On Nothing in a void.

[Write4U]

So objects change color depending on the lighting conditions?

I believe that, yes.

Are you claiming that objects magically change properties when light hits them (i.e. they acquire a color property), or that color is not a property of an object at all?

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.

Additionally, if color is a reflective property, then all your previous posts about red light and red wave lengths and such are incoherent: color is then a property of an object, not of the light.

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.

I'm not talking about a color being visible, I'm talking about the color itself.

Have to have light to what we perceive as color.

Color (American English) or colour (Commonwealth English) is the characteristic of humanvisual perception described through color categories, with names such as red, orange, yellow, green, blue, or purple. This perception of color derives from the stimulation of cone cells in the human eye by electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum. Color categories and physical specifications of color are associated with objects through the wavelength of the light that is reflected from them. This reflection is governed by the object's physical properties such as light absorption, emission spectra, etc.

No EM waves, no color.

 

[Write4U]

I would contend single cell organisms repoducer and that they do not have any means of labelling the process "making love"

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.

There would not be any "motivation" in the same way a stone has no motivation to roll down a hill.

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.

Hameroff appears to be anthropomorphising the "love making" process. So unless he has tape recordings or videos of interviews where the single cell organisms are telling him "Yes we just made love and why were you watching? Are you making single cell porno movies?" I'm calling this Cowpat Woo Woo

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....

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.

None of which has any relevance to where did your proposed potential energy come from?

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"..., an abstract form of cognitive abilities.

Psychophysics quantitatively investigates the relationship between physical stimuli and the sensations and perceptions they produce. Psychophysics has been described as "the scientific study of the relation between stimulus and sensation"[1] or, more completely, as "the analysis of perceptual processes by studying the effect on a subject's experience or behaviour of systematically varying the properties of a stimulus along one or more physical dimensions"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysics

The circle appears to be colored light blue — but it's actually the same shade of white.

This is called a neon color spreading illusion.

Does something like this happen in the brain's mirror neural network, or perhaps already at quantum level?

 

[Write4U]

Colour mixtures
from Michael’s Visual Phenomena & Optical Illusions

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/col-mix/index.html

 

[Write4U]

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.

Does colour exist?: Andrew Parker at TEDxSydney

It's all about little Pings of cognition.

 

[river]

Well the title is a mere attention getter.
I want to discuss nothing in general rather than placing it in a void.
The subject of nothing often comes up and yet it could be argued that nothing does not in fact exist.
Some say before everything there was nothing, some say there is nothing on the outside of the universe, some say they have nothing to say rather than to say something.
I ask what is nothing? How should it be defined?
Can nothing exist and does it take up space?
Is there nothing in a void or is a void nothing.
Can you say something about nothing.
Alex

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 .

 

[Michael 345]

Then why do they mate at all?

Pure reactionary

And in higher level organisms why do they seek mates?

After two weeks in Bali with girlfriend for company - enjoyment

Optimal parsimony.

Noooooooo. PHYSICS

 

[Write4U]

Pure reactionary.

Why does the reaction take place? Non-intelligent cognition?

After two weeks in Bali with girlfriend for company - enjoyment

Also identified as "parsimony".

Noooooooo. PHYSICS............

And what does PHYSICS do? or is it an area of inquiry into the workings of the universe?

Physics (from Ancient Greek: φυσική (ἐπιστήμη), translit. physikḗ (epistḗmē), lit. 'knowledge of nature', from φύσιςphýsis "nature" is the natural science that studies matter and its motion and behavior through space and time and that studies the related entities of energy and force.[5] Physics is one of the most fundamental scientific disciplines, and its main goal is to understand how the universe behaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics

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".

 

[NotEinstein]

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.

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

It's not just a matter of reflection , there is also absorbtion and refraction.

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

question: does air have a color or does it have refractive properties?

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

Witness a rainbow.

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

Do hydrogen and oxygen have colors?

Under what lighting conditions?

Yet when light shines through it is refracted into it's componenet color wavelengths.

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.

Have to have light to what we perceive as color.

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)?

No EM waves, no color.

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.

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.

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.

Conclusion: the surface of things do not possess colors in and of themselves.

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

They possess quantum wave information which reflects or refracts light waves and is perceived (experienced) by our optical neural network as colors.

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.

This cognition may be different in individual brains.

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

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

It's all about little Pings of cognition.

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?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

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.

No EM waves, no color.

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)

 

[Write4U]

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

Right. was sloppy. Perhaps I should have specified "appears white in sunlight". Better?

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

Four possible sources and ability for observation of light (in the visible spectrum): a) emission, b) refraction, c) reflection, d) absorbtion

Not sure about the color, but it obviously has refractive properties:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Refractive_index . We agree.

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

We agree, (refraction).

Under what lighting conditions?

IMO, a rainbow is caused by refraction of direct sunlight.

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.

You are correct, but don'tforget the source of Emission.

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)?

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.

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.

All EM waves have mathematical values expressed in hertz, as far as I know..

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.

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.

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

Yes, It seems that snow reflects light with minimal absorbtion and therefore appears as white as sunlight.

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.

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).

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

Again, my error, for brevity. Insects are sensitive to wave lengths which we cannot "cognize", and insentive to some of our colors.

Around 6:40, your own video explicitly states that colors are properties of objects.

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.

Around 8:15, colors are equated to wavelengths, without explicit mention of any observer, clearly indicating color is objective, not subjective.

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).

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?

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".

 

[NotEinstein]

Right. was sloppy. Perhaps I should have specified "appears white in sunlight". Better?

I guess; they are your claims.

Four possible sources and ability for observation of light (in the visible spectrum): a) emission, b) refraction, c) reflection, d) absorbtion

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

We agree, (refraction).

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

IMO, a rainbow is caused by direct sunlight.

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

You are correct, but don'tforget the source of Emission.

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

IMO, color in and of itself is composed of mixtures and harmonics of 3 fundamental mathematical wave frequencies.

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.

Not all light is white,

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

only the proper mathematical wavelength values combine to form white 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?

All EM waves have mathematical values expressed in hertz, as far as I know..

(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.

Right. The point I was trying to make is that the reception of observed wave lengths and their values,

("Properties".)

causes a collapse in the wave functions and is subjectively perceived as a color, a "ping".

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.

If the wave functions of the original values

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

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.

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.

Yes, It seems that snow reflects light with minimal absorbtion and therefore appears as white as sunlight.

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.

Well, when their is light the wave functions within the visible spectrum collapse on the receptor and only its mathematical values are processed,

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.

which are experienced as colors (when there is light).

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.

Again, my error, for brevity.

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.

Insects are sensitive to wave lengths which we cannot "cognize", and insentive to some of our colors.

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.

In a sense each object absorbs or reflects specific wavelengths, making it uniquely distinct from other objects.

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

We say; "the box is blue" or "the box is red" as properties of each box.

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

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).

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

No I claimed that the color white is a sum of mathematical values of light. (see # 208 above).

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 no, mathematical values are only subjective experiences by the observer, regardless if they are humans or rocks.

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

Paint is a perfect example .

How so?

The collapse of the wave function creates the physical expression (quantum cognition or "ping", in all things at quantum scales.

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.

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.

(Irrelevant.)

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.

(Irrelevant.)

Last but not least, "colors" are human invented symbolic terms,

You mean, just like mathematical numbers and values are?

symbolic of certain phenomena we are able to reconize and symbolize by their mathematical values which we have named "the colors spectrum".

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.)

 

[Write4U]

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?

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.

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

Of course, if I make a mistake I am happy to correct it.....

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

Well, a light source (emitter) is a light source, right?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Don't we call this "wave interference"?

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?

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.

(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.

Values need not be physical, they can be potentials becoming expressed during wave collapse.

("Properties")

The mathematical values of an object.

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.

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?

Category: Shades of red
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Various shades of the color red. This category is for all varieties, not only shades in the technical sense.
Shades of red
Alizarin crimsonAmaranthAmerican roseAuburnBlood redBurgundyCardinalCarmineCarnelianCerise
Chocolate CosmosCinnabarCoquelicotCrimsonDark redElectric crimsonFire brickFlameFollyFuchsia
Indian redMagentaMaroonMahoganyMystic redOxbloodPersian redPinkRaspberryRed
Red-violetRedwoodRoseRosewoodRosso corsaRubyRustScarletTerra cottaTurkey red
Tuscan redTyrian purpleVenetian redVermilionWine
See also: the categories Shades of magenta and Shades of pink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_red

to be continued.

 

[Write4U]

page 2.

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

Yes they do, wave functions have (are) mathematical values.

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.

Then it is no longer subjective (as in human perception), as apart from using objective mathematical measuring devices.

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.

Does a falling tree create sound wave functions, even if there is no observer?

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.

Apparently you still have not watched the Hameroff clip. If you do, perhaps you will discover my perspective.

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.

That's correct, a rose is not always red, there is a variety of rose colors, including "white" roses.

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.

I believe I have given several examples of subjective frameworks.

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.

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.

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

Depending on the light source.

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

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.

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.

To the human visual range, yes. Other animals or organisms may perceive a different color, beyond human visual abilities.

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

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.

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.

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.

You mean, just like mathematical numbers and values are?

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.

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.

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.

(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.)

Yes, sorry about that . I should edit more carefully before posting. My bad.....[/quote]

 

[Michael 345]

Does a falling tree create sound wave functions, even if there is no observer?

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

 

[NotEinstein]

I never claimed that light is visible while in transit unless it interacts with an object.

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.

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.

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

Of course, if I make a mistake I am happy to correct it.....

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

Well, a light source (emitter) is a light source, right?

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

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.

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?

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

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

Of course animals are able to experience colors, they just don't have names for it.

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.

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.

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.

Don't we call this "wave interference"?

No, because interference is not reflection.

Not necessary as light propagates via a wave function,

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

with specific properties, such as frequency. When the wave function collapses

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

or is refracted, the values become visibly expressed.

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

Values need not be physical, they can be potentials becoming expressed during wave collapse.

(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.

The mathematical values of an object.

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

Then what are you complaining about?

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

And is Maxwell's equation not a mathematical equation of values?

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.

Moreover, how many shades or hues of red exist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Shades_of_red

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?

 

[NotEinstein]

Yes they do, wave functions have (are) mathematical values.

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.

Then it is no longer subjective (as in human perception), as apart from using objective mathematical measuring devices.

(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"?

Does a falling tree create sound wave functions, even if there is no observer?

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?

Apparently you still have not watched the Hameroff clip. If you do, perhaps you will discover my perspective.

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.

That's correct, a rose is not always red, there is a variety of rose colors, including "white" roses.

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

I believe I have given several examples of subjective frameworks.

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.

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.

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

Depending on the light source.

(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.

Now you are making generalized statements without identifying the type of light. i.e infra-red or ultra-violet.

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...

Of course the wavelength of the photon determines the potential color expressions, but they are variable dependend on the wavelength.

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

To the human visual range, yes.

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.

Other animals or organisms may perceive a different color, beyond human visual abilities.

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.

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.

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

Yes, it is well described for humans by means of external measuring devices. But the wave function collapse is a quantum event. Ping.

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

I defer to Penrose. I don't think he spouts woo-woo.

(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 )

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.

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

That was in reference to the subjective processing of objective information by humans.

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

Our "best guesses" without the aid of external measurement devices. Again, I can cite color-blindness here.

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).

Yes, sorry about that . I should edit more carefully before posting. My bad.....

No problem; I (have to) do the same sometimes.

 

[Write4U]

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

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.

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.

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

I used this definition;

col·or, noun
The quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma; hue.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/color

What is a "objective mathematical measuring device"?

A camera? A spectrometer? An antenna?

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?

Obviously the observers would have to be of the same type or species.

Like us, bees are trichromatic. That means they have three photoreceptors within the eye and base their color combinations on those three colors. Humans base their color combinations on red, blue and green, while bees base their colors on ultraviolet light, blue and green. This is the reason why bees can’t see the color red. They don’t have a photoreceptor for it. They can, however, see reddish wavelengths, such as yellow and orange. They can also see blue-green, blue, violet, and “bee’s purple.” Bee’s purple is a combination of yellow and ultraviolet light. That’s why humans can’t see it. The most likely colors to attract bees, according to scientists, are purple, violet and blue.

http://www.beeculture.com/bees-see-matters/

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.

Doesn't the "collapse-bits" convert the wave function into natural mathematical values.

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

According to human symbolic language.

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.

This is why I beg your indulgence for my shortcomings.

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

NP....

(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.

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.

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...

col·or, noun
The quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma; hue.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/color

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

All equations ( = ) do.

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.

Human mathematics are subjective symbolic representations of objectively observable regularities and patterns in nature.

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.

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.

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

Yes I am.

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

Color names are human inventions. "a rose is a rose by any other name"

(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 )

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?

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

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.

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

And also how nature works , without the labels.

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).

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 problem; I (have to) do the same sometimes.

You also believe that color can only be if an object (a photon in this case) is shone upon

No, you are misrepresenting my post. Color of an object can only become manifest when photons strike (shine upon) that object........difference.

 

[NotEinstein]

1) In context of light, the emitter produces an original wave function with specific values.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

I used this definition;
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/color

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

A camera? A spectrometer? An antenna?

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

Obviously the observers would have to be of the same type or species.

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?​

http://www.beeculture.com/bees-see-matters/

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

Doesn't the "collapse-bits" convert the wave function into natural mathematical values.

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

According to human symbolic language.

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

This is why I beg your indulgence for my shortcomings.

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'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.

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.

All equations ( = ) do.

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

Human mathematics are subjective symbolic representations of objectively observable regularities and patterns in nature.

So your answer is "yes".

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.

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.

Yes I am.

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

Color names are human inventions. "a rose is a rose by any other name"

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

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.

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

Is QM not involved in this context?

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

To a living organism they are.

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

But consider a digital camera, how does it reproduce a colored picture?

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

Does it translate the mathematical values into binary language and pixels?

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

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, 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.

And also how nature works , without the labels.

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

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.

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

No, you are misrepresenting my post. Color of an object

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

can only become manifest when photons strike (shine upon) that object........difference.

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!

 

[Write4U]

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

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?

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

Emitters emit photons. Photons don't appear from nothing.

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

Right, because they deal with visible light

vs an ultraviolet spectrometer:

or an infrared spectrometer

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.

GLOSSARY OF MATHEMATICAL TERMS

http://www.storyofmathematics.com/glossary.html

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.

Mechanics
This article is about an area of scientific study. For other uses, see Mechanic (disambiguation).
Mechanics (Greek μηχανική) is that area of science which is concerned with the behaviour of physical bodies when subjected to forces or displacements, and the subsequent effects of the bodies on their environment. The scientific discipline has its origins in Ancient Greece with the writings of Aristotle and Archimedes[1][2][3] (see History of classical mechanics and Timeline of classical mechanics). During the early modern period, scientists such as Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, laid the foundation for what is now known as classical mechanics. It is a branch of classical physics that deals with particles that are either at rest or are moving with velocities significantly less than the speed of light. It can also be defined as a branch of science which deals with the motion of and forces on objects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanics

 

[arfa brane]

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.