The first one would be "colors exist as a physical concept". They do not.
There is no relationship between the physical nature of light and what we call "color". A wave has a frequency. There is no concept of "color" associated to a wave.
We statistically put names on some convoluted detector/brain transformations and everyone does the transformation differently. This is why most of the people agree that a tomato is "red".
As an ex-physicist, I hate to speak about colors in a physical context (and yes, we have charts that show that higher frequencies are "blue" and lower ones "red"). Color is a biological concept and should stay that way.
And then, as a farther, I have to explain to my children the convoluted course on colors in high school in France.
There is no relationship between the physical nature of light and what we call "color". A wave has a frequency. There is no concept of "color" associated to a wave.
We statistically put names on some convoluted detector/brain transformations and everyone does the transformation differently. This is why most of the people agree that a tomato is "red".
As an ex-physicist, I hate to speak about colors in a physical context (and yes, we have charts that show that higher frequencies are "blue" and lower ones "red"). Color is a biological concept and should stay that way.
And then, as a farther, I have to explain to my children the convoluted course on colors in high school in France.
Sorry, I had to let off some steam.