Stretch your mind - a litle bit of fun

[Callipygous]

What if the ball were in a dark room and you had not previously seen it? Feeling the ball would tell you that it was a sphere but you wouldn't know the colour. At that point could you not say that the ball is definitely more spherical than it is blue?

 

What if you light the room with light containing no blue to reflect' date=' the colour would change but not its shape?

 

Of course if you were to stamp the ball flat it would remain blue.

 

So what should we use to define "most", is it lastability, perception, accuracy or something else?[/quote']

 

no, you could not say that the ball is definitely more spherical than blue. if you cant see the color you cant DEFINITELY say that it is not that color. a persons lack of knowledge does not change the properties of the ball.

 

if you did that second one, like with red light for instance, the ball would appear black. but the ball still has the characteristic of only reflecting certain frequencies of light. the ball IS blue. once again, making it so a person cant tell it has that characteristic does not mean the characteristic goes away. red light only makes it so that characteristic doesnt come into play.

 

stamping the ball flat actually changes that characteristic of the ball, it is no longer spherical. same goes if you were to somehow dye the plastic.

[bloodhound]

topologically speaking stamping the ball flat wouldnt change the characteritic of the ball.

 

When we say the ball is blue, we done have in mind the fixed wavelenght of light. theres a whole range of blue out there..... while theres definitely only one spherical shape

[bloodhound]

topologically speaking stamping the ball flat wouldnt change the characteritic of the ball.

 

When we say the ball is blue, we done have in mind the fixed wavelenght of light. theres a whole range of blue out there..... while theres definitely only one spherical shape

[Sayonara]

Then the answer can only be "both" or "neither", since if the ball is blue, then the reflected light must be in a wavelength that corresponds to that colour.

 

I am of course supposing that the topology and range of wavelength arguments are vaguely analagous for spheres and colour respectively

[Sayonara]

Then the answer can only be "both" or "neither", since if the ball is blue, then the reflected light must be in a wavelength that corresponds to that colour.

 

I am of course supposing that the topology and range of wavelength arguments are vaguely analagous for spheres and colour respectively

[Callipygous]

topologically speaking stamping the ball flat wouldnt change the characteritic of the ball.

 

When we say the ball is blue' date=' we done have in mind the fixed wavelenght of light. theres a whole range of blue out there..... while theres definitely only one spherical shape[/quote']

 

what do you mean "topologically speaking"? if i stamp a plastic ball flat, it is no longer round. it is a pancake on the floor, how is that a sphere?

 

right, as i said in my first post. the fact that there is a whole range of blue means that its possible for it to exactly fit that definition. the fact that there is exactly one shape that qualifies as "sphere" and that we are incapable of that level of precision means that it cant be a sphere.

[Callipygous]

topologically speaking stamping the ball flat wouldnt change the characteritic of the ball.

 

When we say the ball is blue' date=' we done have in mind the fixed wavelenght of light. theres a whole range of blue out there..... while theres definitely only one spherical shape[/quote']

 

what do you mean "topologically speaking"? if i stamp a plastic ball flat, it is no longer round. it is a pancake on the floor, how is that a sphere?

 

right, as i said in my first post. the fact that there is a whole range of blue means that its possible for it to exactly fit that definition. the fact that there is exactly one shape that qualifies as "sphere" and that we are incapable of that level of precision means that it cant be a sphere.

[RICHARDBATTY]

its more spherical than blue. the sphere is an object which exists in four dimensions. blue is our brains interpretation of the energy reflected from it.

[RICHARDBATTY]

its more spherical than blue. the sphere is an object which exists in four dimensions. blue is our brains interpretation of the energy reflected from it.

[Tesseract]

Is it more blue than it is spherical?

 

No.

 

Blue: what we see as blue is the visible spectrum between green and indigo' date=' seen by the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of about 420 to 490 nanometers. Or one of the [i']psychologica[/i]l primary hues.

 

Spherical: Having the shape of a sphere; globular. or b Having a shape *approximating* that of a sphere

 

The answer is no' date=' because:

 

1)We see blue becasue that is the result of our brains and the light reflecting off the ball.

 

2)We see (or feel it) being sphereical because of the result of our brains and and the light reflecting off the ball.

 

3)We cannot measure the way our brain percieves things when our brains can make [i']no more distinction between them[/i].

[Tesseract]

Is it more blue than it is spherical?

 

No.

 

Blue: what we see as blue is the visible spectrum between green and indigo' date=' seen by the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of about 420 to 490 nanometers. Or one of the [i']psychologica[/i]l primary hues.

 

Spherical: Having the shape of a sphere; globular. or b Having a shape *approximating* that of a sphere

 

The answer is no' date=' because:

 

1)We see blue becasue that is the result of our brains and the light reflecting off the ball.

 

2)We see (or feel it) being sphereical because of the result of our brains and and the light reflecting off the ball.

 

3)We cannot measure the way our brain percieves things when our brains can make [i']no more distinction between them[/i].

[mossoi]

Is a blue object truly blue though? If you were to try to paint an image of the ball you wouldn't just paint a blue circle. For the ball to look spherical it must have shading and high and low lights. In strong light areas of the ball will appear white, in low light areas will appear black. If the ball is reflective it will adopt colours from its nearby surroundings.

 

Is the colour of something as easily defined as merely the wavelength it reflects?

[mossoi]

Is a blue object truly blue though? If you were to try to paint an image of the ball you wouldn't just paint a blue circle. For the ball to look spherical it must have shading and high and low lights. In strong light areas of the ball will appear white, in low light areas will appear black. If the ball is reflective it will adopt colours from its nearby surroundings.

 

Is the colour of something as easily defined as merely the wavelength it reflects?

[Callipygous]

Is a blue object truly blue though? If you were to try to paint an image of the ball you wouldn't just paint a blue circle. For the ball to look spherical it must have shading and high and low lights. In strong light areas of the ball will appear white' date=' in low light areas will appear black. If the ball is reflective it will adopt colours from its nearby surroundings.

 

Is the colour of something as easily defined as merely the wavelength it reflects?[/quote']

 

 

if thats the game were playing then what is blue? im sure if you go ahead and redefine the word "blue" then my argument will be a load of crap, but currently we dont really have a definition for blue other than "reflects light of a certain wavelength"

[Callipygous]

Is a blue object truly blue though? If you were to try to paint an image of the ball you wouldn't just paint a blue circle. For the ball to look spherical it must have shading and high and low lights. In strong light areas of the ball will appear white' date=' in low light areas will appear black. If the ball is reflective it will adopt colours from its nearby surroundings.

 

Is the colour of something as easily defined as merely the wavelength it reflects?[/quote']

 

 

if thats the game were playing then what is blue? im sure if you go ahead and redefine the word "blue" then my argument will be a load of crap, but currently we dont really have a definition for blue other than "reflects light of a certain wavelength"

[mossoi]

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?

[mossoi]

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?

[Sayonara]

what do you mean "topologically speaking"? if i stamp a plastic ball flat, it is no longer round. it is a pancake on the floor, how is that a sphere?

We wouldn't care that each point on the surface is no longer equidistant from the center, because the surface is topologically the same form.

 

However while this is mathematically correct I am not sure it is the most appropriate way to approach the question. But then I'm not a mathematician

[Sayonara]

what do you mean "topologically speaking"? if i stamp a plastic ball flat, it is no longer round. it is a pancake on the floor, how is that a sphere?

We wouldn't care that each point on the surface is no longer equidistant from the center, because the surface is topologically the same form.

 

However while this is mathematically correct I am not sure it is the most appropriate way to approach the question. But then I'm not a mathematician

[Guest bubblybaby]

If you shine red light on the ball and it appears black, 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.

[Guest bubblybaby]

If you shine red light on the ball and it appears black, 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.

[Tesseract]

Its is a sphere because of its properties, we see it as a sphere becasue of the way we percieve it. Either way its still a sphere and if we dont do anything to it, it cant be anymore spherical. The same with blueness. But if we change the lighting or flatten it that would change the question so it would change the answer.

[Tesseract]

Its is a sphere because of its properties, we see it as a sphere becasue of the way we percieve it. Either way its still a sphere and if we dont do anything to it, it cant be anymore spherical. The same with blueness. But if we change the lighting or flatten it that would change the question so it would change the answer.

[Tesseract]

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, thats a 70nm difference. That means there is a 16.66% statistical uncertainty, of whether it is blue.

 

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

 

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.

[Tesseract]

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, thats a 70nm difference. That means there is a 16.66% statistical uncertainty, of whether it is blue.

 

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

 

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.