I didn't want to just ask, "What is color?" I generally understand the electromagnetic spectrum, that we're primarily tetrachromatic, and our perception of color is just that, a perception.

When we have two identical objects of different colors, what is the difference in surface detail between the two? I know we perceive color through the reflection of light, different colors being different wavelengths. If the light being used is equal for both objects (and excluding variables in our vision), is the perceived color the result of physical surface variability? In this sense, to create a red paint you mix ingredients which favor the reflection of the red wavelength due to the texture it applies to the painted object?

Is our narrow band of electromagnetic vision the result of the frequencies produced by our sun? The level of detail we can perceive through visible light is many magnitudes greater than the perception offered by infrared or ultraviolet cameras. Now of course they reveal different properties which visible light does not. Is this due to the t---

Just had a thought, bear with me. Do we use the 'visible' portion of the spectrum due to the scale of the universe we experience? For instance, microscopes using visible light are limited by the size of the wavelength. The waves are too big to strike all of the surfaces (there has to be a better way to say that). So when we move to an electron microscope, we are using a smaller unit to bombard the object with, and will reveal finer detail because it fits into smaller spaces to reflect this information back.

Reevaluating my question, do we use the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum because the wavelengths give the most amount of environmental detail, for the scale of environment we live in? I should probably change this to my title.

Obviously there are other organisms which use various segments of the EM spectrum to sense the world. I almost said "see the world" but I think it's easier to think in terms of the physical act of collecting data on the local EM field, as opposed to dissecting the perception of these waves in our brain. I have a degree in psychology and it tends to protest sometimes, something about being a biased observer.

I've written and erased a few paragraphs now, I have more questions but I feel like I'm wandering into the territory of asking questions which are more speculation or opinion than useful. I'm trying to ask, in a certain way, whether there is anything special within the fundamental aspects of the range we call visible? There isn't to my knowledge, so is it the result of our light source? If not, then is it our environment? I would say it has nothing to do with us, as vision would be adapting to these other factors.

Thanks for taking your time to read my question and have a great day.

EDIT: I just realized how much Dawkin's "Middle Earth" theory influenced this question.