour was a fundamental property then this would not happen (IMO).
P
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 19, 2011 23:01:36 GMT 1
P. "then such codes would hold true at all levels from macro to sub-atomic." Very generally they seem to, but if someone is viewing [say] the very large and small together they show their differences. going back to the EM spectrum, the different 'areas' or arbitary divisions that Man has given them, can show great differences. Long radio waves compared to Gamma Rays. They seem vastly different, but they have commonalities that can be predicted with mathematics. Frequency, wavelength, speed. I have improved my understanding of light [very much IMO] by 'seeing' the whole spectrum of EM in my 'minds eye' with light in the middle somewhere. Radio Long Waves having the least amount of energy and Gamma the most. If a particular part of the EM spectrum is looked at in detail then differences can be 'seen', Light can be focussed by a glass lens or glass parabola, microwaves need a wax lens or metal parabola to focus. Gamma ray focussing is a work in progress... sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=36959 but they're getting there. [don't get hooked on light as an entity, see it as part of the whole [spectrum] My question about Pi, not coming out to a nice number, I see that as a 'reflection' of reality. We all agree that Pi calculations work, but if we were to look at the smallest circles at atomic levels, the circumference is 'bumpy' and ill defined if the theoretical line is still held in the 'minds eye'. The atoms and particles are in constant vibration so their circumferences that they posess are in constant change, at that level. Draw back from that enough, ie reduce the magnification of the 'minds eye' and the circumferences will look more ordered, smooth and regular. The maths indicates this by coming out to an incomplete number. [We both know that a slip gauge is flat and can be rung together with another. We also know that under a microscope the surface ain't so flat. We have changed our 'perception' in order to understand what's going on. ] At least that's my perception! StuartG
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Aug 30, 2011 19:29:53 GMT 1
If this is the programme, 'Do You See What I See?' www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b013c8tbI've just watched the programme, "colour does not really exist " I agree with that. StuartG Yes, but why?
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Aug 30, 2011 19:37:28 GMT 1
nickcosmo I saw both programmes. I felt they were designed to be thought provoking for the general viewer (like me) and to that extent they did their job (IMO). I'd like to take each point separately: The universe's mathematical code: The fact that nature appears to follow a set of rules which coincide with those in our mathematical system would seem to suggest a symmetry beyond pure coincidence. Any evidence for this? Go on then. Yes. No one's arguing with that. Yes. A little more complicated than that, but go on. Yes. You would? The objective rule of a foreign language that you do not understand but that others evidently do, do not exist? It's interesting, agreed. But of no direct relevance to the question of colour's reality or not. The same could be said, for example (and often is), of different varieties of snow. Those diferent varieties exist, however - some people are more habitually/culturally able to distinguish them, that's all. The different structural properties of snow are not "fundamental"? What do you mean by "fundeamental"?
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Aug 30, 2011 19:43:41 GMT 1
I'm aware I'm slip-sliding on my aparently principled stand to not contribute to this forum until the seemingly Stalinist censorship policy is revised. My excuses are: I posted this thread before I made such a bull-headed and ineffectual gesture. Secondly, since then, Jean has avowed never to speak to me again in any case (she hates to lose a debate.) Nevertheless...Much as I'd like to, I hold firm to my stance. You can't particpiate in a forum that is so discriminatory. I'd genuiely like to debate this issue with competent minds, however. And it is, above all, a science issue - more than any other, I believe. So, if anyone wants to seriously engage in it, I invite them to a more free-thinking venue, where I've posted the same question: pinkmelon.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=7032
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 30, 2011 20:36:41 GMT 1
Who is this bloody 'Jean'? Obviously not the one I cited.
"I'm aware I'm slip-sliding on my aparently principled stand to not contribute to this forum"
It would be easy to agree with that, but the catch is, 'aparently principled', it wasn't apparent to me, more 'blackmail'. a tool commonly used by the KGB to 'recruit' agents. As You probably know the KGB was a successor to GPU/OGPU run by Stalin.
"I posted this thread before I made such a bull-headed and ineffectual gesture."
Having realised this, Your ploy now is to publicly admit to this in order to come back and try to subvert. Another tactic used by Stalin. You could have just replied to the thread, without fuss, and it would have been answered.
You appear not to know if You're punched, bored or countersunk.
I've got an idea, You delete Your post « Reply #8 Today at 19:43 » and re-post on subject and I will delete this.
Cheers,
StuartG
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 30, 2011 22:06:45 GMT 1
QED
Cheers,
StuartG
|
|
|
Post by principled on Aug 31, 2011 21:13:54 GMT 1
Nickcosmo You can see by my "nom de plume" that I am very principled as well, which is why I don't think I'll be taking up your invitation to discuss your reply to my post at another site. I'm not into personal insults by anyone, even if they are not aimed at me. I truly feel that they do not take any argument forward. I wish you all the best in your discussions on another board. P
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Aug 31, 2011 21:47:55 GMT 1
StuartG: "[We both know that a slip gauge is flat and can be rung together with another. We also know that under a microscope the surface ain't so flat. We have changed our 'perception' in order to understand what's going on. ]"
I often used to wonder about wringing slips when I was a lad but I changed my priorities to the study of female anatomy. I still do not fully understand the attraction of slip gauges but I do know a little more about my second subject.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Aug 31, 2011 23:28:55 GMT 1
I can see what You mean, one is used to measure and the other soon has the measure of me. Here's a site/sight... www.aslipofagirl.net/StuartG
|
|