For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Don't we all, my friend? It's what makes life... well, life.Questionmark wrote:I like colours, I'll watch it some time :]
)
Actually, after watching those documentaries, I observed when watching them that it takes both light and darkness to create the full color spectrum that Goethe was developing. Of course, though, you may not see any color when you are in complete darkness, so you are right in that respect.Questionmark wrote: Something else, surely no color can be seen by the eye with out any light, and surely we know light carries the energy to be absorbed by a black surface as heat, reflecting upon white and all other in between, yes?
So, are materials colourless in the dark, or is a white wall in darkness still a white wall?
Thx btw :]
Right on, brother! What colors do you see when you hear certain types of music, or see numbers and letters?(I eh, 'suffer' from what is called synesthesia, numbers and colours
I'm watching the second video now.
To clarify, I actually did say that colors are indeed absent from darkness, and I do agree that we don't see actual darkness. I just said that it takes a combination of light and darkness to bring colors to bring color - recalling in the three part documantary showing a colors within a white and black sheet.Questionmark wrote:Well, how do you see black? Literally I mean.. According to my logic, black is just the absence of light, being transformed into energy when light appears on a dark object, or thus like black 'perceived' by the mind in the absence of lfght, So, when you close your eyes for example, you 'see' (mostly) black, but its not like a color, just the minds illustration of something. How does black fit I to Goethes' logic? And what about sub and objecteviness of the perceiving mind compared to the color-in-it-self?
Sorry for asking, just curious
It would definitely be nice to experience what you are experiencing.Questionmark wrote: Colours are corresponding points numbers and the other way around to course, from time to time I hear a random song I dont know as clear as having headphones in, only without headphones. Kinda strange the first time, now I enjoy it on the rare occasions. Ow, and the colours you haven't seen yet
yes yes, i do agree too, without any absence of light there couldn't be darker shades than the three primary colors, because there could be no darkness, does that make sense? If so, does that mean thus there are two actual types of black, like shown with the colors that turn black, and the actual absence of all that makes color?WanderingLands wrote:To clarify, I actually did say that colors are indeed absent from darkness, and I do agree that we don't see actual darkness. I just said that it takes a combination of light and darkness to bring colors to bring color - recalling in the three part documentary showing a colors within a white and black sheet.Questionmark wrote:Well, how do you see black? Literally I mean.. According to my logic, black is just the absence of light, being transformed into energy when light appears on a dark object, or thus like black 'perceived' by the mind in the absence of lfght, So, when you close your eyes for example, you 'see' (mostly) black, but its not like a color, just the minds illustration of something. How does black fit I to Goethes' logic? And what about sub and objectiveness of the perceiving mind compared to the color-in-it-self?
Sorry for asking, just curious
well, merely indistinct i dont know, but i do think it does not matter in this perspective to the degree where we could live in an actual matrix. The actual color our minds project might be different, but the object remains itself and we give those reflections the same name.WanderingLands wrote: As for the last question, Goethe's science was based on the idea (which I myself believe) that the object and subject are merely indistinct; man is the active observer and the object is the active observed, so it's an interacting reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinementColor confinement, often simply called confinement, is the phenomenon that color charged particles (such as quarks) cannot be isolated singularly, and therefore cannot be directly observed.
Yeah, it can be magical, yet most coins have two sidesWanderingLands wrote:It would definitely be nice to experience what you are experiencing.Questionmark wrote: Colours are corresponding points numbers and the other way around to course, from time to time I hear a random song I dont know as clear as having headphones in, only without headphones. Kinda strange the first time, now I enjoy it on the rare occasions. Ow, and the colours you haven't seen yet
Perhaps there would be such an existence of that void, or absence. It would have to be experienced and would require a transcendence, though.Questionmark wrote: yes yes, i do agree too, without any absence of light there couldn't be darker shades than the three primary colors, because there could be no darkness, does that make sense? If so, does that mean thus there are two actual types of black, like shown with the colors that turn black, and the actual absence of all that makes color?
I'm not sure about quarks, quite frankly. I'm on the fence on a lot of the theoretical physics, especially the theory about quarks and gluons. That the excerpt of that article said that it cannot be 'directly observed' and cannot be 'isolated singularity' should raise some questions about their existence, and even raise questions about particle physics.Questionmark wrote: Simply put i think colors are a combination of distinctive object properties combined with the external energy that interacts with it. What about the quantum properties of the objects quarks and gluons and their colors and anti colors? Something surly must travel with the photons from the object to the eye, no?
Maybe have a look at this;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinementColor confinement, often simply called confinement, is the phenomenon that color charged particles (such as quarks) cannot be isolated singularly, and therefore cannot be directly observed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge
Oh, always the duality...Questionmark wrote: Yeah, it can be magical, yet most coins have two sides
I have actually watched that video some years ago, which had got me into quantum physics. However, looking at the double slit experiment, I don't really see any reason for there being any 'uncertainty' in the quantum world. I believe that the double-slit phenomenon can be explained much simpler than what has been presented (such as the Uncertainty Principle); simply put it's an interaction of all energy. I've looked into the Wave Structure of Matter (which asserts that standing waves produce both particle and wave duality), and to a lesser extant the Primer Field, which can both easily explain what is being observed in the Young experiment.Questionmark wrote:It might seem a bit childish but the animation is nice ^^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
With the whole Newton physics, matter was thought to be made out of tiny energy balls/dots revolving around each other. Like a lot of experiments proved, things (reactions, decay etc.) can be calculated correctly, making it logical not to doubt it anymore, but.. Despite the fact it isn't wrong, neither is it complete, so this is where quantum comes in.
These waves are the patterns of our matrix, so to speak, and even though they form the law of physics as we know them, they only seem to change in to 'matter' when being observed.
The best riddle is that this change happens before the decision to observe or not was made, and to be fair, we know barely anything concrete about time, adding only more to the puzzle now.
This of course gives perception of colour a different approach imo, like suddenly loads of people find new arguments for their pointless religious debates by resorting to a new not even close to water proof theory, that only contradicts logic in so many ways but hey, 'the difference between fiction and reality is that fiction has to make sense'.
Anyway, I drifted of a bit there.. I like your curiosity and perspective, bit a shame no else seems to care in general