Georgina:
Thanks for the detailed excellent feedback: I can really sink my teeth in to the rubuttal and have to think very carefully about my answers. Your's will be the next essay I read so that I can return the favour.
As to your first and last paragraphs: that was exactly what I was going for. Except the 'bewildering' part. That was unintentional and hopefully isn't the consensus read (unless bewildering is what the reader is looking for).
AS to your comment, "With regard to the point being only one definite colour or another; The point does not actually have a colour but the coulour is determined by the recipient of the refected light", I totally disagree from my work with colour-matching equipment and reading of Newton's Optiks. A colour is the result of emmission (by reflection or otherwise) by an object of a certain (small range of) photon frequencies, which we name different coulours. Yes, one person's red is another's colour-blind green even though both peeps percieve the same exact thing (a given small frequency of photon energies impinge upon the eye's photo-receptors). Even still, the measure is the machine's interpretation (the frequency) not any individual's perception. In that case it would be better to name the colour the actual frequency. For example "red" light is generally agreed upon to have a mid-range of around 700 nm wavelength. So a dot that emits photons of wavelength exactly 700 nm would be "pure red" objectively, no matter who percieves, what percieves, or even if it is percieved by something possessing optical senses.
Newton spent an inordinate amount of time in dark rooms shining sunlight thru various prisms to eliminate many of the frequencies therein to finally reduce light to " pure coulours", which he termed 'refrangibilities'. He then spent (way too much space in the text, I feel) a lot of time describing the colours he saw and giving them names. And also comparing those pure colours to accepted samples of the colours. LIke comparing an apple to his dark red among a large set of his examples.
The key point I'm trying to make is that one person's red will be the same as another red she perceives as the same coulour. And another;s perception of green when viewing the same object, will be the same 'green' when that person selects another item that she percieves as another example of that green. Nevertheless, the object still has as it's essence that 'colour' that it actually possesses--the frequency of light it emits.
Finally, as to your comment, "As for things not being in two different places at the same time: Objects are seen because light is emitted or reflected from the surface and intercepted by receptor cells" and the rest--I totally agree in the classical macroscopic framework. Except I think the context used in my essay is for subatomic particles. So none of that reasononing applies. To Whit: if we were talking about electrons, for example, it would be impossible to "see" it, as the photon that would have to strike the electron and then impinge upon the eye would be many orders of magnitude larger and would knock the electron in a random direction and impart some amount of energy to the electron. Thus a subsequent measure (bouncing the photon off the electron to 'see' it) would in all likelihood produce a different 'coulour' frequency on the eye each time the measure is performed.
And I remember from my Modern Physics lessons that one of the wonderful theories about a timeless electron is that one electron could be responsible for all the atoms and molecules in the universe as it is also not bounded in time as we macroscopic ensembles of particles are. One electron actually could be everyplace at the same time, as it were.
YoursRespectfully,
TommyG.
P.S. This month Scientific American reveals some excellent new research on this topic: it turns out that the more names for colours you possess, the more colours you can actuall see! So experiment has now revealed that if a coulour that is near-red in frequency, for instance, but not pure (700 nm)red, then not only is the colour percieved a function of the persons's optical effieciency (hardware), but also one of software (language).