/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2638329
Pseudophilosophy = whatever you can't think of how to answer. Does this look pseudo to you:
http://mit.edu/abyrne/www/ColorRealism.html

>>2638247
You're dead wrong, though what you said is not dumb. There is a lot of BS in this thread. So listen to MY science.

First, this idea that everyone has in this thread that "color is a wavelength of light" is a myth. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_%28color%29.. The identity function on color (partition on the possibility space of retinal stimulations) is a function of the excitation of different color receptors on the retina. So long as blue and yellow light are balanced out, for example, the color won't look either blue or yellow, even if it has light of the "blue wavelength" and light of the "yellow wavelength" in it.

Second, you're ignoring the only point I made, which is that phenomenal colors (perceptual experiences of color) bear relationships to one another. For example, blue looks more like green than it does like orange. But green does not look like it contains blue (regardless of how pigments are mixed), while orange does look like it contains red.

Thus, since you know somewhat how colors are related to one another, you know that your phenomenal experience of red is not the same as my phenomenal experience of green, and vice versa. However, it wouldn't follow just from this that all of our phenomenal experiences have to be exactly the same.

This is not a bullshit question, but changing the subject to the properties of light and the properties of the nervous system cannot answer it. It has to do with the representational properties of the mind, and belongs to psychology and philosophy.

>>2638184
Although, the magnet will adhere even to the underside of a ferric surface, so maybe I was the one who was BSing.

>>2638095
Hey tiger, if the side of the fridge were perfectly frictionless, would the magnet stay up? I don't think so (assuming the material of the fridge is identical along the path to the floor). So don't bullshit.

>>2637786
Don't listen to this douchebag. He's not distinguishing between subjective experiences and third-person characterizations. Take his points and replace "orange" with "pretty" (making appropriate adjustments) and then see how much sense he makes.


Now MY point, on the other hand, was good >>2637416. See also >>2638010. The ONLY way to confirm that color experiences are phenomenally similar intersubjectively is to examine their interrelationships. If you take experiences in isolation, there's no way to tell.

>>2638026
Why do the fibers have to move to remain perfectly still you tweet?

>>2637988
So if you were able to hold something perfectly still--say, to keep a rubber band stretched--your muscles would never get tired? I imagine (though I don't know) that to maintain tension in muscles expends energy regardless, because without that energy they would go slack.

Maybe the energy is expended as the magnets slowly get weaker over time? Eventually the magnet will drop because the attractive force won't be strong enough anymore?

I can prove that your example is impossible. Colors have relations to other colors. If you saw orange as what I call green, and vice-versa, and everything else were the same, then you would say that green is more like red than orange is, and I would say the opposite.

Also, there is very dark green, but there is no very dark orange. When orange gets very dark, it's just brown. So if you saw all shades of orange as I saw the corresponding shades of green (corresponding in terms of darkness, that is), then you would say that dark green is just brown. And I would say it isn't.

They built these levees around New Orleans and now look at the place.

Go. Why should you be ignorant for your whole life just because you are now?

I think it's rude of you to cheat when your prof is nice enough to let you do corrections.

>>2622709
I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. You spout off at the mouth with a smug look on your face. You're just trying to make yourself look good when in fact you are just making yourself look so fucking stupid I don't even want to call you out on it, but I will. You post too damn much on an anonymous message board for someone who is critical of everyone who posts on an anonymous message board. Amidoinitright?

>>2622663
This rant makes the best sense when applied to itself.

>>2622633
Price doesn't adjust necessarily. It can be constrained, e.g. by law. In such cases, if price is held low, the demand goes up and supply goes down--and then you have shortages.

>>2622638
Supply is a function from price to production. Given price x, production is y (because y can be produced for a profit at price x, presumably). That is the supply curve.

>>2622306
Since Frege we do.

>>2616776
This is a good point. OP should add c) there is a quantum time.

>>2617555
PS: suck on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_science

>>2617555
Then it's also difficult for every German mathematician, where math falls under Wissenschaft (science). You are assuming that "science" is restricted to natural science. Because that's your language. In 19th century Britain, ethics was often called "moral science." Linguistic boundaries are arbitrary. Why not rather distinguish between empirical activities which are natural sciences versus those which are not? Or ask what the role of empirical observation in mathematics actually is (instead of just assuming there is none)? How about geometry? If astrophysics reveals that the universe is flat, then does it follow that the parallel postulate is true? Or are these questions too simple for everyone but me?

>>2617545
I see it as a self-referential paradox. If you say 1/3, then the answer is 2/3; if you say 2/3, then the answer is 1/3.

>>2617518
>>2617526
Pfft. If you think that science is any systematic and publicly confirmable inquiry into objective truths, then math is a science. If you think that science requires empirical observation, then math is not a science. Take your pick. If you think that math is the verifiable means to discover truths of nature, then you think math is a science just in case you think mathematical facts are facts about nature. Take your side.

>>2617412
Only if you know that the host has to offer you the chance to switch regardless of whether you've picked the prize door.

Why don't you just choose how you want to use the word and proceed accordingly? It's semantics, man.