[Shodan]

Summary of Response:

This "paradox" is merely a prime example of the holistic vs. reductionist debate at its best... or, as some would say, worst.

In practice, I would say that the crew of the aluminum ship is correct, as they are the party that is in possession of an object that is definable as being a "ship." This, though, merely scratches the surface of the theoretical, philosophical issue. Admittedly, I have not thought about this extremely deeply, but I have to believe that the "true" answer is ultimately subject to the beliefs of whoever is considering it.

~~~

Further Thoughts:

Also note that the defined characteristics of an object can change over time. Suppose that I beat the shit of you and left your bloody corpse lying on the street; would that still be your body? I think we would agree that this is so, despite the fact that your body has undergone a major alteration in its observable properties (alive to dead, bones inside to bones smashed, etc.)

Then suppose that we left your body lying out for a week, but it was in a magical stasis field that prevented its material makeup - state of decay, temperature, etc. - from changing. Does the temporal position - that is, its chronological location, its place with respect to time - itself qualify as a property of your dead body; and, if so, is your body when that stasis field deactivates the same object the dead body that I originally left murdered on the curb? What about the body three days after the stasis field was activated, when the duration of the field was still ongoing - how does that compare, in terms both of its status as the selfsame object and its properties as such - to the body when it was originally placed on the street, or the body after the stasis field deactivates? I would say that it remains the same object with the same properties throughout, with the sole - and here, irrelevant - distinction of existing at a different point in time. (As I have been reiterating, this is, naturally, entirely subjective...)

Now, considering all of this, why would the alteration of the material makeup of the Ship of Theseus prevent it from being such? The problem here is that the answer to the question of, "when does an object stop being what it originally was, as its characteristics have been so severely altered as to have incurred the destruction of the original object and the creation of a new object as its replacement?" is entirely subjective, so we are right back at ▣1 insofar as objective reasoning is concerned. Consequently, this entirely paragraph is no more than superfluous philosophizing.

I could probably write a novel about this shit if I wished, but I have no intention of doing so. In any case, people far more learned and intelligent than I have undoubtedly examined such questions and provided answers equal or superior to my own.

~~~

Another Note:

Calling something an object is, for observable purposes, entirely subjective. The same is true with its properties - what physical arrangement of atoms, quarks, etc. do we call green? When does it become red? What attention does the universe pay, or what amount of care does it give, with reference to what we consider to be a table, a chair, etc. This is all subjective and based on what the answering/solving party [in this case, us] defines to be such a thing.

I'll stop here, as I probably would write that novel I just mentioned if I did not.

~~~

Final Thoughts:

I've probably edited and added on to this post a dozen times by now, lol. I think I'm finished.

[Shodan]

Summary of Response:

This "paradox" is merely a prime example of the holistic vs. reductionist debate at its best... or, as some would say, worst.

In practice, I would say that the crew of the aluminum ship is correct, as they are the party that is in possession of an object that is definable as being a "ship." This, though, merely scratches the surface of the theoretical, philosophical issue. Admittedly, I have not thought about this extremely deeply, but I have to believe that the "true" answer is ultimately subject to the beliefs of whoever is considering it.

~~~

Further Thoughts:

Also note that the defined characteristics of an object can change over time. Suppose that I beat the shit of you and left your bloody corpse lying on the street; would that still be your body? I think we would agree that this is so, despite the fact that your body has undergone a major alteration in its observable properties (alive to dead, bones inside to bones smashed, etc.)

Then suppose that we left your body lying out for a week, but it was in a magical stasis field that prevented its material makeup - state of decay, temperature, etc. - from changing. Does the temporal position - that is, its chronological location, its place with respect to time - itself qualify as a property of your dead body; and, if so, is your body when that stasis field deactivates the same object the dead body that I originally left murdered on the curb? What about the body three days after the stasis field was activated, when the duration of the field was still ongoing - how does that compare, in terms both of its status as the selfsame object and its properties as such - to the body when it was originally placed on the street, or the body after the stasis field deactivates? I would say that it remains the same object with the same properties throughout, with the sole - and here, irrelevant - distinction of existing at a different point in time. (As I have been reiterating, this is, naturally, entirely subjective...)

Now, considering all of this, why would the alteration of the material makeup of the Ship of Theseus prevent it from being such? The problem here is that the answer to the question of, "when does an object stop being what it originally was, as its characteristics have been so severely altered as to have incurred the destruction of the original object and the creation of a new object as its replacement?" is entirely subjective, so we are right back at ▣1 insofar as objective reasoning is concerned. Consequently, this entirely paragraph is no more than superfluous philosophizing.

I could probably write a novel about this shit if I wished, but I have no intention of doing so. In any case, people far more learned and intelligent than I have undoubtedly examined such questions and provided answers equal or superior to my own.

~~~

Another Note:

Calling something an object is, for observable purposes, entirely subjective. The same is true with its properties - what physical arrangement of atoms, quarks, etc. do we call green? When does it become red? What attention does the universe pay, or what amount of care does it give, with reference to what we consider to be a table, a chair, etc. This is all subjective and based on what the answering/solving party [in this case, us] defines to be such a thing.

I'll stop here, as I probably would write that novel I just mentioned if I did not.

~~~

Final Thoughts:

I've probably edited and added on to this post a dozen times by now, lol. I think I'm finished.