Kathryn, actually if these 'somethings' are NOT energy emitters, we are
talking about light reflection. Then there is the whole bit of energy
*present in the different frequencies of the source) that is absorbed
by a surface and re-emitted at a certain (few) wavelength(s) [that
gives its characteristic color to our eyes], and the surface growing
warmer as a result of all the other energy absorbed, until it reached
some equilibrium... (01)
Jack (02)
Kathryn Blackmond Laskey wrote:
>> Many people have pointed out that his choice of example was
>> unfortunate, since that sentence raises two thorny issues that
>> Tarski did not intend to represent in his introductory paper:
>> snow as a continuous substance, and the use of a singular noun
>> for making a generic statement about all snow.
>>
>
> Not to mention what it means for something to "be" a color. Are we
> talking physics of light absorption? In what kind of light? Or are
> we talking about human perception?
>
> Kathy
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (04)
|