Thread: Do you think colors have anything to do with dimensions?

Do you think, that there are three fundamental colors due to the three dimensional space? That would mean that in order to sense four dimensions, our sight should recognize X^4 rather than X^3 colors, where X denotes the number of all possible shades of one of N fundamental colors, i.e. in computer science X=256.

I think it's incorrect, because both 2D and 3D contain the same colors, so why should 3D and 4D be different. Thus, if we generalize this, we get:
"All objects have the same spectrum of colors no matter the dimension." (|)

But, colors are the result of our brain interpretation rather than an outer factor, so that would mean the first statement has more neurology than psychics in it. That is, a cat sees a different palette, a fish sees a different palette and a human sees a different palette. So, to make the color hypothesis clearer, one should answer "Is the palette of the perceived world, constant?", i.e. Colors <live> inside objects and exist under the support of light rather than depend on ones perception.
Attempt to answer: Following the famous results of neurology (all combined neural network of trillions of neurons surrounded by synapses and communicating through *individual electrical signals* coming from senses, including sight), it yields that - since brains of "all"(<- this is a weak guess, supported statistically) known living brain-having things have the same system of neurons(another, highly likely guess), it means that "signals of all living are carried identically" => "sight signals are carried identically" => "colors living see are identical, but interpreted variously, depending on the kind.".
Okay, now what? So colors are the same, independent of the living thing's mind,
thus attached to "outer" or "empirical" objects. (this sounds little philosophically, but as much possible, with supportive arguments, think of "outer" as physics, which it is).

Now, colors and their shades... 2D = 3D why should 3D<>4D or even 4D<>5D (2nd paragraph), I simply think that color is a general property, like weight, it exists in all dimensions (all 11 of them, following string theory)
I feel like something came out, but maybe I'm completely wrong...
This doubt is explainable, since my arguments aren't as strong as
those in pure maths, so...

Any more ideas?
Maybe the above generalization (|) is too rough?

I'm not sure why you have more than two filters, but you need at least two in order to perceive color. If you only had one, then frequencies above its threshold would look identical to frequencies below its threshold.

The third one probably helps you discern colors that are extremely close to one filter or extremely bright (or both). That's my best guess for why you need three. With three, every color you see will be far away in frequency from at least two of your filters.

This is nonsense. We perceive three fundamental colors because we have three types of cones in the retina. Most mamals (and severely colorblind people) have just two, so they can see only two. Many animals (and very rarely people) have four types of cones, so they can see four fundamental colors. etc.

the three primary colors have to do with your cones. they have actually little meaning to wavelengths. pretty much, the different primary colors are different wavelengths. adding them together gives you different wavelengths. the right combination of the three and you can make most wavelengths in our visible spectrum

Also some shrimp(i don't remember exactly) can see about nine fundamental colors, and plus they can determine polarized light

Yes, the number of fundamental colors a person sees depends on the number of cones, i.e. Fun=Con. However, I probably made a mistake when formulating the question, "Is there a maximum fixed number of cones a retina of any living can contain for all dimensions?", more formally "Is maxCon, thus maxFun, constant in all dimensions?". Oh and, maybe doctors could implant extra cones in human retina?

The crazy, and nonsensical, idea is that if any of us were to exist in higher dimensions, would we see more colors? Or the opposite, if any of us, although living in 3D could perceive higher D because of the higher number of fundamental colors?

That sounds quite baseless, but following that different animals(including human beings) have a various number of cones, would it mean that, e.x. a shrimp could perceive nine dimensions(because Con(Shrimp)=9), although existing in 3D?

Soooo... if Dim(LT) = A and Con(LT) = X, where X > A, then LT(Living Thing) perceives more than A(or exactly X) dimensions although trapped inside A, i.e. Per(LT) > A or Per(LT) = X.

Just a reminder:
Dim(LT) = A means that living thing LT exists inside AD.
Con(LT) = X means that living thing LT perceives X fundamental colors.
Per(LT) > A means that living thing LT contemplates more than A dimensions.

light has nothing to do with dimensions. the only way light relates to dimensions is that it exists in a 3 dimensional one. ours. and what evidence do you have that says there is a universe that is separate from ours. what evidence do you have that says that our universe has more than 3 dimensions? the only possible 4 dimension i could see would be time because the entire universe is traveling through time. but even then, it does not mean that it is a 4 dimension. and furthermore, you can perceive time. with dimensions, you can only see downwards. meaning the first dimension can not see the second but the second can see the first. so the third dimension can not see the fourth dimension. yet we can perceive time.

Originally Posted by Twit of wit

This is nonsense. We perceive three fundamental colors because we have three types of cones in the retina. Most mamals (and severely colorblind people) have just two, so they can see only two. Many animals (and very rarely people) have four types of cones, so they can see four fundamental colors. etc.

Yeah, I was using the concept of a "filter" and a "type of cone" interchangeably, because human eyes and digital cameras work in the same basic way, and in a digital camera the filter on the receptor is what determines its color affiliation. I prefer to use digital cameras as the model because they're simpler.

The further you get from the exact frequency the filter is attuned to, the less light makes it through the filter. By analyzing the comparative brightness between 3 cones with different filters, you can tell the frequency of the light wave that hit them. Since different chemicals are more and less reflective to different frequencies, that means our eyes can tell us something about the chemical composition of the things they look at. (Enough to narrow it down a bit, anyway.)

I'm not seeing how having more filters would enable us to see more dimensions, however. What kind of inter-dimensional information would you expect to be encoded in a light signal?

Kojax, I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing with mindissilent

Oh. I see.

I'm hoping that Mindisselent will begin explaining more about his theory, so I can tell if he's headed in a good direction, or if he's already arrived at where he's going to go.

I agree that if he doesn't have anymore to add, then his idea might be a nonstarter.

Nothing to add, case closed, colors have nothing to do with dimensions. Period.


Thanks for commenting.

what you're saying is that energy itself is another dimension, or that consciousness is, or both. Personally I believe the latter. Color is mapped to the senses.