Originally posted by twhiteheadPlease explain how his observation of color is fundamentally different from his observation of length WHITEY
A child brought up with no names for length or color would idntify that the sky has a particular color but would not know it is blue. He would also see that a piece of land has length but would not know it is a mile. Please explain how his observation of color is fundamentally different from his observation of length.
Hi whitey , how's life?
They are different because of the direct raw data that the child is receiving from his environment is different . The experience of colour is sensory and direct and requires no conceptualisation to see it. The brain does not have to "think" or interpret to experience colour , it's a direct , undiluted experience that can bring about mood changes (for example). Babies experience colour with no concept of what it is.
The direct raw data in the case of observing a mile is different. What you see is the land (by virtue of the raw colour wavelengths reflecting off it) The brain then has to interpret this information in terms of space and depth and make subtle distance assessments (eg perspective , tonal changes , sizes of objects).Then the brain has to have a concept of what a mile is before it can begin the work of abstractly marking out a "mile" within the scene in front of it which could be from previous memory or from a mental abstract calculation. The raw data is at least twice removed from it's original input.
Babies CAN experience colour as raw sensory data , they CANNOT see a mile because that requires abstract spatial conceptualisation that is surprisingly complex when you think about it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNote also that you have quite happily said that blue is a particular wavelength meaning that its spacial dimension is an absolutely essential property of it.WHITEY
You are confusing units of measurements with actual dimensions. Note also that you have quite happily said that blue is a particular wave[b]length meaning that its spacial dimension is an absolutely essential property of it.
The piece of land has several properties.
1. Dimensions in space.
2. Dimensions in time.
3. Energy in a specific distribut ...[text shortened]... on from a large number of photons to determine anything about the object emitting the photons.[/b]
Nope , not proven . The absolute essential property of any wavelength of light is photons. The existence of "dimensions" is unproven. To be honest nobody really knows what a wavelength of light really is (am I right?) but we do know photons are essential and exist , but "dimensions" of space. I'm not sure you can define existentially what a dimension actually is any more than a mile.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe piece of land has several properties.
You are confusing units of measurements with actual dimensions. Note also that you have quite happily said that blue is a particular wave[b]length meaning that its spacial dimension is an absolutely essential property of it.
The piece of land has several properties.
1. Dimensions in space.
2. Dimensions in time.
3. Energy in a specific distribut on from a large number of photons to determine anything about the object emitting the photons.[/b]
1. Dimensions in space.
2. Dimensions in time.
3. Energy in a specific distribution and form.
A photon of blue light you see coming from it is emitted as a specific point in time and space and is emitted because of the specific configuration of energy at that point in time and space. The time and space are as essential to the emmision of the photon as the energy is.
Are you denying this or do we just not understand each other?
WHITEY
1. Disagree , to me dimenions are no more scientifically real than miles.
2. Ditto , but even more abstract (have you forgotten that time is the very unproven concept I am challenging?)
3. Yes , agreed.....apart from ....
"The time and space are as essential to the emmision of the photon as the energy is" WHITEY...........don't agree that this is a "given" because I can see how energy might be able to do this all by it's little ol' self. I think time and space are created by the energy (and matter ) of the universe. Energy /matter and time/space are all one and the same to me , I do not separate them out as separately existing and you have not shown how they are separate other than being separate in your mind.
Are you denying this or do we just not understand each other?WHITEY
I think we don't understand each other , I am denying the sense in whcih you talk about time/space being essential as if it is some kind of force like electromagnetism. Time /space may be essential CONCEPTUALLY but unless you can give me any idea of what time/space actually does IN REALITY then how can you say it's essential? I think you mean it's essential to our understanding of the process , but the way you phrase it sounds like you think it is ACTUALLY essential in the same way as it is essential for oxygen to be present in air for us to stay alive. Oxygen may be essential to our understanding of air but it's also essential in practice. Is this how you think time is essential? If not then a dimension of time is a conceptual property of land but not an ACTUAL property of land.
If you do not make this important distinction then I might as well say that because the concept of God is essential to many people's understanding of the universe => God exists in reality ....it's the same logic you are using.
You drift between using the word "essential" in the conceptual sense and the practical sense with no real thought.
Originally posted by EAPOEOn the surface if you tell a person the universe is colourless and silent, they immediatly consider it to be a point of belief. EAPOE
I can understand your frustration in trying to explain this point. . . Some people understand with a spark of realisation and at the other end of the "spectrum" some people consider it to be a matter of belief.
I think for anyone wanting to explore the realisation that colour, sound and all other sensory experiences are a subjective conscious interpretati ...[text shortened]... ly consider it to be a point of belief.
I gave up along time ago trying to explain. . . .
I think this is very likely. There are wavelengths of light and wavelengths of vibrating air and in our subjective world we interpret them and hear/see them as sound/colour. I can go with that quite easily. It fits very neatly with my idea that time doesn't exist (except subjectively)
Originally posted by dottewellIt remains a true property of the land that it is a mile long. This would be the case even if everyone stopped using "mile" as a unit of measurement.DOTTY
It remains a true property of the land that it is a mile long. This would be the case even if everyone stopped using "mile" as a unit of measurement.
AHHH....but would it be a conceptual property of the land or a scientific property. ? This is the essence of the question.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI reject your seperation of properties into either "conceptual" or "scientific". That was (you seem to have missed it) part of the point of the thought-experiment you refused to perform.
It remains a true property of the land that it is a mile long. This would be the case even if everyone stopped using "mile" as a unit of measurement.DOTTY
AHHH....but would it be a conceptual property of the land or a scientific property. ? This is the essence of the question.
To answer your question simply and in your original terms: being a mile long is a property of of a piece of land which is not dependent on the contents of your mind, my mind or anyone else's mind.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThere you go again trying to equate color with miles. Color is a property of which one specifically named value is blue. Length is another property of which one specifically named value is 1 Mile.
Babies CAN experience colour as raw sensory data , they CANNOT see a mile because that requires abstract spatial conceptualisation that is surprisingly complex when you think about it.
A baby can observe length and react to the size of objects just as much as they react to the color of objects. The human eyes determine colour, angle of incidence and also use bifocal vision to determine the distance to an object.
However all that about the eye is actually irrelevant as the existence of something is not determined by whether or not babies can see it or whether you are able to conceptualize it.
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo why have you chosen a particular property called energy as your 'reality'.
You drift between using the word "essential" in the conceptual sense and the practical sense with no real thought.
Why cant space and time 'create energy'?
Do you believe that it is impossible for a square centimeter of space to exist for a period of time without any matter or energy in it?
I have thought long and hard about it and still cannot see what you mean by 'conceptual sense' and 'practical sense'.
The computer screen in front of me exists. It consists of a certain type of energy in a particular configuration It is a particular distance in front of me. All these are facts not concepts.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe computer screen in front of me exists. It consists of a certain type of energy in a particular configuration It is a particular distance in front of me. All these are facts not concepts.WHITEY
So why have you chosen a particular property called energy as your 'reality'.
Why cant space and time 'create energy'?
Do you believe that it is impossible for a square centimeter of space to exist for a period of time without any matter or energy in it?
I have thought long and hard about it and still cannot see what you mean by 'conceptual sense' and ion It is a particular distance in front of me. All these are [b]facts not concepts.[/b]
Ok , I can see your problem here so I will try and help. Try looking at it this way. From your eye to the computer screen and into the computer screen exists only energy in all sorts of forms (air molecules dust etc) the idea of "distance" only comes from imagining that the "space" between you and the screen are sort of "empty". But the reality is is that it is not . All that exists is energy all around you except you divide it up into separate things and imagine units of distance between them. The energy exists , you exist , the screen exists and the air in between exists (another form of energy) . That's what exists. You have to then have a mental process involved to interpret a part of that energy as "distance". However , the air consists of energy and the screen exists of energy and you exist as energy . That's what exists --you , the screen and the air between you. These are the facts of what exists. It makes no sense to then treat "distance" as something else that exists as well as if distance "consists" of energy.
All you have to do is realise that WHAT exists is not the same as the DESCRIPTION of the relative positions of what exists. As soon as you muddle up the description with the reality you miss the essence of what is really there.
Notice that you did not refer to the distance between yourself and halfway to the computer screen. Why not ? That is just as much existent as the screen in what is basically a sea of energy. But unconsciously you saw the air as more representative of distance than anything else , but scientifically there is absolutely no reason to do this.
Originally posted by knightmeisterhow about if nothing existed in the universe, no stars, no life, no suns, nothing.... just a great emptiness.... would time still exist..?
This may have been asked before but...does time really exist?
I mean it's invisible , it has no mass to speak of , no radioactivity eminating from it etc etc . We are supposed to believe that it's really there , but is it? Is it any more substantial than God scientifically? Is belief in time a matter of faith?
How do we define "existence"? I ...[text shortened]... not in reality.
Anyway that's enough ...I'm running out of....t
the problem you have here knight is from a science point of view time does exist and from a religious point of view it does, (how many times does the bible talk of time), so to prove it doesnt you've got a fight on your hands, but a few philosophers believed it didnt so you're not the only one
Originally posted by eatmybishophow about if nothing existed in the universe, no stars, no life, no suns, nothing.... just a great emptiness.... would time still exist..? EAT MYBISHOP
how about if nothing existed in the universe, no stars, no life, no suns, nothing.... just a great emptiness.... would time still exist..?
the problem you have here knight is from a science point of view time does exist and from a religious point of view it does, (how many times does the bible talk of time), so to prove it doesnt you've got a fight on your hands, but a few philosophers believed it didnt so you're not the only one
What a strange question ? !! I'm not sure what you mean?
I assume that you mean "what if there was absolutely the absence of any existence whatsoever" ( this is what nothing actually means) . If this IS what you mean then it is logicallly impossible for time to exist because nothing can exist by definition.
This is a bit like asking me to imagine that A is not A and then asking if A would be A .
It's easy . Nothing means nothing so time can't exist in it because if it did it wouldn't be nothing.
Funny question if you ask me.
It's like a friend who said to me "surely the idea of life coming from nothing supports your idea of God because it could require God to bring something out of nothing"
My first thought was he didn't know what nothing was...if God was there then God would be something. When is anybody going to understand what nothing is.......IT'S NOTHINGGGGGGGG!!!!
Originally posted by dottewellI reject your seperation of properties into either "conceptual" or "scientific". That was (you seem to have missed it) part of the point of the thought-experiment you refused to perform. dOTTY
I reject your seperation of properties into either "conceptual" or "scientific". That was (you seem to have missed it) part of the point of the thought-experiment you refused to perform.
To answer your question simply and in your original terms: being a mile long is a property of of a piece of land which is not dependent on the contents of your mind, my mind or anyone else's mind.
I admitted that your thought experiment would refute my argument and you would win. I then pointed that your thought experiment could only take place in a different universe from our own where the laws of physics and light were inconsistent. Since we do not live in such a universe it didn't feel like much of a defeat.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDo you believe that it is impossible for a square centimeter of space to exist for a period of time without any matter or energy in it? WHITEY
So why have you chosen a particular property called energy as your 'reality'.
Why cant space and time 'create energy'?
Do you believe that it is impossible for a square centimeter of space to exist for a period of time without any matter or energy in it?
I have thought long and hard about it and still cannot see what you mean by 'conceptual sense' and ...[text shortened]... ion It is a particular distance in front of me. All these are [b]facts not concepts.[/b]
What I do believe is that this has never been proven to have happened so although it may be possible it would require the discovery of a whole new level of fundamental existence. In the absence of proof such a possibility can only be described as faith.
Originally posted by knightmeisteri think you need to be a little careful with the word 'nothing'... what is nothing? the absence of something..? if a room is empty does that mean there's nothing in the room..? strictly speaking, there is, theres light, if no light there's darkness, the room is filled with either light or darkness but the room still has something... it has matter...
how about if nothing existed in the universe, no stars, no life, no suns, nothing.... just a great emptiness.... would time still exist..? EAT MYBISHOP
What a strange question ? !! I'm not sure what you mean?
I assume that you mean "what if there was absolutely the absence of any existence whatsoever" ( this is what nothing actually means) . If ...[text shortened]... ng. When is anybody going to understand what nothing is.......IT'S NOTHINGGGGGGGG!!!!
if a planet has no life, no existence of that planet at all, are you saying time doesnt exist on that planet either..? you said if nothing exist time doesnt exist, lets go with your way of thinking, what if a room has nothing, doesnt time exist in the room either..?