Truth is Relative

quote:

---

In the outside world colour does not exist, so anything you say about colour is at most a relative truth.

​

An example of absolute truth is the fact that there are infinitely many rational numbers.

---

By "outside world" do you mean nature?If yes, then color does exist. Optically it may be viewed differently depending on the creature, but it does exist.Numbers, on the otherhand, do not exist in nature that I'm aware of.If I have misunderstood what you meant by "outside world" I apologize and ask for clarification.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

My response was an effort to understand what Parasomnium had stated in Message 12 concerning the term "outside world." My comments came from a viewpoint that he meant nature. Instead he was talking about the individual experience.I understand that a male gold finch sitting on the fence will look different depending on what eyes he is being viewed through, but the pigment in his feathers remains consistent for this species. Just as the pigment for the male cardinal is appropriate for his species. No matter how each species differentiates the gold finch from a cardinal, the pigment stays the same. Again, that's in nature.Given Parasomnium's explanation of "outside world" in Message 23 I understand the comment concerning the rational numbers, but I would not agree that to be an absolute truth in nature.As far as I know, numbers do not exist in nature. How each species relates that there is a gold finch and cardinal sitting on the fence is relative to the species, but the birds are not a two. (Language Without Numbers)Again, I understand what Parasomnium was saying now that I understand what he meant by "outside world." Of course since there is apparently one language without numbers, does that negate the absoluteness of his statement?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

That's the point I'm making: Not even color is absolute since color is a function of wavelength and wavelength is relative.

---

I was addressing whether color exists in nature. Message 12I feel that what we call color does exist in nature, because the pigment (or equivalent) exists no matter how we perceive it. It also doesn't matter whether we have a name for the "color" or not. The gold finch still has the same pigment in its feathers whether we call it yellow, bird, or just point at it. I agree that what we say about color is relative, but when it comes to existing in nature I don't see that the statement concerning rational numbers is an example of absolute truth. Now after Parasomnium's explanation in Message 23, I understand his point; but I don't feel that it applies to nature which is where I was coming from.As I said, a gold finch and a cardinal on a fence is not a two. They are birds. That was the answer to your question. I just used two instead of one.Yes, a herd of cows behaves differently than a single cow, but they aren't numbers. They are cows.I can't point to a rational number in nature. That was my point concerning nature and Parasomnium's example of an absolute truth.

quote:

---

Are you saying that if we have one object, we don't have "one"?

---

Correct(Message 29, Message 36)

What is your point in relation to the topic concerning my statement in Message 21: Numbers, on the otherhand, do not exist in nature that I'm aware of. and my subsequent explanations in Message 30 and Message 36?If you are holding one object, then you are holding one object. The word one in this case is an adjective. You are not holding a one. You are holding whatever the object is.

quote:

---

Tell that to the guy at the checkout stand when the bill comes to five dollars and you hand him only one.

---

I would hand him one five-dollar bill. As I've tried to point out to you in the messages I've referenced, I'm talking about numbers in nature.Although I have a set of magnetic numbers on my fridge, when I stand on my back porch I see no such numbers in nature.Please clarify what you're getting at in relation to the topic.Edited by purpledawn, : Corrected link.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

That such a statement is wrong: Numbers do exist in nature. They are part and parcel of existence. Existence cannot be without number.

---

Unfortunately you aren't addressing what I was addressing in Message 21, Message 30, or Message 36.You are addressing quantity, I am not. My statement was in response to Parasomnium's example of an absolute truth.

quote:

---

You are confusing symbology with substance. The specific characters in the specific sequence, "red," is not the actual color. It is just a symbol.

---

I'm talking about the symbology since the statement concerned rational numbers, which should have been obvious from my comment in Message 36: I can't point to a rational number in nature. That was my point concerning nature and Parasomnium's example of an absolute truth.I agree that quantity exists in nature; but since the symbology depicts negatives, do negative quantities exist in nature?Is it a true statement that there are infinitely many quantities in nature?Edited by purpledawn, : Corrected link.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Sorry if I inadvertently sparked a debate about the reality of numbers, I never meant to. Actually, I would have been more interested in such a debate about my other example, the reality of the colour red.

---

As would I.My science and math are basic, so I was trying to understand your examples. They seemed reversed when I thought of it from a natural standpoint. I had commented more on color in Message 30 and Message 36 if you want to comment.I still have no idea what Rhrain's point is concerning the topic or what I was saying.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

That's my point really: colour is nothing but perception. "Outside", there are only molecules and light waves. Red is in my head. And only there.

---

I understand what you are saying about perception.I guess what makes me think there is more to it in nature is when I see creatures whose "color" changes to help camouflage it or creatures whose color has "evolved" to match it's surroundings etc.The hare that changes from brown to white to blend in with the snow and vice versa. The "color" changes as the length of the days change.Some insects have the ability to change their "color" to blend with their surroundings.Some creatures have markings that help to camouflage them.What we call anything is relative to language. We can say dirt or we can give the specific chemical makeup. That doesn't mean that the ground doesn't exist outside of our mind.

quote:

---

Clearly the pigment hasn't changed, but the colour - or at least my perception of it - has.

---

What shades we see may depend on the light but you still see the red color, it doesn't change to yellow.For the natural world to use "color" for camouflage or mimicry something has to exist.Maybe we're saying the same thing and I'm just looking at it differently. Don't know.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

The funny thing about Brazilin is that it can have two different colours: in an alkaline solution it appears red; but in an acidic solution, it appears, wait for it, yellow. Now, if pigments have an intrinsic colour, as you seem to suggest, then in the case of Brazilin we're facing a dilemma as to which intrinsic colour to assign to it. Is it intrinsically red or yellow?

---

My thoughts are concerning what occurs in nature without manipulation by man. Grinding up the wood and adding an alkaline or acidic solution is something that man has done.Color seems to have a purpose in nature, that's why I feel it is incorrect to say that "color" does not exist.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz