An unanswerable question

[runescapeloser22]

Is what I see as red your blue?

 

 

 

That's easy to answer, I'd find something which I think is red and you'd tell me what color you think it is, problem solved.

 

 

 

No, no your didn't get it. We can't prove that my red is your blue because if I showed you my red it would apear blue to you.

 

 

 

for example: :mrgreen:

 

 

 

Mr. Green is indeed green to me, he is green to you as well, but your green could be my gray. Get it?

 

 

 

That made no real point, if mr green is indeed green to you, and hes green to me as well, my green couldn't be your grey, because we both said your green was the same green that I think is green.

 

That's not what he means. Say he thinks this is green. He could show it to you, but you would see it as this, except you said it was green because that's what you were taught, but really it's his red.

[Rebdragon]

How is that thought provoking in any way? So one person gets taught right and the other gets taught wrong; language has some leeway in slang but it doesn't go so far as to allow for people to mix up color terminology.

 

 

 

Please, if what you're saying is intelligient or even remotely interesting in any way, enlighten me. Otherwise I'm just going to assume this is a worthless tangent.

[Shinjula]

Nah, the guy hasnt described what hes talking about very well, so you have a misconception about what he means.

 

 

 

What he's talking about is something called "Qualia" the intrinsic experience of life. When you look at red, you experience something, if you look at the sun you experience "YELLOW", you then label it 'yellow' because when youve two your mum tells you that the sun is yellow. However, there arent any crossovers in your experience and any one elses, you cant see what any one else sees, you can only see through your own eyes and not someone elses, you can also only relate perceptions in terms of other perceptions. So what you see as "YELLOW" and label 'yellow", for all you know someone else sees differently and also labels it 'yellow'.

 

 

 

You can then take it further and extrapolate that for all you know, what you see as "YELLOW" and label as 'yellow' someone else sees as "GREEN" and labels 'yellow'. It's not that the label has changed, its just that you've no way of knowing how other people percieve the universe around them, you can only know your own perceptions.

 

 

 

It's not remotely that one person is wrong and one person is right.

 

 

 

There's a thought experiment to highlight what qualia is. Imagine a girl brought up in a room from birth that only contains black and white furniture, she has black and white books to read, black and white utensils to eat out of, everything in the room is black and white. She is taught from those black and white books of all the things in the outside world, she is told red is the colour of apples, fire trucks and cherries, she is given information about the interaction of light waves, of frequency, primary colours and secondary colours in short she is taught everything humanity knows about colour but without ever actually experiencing it.

 

On her sixteenth birthday she is taken out of the box and shown a red apple. Suddenly she knows what RED is. That experience of RED is a qualia, it is not connected to any piece of information she has learnt about the colour red, it is an experience of perception without regards to knowledge.

 

 

 

Nothing she could have learnt in her room could have given her that perception of red, no matter how much she had learnt.

 

 

 

Of course there are arguments against this experiement, but ill go into those later if people are interested.

 

 

 

 

 

What the guy above is talking about, is that ther is no way to tell whether or not my qualia match your qualia.

[Zierro]

How is that thought provoking in any way? So one person gets taught right and the other gets taught wrong; language has some leeway in slang but it doesn't go so far as to allow for people to mix up color terminology.

 

 

 

Please, if what you're saying is intelligient or even remotely interesting in any way, enlighten me. Otherwise I'm just going to assume this is a worthless tangent.

 

 

 

The main idea behind it is the point they're trying to make. (Different people have different perceptions of the world.)

 

 

 

What somebody might see as beautiful and breathtaking, another person might see as horrifying.

[J a m e s]

This reminds me of one of my favorite techno songs:

 

 

 

Eiffel 65 - "Now is Forever"

 

 

 

the past is all that's gone,

 

the future is yet to come.

 

this moment is all our own.

 

we should live this way,

 

just building up our day,

 

now and forever.

 

the past is all that's gone,

 

the future is yet to come.

 

this moment is all our own.

 

we should live this way,

 

just building up our day,

 

now and forever.

 

don't shade your future,

 

with what you don't have.

 

keep your mind on that's here today.

 

now and forever,

 

build the future now.

 

keep this mind.

 

though you will take your time,

 

to get what you need,

 

but you'll do it step after step.

 

yet to come is all that's gone,

 

learn to live this moment.

 

live for today.

 

 

 

Anyway, time may or may not exist. It has actually been proven that "time" goes by faster the older you are. The longer you are alive, the less you feel the "passage" of "time."

 

 

 

Oh, and it's hard to prove that someone else's green is your green, but I believe that it could be done. You could ask someone on a scale of 1-10 how bright a certain color is, black being 10 and white being 1. And I think my dark is your dark!

[Dalcyte]

Where is it? Does it occupy a single space in the universe at anyone time? Can we test it? How did it begin? Has it always existed.

 

 

 

I think there's more to this question than first percived...

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I thought time was reletive?

 

 

 

why, yes it does exist.

 

4th Dimension.

 

You're questioning it because it has no mass, and it can't be measured as we typically measure things on a 3 dimensional plane. But you have to realize it doesn't follow those rules because time is 4th dimensional. We can believe in it because things progress in a consistent order. Time is relative? Yes, when you approach the speed of light it does slow down.

[EdgedThesis]

Time does exist.

 

 

 

The clocks that work on metal gears and complex man-made mechanisms aren't very accurate. Which is why we've resorted to the decay of certain atoms. One second is the time taken between pulses of radio waves from a cesium atom.

 

 

 

Time can be warped, in our limited perspective, by gravity. Atomic clocks speed up or slow down if they are in a deep well or high in atmosphere.

 

 

 

Time isn't necessarily a measure of sequential events. It is just because we, the humble three-dimensional creatures that we are, cannot perceive a higher dimension as a whole, just as a two dimensional creature wouldn't perceive the third dimension as a whole.

 

 

 

We see cross sections. We are looking at tiny parts of a greater thing, quickly ticking by, when in fact, Time exists as one--always and forever.

 

 

 

: /

[Mylez]

Ray, because people have different views on this kind of situation. And people like to prove their point, even if it means posting several times and starting arguments :P

 

 

 

I think there's more to be discussed here anyway, I'm just waiting for people to start debating over something new ;)

[RayOxide]

OI I have over 2000 more points than you. Listen to me :cry:

 

<3

 

 

 

How can you have different views on something science has proven so well? :roll:

 

It's like a measurement, a made up length, name, but still there.

[EdgedThesis]

OI I have over 2000 more points than you. Listen to me :cry:

 

<3

 

 

 

How can you have different views on something science has proven so well? :roll:

 

It's like a measurement, a made up length, name, but still there.

 

 

 

Like I said, it's not made up my Man.

 

 

 

It's there.

 

 

 

Some people think that it's just an artificial way of recording events in chronological sequence, when-- It's not.

 

 

 

Artificial, arbitrary concepts can't be warped by gravity.

[Zierro]

OI I have over 2000 more points than you. Listen to me :cry:

 

<3

 

 

 

How can you have different views on something science has proven so well? :roll:

 

It's like a measurement, a made up length, name, but still there.

 

 

 

Like I said, it's not made up my Man.

 

 

 

It's there.

 

 

 

Some people think that it's just an artificial way of recording events in chronological sequence, when-- It's not.

 

 

 

Artificial, arbitrary concepts can't be warped by gravity.

 

 

 

Well, in a way, it is a measurement much like length and weight. But just because we use it as a measurement doesn't mean it can't exist naturally. Even if humans didn't exist the flow of time would remain the same, different objects would grow and gain weight, etc.

 

 

 

I think it really just depends on how you look at it.

[Stilev]

OI I have over 2000 more points than you. Listen to me :cry:

 

<3

 

 

 

How can you have different views on something science has proven so well? :roll:

 

It's like a measurement, a made up length, name, but still there.

 

 

 

Like I said, it's not made up my Man.

 

 

 

It's there.

 

 

 

Some people think that it's just an artificial way of recording events in chronological sequence, when-- It's not.

 

 

 

Artificial, arbitrary concepts can't be warped by gravity.

 

 

 

Well, in a way, it is a measurement much like length and weight. But just because we use it as a measurement doesn't mean it can't exist naturally. Even if humans didn't exist the flow of time would remain the same, different objects would grow and gain weight, etc.

 

 

 

I think it really just depends on how you look at it.

 

 

 

a foot, yard, km are artificial unit made up by man, a second is a made up unit by man. but distance, mass, time etc are things nature made, we just try and quantifies in a certain way so that another person can understand it ;)

[Zierro]

Hmm, it was either Socrates or Plato who said that something exists once we have given it a label. This reminds me exactly of that. An animal can't give a definition of something like "good", so it is up to the humans to define it.

[EdgedThesis]

 

 

 

a foot, yard, km are artificial unit made up by man, a second is a made up unit by man. but distance, mass, time etc are things nature made, we just try and quantifies in a certain way so that another person can understand it ;)

 

 

 

Agreed-- But I'm still a little shaky on the 'second' as a quantification of time though.

 

To say that a second is a reduced segment of a greater whole, time, used to measure the greater whole, makes it seem like it is a constant. Which it's not, I don't think.

 

 

 

Imagine two different times, perceived time and actual time. Perceived time is the time that humans work in, the seconds and minutes on the clocks we see every day. The seconds, minutes, and hours that we are used to.

 

Actual time is the time that actually exists within the universe, changing and warping under different conditions.

 

 

 

A perceived second would be longer than an actual second of time that is under a condition makes it shorter (this seems so blaringly obvious that it makes me sound stupid, but meh). The human's constant second would be wrong in certain areas.

 

 

 

Its a weird set of concepts that I don't truly understand yet. I need to read some more.

 

Any physics students in the room?

[assassin_696]

A lot of you seem sure it exists. What evidence do you have, beyond the fact that we quantify it and perceive it?

[Zierro]

A lot of you seem sure it exists. What evidence do you have, beyond the fact that we quantify it and perceive it?

 

 

 

By that logic, nothing exists. We might as well say houses don't exist either.

[Quoi_Tu]

I don't see the confusion or argument to any of this. Time is our creation to measure change we perceive.

[Cyco_Reborn]

The time is 22:54 here, therefore I theorise it does.

[purfishx]

The time is 22:54 here, therefore I theorise it does.

 

 

 

Dude, I love you...

 

 

 

---

 

I honestly want to know why these sort of things are relevant to you people... I mean, everyone basically can safely ASSUME that time exists and it's been working for quite a while now so....

 

 

 

I know this type of mainstream thinking is simple and uncreative etc. but I mean I don't think I'll be doing anything special with my life sooooo... I think I just answered my question :-k

[Hernet0]

No time does not exist it is just a measure mankind has made to order our memories and to share thoes memories.

[GGunitfan10]

17.

 

That is the answer.

 

End of question.

[dragoonson]

There is a formula to time,you know.1/0.Try it.

[EdgedThesis]

No time does not exist it is just a measure mankind has made to order our memories and to share thoes memories.

 

 

 

Ratio of 2:1, Dragonsoon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Palm-to-face ratio, that is.

[gauper_kid]

yup, time exists, bottom shelf

 

[assassin_696]

A lot of you seem sure it exists. What evidence do you have, beyond the fact that we quantify it and perceive it?

 

 

 

By that logic, nothing exists. We might as well say houses don't exist either.

 

 

 

Different kind of existence though. Houses have spatial existence, time is different. The laws of physics are certainly spatially determinant, but some think that quantum laws take their true form when expressed in timeless configuration states, where every single instant of "now" is expressed simultaneously.

 

 

 

Essentially it's an empircal question. Of course we perceive the flow of time, but our intuition about the world doesn't correlate to its correctness. When/if the fundamental laws of physics are found, their dependence on time might help shed some light on its existence.