>The better answer is to agree on how 'sound' should be defined, which would dissolve the question.

No it's not because now you just define what sound is for humans. Pressure waves in the right frequency is interpreted as sound for humans. Same with colors, for most humans red is red.

Frequencies are the reality, but sound/color is just a interpretation.

It's the other way around. Frequency is an abstraction. Sound/color is the reality.

>Sound/color is the reality.

Have you ever had an argument with a bee if that flower is red? Or a blue-wale how Mozart sounds for him? Are waves on a body of water an abstraction?

But your obviously a troll so i stop here.

I'm not trolling. There is no concept of frequency in the color red. Frequency is an abstraction/reduction you make in your mind in order to explain it. The real phenomenon is "red". Frequency is just a concept that works for certain cases in a certain framework that you create using abstract reasoning.

So, yes, waves are an abstraction, how can you not see it? When you look at the sea you don't see waves, you see colors moving around and then when you try to describe what you see, you define the concept of "waves" and come to the conclusion that these are waves you are looking at. But that happens entirely inside your mind. Waves is a concept like frequency.

>There is no concept of frequency in the color red

>>Red light has relatively long waves, around 700 nm long

Those 700 nm or ~428274 gigahertz is the frequency of red (as a human eye normally sees color) light waves.

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/visible-ligh...

https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en/frequency-...

>>Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency

You can scroll down and you will find "Light" and "Sound"

But maybe you don't know how a rainbow works, this is "our" visible spectrum, to the left increased frequency to the right increased wavelength:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency#/media/File:EM_spect...

>the concept of "waves" and come to the conclusion that these are waves you are looking at.

It's not a concept but:

>>a wave is a disturbance or variation which travels through a medium.

https://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/demos/waves-intro/waves-int...

And stop with you wannabe philosophical BS, it sounds just uneducated even borderline clownish.

When you look at red, you see red. You don't see "frequency" or "light" or any other thing we invented to describe red. When you say red I know immediately what you mean because I am also experiencing the color red. It doesn't require any further description. Descriptions are not the thing, we invented frequency as a measure, it's a concept. It doesn't exist in the real world. The real world is the one that you experience through your senses. It has colors and sounds and tastes and feels. It doesn't have frequencies or any kind of units or measures, those are made up concepts or abstractions over the thing we are experiencing.

>"frequency" or "light" or any other thing we invented to describe red.

You really don't know how science works do you? Bye roger, i am out.