Orange 2

From: steve(primus)	15/10/99 16:54:52
Subject: Oranges	post id: 20
or will we have to start a new thread Evil grin on his face We're not going to let the infamous Oranges thread die are we?

This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.

From: michael c	15/10/99 16:57:12
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 23
It would be sacrilege to let it die, long live the Orange! Michael C {:-)

From: Grant	15/10/99 17:02:18
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 25
Oh bloody hell steve(primus)! You've just lost my vote for Avatar status (bloody natuarlised s**t stirring pommy mumble, mumble rhubarb...)

From: Tracey(TAOW)	15/10/99 17:43:48
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 41
Well Trev would be quite happy to know that the oranges thread is not lost forever what about the Mutants and Velvets thread he and Kate need to keep that one alive too. :-) Tracey(TAOW)

From: Mjr	15/10/99 17:45:12
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 43
Don't worry TAOW, I am sure that will all be revived in good time Mjr (NUFAH)

From: phoebe	15/10/99 19:15:50
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 53
Wow. Excuse me, but I'm still in awe about the interior decorating and archiving... MJR, sorry to be an annoying person, but HOW COME YOU HAVE A TAG??? And what does it stand for? BTW an orange in the dark does not exist, because as humans we cannot percience it, well, that is without touching it. For my purposes it does not exist. I'm not in denial. Happiness! Phoebe

From: Mjr(NUFAH)	15/10/99 19:20:11
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 54
No prob Phoebe.... Well I started a thread in which I was trying to get a name for the plebs of the forum, such as myself...and no-one had any ideas...So, after I could no longer stand my identity crisis, I decided to give myself the tag. It stands for No Use For A Handle. Don't ask me why! Mjr (NUFAH)

From: phoebe	15/10/99 19:23:16
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 56
Hey, you wouldn't by any chance be the same Matt who I had my interesting conversation about torture chambers with? I like the unuseful handle!

From: Mjr(NUFAH)	15/10/99 19:23:55
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 57
yep....thats the one! How did u guess?? Mjr (NUFAH)

From: phoebe	15/10/99 19:25:40
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 59
Just psychic, you know. And you sound like him, well, as far as I can tell from typing, that is. What is an orange in the dark to you? (this is so we don't get accused of chatting) nose tapping

From: Mjr(NUFAH)	15/10/99 19:27:38
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 61
Hmmm....an orange in the dark?? God!......I'm stumped!!! its still an orange....but you can't really call it that....hmmm Mjr (NUFAH)

From: spud	15/10/99 19:33:55
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 64
if anorangeis in the dark and you peel it, does the juice still get under your fingernails?

From: phoebe	15/10/99 19:36:07
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 66
No, because it doesn't exist, see?

From: spud	15/10/99 19:42:12
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 68
but if it dark and the orange does not exist, do we exist? (in the dark)??

From: phoebe	15/10/99 19:44:26
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 69
Ok there's a puzzler... Hmm... NO. We just think we do, because humans are so self-centred.

From: Mjr(NUFAH)	15/10/99 19:45:57
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 70
Also is the fruit named after the colour? Or the colour after the fruit?? Mjr (NUFAH)

From: spud	15/10/99 19:50:20
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 72
here is another,when we close our eyes does everything still exist? Are our sense's different to other people. IE. some people see colurs different (not just the colour blind)

From: spud	15/10/99 19:54:17
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 73
and why do wehave the colour "apple green" but not "apple red"? IT is like Bronze (the metal),what colour is that, bronze or brown? And what is the "blue comb juice" you see in the hairdresser's?

From: Grant	15/10/99 19:55:15
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 74
If we close our eyes and nothing exists then we dont exist therefore we cant hurt ourselves therefore we cant die so close your eyes and live forever.

From: Mjr(NUFAH)	15/10/99 20:01:08
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 75
I dont know if this has been brought up before.... but the whole orange thing aslo applies to a piece of gold, silver, bronze and probably heaps of other objects... Mjr (NUFAH)

From: mike	16/10/99 0:02:21
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 104
what about if you want to peel an orange in the dark, would it exist then

From: Lib	16/10/99 0:09:01
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 106
Since when did something cease to exist in the dark? Sight is only one sense. What about a gardenia in the dark. We can't see it, but we can smell it, touch it, and if we want taste it. Does sound not exist simply because we cannot see it (unless you're taking some really trippy substances!!)?

From: Lib	16/10/99 0:18:10
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 107
Why is it that the one evening I'm wide awake enough at this hour for a discussion there is no one else around? Helloooooo helloooooo helloooo helloo hello (echos!)

From: Lib	16/10/99 0:22:36
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 108
Sigh. Might as well sod off and go to bed by the looks of things. Or is it just that I'm abnormal being home at this hour on Friday night?

From: Mark Hocking	16/10/99 0:41:08
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 113
Lib. Don't Despair...Your not the only one online on a Friday night. Mark 

From: Grant¹	16/10/99 13:39:44
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 168
Please, please let me continue to reply to the original Oranges thread. I'm been summoning the strength for the definitive Daryn Voss Oranges post.

From: Grant¹	16/10/99 15:46:25
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 180
Then do it here & kill this thread before it chokes the forum again!!! Notice how the archiving was meant to take 20min, then they said around 12 ish, then 16:00 & finally back online around 16:30? I blame it all on that "What colour is an Orage in the Dark?" thread, so please finish it now! One more thing- i wonder if MoG has ever been back to see what effect she's had on the available net bandwidth?

From: michael c	18/10/99 12:11:29
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 714
Hi all, well the MoG thread is ressurrected, (can I say three days after it was killed off??, or archived anyway). Wherever or whenever you are MoG, you are celebrated. Phoebe, does this mean that blind people can not perceive oranges at all. There is still touch and smell . This tells us the orange does exist. It does not define a colour though. Still, to define colour we must apply some EM radiation which will evoke a reflective, flourescive or phosphorescive response from the orange to enable a colour observation. If we use short wave UV light, of which or eyes can not actually perceive (although this should not mean we actually try this, the short wave UV can cause cataracts and cancers in the eyes, so please people do not do this experiment without appropriate UV protection) the colour of the orange is pink . However, this is only one set of parameters that can be used in the 'dark' and so the observation should be accompanied by the observational parameters. Without the definition of the observational parameters, we can not really define what colour the orange is, but it has the potential to be a range of colours. (I hope the colour definition in HTML goes through, this is a better pink, lets kick it off again) {:~]) Paul

From: michael c	18/10/99 12:28:54
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 720
....the observation should be accompanied by the observational parameters. Couldn't agree with you more Dr Paul. Michael C {:-)

From: michael c	18/10/99 14:41:14
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 742
Hrm. Allow me to post this one again! Why is there such difficulty in divorcing the concept of colour and the colour of an object from the human sense of sight? It is completely and uniqely specified as a frequency response in visible light. Simple.

From: michael c	18/10/99 15:12:40
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 747
Why is there such difficulty in divorcing the concept of colour and the colour of an object from the human sense of sight? It is completely and uniqely specified as a frequency response in visible light. Simple. Isn't that a contradiction Terry? In your first sentence you try to divorce the colour of an object from the human sense of sight, yet your second sentence refers to a frequency response in visible light which only refers to those wavelengths visible to the human sense of sight. Michael C J

From: michael c	18/10/99 15:17:48
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 750
Terry Ah - the oldest method of scientific inductive reasoning known to humankind: proof by assertion. There is no disputing (at least as far as I am concerned) that the concept of colour and the perception of colour are quite different. The question in this thread is whether the colour of an object (in particular the enigmatic orange) is more closely the one than the other. "Simply" lumping the colour of an object in with the concept of colour and hoping no one notices isn't going to cut the cheese in this case! We know that a colour - as a concept - can be defined in the abstract, you haven't yet shown how an object's colour is necessarily identified with an abstraction rather than the perception of the observer. How can you tell an orange is orange in the dark?

From: michael c	18/10/99 15:25:56
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 753
...cut the cheese pheeewwww Michael CJ

From: Cam	18/10/99 16:38:34
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 778
...you haven't yet shown how an object's colour is necessarily identified with an abstraction rather than the perception of the observer. Why on Earth should the burden of proof be on this camp? The colour of an object is a human construct. We are therefore free to define it however we like. How can we tell an orange is orange in the dark? By modelling the structure of the surface. You don't even need an orange, just enough computer power to do it. (And I still prefer proof by intimid

From: Cam	18/10/99 16:44:37
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 783
Um, proof by intimidation, that is.

From: Cam	18/10/99 16:57:00
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 795
Why on Earth should the burden of proof be on this camp? Why on earth not?? When you come on line trolling some idiotic pseudo-science against the establishment you kinda have to support it!!! ;o) Besides, where's the merit in your position if you can't justify it? The colour of an object is a human construct. We are therefore free to define it however we like. Bum-Bom (a la Family Fued?). Sorry, Terry. We'll have to go over to the "We've got the Right Idea About the Oranges Thread" Family to see if they can scoop the pool again... The abstract colour as a concept is the human construct. We are free to define that as we wish. The colours of objects are compared against the concepts observationally to determine which concept best describes the colour. That observation is necessarily dependent on the circumstances of the observing. Suggesting that the colour of objects is a human construct identifies your argument as a troll! How can we tell an orange is orange in the dark? By modelling the structure of the surface. You don't even need an orange, just enough computer power to do it. Excuse us while we slither further and further down the road of enigmatic abstraction!! Forget your extra processing power - just look at the damned thing! ;o) And I still prefer proof by intimidation Hahaha... it's certainly the most self satisfying! :o)

From: Cam	18/10/99 17:25:37
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 826
How can we tell an orange is orange in the dark? By modelling the structure of the surface. You don't even need an orange, just enough computer power to do it. Terry, I support your basic point of view, but have to disagree with this bit. A computer simulation of a thing doesn't tell you about the thing itself. At some stage you still have to look at a real orange in some real dark. With computers it's "Garbage in, garbage out". JR

From: Cam	20/10/99 18:25:27
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 1268
See how one question can divide so many? And it's all over whether an orange is an orange.... Jean-Paul Satre must be rolling in his grave. After all, it's only an orange because we call it one, isn't it? I'm taking a different line the em spectrum I am using to observe what i shall now call the breifcase is in the infra-red. What colour is the breifcase?

From: Cam	21/10/99 13:44:34
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 1494
Hi Cam, how far into the IR? Far red to near infra red is still somewhat observable as red to ~800nm Are you more Far out than this? {:~]) Paul

From: Cam	21/10/99 23:07:29
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 1669
Somewhat

From: phoebe	24/10/99 17:27:39
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2133
Right fine, here we go... An Orange In The Dark is black, because there is no light to give it what we percieve as colour (light of a specific wavelength, etc.) Therefore it can be said to have potential colour. It isn't orange now, but whack some light on the bugger and you'll be fine. Hapiness! phoebe

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 17:24:52
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2314
Hi all, I had the pleasure of rereading some of the original thread and found some insight into the human condition. Dan B., if we use UV light, the orange flouresces pink, this I have undertaken, with the IR, it is sort of grey see through which led me to the following. As we can not see the orange in the dark, but can (not) see the black background of the dark, I propose that the orange is indeed INVISIBLE in the dark, a property it obtains from its behaviour under IR light. In light that we can actually observe with our evolution enhanced optical detection devices, the colour will be dependent upon the incident radiation. We define a set of observations, we can define a colour of the orange. Paul, hoping to put some Zing back into the orange.

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 20:31:10
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2328
[Part A] It has been suggested elsewhere that this topic has been maintained by stubbornness, but I have no reason to suspect that anyone is in it out of stubbornness. However, I no longer have confidence that others can be won around to my (i.e. the correct) position. I am fascinated that this topic can cause such division. I don't think any other has. We can't just look the answer up somewhere, or appeal to someone more knowledgeable in the field. I am coming to think that the division is paradigmatic and personal. We are all starting with the same facts (I presume everyone involved knows enough about the eye, the photon, reflection, quantum indeterminacy), we all speak the same language, but we are getting different answers out of our machines. I would be interested in finding out exactly where we all differ. People often disparage argument by parallel, but in fact this is often how "knowledge" is obtained: by finding patterns. The original camp declaration was misleading. I don't think there are two contributors with exactly the same views. But first, some back announcing. I haven't made a serious post since August, so I have some catching up to do. The results may be a little disjointed as I try to respond to posts as I encounter them. Martin BFor the moment I wish to propose a loose confederation of the perceptionists against the absolutist boofheads (and their motorist friends). Against the combined might of Helen, Chris (Avatar), steve (primus) and myself the puny army of the four avatars James, Cam, Terry and Daryn shall be crushed I do not mind being labeled, but I think the Camp notion can be discarded. As becomes clear later, Terry and I differ on an important point. Martin B suggests that those who propose the notion colour pertains to physical properties of the orange are mainly relying on proof by assertion, but if he reads the posts carefully, he will see that they mainly rely on utility. Examples are furnished, analogies are made, to show that this is the best model. This isn't proof, of course. Nothing can strictly be proven. We are seeking the most useful version, as all scientists do. All my talk about working out the meaning of words wasn't just chit-chat: unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, it is most useful for scientists to employ language that is compatible with everyday English. There will be times when there are good reasons, an example being the mass/weight distinction made by scientists. The examples I was giving were demonstrating that people use colour in a way that shows the colour of a reflective object isn't altered by illumination. If you believe that we should use the colour words in a different way to that used in everyday life, that's great, but please explain why it is necessary. I don't get what people mean when they say we shouldn't just accept what the masses say. When it comes to the definition of words, the masses must rule. The use of the word "colour", and of the colour words, are our only clues about the meaning of colour. This is true of other words: why should it be different for the word "orange"? Alternatively, perhaps you don't believe the statement "When someone says he has a red car, he's talking about something that doesn't change when you turn the lights off". Fine! Now, give me some counter examples. I said -"We say 'It is a dog' as a mental shorthand for 'It appears to fulfil the dog wave equation', but it isn't really a dog." Helen said -I'm not at all sure what you're getting at here. But hey, if you're more comfortable with a dog wave equation than old Rover, well who am I to quibble :-)? The double quotes were intended to indicate that I was referring to (in fact, lampooning) the notions of my opponents. My view: if everyone says it is a dog, it's a dog. That's what a dog is. That's how we find out what the word "dog" means. I don't think anyone's being obtuse. No one's suggesting we change the way we talk about colour in everyday life. What I am suggesting is that we need to be wary that the assumptions we make in the course of everyday life don't obscure our scientific thinking. Do you believe there is some deeper meaning of "colour" that contradicts everyday terminology? [continued in Part B]

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 20:33:01
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2329
[Part B] There have been some comments made about abuse and intimidation. I'm sorry if I have offended anyone. I had assumed that this was like a dinner table philosophy conversation, in which there might be a bit of jibing here and there, but that it was all "between friends" so to speak. You are all my friends: in fact I have probably exchanged more words with the people on this forum than with many of the people with whom I have "normal" friendships. We all know this isn't a life or death issue: we aren't talking about whether the geocentric universe should be taught in schools as the only model, or whether gay people should be burned and made into soap. This is an interesting discussion between interesting people. I'm not going to explode if I don't win everyone over to my point of view. I'm mainly interested in getting all the dirt on why the other people hold their views. Daryn's recent passion for cars in the street has I introduced cars because the topic seemed to be veering towards whether an orange was an orange and away from the colour issue. This was complicating things, and was probably caused by the fact that we expect a ripe orange to be orange. I used the cars, because cars can be any colour. Now, for much of this thread, I have believed that we are not in dispute about physical reality: that the real issue was nomenclature. The car has a colour property that depends on light and sight. It also has a colour property that does not depend so. I think we agree on this. No we do not agree on this. This suggests we are further apart than I thought. More on this later. Terry said -No, no, no, wrong, wrong, wrong. Whatever the reasons other people in this camp or other have, I don't subscribe to the theory that it is orange because people say so. That's popularity-contest wank. I want to assert that objects have a particular, invariant colour because the electronic structure of the object has not changed. There is one kind of field in which the majority must rule: convention. Language is a kind of convention. You want to assert that the objects have a particular, invariant property due to the electronic etc, and I think (hope) that everyone agrees, but what is it that makes you say that this property is called "colour". No, don't answer, I'll tell you. LANGUAGE! The fact that people call something "orange" even when they can't see it, or it is in the dark, is what tells us that whatever the hell "colour" is, it must be a light- and sight- independent property. People have paid out on me for artificially creating a distinction between the way the concept "colour" differs for reflective and radiative things, but I didn't invent this distinction: the users of English did. The sky example is an interesting one, and it just points to the fact that the sky isn't an object at all: when people say the sky, they just mean "whatever the hell I see when I go outside and look up". How can I make this statement? No, not a baseless assertion. It is based on listening to people. The same person might say "There are stars in the sky", "There are clouds in the sky", "There are birds in the sky", and this isn't because they are stupid and think clouds, stars and birds are all in the same place. It provides us with a pointer as to the meaning of "sky". If people use "colour" in a different way for emissive and reflective things (and if you listen to them sometimes you will see that they do), then the meaning of "colour" is different for these two categories. Don't argue with me: argue with the world. Dan B saidWhat colour would an orange appear under a UV or IR light source? Note that Dan uses the word "appear". He didn't type "What colour would an orange be under a UV or IR light source?" I'm not just caviling: since I'm talking about language, this is evidence. Cam said - If you buy a tin of orange paint, do you argue with the salesman that it isn't orange because there's no light inside the tin? Or do you go back and complain after you've painted your house, but it doesn't look orange at night? Of course you don't. Because you understand that there are "normal" ambient conditions implicit in the description "orange". And, frankly, I agree. Here is a parallel: Suppose I have a resistor in my hands. Resistors have an ohmic response (within certain voltage boundaries). That is to say, the current passing through the resistor will be proportional to the applied voltage. Suppose, this resistor is a ten ohm resistor. This will be readily determinable by passing a current through it (assuming you have a voltmeter and ammeter on hand). Suppose, at the moment there is no voltage applied to it. It doesn't make sense to divide the voltage by the

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 20:36:31
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2330
[Part C] Dr Paul said - As we can not see the orange in the dark, but can (not) see the black background of the dark, I propose that the orange is indeed INVISIBLE in the dark, a property it obtains from its behaviour under IR light. I agree with this statement. Objects of any colour are obviously invisible (undetectable by sight) when not illuminated. Brown objects, red objects... can't see any of them. This doesn't answer the question about whether they stay brown and red. As I stated above, I am now more interested in finding out where our paths divide. I hope some of you will be good enough to indulge me. I will restate me position and my reasoning in brief before continuing. This will involve some repetition of material of presented above, I'm afraid. My position: The response of the eye is a function of the spectrum of light entering it (I have dealt with the details of this function elsewhere). If we are looking at a reflective object, then the spectrum of light entering the eye (from this object) will be a function of the incident spectrum of light, and the reflective properties of the object (which has been dealt with in detail elsewhere.) We need terms to refer to all of these things, preferably simpler terms than reflectivity spectrum and reflected spectrum. As I have shown elsewhere, people in everyday life use the word "colour", and the colour words, to refer to these intrinsic properties of the reflective object. They do not speak of a red car being black, just because it is unilluminated currently. They say, "My car is red" under these circumstances. They might say, "It looks black." This, and other observations, lead me to believe that the colour words refer to intrinsic, light-invariant properties, and that words like "Looks", "Seems", "Appears" are used when they are talking about the reflected spectrum. Sometimes it is necessary for scientists to use different definitions form those used in everyday life, but the number of these times should be minimised, and I can't see why this would be one of these times. Questions: 1/ Does everyone agree that the spectrum of light that reflects off a reflective object will depend on (a) the spectrum of the incident light AND (b) some intrinsic property of the object? 2/ Does everyone agrees that sometimes it is useful to talk about the spectrum of light that is currently reflecting off a body? 3/ Does everyone agrees that sometimes it is useful to talk about these intrinsic properties of objects described in part 1/. If this line proves more popular, I will ask further questions to define the point of departure. Please feel free to ask questions about my stance. 8^)

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 20:52:04
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2333
Unfortunately, the last bit of Part B was truncated. Here are the last two paragraphs in full. "Here is a parallel: Suppose I have a resistor in my hands. Resistors have an ohmic response (within certain voltage boundaries). That is to say, the current passing through the resistor will be proportional to the applied voltage. Suppose, this resistor is a ten ohm resistor. This will be readily determinable by passing a current through it (assuming you have a voltmeter and ammeter on hand). Suppose, at the moment there is no voltage applied to it. It doesn't make sense to divide the voltage by the current to find the resistance, because both are zero. Can I still call it a ten-ohm resistor under these circumstances? I argue again from utility. It is simpler and more useful to use the same resistance for the resistor even when it is unused. One could argue that it has no resistance unless it is being measured, but where does that get you? Is it helpful? It is useful? However, the definition of resistance is voltage over current, so how can I say that the resistor has a resistance of 10 ohms? Clearly, there can be a sensible extension, and one that everyone can understand, and probably just assume to be the case anyway. The resistance must be the voltage/current ratio that would be, if the resistor were powered. I would be able to work out the resistance without powering it, by measuring it and identifying its chemical composition [sound familiar?], and by knowing how chemistry relates to resistivity."

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 21:00:13
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2338
1/ Does everyone agree that the spectrum of light that reflects off a reflective object will depend on (a) the spectrum of the incident light AND (b) some intrinsic property of the object? The only thing I would baulk at is the term intrinsic property. I'm yet to be convinced that the distribution of occupied electronic states in the surface of an orange is an a priori intrinsic property of the orange. I'm open to persuasion on this, but I'm reluctant to conclude that it is as hard and fast as one might first assume. Soupie twist, Ed G.

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 21:05:08
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2340
Dr Ed G, are you refering to the fact that the state of illumination will affect the electron states and hence the reflectivity, or the Heisenberg-type uncertainty that is associated with individual bonds?

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 21:17:23
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2342
I'm not yet convinced that the electron wave ensemble will not be in a superposition of states while it is in complete darkness. I guess I'm looking for proof that all occupied electronic state distributions, other than one which will result in an orange reflection spectrum, will be quantum mechanically forbidden. Is it ontologically enough to say that occupied state distributions other than those which reflect orange will be thermodynamically unlikely? Soupie twist, Ed G.

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 21:22:43
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2344
Well, it does have a ring to it. Really, the QM states that allow a non-orange reflection are not forbidden even when the orange is illuminated, yeah? Even when I'm look straight at an orange in broad daylight, there is a small change that all of the bonds will change for some instant, making it mainly reflect violet, for instance. This doesn't seem to be something that necessarily changes in the dark. Or have I missed the point?

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 21:38:31
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2348
Really, the QM states that allow a non-orange reflection are not forbidden even when the orange is illuminated, yeah? This is what I don't know. If they are not forbidden then I would suspect there is a finite chance of the ensemble being in one of those non-orange states. Now, it could be that the statistically probability of the electrons in the surface states of an orange being in such a state are so close to zero that you can turn the lights on an off a milllion times a second to a million different oranges for the age of the Universe and see only orange coloured oranges every single time, but it is still a matter of luck, not intrisic nature, that makes an orange, orange. In which case it is technically false to assert its colour until a measurement as been made, i.e. the lights are switched on, and therefore the colour of an orange in the dark is indeterminate. Soupie twist, Ed G.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	25/10/99 22:07:18
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2351
Using the arguments I presented at length before, I would suggest that the statement "it is orange" is a statistical statement. In fact, most statements of properties are statistical! If I say that an object is 1 metre in length, this doesn't discount the fact that there will be an inherent uncertainty in this value. This uncertainty doesn't make the statement of length untrue: the uncertainty is factored in.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	25/10/99 22:23:40
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2354
So, what we see when we look at the orange in dependent on the spectrum of light falling on it and the QM states of the electron in its surface. The first (and persumably standard) conditions for such a measuremnt would be the light of the star Sol from approx 8 light-minutes away, filtered through the atmosphere of planet Earth, as that atmosphere was (and still mostly is) when human sapience and visual sysytems first arose, corrected for relativistic effects arising from the relative motion of these two bodies. This spectrum is then incident upon a ripe fruit of the tree citrus sinensis. The statistically likely QM states of the surface of the fruit will produce a relected spectrum which, when incident upon the normal or average human eye is interpreted as a colour that humans call orange, because we can and everybody else knows what we mean when we say so. Without any incident light or other electromagnetic radiation on the aforementioned fruit, we assume (or perhaps can test) that the QM states producing the reflected light called orange when the fruit is illuminated in the above manner are still the most statistically likely. In this experiment, the variable is the QM states of the fruit. It could concievably reflect any specrum (or not reflect at all) whether or not there is em radiation incident upon it BUT the QM states resulting in orange are the most likely. So an orange in the dark is most likely orange when viewed under the described conditions, but it could be any colur. (prepares ejection seat)

From: Bruce(Boojum)	25/10/99 22:25:17
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2355
Also prepares spellchecker

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 22:26:38
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2356
Ah, but I put it to you that this orange debate is about the ontological nature of an orange's colour, not whether the empirical assertion of that colour is practically valid in the vast majority of circumstances.

From: Mr OJ	25/10/99 22:26:43
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2358
How about a discrete orange background, for some added multimedia stimulation?? OJ

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 22:29:10
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2359
Bruce, precisely!

From: Bruce(Boojum)	25/10/99 22:30:33
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2361
I agree with Daryn. The orange is most likely to be orange. But does this mean that one has to say "undetermined, but most likely to be orange"? PS Please define "ontology"

From: Bruce(Boojum)	25/10/99 22:33:54
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2362
Oh, and I have read the entire thread, all 100-something pages of it.

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 22:37:28
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2365
Perhaps not Mr. OJ. It's a ghastly shade and probably won't display correctly everywhere. This is a more http://html.miningco.com/internet/design/html/library/bl_colors.htm" Browser Safeorange.

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 22:46:56
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2368
Main Entry: on·tol·o·gy Pronunciation: `än-'tä-l&-jE` Function: noun Etymology: New Latin ontologia, from ont- + -logia -logy Date: circa 1721 1 : a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being 2 : a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of existents. In other words, its fundamental nature of being, as opposed to merely the empirical measure of that being. While most physicists in my experience tend to be of a Positivist philosophical bent (generally ascribing to the belief that if a measurement always confirms a certain nature of an object, for all intents and purposes that measurement is the fundamental nature of the object), I'm not yet convinced of the intrinsic absolute determinacy of the colour of an orange.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	25/10/99 22:54:21
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2370
I don't think there is an absolute colour for an orange. It all depends on the incident radiation, the qm state of the orange, and the visual system used to percieve it. In our case if we use human vision and the light I specified earlier, it is then up to the qm states as to what the colour is. Jus roll the dice and hope Schrodinger's (spelling?) cat doesn't eat it while we're not looking.

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 23:02:32
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2373
I think its fair enough that we can settle on a strict invariant definition of the colour orange as a relative sprectral range as measured with an appropriate reflectance spectrophotometer. The issue as I perceive it is not so much what happens when we illuminate the orange as the nature of its electronic state immediately prior to measurement, and whether or not there is an extremely small but finite chance that it can be in a state that will reflect not-orange, in which case the colour of an orange in the dark is fundamentally indeterminate.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	25/10/99 23:05:58
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2374
That gets my vote. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the answer was fairly simple. It was the arguing over definitions and boundary conditions for the answer that took all the time and bandwidth

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 23:06:46
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2375
Furthermore I would add, though, that you certainly cannot say that an orange will be either invisible or black in the dark, as both these assertions presupposes measurement.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	25/10/99 23:06:55
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2376
I do of course realise that not everyone will agree with that last statement.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	25/10/99 23:09:09
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2379
maybe we could just ask the orange

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 23:10:54
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2380
What we need now is an expert in quantum mechanics and the electronic states of orange peels at 293 kelvin to tell us whether the ensemble states that would produce non-orange reflections are forbidden. If this were the case then I would say unequivocally that the colour of an orange in the dark is orange. However, until such time as this is demonstrated I'm afraid semantic arguments about empirical statistics just don't cut the cheese as far as I'm concerned.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	25/10/99 23:16:43
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2384
Why should all such or any such qm state be forbidden?

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	25/10/99 23:20:48
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2387
States within the bandgap of a perfect semiconductor are... something similar to this, perhaps.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 0:08:55
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2405
And I put it to you, that we can't discuss the ontological nature of any given property of anything until we have a useful definition of that property. We can't talk about what the orange's colour really is, without regard to the general usage of the term colour.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 0:26:50
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2410
My definition of colour: a property which can be discerned by the average human visual system in almost any object under appropriate conditions( such as those i stated above). Variances in perception of this property can, do and will occur in individuals; however, the general perception of the colour of a single object can be used as a useful reference. For example, the majority of people say that the (Avatar) tag is red, therefore it is, and anything the same colour is red as well. The perception of colour is found to be related to the frequency of the light incident on the retina, and a colour agreed upon by all (such as the avatar tag) can be assigned . If we all agree tht a give orange is orange, then it's frequency or reflected spectrum or whatever can be analysed and an objective, numerical value given to our subjective perception of orange. This numerical value can be used in any further analysis, if the numbers match the object is orange. Admittedly, the concept of colour is subjective in origin, but if any and all are satisfied that light of a given frequency is orange, then anything reflecting that frequency is also orange, because we siad so.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 0:30:43
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2411
What we need now is an expert in quantum mechanics and the electronic states of orange peels at 293 kelvin to tell us whether the ensemble states that would produce non-orange reflections are forbidden. If this were the case then I would say unequivocally that the colour of an orange in the dark is orange. May I ask this? (Not that, but that which follows.) Suppose, as seems likely, there is a small probability that an object that normally reflects as orange could for some period (due to a coincidental change in state in many bonds over the orange) appear as a different colour. If this is true in the illuminated state and the unilluminated, why is it necessary or desirable to dub the orange a different (or no) colour in the dark? If I had some such object (anomously purple looking thing that is normally orange), would you consider it fair enough for me to say "it is an orange object that, (due to a highly improbable configuration that somehow is holding out long enough for me to draw breath and actually describe its colour to someone) temporarily looks orange", or would you say, "It is purple right now, but normally it is orange."? Just curious.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 0:33:23
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2412
then anything reflecting that frequency is also orange But this is the very crux: do we mean anything that is reflecting that frequency right now, or anything that, given half a change, would reflect that frequency (probably).

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 0:35:07
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2413
Some interesting points coming up now. Notwithstanding Dr Ed's points, I agree with your three position statements Daryn. I'm still working up Dr Ed's position in my mind. Eds, would you have a problem with a statement along the lines of 'this piece of chalk is sitting on that desk'?

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 0:37:43
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2414
And I still can't work out why most people haven't flocked to my semi-compromise aswer to the original question: 'If is meaningful to talk about the colour of the orange in the dark, then the orange is orange.' I guess we're more interested in the discussion at hand than strictly defining what the discussion at hand actually is.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 0:43:36
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2416
I think, to a large extent, the discussion at hand is self-referential. Your compromise no doubt satisfies everyone, but it leaves one asking, "So is it any colour?"

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 0:48:18
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2420
We mmean anything reflecting that frequency now. But the orange in the dark is indeterminate, as I said earlier. However, although indeterminate we can say "it is probably orange, but could be any colour that is not forbidden by the possible qm states of the orange". If the orange turned purple through a freak qm state while being observed (the work of Maxwell's Demon?) I would personally say it is purple now but it is usually orange. Such a statement would describe the reality as i percieve it. I would of course amend that statement if the purple colour lasted longer than the orange colour. I would not say that it IS orange but is now purple, I would say that it WAS orange but IS purple now.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 0:53:02
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2423
Your compromise no doubt satisfies everyone, but it leaves one asking, "So is it any colour?" Indeed, that was the point. Then we could address that problem directly and have no confusion. And I'm not sure it would satisfy PJS.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 1:00:13
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2426
I would say that it is meanigful to talk about the colour of the orange (as it would be percieved by humans under sunlight, etc, etc) but that in the dark that colour is indeterminate BUT most likely to be orange. Whether that means it is all colours or none, I do not know

From: steve(primus)	26/10/99 1:39:53
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2428
I never thought I would say it, and 'twas I who restarted this thread in the new forum, BUT I have got to the stage where I couldn't give a stuff what colour an orange is in the dark. However, I have noticed that a degree of consensus is approaching. The wildly separate views in the original forum are converging. While we all violently disagreed with each other originally, compromises have been made and we are now nearing, not necessarily a point but at least a football field of agreement. Oranges oranges oranges. I give up on the discussion and will, right now, eat the luminosity-challenged fruit. As of now, it has no colour beause it doesn't exist.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 1:44:09
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2430
Wus.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 8:48:48
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2446
What colour is a half digested orange in the dark?

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 9:37:53
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2451
1/ Does everyone agree that the spectrum of light that reflects off a reflective object will depend on (a) the spectrum of the incident light AND (b) some intrinsic property of the object? What if the spectrum changes between reflection and observation? What if the change is uniform for all observers, but predictable and measurable? Do we then say that the orange is red because all observers see it is red, or that it is orange (but looks red to everyone) because edwin hubble said so? What colour is an orange in a distant galaxy? Or do we decide to settle for a second best definition here that excludes such considerations for practicality's sake? Defining the orange as orange all the time means extending a property of an orange which exists under some circumstances to all circumstances. Since when do we proclaim the rule which applies to a subset of conditions as any more than a useful approximation? I'd say, then, that an orange may be usefully approximated as orange when it is in the dark. But then we're not arguing useful approximations here, are we? Chris

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 10:05:48
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2456
Eds has the clincher! He has logically disallowed the assertion that the orange is orange! (Is this the end?) Consider: 1) The proposition that the orange is orange is a closed proposition. For it to be tenable, the orange has to be demonstrably orange in every circumstance (by the measurement of some colour-causative property of the orange which produces a constant result in all circumstances). 2) The counter-proposition is its complement. For it to be tenable, it need only show that there is one circumstance in which the colour of the orange depends on or is caused by its observation. 3) Eds is right in his suggestion. Despite the fact that the orange is a statistical agglomeration of quantum particles (instead of a single quantum event), there is a non-zero chance that the array of quantum particles (electrons) which make the orange reflect as orange might make the orange reflect as a different colour. 4) It is the observation of the orange which determines whether it would reflect orange or (tiny chance) some other colour. While the orange is in the dark, unobserved, that chance is real and non-zero - therefore the orange cannot be said to be orange until it is observed. 5) However, as Eds suggests, there is a chance that quantum states which result in a non-orange colour for the orange may be naturally excluded. But this exclusion is yet to be observed! Which means that at present there is a non-zero chance that there may be a non-zero chance that you may observe an orange in the dark to be purple when you switch the light on. This non-zero chance (however small) means that calling an orange an orange in the dark has no real physical meaning - it is only a likely approximation. 6) The "orange is orange in the dark" camp need to show that QM states for orange peels reflecting colours other than orange are excluded to continue with their position. But even that wouldn't give them proof - they need to defend every such counter-example we can come up with. That's the difficulty of defending a closed proposition. :o) Chris

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 11:48:49
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2490
So we now say that the orange in the dark, if viewed under the specified conditions (see my first post aboove) is most likely to be orange BUT could be any colour not forbidden by its possible qm states. Because we cannot measure the colour in the dark, we cannot make a definitive statement about its colour, only about the probabilities of any given colour. BUT the orange does<\b> have a colour- we cannot say what it is and can only describe it through probabilities. Is it just me, or does that sound a lot like Schrodinger's cat?

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 12:36:41
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2504
My view point has come from utility and communication, but Ed has made me consider a case that is most definitely not covered by ordinary language, because it has almost certainly never happened! I have been arguing that when people talk about colour of unilluminated objects, thay are talking about the colour that would be observed in the light, and further arguing that this is a useful nomenclature. The case at hand: if an object that is normally orange-reflecting suddenly, due to random changes in state, reflects purple for some kind, would it be called orange or purple? My appeal to the mass fails in this case: I have no idea what it would be called, because this is such a low probability event that it has probably never been described. It may be possible that one could detect this unusual state even without visible light, perhaps by observing the reflectivity of the orange at other frequencies, or by very carefully studying the paths of incident electrons. If this were the case, then one could determine whether it would reflect as orange or purple without visible light. Although I would be surprised if the effects of this state were restricted only to visible light, since clearly electron orbital changes will alter the electrical and magnetic field, I don't know enough to state with certainty that it is impossible for the changes to occur in such a way as to cancel the EM effects that don't affect visible light. QUALIFIED CONCESSION: IF it is possible for an illuminated object that is ordinarily orange to suddenly and momentarily change to a purple-looking object because of random changes in the states and IF this can happen without making any field changes that can be detected by means not involving visible light and IF an object is such a state should be described as purple rather than orange THEN the colour of the object in the dark may not be determined, which I suppose is the same as saying it is indeterminate. Those IFs are still there, however. 8^)

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 12:49:25
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2509
Chris, you're getting all excited over nothing. You have to take the statistics into account, or else the people who propose observation is required to define colour would have to change what colour they say the orange is with each individual photon they detect. We're talking about the characteristic colour of a frequency profile remember, not a single frequency.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 12:56:19
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2510
With regard to Chris's comments, I think the orange in the distant universe would indeed be called orange. Most of the light from a "white" star in a galaxy 14 billion LY away (which we would be unable to detect as an individual star, but anyway...) will be shifted into the infrared spectrum, and the visible portion will be reddish white (due to the great shift in the peak frequency). But a cosmologist dealing with this star will still call it a white start, surely? [Note, slightly red shifted stars don't appear to change colour, because of the broad peak in intensity]. More on the anomalously purple object: since this an area uncovered by ordinary speech, I now feel relaxed about inventing a specialized terminology [if I get my 3 IFs]: the excited colour is purple, the rest colour is orange!

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 13:10:09
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2513
Surely some semblance of stability would be required to even consider the orange to be potentially purple? Any electronic state resulting in a purple-looking orange under white light wouldn't even come close to being metastable.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 14:55:21
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2527
Don't call me Shirley. But seriously, why should any qm state resulting in a non-orange reflectivity profile have to be stable for us to consider it? For the time that qm state exists, the orange is not orange, even if only for a femtosecond. Solid water is not stable at room temperature and pressure, yet we admit its existence. Any possible non-orange qm state can occur, stable or not, andt for the time that state exists, the orange is not orange. Only if all non-orange qm states were impossible would the orange be orange at all times.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 15:06:16
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2536
Don't call me Shirley. OK, Leslie. But seriously, why should any qm state resulting in a non-orange reflectivity profile have to be stable for us to consider it? I never said we shouldn't consider it, just discard it very quickly. As I said, the state of motion where the entire Pacific ocean suddenly jumps into space exists and is worth considering, but only for a fleeting moment. For the time that qm state exists, the orange is not orange, even if only for a femtosecond. Solid water is not stable at room temperature and pressure... ...um, yes it is... yet we admit its existence. Any possible non-orange qm state can occur, stable or not, andt for the time that state exists, the orange is not orange. Only if all non-orange qm states were impossible would the orange be orange at all times. Even if such an event was not likely to occur in the life of the universe from Big Bang to Big Crunch (or heat death if you prefer)?

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 15:14:43
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2539
Okay, I retract the water satement(I'll ask where I went wrong later). But even if a non-orange qm state had such a low probability that we would not expect to see it during the life of the universe, we must still admit it to be possible. The orange might not be in an orange qm state in the dark; and I believe any answer to the original question must take this possibility, however improbable, into account. PS I admit, it was a lame joke ;)

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 15:18:48
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2543
So when can you say that an orange is orange?

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 15:19:10
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2544
I should know better. I know exactly what answer I'm going to get.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 15:20:59
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2545
You can say that an orange is orange when, observed by a normal human visual system under white light, the qm state of the orange is such that it produces a reflected spectrum that the observer interprets as orange.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 15:21:56
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2546
Yep, you were right

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 16:03:32
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2555
IF it is possible for an illuminated object that is ordinarily orange to suddenly and momentarily change to a purple-looking object because of random changes in the states I think you're going too far here. I never mentioned "change". I haven't considered the state of the orange prior to it being in the dark room, because it is not mentioned in the question. For all we know the orange has always been in the dark room - and the indeterminism is easier to understand if it has never been observed. and IF this can happen without making any field changes that can be detected by means not involving visible light No change. So this "IF" disappears. and IF an object is such a state should be described as purple rather than orange Ah - but it doesn't have to be described as purple, it only need be appreciated that it is not necessarily orange. Remember you can't tell the orange is orange until it is observed - which is outside the dark room (collapsing the experimental conditions with the orange's wavefunction). No "IF"s.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 16:14:36
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2560
Chris, you're getting all excited over nothing. Excited? Moi? Shirley not! ;o) You have to take the statistics into account, or else the people who propose observation is required to define colour would have to change what colour they say the orange is with each individual photon they detect. Not at all. The colour doesn't need to change. Once I observe the orange it is whatever colour it is (most likely orange, I guess! ;o) This doesn't change no matter how you view it. We're talking about the characteristic colour of a frequency profile remember, not a single frequency. That's right. But consider a previously unobserved profile which is (as you have pointed out to us) dependent upon a quantum state. The state is necessarily in superposition until the orange is observed.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 16:21:54
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2561
Surely some semblance of stability would be required to even consider the orange to be potentially purple? I think this is where Eds and I are headed when we ask whether all non-orange orange states are excluded. Having seen a green and a yellow orange, I'd suggest that they aren't....

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 17:20:36
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2590
That's right. But consider a previously unobserved profile which is (as you have pointed out to us) dependent upon a quantum state. The state is necessarily in superposition until the orange is observed. OK, so you switch on the light, and the very first photon that gets reflected off the orange is green. Does that mean that the orange is now deemed to be green? The next 50 billion photons com out closer to an orange frequency. Having seen a green and a yellow orange, I'd suggest that they aren't.... Come now, I thought that we'd agreed that the orange was orange when you turned the light on... Stop clouding the argument with irrelevancies.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 17:20:57
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2591
Hi all, WOW, what a great set of arguements. I do not know where to begin, but I will try to start by giving some results for observations (real obseravtions of colours of an orange under varying observational light patterns) With blue light, (Kodak(TM) Slide lamp 250W bulb, passed through Corning Blue filter, suitable focussed and filtered to reduce stray light) the orange appears brown. With green light, the orange appears brown, with orange light, the orange appears yellow (a bit surprising there) Wih red light, the orange appears yellow with far red light, (and near IR light) the orange appearrs a grey shade, with the colour fading away rapidly, leading to my above assertion that the orange in the dark (being illuminated by the IR eminating from my 310K black body radiation) is actually invisible. The observation which has been made and reported here that most relates to the above arguments is for when UV light is used to observe the orange. Under UV light, the orange appears PINK Now this is not purple and is due NOT to reflectance of the light photons at UV frequencies off the surface of the orange. The Pink arises from flourescence. That is, the orange absorbs the UV light into the electron wavefunctions on the surface of the 'orange skin' and is re-emitted at a particular wavelength characteristic of the relaxation behaviour of the chromophores which make up the surface of the orange skin. It is this observation, the orange being Pink under UV light (inferentially invisible to the rods and cones of our eyes) (see later) that forces the alteration in stand point of the absolutionists. An orange is not necessarily orange in the dark, with IR light it is likely the orange is invisible, with UV light, the orange flouresces pink. Paul Nota Bene: the vitreous humour of the eye also flouresces under UV light, we can detect strong levels of UV light (at discos etc) by the light flourescing from within the eyes!!!! It does not necessarily do our eyes any good, so use sun glasses with strong UV filters to protect your eyes whence next going into the dark {:~]} PJS

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 17:38:27
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2599
OK, so you switch on the light, and the very first photon that gets reflected off the orange is green. Does that mean that the orange is now deemed to be green? The next 50 billion photons com out closer to an orange frequency. Irrelevancies, huh? I'm not sure if this irrelevant or obtuse... I'm not interested in the case you described above where one photon is green and the rest orange. I'm talking about the probability that sufficiently few reflected photons are orange such that the orange is a different colour. Small it may be, but it is non-zero (unless you can show it to be zero). If it is non-zero then you can't say for sure that the orange will be orange when you turn on the light.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 17:55:58
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2602
Small it may be, but it is non-zero (unless you can show it to be zero). If it is non-zero then you can't say for sure that the orange will be orange when you turn on the light. So you're no longer talking about quantum indetermanism, but thermal fluctuation, and the only time we can say 'that orange is orange' is at the instant that you're looking at it? The question now arrises as to what are the timescales of these potential electronic transitions. If the timescale of transition and lifetime of state is comparable to the frequency (in terms of number flux) of the incoming photons then 50 billion orange photons coming off the orange, followed by one green photon and another 50 billion orange photons means that you can say 'oh, look, a green orange!'? I don't think so. Also bear in mind that this is not Schrodinger's orange (did I miss an e?). The only restriction is that it's optically dark and noone has suggested that the orange is not physically coupled to the rest of the universe in IR (more wonders of statistical mechanics!)

From: Bruce(Boojum)	26/10/99 18:01:30
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2603
Question: Are we restraining ourselves to the human visual system under white light? And can you place one quality of an object in a pseudo-Schroedinger's box? The most obvious example being the reflective profile of an orange under whitelight, when that orange is in the dark?

From: Cam	26/10/99 18:03:13
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2604
peels mandarin I just don't get it.

From: Grant¹	26/10/99 18:44:49
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2613
On TF's comments on metastability: isn't it true that the decay of metastable states is stochastic? In other words, the chances that the bulk of the bonds stay in metastable states for a period of time much longer than the expected period is non-zero.

From: Grant¹	26/10/99 18:57:34
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2616
With regard to Chris's responses to my IFs. I realise that the original question did not mention change. However, for the reasons I stated, the nature of the aforementioned changes and states in the illuminated state determined (in my view) whether or not the colour was indeterminate in the unilluminated case, even though the cases are separate.

From: Grant¹	26/10/99 19:18:13
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2629
To clarify my last post, which now seems a bit odd: the conditions I was placing on the acceptance of the indeterminacy of the colour of an unilluminated object were not about that object. They were about the nature of colour and light and such generally, but the truth of the conditions determines (in my view) the nature of unilluminated colour.

From: Grant¹	26/10/99 19:51:06
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2647
I can only assume that either quite a few people are on holidays, or bugger all work was done today. steve(primus), I'm glad you now realise the folly of continuing this thread- reduced bandwidth & slower server response times from the space now lost to this question.

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	26/10/99 20:14:51
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2658
It could be argued that 'Net posting is conserved: that if we hadn't been contributing to this interesting and important^* thread, we would have been contributing to others, meaning that it has not added to the burden. (Hard to demonstrate this, of course.) I wish we could swap all of the double posts, crank posts and nonsense posts for more posts to this topic, from more people and at greater length. ^*We are dealing with the nature of knowledge and perception. It is, perhaps, a pity that the "fruity" title makes the issue seem light.

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	27/10/99 6:06:33
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2735
Perhaps we need to forge a new item into the philosophical lexixon... "Schroedinger's Orange"? ... or no, surely we must pay homage to the Zen Master that posed the question in the first place, so it should be, MoG's Orange

From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar)	27/10/99 6:08:42
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2736
p.s. I hope they're still around and pleased with the fuss they've caused :-)

From: helen	27/10/99 9:37:18
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2755
Grant, I do believe you owe me an apology... nods meaningfully to long-unused fire-stirring stick :-)h

From: Grant¹	27/10/99 19:40:09
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 2960
True, you have restrained yourself admirably in the new thread. I hope it hasn't been too much of strain (or did you put steve(primus) up to putting in the new thread?)

From: helen	28/10/99 16:19:19
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 3280
now Grant, I think it's entirely unnecessary to give me credit for Steve's inherent wickedness (and I mean that in the nicest possible way, Steve ;-)) - I'm glad to see the perpetual orange is still in motion, but I can't do the qm stuff, so it's been very enjoyable to sit back and watch Chris in action.

From: Grant¹	28/10/99 19:37:19
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 3341
I must admit, i do like Daryn Vs' major posting on the subject to date. Not just arguing over points, but trying to define exactly what the argument is about. It's near impossible to solve a problem if the problem isn't well defined.

From: Bruce(Boojum)	3/11/99 22:28:32
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 4745
Time to wake this up again. Re Grants last post, is it possible to come up with a set of mutually agreed upon boundary conditions to the observation of the orange?(for example, but not limited to, the ones in my first post on this thread)? Or is that what we have been trying to do all this time?

From: Margaret Sleath	24/11/99 15:57:00
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 10028
There's an interesting http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/96/24/14124 article in the latest editon of PNAS on colour perception. As I haven't read the whole thread ( I'm sure someone has?) I'm not sure 'colour constancy' has come up before.

From: helen	24/11/99 16:38:11
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 10055
ah - beaten to it! :-) no, it hasn't, and speaking of colour constancy, what happened to your redness? I was going to post a link to the http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/24/13594 Walsh article, but I wasn't sure it would work for people without access via a gateway? I'm also not sure it will clarify anything in the discussion, but it's interesting stuff anyway.

From: Grant¹	24/11/99 18:44:22
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 10113
Oh Margaret, no. What have you done? Just when things had quietened down.

From: Mjr	27/11/99 13:35:45
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 11173
Back from the depths of insanity... Just wanted to know... I remember someone came forward and admitted to starting this thread... But did we ever find out if it was started as simply a question, or if the auothor knew it would produce so much thought, and require us all to challenge our own perceptions on colour et al.???? Mjr (NUFAH)

From: spud	27/11/99 14:01:43
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 11175
i think from memory it was a simple question. Simple question have the hardest answers.

From: Chris (Avatar)	1/12/99 16:15:33
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 12496
Hi spud, Hi Mjr, I think it was more than just a "simple" question. It made us think. Paul

From: Chris (Avatar)	13/12/99 11:32:04
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 15971
Well, it has been a while. Something of an uneasy equilibrium was reached in orange thread land - the two major protagonist armies and the dozen or more splinter groups prepared to simply eye each other warily across the orange looking (in sunlight) gulf between them. But now, unexpectedly, that tenuous balance has been upset. Quite out of the blue the Orange in the dark question has reached a new and interesting level. If you recall, one argument made repreatedly by the "absolutist boofheads" (represented only by JR on the day) was that "if you walked into an average pub and asked your average punter, they'd say the orange was orange". We can imply that the common everyday understanding of the question would lead to an "orange is orange" answer. Or so it would seem. On this bright Saturday afternoon, at a very much average pub (albeit with a nice beergarden) the question was put to two "average punters" - two of the TAOKs. Trev's particularly bright and perceptive daughter answered with little or no hesitation that in a black room the orange would naturally be black, and that anyone who thought otherwise was beneath intellectual contempt (paraphrased). Trev's son declined to comment, instead fixing a nearby schooner of beer with an unwavering gaze of which a hunting lioness would have been proud. My comment? "Out of the mouths of babes...."

From: Dr Paul (Avatar)	13/12/99 13:47:00
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 16128
Now, Chris, Trev has already printed off a ream of this stuff, and you go and add an appendix!

From: Dr Paul (Avatar)	13/12/99 13:52:22
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 16135
Hi Chris, Hi Daryn Is Trev's Daughter really that perceptive? Maybe the (TAO)'s should give her some time on the forum. Paul

From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar)	14/12/99 13:13:02
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 16498
Trev's particularly bright and perceptive daughter answered with little or no hesitation that in a black room the orange would naturally be black, and that anyone who thought otherwise was beneath intellectual contempt (paraphrased). At the risk of sounding dogmatic, how exactly was the question put, and what was the exact phrasing of the reply?

From: Daryn Voss (Avatar)	14/12/99 13:33:29
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 16505
While there have been some pretty low acts throughout this thread, it is disappointing to see someone stoop to "argument by authority". 8^)

From: helen	14/12/99 14:25:16
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 16522
hmmmm - which to choose, which to choose. Should I take "authority of the imagined masses", or "authority of the tested masses"? Goodness, I'm sure I don't know ;-) Chris: See this orange here? What if I took this orange and put it in a dark room, so there's no light anywhere at all... TAOKs (wide eyed and attentive): uh-huh... Chris: ...so it's really dark and no light is falling on the orange or anything else, and you can't see anything... TAOKs (expecting something really interesting by now): ...yeee-eees... Chris: ...what colour is the orange now? one TAOK (rolling eyes contemptuously): black! other TAOK (scornful, beer-coveting silence) that's about what I remember of the conversation; unfortunately the only witness for the opposition was busy being clucky with his consort and the other two TAOKs ;-), and so missed the entertainment altogether, so I'm afraid you're in the awkward position of either taking our word for it, or having to test it out for yourselves. The Normanby won't know what's hit it :-).

From: Chris (Avatar)	14/12/99 14:33:26
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 16524
Ah - but I'm sure that JR witnessed it as well! As for argument by authority - not so. I recall your camp (Daryn) asserting argument by popular opinion during the thread, which popular opinion I have now shown to be an incorrect assumption. Terry - I'm astonished that you would even think that I would attempt to manipulate the TAOKs' answers by loading the question... ;o)

From: MegDav	14/12/99 15:06:22
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 16544
Just adding myself to the Oranges thread as I fear I have been most neglectful. I remain chastised :-/

From: Paulo (Avatar)	14/12/99 15:12:06
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 16546
Hi all, well even with the TAOK answer, I am still unconvinced that if you places a near IR source in the dark with an orange, the orange would not absorb nor relfect much of the light. Such light is unperceivable to humans, so it is still essentially the Dark as we are concerned. Paul

From: James Richmond (Avatar)	15/12/99 13:37:40
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17082
I was present during the TAOK orange experiment and unfortunately have to say that I thought the experimental procedure produced a bias in the result which invalidates the collected data. While helen undoubtedly usually has a good memory for conversations, I remember the exchange between Chris and one of the TAOKs somewhat differently. Chris: See this orange here? What if I took this orange and put it in a dark room, so there's no light anywhere at all... TAOKs (wide eyed and attentive): uh-huh... Chris: ...so it's really dark and no light is falling on the orange or anything else, and you can't see anything... TAOKs (expecting something really interesting by now): ...yeee-eees... Chris: Everything in the room is black. The table is black, the chairs are black... TAOKs (still waiting expectantly): Chris: ...what colour is the orange now? one TAOK (rolling eyes contemptuously): black! other TAOK (scornful, beer-coveting silence) Note the sentence in blue. Objection! Counsel was prompting the witness, your honour! I rest my case (for now), JR (proud absolutist boofhead) :)

From: Judge Judy (Avatar)	15/12/99 14:59:03
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17121
JR: Objection! Counsel was prompting the witness, your honour! Judge Judy: Untimely, counsellor - when you're in my court room you will make your objections in a timely manner or not at all. Objection over-ruled Counsel for The Orange is Not Orange: We object, your honour. The statement included by opposing counsel in blue has been retrofitted to statements already submitted to - and accepted by (on the basis of corroborating testimony) - the court. Furthermore, notwithstanding any heretofore previously submitted statements per the regard and/or pleasure of this court, and indeed on the basis of prima facie pertenance with regard to such, as it were; any such imputation, defamation or spurious allegation which of a necessity arises upon due or reasonable consideration (note per regard notwithstanding) of said statement(s) should hereby at this time as might generally be presumed to fall and proceed henceforth be regarded, opined and declared as no more than hear-say, based as it were upon the several suppositions which may be henceforth or herewith detailed, upon the court's pleasure, and in recognition of said be thusly in contravention of not only the precepts and codifications upon which this court and your honour may see fit to direct, but indeed the very values upon which our notions of justice are founded. Judge Judy: Ah. Excellent objection. I particularly liked the obfuscating legal jargon. In the absence of any real understanding of what you're on about, I must concur. Objection sustained. Counsel for the absolutist boofheads' testimony with regard to the blue statement should be withdrawn, and I direct any readers of this thread to disregard it entirely. Counsel for the ABs is also directed to study what constitutes a timely and well worded objection for future use in this forum.

From: MegDav	15/12/99 15:04:09
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17123
hehehe

From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar)	15/12/99 15:07:51
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17124
Stop playing sillybuggers, Chris!

From: James Richmond (Avatar)	15/12/99 15:12:27
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17127
Bribing the court doesn't make your argument any stronger, you know! JR :)

From: spud	15/12/99 16:34:12
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17159
this may be my first post in this thread, but wouldn't an orange in the dark be what ever colour it was reflecting. So in a Black environment (devoid of all light) the orange would appear to be black. an orange is only orange because it reflects orange light. so how can it reflect any other colour if there is no colour shining on it. There it WOULD APPEAR BLACK, but it would still be orange. so what camp does this put me in?

From: David Brennan	15/12/99 16:39:17
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17163
In a "black" environment the orange wouldn't "appear" at all. There would be nothing to illuminate it. Its intrinsic colour would be unchanged. But consider an orange sitting in a room with a white light shining throught a red filter. The orange would appear more red than normal. We describe the colour of an orange according to the wavelengths of light it reflects under white lit conditions. Cheers, David

From: spud	15/12/99 16:42:55
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17165
yeah it would appear to be black and it would't be seen! should have thought about that.. thanks. but the rest of it is right

From: James Richmond (Avatar)	15/12/99 16:46:04
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17169
Saying it looks black in the dark, but actually is still orange, puts you in the absolutist boofhead camp - the only correct camp! Welcome. JR

From: MegDav	15/12/99 16:49:44
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17174
Jr - it appears I am a AB also :)

From: spud	15/12/99 16:52:52
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17179
thanks JR, why the hell would you think anything else. were we given the name by the other camp? and what is the other camps theory, with out reading the whole post.

From: David Brennan	15/12/99 16:53:11
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17180
Well JR thats not quite what I meant, but that doesn't worry me too much :) Anyway I much prefer eating the damn things to looking at them, in any type of light. Cheers, David

From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar)	15/12/99 17:43:43
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17193
Spud, you're going to have to try harder than that to have some original input into this thread. I suggest you take a few days off and read the whole thread(s)! ;-P

From: spud	15/12/99 19:05:59
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17198
i'm not trying to start something just wanted to finally show my colours.

From: Dr Paul (Avatar)	16/12/99 10:43:42
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17495
Hello David Brennan, It appears a query for actual experimental observation has arisen. With a Corning 600nm cuttoff red filter being the wavelength selection device, the illumination of an orange in an otherwise darkened room with red light gives the perception the orange is yellow From an earlier post with orange light, the orange appears yellow (a bit surprising there) With red light, the orange appears yellow (spelling mistakes corrected) the orange does not appear to be reddened by the incidence of red light. Paul PS Reading the transcript of the above conversation, I am of the opinion that "Yes your honour, Objection. Leading the witness" I am not of the Orange is an orange camp (apparent AB), but will put forward an objection to a witness statement that is clearly a case of leading the witness to say what you want. Good on you JR Paul. PPS Are we getting back to the good old days of this thread?? Oh I hope so.

From: Tery Frankcombe (Avatar)	16/12/99 12:01:26
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17571
Huh? What's your point, Paulo? That the orange appear different colour under different lighting conditions has never been contested. You can add as many non-reflected wavelengths as you like without altering the colour that it appears.

From: Dr Paul (Avatar)	16/12/99 13:03:56
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17584
Hi Terry, I was just rementioning the observation that the orange does not appear to be red under (essentially) total red light. If the appearance is solely from reflectance of the surface states, then maybe it should. The above observation debunks that so the observation must be made not just assumed. Paul

From: Tery Frankcombe (Avatar)	16/12/99 13:12:47
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17586
The above observation debunks that so the observation must be made not just assumed. While I take the point about observing and not just assuming, no way! You need to determine the spectral response of the orange and illuminate it with strongly reflected frequencies. Some random red frequency won't do at all.

From: Dr Paul (Avatar)	16/12/99 13:18:20
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17587
Hi Terry, The observation stated only a general observation for the application of red light. I have used three different red filters for the lighting. One has a cutoff about 600nm, likely higher, 600 is in the orange, the filter is definitely red, the second is a 670nm filter, cuts off exponentially below 670nm, the optical transmittance at 670nm is 50%, the third is a beauty, it is a 715nm filter, with only little red light being observable. With each filter, there is less surface reflection from the orange, which is prompting the hypothesis of the transparent orange in the dark (well, under IR light). Chlorophyll is transparent in the IR (above 700nm) but this is a side issue. I think we may have opened the door to this thread again. Good for us. Paul

From: Dan B.	16/12/99 13:26:04
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17589
Look, I know how we can settle this, garanteed! Does anyone have a SONY® NiteShot&tm; Video Camera? All that person needs to do, is put the orange and the camera in a darkened room/box and film the orange. Then, they turn on the NiteShot&tm; and film again. Since the camera can see in the dark, the two sections of film can be compared, and it will answer the question! Dan

From: Kothos	16/12/99 13:31:27
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17590
How does the camera see in the dark?

From: Dan B.	16/12/99 13:38:12
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17591
That's irrelevant, but this one, Digital 8 Handycam DCRTRV110 has this on the brochure... Super Night Shot (0 lux minimum illumination) with Slow Shutter 0 lux 'aint much light... in fact it's none. Dan.

From: michael c	16/12/99 13:42:47
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17593
It has a little IR lamp on the front so I don't think it could be classed as completely dark. Michael C J

From: Dan B.	16/12/99 13:56:04
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17594
Are you sure Michael? The picture I'm looking at doesn't have one. Dan.

From: michael c	16/12/99 14:00:29
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17596
Not 100% sure, but I have played around with one (Sony but not sure which model) and when you set it to the "night-vision" it definitely had an IR source on the front. Michael C J

From: Kothos	16/12/99 14:01:04
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17597
If it's IR it's not technically visible light is it?

From: Kothos	16/12/99 14:03:23
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17601
Hey was it this series of Sony's that initially overlapped the IR and visible light pictures allowing the filmer to get some semblence of a picture of what people looked like under their clothes?

From: Lib	16/12/99 14:07:21
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17604
No, but what's recorded on the video wont exactly be of the full visual spectrum either. It all depends what the film is sensitive to. If I remember correctly IR binoculars and videos only show an image in monochrome - usually shades of grey or green.

From: michael c	16/12/99 14:07:45
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17605
uummm yes but I never got to try it out on that. It did show up my mums grey hair though, even though she colours it. Also you wouldn't be seeing the actual orange, you would be seeing it through the video in monochrome, so you couldn't comment on the colour. Michael C J

From: Lib	16/12/99 14:11:44
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17609
Er, I wasn't quite fast enough - I should add that my post was referring to Kothos' statement that IR isn't technically a visible light. But now I can add that when using IR film for photography synthetic fabrics disappear. My photography lecturer told an amusing story of his early experiences with the film and taking a series of wedding photos. The wedding party was less that amused to see the results as the bride's gown was made of mostly synthetic material!

From: Dan B.	16/12/99 14:17:32
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17616
I tought it was more the fibre weave, rather than the composition. Light fibes, like silk, were very good a blocking visable light, but bad a blocking IR. With an IR filter over the camera lens, any reflected visable light is absorbed, allowing the IR to emit from the source under the silk fabric. Dan.

From: Kothos	16/12/99 14:24:12
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17618
Yeah but then you get a funny looking IR picture don't you? Whereas the composite would look a lot better.

From: Chris (Avatar)	16/12/99 14:37:23
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17625
Also you wouldn't be seeing the actual orange, you would be seeing it through the video in monochrome, so you couldn't comment on the colour... Michael C It would appear that, despite the quantum leap in technology in this thread today, the dilemma at the heart of the thread is still raging...

From: michael c	16/12/99 14:51:33
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17631
We couldn't let technology get in the way of a good argument could we? Michael C J

From: Alan™	16/12/99 23:21:49
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17854
Look, I know how we can settle this, garanteed!

From: Alan™	16/12/99 23:24:46
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17856
Ooops Look, I know how we can settle this, garanteed! Dan, I don't think they want this settled in any other way than the traditional avatar blood letting techniques.

From: Daryn Voss (Avatar)	17/12/99 0:41:20
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 17929
Saying it looks black in the dark, but actually is still orange, puts you in the absolutist boofhead camp - the only correct camp! Welcome. One of us, one of us, one of us... ;^) (Running out of winkies, here. I'd better come up with a serious post soon.)

From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar)	10/01/00 13:46:05
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 25118
This is what I don't know. If they are not forbidden then I would suspect there is a finite chance of the ensemble being in one of those non-orange states. Now, it could be that the statistically probability of the electrons in the surface states of an orange being in such a state are so close to zero that you can turn the lights on an off a milllion times a second to a million different oranges for the age of the Universe and see only orange coloured oranges every single time, but it is still a matter of luck, not intrisic nature, that makes an orange, orange. In which case it is technically false to assert its colour until a measurement as been made, i.e. the lights are switched on, and therefore the colour of an orange in the dark is indeterminate. I've just been having a bit of a re-read. Yes, it is technically false to assert that the orange is orange. Just like it is technically false to assert that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (note capitalisation) is correct.

From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar)	10/01/00 13:48:10
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 25120
Whoops. I just broke my own rule of making all quotations in this thread orange.

From: Trev(TAO)†	10/01/00 13:49:35
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 25121
Bastard!!!! If you think im doing a re-print of the Book of Orange just cause you dont know when to let things be youve got another thing comeing ;-) :-)> Trev(TAO)

From: Grant¹	10/01/00 18:50:23
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 25229
When you consider the number of medical experiments that were done on the (TOAKS) so Trev(TAO) could afford the paper & ink to print that massive tome, you should be ashamed. (I'm sure he won't, but he should).

From: Freezer	25/01/00 17:38:37
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 30082
As I am yet to add my opinion to this thread, and yet continue to hear of it's importance and impending fame, I hereby proclaim my stance on the debate. I believe colour is entirely a human perception. In our opinion, in white light, which is what we're used to, an orange is the colour orange. However, to other organisms, or in other atmospheres, the orange may in fact be an entirely different colour, or appearance. I believe most people look at this issue from an extremely human, and therefore close-minded view. In the dark, the orange does not have a colour, because we perceive it to not have a colour. A bat, for example would see the orange in the dark, but not as a colour, but it would not see it as a colour under any conditions. The orange is whatever colour the observer perceives it to be. Which, in this case, is nonexistent. ~Freezer~

From: Sally	25/01/00 17:45:04
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 30085
If freezer is adding her opinion, so will I... An orange in the dark is orange. Because colour is also determend by pigmint....just because someone can't see(or hear) something doesn't mean it's not there. and thats all there is too it.... I'll just add that this is my opinion, which I am intitled to...

From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar)	25/01/00 17:58:00
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 30091
Woohoo! Two more adherents to the 30016.shtm Grand Unifying Theory of Oranges.

From: Sally	25/01/00 18:24:58
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 30105
That has to go down as a very good closer... I don't suppose you could think of one for the who made god thread.....

From: bart	25/01/00 18:41:44
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 30108
my closer was noone made god but it didn't work.

From: Dr Paul (Avatar)	1/02/00 9:48:05
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 33248
Hi all, well, we seem to have some AB's in the crowd, as well as some observing is perceiving people. To add to the observationalist stance from above, TWO reports in the New Csientist back the claim for the requirement of definition of observational parameters before the answer can be made. One of these reports discussed the effects of reflectance from the surrounding surfaces on the observational psychophysics of colour perception in humans. If you are to flash the light on over and over again, ad nauseum, then you may have to then define the colours of the walls of your observational chamber to be able to define your own personal perception of the clour. This then extends the statistical perception of states of the orange in the dark to requiring a history of colour perception. However, we all know the colour orange (I hope we all do, apologies to those who have no colour perception) but have we observed an orange under UV light. Pretty NON orange PINK!!!!! The second report goes along the lines of this. What is colour pattern of a male and a female bluetit? For humans, they appear to have fairly similar colour patterns. However, in the UV, the males are more strikingly patterned, with some variation to patterns. It comes as no surprise to an observer that the more strikingly patterned male bluetits are tthe ones more likely to sire young. Indeed, these more strikingly patterned male bluetits apparently sire stronger young and (of course) the more vivid patterend males sire males with highly vivid patterns when observed in the UV. This just moves us down the road to saying that not all people will observe an orange under your lamp (Terry) and that many different wavel;engths of light may well allow the development of a wider and fuller picture of the world at large. So an orange may not always be an orange in the dark. it will depend TOTALLY on the wavelength of light that is used for observation. Again, from above, if you use UV, shield your eyes as it is difficult to detect directly (that is, the box may remain dark in the UV), and the effects of flourescence may give an alternative view to that taken by reflectance. {:~)} Paul Source: New Scientist, 30th December 1999 issue, I will return with the full reference and pages soon (as soon as I can get away from 6 experiments back to the 'puter)

From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar)	1/02/00 18:49:06
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 33533
Dr Paul, noone has ever disputed that an orange can look lots of different colours depending on how you look at it. All these smokescreen pinks, bird feathers and butterfly wings will not hide the fact that you are aguing at odds to the question. What you are arguing is well established. The real debate is what it means to say "X is Y-coloured". It is quite obvious to anyone with any ability to abstract that observed colour is a measurement of surface properties. The surface properties define the colour.

From: spud(adonai)	1/02/00 18:51:22
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 33534
Doesn't the atomic properties, define what colour something is. The energy levels of the atoms?

From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar)	1/02/00 19:08:58
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 33542
Doesn't the atomic properties, define what colour something is. The energy levels of the atoms? Absolutely, Spud. But there are some complicating factors, as demonstrated by the Morph wings (the flutterbys I refered to above). Talking about the surface properties rather than purely the electronic structure covers you arse when someone is trying to (wrongly) derail your argument!

From: nate(TLO)	1/02/00 21:16:51
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 33648
re: the ongoing discussion about the colour of an orange in the dark. I'm going out on a limb here, and I'll say I belive it's dark orange. I require no evidence to reach my belife will accept no contrary evidence. I might enter into discussion on the topic, on the following conditions All discussions will be carried out at your place.(we'll be the guys in the neatly ironed white shirts and orange pants) - I'll pop around with a friend and we'll ask "hi, have you heard about the dark orange?" The continuation of the belife that the Orange is Dark Orange shall have precedence over any rational and/or logical contribution you might wish to make to the discussion. You will gladly (and I mean you better be smiling) accept a "free" ( prefered donation AU $6)copy of our magazine, The Watchorange.

From: Kothos	1/02/00 21:28:32
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 33655
Will this cult have anything to do with the Orange People? If so I bags the first orgy.

From: Sally:o)	1/02/00 21:30:40
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 33658
I don't have a clue what you are talking about nate, and am fully willing to admit this....

From: nate(TLO)	1/02/00 21:36:31
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 33666
sally, it's an old thread of debate here. "what colour is an orange in the dark?" see the FAQ for an idea of what's passed in the debate already.

From: Sally:o)	1/02/00 21:39:33
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 33670
L I know that much... what I couldn't comprehend were your conditions....

From: Dr Paul (Avatar)	2/02/00 9:50:08
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 33900
Hi all, I have a minute to post , so two things, no one commented on what is a Csientist!!! the second I am still looking for time to find the New Scientist. Paul on the run and watching the oranges.

From: Gus	6/02/00 20:02:06
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 35736
i didnt know this thread still existed :o)

From: Callan	7/02/00 10:17:02
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 35899
Heres a paralel...or sumptin' dat looks like sumptin' else. Is a car without fuel, still a car? Now, if you assume the structure of an orange that lets it reflect orange, is a chemo mechanical principle (YEah yeah, I dunno what to call it). Is an orange without light, still an orange?

From: Callan	7/02/00 10:17:34
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 35900
Now, we'll find out if this gets responded too! Heres a paralel...or sumptin' dat looks like sumptin' else. Is a car without fuel, still a car? Now, if you assume the structure of an orange that lets it reflect orange, is a chemo mechanical principle (YEah yeah, I dunno what to call it). Is an orange without light, still an orange?

From: Super Elmo	7/02/00 10:49:32
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 35914
Callan, I think you are a bit confused by the thread. The questions was, is an Orange in the dark, still the colour orange, not is it still an Orange, as it is still an Orange, with the light on and off. So in the dark, is an Orange still the colour orange? sUpE (-:p

From: Callan	10/02/00 12:30:58
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 36869
I think you missed my meaning. Were discusing the color an orange REFLECTS? correct? This comes from the chemicals on its surface, only allowing orange color to reflect. I was trying to say that those chemicals will still be there when the light is gone. So it is still orange without light, like a car is still potentially drivable without fuel. The orange is potentially orange, in the dark. It can still be orange, it just doesn't have the 'fuel', ie light. Get what I mean?

From: Dr Paul (Avatar)	10/02/00 12:38:43
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 36876
Hi Terry, but if you only allow your surface electronic states to perform only one mode of photochemical interaction (reflection) then you are not taking the full account of what the surface electronic states of the orange will be doing in the dark. Defining one single instance of mode of observation (the orange is viewed against a dark background with white incident light) then this will not necessarily be equivalent of what happens to the orange when non visible wavelengths of light interact with the skins surface. Keep it up, Trev will be most pleased that the argument continues. Paul

From: Terry Frankcombe (Avatar)	10/02/00 17:29:03
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 36973
Hmm? I don't understand what you mean DP. Can you clarify it a bit for me?

From: Dr Paul (Avatar)	11/02/00 13:24:33
Subject: re: Oranges	post id: 37239
Hi Terry, I think I have most of what I want here "While I take the point about observing and not just assuming, no way! You need to determine the spectral response of the orange and illuminate it with strongly reflected frequencies." "All these smokescreen pinks, bird feathers and butterfly wings will not hide the fact that you are aguing at odds to the question. What you are arguing is well established." " The real debate is what it means to say "X is Y-coloured". It is quite obvious to anyone with any ability to abstract that observed colour is a measurement of surface properties. The surface properties define the colour." (my italics) If we are to restrict ourselves to only reflection as the mode of interaction between the surface pigments and any EMR which may be present in our box (the EMR should not be in the visible range for the observation) then we will not be allowed the observation of the full range of different interactions between the pigments and said EMR. If you only restrict the observation to reflection, using only broad spectrum visible wavelength EMR, then the likely interaction between the pigments in the orange skin and the light will lead to an orange response. However, to have a stronger understanding of the possible range of colours an orange may be in the dark, we will have to allow the pigments in the skin of the orange the ability to fluoresce (I have the spelling in the brain correct for once). Also, the loss of reflection of far red / near IR EMR in the observations reported above realises the possibility that the pigments do not interact with some EMR wavelengths. These are two alternate possibilities to just reflection for the observation of an apparent colour of an orange. Again, it must go back to the defining of the observation mode for the reporting of the "colour of an orange in the dark". {:~)] Paul Interesting that the IR capable camera (it will be a CCD device) reports a translucent nature of synthetic material. However, in the early days of the original thread, the possibility of using a CCD device based on IR light surfaced, and the possibility of false colour display mode disallowed a "true" colour observation. P

This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.