Thread 942182200

If every lifeform in the universe was born without eyes, without the gift of sight, would colors still exist? Would light still exist?

>>942182200 (OP)
Yes. It's one-way causality

Yes and yes.

>>942182200 (OP)
Light and wavelength, yes.
Color, no.
Color is the interaction of light and the brain's light sensors. Without eyes, it's only wavelength.

>>942185802
So what do you think a rainbow, or a light spectrum split through a prism would be? Shades of grey?

>>942185887
If you have no receptors to receive color, there wouldn't be grey, there would be nothing.

Like a TV with no antenna. The wave lengths are there but you have no antenna to receive them

>>942182200 (OP)
assuming nothing else changed about the universe, electromagnetic waves in the part of the spectrum we call visible light would still exist
colors in the sense of various frequencies in the range of what we call the visible light spectrum would exist
color perception would cease to exist, at least in a direct biological sense
in graduate school, i had a blind classmate who had a device she could point at objects, and it would say out loud what color they were
it was pretty sophisticated, and could distinguish between various shades of similar colors
i would imagine there are cell phone and tablet apps for that now, but this was in the earliest days of smartphones, so this was a dedicated and probably fairly expensive device

>>942186002
I'd argue that the spectrum would still be displayed, like insects and some birds of prey can also resolve ultra-violet. It's there, in the spectrum beyond blue - we can't see it, they can

A little thought experiment. Plant earth evolved so all life did not havethe ability to see light, but there are rainbows and prisms breaking up the spectrum everywhere (as they would still be natural phenomena) but the inhabitants can't see them. Then a spacecraft from the planet Zaarg lands, the pilot of which has eyes that see the same spectrum as we do. Are you saying that suddenly the spectra, which you argue would not be there before, suddenly burst into being?

It's the visual argument of the tree falling in the woods conundrum (yes, it still makes a sound)

>>942185887
We could measure the time it takes for photons of different wavelength to pass through the prism. We would detect this slowing phenomena of photons for all wavelengths and all prism media. We would not learn that UV photons are doubleplusviolet in color.

>>942186233
Zaargonians see only gamma rays and not the human spectrum.

>>942186233
>It's the visual argument of the tree falling in the woods conundrum (yes, it still makes a sound)
A falling tree makes vibrations in the atmosphere. Those vibrations require an ear and brain to convert those vibrations into sound.

>>942182200 (OP)
Yes and yes. Human interpretation is not objective fact. Now that you realize that objective items exist without human interpretation you should realize how much of an incorrect partisan faggot youve been for using "facts" and objectively" in such an incorrect manner there is little to do but kill yourself. Youre welcome.

>>942182200 (OP)
Yes.

>>942185802
>Color is the interaction of light and the brain's light sensors. Without eyes, it's only wavelength
Wrong

>>942186944
Subjective Anon is anthropomorphically subjective.
And funny.

>>942182200 (OP)
Color is our brains perception. Color is more or less a construct. But light would exist, regardless. Like they say, there are no stupid questions. Only stupid people that ask them.

>>942187182
Wrong

>>942187244
Agree, there are stupid question.

>>942187333
Colors occur at specific wavelengths of light. The same light that exists no matter if you/we see it or not.

>>942185887
What color is infrared light? What color is ultraviolet? They don't have colors because we don't have receptors for those wavelengths, yet the light still exists. Those wavelengths are invisible to us.

Similar to the question
>If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
The answer is not doesn't make a sound because sound is how our brain interprets pressure waves in the air. If there is no ear to turn the pressure waves into sound then the tree only makes pressure waves in the air.

>>942187449
>The answer is not doesn't make a sound
*The answer is no it doesn't make a sound

>>942187395
But its not color until your brain perceives it. Until then, its just light

>>942187510
Light exists therefore color exists

>>942187449
Those "colors" can be seen by creatures with those receptors. So they exist despite us not being able to see them

>>942187587
Color is the brains perception of light. It doesn't exist without a sensor or brain to turn it into a color. Otherwise its just light. Have you seen how narrow the spectrum band is for visible light. And notice I said "visible" light. Theres tons of light that is not visible to us, therefore doesn't have a color, because we cannot perceive them without the aid of technology, and even then, the color we give to those images is arbitrary.

>>942187687
Color is defined by specific wavelengths of light being emitted from an object. So no

>>942187395
Color occurs at all wavelengths if you have the proper sensor and interpreter. Ask the avian dinosaurs who see UV and the wolfdogs who see IR.

>>942187616
The wavelength exists whether we perceive it as color or not.

>>942187736
Light occurs at all wavelengths. Colors are specific ranges of wavelengths. Red isnt the same as blue. Those ranges (colors) exist whether you can see it or not

>>942187704
If our eyes evolved to see different wavelengths, the colors we know now would not be categorized as colors. They would be non-visible light. What we call color would reside on a different part of the EM spectrum. 500nm would not be considered blue if it was non-visible to us. Some other wavelength would be called blue.

>>942187760
And color is indictive of the wavelength of light thats emitted

>>942187760
The wavelength exists. The idea of color does not.

>>942187772
Colors are defined by specific wavelengths of light. Light exists therefore color exist

>>942187779
Because we can see them, and arbitrated that that wavelength is a specific color. If we didn't see in that wavelength, it would not be called a color because we would not be able to see it.

>>942187704
>oranges glow orange at night
>but you can't see it because the frifdge door is closed
>checkmate atheists, do not pass go, i am your father

>>942187804
No, colors are defined by humans. If we did not see those lights, we would not define them as any color. How are you this willfully dense. Simply repeating the same thing over and over again does not make you right.

>>942187768
You literally had to conflate wavelength with color to make that sentence.

>>942187832
They exost whether you can see them or not. To go off this anons stupid post (>>942187836) and orange is still orange even if you close your eyes

>>942187867
Methinks this guy is just a stubborn retard.

>>942187863
>>942187867
Color is a property of the wavelength of light. Colors exist if light exists in that wavelength. Doesnt matter if you close yout eyes an orange is still orange

>>942187704
Wrong.

When you look at a thermal infrared image it is a sensor looking at infrared light that is invisible to us. It has no color. The sensor and device translate it into colors we can see with a false color image.

This is the same reason NASA uses false color images for some things. The James Webb telescope sees in infrared. If NASA published a true image from the telescope it would be blank because we can't see any of the colors.

Infrared has no color because we have no receptors to see it. Yet it exists and is all around us just as much as every color of the rainbow.

>>942187902
If our eyes were incable of seeing at 600nm wavelength, it would not be orange, because we defined that wavelength as orange, only because we can see it. If you could not see those wavelengths (like ultraviolet or infrared) you would not call it a color. Christ this dude is dumb.

>>942187942
IR is a specific wavelength correct? And some animals can see IR (snakes) what does that look like to them?

Protip: its not subdivding IR wavelengths and applying our visible spectrum to those subdivisions

>>942187930
No point arguing when you literally just say the same dumb response to everything.

>>942187930
Nope. It is only orange if your eyes are open and receiving light that hits your receptors in your eyes which stimulate nerves which connect to your brain which interpret the signal as orange.

>>942187972
It would still be orsngex we just couldnt see it. As that's the property of light at the wavelength

>>942187911
Color bait is mid-bait. 6-7, aaayyeee!

>>942188009
Maybe because you have no idea what youre talking about

>>942188020
The orange color indicative of the chemicals of the orange and how light is absorbed and emitted by electrons of those chemicals

>>942188005
Pit vipers can sense IR but they don't have eyes with lenses that can see images. It is more of a crude, is something there yes/no body heat sensor.

It takes special geometry similar to a camera inside the eye to get a focused image of something. That doesn't exist for snake IR sensors.

>>942188074
Yes wavelengths are associated with energy levels or electron orbitals and ties to quantum theory.

That is true for all light from infrared to ultraviolet. Yet we can only see a small band of this light called the visible spectrum. Most light exists without "color" to us.

>>942188083
IR cameras just assign wavelengths of IR to our visible spectrum as an output

>>942188005
>>>942187942 #
>IR is a specific wavelength correct
No, its a range of wavelengths, those being between 800nm and 1,000,000 nm. Whereas the color spectrum is between 300nm and 800nm , give or take.. infrared isn't a specific color, its more a classification, like radio or microwaves or gamma rays.

>>942188145
Yes, I wrote this comment saying so in even more detail retard.
>>942187449

>>942188030
Orange is a human construct. Orange wouldn't exist without humans seeing a specific wavelength and calling that color orange. If we didn't see that wavelength... you know what. Never mind. You have got to be the dumbest person I've interacted with on this site, and thats saying a lot.

>>942188143
>we cant see all wavelengths of light
No shot sherlock, just because we cant see some wavelengths doesnt mean they arent emitting something that other can see (again not across the entire spectrum ). Nonetheless, if we couldnt see (per OP original argument) the colors in the "visible" spectrum would still exist and have color. You see it doesnt give it color. The chemical make up does

>>942188160
This
Infrared means below red, meaning all wavelengths below red.
Ultraviolet means above violet and is all wavelengths of light higher than violet.

>>942188247
If we could not see the wavelength, who would give that color a name?

>>942188228
What wavelengths are associated with the color orange? Do those wavelengths still exist if you didnt look at the orange (fruit)?

existing is a human concept, nothing actually exists.

>>942188074
Oranges glow orange.

>>942188221
Sounds still exist if you dont hear them. Like a dog whistle

>>942188247
And OP's question is what if everything didn't have eyes. Meaning nothing can see the light, fucking retard.
And you are saying
>But some things can see the light even if we can't!
The question OP asked is what if nothing could see it.
The point of this thread is a fun thought experiment and you toss the thought experiment out and are just being a pedantic faggot debating about some goalpost you pulled out of your asshole.

>>942188287
Someone who could see would give it a name. It still exists tho as its specific to its wavelength

>>942188346
Light would see have the same wavelengths, same spectrum. Colors still exist as we define them at specific wavelengths

>>942188401
>would see
*would still

>>942188083
Humans have magic noses that can tell you which neighbor is grilling steaks. Distance, directionality, multiple grills, full 3D environment of smell.
All without focusing lenses.
Amazing.

>>942188376
>>942188338
>>942188309
So many retards itt...

>>942188432
>gets bfto
>Resorts to ad hominem
Kek

>>942188401
What color is 20nm?

>>942188309
If you really want to get mindfucked you realize that everything is relative and Doppler effect can make any color turn into any other color depending on your relative velocities to each other. So there is no such thing as orange and you can make an orange look red or yellow if you change your relative speed in relationship to the orange.

That is why the James Webb telescope sees in infrared. The farther away in space things are the faster they are moving away (because the universe is expanding). Visible spectrum light gets shifted all the way into the infrared because of the velocity it is moving away from us.

You need to use an infrared telescope to see the color orange in a galaxy that is moving away from us at a high rate of speed because the orange light has been turned into infrared from our perspective. If you were to match the speed of the galaxy it would be orange light again.

>>942188465
>says the same retarded thing over and over again
>I are the winner
There's no fixing stupid

>>942188468
Gamma? Cant see gamma waves? Maybe you need those receptors. Does the light still exist dispite you not being able to see it? Yes? Interesting

>>942188427
Light isn't a molecule floating through the air

>>942188491
>guise blue and red shifting
Thats not mind blowing at all

>>942188523
Does thenlight exist? Yes. Does color exist inside the gamma spectrum?. Idk you tell me, what colors are there? And don't say gamma, because that's not a color.

>>942188496
Maybe because you fundamentally dont understand what youre talking about

>>942188557
Short wave gamma color
Just because you cant see the color doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Sorry that breaks your brain

>>942188563
Unfortunately, it is you that doesn't understand. You are conflating wavelength with color. You are conflating our perception with the physics of light. You are dumb, and will forever be dumb with this attitude. Crack open a book once in awhile

>>942188592
What color is short wave gamma? I've never heard of that color before. Can you show me in an image?

>>942188535
And yet, the snake smells the IR photon. It doesn't see it. Full 3D sensation too.
Amazing.

>>942188604
Color is a property of the wavelength

>>942188625
Again just because you cant see it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

>>942188625
>Can you show me in an image?
What wavelengths you want highlighted, Boss?

>>942188673
>i have never seen a ghost
>so many ghosts
>so, so many
>im scare

>>942188720
>i have never seen my own brain
>it must not exist
Good point

>>942188649
Only when it hits a photo receptor in an eyeball, the receptor sends a signal down a nerve pathway, it gets to the brain, and the brain processes the signal into a color. If that doesn't happen then it doesn't have color.

That is the reason infrared doesn't have color. It hits your eyeball but the receptor does nothing.

>>942188649
Wrong. Color is a property of your eyes. Wavelength doesn't have a color until it hits your eye. Sound doesn't exist until it hits your ear. These are the brains way of perceiving the environment. Its just light and vibrations until it reaches the observer.

>>942188745
Its name is due to our perception of it. The color itself is from light interacting with an object, chemicals either abosrob the light or energy, this excites the election to a higher orbital (energy level), then the election relaxes. The relaxation releases light in a wavelength specific to how much energy is released during relaxation which emits the color.

>>942188842
See>>942188846

>>942188846
>>942188842
>>942188745
Wavelenght is a property of the light we shoot from our eyes to illuminate the objects we look at. How could we see if our eyes didn't shoot light in order to bounce back for us to see? You obviously just don't understand the fundamentals of light.

>>942188906
Your trolling is weak

>>942188846
Yes
I wrote this coe t talking about how light is tied to quantum theory. Quantum theory being that electrons are quantized into specific energy orbitals.
>>942188143

It only.has color if it hits an eyeball and is processed by a brain.

>>942188860
Yeah... that anon and I are in agreement. You know we're in the same thread, right? I don't need retards to point out a post that happened after mine. I have eyes. Unlike some of the people in this thread.

>>942188939
Quantum mechanics only holds to matter up to the mass of a bucky ball. When larger, orbitals are no longer quantized (discrete) they become continuous

>>942188965
That retard (me) is the person you just said you agree with (me)

>>942188982
The point is that a photon's wavelength is associated with the energy level that an electron changed when the photon was emitted. Electron drops X energy level and Y wavelength photon is emitted.

Those photons exist regardless if you can see them. And they don't have a color unless they are within the visible spectrum and they hit the eyeball of a living organism with a functional brain.

>>942189028
So?

>>942189185
>Electron drops X energy level and Y wavelength photon is emitted.
That is laughably naive. Maybe a pinch more detail, Copernicus?

>>942189221
I WIN!

>>942189185
I would argue all lights wavelengths have a "color". We obviously cant see it all because our visual spectrum is limited to specific range of wavelengths. But other ogranism can see what we cant and we can see some that they cant. And back to OP original thought experiment. Since wavelengths are defined and so are their properties like color. Colors would see exist if we or nothing could see them

>>942189310
Lol ok

>>942189296
Weak trolling is weak

>>942188982
>Quantum mechanics only holds to matter up to the mass of a bucky ball.

Wrong. It holds in all situations. It just gets too complicated to compute for humans once a molecule gets so large.

Same concept with calculating orbits. We can only approximate orbits because we can't calculate how everything interacts with everything. Even Neptune's gravity is having infinitesimal effects on the orbit of satellites.

It is called the N body problem. Technically you would need to calculate the gravitational effect of every single moon, planet, star, asteroid etc.

Kind of like how the number Pi is infinite and you can't calculate circles perfectly unless you use the true value of Pi, which is impossible. 3.14 is close enough for most applications, but it isn't a correct answer.

>>942189317
All photons have wavelength.
There are many, many different types of wavelength detectors. Many operate optimally in only small ranges of wavelength.

>>942189333
>>942189344
Still the Champion!

>>942189359
Wrong. The obritals smear together because of overlap when you keep adding in atoms and the orbtials are no longer quantized (discrete) as quantum mechanics describes but are continuous and can be described by classical mechanics

>>942182200 (OP)
Light would exist. Different wavelengths of light would exist. They would not be perceived as colors though, any more than we perceive different radio stations as being different colors.

>>942189317
>all lights wavelengths have a "color".
Down to what level of precision? Light covers wavelengths from 1micrometer to over a meter. Are there trillions of colors? Because if we broke down the entire spectrum the way we break down visible light (which is a tiny fraction of the whole spectrum) there would be near infinite colors.

>>942189379
And? I used these types of detectors to solve the structures of proteins

>>942189437
"Classic Rock from the 60s, 70s, 80s , and 90s on Mix 106.5 with Jack and Dawn in the Morning" is my favorite color.

>>942189460
Yes there are trillions of colors. No joke. There are trillions of different colors in our visible range or have you never used color hex code?

>>942189502
That's a good use for wavelength.

>>942189433
You only think they smear because you don't have the ability to calculate all of the incredibly complex interactions. You could calculate the smear if you had enough computing power and an accurate model for the simulation.

>>942189569
They smear because of overlap

>>942189548
There are 16 colord and 42,793 pixelated in-between shades.

>>942189611
More like over 16M different hex code colors...

>>942189564
If you dont hate science

>>942189674
You must be rich. We can't afford all those colors.

>>942189548
The spectrum being an analog form of information, there are infinite colors. But we, as living beings cannot perceive infinite colors, and must draw the line somewhere. How we decide to breakdown the spectrum would be different than how another a species might do the same, resulting in different number of colors. What we decide are colors is arbitrary. But requires some cognizance to define the colors as such. Without such a being, there would be no "color".

>>942189548
It is infinite because of Doppler shift. Walk towards or away from something you are looking at and the color is technically shifting a super tiny amount based on your relative velocity to the object your are looking at.

>>942189731
Colors are defined by their wavelengths, the names surely would be different but colors would not

>>942189695
I use tools that measure wavelength. Photons zoom by, but I don't watch.
Beep. Another Magenta.
Discard.
What wavelengths do you detect the most?

>>942189807
Colors are defined by humans. If our sensors had higher resolution, we'd have more colors. Colors is the way humans have divided up the visible spectrum. Color is not inherent to light. It is a product of the way our brains perceive it.
>inb4 color is a property of wavelength
This argument is false. Stop repeating it.

>>942189786
The wavelength its self is being shifted, hence the color change. Meaning color is specific to wavelength

>>942189919
Color is a property of light. Specific to its wavelength

>>942189920
See>>942189919

>>942189973
See>>942189949

>>942189949
>if I keep repeating the same thing over and over again, it might come true
Say it again.

>>942189997
See>>942189973

>>942189998
I'm sorry you cant refute fundamental properties

>>942190017
See>>942189997

>>942190032
It's been refuted a thousand times in this thread. You just refuse to see the truth. Instead you repeat the same thing, expecting it to suddenly become true. I'm sorry you can't come up with another argument, but every time you claim color is a property of wavelength. I will consider it a concession due to your inability to come up with a coherent argument.

>>942190169
Im just going place this here

>>942190324
Keep reading, retard
>However, color is also a perceptual experience

>>942189920
Not all wavelengths have color because we can't perceive them. What color is infrared?

>>942190717
>color is a property of light
So what i have been saying

>>942190717
>perceptual experience
Anon doesn't know the meaning of either of those words. I think he is legit brain damaged.

>>942190778
I accept your concession.

>>942190754
Color names are arbitrary. It still has a color even if you cant see it

>>942190862
Color is in the brain. Wavelength doesn't determine color, or brain does.
This is like saying musical notes exist beyond human hearing. Colors are like musical notes. They are arbitrary. The wave exists without perception, but it requires perception to define it as a note or color.

>>942190862
It has a wavelength and still exists. It doesn't have a color.

>>942190778
Yes, color is a property given to light based on the perception that occurs in the brain. You are a fucking idiot or a troll.

>>942190992
>>942191313
>>942191369
The color exists whether you perceived it or not. Sorry that makes you all mad

>>942191445
The photon exists if you perceived it or not. A photon is not a color. It doesn't even have a specific color and the color changes based on your relative velocity to it (Doppler shift). There is literally no such thing as an orange photon.

>>942191534
A photon's wavelength gives it its color correct and all photons have a wavelength?

>>942191880
Only if it is in the visible spectrum. Infrared has no color yet is a photon. It doesn't interact with the photo receptors in our eyes so our. Rain doesn't receive a signal so we don't think it has a color.

Our brain defines color. Yes, the wavelength of light determines that color. But not all wavelengths have color to us.

>>942192980
Only a color you cant perceive...which doesn't mean it doesnt exist

>>942197340
If you can't perceive it then it isn't a color. It falls nowhere on any color chart.

>>942188491
If you move at the right velocity in comparison, could objects in the invisible light spectrum be shifted into visible light?

>>942198276
Yes in theory although it is faster than any manade rocket can go.

>>942197426
So if a color blind person cant see a color then the color doesnt exist to people who are not color blind?

>>942198635
would one figure that out with some kind of Doppler shift calculation?
i probably actually did that back in college, i took two semesters of calculus-based physics, but that was 25 years ago

>>942182200 (OP)
////

If the universe existed, but life never evolved to observe or experience it would it truly exist?

>>942182200 (OP)
>would colors still exist?
colors don't exist now, they exist entirely in your mind, they aren't real
>Would light still exist?
that's a retarded question, light is just electromagnetic radiation, it has existed as long as the universe, it didn't magically come into existence only after eyes evolved
and we only perceive a very tiny portion of the spectrum in the first place, we can't see most of it

>>942182200 (OP)
;

I can't believe this thread is still active and the retard that thinks colors are properties of wavelength is still here repeating the same stupid line endlessly.