Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:21 am

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:56 pm Colors can be said to have a casual "nature" in that they cause the person to act in certain ways. But the colors themselves don't cause anything. Can you exemplify your statements so that I can see what you mean?

Colors are merely grades of light, light doesn't cause anything?

nope colors are not light my mate.
light is simply a wave oscillating at a certain frequency.
colors are a form of qualia consciousness.
light has no color, it is simply a wave oscillating at a certain rate.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:28 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:21 am

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:56 pm Colors can be said to have a casual "nature" in that they cause the person to act in certain ways. But the colors themselves don't cause anything. Can you exemplify your statements so that I can see what you mean?

Colors are merely grades of light, light doesn't cause anything?

nope colors are not light my mate.
light is simply a wave oscillating at a certain frequency.
colors are a form of qualia consciousness.
light has no color, it is simply a wave oscillating at a certain rate.

"the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light"

https://www.bing.com/search?q=color&qs= ... 1D323F34B0

Light waves are energy. Light is the appearance created by light waves. So, no, light the appearance doesn't cause anything. Besides it is debatable whether light waves have an appearance or light is created by the brain from light waves.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:28 am light has no color, it is simply a wave oscillating at a certain rate.

Well, you mean light waves, not light. Light is an appearance not a wave.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:20 pm Light waves are energy. Light is the appearance created by light waves. So, no, light the appearance doesn't cause anything. Besides it is debatable whether light waves have an appearance or light is created by the brain from light waves.

And what is energy?

Waves, particle and otherwise, are merely angles found in zero dimension points that manifest alternating 1 dimensional lines. The dimensional nature of the wavelength is number as dimensions and number are synonymous.

Manifest a dimension, as direction, without a quantitative 1 and qualitative unity.....you cannot.

Zero dimensional points are not things in themselves but strictly relations, as divisors, which manifest through the one dimensional line. The one dimensional line, as potential curvature, and the zero dimensional point, manifest through the wave as a series of temporal 1's and 0's moving.

Reality is number, for number is space as dimension that manifests itself ad-infinitum through geometric forms. We measure through applying "dimensions" with these vary same dimensions acting as an "individuation" through the application of "1" as neutral space that has corresponding values of positive (objective direction) and negative (subjective imaginary direction, as negative dimensions are imaginary by nature). In these respects, dimension as individuation is number.

The zero dimensional point is merely an absence of structure through the reflection of 1 dimension and -1 dimension as zero, and in these respects the zero dimensional point is merely a particulate that exists if and only if it relates as a 1n dimensional line, with the line itself being mere actual relations.

Reality is composed of direction, and all direction is number as measurement.

Am I right? Yes. Am I awesome? Yes. Am I arrogant?...oh yeah...and I f'''cking love it. But until someone provides some other axiomatic foundation that works, the nature of number is inseperable from reality for the reality exists as measurement and in these respects the cosmos is self-measuring through a continual application of symmetry.

At the end of the day, what we understand of reality must be fundamentally reevaluated through the nature of the axiom as the manifestation of dimensions.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:39 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:20 pm Light waves are energy. Light is the appearance created by light waves. So, no, light the appearance doesn't cause anything. Besides it is debatable whether light waves have an appearance or light is created by the brain from light waves.

And what is energy?

Energy is E=MC^2. Light is to energy as properties are to atoms.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:47 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:39 pm

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 9:20 pm Light waves are energy. Light is the appearance created by light waves. So, no, light the appearance doesn't cause anything. Besides it is debatable whether light waves have an appearance or light is created by the brain from light waves.

And what is energy?

Energy is E=MC^2. Light is to energy as properties are to atoms.

And energy and atoms do not provide the foundations of consciousness as the observation of "appearances", "light" and "properties?

[/quote}

And energy and atoms do not provide the foundations of consciousness as the observation of "appearances", "light" and "properties?
[/quote]

My point was properties are not atoms and should not be called atoms. Similarly, light is not energy and should not be called energy. I din't mention consciousness and it isn't pertinent.

But it is way off topic.

Colors (and numbers) are frames of reference for people. Isn't that the case?

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:48 am [/quote}

And energy and atoms do not provide the foundations of consciousness as the observation of "appearances", "light" and "properties?

My point was properties are not atoms and should not be called atoms. Similarly, light is not energy and should not be called energy. I din't mention consciousness and it isn't pertinent.

Says who? Because if atoms form everything, why not "categories" themselves?

But it is way off topic.

Colors (and numbers) are frames of reference for people. Isn't that the case?
[/quote]

And "atoms" don't form them, considering they form everything else?

"Frame of reference" is still the best, simplest explanation.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:23 pm "Frame of reference" is still the best, simplest explanation.

For you maybe.

Without definition, identity, unitization, constancy, conceptualization, relationship and variability then math is just fantasy.

Math needs logical basis to take on meaning.

I wonder if there are more operators in math yet discovered or realized. Fine!, addition, subtraction, division and multiplication, but what if there is more then those four.

Take a number 3 and create an operator concept, that 3 with 4 is equivalent to 120 , what would make that true. What power or force would make that true?

In the article numbers are considered objects but that is a misnomer.

An object is a material thing that can be seen and touched.

A subject is a thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with.

Numbers are not objects, but symbolic of amounts. To be meaningful numbers require referents like apples, houses, cows, etc.

A discussion of objects can confuse a discussion of the real subject, representations.

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:08 pm In the article numbers are considered objects but that is a misnomer.

An object is a material thing that can be seen and touched.

A subject is a thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with.

Numbers are not objects, but symbolic of amounts. To be meaningful numbers require referents like apples, houses, cows, etc.

A discussion of objects can confuse a discussion of the real subject, representations.

Objects and Abstractions are both rooted in space. Number has to have a physical component, at minimum through the particle wave as it is composed of 1 dimensional lines and zero dimensional points. It is binary code.