Unsolved Question of Philosophy

All "color" is relative to how it is defined within language/culture. In Aboriginal culture, pink, red, yellow, orange, etc. are all united under one name. However, any one of those people could tell you there are differences between the colors, even if they all have the same name.

Don't forget that there's less color space that can be sensed by the eye then there are in the finite domain of wavelengths possible by discrete energy values. That raises the question of whether a 'color' should only be defined on which ones can be sensed by the human eye, or as distinct wavelengths of light. The Oxford dictionary defines color as "the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way it reflects or emits light". Color is also an abstract perception of the brain. There is nothing in the physical world that actually makes what we see, it is all interpreted by the brain. There is no way to tell currently if your blue is my green either. That philosophical argument pertains to qualia.

I understand that, but considering the quantum efficiency(sensitivity to EM waves) of all mammalian eyes, and almost all animal eyes, is between 1% and 5%, it's pretty irrelevant.

Also, just to clear things up, I'd like to give a short introductory into how colour and stuff works(say yay!).

Let's say you're in a black room with no light. You have an object, only I know that colour it is atm, so the only way for you to find out is either to ask me nicely(although I'm still not telling you) or to shine a light at it and look for yourself. You shine the light at it and all the packets of light(photons) hit the object and have some of their energy absorbed, the energy of the photons that return and jizz in your eye define the colour of said object. The light you shine has photons of energy 530yJ, the object absorbs some and the light it sends back has energy 265yJ. You then look at the object and say "OH! it's ____". Given what I have told you, you know the colour of the object to be
.

As I said earlier, with a QE of 1% this light is red, and even with a QE of 75% this light is still red. Red for you is red for me...figuratively speaking, seeing as I'm partially colour-blind.

They don't, actually. The "color" I see as blue may look completely different to someone else's eyes, but it doesn't matter because the same wavelength produces the same "color," even though our perceptions of what it looks like vary.

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. Yes, we can both tell that photons of a certain energy/wavelength are red but that is a physical quantity. What we see isn't a physical property, it's a made up thing attributed to that wavelength.

See inverted spectrum.

If I may, this is quite silly, and not really relevant.

I already answered the topic and people keep talking. In case no one cares to look back, the answer is simply this: green and blue are different colors because they are not the same color.

I'm gonna give you a one up because Marauder Shields never gave up trying to save you from the ending.

Oh the stuff Tegumi has let into serious discussion.

Blue Light
The visible blue light has a wavelength of about 475 nm. Because the blue wavelengths are shorter in the visible spectrum, they are scattered more efficiently by the molecules in the atmosphere. This causes the sky to appear blue. blue spectrum.

Green Light
The visible green light has a wavelength of about 510 nm. Grass, for example, appears green because all of the colors in the visible part of the spectrum are absorbed into the leaves of the grass except green. Green is reflected, therefore grass appears green.

A more relevant discussion is, since they had the same word for blue and green in old Chinese/Japanese, is why it was like that? I'd believe it's because blue is a pretty useless colour so there was no need to differentiate blue from green cause the only thing that was blue was the sky (and the sky is rarely green) and a handful of flowers and animals