View Single Post
Old 01-05-2009, 01:51 AM   #25
Darth Avlectus
@Darth Avlectus
I'd buy that for a dollar
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: My pervert mansion
Posts: 4,397
Current Game: A dirty old man.
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
There are some facts that are fact - ie true in all cases.

Water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen. Fact.

Care to try and disprove that one?


Originally Posted by Adavardes View Post
When someone can tell me that the green they see is the green that the person next to them sees and prove it, then I'll be willing to concede that there are absolute facts.
I'm no eyeball expert, however, I do know there are receptors in the back of the eye. They fall either into

a)"Cones" for different frequencies of light wavelengths/optical energy, 3 groups Red Green Blue
b)"rods" for reception of light regardless of wavelength

I get where you are coming from implicitly for the record. However, if 2 people can look at green and agree that what they are looking at is in the same "green bandwidth" then that is proof enough I should think...
Example: Even if green to me happens to look like...I dunno... cat turd orange to my fellow man. My fellow man thinks its green as do I even though I may not know that he is actually seeing what to me is cat turd orange. For all I know, what is actually green appears to him as he knows black.

Not to confuse things, I'd point towards repeatable results in known conditions.

Everyone sees differently from you.
Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
I think you went from specific to general with the whole 'seeing'.

Theory: given that there are two of anything, the two alike things can never really be exactly the same. Simply because one is not the other.

So while, say, ball bearings can be, for all intents and purposes down to the most precise measurements we know, exactly the same... they are not: Consider that the next magnitude down in measurement, the differences could be astronomical.

I don't have any sophisticated tools to provide proof of this, hence it will always be theory until I can get the tools to prove it or disprove it. Low and behold I have basically just theorized I could be wrong about exacts, and I could be wrong about being wrong on exacts as well. It crumbles upon itself.

That's right, Bixby Snyder folks.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: