Stretch your mind - a litle bit of fun

[bloodhound]

hmm. good logic mossoi.

[LucidDreamer]

So' date=' 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.[/quote']

But this only works when all of the different methods to measure are equally valuable. Say if each of the senses was worth 1 point and you could measure sphericalness with both sight and touch but you could only measure blueness with sight then it would be more spherical.

 

But in the case of blueness you have a silver bullet. You can hook a color sensitive photometer and determine the actual color as long as the machine was accurate you could accurately determine that the ball was blue. I would give the blue measuring machine more points of validity then both sight and touch combined.

 

A machine that measured sphericalness wouldn't be as accurate because a perfect sphere can never be obtained so that machine wouldn't get as many points as the blue measuring machine.

 

If you were a porn star and you were going to make a video with a certain porn babe but you wanted to know whether she had the HIV virus first would you rely on the test or your senses? Say she smelled, looked, sounded, felt, and tasted like she was disease free but two HIV tests confirmed she had the disease. Would you go ahead and make the video because more senses told you she was disease-free?

[Rakdos]

Can we Make this a debate Sayo?

[Sayonara]

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.

Your logic is good but your conclusion was premature.

 

Imagine the ball is behind a small window - we can see the colour but not the shape.

 

Or imagine you are told the ball is some distance in front of you, against a background that's the same colour as the ball. You can't distinguish the shape, but you know it's there and you know the colour.

 

Does anyone know what spherical smells like?

[mossoi]

Imagine the ball is behind a small window - we can see the colour but not the shape.

We can see the colour of PART of the ball but for all we know the rest of the ball is not blue.

 

This is similarly true for if the ball was at distance. The only way of knowing for sure that the ball is blue is to see all of it. Seeing all of it will also discover the shape.

[bloodhound]

 

Imagine the ball is behind a small window - we can see the colour but not the shape.

 

We can't even confirm if its a ball or not.

[Sayonara]

This is similarly true for if the ball was at distance. The only way of knowing for sure that the ball is blue is to see all of it. Seeing all of it will also discover the shape.

Red herring. We don't even need to see it - we have been told it is blue and spherical.

 

Once again subjectivity is being brought back in to the discussion when we know that seeing the ball is not important to the solution in any way.

 

My examples were simply to illustrate that you had cherry-picked your evidence. In the case of the ball behind a window, the problem is easily solved by having the ball rotated in 3 axes. The colour will be shown to be constant but the shape may not be discernible.

[mossoi]

Once again subjectivity is being brought back in to the discussion when we know that seeing the ball is not important to the solution in any way

Not really, the point I'm making is that maybe MORE could be defined as the amount of time the criteria can be proven to be true - in this case the sphericity can be proven more often than the blueness. Nobody has yet addressed the question of how do we define MORE in this instance.

[Tesseract]

You can't define more thats why this is a false problem. Its both equally blue and equally spherical. The only wat to solve it would be to add to the question.

[RICHARDBATTY]

You can't [/u'] define more thats why this is a false problem. Its both equally blue and equally spherical. The only wat to solve it would be to add to the question.

Its just for fun though. Just to see if you can put forward an arguement to prove either side. How many angles can you attack the problem from.

[Tesseract]

Its just for fun though. Just to see if you can put forward an arguement to prove either side. How many angles can you attack the problem from.

I put forth an argument , just nobody agrees with that one. You cant really get an answer without being objective though.

[RICHARDBATTY]

I put forth an argument , just nobody agrees with that one. You cant really get an answer without being objective though.

Sorry yes I misunderstood your motive.

[Tesseract]

Sorry yes I misunderstood your motive.

Why what did you think???

[RICHARDBATTY]

I though you meant to discontinue as it was and ilogical question.

[Callipygous]

I'm using the silver XP theme

 

Ok' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

 

if i put the ball in a small box with a very small opening, like one that doesnt let you see more than a square inch, you cant tell me that the ball is spherical but you can tell it is blue. if your going to use situational logic lets try to at least keep it open minded...

 

its not that its easier to create blueness than sphericity, its that its POSSIBLE to achieve blueness, but not sphericity.

[Tesseract]

The funny thing is, that this is the kind of question that zen buddhists spend weeks thinking only of this to achieve enlightenment.

[MOTP]

I think it actually has to do with how closed off the ball is from external sources of light. "blue" can only be perceived in the presence of light, so if it is very closed off, no light can enter it.

 

Therefore, 99% of its volume is not blue, but black. However, this also depends on whether you are talking about the ball as a whole, or just the "skin" that is pressurized by external and internal air pressure. If it's just the skin, and it's not very thick, it's still reasonably safe to assume that a lot of it is black, although in this case it would be mostly blue.

 

Something else to consider is that what you are looking at is a ball from the past, ie a ball that photons have hit. What you are viewing is not the present state of the ball itself, but a reasonable estimate because not much could have changed in the small amount of time that it took the light to reach your eyes. Heisenburg at its finest. So therefore another probability factor.

 

Also, the ball itself is not really blue, but the opposite, due to it absorbing all visible wavelengths besides blue.

 

With so much uncertainty, the ball still at least looks spherical. That's why I'd choose spherical over blue.

[iglak]

if you consider turning off the light though, you have to consider the opposite.

what if you have the ball in a fully lighted room, and take a picture of it?

and that picture is all you have to make your decision.

how would you know if it's spherical or not?

 

or just do what callipygous said a few posts ago.

[Callipygous]

I think it actually has to do with how closed off the ball is from external sources of light. "blue" can only be perceived in the presence of light' date=' so if it is very closed off, no light can enter it.

 

Therefore, 99% of its volume is not blue, but black. However, this also depends on whether you are talking about the ball as a whole, or just the "skin" that is pressurized by external and internal air pressure. If it's just the skin, and it's not very thick, it's still reasonably safe to assume that a lot of it is black, although in this case it would be mostly blue.

 

Something else to consider is that what you are looking at is a ball from the past, ie a ball that photons have hit. What you are viewing is not the present state of the ball itself, but a reasonable estimate because not much could have changed in the small amount of time that it took the light to reach your eyes. Heisenburg at its finest. So therefore another probability factor.

 

Also, the ball itself is not really blue, but the opposite, due to it absorbing all visible wavelengths besides blue.

 

With so much uncertainty, the ball still at least looks spherical. That's why I'd choose spherical over blue.[/quote']

 

 

your post is based on a different definition of blue than i have been going by. you also seem to use different definitions of blue through out your post. im not saying that makes you wrong, its just different.

 

"I think it actually has to do with how closed off the ball is from external sources of light. "blue" can only be perceived in the presence of light, so if it is very closed off, no light can enter it. Therefore, 99% of its volume is not blue, but black. "

 

that assumes blue means it is currently reflecting blue light.

 

"Also, the ball itself is not really blue, but the opposite, due to it absorbing all visible wavelengths besides blue."

 

while that assumes some very very strange definition of blue, where i guess blue means its full of blue light because thats what it absorbs?

[Callipygous]

if you consider turning off the light though' date=' you have to consider the opposite.

what if you have the ball in a fully lighted room, and take a picture of it?

and that picture is all you have to make your decision.

how would you know if it's spherical or not?

 

or just do what callipygous said a few posts ago.[/quote']

 

whats fully lighted? how bright of a light? i think in bright enough light substances of any color will reflect white light, wont they?

[iglak]

whats fully lighted? how bright of a light? i think in bright enough light substances of any color will reflect white light, wont they?

doesn't matter, the point is that you can never know for sure what shape something is in a photograph. and if the room is evenly lighted (i should have said that instead of fully), then you can't see shadows, so that won't help to discern it's shape.

[Callipygous]

we all seem to be focusing on perception here, perception doenst matter. it doesnt matter if we cant TELL that the ball is blue or spherical, the fact is that it is. we have been told that it is. if we go by that exact definition then the question is unanswerable. however, since the ball CANNOT be spherical, that part of the definition must be an approximation, whereas it CAN be blue, so that part is exact. which is why i say the ball is more blue than spherical.

[Tesseract]

Your changing the question again. Its:

 

I have a ball. It is made of plastic and it is hollow. It is also blue.

 

Is it more blue than it is spherical?

 

The ball is just as it is with no external variables. Just a ball. Light dosnt even matter were talking about the ball's characteristics not how it is percieved in different lighting conditions. Changing the question changes the answer. It says the answer in the first line anyway:

 

I have a ball. It is made of plastic and it is hollow. It is also blue.

 

It dosnt say anything about observers lighting or "if we look at it through a little window."

 

We only know the information given. A blue ball. Ball: sphereical. If it wasnt sphereical it wouldnt be a ball. Blue: having the characteristics to reflect blue light. As long as it reflects blue light the ball is blue.

 

Its not important or prudent if the ball looks different under certain conditions. The ball has not phisically changed, only the perception of the ball. The ball cannot change its characteristics, the photons dont reflect any differently off of the atoms in the ball. The problem is with our eyes.

 

"blue" can only be perceived in the presence of light"

 

So your saying that if we dont look at the ball it dosnt exist? If it cannot be percieved when its dark why could one still touch it? Remember the meaning of percieved is through any of the senses not just sight.

[Tesseract]

we all seem to be focusing on perception here, perception doenst matter. it doesnt matter if we cant TELL that the ball is blue or spherical, the fact is that it is. we have been told that it is. if we go by that exact definition then the question is unanswerable. however, since the ball CANNOT be spherical, that part of the definition must be an approximation, whereas it CAN be blue, so that part is exact. which is why i say the ball is more blue than spherical.

 

I was writing while you posted this. But if afraid we've run into another definition problem. Sphereical means (for the last time) :

 

Having the shape of a sphere; globular.

Having a shape approximating that of a sphere

 

It being a ball dosnt make it a sphere (nor is that the question) it only makes it spherical (which it is because it says so in the question as "ball")

[Callipygous]

well technically ball does not mean spherical, ever seen a football? (rugby?) but the author did clarify later that were talking spherical here.