Light doesn't exist

[k9b4]

Light, which is an electromagnetic wave, does not 'exist' in reality. What exists are the charges that oscillate and either attract or repel charges in our eyes, causing them to oscillate at the same frequency, which sends an electrical signal to our brains which we interpret as 'light'.

Right?

 

[Brontosaurie]

yeah, like all stuff

 

[k9b4]

yeah, like all stuff

How does all stuff not exist?

 

[Teax]

if by exist you mean something like "is a thing" = "has mass"
then you're right. light does not have any mass, it's not matter.

if by exist you mean "is real" then i disagree. we determine what's real by testing whether it has a measurable impact on our world. the fact that it can hit our retina and make us aware of its existence is sufficient proof, at least for me, that there exists something that I henceforth can just call "light"

 

[k9b4]

if by exist you mean something like "is a thing" = "has mass"
then you're right. light does not have any mass, it's not matter.

if by exist you mean "is real" then i disagree. we determine what's real by testing whether it has a measurable impact on our world. the fact that it can hit our retina and make us aware of its existence is sufficient proof, at least for me, that there exists something that I henceforth can just call "light"

Yeah but there is nothing between our eyes and the oscillating charges. You know how when you shine a laser beam you can see the beam extending away, like a lightsaber? The only reason we can see the beam is because the charges in the air are oscillating and sending the frequency to our eyes. You would not be able to see a laser beam 'extending like a lightsaber' in empty space. The only way to see a laser beam in empty space is to shine it directly into your eyes.

 

[Teax]

Yeah but there is nothing between our eyes and the oscillating charges. You know how when you shine a laser beam you can see the beam extending away, like a lightsaber? The only reason we can see the beam is because the charges in the air are oscillating and sending the frequency to our eyes. You would not be able to see a laser beam 'extending like a lightsaber' in empty space. The only way to see a laser beam in empty space is to shine it directly into your eyes.

following this logic, a ball thrown in a completely dark vacuum room would not exist. The ball only interacts with the world once it hits the other side of the room.

 

[k9b4]

following this logic, a ball thrown in a completely dark vacuum room would not exist. The ball only interacts with the world once it hits the other side of the room.

No, the ball would exist. The ball travels through space. Light does not travel through space. Light is not a thing. Light is caused by charges repelling and attracting other charges.

Light is similar to energy. They both do not exist in reality. They are both only concepts.

 

[Teax]

No, the ball would exist. The ball travels through space.

but why are you so sure? theres no evidence the ball would exist, just like there is no evidence light exist during transit.

Light does not travel through space. Light is not a thing. Light is caused by charges repelling and attracting other charges.

if you know the cause, it does not automatically mean that the thing does not exist. yes, light is emitted/created as you said. But the charges loose energy when they emit light. Where does the energy go? that energy literally travels through space. Just like the ball travels through space.

Light is similar to energy. They both do not exist in reality. They are both only concepts.

all matter is just energy, just in different form... energy is real in the sence that it is measurable. E=mc^2 <-- the equality of matter and energy, and what Brontosaurie was referring to.

 

[redbaron]

Matter and energy are the same thing. Energy is just matter oscillating at a high frequency relative to its mass. They're not different things, just two different states of the same thing.

A comedian once said so.

 

[k9b4]

But the charges loose energy when they emit light.

Charges do not lose energy when they 'emit light'. They do not actually 'emit' anything. There is nothing coming out from the charges.

but why are you so sure? theres no evidence the ball would exist, just like there is no evidence light exist during transit.

I would be able to feel the ball, proving its existence.

Light does not travel.

energy is real in the sence that it is measurable

Anything can be made measurable. Energy is not a real thing, it is a concept.

 

[redbaron]

Matter is also a concept.

 

[k9b4]

Matter is also a concept.

No matter is a thing which exists.

 

[Thurlor]

@ k9b4

I don't want to seem rude but aren't you a little sure of yourself? You are claiming a personal theory/idea/belief to be reality yet you offer no sort of reasoning.

Anyway, as has already been stated energy and matter are one and the same.

 

[Teax]

I would be able to feel the ball, proving its existence.

you're right. use the same concept you just used to prove that the ball exists, and try to prove that light exists => let the light fall into your eye.

 

[wilsonwatson]

You are differentiating matter and energy as if they are different when it has already been pointed out several times that they are not.

Also why hasn't it been pointed out yet that light isn't only an electromagnetic wave? We know it is simultaneously a particle, the photon, which is a "thing" that is real and "tangible" (applying the word tangible loosely here) and therefore it exists? It doesn't matter that a photon doesn't have mass. It only doesn't have mass because it travels at the speed of light (like all massless particles) and mass is just concentrated energy.

If light doesn't exist neither does any matter; the world is just less concrete and tangible than you originally thought.

 

[Black Rose]

light has causal influence so exists physically

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

Mass energy equivalence.
Light can become any other form of energy and any other form of energy can form matter in favourable conditions.

Photon has no electric charge.

 

[Anktark]

I am gonna ask k9b4 to defend me in court after I temporarily depopulate a small city with lasers. I hope he will find better arguments till then.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Photons do have mass. Light basically exists, so what if it's the byproduct of oscillating stuff? We are the product of cells & bacteria, so in a way, of course, we as people don't really exist. Not everything uses light to perceive but it still seems intricately appropriate for stuff. Radiation exists (I thought).

 

[420MuNkEy]

Anything that can be reliably measured and quantified certainly exists (assuming the measurement isn't null).

 

[TimeAsylums]

Better would have been

"Color" does not exist as we perceieve it (in reality), merely wavelengths or what you said

This need not be a philosophical argument.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/06/q-do-colors-exist/

colors exist in very much the same way that art and love exist.* They can be perceived, and other people will generally understand you if you talk about them, but they don’t really exist in an “out in the world” kind of way.* Although you can make up objective definitions that make things like “green”, “art”, and “love” more real, the definitions are pretty ad-hoc.* Respectively: “green” is light with a wavelength between 520 and 570 nm, “art” is portraits of Elvis on black velvet, and “love” is the smell of napalm in the morning.

But these kinds of definitions merely correspond to the experience of those things, as opposed to actually being those things.

But no, "Light" exists, regardless of whether any eyes (or consciousness) are around to interpret the stimulus.

ITT:

-OP maybe messing up "color" with "light" (or just confused, "actually/really exists" with "exists")
-Bronto being an idiot philosopher (lul omg "duz not exist)
-Others using different definitions of "exist" (real vs "actually exists"[empirical objective reality" zomg)

Morons

Spoiler

Mathematical definition of "exist"
[x] can be derived from a given set of axioms

What most people mean by "Exist"
Empirical/objective reality - Regardless of the existence of perception or consciousness is around to recognize the stimulus (sometimes people switch this with "real", aka "really exists" and "actually exists")

What idiots think exists means
"subjectively real/exists", except that's not what it means.
Aka, it's a different kind, that is yes your "subjective experiences" are ..."real"

LOL

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Morons

Maroons don't exist, it's just a wavelenght.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Maroons don't exist, it's just a wavelenght.

Exist does not exist

There merely is and is not

 

[JansenDowel]

Exist does not exist

There merely is and is not

Why do you bother with this mind numbing philosophical rubbish?

 

[TimeAsylums]

Maroons don't exist, it's just a wavelenght.

Look here cunt, morons do exist. Reductionism down to wavelengths does not work.
Whatever the order of scienes are, generally

Mathematics (and sub mathematics), physics, chemistry, biology, neurology, sociology, psychology (<- morons exist here) a scale developed via IQ.

(Yes that was extremely generalized intentionally)

OoooOOOOoOOOoOOOOOO FUCK YUH

 

[TimeAsylums]

Why do you bother with this mind numbing philosophical rubbish?

How much of a moron do you have to be to be able to not grasp that that was intentionally moronic?

JansenDowel level apparently

 

[Cherry Cola]

yeah, like all stuff

this, and it was obvious from the title

 

[Cherry Cola]

Better would have been

"Color" does not exist as we perceieve it (in reality), merely wavelengths or what you said

This need not be a philosophical argument.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/06/q-do-colors-exist/





But no, "Light" exists, regardless of whether any eyes (or consciousness) are around to interpret the stimulus.

ITT:

-OP maybe messing up "color" with "light" (or just confused, "actually/really exists" with "exists")
-Bronto being an idiot philosopher (lul omg "duz not exist)
-Others using different definitions of "exist" (real vs "actually exists"[empirical objective reality" zomg)

Morons

Spoiler

Mathematical definition of "exist"
[x] can be derived from a given set of axioms

What most people mean by "Exist"
Empirical/objective reality - Regardless of the existence of perception or consciousness is around to recognize the stimulus (sometimes people switch this with "real", aka "really exists" and "actually exists")

What idiots think exists means
"subjectively real/exists", except that's not what it means.
Aka, it's a different kind, that is yes your "subjective experiences" are ..."real"

LOL

For anything to be said to exist it must be observed, for something to be an observer it must have a perspective, aka there are an infinite number of perspectives and none are more real than any other. It's you and Cognizant who need to stop mixing up your positivistic transhumanism with the rest of the world. Just because measuring light in wavelenghts is more useful when doing science than is looking at it with your eyes that don't make it any more real. Stop trying to define what's real in accordance with your own agenda, for something to be real it needs only to exist, nothing can be defined precisely n.o.t.h.i.ng

Besides what with your agenda you should fucking understand that if anything exists outside of what can be observed it doesn't fucking matter cause we can't say shit about it. Your objective reality is just another Christian God in that you keep bringing it up but in actuality it's just BS that exists in the same way as the Spaghetti-monster does. How can you say that Bronto is going philosophical when you're the who's speculating about shit we can't ever know by mutha fucken definition?

It's the same thing from a psychological point of view too. That objective reality of yours and Cog is a carrot dangling in front of you just like the kingdom of heaven up above. You guys are the sort of who crave that sense of discovery and progress so much that it matters more to you than making sense.

Edit: I mean you should get this the first time you hear about the observer effect.. the first fucking time.

 

[Cherry Cola]

light has causal influence so exists physically

good definition of existence!

 

[k9b4]

Okay, well, I'm basically using the word 'exist' to mean 'have mass'. IMO this is a good definition of exist because only things with mass can occupy space. Other things aren't there. They are made up. Like photons and any other massless particles. And energy. And sound. And temperature. These are all concepts only. Matter is not a concept matter is a real thing which has mass and occupies space.

 

[TimeAsylums]

For anything to be said to exist it must be observed

You stupid fucking idiotic moron. You're confuisng the different definitions of "exist.

In your very first sentence you prove your idiocy.

Things EXIST REGARDLESS of whether or not they are OBSERVED you MORON!

Fucking idiot.

You think observers are magical. Without observers there's no existence?
Before any consciousness arose on earth nothing exitsed?

If an asteroid wiped out earth, EVERYTHING would CEASE to exist?

IMBECILE.



As per the rest of your post, simplt because you know and can regurgitate big wurds u learnt phrum philosophy, you don't even understand nor comprehend the meanings.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Okay, well, I'm basically using the word 'exist' to mean 'have mass'.

That's what people mean when they say "corporeal" or "tangible" (literally, not figuratively), "physical existence" (sometimes "reality", but better, "objective reality"

 

[k9b4]

(sometimes "reality", but better, "objective reality"

What's the difference between reality and objective reality? Reality is objective already there is no need to put the word objective in front of it.

 

[Grayman]

Okay, well, I'm basically using the word 'exist' to mean 'have mass'. IMO this is a good definition of exist because only things with mass can occupy space. Other things aren't there. They are made up. Like photons and any other massless particles. And energy. And sound. And temperature. These are all concepts only. Matter is not a concept matter is a real thing which has mass and occupies space.

Light is affected by gravity so it does have mass. That is why light cannot escape a black hole.

 

[TimeAsylums]

What's the difference between reality and objective reality? Reality is objective already there is no need to put the word objective in front of it.

Re-reaf the sentence. I was giving synonyms.

 

[Cherry Cola]

You stupid fucking idiotic moron. You're confuisng the different definitions of "exist.

In your very first sentence you prove your idiocy.

Things EXIST REGARDLESS of whether or not they are OBSERVED you MORON!

Fucking idiot.

You think observers are magical. Without observers there's no existence?
Before any consciousness arose on earth nothing exitsed?

If an asteroid wiped out earth, EVERYTHING would CEASE to exist?

IMBECILE.



As per the rest of your post, simplt because you know and can regurgitate big wurds u learnt phrum philosophy, you don't even understand nor comprehend the meanings.

I see you have learned from Cog to answer with Ad-homs and confused arguments that show you haven't understood what was written when something goes above your head.

There are ESFP forums you know...

Or you could go to church and worship a being the exists objectively outside of observable reality.

This is basic. Really really really basic. Have some integrity and take yourself seriously man.

 

[k9b4]

Re-reaf the sentence. I was giving synonyms.

But if you agree that objective reality = reality why bother typing the extra word 'objective' at all? You said that 'objective reality' is a better description than 'reality' but they both mean the same thing.

 

[k9b4]

Light is affected by gravity so it does have mass. That is why light cannot escape a black hole.

But that's ridiculous, light doesn't have a mass. Light isn't matter. Even when using silly concepts like 'photons' it is usually agreed that photons do not have 'rest mass'.

 

[Teax]

But that's ridiculous, light doesn't have a mass. Light isn't matter. Even when using silly concepts like 'photons' it is usually agreed that photons do not have 'rest mass'.

no rest mass, true, makes some equations simpler, but rest mass is just one concept of mass that happens to be the one you base your worldview on. photons have energy, and hence have a relativistic mass that is nonzero.

 

[Brontosaurie]

everything is concepts.

 

[Brontosaurie]

also hey TA you little maggot: i didn't say that. i was refuting OP by hinting that his "something something physics blabla something something perception - thus not really exist" bullshit can be applied to anything and so amounts to no more than a synonym for reality.

 

[Kuu]

You stupid fucking idiotic moron. You're confuisng the different definitions of "exist.

In your very first sentence you prove your idiocy.

Things EXIST REGARDLESS of whether or not they are OBSERVED you MORON!

Fucking idiot.

You think observers are magical. Without observers there's no existence?
Before any consciousness arose on earth nothing exitsed?

If an asteroid wiped out earth, EVERYTHING would CEASE to exist?

IMBECILE.



As per the rest of your post, simplt because you know and can regurgitate big wurds u learnt phrum philosophy, you don't even understand nor comprehend the meanings.

Now, now, children. Behave or I shall spank thee and grant a visit to the siberian tropical paradise

If this thread is so offensively stupid to you, perhaps you shouldn't be in it?



Re: thread topic. The selection of mass (or rather "occupying space") as the defining factor of "existance" is a flawed approach to understanding not based on observation but on an arbitrary overvaluation of mass over other concepts.

Light as a phenomena exists, whether it has mass or not.
Sound exists, even if it's "just a wave". It is a phenomena that involves energy/matter through time. It is a pattern or relationship, that exists and can be measurable, even if it in itself, is massless.

Now, let me propose a thought experiment.

Imagine I decide to hit you in the face with a bat . Can we say that the pain produced by the kinetic energy being absorbed by your face does not exist? Since a collision is, you know, not a real thing, just a concept, just a transfer of energy and doesn't occupy space or anything...

Spoiler

If existance is defined by mass, that which "occupies space", then what is space? If space does not occupy itself, (aka is not matter) then... does that mean space does not exist?
So, matter is really "that which occupies what doesn't exist"

 

[k9b4]

everything is concepts.

Everything is not concepts. Matter is not a concept. Matter is not an idea. Matter exists regardless of perception. Light, temperature, sound, energy do not exist regardless of perception, thus they are concepts and do not exist.

 

[k9b4]

Imagine I decide to hit you in the face with a bat . Can we say that the pain produced by the kinetic energy being absorbed by your face does not exist?

Spoiler

If existance is defined by mass, that which "occupies space", then what is space? If space does not occupy itself, (aka is not matter) then... does that mean space does not exist?
So, matter is really "that which occupies what doesn't exist"

No, the pain exists. Because pain is charges and molecules interacting through your nerves to your brain. Charges and molecules have mass and exist.

I don't know what space is, but I know it doesn't exist, because it doesn't have a mass.

EDIT: The pain itself does not exist, it is a concept. But the charges and molecules which interact to create the concept of 'pain' do exist.

Since a collision is, you know, not a real thing, just a concept, just a transfer of energy and doesn't occupy space or anything...

Sure, a collision is not a real thing, a collision is a concept. But both the bat, and my face, are not concepts, they are matter and exist.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Everything is not concepts. Matter is not a concept. Matter is not an idea. Matter exists regardless of perception. Light, temperature, sound, energy do not exist regardless of perception, thus they are concepts and do not exist.

Try to describe anything without using a concept. Unless you're telepathic and able to transfer your own qualia to other sentient beings then it's not possible.

Light temperature sound and energy are all manifestations of matter, as is the taste of ice cream. You should know the definition of matter before attempting to discuss it's different forms existence.

If something exists outside of perception then by definition we cannot know or say anything about it. Our understanding of wavelengths and other abstract concepts by which we measure our perceptions are (guess da fuk what...) reliant upon our senses. You cannot draw a border between the world as it is described by the abstract concepts we've created to further our understanding of the universe and the sensual input that enabled these concepts. They are both real, and since existence is a binary concept they aren't more or less real.

 

[Cherry Cola]

No, the pain exists. Because pain is charges and molecules interacting through your nerves to your brain. Charges and molecules have mass and exist.

I don't know what space is, but I know it doesn't exist, because it doesn't have a mass.

EDIT: The pain itself does not exist, it is a concept. But the charges and molecules which interact to create the concept of 'pain' do exist.


Sure, a collision is not a real thing, a collision is a concept. But both the bat, and my face, are not concepts, they are matter and exist.

The sensation of pain relies upon the mass of the matter involved in creating it. Unless you believe in souls the sensation of pain in itself has matter just like anything else. It's just not measurable as we cannot tell how the sensation is produced.

 

[k9b4]

Try to describe anything without using a concept. Unless you're telepathic and able to transfer your own qualia to other sentient beings then it's not possible.

Sure, words are concepts. But some words mean other concepts, and some words mean things which exist.

For example:
The word tree refers to a tree, which has a mass and exists.
The word collision refers to a concept. A collision is not a thing which has a mass and exists.

The word collision is a concept used to describe a concept. It is concept-ception.

The sensation of pain relies upon the mass of the matter involved in creating it. Unless you believe in souls the sensation of pain in itself has matter just like anything else. It's just not measurable as we cannot tell how the sensation is produced.

I agree that pain is purely a biological mechanism.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I agree that pain is purely a biological mechanism.

The sensation of pain and the biological mechanisms for it are just two different ways of seeing pain, neither is more real than the other. It is not purely a biological mechanism, it is also a sensation.

And in regards to the tree, yes the tree exists, but you can only know the tree by its concept or by sensual stimuli (aka qualia). It's not the same as a collision, I understand the distinction you're making, it's just not a distinction of existence, it is not a matter of one thing being real and the other being not. Because both the tree and the collision are temporal manifestation of matter. If you watched the tree with and die as fast as the collision then you might wonder if the tree ever existed at all, wasn't it just a bunch of matter colliding and dissipating as in the case of the collision? Isn't it the motion involved in this colliding and dissipating that makes it a tree rather than the atoms? The only reason you see the tree as real and the collision as not is because you experience the passing of time at a certain and because you have a particular set of senses to experience the tree and the collision with.

I repeat, existence is binary, it isn't suited for describing the world in any nuanced way. You seem to be talking about a very particular form of existence not what the word actually means.

 

[k9b4]

It's not the same as a collision, I understand the distinction you're making, it's just not a distinction of existence, it is not a matter of one thing being real and the other being not.

But it is a matter of one thing being real and the other being not, if we define 'real' to mean 'has mass'.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Well yeah I guess, though a collision always involves mass so it's mostly a semantic matter. We just don't call the components of a collision as part of what makes it a collision whereas with a tree we see it's components as part of it.