Brainer...

O_o ermmmmmm..... Whaaa???

Uh..follow the white rabbit?

quote:

---

Original post by Ekas78
You and me both agree that the square is a square and that it is blue...but: Blue for "me" might be yellow for "you".

---

Color is in the eye of the beholder.

quote:

---

Original post by Ekas78
Another one: Is it possible to prove with logic that logic works?

---

Gödel has proved that all formal logic systems are incomplete.

Documents [ GDNet | MSDN | STL | OpenGL | Formats | RTFM | Asking Smart Questions ]
C++ Stuff [ MinGW | Loki | SDL | Boost. | STLport | FLTK | ACCU Recommended Books ]

Yeah, I thought about that, but I think the only thing to do is sigh, and move on to other things.

-=Lohrno

The real question is whether CONTRASTS are constant. For example, my blue and yellow may not be your blue and yellow. But if we both look at a square that is half-blue and half-yellow, do the two colors contrast the same for both of us?

There is a certain wavelength on the light that we call "blue"
Doesn''t matter what your parent''s tell you or what your eye does, that wavelength does not change. You eye could be defective, in which case by looking at the color gradiant you should probably see YOUR "blue" in a different place than mine. And that could easily be confirmed.

Reflection on Cannabic Solipsism:
Eating Chips Ahoy! and staring at the TV''s network PGA event, the adolescent pot-smoker is struck by the ghastly possibility that, e.g., what he sees as the color green and what other people call "the color green" may in fact not be the same color experiences at all: The fact that both he and someone else call Collin''s circle green and stoplight''s GO signal green appears to guarantee only that there is a consistency in their color experience of grass and GO lights, not that the actual subjective quality of of those color experiences is the same; it could be that what the ad. pot-smoker experiences as green everyone else actually experiences as blue, and what we ''mean'' by the word ''blue'' is what he ''means'' by ''green'', etc., etc., until the whole line of thinking gets so vexed and exhausting that the a. p.-s. ends up slumped crumb-strewn and paralyzed in his chair.

---

[My site|SGI STL|Bjarne FAQ|C++ FAQ Lite|MSDN|Jargon]
Ripped off from various people

To throw another fuse in:

Colours don''t exist. They are just wavelenghts. What enters our brains are a few thousand signals. Our minds simply differ between them. We think we see a "real" image. We don''t. We just analyze a bunch of "numbers".

quote:

---

Original post by Ronin_54
To throw another fuse in:

Colours don''t exist. They are just wavelenghts. What enters our brains are a few thousand signals. Our minds simply differ between them. We think we see a "real" image. We don''t. We just analyze a bunch of "numbers".

---

Well, taking this a bit further, couldn''t we program human brains by figuring out how the brain decodes light and then simulating a scene the way we want it into their brains?

For example... if we were to figure out how the brain deciphers certain wave lengths we could design a laser of some sort that generates a signal with somethign that we want to imput into the brain. since we know that the brain just uses electrical pulses to send info (and, i wonder if death is really "death", or the server getting lost and not knowing what to do, so it shuts down, or "locks up". A good example of this is the IIS Application object. All local vaibales are stored in memory, and a hard copy isn''t provided. so if the server crashes, it''s state is lost.) we just mimic the pulses with light and voila! the target sees an image which doesn''t exist.

I already thought about that. It''s really cool.

Try this next time you walk on the street:

Be sure there are cars, people walking, stuff moving around. It really helps seeing the implications.

Now concentrate really hard and think of every possibilities that could happen.

Let''s say there was a parallel universe created for each microscopic event that occurs.

Ok, what if that person over there walked just a little faster/slower (infinite possibilities).

Imagine a tree of parallal universes. Every leafs on that tree would have other infinite tree for each combinations of events happening. That car brake a little ealier, while someone trips, someone look sideway for a moment, you decide to move your head up (at moment x (infinite)) because you saw a plane, the plane might not have been there if someone in another country had not retarded the flight because...

Try to imagine all of the possibillities and visualize them by looking at everything really quick. The first few seconds are great but it quickly grows exponentially. BAMMMM. Brainfuck. Ahh that feel great.

It''s just a consensus.

''there is no such thing as right and wrong, there is only popular opinion''.

Take the universe.. and earth.. the earth as we know it has North America/europe on top, and South america/Austalia on the bottom, but for all we know, the whole thing is upside down, and the milky way is facing downward, and so are we... we don''t know the truth, it''s just the consensus that we go by.

As for colors people see, I think everyone sees color differently, which is why some people have abysmal taste in color in comparison to the ''consensus'' of the rest of us..

Plus when you get older, I think your color receptors start to fail, which is why silver tops clothes get brighter and brighter as they get older.

I think its futile to bother wondering about these things.

quote:

---

Original post by Ekas78
Is it possible to "prove" with logic (or any other way) that a "thing" is really the way a person thinks it is?

For exmaple; Let''s take a "blue square".

A person (infant) learns what a square look like, feels like (taste like!) & what color "blue" looks like. Here''s the problem. Theese facts comes from, say, parents & your own senses. But does that make theese "facts" true?

You and me both agree that the square is a square and that it is blue...but: Blue for "me" might be yellow for "you". However for you, yellow is blue (Still follow me?).


Another one: Is it possible to prove with logic that logic works?

---

*ahem* Well, ignoring the "blue" part of it, the concept of a square can be proven in Euclidean geometry as it is based on all the other principles that hold our system of mathematics together. Starting from the simple concepts of "zero is the additive identity", "all number''s have an additive inverse", "1 is the multiplicative identity", and "Given any two numbers x,y we can do an operation x + y, called a sum, = z which will be a number in the same set as x,y", you can then build upon those with ideas like "There are things such as angles, things called polygons, and a particular angle called 90 degrees". A square is a polygon with four sides and four angles and all four angles are equal to 90 and all four sides are equal. As long as all the other theorems and hypotheses hold that are the foundation of that system of mathematics, a square is a square no matter what. Now if someone ever proves a contradiction, say 1=0, then a square may not be a square anymore, and the universe has probably ceased to be

Of course, in reality, it''s impossible to prove that a square is a square. If you measure a 4 sided figure and say you are sure that the sides are equal to the 10^21 decimal point, I could potentially find a more accurate measuring device and prove that they''re not. So unless someone invents the infinitely accurate measuring device, we''re just gonna have to be satisfied with "close enough". There is no such thing as a square, we only have really close rectangles

"I''ve never seen that. I''ve never seen anybody drive their garbage down to the side of the street and bang the hell out of it with a stick. I''ve never seen that."

Squares exsist only in theory... an infinitely accurate measuring device would find that a real, physical "square" is acutally jagged-edged and mostly empty space from all the electrons swriling around in the atoms and such...

Anyway, back to the color thing, here is a story I found interesting... back a while ago there was this scientist who had too much time and money on his hands and decided to conduct this experiment where he claimed he could keep a mouse from dying even though by all means it should. What he did was take a mouse and place it in a sound proof box that had two pathways in it, both leading to cheese. thing is, one of the pathways lead to a piece of cheese that was poisoned, while the other did not. When a mouse chose a pathway to go down, a door would close behind him so he couldn''t get back and go down the other pathway as well. So, as it is, the mouse has a 50 / 50 chance of choosing the pathway to death (poisoned cheese) or choosing the path to life (good cheese). As the laws of statistics indicate, in a 50% chance situation, two trials should result in an outcome from each of the two possibilities, for the mice this means that if the scientist setup two boxes with two different mice, then statistically, one mouse would live and one would die. so the scientist did this, and then sealed the mice in. Because the mice were sealed in these boxes, no one had anyway of telling which mouse was alive and which was dead, but by all means one was pretty certainly dead, so the scientist said that both mice were in a state of limbo, neither dead nor alive, and because there was no way to tell, both mice would remain in a state of limbo until enough time passed to assure that the average mouse''s lifespan had passed. He drew some conclusions from this about isolated systems, but I can''t remember what they were.
This is all second hand info, so it may be inaccurrate, but I still think its pretty cool to think and debate about.

Um..that sounds pretty pointless.

What is stopping the guy from unsealing the boxes in the first place? Did he use some infathomably resistant metal which cannot possibly be altered by any way, shape, or force?

I''d like to find this material.

quote:

---

Original post by Aphelion
Squares exsist only in theory... an infinitely accurate measuring device would find that a real, physical "square" is acutally jagged-edged and mostly empty space from all the electrons swriling around in the atoms and such...

Anyway, back to the color thing, here is a story I found interesting... back a while ago there was this scientist who had too much time and money on his hands and decided to conduct this experiment where he claimed he could keep a mouse from dying even though by all means it should. What he did was take a mouse and place it in a sound proof box that had two pathways in it, both leading to cheese. thing is, one of the pathways lead to a piece of cheese that was poisoned, while the other did not. When a mouse chose a pathway to go down, a door would close behind him so he couldn't get back and go down the other pathway as well. So, as it is, the mouse has a 50 / 50 chance of choosing the pathway to death (poisoned cheese) or choosing the path to life (good cheese). As the laws of statistics indicate, in a 50% chance situation, two trials should result in an outcome from each of the two possibilities, for the mice this means that if the scientist setup two boxes with two different mice, then statistically, one mouse would live and one would die. so the scientist did this, and then sealed the mice in. Because the mice were sealed in these boxes, no one had anyway of telling which mouse was alive and which was dead, but by all means one was pretty certainly dead, so the scientist said that both mice were in a state of limbo, neither dead nor alive, and because there was no way to tell, both mice would remain in a state of limbo until enough time passed to assure that the average mouse's lifespan had passed. He drew some conclusions from this about isolated systems, but I can't remember what they were.
This is all second hand info, so it may be inaccurrate, but I still think its pretty cool to think and debate about.

---

That's Schrodinger's Cat, or similar to it. All possibilities exist until they are measured.

which reminds me of a funny part of a Futurama episode... it was a horse race and as the top 2 horses crossed the line, the announcer said "oh, it's close, it's a quantum finish, we'll have our scientist look and see who was the winner... when they announced the winner one guy in the crowd (also a scientist) stood up and yelled "damn you, you changed the outcome by measuring the result!" and tore up his ticket.


[edited by - aegrimonia on June 11, 2002 11:55:44 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by Aphelion
Anyway, back to the color thing, here is a story I found interesting...

...

He drew some conclusions from this about isolated systems, but I can't remember what they were.
This is all second hand info, so it may be inaccurrate, but I still think its pretty cool to think and debate about.

---

EDIT: Damn, beaten to it. But that's because I took the time to dig up links

You're talking about the famous Shroedinger's cat paradox in Quantum theory.

Shroedinger's cat experiment in short
Shroedinger's cat (easy to understand). For children
Or if you have enough time the actual paper.

[edited by - hpox on June 11, 2002 11:59:13 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by Fruny
Gödel has proved that all formal logic systems are incomplete.

---

Is there anything stopping the UTM from answering that the statement G has a truth value of 0.5?

quote:

---

Original post by Ekas78
Is it possible to "prove" with logic (or any other way) that a "thing" is really the way a person thinks it is?

For exmaple; Let''s take a "blue square".

A person (infant) learns what a square look like, feels like (taste like!) & what color "blue" looks like. Here''s the problem. Theese facts comes from, say, parents & your own senses. But does that make theese "facts" true?

You and me both agree that the square is a square and that it is blue...but: Blue for "me" might be yellow for "you". However for you, yellow is blue (Still follow me?).

---

I know EXACTLY what you mean! I''ve wondered this many a-time before! When I draw with a Blue Crayon and it looks how I think Blue looks, what if that blue looked to someone else what Yellow looks to me, however we''d both agree that it was blue since early on it was pointed out that this particular color (whatever it happened to look like for us) was the color Blue.

There''s no way to tell either and it freaks me out! I won''t be able to sleep tonight at all!

-Michael