User Controls
Do rainbows exist objectively?
-
2019-09-10 at 8:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Well when I asked the "if a tree falls in the forest" thing was in my mind. If everyone in the whole world was completely blind, from day 1, THEN would color still exist?
Or like the minecraft example. Did minecraft always exist even before it was ever invented ? The POTENTIAL of it did, so in essence EVERYTHING exists, but it.. ya know.. doesnt exist either until someone can acknowledge it as a thing.
It's fine make fun of me I'm bad at this.
No you're okay. There's a concept called conceivability. Essentially, there are things that could possibly be but are not for contingent reasons.
I wouldn't say they already exist in a meaningful sense though. But there are as many people who disagree than agree on that. -
2019-09-10 at 9:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by Rear Naked Joke No you're okay. There's a concept called conceivability. Essentially, there are things that could possibly be but are not for contingent reasons.
I wouldn't say they already exist in a meaningful sense though. But there are as many people who disagree than agree on that.
So what are you saying ?
All things are Conceivable. -
2019-09-10 at 9:12 AM UTCWith a capital C for some reason
-
2019-09-10 at 11:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ So what are you saying ?
All things are Conceivable.
No, for example a square circle is inconceivable, it's just a set of words that don't grammatically clash, it's a valid sentence but the fact of it is impossible to even make sense of because it's internally as elf contradictory. Even a circle with a ratio of circumference to diameter different than pi, is
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-09-10 at 11:13 AM UTCTo answer your question more specifically: a perfect circle doesn't exist anywhere in the world but we do believe in the existence of "the circle", at the very least as an abstract object.
Just depends what you mean by existing. -
2019-09-10 at 11:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by Rear Naked Joke To answer your question more specifically: a perfect circle doesn't exist anywhere in the world but we do believe in the existence of "the circle", at the very least as an abstract object.
Just depends what you mean by existing.
Oh so that's why Maynard named his band a perfect circle.
I guess by existing I mean .. ya know... like I said.. the potential
. Better re questioned by me would be , is there a thing that does NOT potentially exist ? -
2019-09-10 at 11:25 AM UTCI'm drunk and high
-
2019-09-10 at 11:54 AM UTC
-
2019-09-10 at 11:58 AM UTC
-
2019-09-10 at 12 PM UTC
-
2019-09-10 at 12:04 PM UTC
-
2019-09-10 at 12:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ A circle in the shape of a square.
A circle is a shape, if you change the shape of a circle, it's no longer a circle. If you make it a square then it's no longer a circle.
A circle has infinite vertices but a square has four. A square's internal angles add up to three hundred and sixty degrees whereas the internal angles of a circle are essentially infinite.
Yes there are things that do not potentially exist, like a final end to this thread. -
2019-09-10 at 12:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Rear Naked Joke A circle is a shape, if you change the shape of a circle, it's no longer a circle. If you make it a square then it's no longer a circle.
A circle has infinite vertices but a square has four. A square's internal angles add up to three hundred and sixty degrees whereas the internal angles of a circle are essentially infinite.
Shapes are changeable is what you're saying and I agree. All squares are circles and all circles are squares.
You still havent said yes or no . -
2019-09-10 at 12:17 PM UTC
-
2019-09-10 at 12:57 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-09-10 at 5:18 PM UTC
-
2019-09-11 at 1:13 AM UTC
-
2019-09-11 at 1:20 AM UTC
-
2019-09-11 at 2:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Optical illusions aren't wholly subjective either.
Every subjective experience has an objective cause. Wavelengths of light do not become colour until they enter your eye and are interpreted by your brain. Or maybe I'm wrong and the world is full of tastes no tongue can know and lights no eye can see and when there was no ear to hear, you sang to me.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-09-11 at 2:24 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Every subjective experience has an objective cause. Wavelengths of light do not become colour until they enter your eye and are interpreted by your brain. Or maybe I'm wrong and the world is full of tastes no tongue can know and lights no eye can see and when there was no ear to hear, you sang to me.
Epistemically the means by which we know these things are ontologically true are by our experience of them. If for example you never tasted chocolate, you could do whatever scientific description you wanted but you would simply not be able to actually tell what chocolate tastes like until you eat it. Many things we know "in theory", we don't really know, such as the smell of hydrogen sulphide. And many things other people know for sure, you don't know at all, such as a known flavour you have never tasted.
So, we only know light by looking at it. Sure there is a scientific description of it out in the world, but it's only a limited description of our observation.
So in a very real way, that light is coloured whether you are currently looking it or not.
