<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<oembed>
 <version>1.0</version>
 <type>link</type>
 <provider_name>Rainbow Dash Network</provider_name>
 <provider_url>http://rainbowdash.net/</provider_url>
 <title>Narwhal (narwhal)'s status on Saturday, 28-Feb-15 03:22:55 UTC</title>
 <author_name>Narwhal (narwhal)</author_name>
 <author_url>http://rainbowdash.net/narwhal</author_url>
 <url>http://rainbowdash.net/notice/3863788</url>
 <html>@&lt;span class=&quot;vcard&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://rainbowdash.net/user/8281&quot; class=&quot;url&quot;&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;fn nickname mention&quot;&gt;loveydoe&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt; It's because while our perception of the wavelength is qualitative the wavelength itself is quantitative. Like it or not, regardless of &lt;i&gt;how&lt;/i&gt; we see the wavelength the wavelength itself can be measured and distinguished. Regardless of what you interpret, it's an objective fact that, as an example, a 620–750 nm wavelength will produce a colour we refer to as &amp;quot;red&amp;quot;, regardless of what red is. The only presumptions I'm making are those grounded in reality that can be generally agreed upon, but you're right in that I didn't account for your outlandish solipsist perspective. I'm out.</html>
</oembed>
