[Guest]

Meet Nimrod. He is an ardent believer that there will be a catastrophic upheaval of reality, an Apocalypse, when the great Mayan calendar cycle ends on 21 December 2012. His world view deeply reflects this belief.

Nimrod has developed his own language based on his beliefs.

For example he defines colors called "grue" and "bleen" such that:

-------Grue = green for any object observed before the apocalypse, but blue if it is not observed before the apocalypse.

-------Bleen = blue if observed before the apocalypse, green if not observed before the apocalypse.

Now we have always observed emeralds and well watered lawns as being green. So inductive reasoning has led us to declare that all Emeralds and all live grass is green. Every time we look at another emerald, or a well watered lawn, our reasoning is reinforced.

But Nimrod has always observed emeralds as grue. Every emerald he has ever seen is grue. So what's to prevent him from using inductive reasoning to confirm his position? All emeralds are grue. No emerald that is not grue has ever been observed.

So you respond: "Look, Nimrod, your definition is stupid. What makes you think that the characteristics of emeralds will change after 12 December 2012?"

"What are you talking about?" Nimrod responds. "Nothing will change. I've prepared myself. Emeralds will remain grue after the apocalypse, just as always. It is you who are not prepared to accept the apocalypse. You are the one who is trying to argue that Emeralds will change from Grue to Bleen after the apocalypse! What a ridiculous, illogical idea!"

OK, you think, I can trip this guy up.

"What wavelength is Grue light?" you ask. "How many nanometers? Is it the same wavelength after the apocalypse as before?"

"What's a nanometer?" Nimrod responds. "Grue is measured in apocalypticons; and of course it's the same whether measured before or after the apocalypse. It's you who has the useless method of measuring. You have your head buried in the sand. You're not prepared for the apocalypse, dude! Get with the program!"

Well, he's got you, eh? What justifies your assumption that your conclusions based on inductive reasoning are preferable to Nimrod's differing world-view based on the same tools of inductive reasoning? What makes your arbitrary choice of definitions more "fundamental" than his? How do you respond?

[Guest]

first i would say "well then how do u know it hapend, if evry thing is the same than how could u tell that it did not allready hapend?"

[plasmid]

This seems reasonably straightforward, at least for the case of language (more profound implications of how we see the world might not be fully addressed though). You're perfectly fine defining a new word to be whatever you want, even if the definition might be silly. I could define a number called umpteen as the sum of the natural logs of the numbers 1-10. It's well defined, but much less useful than say pi or e as far as practical applications. You could say that grue and bleen are the same way. They might be defined, but from a practical standpoint, they're probably pretty useless if colors won't be changing in 2012. But similarly, the colors that we have now would be less useful if everything were like a chameleon and changing colors all the time, or if everything were reflective like a mirror without an intrinsic color. And of course if photons emitted from a source didn't have characteristic measurable distributions of frequencies that a scientist might find interesting, then the concept might not exist at all.

So we've generally got names for objects and phenomena that we see and interact with, but none for stuff we don't observe or guess at the existence of, simply because such names wouldn't be useful. Whether a word is used or not depends not on how "correct" it is, but on how useful it is. The usefulness of using grue and bleen instead of blue and green depends on whether or not you think that a color change is going to happen at the apocalypse; if you anticipate that it will, then it's perfectly reasonable to use those colors. The only difference between the two peoples' views in the OP is whether they anticipate that the definition would be useful.

[Guest]

What Paradox?

I simply would hope that you would not be dumb enough to believe that grue would change to bleen. Seriously, an object being observed then unobserved? You're off you're rocker . Besides Nimrod is doing something genius!

By saying that something is grue or bleen, you are sending two simultaneous messages. You are dating the objects known existance and telling what color it is. I can then say something like: that floghort is bleen. By looking at it I can see that it has the color green and therefore it is post-apocalypse. Also it could be very possible that you and nimrod are defining similar but different things. Apocalypticons could have two dimensional aspects such as time period and wavelength. Time period would be measured in units called calypsons. bleen, for example, has a lumidural value of 1500 apocylypticons. bleen, will have a glypson component of 1.8, meaning that all bleen objects discovered at that time will have a perceived wavelength of 1500/1.8 nanoglucks. There are about 3 nanoglucks in two nanometers, which means grue will have a perceived color of green.

This is just the basics of apocalyptic physics, if you're having trouble with this perhaps you should go to remedial school.

[Guest]

I actually think that grue and bleen make perfect sense. The color doesn't change. The only thing that matters is when it is seen. Of course, after the apocalypse, there will be no one to determine what color an object is.

[Guest]

this made me wonder about our perception of color and the possibility that what i perceive as the color "blue", another might perceive as what i would call "green". as long as our individual perceptions are consistent, it really makes no difference what word we use to describe a particular color. we only rely on these labels to communicate our perceptions in a universally understood manner, and maybe in doing so we're limiting our perceptiveness. nicely told and very thought-provoking...

[bonanova]

[1] Color is a psycho-physical perception that is, a watered lawn produces a response in my brain. Someone says that's green. I associate the word green with things that look like watered lawns.] If they said it was blue, I would associate the word blue with those things. If they said it was grellow, I would associate the word grellow with such objects. If I were red-green color blind, I would associate these words with watered lawns, and emeralds and rubies, which, to my defective eyes, would appear similar.

This point is not commonly understood: Color is a subjective response of my eyes: lens, rods, cones; my optic nerve and my brain. Color is not an intrinsic property of a material. Yourdictionary.com gives as its first definition of color: the sensation resulting from stimulation of the retina of the eye by light waves of certain lengths. onelook.com says that it's the appearance of objects (or light sources) described in terms of a person's perception of their hue and lightness (or brightness) and saturation.

[2] Light has a spectral distribution. When white light [spectrally neutral] reflects from a watered lawn, it is no longer spectrally neutral, having greater relative intensity at wavelengths in the neighborhood of 510 nm. Spectral distributions are not subjective. All people, color blind or not, can read the graph printed by a spectrometer and see an intensity peak at 510 nm.

The fundamental spectral property of light is its spectral distribution; while its color is a perception that depends on the observer. Similarly, the fundamental spectral property of an object is its spectral reflectance; while its color is the perception of an observer when the object is illuminated by light of a given spectral distribution. Every photographer knows "objects have different color" under daylight or tungsten or fluorescent illumination.

That defines terms. Using them, let us consider two spectral distributions of light.

[1] rich in 510nm light. We observe a similarity of [1] to watered lawns and we call it Green.

[2] rich in 475nm light. We observe a similarity of [2] to emeralds and we call it Blue. At all times.

Nimrod, however names things conditionally:

OP says...

For example he defines colors called "grue" and "bleen" such that:

-------Grue = green for any object observed before the apocalypse, but blue if it is not observed before the apocalypse.

-------Bleen = blue if observed before the apocalypse, green if not observed before the apocalypse.

Let's assume what is meant is not [as stated] that Grue applies to any object seen before the apocalypse,

rather to objects we would call green objects - objects that under white illumination reflect spectral distribution [1].

Nimrod thus names his colors conditionally: it [A] has been seen or has not been seen before the apocalypse.

He calls [1][A] and [2] Grue, and he calls [2][A] and [1] Bleen.

We call [1][A] and [1] Green, and we call [2][A] and [2] Blue.

You say To-MAY-toe; I say To-MAH-toe, and what happened to the paradox?

After the apocalypse he uses different words. Nowhere is it suggested that the length of a meter changes or that spectrometers cease to function.

[Guest]

Nimrod thus names his colors conditionally: it [A] has been seen or has not been seen before the apocalypse.

He calls [1][A] and [2] Grue, and he calls [2][A] and [1] Bleen.

We call [1][A] and [1] Green, and we call [2][A] and [2] Blue.

You say To-MAY-toe; I say To-MAH-toe, and what happened to the paradox?

After the apocalypse he uses different words. Nowhere is it suggested that the length of a meter changes or that spectrometers cease to function.

The paradox is much more subtle than that. Nimrod would vehemently dispute your assertion that he names things conditionally. He would point out that there are an infinite number of frames of reference in which his definitions are conditional and only one in which it is unconditional, and that is also true of our 'standard' frame of reference. So is the standard frame of reference, which names two of four conditions ([1][A] and [1]) Green in any way more fundamental than his frame of reference which names two of four conditions Grue? Where is the absolute universal law that states that [1][A] is more closely associated with [1] than with [2]?

Also ... It appears you overlooked Nimrods measurement system. To him 'meters' are variable, depending on whether a measurement (e.g. of the wavelength of light) takes place before or after 21 December 2012, and thus a pretty unwieldy means of measureing something, whereas his measurement system, which uses 'apocalypticons' is fixed and immutable in his frame of reference.

[bonanova]

Also ... It appears you overlooked Nimrods measurement system. To him 'meters' are variable, depending on whether a measurement (e.g. of the wavelength of light) takes place before or after 21 December 2012, and thus a pretty unwieldy means of measureing something, whereas his measurement system, which uses 'apocalypticons' is fixed and immutable in his frame of reference.

So maybe to Nimrod meters become light years or inches. So what? Why would anything change for another observer?

Suppose Nimrod had never been born. Would anything change then?

I think Nimrod might be alone in his confusion.

[Guest]

So maybe to Nimrod meters become light years or inches. So what? Why would anything change for another observer?

Suppose Nimrod had never been born. Would anything change then?

It's not clear what you mean here by 'change'. There are two differing frames of reference, neither of which change at any time.

I think Nimrod might be alone in his confusion.

Nimrod is not alone. He's a follower of philosopher, Dr. Nelson Goodman who posed this Paradox back in 1966.

[Guest]

The paradox is much more subtle than that. Nimrod would vehemently dispute your assertion that he names things conditionally.

This seems like it would be an easy thing to test though. Whoever has the conditional definition would have to know some additional piece of information (namely, whether the Apocalypse has happened) before he can identify the color of an object. So, give Nimrod a sedative and keep him unconscious for a certain amount of time. When he wakes, present him with an emerald and ask him what color it is. He won't be able to tell whether it's grue or bleen until he finds out whether the apocalypse happened while he was asleep. Meanwhile under the same test, I would immediately be able to identify it as green. Now we can say that our observations don't support the grue-bleen hypothesis, because it contains an additional, unsupported assumption: that emeralds will change color, since we just established that blue and green are the primary, unconditional attributes.

Unless, of course, I find to my surprise that I can't identify the color when I awaken until I overhear someone say "lucky thing the Apocalypse hasn't happened." But in that case I would just admit that grue and bleen are unconditional, that emeralds are grue, and induction remains unimpeached by the argument. I don't think this will happen though because my blankets are blue, and I don't have to turn on the news to see what happened overnight in order to figure out what color they are.

[Guest]

Meet Nimrod. He is an ardent believer that there will be a catastrophic upheaval of reality, an Apocalypse, when the great Mayan calendar cycle ends on 21 December 2012. His world view deeply reflects this belief.

Nimrod has developed his own language based on his beliefs.

For example he defines colors called "grue" and "bleen" such that:

-------Grue = green for any object observed before the apocalypse, but blue if it is not observed before the apocalypse.

-------Bleen = blue if observed before the apocalypse, green if not observed before the apocalypse.

Now we have always observed emeralds and well watered lawns as being green. So inductive reasoning has led us to declare that all Emeralds and all live grass is green. Every time we look at another emerald, or a well watered lawn, our reasoning is reinforced.

But Nimrod has always observed emeralds as grue. Every emerald he has ever seen is grue. So what's to prevent him from using inductive reasoning to confirm his position? All emeralds are grue. No emerald that is not grue has ever been observed.

So you respond: "Look, Nimrod, your definition is stupid. What makes you think that the characteristics of emeralds will change after 12 December 2012?"

"What are you talking about?" Nimrod responds. "Nothing will change. I've prepared myself. Emeralds will remain grue after the apocalypse, just as always. It is you who are not prepared to accept the apocalypse. You are the one who is trying to argue that Emeralds will change from Grue to Bleen after the apocalypse! What a ridiculous, illogical idea!"

OK, you think, I can trip this guy up.

"What wavelength is Grue light?" you ask. "How many nanometers? Is it the same wavelength after the apocalypse as before?"

"What's a nanometer?" Nimrod responds. "Grue is measured in apocalypticons; and of course it's the same whether measured before or after the apocalypse. It's you who has the useless method of measuring. You have your head buried in the sand. You're not prepared for the apocalypse, dude! Get with the program!"

Well, he's got you, eh? What justifies your assumption that your conclusions based on inductive reasoning are preferable to Nimrod's differing world-view based on the same tools of inductive reasoning? What makes your arbitrary choice of definitions more "fundamental" than his? How do you respond?

You are saying that Nimrod defines grue and bleen based on our colors green and blue. This makes green and blue more fundamental concepts than grue and bleen, even to Nimrod. The concepts used to define a new concept are always more fundamental than the concept being defined.

It all boils down to the most fundamental concepts, the ones that we do not define but simply accept. Are my/our most fundamental concepts different from Nimrod's most fundamental concepts? If they are the same, then grue and bleen are less fundamental as explained above. Which makes Nimrod "crazy". If they are different, then the argument would never have arised. Let me explain that.

Suppose that grue and bleen are in fact more fundamental concepts to Nimrod than green and blue. Nimrod looks at an emerald and calls it grue, we look at an emerald and call it green. Nimrod says that grue light has a wavelength within some defined interval of apocalypticons, we say that green light has a wavelength within some defined interval of nanometers. This is ONLY a difference in language and measurement systems. There is no connection to the apocalypse. Nimrod believes that emeralds will still be grue after the apocalypse, and that the color grue will retain its scientific properties. We don't really believe in the apocalypse, but assuming that it would happen we believe that emeralds would still be green and that the color green would retain its scientific properties. There would never be an opportunity for us to notice any difference until after the apocalypse, when either Nimrod would be shocked to see that grue has changed to bleen or we would be shocked to see that green has changed to blue. As of today, at a pre-apocalyptic date, we couldn't possibly convey that difference to each other. We have a different set of most fundamental concepts, but since those concepts are not defined we can never spot the difference. There would be no argument.

A similar question: what if colors look different to me than they do to you? We both look at the emerald and call it green, but it looks different to us. The answer is obviously that we won't find out. We may see different things but we still have no way to convey this.

[Guest]

You are saying that Nimrod defines grue and bleen based on our colors green and blue. This makes green and blue more fundamental concepts than grue and bleen, even to Nimrod. The concepts used to define a new concept are always more fundamental than the concept being defined.

Exactly what I thought!

[Guest]

What I get from what he's saying, is that anything he (or anyone) observes is grue before the apocalypse will ALWAYS be grue, and same for bleen.  He's not saying that an emerald will change from real blue to real green.  Also, anything observed after the apocalypse will be grue if it's blue and bleen if it's green.

[Guest]

sorry about the weird interruptions in my last post. I wasn't logged in, and copied the post. After pasting it, I forgot to proofread it.

[WitchOfDoubt]

Definitions aren't neutral. If someone has defined a special word for a "stupid Ruritanian", but hasn't defined similar words for other nationalities, and hasn't defined a word for a "smart Ruritanian," their definition says something about their worldview.

Nimrod's definitions aren't wrong, but they imply deep wrongness, a willingness to complicate definitions unnecessarily. And the dodge that "we're doing that by saying they change color" doesn't hold, because we don't actually define color in a time-dependent way.

Another way of looking at this: a meter is based on the circumference of the earth. What on earth are Nimrod's units based on?