Theseus' Paradox

[Subreal]

[youtube]RAA1xgTTw9w[/youtube]

[Subreal]

[youtube]RAA1xgTTw9w[/youtube]

The wooden ship would be Theo's ship. The only think that makes us question it is the time it takes for the change to occur but if we negated that time. We have a deconstructed and rebuilt wooden ship, and a newly constructed aluminum ship. Tell those asshole pirates to get a new name for their boat. Theo's a stupid fucking name anyhow.


Edit: Am I the only person who accidentally types "think" instead of "thing" on a fairly regular basis? Fuck, I feel like an idiot. I should be on Theo's stupid boat.

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

Q. Why did Theseus need two ships?

A. Because he had a paradox!!!

get it, like, a pair of docks......

hotchachachacha

The wooden ship would be Theo's ship. The only think that makes us question it is the time it takes for the change to occur but if we negated that time. We have a deconstructed and rebuilt wooden ship, and a newly constructed aluminum ship. Tell those asshole pirates to get a new name for their boat. Theo's a stupid fucking name anyhow.


Edit: Am I the only person who accidentally types "think" instead of "thing" on a fairly regular basis? Fuck, I feel like an idiot. I should be on Theo's stupid boat.

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

Q. Why did Theseus need two ships?

A. Because he had a paradox!!!

get it, like, a pair of docks......

hotchachachacha

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by exZACHly

Take any specific make and model of car for example obv all built the same, but more than one exist.

That will be making "Theseus' ship"a kind of a thing rather than a particular thing. The make and model of a car is a kind of a thing of which there can be more than one of, just like a "rapper on LetsBeef" is a kind of a thing. There are many rappers on LetsBeef. However, there is only one exZACHly; that is a lot more specific. "Theseus' ship" is a specific thing of which there can only be one of.

Originally Posted by Rant

They are both correct.

While Theseus is in possession of the aluminum ship, the materials from which the ship in the museum was made, were at a previous time the ship on which Theseus sailed.

Originally Posted by ILLoKWENT

Both are correct.. with the exception that the museum has the 'original' theseus. And the commissioned theseus is nothing more than a remodeled version.. and as long as the museum has 'all' the original pieces put together perfectly .its the same ship.. older version..

Saying they are both "Theseus' ship" violates the Law of Identity, a rule of logic which states that “each thing is the same with itself and different from another.” That "Theseus' ship" as a specific thing would be in two places at the same time is extremely counterintuitive. It isn't a subatomic particle undergoing quantum entanglement, for example, and one ship obviously does not equal the other; they are made of two entirely different materials and are in two different places.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by exZACHly

Take any specific make and model of car for example obv all built the same, but more than one exist.

That will be making "Theseus' ship"a kind of a thing rather than a particular thing. The make and model of a car is a kind of a thing of which there can be more than one of, just like a "rapper on LetsBeef" is a kind of a thing. There are many rappers on LetsBeef. However, there is only one exZACHly; that is a lot more specific. "Theseus' ship" is a specific thing of which there can only be one of.

Originally Posted by Rant

They are both correct.

While Theseus is in possession of the aluminum ship, the materials from which the ship in the museum was made, were at a previous time the ship on which Theseus sailed.

Originally Posted by ILLoKWENT

Both are correct.. with the exception that the museum has the 'original' theseus. And the commissioned theseus is nothing more than a remodeled version.. and as long as the museum has 'all' the original pieces put together perfectly .its the same ship.. older version..

Saying they are both "Theseus' ship" violates the Law of Identity, a rule of logic which states that “each thing is the same with itself and different from another.” That "Theseus' ship" as a specific thing would be in two places at the same time is extremely counterintuitive. It isn't a subatomic particle undergoing quantum entanglement, for example, and one ship obviously does not equal the other; they are made of two entirely different materials and are in two different places.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Shodan

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."

Why would the ship at the museum not be definable as a ship?

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Shodan

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."

Why would the ship at the museum not be definable as a ship?

[ILLoKWENT]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

That will be making "Theseus' ship"a kind of a thing rather than a particular thing. The make and model of a car is a kind of a thing of which there can be more than one of, just like a "rapper on LetsBeef" is a kind of a thing. There are many rappers on LetsBeef. However, there is only one exZACHly; that is a lot more specific. "Theseus' ship" is a specific thing of which there can only be one of.



Saying they are both "Theseus' ship" violates the Law of Identity, a rule of logic which states that “each thing is the same with itself and different from another.” That "Theseus' ship" as a specific thing would be in two places at the same time is extremely counterintuitive. It isn't a subatomic particle undergoing quantum entanglement, for example, and one ship obviously does not equal the other; they are made of two entirely different materials and are in two different places.

Th8nking about the question more. I realized that the aluminum ship is theseus' ship... the museum took discarded pieces of theseus original ship and put it together.. but since they were discarded remains and if you go by 'finders keepers/another mans trash is another mans treasure' rule... then the ship in the museum is no longer theseus' ship . Its now the ' museum's' ship built to perfectly replicate the original.. so the solution:theseus true ship is the aluminum.. museums ship is the rebuilt one.

[ILLoKWENT]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

That will be making "Theseus' ship"a kind of a thing rather than a particular thing. The make and model of a car is a kind of a thing of which there can be more than one of, just like a "rapper on LetsBeef" is a kind of a thing. There are many rappers on LetsBeef. However, there is only one exZACHly; that is a lot more specific. "Theseus' ship" is a specific thing of which there can only be one of.



Saying they are both "Theseus' ship" violates the Law of Identity, a rule of logic which states that “each thing is the same with itself and different from another.” That "Theseus' ship" as a specific thing would be in two places at the same time is extremely counterintuitive. It isn't a subatomic particle undergoing quantum entanglement, for example, and one ship obviously does not equal the other; they are made of two entirely different materials and are in two different places.

Th8nking about the question more. I realized that the aluminum ship is theseus' ship... the museum took discarded pieces of theseus original ship and put it together.. but since they were discarded remains and if you go by 'finders keepers/another mans trash is another mans treasure' rule... then the ship in the museum is no longer theseus' ship . Its now the ' museum's' ship built to perfectly replicate the original.. so the solution:theseus true ship is the aluminum.. museums ship is the rebuilt one.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

Why would the ship at the museum not be definable as a ship?

In this post, I will assume that reality exists externally and independently of any mind (including my own) - that is, non-solipsistically. If we were to assume otherwise then this would go nowhere.

Near as I can tell, your logic here is based on the incorrect concept that objects can be objectively placed into an abstract category of something. They cannot. Such a mentality is extremely reminiscent of the ideas of the ancient Greeks, who either said that everything is composed of indivisible chunks of object, or - in the case of the early atomists - that it was composed of miniscule particles of object. This is a very human and apparently sensible way of thinking about things but it has nothing to do with reality.

The universe is composed of one or more types of "building blocks," that is, the fundamental composition of reality. Right now, that would appear to be strings, but we don't know for certain. Everything in the universe, everything under everything and everything over everything, is composed of building blocks of some sort. So when we see an object, we aren't seeing an abstract object with specific properties (abstract or otherwise) that objectively exists; rather, we are seeing a configuration of these building blocks that meets certain conditions, and then assigning it the property of being that object. The strings, atoms, molecules, etc. that make up a ship are not themselves chunks of ship - rather, they are particles with certain properties, existing mostly independently of one another, that happen to be in the right points in space and time.

It is the same thing that causes you to be able to read this message. All that actually exists here are electronic signals in various computers being processed and transferred around, as well as photons from the monitor entering your eye so that you can process them. Even the very act of computers processing this message is just particles, charges, and building blocks moving around by interacting with one another. None of this message has any meaning until you process it and assign it a meaning. So, while the signals that make up this message objectively exist, the fact that it is a message, as well as any meaning derived from it, only exist subjectively inside of your mind.

It is also the same reason why it is so difficult to make a computer learn to recognize images. While your brain is hardwired to make abstractions and see abstract objects and categories of such with similarly abstract properties, a computer algorithm sees what is really there - bits, bytes, and pixels - but doesn't have the abstraction capabilities of a human.

With all of this in mind (and I hope I've stated my argument clearly enough to be understood - my writing has never been particularly easy to grasp), it should be obvious that nothing is definable as a "ship" unless the person observing the conglomeration of things existing in the universe decides that it is a ship.

There are no, and indeed cannot be, any completely accurate and objective criteria for determining what is and is not a ship, as the concept of a "ship" is made up by humans - is a ship a superset of the other types of ships? Is a corsair a ship? What about a large fish? What if you hollowed out a giant pumpkin and went downstream in it? Therefore, for any practical purpose, it makes sense to say that the museum is not in possession of the Ship of Theseus, as they do not possess what I, or most people, would define as a ship.

tl;dr: because 1. the universe doesn't care about human abstractions and 2. I think that what the museum has isn't a ship while what the crew is sailing is.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

Why would the ship at the museum not be definable as a ship?

In this post, I will assume that reality exists externally and independently of any mind (including my own) - that is, non-solipsistically. If we were to assume otherwise then this would go nowhere.

Near as I can tell, your logic here is based on the incorrect concept that objects can be objectively placed into an abstract category of something. They cannot. Such a mentality is extremely reminiscent of the ideas of the ancient Greeks, who either said that everything is composed of indivisible chunks of object, or - in the case of the early atomists - that it was composed of miniscule particles of object. This is a very human and apparently sensible way of thinking about things but it has nothing to do with reality.

The universe is composed of one or more types of "building blocks," that is, the fundamental composition of reality. Right now, that would appear to be strings, but we don't know for certain. Everything in the universe, everything under everything and everything over everything, is composed of building blocks of some sort. So when we see an object, we aren't seeing an abstract object with specific properties (abstract or otherwise) that objectively exists; rather, we are seeing a configuration of these building blocks that meets certain conditions, and then assigning it the property of being that object. The strings, atoms, molecules, etc. that make up a ship are not themselves chunks of ship - rather, they are particles with certain properties, existing mostly independently of one another, that happen to be in the right points in space and time.

It is the same thing that causes you to be able to read this message. All that actually exists here are electronic signals in various computers being processed and transferred around, as well as photons from the monitor entering your eye so that you can process them. Even the very act of computers processing this message is just particles, charges, and building blocks moving around by interacting with one another. None of this message has any meaning until you process it and assign it a meaning. So, while the signals that make up this message objectively exist, the fact that it is a message, as well as any meaning derived from it, only exist subjectively inside of your mind.

It is also the same reason why it is so difficult to make a computer learn to recognize images. While your brain is hardwired to make abstractions and see abstract objects and categories of such with similarly abstract properties, a computer algorithm sees what is really there - bits, bytes, and pixels - but doesn't have the abstraction capabilities of a human.

With all of this in mind (and I hope I've stated my argument clearly enough to be understood - my writing has never been particularly easy to grasp), it should be obvious that nothing is definable as a "ship" unless the person observing the conglomeration of things existing in the universe decides that it is a ship.

There are no, and indeed cannot be, any completely accurate and objective criteria for determining what is and is not a ship, as the concept of a "ship" is made up by humans - is a ship a superset of the other types of ships? Is a corsair a ship? What about a large fish? What if you hollowed out a giant pumpkin and went downstream in it? Therefore, for any practical purpose, it makes sense to say that the museum is not in possession of the Ship of Theseus, as they do not possess what I, or most people, would define as a ship.

tl;dr: because 1. the universe doesn't care about human abstractions and 2. I think that what the museum has isn't a ship while what the crew is sailing is.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Shodan

In this post, I will assume that reality exists externally and independently of any mind (including my own) - that is, non-solipsistically. If we were to assume otherwise then this would go nowhere.

Near as I can tell, your logic here is based on the incorrect concept that objects can be objectively placed into an abstract category of something. They cannot. Such a mentality is extremely reminiscent of the ideas of the ancient Greeks, who either said that everything is composed of indivisible chunks of object, or - in the case of the early atomists - that it was composed of miniscule particles of object. This is a very human and apparently sensible way of thinking about things but it has nothing to do with reality.

The universe is composed of one or more types of "building blocks," that is, the fundamental composition of reality. Right now, that would appear to be strings, but we don't know for certain. Everything in the universe, everything under everything and everything over everything, is composed of building blocks of some sort. So when we see an object, we aren't seeing an abstract object with specific properties (abstract or otherwise) that objectively exists; rather, we are seeing a configuration of these building blocks that meets certain conditions, and then assigning it the property of being that object. The strings, atoms, molecules, etc. that make up a ship are not themselves chunks of ship - rather, they are particles with certain properties, existing mostly independently of one another, that happen to be in the right points in space and time.

It is the same thing that causes you to be able to read this message. All that actually exists here are electronic signals in various computers being processed and transferred around, as well as photons from the monitor entering your eye so that you can process them. Even the very act of computers processing this message is just particles, charges, and building blocks moving around by interacting with one another. None of this message has any meaning until you process it and assign it a meaning. So, while the signals that make up this message objectively exist, the fact that it is a message, as well as any meaning derived from it, only exist subjectively inside of your mind.

It is also the same reason why it is so difficult to make a computer learn to recognize images. While your brain is hardwired to make abstractions and see abstract objects and categories of such with similarly abstract properties, a computer algorithm sees what is really there - bits, bytes, and pixels - but doesn't have the abstraction capabilities of a human.

With all of this in mind (and I hope I've stated my argument clearly enough to be understood - my writing has never been particularly easy to grasp), it should be obvious that nothing is definable as a "ship" unless the person observing the conglomeration of things existing in the universe decides that it is a ship.

There are no, and indeed cannot be, any completely accurate and objective criteria for determining what is and is not a ship, as the concept of a "ship" is made up by humans - is a ship a superset of the other types of ships? Is a corsair a ship? What about a large fish? What if you hollowed out a giant pumpkin and went downstream in it? Therefore, for any practical purpose, it makes sense to say that the museum is not in possession of the Ship of Theseus, as they do not possess what I, or most people, would define as a ship.

tl;dr: because 1. the universe doesn't care about human abstractions and 2. I think that what the museum has isn't a ship while what the crew is sailing is.

I'm not sure where you are getting at with saying my "logic here is based on the incorrect concept that objects can be objectively placed into an abstract category of something." To refer to a ship or any other thing, is that not based on the concept that objects can be objectively placed in a category? Your earlier statement seemed to suggest that the aluminium ship that is being sailed is definable as a ship while the one in the museum is not. Now you are saying that nothing is (objectively) definable as a ship since ships are made up by humans. You seem to contradict yourself though. When you say that you assume reality exists externally and independently of your mind or any observer, that sounds like an argument for objectivity. So objectivity exists, but nothing is objectively definable? Then how do you know objectivity exists? I wasn't aware that most people wouldn't define the ship in the museum as a ship, and that is what I was trying to find out when I asked why the one in the water would be more definable as a ship rather than the one in the museum. If your answer had been something like "because it is the one being sailed, ships are objects which are sailed," for example, it would have opened up a new set of problems. I probably would have asked if the aluminium ship was still a ship while it was docked and not being sailed. The "ship" in the museum could still be sailed if it were placed in the water. Is its not being "definable" as a ship then solely because it is not being used as such? Is it safe to assume your final answer is to say "there is no Ship of Theseus and there never has been because ships cannot be objectively defined?"

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Shodan

In this post, I will assume that reality exists externally and independently of any mind (including my own) - that is, non-solipsistically. If we were to assume otherwise then this would go nowhere.

Near as I can tell, your logic here is based on the incorrect concept that objects can be objectively placed into an abstract category of something. They cannot. Such a mentality is extremely reminiscent of the ideas of the ancient Greeks, who either said that everything is composed of indivisible chunks of object, or - in the case of the early atomists - that it was composed of miniscule particles of object. This is a very human and apparently sensible way of thinking about things but it has nothing to do with reality.

The universe is composed of one or more types of "building blocks," that is, the fundamental composition of reality. Right now, that would appear to be strings, but we don't know for certain. Everything in the universe, everything under everything and everything over everything, is composed of building blocks of some sort. So when we see an object, we aren't seeing an abstract object with specific properties (abstract or otherwise) that objectively exists; rather, we are seeing a configuration of these building blocks that meets certain conditions, and then assigning it the property of being that object. The strings, atoms, molecules, etc. that make up a ship are not themselves chunks of ship - rather, they are particles with certain properties, existing mostly independently of one another, that happen to be in the right points in space and time.

It is the same thing that causes you to be able to read this message. All that actually exists here are electronic signals in various computers being processed and transferred around, as well as photons from the monitor entering your eye so that you can process them. Even the very act of computers processing this message is just particles, charges, and building blocks moving around by interacting with one another. None of this message has any meaning until you process it and assign it a meaning. So, while the signals that make up this message objectively exist, the fact that it is a message, as well as any meaning derived from it, only exist subjectively inside of your mind.

It is also the same reason why it is so difficult to make a computer learn to recognize images. While your brain is hardwired to make abstractions and see abstract objects and categories of such with similarly abstract properties, a computer algorithm sees what is really there - bits, bytes, and pixels - but doesn't have the abstraction capabilities of a human.

With all of this in mind (and I hope I've stated my argument clearly enough to be understood - my writing has never been particularly easy to grasp), it should be obvious that nothing is definable as a "ship" unless the person observing the conglomeration of things existing in the universe decides that it is a ship.

There are no, and indeed cannot be, any completely accurate and objective criteria for determining what is and is not a ship, as the concept of a "ship" is made up by humans - is a ship a superset of the other types of ships? Is a corsair a ship? What about a large fish? What if you hollowed out a giant pumpkin and went downstream in it? Therefore, for any practical purpose, it makes sense to say that the museum is not in possession of the Ship of Theseus, as they do not possess what I, or most people, would define as a ship.

tl;dr: because 1. the universe doesn't care about human abstractions and 2. I think that what the museum has isn't a ship while what the crew is sailing is.

I'm not sure where you are getting at with saying my "logic here is based on the incorrect concept that objects can be objectively placed into an abstract category of something." To refer to a ship or any other thing, is that not based on the concept that objects can be objectively placed in a category? Your earlier statement seemed to suggest that the aluminium ship that is being sailed is definable as a ship while the one in the museum is not. Now you are saying that nothing is (objectively) definable as a ship since ships are made up by humans. You seem to contradict yourself though. When you say that you assume reality exists externally and independently of your mind or any observer, that sounds like an argument for objectivity. So objectivity exists, but nothing is objectively definable? Then how do you know objectivity exists? I wasn't aware that most people wouldn't define the ship in the museum as a ship, and that is what I was trying to find out when I asked why the one in the water would be more definable as a ship rather than the one in the museum. If your answer had been something like "because it is the one being sailed, ships are objects which are sailed," for example, it would have opened up a new set of problems. I probably would have asked if the aluminium ship was still a ship while it was docked and not being sailed. The "ship" in the museum could still be sailed if it were placed in the water. Is its not being "definable" as a ship then solely because it is not being used as such? Is it safe to assume your final answer is to say "there is no Ship of Theseus and there never has been because ships cannot be objectively defined?"

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

Is it safe to assume your final answer is to say "there is no Ship of Theseus and there never has been because ships cannot be objectively defined?"

Yes.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

Is it safe to assume your final answer is to say "there is no Ship of Theseus and there never has been because ships cannot be objectively defined?"

Yes.

[Subreal]

This is exactly why philosophy is a joke. Philosophy is even less of a science than psychology is. There isn't going to be a right answer, there are probably tons of plausible "solutions" that they call "theories" for the "problem" you put in the OP. And at the end of the day the answer is who the hell cares. ANY "solution" you pick is merely a theory and by accepting one thing you are usually denying something else, there is no right answer because its a fucking pseudoscience and its all bullshit.

Neither ships are the ship of Theseus, however they both contain a part of it.

[Subreal]

This is exactly why philosophy is a joke. Philosophy is even less of a science than psychology is. There isn't going to be a right answer, there are probably tons of plausible "solutions" that they call "theories" for the "problem" you put in the OP. And at the end of the day the answer is who the hell cares. ANY "solution" you pick is merely a theory and by accepting one thing you are usually denying something else, there is no right answer because its a fucking pseudoscience and its all bullshit.

Neither ships are the ship of Theseus, however they both contain a part of it.

[Shodan]

@Subreal I, personally, lost all of my respect for philosophy when I was reading through a list of philosophy dissertations, including their titles, authors, date of publication, etc. One of them was called Explaining the Wrong of Rape.

If you need somebody to explain to you why rape is wrong, may I kindly suggest that you seek professional help immediately?

~~~

@Aggo: Paradox/pair uh' dox... that's a fuckin bar, yo

[Shodan]

@Subreal I, personally, lost all of my respect for philosophy when I was reading through a list of philosophy dissertations, including their titles, authors, date of publication, etc. One of them was called Explaining the Wrong of Rape.

If you need somebody to explain to you why rape is wrong, may I kindly suggest that you seek professional help immediately?

~~~

@Aggo: Paradox/pair uh' dox... that's a fuckin bar, yo