Light doesn't exist

[Nick]

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

Then you come into the realm of dark-this/that, shit that we cannot physically/scientifically observe at all, but we know its present and accounts for most of the universe, and its pushing everything faster and faster away (more entropic state).
It's still a mish-mosh of shit we don't know yet, figure out a way to observe something invisible, yet everywhere and is weakly attracted together in bunches and you'll get a bunch of awards.

Next, there a drugs that chemically explain to you what space is, you can grow them on dung.

Third you should throw freewill into the whole question of what's what and maybe we'll fall into a quantum conversation.

 

[k9b4]

The EM wave is the source of light.

No the accelerating charge is the source of the EM wave.

Light is an EM wave. EM wave does not create light. Light is a specific range of frequencies of EM wave.

Unless you mean 'light' to mean perception of light, then I see where you're coming from.

In another dimension, it would not be skin.

Wat. We are talking about the dimension that we live in.

IN ANOTHER DIMENSION MY PENIS IS 100 KILOMETRES

 

[computerhxr]

you still have not explained the bold part:
--when you power it on, the device uses up power! but the red dot does not appear immediatelly. so where did all the energy that we have supplied to the lasterpointer go in the meanwhile?

Look up the first law of thermodynamics. The battery heats up before light is discharged from the laser pointer system.

 

[computerhxr]

Third you should throw freewill into the whole question of what's what and maybe we'll fall into a quantum conversation.

Free-will = radiation from the mean.

 

[Teax]

Look up the first law of thermodynamics. The battery heats up before light is discharged from the laser pointer system.

(let's forget for a moment that the question was directed only at OP to point out a discrepancy in his model.)
Lasers heat up as a consequence of the light discharge, not as a prerequisite.

 

[Cæilon]

Anything that has an effect on reality has an existence in that reality except k9b4.

Definition of grayman.

So when a man is tripping out of his mind and sees the floor as lava, the lava must exist?

 

[gilliatt]

It is not our eyes that see, or our ears that hear, but we see with our eyes & hear by means of our ears. Sensing colors, hearing sounds etc is not mental but physical. Images, imagination, emotions, pains are all particulars, not mental at all. Man has the power of 'Nous', of perceiving universals. 'Nous" is Mind, Reason, an intelligent purposive principle of the world.

 

[computerhxr]

No the accelerating charge is the source of the EM wave.

Light is an EM wave. EM wave does not create light. Light is a specific range of frequencies of EM wave.

Unless you mean 'light' to mean perception of light, then I see where you're coming from.

Yes, I was referring to "perception of light" because you don't "see" the light until it travels into your brain.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Yes, I was referring to "perception of light" because you don't "see" the light until it travels into your brain.

Kuu and cherry cola counter with phenomnalism

I counter with different definitons of "exist"

Ppl counter with retardation

 

[computerhxr]

Yes, I was referring to "perception of light" because you don't "see" the light until it travels into your brain.

Kuu and cherry cola counter with phenomnalism

I counter with different definitons of "exist"

Ppl counter with retardation

I'm not sure why you quoted me, or if you're saying that I'm giving nonsensical arguments. You should not invest so much into others opinions. Getting upset doesn't give weight to your arguments. And calling people names is not going to win favor in any argument.

However, if there is nothing to interpret the energy as "light" then it would not exist. I'm not saying that the energy doesn't exists; I'm saying that it wouldn't be light.

 

[computerhxr]

Light exists and doesn't exist.

 

[Grayman]

So when a man is tripping out of his mind and sees the floor as lava, the lava must exist?

Yes, it exits in his mind causing him to react with his environment.

 

[kora]

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.

Well done, you have found the exit from plato's cave and may now pursue phenomenological reflection.

 

[redbaron]

if anything exists outside of what can be observed it doesn't fucking matter cause we can't say shit about it

There's actually various concepts and things that can't be observed which we can actually say a lot about. Unless you're going by some completely individual definition of observe, this statement is nonsense.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I think you're not taking the context into consideration and/or that your definition of what constitutes observing is much narrower than mine. I may be wrong. Please elaborate.

 

[StevenM]

If sight, sound, touch, and taste worked in this fashion, which follows as

sensing->electrical messages->creating a kind of internal experience,

wouldn't this also apply to all the other senses, even those outside of the 5 common senses?

For instance, our sense of time. The speed time flows by, and where we are in time.

I'm jumping ahead to conclusions, but if the way we sense time is also just an internal experience, I wonder what impact that would have on time's relationship with space, and matter.

 

[redbaron]

I think you're not taking the context into consideration and/or that your definition of what constitutes observing is much narrower than mine. I may be wrong. Please elaborate.

Would you say the Higgs-Boson was observed before the existence of the LHC? Can something be observed (in your definition of observe) through a theoretical framework?

 

[Cherry Cola]

No, but other things implying it's existence were so it wasn't based on nothing.

Whether or not something can be observed through a theoretical framework, I'm not sure I understand. I would say yes, isn't everything observed within some theoretical framework? I mean observing requires an instrument of some sort which requires a framework of some sort.

Nothing can exist independently, if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it that's not a tree falling it's just something happening. If that tree where to fall in the woods without it having any effect upon the rest of the universe then that tree wouldn't be part of the universe.

Looking back at page 1 what I was responding to was TA's objectivism, ie that things exist independently in themselves. Which isn't true because there are no things, only interdependent components which define one another.

 

[redbaron]

The reason I ask is because the HB was known about for half a century before its, "discovery". The theoretical knowledge was essentially complete. Observing it was more like a signature confirming the theory's validity than anything else.

So unless your definition of observe includes mathematical theorem, it's rather rash to say that things we can't observe don't matter - we can actually learn a lot about things that we can't observe.

In fact, scientifically speaking we typically learn the most about things before they're ever observed. It's this knowledge that tells us where to look in the first place if we want to observe anything at all.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yah but we learn those things by observing other things. But, you are right. You really can't say that we cannot speak of what can't be observed, because that implies things have to be directly observed to be said to exists, which of course isn't true.

 

[Grayman]

The reason I ask is because the HB was known about for half a century before its, "discovery". The theoretical knowledge was essentially complete. Observing it was more like a signature confirming the theory's validity than anything else.

So unless your definition of observe includes mathematical theorem, it's rather rash to say that things we can't observe don't matter - we can actually learn a lot about things that we can't observe.

In fact, scientifically speaking we typically learn the most about things before they're ever observed. It's this knowledge that tells us where to look in the first place if we want to observe anything at all.

It's nice to see you getting into this.