Stretch your mind - a litle bit of fun

[Sayonara]

This is going around in circles now. I think you'll agree that it's all a load of balls.

 

 

I'm going to cop out and say it is equally spherical and blue, since there are good arguments for each under a variety of conditions.

[Callipygous]

But isn't blue somewhat subjective, while spherical is not?

 

you cant argue it for one factor but not the other.

 

the fact is, the OP said it was spherical AND blue. so if you want to judge based on exactly what the OP said, there is no discussion, they are equal. you cant go by the OPs defintion for one of the properties but ignore it for the other.

 

the last three pages of discussion are all based on questioning whether the OPs definitions work in the real world, not debating the question based on his definitions.

[Tesseract]

the last three pages of discussion are all based on questioning whether the OPs definitions work in the real world' date=' not debating the question based on his definitions.[/quote']

Yet thats the only thing we can argue. Anytime we change the circumstances or conditions of the question we change the question (i.e creating the possibility of answering an answerless question). The OP also said that its impossible to answer, but it is interesting to argue over. The only possible answer directly based on the OP's question is 'no'. Unless we actually dispute the reality of the problem. As in questioning the possibility that the blueness or sphericity can't be the same (saying one can be more than the other), although they are stated equally.

[Callipygous]

right, so since the only thing we can debate is how the definitions work out in the real world, you cant assume that the definition was entirely accurate for one property but then question it when considering the other. you have to either assume the definitions are correct for both, in which case both properties are entirely accurate and it is neither more blue nor more spherical, or you have to assume both of them are flawed and that the original defintions can't be relied on as a source of evidence.

[grotesk]

you have to either assume the definitions are correct for both, in which case both properties are entirely accurate and it is neither more blue nor more spherical.

 

Didn't you say in your first post it was more blue???

 

anyway looking at it from object definition, it is more a sphere than it is blue. if forced to use a single definition you would say it's a 'ball' or a 'sphere', not a 'blue'...

[Callipygous]

Didn't you say in your first post it was more blue???

 

anyway looking at it from object definition' date=' it is more a sphere than it is blue. if forced to use a single definition you would say it's a 'ball' or a 'sphere', not a 'blue'...[/quote']

 

my first post was working under the second option i presented, which is how the rules work in the real world.

 

 

"or you have to assume both of them are flawed and that the original defintions can't be relied on as a source of evidence."

 

 

and BTW i still stand by it being more blue, due to the fact that it is impossible to make a sphere(which is a mathematically definable thing), where as it is not impossible to make blue since there is an entire spectrum of shades (many of which are achievable) which qualify as blue.

[grotesk]

 

 

and BTW i still stand by it being more blue' date=' due to the fact that it is impossible to make a sphere[/quote']

but it's been said by mossoi its a sphere 'in everyday language' - and you even quoted the dictionary entry...admittedly you disagreed with it, maybe there's a hint there....

 

imagine the colour definition was removed, or you could not see in colour, an object is still definable....remove the object definition and what are you left with? the existance of the object, in this case a sphere, is more *important* than it's colour.

[Callipygous]

but it's been said by mossoi its a sphere 'in everyday language' - and you even quoted the dictionary entry...admittedly you disagreed with it' date=' maybe there's a hint there....

 

imagine the colour definition was removed, or you could not see in colour, an object is still definable....remove the object definition and what are you left with? the existance of the object, in this case a sphere, is more *important* than it's colour.[/quote']

 

says who?

 

weve been down this line before. lets say i removed your depth perception and didnt let you touch it. you can no longer tell me that it is spherical instead of just a blue circle.

 

you can do things to remove the perception of either property, or the existence of either (squashing it flat, or painting it). so how temporary the property is isnt a factor.

 

if thats not what you were going for, try this.

the idea that "removing" blueness from the defintion is easier than removing sphericity(that is, the thing IS a sphere, where as blue is just a property of the sphere) is just a flaw based on human psychology. we could just as easily say the thing IS blue, sphericity is just the shape the color is in. our brains attach that importance to it because its what matters more in our daily lives.

[grotesk]

i'm not talking about actually removing properties, just demonstrating my theory on why it is more sphere than blue, like i said we know its spherical, we know its blue...and blue is a property of the sphere, can you reverse that statement?...that the sphere is a property of what?...of 'blue'

[Callipygous]

i'm not talking about actually removing properties, just demonstrating my theory on why it is more sphere than blue, like i said we know its spherical, we know its blue...and blue is a property of the sphere, can you reverse that statement?...that the sphere is a property of what?...of 'blue'

 

 

Yup.

 

"hey fred, i see some blue over there!"

"gee tom, what shape is it in?"

"why, its a sphere fred, thanks for asking"

 

the idea that sphericity is more important is only for human perception. shape makes more of a difference for us, that doenst mean its universally more important.

[grotesk]

"hey fred i see a sphere over there"

"gee tom, thats great"

 

no need for further explanation...of the *property* of the sphere, the colour can only exist (in this instance) because of the matter.

[Callipygous]

"hey fred i see a sphere over there"

"gee tom' date=' thats great"

 

no need for further explanation...of the *property* of the sphere, the colour can only exist (in this instance) because of the matter.[/quote']

 

 

once again... a human perception

 

"hey fred, i see blue!"

"gee tom, thats great"

 

they both work. if humans functioned differently then that might be the conversation you would expect.

 

there is nothing in this world that doesnt have both shape and color, even things that are clear still bend and reflect light. they are both equally important, you cant have one without the other. there is no such thing as an entirely colorless ball, just as there is no such thing as an entirely shapeless blue substance.

[grotesk]

its not human perception that colour can only exist due to matter...its fact. colour relises on light, matter and perception. as said before and probably poo-pooed by you, at night without suns rays, blue doesn't exist, shape does...and different receptors on different animals define colour differently to humans....but the shape is still present...physically.

[Callipygous]

its not human perception that colour can only exist due to matter...its fact. colour relises on light, matter and perception. as said before and probably poo-pooed by you, at night without suns rays, blue doesn't exist, shape does...and different receptors on different animals define colour differently to humans....but the shape is still present...physically.

 

yes, color exists due to matter, so does shape. nothing with shape is colorless, nothing with color is shapeless. neither is without matter.

 

and yes, i did poo-poo that idea, because its complete hogwash. first of all, because there is no such thing as a complete absince of light, and therefore of the color blue. and second, because something being blue means that it reflects only blue light, not that it is currently reflecting blue light.

 

not to mention that shape is also a perception, and as such, may appear different with different "receptors". (if we wanna get into the "what if i see it different" crap : P )

[grotesk]

nothing with shape is colorless)

oh?...so what colour is distilled water, and if you want a solid, what colour is frozen distilled water.

 

because there is no such thing as a complete absince of light

i agree there's no such thing as an absince of light, but what about an absence of light?

 

something being blue means that it reflects only blue light, not that it is currently reflecting blue light.

correct, of the suns rays...change the light source and?...

 

not to mention that shape is also a perception, and as such, may appear different with different "receptors". (if we wanna get into the "what if i see it different" crap : P )

not strictly true is it?...perception does not change the physical dimensions or mass of an object. and rest assured i never want to *get into crap*....you can please yourself of course.

[Callipygous]

oh?...so what colour is distilled water, and if you want a solid, what colour is frozen distilled water.

 

can you distinguish distilled water from air? it has SOME color, what you would call it i dont know, very light grey?

 

 

i agree there's no such thing as an absince of light, but what about an absence of light?

 

be careful not to turn this into an idiotfest.

 

 

correct, of the suns rays...change the light source and?...

 

it has nothing to do with the light source. blue means it only reflects blue light.

 

not strictly true is it?...perception does not change the physical dimensions or mass of an object. and rest assured i never want to *get into crap*....you can please yourself of course.

 

perception does not change the physical properties of things, but you dont know the physical properties of things. you only know your perception. if you dont want to get into, dont continue down that line.

[grotesk]

can you distinguish distilled water from air? it has SOME color, what you would call it i dont know, very light grey?

No i wouldn't

 

 

 

be careful not to turn this into an idiotfest.

thanks for your advice, but its not necessary

 

 

 

 

blue means it only reflects blue light

please define 'it'.

 

 

 

perception does not change the physical properties of things, but you dont know the physical properties of things. you only know your perception. if you dont want to get into, dont continue down that line.

again, i'm not after your advice - keep that to yourself. for the pupose of the question we do *know* its a sphere in everyday language, and we do *know* it's blue in colour. it matters not if you are blind, colour blind or just an argumentative colour'phile' the sphere...is a sphere. the blue relies on lightsource AND perception.

 

the spherical property of the object is more of a constant in my opinion, none of your explanations change my mind (not even the patronising ones).

 

what does the blue light reflect off?

[syntax252]

I still say it is more spherical than blue because color is subjective to the light conditions and the observer, and spherical (the geometry) is not.

[Callipygous]

again' date=' i'm not after your advice - keep that to yourself. for the pupose of the question we do *know* its a sphere in everyday language, and we do *know* it's blue in colour. it matters not if you are blind, colour blind or just an argumentative colour'phile' the sphere...is a sphere. the blue relies on lightsource AND perception.

 

the spherical property of the object is more of a constant in my opinion, none of your explanations change my mind (not even the patronising ones).

 

what does the blue light reflect off?[/quote']

 

im just going to start ignoring any parts of your posts that dont contain anything thoughtful or constructive.

 

the way a substance interacts with light is a property as well defined by science as its shape. something is blue if it has properties that make it reflect blue light, not if it is CURRENTLY reflecting blue light, not if a certain person percieves it as blue, not if it reflects blue light when under the mid-day sun, if it only reflects light of a certain wavelenght, it. is. blue.

 

the "blue" does not rely on the source of light, it doesnt rely on perception any more than shape does. the only way you have to determine if something is a sphere is with your perception. it isnt solid scientific fact any more than color is.

[grotesk]

the way a substance interacts with light is a property as well defined by science as its shape. something is blue if it has properties that make it reflect blue light

So what is reflecting the blue light?... like i said define 'it'. is it a substance?...whats the substance? how can you say blue does not rely on light source when you also say it has to reflect light?...

 

oh, and you'll be doing me a favour by ignoring my posts

[Callipygous]

So what is reflecting the blue light?... like i said define 'it'. is it a substance?...whats the substance? how can you say blue does not rely on light source when you also say it has to reflect light?...

 

blue doesnt mean it is CURRENTLY reflecting blue light. thats how. blue means if you were to shine a white light on it only the blue would come back. if it is in a completely lightless environment it would still be a blue object because it has the properties of reflecting only blue light.

 

whats the substance? any substance, it doesnt matter... in this case a ball.

[grotesk]

so are you agreeing it *has* to be a substance?

[Callipygous]

yes... and all substance has color... im pretty sure i said that already.

[grotesk]

and distilled water is light grey??

[Callipygous]

it has color, that was the best way i had to discribe it. im not a poet.