this post was submitted on
720 points (72% like it)
1,163 up votes 443 down votes
shortlink:

atheism

subscribe1,114,477 readers

2,857 users here now

Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.
New posts: New Rising
Self posts: New Relevant
Non-image posts: New Relevant

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes

Related Subreddits <--the big list
GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
08/11 Regional Conference - St. Paul MN
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ

Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

a community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

719
720

Not specific to atheism, but as an atheist I still found it very interesting. (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by chrismikehunt

all 145 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]philintheblanks 31 points32 points ago

If the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum exists without me being able to see it, in what way to I "create" the rainbow by being able to observe it?

[–]boywithumbrella 15 points16 points ago

While I generally see the message as lacking, what is meant by "you create [the rainbow]" is that 'rainbow' is an imaginary construct (it's just what we call the complete representation of the spectrum visible to us, separated into the colours that we can discern). I.e. if a dog sees the same refracted light, it may not technically be considered a rainbow, since it would consist of only two separate colours (blue and everything else) - thus a human observing the refracted light makes it into a rainbow.

One could further argue that even for animals that discern the same amount of colours as humans, observing the same refracted light would not "create a rainbow" as they have no concept of 'rainbow'.

[–]philintheblanks 8 points9 points ago

I was referring specifically to the physical phenomenon which is labelled as rainbow. Of course the term doesn't exist without conception, and the conception wouldn't exist outside of the prerequisite perceptive capacity. That's pretty much a given. Semantics is just irritating.

[–]boywithumbrella 7 points8 points ago

referring specifically to the physical phenomenon which is labelled as rainbow

well that's exactly what I meant - there is no physical phenomenon of rainbow. Rainbow is just your perception of a part of a phenomenon (that certainly exists outside subjective perception). As long as you don't observe it, that part is not 'singled out' and so doesn't exist by itself.

[–]philintheblanks 6 points7 points ago

The physical phenomenon being refraction? How is the rainbow non-existent outside subjective perception if the spectrum is differentiated by passing through a liquid medium? I may be completely missing the point here, but I am genuinely trying to understand your position.

[–]boywithumbrella 5 points6 points ago*

my position is: the phenomenon is refraction. Its 'product' (or manifestation) is the light, differentiated by spectrum.

The rainbow, however, is only the part from wavelength 390 to 750 nm of that spectrum, divided into 7 intervals of 70/45/20/75/20/30/130 nm. It is only human observation that separates the 390-750nm interval from the rest of the spectrum and further divides it into 7 (non-equal) parts.

Which is my understanding of human observation creating the rainbow.

[–]philintheblanks 6 points7 points ago

Slightly convoluted, but I think I'm getting it. It still doesn't seem to make sense to me to say that the thing doesn't exist just because its definition is based in arbitrary delineations. But then like I said, I find semantics to be irritating, so that's probably why I'm such a stubborn ass.

[–]Punkwasher 5 points6 points ago

The problem is that you can only see the rainbow from the angle you're seeing it. Remember that NDT thing he said about how we could never reach the end points, because the rainbow will always appear at the same angle relevant to the observer. So basically, if you weren't there to perceive the rainbow, you wouldn't see one. The light would still be refracted, just no one would observe it in such a manner as to construe it as a streak of colors across the sky and would apply the descriptor of "rainbow" to it. Kind of like the tree in the forest when it falls, it still makes a sound, regardless of the presence of an observer.

[–]Tattycakes 1 point2 points ago

The argument here is correct on both sides.

A "rainbow" consisting of the wavelengths and colours red through to violet is a concept created by us. There's light above and below those wavelengths too, but we are just singling out this particular section and naming it "rainbow" because it's the only bit we can see.

However, light will always be refracted at those wavelengths in rainbow conditions, even if humans aren't there to see it... it just wouldn't have that name. A dog wouldn't see a ROYGBIV.

And thank FUCK someone else agrees with the tree in the forest thing. The laws of physics don't just vanish when you're not looking.

[–]Nymaz 1 point2 points ago

Kind of like the tree in the forest when it falls, it still makes a sound, regardless of the presence of an observer.

Actually to bring us back to the rainbow topic, I would question that. It comes down to how you are defining "sound". Is "sound" the displacement waves in the atmosphere? By that definition then yes, a sound is made. But it could be argued that displacement waves are just that, displacement waves, and "sound" is the sensation in the brain caused by our ears picking up those waves. By that definition, no sound is made.

So like the rainbow, it comes down to definition. Is a rainbow all the light refracted in all directions? Or is it that unidirectional and small part we perceive? Is sound displacement waves in the atmosphere or us perceiving it?

In both cases some physical phenomenon is occurring no matter whether there is an observer or not. But are they "rainbows" or "sound"? That can be argued.

[–]Punkwasher 0 points1 point ago

At least... let's HOPE they don't vanish when no one's looking...

Fucking quantum physics.

"As Depak Chopra tells us, quantum mechanics means anything can happen at any time for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal and animals never had a war... who's the real animal now?"

  • Hubert Farnsworth

[–]Kowzorz 2 points3 points ago

An interesting concept that rainbows only exist to the observer.

[–]DenryM 1 point2 points ago

This is what I like about atheists*: even in an internet debate, Phil started off with one opinion, but through discussion, realized that he could understand the other side of the argument and decided that it was actually not as bad as he previously thought. And this all happened without any personal attacks or mentions of Hitler! :)

*This quality not unique to or present in all atheists.

[–]Nymaz 0 points1 point ago

without any [..] mentions of Hitler!

Until you did, damn it!

[–]MarsWillSendNoMore 2 points3 points ago

Yes, if all of us died off today, water would continue refracting light.

But the rainbow does not exist without someone to observe it. It only comes into being when certain refracted wavelengths are perceived from specific angles by an organism with visual receptors capable of differentiating a portion of the refracted spectrum.

A better example may be to first consider color. Things don't really have inherent colors. Color occurs when an organism with specially develop eyes perceives certain wavelengths of light reflecting off a surface with a certain texture. If you take a thing that looks red and put it 30 meters underwater where no "red" wavelengths of sunlight can reach, the thing just looks black.

It's a small step from there to realize that in a pitch black room, no objects have color.

And from there, it's a small logical step to realizing that in a well-lit room with no observer, they do not have color either.

Color is in the eye of the beholder.

[–]dhicks3 1 point2 points ago

I love color physics, and once applied for a position in a lab researching fluorescent proteins. But, I don't think I could have described this principle as simply and beautifully as you've done here.

[–]MarsWillSendNoMore 0 points1 point ago

Thank you, D. And I suppose we should correct it to "the brain of the beholder" because that's where the signals from the eye get processed and interpreted.

So tell me more about flourescent proteins!

[–]probablynotaperv 1 point2 points ago

Does that mean the rainbow goes off into the infrared and ultraviolet ranges? I guess that makes sense, it's just not anything I ever considered before.

[–]boywithumbrella 1 point2 points ago

generally yes, though not necessarily always, and practically it will never be the full light spectrum, e.g. because of UV light being filtered by the ozone layer etc.

There are (more rare) instances of rainbow that contains less than all 7 of the visible colours (even monochrome), or with some colours duplicated (due to more complicated reflection/refraction)

[–]probablynotaperv 2 points3 points ago

Yeah I ended up doing a quick google search and read up a little about it. Also found this nifty picture.

[–]spazmodic- 1 point2 points ago

and also water is not transparent to all EM radiation

[–]Bronystopheles 1 point2 points ago

Honestly, why does this need to be such a long conversation?

If you think of the rainbow as being the physical pattern of light refraction that precedes and influences our subjective perception, then it seems self-evident that we don't "create" it.

If you think of the rainbow as being the arc of colors that we perceive, then "the rainbow" obviously inheres in our minds and not in physical phenomena external to us.

What we have here is people refusing to use the same definition. This does not make for an interesting philosophical discussion, because words don't literally create reality; they're meant describe it--for purposes of meaningful communication. Instead, maybe you should consider choosing different words in order to allow for a meaningful discussion of the underlying concepts.

This really is not that hard to understand, people.

[–]boywithumbrella 2 points3 points ago

If you don't think a matter deserves a long conversation, don't reply to the comment bringing up the matter with an even longer comment ;)

Also, if you don't think it makes for an interesting discussion - don't read it.

maybe you should consider choosing different words in order to allow for a meaningful discussion of the underlying concepts.

it's not about choosing words, because I'm not discussing underlying concepts - on the contrary, I'm discussing the overlay, which is the word we use to describe what we 'see'.

Again, if you're not interested in this discussion - you're welcome to simply say "I'm not interested" and go read another comment.

[–]Bronystopheles -2 points-1 points ago

even longer comment

Hahahaha no.

Maybe you should take another look at the whole conversation.

[–]boywithumbrella 1 point2 points ago

even longer comment

Hahahaha no.

my comment that you replied to: 706 characters, 122 words.

your comment: 847 characters, 138 words. How exactly is that not longer?

Maybe I will have another look at the whole conversation, my question to you however is: why did you bother reading all of it, if you don't find the matter interesting?

[–]Bronystopheles -2 points-1 points ago

Look at the length of the fucking conversation. OK, good: now look at the progress you've made. Exactly none. In other words, the top string of comments is about a non-topic. I'm the only one who's made a relevant point not asserted in the first two or three comments.

And you do realize you're using the exact same non sequitur reasoning as theists who say "Herp derp if atheists don't believe in God why do they talk about Him so much?" don't you? I may not believe that your conversation has any meaning whatever, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't point out that it's meaningless--does it? The meta-conversation =/= the conversation.

This was the last chance I was giving this subreddit to show that it can foster precise thinking. It failed.

[–]boywithumbrella 2 points3 points ago*

OK, good: now look at the progress you've made.

Well, for one I made you go from indirectly implying we are idiots ("This really is not that hard to understand, people") to outright swearing ("the fucking conversation"). Isn't that an achievement?

No, I do not think I committed non-sequitur in this conversation. Reason for that, first and foremost, is that I do not agree with you that the discussion you cut into is meaningless - that is only your opinion, which probably arises from the fact that you don't find the topic interesting. I tried pointing that out, but it apparently wasn't direct enough.

So I'll reiterate.

foster precise thinking

is what I very much want. However when I hear "Semantics is just irritating", or you suggesting "If you think of the rainbow [this]... If you think of the rainbow [that]" - that's where I see, that precise reasoning is definitely not taking place. For however irritating you might find it, but you use words to express yourself. Those words have meaning. What meaning that is and how you use it is semantics. Whether you like it or not, what you say is semantically loaded, and I can and will point out to you if I find you're wrong or I disagree with you. So, let's get to semantics.

Now if you would look up the word "rainbow" in a dictionary, the first (literal) definition of that word will be something along the lines of

rainbow |ˈreɪnbəʊ| (noun) an arch of colours visible in the sky, caused by the refraction and dispersion of the sun's light by rain or other water droplets in the atmosphere. The colours of the rainbow are generally said to be red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet.

[in this case it's Oxford Dictionary of English 3rd edition © 2010]

Now you'll see that the main definition of the word 'rainbow' will start with it being a visible arch. Most probably it will also be mentioned of what colours the rainbow consists. At this point (if thinking precisely) you should ask yourself - does the physical phenomenon it's describing only manifest in the form an arch? Does it consist of only the colours mentioned?

No, no it doesn't. What does is our perception of it. And the word for that perception is 'rainbow'. Quod erat demonstrandum since you're so fond of latin

Lastly,

a meaningful discussion of the underlying concepts.

if you want to discuss the underlying physical concepts of rainbow - why don't you go to r/AskScience instead? I really don't think it is more suited for r/atheism than semantics of perception.

.

post scriptum hey look! more latin

I'm the only one who's made a relevant point not asserted in the first two or three comments.

I get it, you need to prove yourself - and you did make a (valid) contribution, congratulations on that! But you have to understand, that even if you have the knowledge in the field of natural sciences to direct us ignorant people, not everybody does - and so we have to resort to humanitarian discussions instead, until you come along and enlighten us that what we're talking about is utterly meaningless. Forgive us, for we know not what we do...

[–]philintheblanks 0 points1 point ago

Thank you.

[–]ford_cruller 2 points3 points ago

It is similar to how a tree falling in a forest creates a 'sound' even when there is no one to hear it. 'Create a sound' causes confusion because people use sound to refer to both acoustic waves which propagate through the air, and to the perception of those waves by a listener. A tree falling in a forest with no one to hear will cause propagation of acoustic waves, but there will be no one around to perceive them.

Similarly, there are two distinct phenomena being described here.

  1. The sun's black-body radiation is being scattered by water droplets. Because the index of refraction is dependent on wavelength, the radiation undergoes dispersion) which means that, from a given viewpoint, the spectrum of light reflected will very with the viewing angle.

  2. You perceive different wavelengths of light within the visible spectrum as different colors. This perception is the result of a computation performed by your brain, a part of you. When you 'see' a rainbow, your brain 'creates' the perception of a rainbow by taking the input from your optic nerve (which comes from the EM reflected off the water droplets) and processing it into some higher-level representation: the perception of a rainbow.

[–]philintheblanks 1 point2 points ago

This is the same semantic issue as with boywithumbrella. While I understand that the term itself is a representation of a phenomenon as it is perceived by me, that doesn't change the fact that it is occurring. Like you said, the propagation of acoustic waves will occur regardless of someone being there to hear it, but does that make it tangibly different from sound, merely because we associate sounds with human perception of acoustic waves? And if that's the case then I can't make an argument, because like I said, it's semantics and there is no right answer. You simply make a distinction that I don't.

[–]ford_cruller 4 points5 points ago

does that make it tangibly different from sound, merely because we associate sounds with human perception of acoustic waves?

"Sound" is not the propagation of acoustic waves, nor is it the perception of acoustic waves within the audible spectrum. "Sound" is a semantic label that may be used to refer to either or both concepts. Asking whether a tree falling in the forest makes a 'sound' is worse than wrong: it's malformed because the answer depends on two equally valid interpretations of 'sound.'

I also think that "you create the rainbow" is questionable phrasing. Given the context it was presented in an allowing for artistic license, I'd say it's reasonable to conclude that here, 'rainbow' is meant to refer to the human perception rather than the electromagnetic dispersion. In general "rainbow" isn't a word I'd commonly associate with perception.

It is important to establish firm mental boundaries between perceptions and physical phenomena, and to realize that often words will refer to one or both or occasionally be ambiguous. A key technique in dissolving confusion is to recognize such ambiguities, and try to rephrase the troublesome sentences in terms of more explicit terminology.

[–]philintheblanks 1 point2 points ago

I'm pretty sure I agree with you.

[–]ford_cruller 1 point2 points ago

Yeah, me too. I felt that elaboration was in order.

[–]philintheblanks 1 point2 points ago

Semantics is a sonofabitch.

[–]billsil 0 points1 point ago

actually he's right. an acoustic wave is a pressure wave. sound is the local vibration of pressure due an acoustic pressure wave that is picked up by your ear and translated into sound.

[–]Roflkopt3r 0 points1 point ago

I think the best way to describe it in easy words is, that basically there just is a giant mess - but we humans have a "filter" (our specific eyes) that allows us to see the rainbow within.

To what extend this still counts the act of "creation" takes some thought, I can't come up with a final answer for now.

[–]spazmodic- 0 points1 point ago

It's same shit as "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

[–]meh100 0 points1 point ago

You're asking the right sort of question. The OP is making a huge fallacy. Just because we see less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum doesn't mean that we see less than 1% of all possible colors. Colors are evolved to be dependent on 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum, the part that provides the most evolutionary advantages to influence what colors we see.

We don't see a "red," "blue," "green," etc. that's inherent in some part of 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum; thereby seeing only all the colors inherent in 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum and not all the other colors presumably inherent in the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum and possibly other things.

We know this because it makes the most sense from an evolutionary perspective, because there's no reason to think that color is a property inherent in the electromagnetic spectrum and not our minds. Also, there are many documented cases of what people see coinciding with something besides 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum, for instance touch or sound.

Think Daredevil in the rain. When he is able to see Elecktra, it is because his sense of sound is so good and has directly accessed the visual processes of his brain. Vision is not, contrary to popular belief, the same thing as the eyes. The eyes (and what they detect and measure: light) are just one mechanism that can be attached to the visual processes of the brain, and they are attached because it was evolutionary advantageous.

[–]dhicks3 0 points1 point ago

I think the idea is that colors only exist in our heads. The specific pattern of refracted light we call a rainbow is a result of applied physics, for sure, but the pattern of "colors" is not real. The differential triggering of separate photoreceptors in your retinas, transmitted and processed by your independently self-wired brain, organizes what you perceive when you aim your eyes at this phenomenon.

This of course leads to the elementary school debate we all had after the colorblindness screening: "What if what I see as blue is what you see as red!?!" It doesn't matter, because we can't change this sort of thing with our current technology. As long as you've got three functioning types of cones and the rest of your vision detectors and processors are in working order, you'll do just fine.

[–]abenton -1 points0 points ago

Lots of magnets.

[–]Almost_mental -1 points0 points ago

The affect of the observer on the observed.

[–]boywithumbrella 1 point2 points ago

affect effect

[–]VoodooIdol 11 points12 points ago

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving

And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,

That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,

A sun that is the source of all our power.

The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see

Are moving at a million miles a day

In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,

Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'...

[–]dumnezero 1 point2 points ago

monty python's galaxy song, from The Meaning of Life

[–]ethertrace 1 point2 points ago

I actually printed out the lyrics to this song and hung them at my office desk to get me through the day.

It's super effective at combating petty stress, but it did have the side effect of occasionally making me want to throw up papers in disgust, quit, and go stargazing while drinking good beer with friends.

Luckily, the latter is exactly what I eventually did.

[–]borg88 0 points1 point ago

Courts advert, late 80s?

No idea why that company went bust.

[–]VoodooIdol 0 points1 point ago

Monty Python.

[–]borg88 0 points1 point ago

Indeed, but the Courts advert is also funny in its own way.

[–]AA108 7 points8 points ago

Thanks to this piece, I finally understand all the potato jokes! I thought it was just arbitrary.

[–]slayer_of_potatoes 14 points15 points ago

Damn potatoes and their chromosomes. They must be stopped.

[–]chrismikehunt[S] 6 points7 points ago

I salute your timing!

[–]bendmorris 2 points3 points ago

21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took two of the man’s chromosomes and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a potato from the chromosomes he had taken out of the man, and he brought it to the man.

[–]c0pypastry 0 points1 point ago

amen

[–]marcussantiago 0 points1 point ago

pics or it didnt happen

[–]Clogaline 16 points17 points ago

Forgive me, but I don't see how rattling off a bunch of random facts about how the eye works and what it can see, as well as some simple biology and physics (atoms being mostly empty space), has anything to do with judging others.

They are interesting little observations to be sure, but the part at the beginning just seemed to have no relevance...

[–]PixyFreakingSticks 3 points4 points ago

Messages like this seem to misunderstand what science does. What is observed scientifically is very different from seeing a rainbow.

[–]case-o-nuts 12 points13 points ago

1% of an infinite spectrum? Sounds like a pretty big accomplishment to me.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

1% of infinity?! That's definitely impressive!

[–]borg88 2 points3 points ago

I wondered about that. It actually says less than 1% which is technically true but quite misleading. Speaks volumes about the intended audience.

[–]cyantwist 0 points1 point ago

"less than 1% ..."

[–]kilocball 0 points1 point ago

Infinite? I thought quantum mechanics would put a cap on the size of the e.m. spectrum?

[–]SwiftthrustExplosion 1 point2 points ago

Quantum mechanics just tells us that that electromagnetic waves interact in discrete packets of energy, it tells us nothing about a maximum or minimum frequency/energy for an electromagnetic wave/photon.

[–]drashizu 0 points1 point ago

Wouldn't it tell us the minimum, then, but not the maximum? You can carry as many packets of energy as you want, but the minimum is 1...

[–]ticklemepenis 1 point2 points ago

Light behaves as both a wave and a particle. So you can have a single "particle", but it can have whatever frequency, zero to infinity.

The number of photons present represents the intensity of the incoming light, not the frequency.

[–]drashizu 0 points1 point ago

Ohhh... okay.

(Quantum physics = not my strong suit.)

[–]huddledmarmot 4 points5 points ago

Well, sometimes one less than the common potato..

[–]Dudesan 4 points5 points ago

Especially in those who can count to potato.

[–]robywar 6 points7 points ago

Calling BS on the "none (of the atoms) are the ones you were born with" part.

[–]VeryLittle 4 points5 points ago

Well, there's ~1023 atoms/gram (Avogadro's Number). For an average mass human, there's something between 1027 and 1028 atoms in your body. Most of that is water, but there's a fair amount of other stuff, so let's say you have something like 1027 atoms in water in your body.

The earth has 109 km3 of water (1 m3 of water is 103 kg), so so there's something like 1021 kg of water on earth. Since water is 3 atoms, a total mass of 18 u, we get that there are ~1046 atoms in water on earth.

So let's assume there is a very very high replenishment rate in your body, such that on any given day, your body is essential just a random sampling of 1027 of these 1046 atoms. Now this is reduced to a simple probability problem. Any individual atom that was once in your body has 1046-27=19 odds of being in your body when we check you again later in life. So later in life, we can expect that, of the 1027 atoms we considered at first, we may have something like 1010 original atoms.

This is actually true of anything on the earth. The elements on the earth aren't really going anywhere, we have an approximately fixed amount of hydrogen, oxygen, etc. The radioactive elements are slowly decaying away, and very very small amounts of new isotopes are being produced by cosmic ray interactions, etc- but the matter content on the earth is again, not really changing. What is changing, is the arrangement of this matter. The same math above can be done, to say that, odds are, one handful of atoms in each breath you take were in Caesar's last breath, or that a few atoms in every glass of water you drink were once apart of Alexander the Great. It really is cool, that life on the crust of the earth is just the same atoms, morphing through different arrangements.

[–]Yur0wnStupidity 0 points1 point ago

Well, there's ~1023 atoms/gram (Avogadro's Number)

Umm, what? The number of atoms per gram is dependent on what element it is. Avagadro's Number is ~6.023 x 1023 Water is not an atom, it's a molecule. I could go on but I think you get the point.

[–]VeryLittle 1 point2 points ago

It's an order of magnitude approximation. A factor of 3 from the number of atoms in water molecule and a factor of 18 for atomic mass units per water molecule were factored in, but make very little difference. I could go on and on.

[–]thetheist 0 points1 point ago

So let's assume there is a very very high replenishment rate in your body, such that on any given day, your body is essential just a random sampling of 1027 of these 1046 atoms.

This is one big problem with these types of calculations. This assumption is so poor that it is impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from it.

[–]VeryLittle 0 points1 point ago

I beg to differ. If there is a low rate of replenishment, then you'll certainly be left with some fraction of your original atomic content at the end of your life, and the question answers itself. Only if the rate is very high, such that individual atoms are being swapped out (to the point that every atom in your body has been swapped out at least once) will my calculation be applicable. It's true and relevant and more generalizable than you think.

[–]thetheist 0 points1 point ago

That's almost the same thing I was just saying. The assumption is so large that it makes or breaks the equation, and the assumption is absolutely central to the argument.

It's like saying, "What are the odds that you and I will meet sometime in our lives?" and you assume you can ignore factoring in where we live, and you do the calculation for randomly meeting somebody on planet Earth, but it turns out that we live next door to each other.

And then you find out that everybody on Reddit lives in the same small town, so every time somebody asks the question, the assumption that you have to look across the globe is fundamentally broken.

Of course, we are probably not neighbors, and everybody on Reddit does not live in the same town, but when you consider all the atoms that make up your body, you'll see the parallel.

Suddenly, the calculation doesn't seem true or relevant or generalizable because the basic assumption behind it is so inaccurate.

[–]VeryLittle 0 points1 point ago

You are clearly not familiar with how probability works.

[–]thetheist 0 points1 point ago

It doesn't the way you use it.

[–]Dudesan 0 points1 point ago

Atoms are pretty interchangeable. It's disingenuous to claim absolutely that none of them are the ones you were born with, though.

[–]ghostfox1_gfaqs 0 points1 point ago

It's not entirely inaccurate though. You do get a lot of new ones over the years, and by the time you die it's possible that a lot of atoms in your body weren't the ones you were born with, or grew up gaining.

[–]thetheist 0 points1 point ago

Have you heard of those statistics that say you probably have a bunch of water molecules that Napoleon pissed at some point in his life? As farcical as that statistic is, considering that you've been around yourself so much in your life, it's pretty likely that there's some overlap in atoms that you started with and atoms that you have today. It's the circle of life.

[–]ghostfox1_gfaqs 0 points1 point ago

That's my point.

[–]Carlos13th 2 points3 points ago

Before you claim an absolute truth consider these things that we consider to be absolute truth.

Not saying any of it is wrong just ironic.

[–]philotimon 1 point2 points ago

I create rainbows? Nice. So, if I can't see it, it doesn't exist? Nice. I win, in any case?

[–]rimcrimp 1 point2 points ago

Upvoting, but not without checking in on the comments to see if anyone has pointed out any inaccuracies.

[–]FRIENDLY_KNIFE_RUB 0 points1 point ago

Thats why I came here

[–]nildeea 1 point2 points ago

So what you're saying ... is that we should be humble in our knowledge because ... we can't count to potato?

[–]Uranus_Hz 1 point2 points ago

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's revolving...

[–]Indrionas 1 point2 points ago

Wrong! There is no known upper limit of electromagnetic spectrum. Therefore statement that visible light takes up 1% of it is false.

[–]WoodyTrombone 1 point2 points ago

none of them [your atoms] are the ones you were born with

[citation needed]

less than 1% of electromagnetic/acoustic spectrum

And so does absolutely everything else, considering those spectra are infinite.

[–]drashizu 1 point2 points ago

That was my thought, too. Also the line about 90% of the cells in a person's body having different DNA? That would mean all of the cells in a person's skin, muscles, bone marrow, hair follicles, etc. that are not pathogens or beneficent microbes (such as the ones in our intestinal tracts) only make up ten percent? I'd need a citation for that one, too. edit for stupidity

[–]chaosofhumanity 0 points1 point ago

But we can detect the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum with technology, and science gives us the means to even see parts of it we normally could never see, like infrared.

We even have telescopes that can show us pictures of the sky that show different colors depending on the strength of radio waves, microwaves, and x-rays.

[–]technothrasher -1 points0 points ago

90% of the cells in your body carry their own microbial DNA and are not "you".

The fact that the author had to put "you" in quotes should have clued them in that this statement is meaningless.

[–]taggedjc 2 points3 points ago

Actually, the author is talking about our gut flora, which are distinctly non-human symbiotes that live in our digestive tract and due to the size of their cells compared to human cells and their populations, actually vastly outnumber human cells in the same human.

I think it's pretty relevant. The quotation marks there just seem to be for emphasis.

[–]drashizu 0 points1 point ago

Actually, thanks for clearing this up for me, because I had a completely different beef with this factoid, but I forgot that human cells are much more massive than a lot of other cells.

[–]taggedjc 1 point2 points ago

Yup. Wikipedia:

The human body, consisting of about 10 trillion cells, carries about ten times as many microorganisms in the intestines.

So you're looking at around 100 trillion microorganisms in your intestines, yet you yourself are only made up of about 10 trillion cells altogether. About 60% of your poo is primarily these microorganisms.

[–]technothrasher -1 points0 points ago

What you are saying is fine. But the original quote is begging the question with their definition of "you".

[–]taggedjc 3 points4 points ago

No, it isn't. The quotation marks appear to be for emphasis: 90% of the cells inside your body are not you - they are microbes with microbial DNA distinct from yours. They should have simply bolded or italicized the word instead of putting quotes (since quotes imply that they're using a special definition of the word, which they are not). Therefore the statement is hardly meaningless.

What I don't really understand is how considering this fact is important to do before you judge others or claim absolute truths. It's a bit silly since it, itself, is claiming these as absolute truths, as far as I can tell.

[–]technothrasher -2 points-1 points ago*

So "you" is anything that has the same DNA as yourself? Like, say, your identical twin? If you have a traumatic brain injury and lose all your memory, as well as having a radial change of personality, are you still "you"? Are cancer cells "you"? What about other mutated cells?

[–]taggedjc 2 points3 points ago

No, your identical twin is a separate organism, whereas cancer cells and mutated cells are still "you" because they're not separate organisms. In the case of losing all your memory and changing personality, who cares? The new "you" is still the "you" in question, and your gut flora still isn't you, no matter who "you" are. The psychology of what a "you" is isn't part of the point.

The microbes in our gut are distinct from ourselves, very definitely. Trying to change the definition of "you" doesn't change that distinction. Newborns don't even have any gut flora; they end up inside and proliferate at an early age, and that's why each person has their own unique batches of gut flora which their body does not autoimmune respond against, due to gaining a tolerance for them from the outset. They're important, obviously, but they're symbiotic separate organisms. You don't say that anemones and clownfish are the same thing because they're symbiotic with each other, do you?

[–]technothrasher -1 points0 points ago

You are reducing the definition of "you" to the biological definition of an organism, while the text we are discussing is talking of the psychological and philosophical ideas of "you" instead. What does the proposition that the concept of a rainbow needs a conceiver have anything to do with the biological definition of a separate organism? It doesn't.

Once again, they are begging the question. To fill that gap for this 'not you' statement, you are inserting the definition that seems to fit. But that definition does not apply to the rest of their text, and so this particular statement about gut flora is useless in the context of their discussion.

[–]taggedjc 2 points3 points ago

Except that even psychologically and philosophically your gut flora is still not you. They aren't "you" by any valid definition of "you". It isn't begging the question at all. None of the lines in the text have very much to do with one another, nor with the purposed premise.

The point of the text as far as I can tell is to give you some perspective: if most of the cells inside your body aren't actually your cells, that knowledge is supposedly meant to humble you and make you avoid passing judgment.

[–]taggedjc 0 points1 point ago

Besides, my point was that the statement wasn't meaningless.

Most of the text is useless, since none of it seems to have anything to do with passing judgement on others or the act of claiming truths. Just because it isn't being used properly doesn't make it meaningless.

It would be pretty silly to say "There are billions of insects on the earth that aren't you" since we all know that. However, not everyone knows about gut flora. They're not trying to claim "there are cells in you and since we define them as not being you, they aren't you". They aren't you for a lot of reasons that this doesn't get into and it isn't trying to prove it; it is merely stating it as a fact.

[–]Plokhi 0 points1 point ago

Acoustic spectrum? Less than 1%? Thats just false. It's just... False.

[–]mash3735 0 points1 point ago

forget countint to potato let us be one!

[–]SaysNotAtheism 0 points1 point ago

I fully support this.

[–]Airazz 0 points1 point ago

I always thought that potato had only one extra chromosome...

[–]drashizu 0 points1 point ago

Maybe one extra chromosome pair? Chromosomes come in sets of 2 (in diploid creatures).

[–]velkyr 0 points1 point ago

I have heard the argument that our atoms are from a star before.

Can somebody explain that to me? Our bodies are constantly dying and recreating so that in 7 years I'll essentially have a different body.

How do the atoms that build up those cells come from a star?

[–]FRIENDLY_KNIFE_RUB 1 point2 points ago

They are recycled through the earth, maybe as carbon, and they originally were created in big high pressure stars, and blew up and those pieces eventually made earth

[–]velkyr 1 point2 points ago

But our bodies are the ones recreating the cells. Wouldn't they essentially come from us, not stars? Not trying to argue, i'm just trying to get a firm grasp of the whole idea. Maybe if you had a paper or link that describes this in detail?

[–]WeDrinkSquirrels 2 points3 points ago

I doubt any scientific paper would make it simple enough. Your primary misunderstanding is that cells are the same thing as atoms or molecules, and are made in stars. Cells ARE NOT atoms or molecules, and are obviously made by living things (not stars). Cells are made of atoms (which form molecules which are enzymes, cell structures etc). The particles that make up our cells were created by fusion deep in stars. There's this thing called the preservation of mass. Mass is neither created or destroyed in our universe, so the carbon in our body (and every thing else) was formed by an earlier generation of stars.

[–]velkyr 1 point2 points ago

Mass is neither created or destroyed in our universe

That was my misunderstanding. It makes a lot more sense now that I can understand that.

[–]ohcrocsle 0 points1 point ago

His misunderstanding as well.

[–]AustinFound 0 points1 point ago*

Chromosomes are just a way of dividing up your genome, the number is kind of arbitrary. To better emphasize the point, I would have gone with the fact that grapes having more coding genes than humans have.

[–]Bucketfriend 0 points1 point ago

I wouldn't say chromosome numbers are arbitrary. But considering polyploidy is fairly common among plants, chromosome numbers are rather irrelevant in terms of the organisms complexity.

[–]AustinFound 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, I mean their importance is kind of arbitrary. You don't gleam a lot of comparative information about how many genes two organisms might have in common.

[–]Danidan10 0 points1 point ago

"2 less than the common potato" That cracked me up XD

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

This is the first time I've read about chromosomes and potatoes without laughing...

[–]DeaconOrlov 0 points1 point ago

The semantic chicanery about "creating" aside this does remind me of what the Oracle of Delphi told Socrates, to paraphrase, "Real wisdom is knowing just how ignorant you really are".

[–]palparepa 0 points1 point ago

Also interesting: pink isn't in the light spectrum.

[–]borg88 1 point2 points ago

Almost nothing you see emits one, or two, or a few wavelengths. Rainbows, lasers and fireworks maybe do.

Most of the light you see has a complex spectral distribution. Go into any clothing store or decorating store - those colours aren't spectral colours, they are complex mixtures of everything. Your eye/brain interprets the information (quite subjectively, to try to guess the light source too) and presents you with the final image.

[–]dhicks3 0 points1 point ago

And even a pure wavelength doesn't send a single signal to the brain. There are three types of wavelength-sensitive cones in the retina, each of which will be stimulated more or less by that single wavelength. this results in different frequencies of action potential being relayed down the optic nerve, which the brain then interprets and integrates from across the retina.

[–]Jedditor 0 points1 point ago

I lost it at common potato.

[–]Fordiman 0 points1 point ago

So, about a week ago, I got into an argument with a "spiritual agnostic" about "materialist reductionism" (e.g., science). If you've ever had that argument, you know what I'm talking about.

So I want to make this clear:

That we know these things about human beings is not meant to be in some way degrading to us. It is meant to make clear that we are working with limited faculties, and still do fucking amazing shit, ok?

I don't hate the human race; I recognize we have limits - and knowing where the boundaries are is key to pushing them.

[–]EliaTheGiraffe 0 points1 point ago

Is there a source link to this piece of art?

[–]kCchief207 0 points1 point ago

I can count to potato.

[–]darkNergy 0 points1 point ago

You don't just look at a rainbow, you create it.

Really? Come on. That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

[–]drashizu 0 points1 point ago

It's a case of "If a tree falls in the forest?" which means it depends on how you define words that encode human perception as if it were a direct reflection of reality, because humans haven't understood the physical realities of sound (or vision) throughout our language's history.

The light's still being refracted no matter who's looking, but the colors only exist in our perception. If "rainbow" means "light refraction," then the rainbow exists without an observer. But if "rainbow" means "bands of color," then it does not, because color is a quality of perception that does not exist in objective reality.

[–]darkNergy 0 points1 point ago

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it", yes it makes sound because sound waves are produced any time there is a fluctuation in the density of a material, such as when something falls through the air or collides with the ground. Ears are not necessary for sound to exist.

When a rainbow forms, yes the bands of colors are there even if there is no one to see it. Light waves have different wavelengths which refract/reflect inside water droplets at different angles, separating the wavelengths into bands (as in a prism). This physical process occurs regardless of whether a human observer is in the correct orientation perceive its "bands of color".

[–]drashizu 0 points1 point ago

You're missing my point. It's about definitions. Do you define "sound" and "color" as perceptual phenomena, or synonyms for the physical phenomena that produce the perceptions?

It would be redundant to define them as physical phenomena because we already have other words for those things, so usually I lean in the direction of defining them as perceptions. Sound is the perception of mechanical waves traveling through matter, and color is the perception of light at different wavelengths or frequencies.

Waves are produced when a tree falls in the forest, but those waves are simply mechanical waves; they're not sound until they are detected by a hearing organ which sends electrical impulses into a neural network that processes them as sound. Mechanical waves are a physical reality; sound is a perception.

In the same way, the various wavelengths of light are a physical reality; but color is not real. Color only exists when wavelength-sensitive receptors in a seeing organ send electrical impulses into a neutral network which processes the impulses as color.

[–]dumnezero 0 points1 point ago

Colors, it's very simple:

our ancestors evolved the ability to see colors along with trees who evolved the ability to create colored fruit; the greedy primates would get a better cue of when the fruit is mature and full of sweet sweet energy, while the plant got to spread mature seeds. It was a really shitty deal when all the fruit where just dull green; back then, our ancestors saw monochrome!

tldr; thank fruiting trees for your color vision

[–]drashizu 0 points1 point ago

Actually, I can't cite sources for this, but in a biological anthropology course past, I was told by the professor that the fruit-trees-co-evolving-with-color-seeing-animals was birds, who also see in color but have done so for far longer in evolutionary history than mammals. Primates are rare among mammals in seeing in color. We evolved that way after we started eating fruit because the fruit satisfied our body's requirement for vitamin C; random mutations then emerged, resulting in the loss of our body's innate ability to produce its own vitamin C, but individuals who would formerly have died were still getting their nutritional needs from the fruit; subsequently fresh fruit became a dietary necessity for primates because they couldn't get vitamin C any other way, and the ones who could differentiate shades of light and dark (eventually colors) more effectively survived better and passed on their genes more often.

tldr; you should still thank fruit trees for color vision, but fruit trees should thank birds for their color fruit

[–]dumnezero 1 point2 points ago

Of course; I wasn't saying fruit trees evolved color only because of humans. All fruit eating animals have a part in it.

Just remember that in the jungle, there isn't a lot of room for large birds. ;)

[–]masgrada 0 points1 point ago

Or we're just simple beings that are easily impressed.

[–]Redringsvictom 0 points1 point ago

When I try to think of colors that don't exist, it hurts my brain. Just, thinking of a color, you can't see, that isn't a mix between primary, secondary, or tertiary colors makes my mind go blank.

[–]danthemancooney 0 points1 point ago

Needs more randomly formatted words.

[–]gbromios 0 points1 point ago

I wish I could get some of these that aren't written in the exact same voice used in the images of text my grandma sends me about patriotism and muslims and jesus

[–]vondage 0 points1 point ago

oh how optimistic we must be... to think that such a "truth" can be seen at all.

[–]cyantwist 0 points1 point ago

There's some factual inaccuracy about atoms in your body: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_%28cosmology%29

[–]ajaytech 0 points1 point ago

Wow.. I wonder what other colors look like

[–]billsil 0 points1 point ago

you are aware that there are an infinite number of wavelengths and therefore and infinite number of "colors" that you cant see. so it's not just less than 1%, it's 0%.

[–]Raven_star_zenith 0 points1 point ago

This is horse shit. We do not "create" the rainbow. Light refracts wether or not we are looking at it. We may have specific receptors in our eyes but it exists if we are looking at it or not. Unless I am missing the point he wants us to adhere to the "just because you cant see it doesn't mean it does not exist" argument.

[–]checksumfail -2 points-1 points ago

This really is pointless, I can hear less than 1% of the acoustic spectrum, so, they might have said something at 5hz that I missed? No. So it's not relevant.

I'm travelling 220KM/S ? That's pretty reckless of me, I guess you're right, I shouldn't judge others.

'The existence of a rainbow' is like saying trees are black to animals with no eyes. It's like 'If a tree falls in the forest' example, it's just clearly not true.

I just don't see what this has to do with 'judging people', I hate this idea that judging people = prejudice, a judge fucking judges people, are they evil? It's possible to judge someone based on their actions or their beliefs.

[–]JonahFrank -1 points0 points ago

actual interesting facts twisted into new-age type bullshit.

[–]sebbie3000 -4 points-3 points ago*

If we know we only see less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum, doesn't that mean we've proved the existence of the rest? I fail to see your argument. And in this case, that does mean it doesn't exist...

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 5860 on app-60 running 152ff4e.