Do greenhouses have windows?

[Daedthr]

So, a slightly lighter and more philosophical/ontological based debate than some of the others I haves started or taken part in of late.

 

Do greenhouses have windows?

 

I'll try and give my views at some point but initially it is easiest for me to play Devil's Advocate.

[HeyYou]

Of course they do. :D They have both fixed windows, that simply allow light in, and they also sometimes have windows that can open, to allow air circulation.

[JacketteFarcryer]

Check this out:

 

How to Use a Greenhouse

 

http://garden.lovetoknow.com/wiki/How_to_Use_a_Greenhouse

 

Slightly off topic but still relevant:

 

Canon Science Lab: What Is Light?

 

http://www.canon.com/technology/s_labo/light/001/08.html

 

Cheers,

JF

[Daedthr]

Of course they do. :D They have both fixed windows, that simply allow light in, and they also sometimes have windows that can open, to allow air circulation.

 

So I'll accept immediately that the latter type of greenhouse has windows (that is those that have open-able 'windows'), but in the case of those with only 'fixed' windows, are those not just the greenhouses' walls? :tongue:

Edited May 14, 2015 by Daedthr

[HeyYou]

Ever hear of a "window wall"? :D

 

You have a valid point though...... Just because you can see thru it, doesn't make it any less of a "wall"......

[Daedthr]

Hehe, so if:

 

Window = wall, because a greenhouses' windows can equally be considered walls, and we substitute in some algebraic terms:

 

Window = a

 

Wall = b

 

a = b

 

a - b = 0

 

-b = -a

 

*-1 to get

 

b = a

 

(All obeys the laws of mathematics and I don't really want to go into logical axioms)

 

So now if "b = a" then Walls = Windows,

 

So I've proved that all walls are windows :D

Edited May 14, 2015 by Daedthr

[HeyYou]

Your logic is impeccable. Again. So, I am going to go install another door in my window. :)

[Daedthr]

Go for it, personally I'm enjoying my 360 degree view of the outside world from within my own house! :D

 

In fact, this revelation might mean we all live in greenhouses anyway. :O

Edited May 14, 2015 by Daedthr

[HeyYou]

What makes a house "Green"? Is it a lack of walls you cant see thru? How much energy it uses? Where it gets its energy from? Is a greenhouse really green???

[Daedthr]

Well I'd define the horticultural greenhouse as a glass building in which plants can be grown. Although a greenhouse could equally be a "green" (as in colour) house. I'd consider calling an environmentally friendly house "green" slang, as I don't think it necessary to describe an environmentally-friendly house in it's entirety by calling it green. To describe a green-coloured house in it's entirety would however necessitate it being called a "greenhouse" or "green house", and in the case of a greenhouse in which one would grow plants, green is not an adjective as greenhouse is surely a noun in that context.

 

So now I reckon I'm gonna have a bit of fun and try and prove the existence of a Supreme Being through "Proof by Greenhouse".

 

Start

 

1. Now, as we would normally call a house that is coloured green a "Green house" rather than a "Greenhouse", I will have to attempt to prove that both are in fact the same thing.

 

So the only thing distinguishing the two is " ", that is, space. Now, "space" can refer to this linguistic device, but it can equally refer to an expanse of absence, that is nothing.

 

If we can determine that (ignore quotations):

 

"Space" = "Space", which we can because a total is no more than the sum of it's parts, thus as the two words have the same parts, they are the same total.

 

Then we can also determine that if "Space" is equally a linguistic device and nothing, then the linguistic device space is also equally nothing.

 

If that is the case, there is no difference between "Greenhouse" and "Green house" because the only thing distinguishing the two is as much nothing as it is something, but as this is illogical it cannot be, therefore a distinction between the two cannot be, so they are the same.

 

2.

 

So "Green House" = "Greenhouse", and of course "Greenhouse" = "Greenhouse" for the same reason "Space" = "Space".

 

So if Greenhouse = Greenhouse, and Greenhouse is equally a glass building in which plants can be grown as it is a house that is the colour green, then a glass building in which plants can be grown is equally a green coloured house.

 

 

3.

 

The premise for this next stage of the argument is that colour is a visual description of substance, that is, whenever you see colour you are seeing substance too.

 

Now the substance that a glass building is made of is glass, and if this building is equally green then it stands to reason that this glass must also be green.

 

 

4. However glass is transparent, which means we either accept that transparency = green, of that glass is not really transparent. Either way, the a posteriori evidence that our senses are giving us does not seem to match with what can logically be.

 

Now by definition logic must be true, but the empirical may not necessarily be so (think how a hallucinogenic effects our senses, it causes us to see things that are not true, therefore our senses can be fooled).

 

But if our sense are being fooled perpetually to the extent that transparency = green, then what use are they? Surely it is the purpose of the senses to provide us with reliable information about the world around us, but if our senses do not, then they fail to fulfil their purpose, and thus there is no purpose to them. If there is no purpose to something, then logically it should not exist, as it would never have had any reason to come into existence.

 

Yet, these fooled senses exist, which indicates they must have a non-intrinsic purpose, that is a purpose given to them by something else. Thus, their purpose demonstrates the existence of something else.

 

5. But what can give them this purpose?

 

It cannot be Evolution, as for one evolution cannot give purpose to anything, and also because it does not make sense in the context of Evolution that our species could have evolved to have senses that not only fail to be of any use (because the information they provide cannot be relied upon), but are also detrimental to our survival because unreliable information would be likely to jeopardise our survival.

 

The only other explanation for our acquisition of such complex yet poor senses must therefore be that they were given to us by an omnipotent being, who also gives these bad senses their purpose - to demonstrate the existence of the being itself.

 

Therefore as we have these senses, an omnipotent being exists, and as nothing else we know of is omnipotent (that is capable of accomplishing anything that is not logically impossible), this being is also supreme.

 

Hence there exists a Supreme Being.

 

End.

 

Proof by Greenhouse.

 

 

Wait, wut.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Daedthr