Stretch your mind - a litle bit of fun

[Sayonara]

1)The spectrum off blue is 420-490 nanometers, thats a 70nm difference. That means there is a 16.66% statistical uncertainty, of whether it is blue.

I don't think so. What makes you think it means that?

 

 

2)The ball being shperical means that it is approximately (95%) like a sphere. Which means there is a 5% statistical uncertainty.

You just made that up.

 

 

3)5% is better than 16.66%, so if you had 100 people observe the ball, 5% would say it is not spherical, and 16.66% would say that it is not blue.

You aren't even TRYING

[Sayonara]

1)The spectrum off blue is 420-490 nanometers, thats a 70nm difference. That means there is a 16.66% statistical uncertainty, of whether it is blue.

I don't think so. What makes you think it means that?

 

 

2)The ball being shperical means that it is approximately (95%) like a sphere. Which means there is a 5% statistical uncertainty.

You just made that up.

 

 

3)5% is better than 16.66%, so if you had 100 people observe the ball, 5% would say it is not spherical, and 16.66% would say that it is not blue.

You aren't even TRYING

[Tesseract]

Ill figure it out.

[Tesseract]

Ill figure it out.

[Callipygous]

I don't think it's a game that we're playing as such although I see your point that it's arguing semantics.

 

I do think it's valid to question how an object can be defined as being more blue than spherical when it won't always look blue but will always look spherical (stamping flat excluded).

 

The stamping flat point leads on to another question though; can't we say that the ball is more blue because it is made of blue plastic and as such is intrinsically blue whereas it is in a more temporary state of being spherical?

 

you could somehow dye (or char for that matter) the plastic. it would then be a different color. i would say they are both equally temporary.

[Callipygous]

I don't think it's a game that we're playing as such although I see your point that it's arguing semantics.

 

I do think it's valid to question how an object can be defined as being more blue than spherical when it won't always look blue but will always look spherical (stamping flat excluded).

 

The stamping flat point leads on to another question though; can't we say that the ball is more blue because it is made of blue plastic and as such is intrinsically blue whereas it is in a more temporary state of being spherical?

 

you could somehow dye (or char for that matter) the plastic. it would then be a different color. i would say they are both equally temporary.

[Callipygous]

If you shine red light on the ball and it appears black' date=' is the ball still blue? Is the nature of a thing separate from how we perceive it to be? i.e Is how it "is" separate from how we perceive it to be?

 

If we cannot perceive something, then does that something really exist? If we can't sense the minute variations from ideal mathematical sphericality, then is the ball really not spherical?

 

The answer to all the questions thus far must all be the same, because all those questions inquire about the difference between perception and reality. If the nature of a thing is separate from our perception of it, then the ball can be blue even when it appears black, and it can be unspherical even though it appears spherical.

 

But what about when the ball is stamped flat? Is it still spherical? This question must have the same answer as my initial one about it's colour under red light, because they are fundamentally the same question - they both refer to our ability to alter an object's fundamental nature. If the ball is no longer spherical after it has been stamped flat flat, then our perception of it cannot be separate from its true nature, so it must change its colour under red light, and it is spherical as long as it appears spherical. Then the only requirement that it is spherical is that it looks spherical.[/quote']

 

 

best argument i have heard yet. : )

 

the only usable definition of blue i can come up with is when the substance reflects only,or mostly(aw crap, thats gonna turn into a hole... : P) the frequency of light that we see and call "blue". even if there is red light on the ball it still fits that definition of blue, the fact that it looks black simply means that it isnt reflecting any light (because none of the light of the proper frequency is hitting it) it still only reflects blue light. there is an absolutely precise mathematical defintion for "sphere", and since atoms are all moving constantly, we are incapable of achieving it.

 

however, there is a range of frequencies that meet the definition of of blue, so we are capable of making a substance that is blue.

[Callipygous]

If you shine red light on the ball and it appears black' date=' is the ball still blue? Is the nature of a thing separate from how we perceive it to be? i.e Is how it "is" separate from how we perceive it to be?

 

If we cannot perceive something, then does that something really exist? If we can't sense the minute variations from ideal mathematical sphericality, then is the ball really not spherical?

 

The answer to all the questions thus far must all be the same, because all those questions inquire about the difference between perception and reality. If the nature of a thing is separate from our perception of it, then the ball can be blue even when it appears black, and it can be unspherical even though it appears spherical.

 

But what about when the ball is stamped flat? Is it still spherical? This question must have the same answer as my initial one about it's colour under red light, because they are fundamentally the same question - they both refer to our ability to alter an object's fundamental nature. If the ball is no longer spherical after it has been stamped flat flat, then our perception of it cannot be separate from its true nature, so it must change its colour under red light, and it is spherical as long as it appears spherical. Then the only requirement that it is spherical is that it looks spherical.[/quote']

 

 

best argument i have heard yet. : )

 

the only usable definition of blue i can come up with is when the substance reflects only,or mostly(aw crap, thats gonna turn into a hole... : P) the frequency of light that we see and call "blue". even if there is red light on the ball it still fits that definition of blue, the fact that it looks black simply means that it isnt reflecting any light (because none of the light of the proper frequency is hitting it) it still only reflects blue light. there is an absolutely precise mathematical defintion for "sphere", and since atoms are all moving constantly, we are incapable of achieving it.

 

however, there is a range of frequencies that meet the definition of of blue, so we are capable of making a substance that is blue.

[Callipygous]

Actually Bloodhound was right. We have to answer this false question mathematically. It is more sherical that blue. Why:

 

1)The spectrum off blue is 420-490 nanometers' date=' thats a 70nm difference. That means there is a 16.66% statistical uncertainty, of whether it is blue.[/quote']

 

that whole spectrum qualifies as "blue". thats exactly why we can create a blue ball. if it were an exact wavelength we had to achieve we wouldnt be able to do it. like sphere, we have to get it too precise to meet the definition.

[Callipygous]

Actually Bloodhound was right. We have to answer this false question mathematically. It is more sherical that blue. Why:

 

1)The spectrum off blue is 420-490 nanometers' date=' thats a 70nm difference. That means there is a 16.66% statistical uncertainty, of whether it is blue.[/quote']

 

that whole spectrum qualifies as "blue". thats exactly why we can create a blue ball. if it were an exact wavelength we had to achieve we wouldnt be able to do it. like sphere, we have to get it too precise to meet the definition.

[bloodhound]

actually I change my position:- for the following reasoning.

The question asks whether a blue ball is more blue or more spherical.

 

Since we have defined the term "blue" in this case as the wavelength of light emitted by the ball under constant conditions. Then by definition the ball is automatically blue. while none of the balls are perfectly spherical.

 

Therefor the Blue Ball is more Blue.

[bloodhound]

actually I change my position:- for the following reasoning.

The question asks whether a blue ball is more blue or more spherical.

 

Since we have defined the term "blue" in this case as the wavelength of light emitted by the ball under constant conditions. Then by definition the ball is automatically blue. while none of the balls are perfectly spherical.

 

Therefor the Blue Ball is more Blue.

[Tesseract]

You mean perfectly a sphere becasue spherical means:

 

1. Having the shape of a sphere; globular.

2. Having a shape approximating that of a sphere.

3. Of or relating to a sphere.

 

And sphere means:

 

1. Mathematics A three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point.

 

The ball is not a sphere but it is spherical, and since spherical only needs to be defined and relating to or having the shape of a sphere the ball cannot be considered less spherical. Weather its a perfect sphere or not is not in the question thus we cant use it to answer it.

Unless the observer has a visual problem they would say it was spherical, not a spheroid or a sphere so we must leave that part of the problem.

 

Now about blueness, anywhere from 420-490nm is blue, that means all the wavelengths between those nm is blue. Now we have an observer. One . We do not know the exact hue or shade of blue. So we must compare them seperatly. Now in statistics you take the difference between the numbers and divide it by the smallest possible number to give the statistical uncertainty (The estimated amount or percentage by which an observed or calculated value may differ from the true value.)Which as I said before is 16.66%. Now we have one observer observing each wavelength of blue between 420-490 (becasue we dont know which it is). There is almost 17% that the observer will say that the colour is not blue. Because we dont know the colour of the ball exactly we cant say he is wrong. So in those 17% the ball is more spherical than blue, because the observer will say that it isnt blue but it is spherical. In the other 84% he would say the ball is blue and is spherical, so in those casses we cant compare those things under normal conditions. But if we change the conditions we change the question.

Now I think thats right.

[Tesseract]

You mean perfectly a sphere becasue spherical means:

 

1. Having the shape of a sphere; globular.

2. Having a shape approximating that of a sphere.

3. Of or relating to a sphere.

 

And sphere means:

 

1. Mathematics A three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point.

 

The ball is not a sphere but it is spherical, and since spherical only needs to be defined and relating to or having the shape of a sphere the ball cannot be considered less spherical. Weather its a perfect sphere or not is not in the question thus we cant use it to answer it.

Unless the observer has a visual problem they would say it was spherical, not a spheroid or a sphere so we must leave that part of the problem.

 

Now about blueness, anywhere from 420-490nm is blue, that means all the wavelengths between those nm is blue. Now we have an observer. One . We do not know the exact hue or shade of blue. So we must compare them seperatly. Now in statistics you take the difference between the numbers and divide it by the smallest possible number to give the statistical uncertainty (The estimated amount or percentage by which an observed or calculated value may differ from the true value.)Which as I said before is 16.66%. Now we have one observer observing each wavelength of blue between 420-490 (becasue we dont know which it is). There is almost 17% that the observer will say that the colour is not blue. Because we dont know the colour of the ball exactly we cant say he is wrong. So in those 17% the ball is more spherical than blue, because the observer will say that it isnt blue but it is spherical. In the other 84% he would say the ball is blue and is spherical, so in those casses we cant compare those things under normal conditions. But if we change the conditions we change the question.

Now I think thats right.

[Callipygous]

ALL of those values are "blue". it doesnt matter if an abserver sees a 420 blue or a 490 blue (and why would they see differerent?) it is still blue. 100% of the people who see those colors will see "blue"

 

 

sorry if im missing your point.

[Tesseract]

ALL of those values are "blue". it doesnt matter if an abserver sees a 420 blue or a 490 blue (and why would they see differerent?) it is still blue. 100% of the people who see those colors will see "blue"

 

 

sorry if im missing your point.

 

1)It matters, because he may not see it as blue.

 

2)We dont know the exact shade of blue.

 

3)He will see blue but he may not know this. We assume that.

 

look at this example, these are just a few of the possible colours the ball could be can you tell which is blue and which isnt? If you didnt know the question would you know?

[Callipygous]

"look at this example, these are just a few of the possible colours the ball could be can you tell which is blue and which isnt?"

 

if you tell me which wavelength each one is... : )

[Tesseract]

"look at this example' date=' these are just a few of the possible colours the ball could be can you tell which is blue and which isnt?"

 

if you tell me which wavelength each one is... : )[/quote']

I cant make it that easy for you.

[iglak]

look at this example' date=' these are just a few of the possible colours the ball could be can you tell which is blue and which isnt?QUOTE']

from top-left to bottom-right, by my eyes:

blue

aqua

purple-blue, but still blue

blue

grey-blue (maybe a little bit purple, but still blue)

blue

purple

dark blue

bright, light blue

teal

light grey-blue

very dark blue

purple

[Callipygous]

I cant make it that easy for you.

 

i gaurantee you at least one of them is blue, and that we are capable of creating all of them, therefore we can create a blue ball.

 

even with all those shades, we can make a color that is BLUE. for example, no one is going to mistake the color of my taskbar for anything but plain old, not-yellow-or-red, BLUE.

[RICHARDBATTY]

i gaurantee you at least one of them is blue' date=' and that we are capable of creating all of them, therefore we can create a blue ball.

 

even with all those shades, we can make a color that is BLUE. for example, no one is going to mistake the color of my taskbar for anything but plain old, not-yellow-or-red, BLUE.[/quote']

The colour does not exist as it is created in your mind. You cannot say another person sees it the same way as in colour blindness. It may only appear blue in the present lighting conditions. Even a blind person could feel it is a sphere and unless the properties of space time change it will be a sphere.

[Sayonara]

1)It matters' date=' because he may not see it as blue.

 

2)We dont know the exact shade of blue.

 

3)He will see blue but he may not know this. We assume that.

 

look at this example, these are just a few of the possible colours the ball could be can you tell which is blue and which isnt? If you didnt know the question would you know?[/quote']

The colour does not exist as it is created in your mind. You cannot say another person sees it the same way as in colour blindness. It may only appear blue in the present lighting conditions. Even a blind person could feel it is a sphere and unless the properties of space time change it will be a sphere.

In answer to all of those questions/points: It. Doesn't. Matter.

 

Can anyone say objectivity?

[LucidDreamer]

I say the ball is more blue, basically for reasons already stated. When you say something is more blue or spherical or you are given any question where the object is to determine how close something's attributes are to a certain characteristic or value then it is most appropriate to define a particular number if possible.

 

In the case of blue the natural value assigned to the state of being blue is the 420-490nm. Once something falls within 420-490nm it has become blue and it is no longer approaching blue.

 

In the case of being spherical the natural value assigned is a perfect sphere. Of course the dictionaries definition of something that is spherical is something that is approximately a sphere or relating to a sphere, but the only way to determine this is to compare it to a perfect sphere. There is no defined range that something is approximating or relating to that of a sphere; something’s relation or approximation is always in comparison to a perfect sphere.

 

So because we are assuming that the blue ball actually falls within the blue value of 420-490nm it has reached the pinnacle of blueness. It cannot be more blue if it wanted to. However its sphericalness is still something it can work on. It can continue to be more and more spherical without ever reaching a perfect sphere. So therefore the ball cannot be more blue but it can be more spherical and so the ball is more blue because it has reached the height of blueness.

[Callipygous]

The colour does not exist as it is created in your mind. You cannot say another person sees it the same way as in colour blindness. It may only appear blue in the present lighting conditions. Even a blind person could feel it is a sphere and unless the properties of space time change it will be a sphere.

 

IT DOESNT MATTER HOW HE SEES IT. if the color you would call green shows up in my head as what you would call orange when i look at it, it doesnt matter. for all i know what you see when you look at the sky is what i would call red, but that color has been defined as BLUE no matter how it appears to you, thats your blue. if you look at the bar at the top of this window (in every browser i know of) everyone calls that blue, even if what you see is what i would call red. the point is that the substance reflects a wavelength that we all see and acknowledge as being BLUE.

[mossoi]

if you look at the bar at the top of this window (in every browser i know of) everyone calls that blue

I'm using the silver XP theme

 

Ok, so we seem to have established that it's easier to achieve blueness than sphericity but does that make the ball MORE spherical? This is only the case if we assume more to mean most accurately. I'll go back to the ball in darkness, while it's easy to feel that it is spherical it is impossible to feel that it is blue. So the ball can be proven to be spherical more of the time than it can be proven to be blue. If we remove the ability to feel the ball, let's say put it behind glass, we can see that is blue but we can also see that it is spherical. Ok, we can't define the shape of those areas of the ball that we cannot see but then neither can we define the colour of those areas.

 

So, whenever the ball can be proven to be blue it can also be proven to be spherical. When the ball can be proven to be spherical it isn't always the case that it can be proven to be blue.