American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry

Some of them could be differences from Canadian to other non-American English spellings.

cigaret (seems to be just an "alternate" spelling)
omelet
caldron
enrol (Looks like a Kiwi spelling actually)
traveling (traveling.com is an American site, most high travelling-sites are non-American)
archeology
maneuver

Yakk, your argument that the chair exists whether or not someone is there to know that it exists is just one philosophical paradigm (word of the day!). The person with whom you were arguing may well be as correct in their assertion as you are in yours. The best explanation I can come up with, which I suppose fits somewhere in-between, is that while the chair (and by extension, colour and other "physical" phenomena) may exist without a conscious being able to perceive it, if there is no conscious being to perceive it or it is not being perceived by a conscious being, then there is no way to know whether or not it exists and the point becomes moot.

I never claimed the chair existed.

I claimed the blueness of the chair existed without someone seeing it just as much as the chair exists without someone knowing it is there.

I reduced the problem to another, known problem. I didn't draw a conclusion.

edit: And, this thread isn't about that other, known problem. So I left it at that.

if a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound? if nobody could perceive colours would they exist? If i shut my eyes is the world still there? YES. our eyes pick up light waves travelling at certain frequencies bounced of objects, depending on the wavlength our brain relates to it as a colour, that's all it boils down to signals and receivers. if, one day, no one watched television would the signals sent out by the broadcasting houses still exist , yes. Colours are labels used to differentiate between different wavelengths of light.

I'd like to think they do. The point seems to have been brought up many times that
color is just reflected light, of one sort or another, and percieved by our eyes a certain
way. Eyes are really too subjective to be able to used in such a definition of color.
There's definitely no set standard when it comes to eyes.

It seems like it could exist, for depending on relative distance and speed from any
source of light, the wavelength of the light will always be exactly the same, and
therefore interpreted by something as such, each and every time. How it gets
interpreted is up for debate, and what comes from interpretation, also, but it seems
that a definite visible substance comes from the phenomenon, so that, at least in
theory, exists.

You can postulate that, but it makes no difference whether they are still in existence or not, because there is no one around to prove you right or wrong, or to care.

See Schrodinger's Cat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%F6dinger's_cat
The act of "observation" or "measurement" is not dependent on the presence of self-aware beings. Quantum wavefunctions must necessarily collapse into eigenstates as a result of the interactions between microscopic and macroscopic objects.
Thus, things exist and happen, even if people aren't around to watch it.

I'll check on that later, and tell you why science can't decide this argument.

That's not a very scientific mindset. You've already made up your mind.

You actually interpretted that wrong. Quantum theory says that everything exsists in wave form until it is observed and forced to become a particle. Schrodinger's cat is a layman's way of saying that.

The whole idea of Schrodinger's cat is that if you put a cat in a box with poison food and you close the box the cat is actually alive and dead at the same time until you open the box and observe if the cat is either alive or dead.

Schrodinger's equation shows the probability of something exsisting and where and when it can exsist. So with the story of the cat the cat can either be alive or dead and therefore according to Schrodinger's equation it is either 50% alive or 50% dead and until we open the box and force it to be a certain way it is alive and dead at the same time.

Quantum theory is all about the probability of where and when particles exsist.

Einstein and Schrodinger himself did not even believe this theory because Einstein refused to believe that "God plays dice" and Schrodinger didn't like the fact that things only exsist because we "force them to," and at any given time things have the probability to not exsist according to Schrodinger's equation.

So has anyone gone cross-eyed yet because of this?

fckm, it's not that I had just completely disregarded Schrodinger's cat. It's more that I had heard of it before, but wanted to be specific when I argued against your point rather than going out and trying to argue on what I thought I remembered of it.

I don't know, it just seems to me that this is a pretty pointless argument. Even given my first post, I have to say that it is already pretty much proven that yes, colors do exist. If you take a bright red ball around and ask people what color it is, people will go "red" unless they are color blind or such. And even if the whole "I see this, you see that, but we both call it X" is the case, the simple fact is it works well enough for use to look at the same thing and call it the same thing. Either way, comunication is there, conveying an idea that points the the same object. That is pretty much all that matters

Philosophical discussions are not concerned with practicality. That aspect is left to the other ten dozen branches of scholarly insight.

Actually, you have it wrong. Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment designed to show the absurdity of applying quantum mechanics to macroscopic objects. The cat can't be in a superposition of dead and alive. They are mutually exclusive states of being. It makes no sense. The cat, being a macroscopic object, has to either be alive, or dead. And must be so without the intervention of a self-aware being to do the "observing". The point is that interactions between particles which number on the order of 10^23 cause the quantum states to be decoherent, and this interaction is what in fact causes collapse of the wavefunction.

The only example of quantum coherence at the macroscopic level that I am aware of is this one:
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/4/7/2/1
but this experiment was carried out at about 40 millikelvin, using a superconductor, thus drastically reducing the number of degrees of freedom.

Edit: spelling. Also, I believe Bose-Einstein condensates and superfluids can aslo be considered to be macroscopic coherent quantum phenomenon, although I don't think they exhibit superpostions, since by definition they exist completely in the lowest energy state.

That is one Philosophical position. Others use practicality as a means of measuring and deciding between Philosophical points.

In Science, the exception breaks the rule.

I don't see anything wrong with a box containing a cat that is both alive and dead, with both states existing in superimposition. Possibly this would be very hard to arrange.

Personally, I don't believe in collapsing waveforms. I abhor the look of naked discontinuities, and something 'collapsing' from a 'waveform' state to a 'non-waveform' state arouses this abhorance.

Luckily, there are consistent interpritations of Q-M that don't require waveform collapse. In at least one of them, that cat is both alive and dead, for at least one interpritation of the term 'that cat'.

(when the cat is in two states at once, should we call it 'those cats'?)

But, once again, this discussion isn't about Q-M observer/observation/existance. If we start with a definition of 'exists' that makes 'that chair exists' true whether or not someone is observing the chair, do colours exist?

Why bother with philosophy if one is going to be completely practical? Then there is no point in discussing this whole thread. For practicality's sake, there are colours because we have scientific evidence of them. The end.

Maybe Yakk's point is to reserve philosophy for those things which we do not have practical answers for.

Well one can make a practical answer for anything. Ask me any of the most seemingly unpractical philosophical questions you can imagine, and I shall attempt to construct practical answers.

Agreed, It's the concept of how we explain the phenomenon of vision. Interesting topic.

Suave, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? :D

Which is better, idealistic mathematics or constructive mathematics?

This is a philosophical question. It's impacts are practical, and should be considered.

Occam's razor is a philosophical guide to science because it keeps on working, and clears up impractical theoretical clutter.

Restricting Philosophy to the practical is one extreme -- removing consideration of the practical from the realm of Philsophical thought is another. There are points in between these extreme positions.

Depends whether they're fat angels or not.

If we apply the consideration of practicality to philosophical debate though, there is no debate in many cases. When it pertains to something like "do colours really exist", for practical reasons, colours do exist; we see them and therefore they do. The capacity in which they exist can also be practically explained through physics. The philosophical side can only be discussed when one is willing to move past the practical aspects of it. That is, unless you want to become engaged in a "philosophical" discussion of the definition of red. I love to engage in semantic debate, but I do not equate it to philosophy.