Denying the color blue

[ImprobableJoe]

His intention was to deny the existance of everything that doesn't have a "shape". Th temperature example came about and he said that temperature actually doesn't exist, the only thing that he sees is a column of fluid from a termometer changing shape (and that was all there was to it).

That's an inaccurate description of what he was saying, and it outlines why you were wrong to declare victory and do a little cyber-dance. His point, at least as near as I can follow it, is that "temperature" is a description of a property possessed by something else, not a thing in itself. That's the same reason the words "shape" and "color" come up, because they are descriptions and not things. "Color" "shape" and "temperature" don't exist, they are ways to describe things that DO exist. That's why those words are followed by "of" and then a noun.

There's no such thing as "a blue" or "a 100 degrees"... do you see what I mean?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Then you uterly missed his point.

 

[Homunclus]

That's an inaccurate description of what he was saying, and it outlines why you were wrong to declare victory and do a little cyber-dance. His point, at least as near as I can follow it, is that "temperature" is a description of a property possessed by something else, not a thing in itself. That's the same reason the words "shape" and "color" come up, because they are descriptions and not things. "Color" "shape" and "temperature" don't exist, they are ways to describe things that DO exist. That's why those words are followed by "of" and then a noun.

There's no such thing as "a blue" or "a 100 degrees"... do you see what I mean?

I dunno...that is a rather sensible position (after all temperature is a measure of the agitation of particles not a thing). I think we was denying temperature altogether.

Take a look at this other quote from him:

"I can see mass!!"

And with double exclamations, folks!

Okay Ghost. Sketch for us what you're 'seeing.' Please draw a picture of this 'mass' thingy you claim to be 'seeing.'

"Seing in science isn't just precieving whit your eyes, it is taking a measurment... I can measure mass."

Hopefully, before you measure something you must see 'it.' Otherwise, how can you claim that you measured 'it'? Maybe you didn't measure 'a' mass. Maybe you measured a spirit.

Seems to me he directly denied the existence of the property known as mass that objects have

 

[Spase]

I dunno. I'm with MGK on this one.

Seeing in science really refers to detection by some means. Because you can detect a photon that's blue then you can have "a blue photon" even if saying "a blue" isn't grammatically correct if you don't stick a noun on there. I can see what you mean about these being descriptive properties of objects that "exist" such as blue being the wavelength of the photon, not the photon itself...

but on the other hand isn't there a handy conversion for energy to matter? I've always thought of E=mC^2 as a conversion factor... and saying energy doesn't exist is a little strange.. because heat.. which is indeed vibrational energy.. can be emitted as photons in the infra-red spectrum no?

Maybe I'm just making things up. Physics is far from my strong suit but I'm reasonably certain that systems regularly drop in energy-state and emit a photon of equivalent energy to the drop... meaning that energy can be expressed as photons, meaning that it can exist as an object.

:?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Seems to me he directly denied the existence of the property known as mass that objects have

I disagree... because you can't see "mass" without the "of something" that I pointed out before. "Mass" is a description of a property of matter.

That's like saying that "chair" exists. A chair exists. There is no "chair" without something physical to be defined as "a chair." Conceptual ideas and descriptions have no actual existence. The things they describe have all of the existence. "Mass" doesn't exist without matter, "temperature" doesn't exist without matter in an excited state, and "color" doesn't exist without photons.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I disagree... because you can't see "mass" without the "of something" that I pointed out before. "Mass" is a description of a property of matter.

That's like saying that "chair" exists. A chair exists. There is no "chair" without something physical to be defined as "a chair." Conceptual ideas and descriptions have no actual existence. The things they describe have all of the existence. "Mass" doesn't exist without matter, "temperature" doesn't exist without matter in an excited state, and "color" doesn't exist without photons.

The issue was never about semantics in that context. It is entierly your fault to project your own views on what you think he really meant instead of actualy looking at what he said in context. What he meant is not what you interpret of what you would meant if you said that.

You have to take 2 steps back and not try to fit a get away.

 

[Fordi]

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=i7QmsngMRpE

I'm trying to figure out whether this guy's joking, or a whack job.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Wack job, nobody jokes on the same stuff for several series.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

nevah mind!

 

[COMMUNIST FLISK]

is energy an object?

no
energy is simply the ability to do work

 

[P3t4rd]

That debate was painful at times to read. I am completely with MGK, bgaede tried to deny the existence of all energy and forces, accepting only things his sensory aparatus directly reveals to him. I wouldn't have asked him what the shape of blue is, i would have asked him what the shape of gravity is. As for temperature, he seems capable of using thermometers but possesses no idea how or why they work. As MGK said "Seing in science isn't just precieving whit your eyes" we can't detect radio waves with our natural sensory aparatus, we convert them into audio or video which we can detect, bgaede didn't seem to acknowledge that conversion either.

 

[IrBubble]

While I do know that MGK is entirely right in this discussion, I'm not entirely sure that bgaede is entirely wrong either. Things like temperature and blue can not exist independantly, but are attributes of other "objects". That does not mean that they do not exist, since they manifest themselves in the world, of course, but I think that both of you were to stuck in trying to refute eachother that you couldn't stretch a hand out and realize that sometimes you actually thought the same thing.

The thing I think Bgaege failed to realize when discussing forces is that they by definition need time to manifest themselves. Thus, we cannot draw a force, but we can film it. Everything that exist cannot be described as a static 2d shape. If it could we would effectively be 2d (edit: and static).