Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It's as if a friend told me, for example, that there's a spoon on my bed, you can't see it, but it's there, and friend number 2 comes along and tells me dude, there is no spoon on your bed because we dont' see it there, as a matter of fact, it does not exist on your bed.

I'm gonna go with friend number two.

and imo, one of the reason is, is that, to me, in generally every case, generally speaking, the invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.

How would you differentiate, if you disagreed? Please explain.

The invisible still exist. The non-existent don't.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The invisible still exist. The non-existent don't.

Assuming he means "has none of the properties of things that exist" when he says "invisible" then there's no practical difference.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
It's as if a friend told me, for example, that there's a spoon on my bed, you can't see it, but it's there, and friend number 2 comes along and tells me dude, there is no spoon on your bed because we dont' see it there, as a matter of fact, it does not exist on your bed.

I'm gonna go with friend number two.

and imo, one of the reason is, is that, to me, in generally every case, generally speaking, the invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.

How would you differentiate, if you disagreed? Please explain.

Just for fun I would go with number one I mean if you make believe that there is a spoon on your bed you will see it.

It all feels the same in the dark.

Apparently, I chose Column A when I should've posted in Column B.

Originally posted by Mindship
Isn't this semantics? Obviously, the difference is: the Undetectable exists on some level (we just can't "see" it), while the Nonexistent doesn't exist at all (hence, there's nothing to "see".

If we want to move this into a more realistic venue, then how did we know the Undetectable entity exists in the first place? At some point, on some level, it had to register in human awareness. Otherwise, how would we know to even ask about it? Heck, at the very least, even "God" showed up in writing to get the ball rolling.

Originally posted by Digi
It all feels the same in the dark.



Now that is creepy!

well since we don't see other demintions, there could many things around that we don'[ see. Heck there could be a family eating on your bed.

No wonder I found a bunch of crumbs on my bed the other night!

Originally posted by Digi
It all feels the same in the dark.




Not sure I can agree with that.

Gravity is invisable, yet we know it's there.

Sorry, but I just got this new lap top and I can't find the "spell Check" lol

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Gravity is invisable, yet we know it's there.

Gravity is not "invisible" in the sense that we cannot detect it, which is almost certainly what he means.

But at one time we couldn't. It was unexplainable just like other things are now.

Invisible just means not able to be seen, so there's no reason why you wouldn't still be able to hear, feel, smell, or taste the object in question if it was just invisible. By definition, you wouldn't be able to sense something non-existent. So, while invisible and non-existent do "look" alike, they sound, smell, feel, and taste very different. That's how I differentiate.
BANG!
problem solved.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
But at one time we couldn't. It was unexplainable just like other things are now.
But we still knew it was there because we could feel its effects pulling us down. We didn't have an explanation, but it wasn't invisible, its effects were clear to all.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
But at one time we couldn't.

When did gravity not have observable effects?

When people didn't understand? They knew something was causing the effect, but didn't know what it was. Maybe they thought it was a special god. lol. The god that makes things fall down.

but they could see the effect

gravity was still observable even though we didn't have a name for it. It wasn't as though we only experienced gravity after we named it

Originally posted by inimalist
but they could see the effect

gravity was still observable even though we didn't have a name for it. It wasn't as though we only experienced gravity after we named it Many things are also observable but not to all. We give those things names, but we really don't know what they are.

such as?

Originally posted by King Kandy
But we still knew it was there because we could feel its effects pulling us down. We didn't have an explanation, but it wasn't invisible, its effects were clear to all. We couldn't see it so it was invisible. Its effects weren't but it was and still is.

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
We couldn't see it so it was invisible. Its effects weren't but it was and still is.

It's pretty clear that FOTN means things that can't be detected (though he has said stranger things in the past).

JUST STOP IT.... yOU ALREADY kNOW.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's pretty clear that FOTN means things that can't be detected (though he has said stranger things in the past). I know, I'm just being a big fat semantic stickler. My true opinion on this is that if something is truly beyond detection, then it doesn't exist. However, to answer the original thread question of how to differentiate between the two, something nonexistent, by definition, doesn't exist, while something undetectable may or may not exist. That's the difference and it's kind of a dumb question.

Kind of a dumb question

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
We couldn't see it so it was invisible. Its effects weren't but it was and still is.
OK, given where it was posted, i'm pretty sure this was meant to be an analogy for God. Who you can't taste/smell/hear either.

Originally posted by King Kandy
OK, given where it was posted, i'm pretty sure this was meant to be an analogy for God. Who you can't taste/smell/hear either. Some people argue that you can feel Him (it?) though.

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
Some people argue that you can feel Him (it?) though.
Well, those people have an answer to this question, then. I sure don't.

Like, MMMM god smells good today? tasty too? Chicken.Mmmm

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Like, MMMM god smells good today? tasty too? Chicken.Mmmm ...nope, not like that.

what color is air?

Originally posted by Grate the Vraya
Some people argue that you can feel Him (it?) though.
They feel something. It's their prerogative to assign that feeling to a transcendent being.

Originally posted by alltoomany
what color is air?

air doesn't reflect photons of light, but is perceptible through smell, taste and touch, and sound if the wind is strong enough

Originally posted by inimalist
air doesn't reflect photons of light, but is perceptible through smell, taste and touch, and sound if the wind is strong enough


We could take the approach as air being things like blue and other things due to Rayleigh Scattering...which is just the air molecules emitting absorbed photonic energy at the "blue" wavelength more often than the other wave lengths. That's not reflecting, though, so I do not want you to think I'm correcting you. This is similar to how spectral analysis works...but, again, it is not reflection but emission.


So is that really seeing air? I don't know. Different densities can be seen as they bend the light that passes through it. Does that count?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
They feel something. It's their prerogative to assign that feeling to a transcendent being.

YES!

Originally posted by dadudemon
We could take the approach as air being things like blue and other things due to Rayleigh Scattering...which is just the air molecules emitting absorbed photonic energy at the "blue" wavelength more often than the other wave lengths. That's not reflecting, though, so I do not want you to think I'm correcting you. This is similar to how spectral analysis works...but, again, it is not reflection but emission.


So is that really seeing air? I don't know. Different densities can be seen as they bend the light that passes through it. Does that count?

I'm sorry, let me reword:

the air doesn't reflect light in a way that our visual system is able to perceive, ie: we don't see air because our visual system can't

I suppose I shouldn't talk about light in that way, as I have no idea at all

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, let me reword:

the air doesn't reflect light in a way that our visual system is able to perceive, ie: we don't see air because our visual system can't

I suppose I shouldn't talk about light in that way, as I have no idea at all


Your original statement was correct: it doesn't reflect. I still think you're right. But I was injecting the possibility that we could consider it another way, visually.


And I do not know what you mean about not knowing: you know more about this visual perception stuff than most. You used to research it. Or am I mistaken what your visual research entailed?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your original statement was correct: it doesn't reflect. I still think you're right. But I was injecting the possibility that we could consider it another way, visually.


And I do not know what you mean about not knowing: you know more about this visual perception stuff than most. You used to research it. Or am I mistaken what your visual research entailed?

no, for sure, but I have no knowledge about what does or doesn't reflect light

yes, though, that is exactly what I used to study, and actually what I still do study (though in a functional rather than basic perceptual setting)

Originally posted by inimalist
no, for sure, but I have no knowledge about what does or doesn't reflect light

It's your favorite subject: quantum physics. Basically, it is photons being emitted by electrons as they change their principle quantum number (atomic orbitals). Higher energy states or lower energy states in their orbitals will absorb or emit photons.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, though, that is exactly what I used to study, and actually what I still do study (though in a functional rather than basic perceptual setting)

Cool beans. No wonder you were going on about ganglia, a while back.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's your favorite subject: quantum physics. Basically, it is photons being emitted by electrons as they change their principle quantum number (atomic orbitals). Higher energy states or lower energy states in their orbitals will absorb or emit photons.

no, thats interesting, I wont pretend I really understand... I do know about electrons and all, but I really don't know how to conceptualize gaining or losing charges or whatever.... sigh

Originally posted by dadudemon
Cool beans. No wonder you were going on about ganglia, a while back.

you will never understand how much I love the basal ganglia...

that and the lateral geniculate nucleus...

lolz

Originally posted by inimalist
no, thats interesting, I wont pretend I really understand... I do know about electrons and all, but I really don't know how to conceptualize gaining or losing charges or whatever.... sigh

Meh. It's too much to go over.



Originally posted by inimalist
you will never understand how much I love the basal ganglia...

that and the lateral geniculate nucleus...

lolz

Holy shit, you're so consistent! You have no idea how consistent you are.

I made fun of it by making a sex joke about basal ganglia. You also mentioned lateral geniculate nucleus, before.


Originally posted by inimalist
ontology

or any technical terms that I know people don't understand: lateral geniculate nucleus, thalamo-cortical, basal ganglia, etc


Originally posted by dadudemon
As in, "I'd like to stir up her basal ganglia with my dendrites." awesome



Everything is full circle. pained

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, let me reword:

the air doesn't reflect light in a way that our visual system is able to perceive, ie: we don't see air because our visual system can't

I suppose I shouldn't talk about light in that way, as I have no idea at all

It's better than that. Air being invisible is an example of Adams' Puddle.

Why can't we see air? Because we evolved to see wavelengths of light that travel through it well. If we had evolved to see extremely short wave light we'd be nearly blind because it gets absorbed within a short distance. Radio waves travel better but you need large detectors to notice them (also I don't think the sun produces as much you wouldn't be able to see details with them).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_electromagnetic_opacity.svg

A very energetic video from Sixty Symbols on some of the physics behind why things are transparent: http://www.sixtysymbols.com/videos/energygap.htm

That video still leaves me wondering why things are opaque to long wavelengths. Wiki makes it sound like that's a macro level thing.