Does the sun smell? Technically probably yes. But I’d call it a relative context error to be taking the question too seriously.
Does a “particle smaller than the wavelength of the visible light spectrum produce radiation in the visible light spectrum inherently?”—sounds like a very strange question to me.
“Is a chair a chair?”—“does this specific (central) example of the category chair represent the full global universal diversity of the category chair?”
If said like that, we’ve dissolved a confusion. There are still koan like questions designed for something else but these are not them.
I think this is becoming much too abstract. “Can an atom be a color?” was not supposed to be one of those troll questions like “Is a hotdog a sandwich?”
If you want to know whether an atom can have color, you can just look at one. Here. That’s an atom. As you can see, it is purple. If you wish to claim that this atom is not purple, because color depends on context, and if you encased a blade of grass in tungsten and threw it into the sun, would it still be green?, please jump in a lake whose color depends on context.
If you wish to claim that this atom is not purple because the objects invoked to explain the color of materials must themselves be colorless, please forward your mail to:
I really really don’t care. I still want to call out the use of formal credentials as an applause light conversation stopper. If you don’t want to be commenting on lesswrong it’s not because you have credentials, it’s because you don’t want to be here. I take no offence if you tap out or leave or stop commenting. I do take offence at the idea that a credential is a show stopping argument.
Your name and address is not evidence of atom colour. And it should not be displayed here.
Does the sun smell? Technically probably yes. But I’d call it a relative context error to be taking the question too seriously.
Does a “particle smaller than the wavelength of the visible light spectrum produce radiation in the visible light spectrum inherently?”—sounds like a very strange question to me.
“Is a chair a chair?”—“does this specific (central) example of the category chair represent the full global universal diversity of the category chair?”
If said like that, we’ve dissolved a confusion. There are still koan like questions designed for something else but these are not them.
Let’s talk about standard temperature and pressure. Having an atmosphere would help to standardise colour.
Being embedded in a molten liquid sodium would change the way we ask this question. So would gaseous molecules.
How many assumptions underly the question. Earth based biological humanoid (as opposed to cat, bee, dog, squid) to define visible to human.
What are we trying to say with our categories and why?
I think this is becoming much too abstract. “Can an atom be a color?” was not supposed to be one of those troll questions like “Is a hotdog a sandwich?”
If you want to know whether an atom can have color, you can just look at one. Here. That’s an atom. As you can see, it is purple. If you wish to claim that this atom is not purple, because color depends on context, and if you encased a blade of grass in tungsten and threw it into the sun, would it still be green?, please jump in a lake whose color depends on context.
If you wish to claim that this atom is not purple because the objects invoked to explain the color of materials must themselves be colorless, please forward your mail to:
Robert Nozick
242 Emerson Hall
Harvard University
Cambridge
I really really don’t care. I still want to call out the use of formal credentials as an applause light conversation stopper. If you don’t want to be commenting on lesswrong it’s not because you have credentials, it’s because you don’t want to be here. I take no offence if you tap out or leave or stop commenting. I do take offence at the idea that a credential is a show stopping argument.
Your name and address is not evidence of atom colour. And it should not be displayed here.
(it’s not his credentials or address, it’s the credentials of the person who originally made the claim in a book that sparked this thread)
Ah. I would still object to argument by credentials.