Is a rainbow a physical object?

[Copernicus]

This is not a trick question. Would you call a rainbow a "physical object"? If not, why not? What is the difference between a rainbow and what you would describe as a physical object? Just to make this really interesting, I'm going to allow the option of a contradictory answer to the main question.

 

[untermensche]

A rainbow is an experience.

Color is an experience and nothing else.

The stimulus for a brain to create a color is out in the world, not the color itself.

Color is an evolved arbitrary response to a stimulus.

 

[J842P]

Rainbows are physical phenomena. A physical "object" is a useful abstraction for living our day to day lives that more or less maps onto "some solid-state grouping of matter that is more defined by its function than its composition".

So, just like "species" or "reptiles", it is a useful abstraction that maybe doesn't rigoursly map into reality all the time.

 

[untermensche]

You mean the stimulus for a rainbow is a physical phenomena.

The external world does not have colors.

Colors are something that have evolved.

First you have the world then you have the subjective with colors.

 

[bilby]

Of course it is. It's made out of photons.

 

[Copernicus]

There can be no question that we are made aware of a rainbow's existence through visual perception, but that is also a means by which we can be made aware of a table or a chicken. Those things clearly are physical objects. However, those objects exist whether we look at them or not. If we go away and come back later, they are still there. One could say that they exist independently of the act of perception. However, can we say the same about a rainbow? We can certainly take a photograph of physical objects, and we can also take one of a rainbow.

So, is a rainbow a physical object or not?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

This is not a trick question. Would you call a rainbow a "physical object"? If not, why not? What is the difference between a rainbow and what you would describe as a physical object? Just to make this really interesting, I'm going to allow the option of a contradictory answer to the main question.

This gets at a deeper issue regarding reification so I answered yes and no. The question doesn't have an objective answer that doesn't depend on the relative model used.

 

[untermensche]

There can be no question that we are made aware of a rainbow's existence through visual perception, but that is also a means by which we can be made aware of a table or a chicken. Those things clearly are physical objects. However, those objects exist whether we look at them or not. If we go away and come back later, they are still there. One could say that they exist independently of the act of perception. However, can we say the same about a rainbow? We can certainly take a photograph of physical objects, and we can also take one of a rainbow.

So, is a rainbow a physical object or not?

But without color is there a picture of a rainbow?

 

[Copernicus]

Rainbows are physical phenomena. A physical "object" is a useful abstraction for living our day to day lives that more or less maps onto "some solid-state grouping of matter that is more defined by its function than its composition".

So, just like "species" or "reptiles", it is a useful abstraction that maybe doesn't rigoursly map into reality all the time.

Can you name something that rigorously maps into reality all the time? Or something that is not an abstraction of some kind? Or a physical object that is not also a physical phenomenon? A book certainly exists when nobody is reading it or looking at it. Does a rainbow?

 

[Copernicus]

This is not a trick question. Would you call a rainbow a "physical object"? If not, why not? What is the difference between a rainbow and what you would describe as a physical object? Just to make this really interesting, I'm going to allow the option of a contradictory answer to the main question.

This gets at a deeper issue regarding reification so I answered yes and no. The question doesn't have an objective answer that doesn't depend on the relative model used.

I anticipated your response, and that is why I allowed for the contradictory answer. However, that leads me to ask whether you would give the same answer for every object that you would describe as a physical object.

- - - Updated - - -

There can be no question that we are made aware of a rainbow's existence through visual perception, but that is also a means by which we can be made aware of a table or a chicken. Those things clearly are physical objects. However, those objects exist whether we look at them or not. If we go away and come back later, they are still there. One could say that they exist independently of the act of perception. However, can we say the same about a rainbow? We can certainly take a photograph of physical objects, and we can also take one of a rainbow.

So, is a rainbow a physical object or not?

But without color is there a picture of a rainbow?

I neglected to tell you that I was using black and white film. Sorry.

 

[untermensche]

But without color is there a picture of a rainbow?

I neglected to tell you that I was using black and white film. Sorry.

Without something that can distinguish shades of grey what is it?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

I anticipated your response, and that is why I allowed for the contradictory answer. However, that leads me to ask whether you would give the same answer for every object that you would describe as a physical object.

pretty much yes.

- - - Updated - - -

There can be no question that we are made aware of a rainbow's existence through visual perception, but that is also a means by which we can be made aware of a table or a chicken. Those things clearly are physical objects. However, those objects exist whether we look at them or not. If we go away and come back later, they are still there. One could say that they exist independently of the act of perception. However, can we say the same about a rainbow? We can certainly take a photograph of physical objects, and we can also take one of a rainbow.

So, is a rainbow a physical object or not?

But without color is there a picture of a rainbow?

I neglected to tell you that I was using black and white film. Sorry.

 

[untermensche]

What knows it is black and white film?

 

[skepticalbip]

Like most questions in philosophy, there is a very simple answer. The problem is that philosophers disagree on the meaning of the question. If first they would all agree on the definition of the words physical and object then the answer becomes obvious.

 

[untermensche]

If you can't distinguish color and can't distinguish shades of grey and can't distinguish white from black do you have a rainbow?

What notices it?

 

[bilby]

There can be no question that we are made aware of a rainbow's existence through visual perception, but that is also a means by which we can be made aware of a table or a chicken. Those things clearly are physical objects. However, those objects exist whether we look at them or not. If we go away and come back later, they are still there. One could say that they exist independently of the act of perception. However, can we say the same about a rainbow? We can certainly take a photograph of physical objects, and we can also take one of a rainbow.

So, is a rainbow a physical object or not?

Yes, it's a physical object made of photons. Those photons are no less physical than the ones that make up an image of a table; And the rainwater that causes the image is no less physical than the wood that causes tbe image of the table.

Insofar as there is any real question here, it is 'Do we use the word "physical" in a needlessly and unhelpfully restrictive way a lot of the time?', to which the answer is also 'yes'.

The OP is one of those questions that sounds deep, and invokes the emotion of awe and a feeling of being part of a great mystery; But those emotions are misplaced - the question is either simple, or based on a mere linguistic failure. Either way, like most metaphysics, it's FAR less interesting or important than those who contemplate it would like to believe.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Like most questions in philosophy, there is a very simple answer. The problem is that philosophers disagree on the meaning of the question. If first they would all agree on the definition of the words physical and object then the answer becomes obvious.

It's not philosophers who need to do this. It's each individual. Once you decide on your definitions, the answer becomes clear. That points out the relativistic issue with definitions. Models are judged by their utility, not by their relationship to objectivity (as much as we might like to reject that idea). The "right" answer has everything to do with our objectives and very little to do with anything else.

 

[fast]

A rainbow is an experience.

Color is an experience and nothing else.

The stimulus for a brain to create a color is out in the world, not the color itself.

Color is an evolved arbitrary response to a stimulus.

We do experience rainbows, which is to say we have an experience when we detect them in some way.

Don't forget, however, that the experience is not what the experience is an experience of; hence, just our experience of seeing a table is not the same as the table itself, our experience of a rainbow is not the rainbow itself.

After all, if you shut your eyes and fail to experience the table, the table persists, just as the rainbow will be for the experiencing for those that don't shut their eyes.

 

[untermensche]

A rainbow is an experience.

Color is an experience and nothing else.

The stimulus for a brain to create a color is out in the world, not the color itself.

Color is an evolved arbitrary response to a stimulus.

We do experience rainbows, which is to say we have an experience when we detect them in some way.

Don't forget, however, that the experience is not what the experience is an experience of; hence, just our experience of seeing a table is not the same as the table itself, our experience of a rainbow is not the rainbow itself.

After all, if you shut your eyes and fail to experience the table, the table persists, just as the rainbow will be for the experiencing for those that don't shut their eyes.

Would somebody describe a rainbow without color?

Is that a rainbow?

The table is not dependent on color.

A table without color is still a table.

 

[ruby sparks]

How do you know that the table is still there if nobody sees it?

We're doing philosophy, right?