The Ship Theseus

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;51652 wrote:

nameless wrote:

The 'problems' that flat earthers find are of no interest to anyone who is not a 'flat earther'

Are you trying to use the book Flat Landers as reference material?

Did you even read my post?

Quote:

Even the most ardent quantum physicists still have interest in "problems" presented in this "flat earth".

I don't think that we are communicating at all. In what 'flat earth' do "most ardent quantum physicists still have interest"? What are you talking about?

Quote:

You're supposing one should deny any family/political/livlihood "problems" (practically anything life-related) once the fundamentals of quantum mechanics are learned? Haha.

No, I'm not.
Haha.

Jezus! I'm going to continue! Proof that there is no 'free-will/choice' or I would have walked from this obnoxious post by now just due to the snide tone. I'm so sure that there's more to come, too. Shall we see? (Puts on rubber boots and wades in...)

Quote:

It may be a 'non'-problem to you, but don't place the cause of your newfounded epiphany on the shoulders of quantum mechanics -- it was your interpretation of how to live your life after discovering quantum mechanics that led you here. One can still find value in contemplating "problems" such as this and still have interest in the 'quantum world'.

Son, now i know who to consult when I need to learn anything about myself. So far, in this irritating post you have said absolutely nothing of any value. You bark at my heels (arrogant puppy!) as if you have a real problem with something that I said, yet cannot seem to focus on any specific problem. Are we just going to kiss all night or do you have something specific to discuss, rationally, logically, respectfully, critically thoughtfully?

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:Originally Posted by nameless
The 'flat earth' that you dearly love and attach to is now obsolete.
Quantum is not a way to make sense of the 'world', it describes an entirely new reality/universe!

So, this is just how you address everything?

Nope. What makes you think so? And even if I did, would that devalue the truth of the statement?
Reduced to ad homs are we?

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:Originally Posted by nameless
Notions and emotions (though part of 'truth/reality') have no importance in the answering of a scientific/logical question such as the one posed.

This is a scientific question?

Do you see a question mark? I don't. That is a 'statement', notice the difference? (what, don't like the tone?)

Quote:

Interesting, I guess I missed the part where it was announced one had to utilize the scientific method to derive an answer.

What is it that you are trying so desperately to defend?

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:Originally Posted by nameless
'Meaning' is in the eye of the beholder.
'Identity' is different from moment to moment.

...huh?

I don't understand your differentiation. As far as I understand, identity is part of the application of meaning.

Now we just have a nice conversation? Am I being led into a false sense of security? Stay tuned!
With which of those two sentences (or both) do you disagree. Do you deny that 'meaning' is in the eye of the beholder, or do you deny that every moment is uniquely different from other moments?
I do not know what you mean by the "identity is part of the application of meaning".

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:Originally Posted by nameless
What you emotionally/egoically 'identify' with is not logic or science, it is ego and psychological processes.

That's correct, Shrodinger.

See! That was the problem. I'm nameless, not Schroedinger.

Quote:

you make choices with emotion just like the rest of us.

You are quite the presumptuous puppy. I make no 'choices'.

Quote:

Sorry you can't see you're just as 'human'!

Again, anytime that I need some self knowledge, I'll come right to you, son. Thanks for the freebie; worth every sheckle! *__-

(Didn't I tell ya we'd be back to this? How come you made this all personal? Did I say something to threaten a 'belief'?)

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:Originally Posted by nameless
Welcome to the 'new' QM world. You can never really 'know' anything, you 'believe/think' that you do is all, emotion and ego and psychology rather than science and critical thought.

Oh. Then how do you 'know' any of quantum mechanics is true, then?

Your question illustrates your ignorance of modern science, QM.
Every, EVERY, prediction by QM has manifested!
Over 1/4 of the US economy (yeah, even before this little problem, and Bush..) is based on the information constantly pouring from QM.
The evidence says that QM is the best that we, to date, have to understand a universe so much larger and more infinitely complex than you could possible imagine.
Perhaps because you are "only human".
Now, this was not a philosophical conversation (and fruitless) and this is a philosophy site, so, I'll leave it here.
Peace

0 Replies

@sthack99,

So, instead of actually responding to my posts, you decided to do a commentary on my supposed snide remarks. Well, that's fine, I enjoy the humor, and I definitely deserved it; rereading I see how I came off. I understand why you've responded in this manner, and I apologize if I came off too brash; these weren't ad hom attacks, I was simply perplexed at your claims.

More specifically, if you're still willing to converse with me, I would like clarification on:

Quote:

What you emotionally/egoically 'identify' with is not logic or science, it is ego and psychological processes.

Quote:

'Meaning' is in the eye of the beholder.
'Identity' is different from moment to moment.

Quote:

Truth/reality is 'important'.
Notions and emotions (though part of 'truth/reality') have no importance in the answering of a scientific/logical question such as the one posed. Knowledge eliminates many questions, such as this one.

Quote:

The 'flat earth' that you dearly love and attach to is now obsolete.
Quantum is not a way to make sense of the 'world', it describes an entirely new reality/universe!

Quote:

The 'problems' that flat earthers find are of no interest to anyone who is not a 'flat earther'. Irrelevent to modern scientific and logical thought. A 'non'-problem. Do you have a problem with pink elephants, also? The 'problem' (problems are in the eyes of the beholders) was due to illusion. No illusion? No problem!

Be well and thanks for the discussion, apologizing once again for my brash tone,

Zetherin

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;51751 wrote:

So, instead of actually responding to my posts, you decided to do a commentary on my supposed snide remarks.

There were no specifics to respond to.

Quote:

More specifically, if you're still willing to converse with me, I would like clarification on:

I'm tired. Perhaps if there is one specific clarification that you would like to pursue, lets go with that one, for now. Your list is daunting and would consume more time than I have right now.

Quote:

Be well and thanks for the discussion, apologizing once again for my brash tone,

No prob. We all have the a$$hole geme. It manifests as it does. I don't see it too much in you, though. Glad it's passed.
Water under the bridge.
Let me know what your primary problem is with what i wrote (specifics!) and i'll be happy to answer questions/elucidate.

Peace

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I gave you an example of reestablishment of previously established identity:

You did. It was a very special case and the point of my analogy was to draw generalisations. But I think, as you noted below, we are talking at cross purposes without necessarily fundamentally disagreeing.

Zetherin wrote:

You're merely speaking of "identity" in the case of physicality, because of the ship problem. Which is fair, I should have clarified beforehand.

My point was that instantaneous subjective consciousness (assuming you agree that it is instantaneous) is insufficient as grounds to define identity because subjective consciousness is very easily confused. The boat problem is much the same, which suggests to me that, if you agree that there is a unique set of properties that identify an entity, and that thus this set suffices to define an objective identity, objective identity is more useful than its subjective counterpart. At least if we are to generalise. Of course, as this problem shows, objective identity is tricky, but I think there might be a reasonable solution to it that can be generalised, whereas the problem of subjectively re-establishing identity always comes down to specific additional requirements.

Zetherin wrote:

Again, I should have clarified further that I wasn't merely speaking of objective identity; I took the conversation to a new level (humans intricacies) without alarming you. For this I apologize.

No need. Like I said, we were coming from different angles and seem to be converging to some mutual understanding. This is always good.

Zetherin wrote:

What is the difference between "Form" and "Physicality"? In the case of a ship, I would think the judgment of identity would be predominantly dependent on visual perception.

Yes... I can explain this in the case of the Theseus. The ship built from new parts was always a ship, and indeed was at least once the Theseus, but is physically different everywhere to the Theseus brought in for repair. This is what I meant by conservation of form: here the form is 'shipness', and specifically 'Theseusness'.

The ship built from old parts has the same physicality as the Theseus everywhere, however it was not always a ship. Since the Theseus is a ship, it was not always the Theseus, yet it always consisted of the same physical components, even when it was a pile of wood. Hence conservation of physicality. Of course, you are probably objecting that the arrangement of components consitutes elements of physicality and you would be quite right. I simply ignore these in counting in conservation.

Zetherin wrote:

I don't really understand how identity can be objective. Isn't the application of identity, the application of meaning, subjectively applied? Existence would be objective, but I don't see how identity is. Perhaps I'm just not understanding the definition of "identity" being used here.

I'm assuming you guys are defining "identity" as Ann Rand's Objectivist axiom:

"Objectivism regards identity as the essence of existence: "Existence is Identity." The corollary of this is the Law of Identity, which states that everything that exists has an identity, and that whatever has an identity is an existent"

Again, perhaps I've been misinterpreting the word "identity" the entire time. I perceived "identity" as something that comes after the fact -- the whole which is the 'real' ship debate.

I think the problem is that we've all been entertaining multiple ideas of identity without being as clear as perhaps we should.

There exists, objectively, an entity. That entity has, objectively, a set of properties. That entity is not another entity (it is the same only as itself) nor is any other entity that entity (nothing is the same as it except itself). Thus the properties of that entity uniquely identify it. This unique identification is its objective identity.

0 Replies

@ACB,

ACB wrote:

I agree with all of the above. Please let me know if you disagree with anything I said about the Lucy/Suzy problem in my post #29.

I don't think I disagrees with anything you said on either. The point with the Lucy/Suzy problem is that we can't have all the relevent information about either: we rely on authority. If Lucy says she is Suzy, pending any telltale signs (which again gets into specific requirements for resolution), we will believe this woman hates dogs: that that is an aspect of her identity. That she doesn't hate dogs is, for me, a summing up of why subjectively assigned 'identity' doesn't identify.

ACB wrote:

Why not? Why should the owner be the final arbiter on the matter?

This came up because of the difference in approach. Remaining with the subjectively assigned identity, to the owner the state of the boat between being dropped off for and picked up after repairs is irrelevent - not-existent, you might say. I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said other than in invalidating the analogy while changing methods. My point was to argue for an objective approach, so in fact I think the owner isn't the final arbiter on the matter. But we can't use objectivity to discuss the subjective approach.

ACB wrote:

To simplify matters, I would prefer to say that identity is always objective. In the Lucy/Suzy case, it is objective and decidable (given sufficient knowledge). In the Theseus case, it is objective but undecidable, because the term 'identity' (though perfectly clear normally) is too imprecise to give a definite answer in such an unusual situation.

As I said before, the Lucy/Suzy problem was a test of the subjective identity theory. This perhaps wasn't clear without reading all of Zetherin and my previous conversation. I should have made it clearer to others: assume identity is subjective and take that to its logical conclusion.

I think subjective identity is separate to objective identity and in the case of the Theseus it is a question of objective identity. You can't actually start to answer the question for subjective identity without knowing whose subjective we're discussing and their history in relation to the ship's repair.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I don't really understand how identity can be objective. Isn't the application of identity, the application of meaning, subjectively applied? Existence would be objective, but I don't see how identity is. Perhaps I'm just not understanding the definition of "identity" being used here.

I see your point, but if identity (= identicalness) were purely subjective, the Theseus Ship would surely not be the well-known 'paradox' that it is. I think of the attribution of identity as being like the interpretation of a law; the law itself is objective but its interpretation is subjective. Because the word 'identity' is ambiguous in the special circumstances of the Theseus case (what precisely does 'the same' mean?), different people may come to different conclusions (if any) as to which ship (if either) is the real Theseus. But they are still trying to apply objective criteria; the matter cannot be decided on the owner's (or anyone else's) whim. Otherwise, the owner could decide arbitrarily that a third ship, newly built, was the real Theseus, and no-one could say he was 'wrong'.

By the way, when I say 'identicalness' I mean it in a broad sense, as implied by the 'paradox'. Obviously (as has been pointed out) two things existing at different times cannot, by definition, be absolutely identical.

0 Replies

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

I think subjective identity is separate to objective identity and in the case of the Theseus it is a question of objective identity. You can't actually start to answer the question for subjective identity without knowing whose subjective we're discussing and their history in relation to the ship's repair.

Yes, I agree it's a question of objective identity. Thanks for clarifying your position.

I am not sure whether 'subjective identity' is a useful concept, but I will think about this further.

0 Replies

@sthack99,

Quote:

There exists, objectively, an entity. That entity has, objectively, a set of properties. That entity is not another entity (it is the same only as itself) nor is any other entity that entity (nothing is the same as it except itself). Thus the properties of that entity uniquely identify it. This unique identification is its objective identity.

This is Ann Rand's Law of Identity, in a nutshell, as noted earlier.

I understand your distinction between subjective identity and objective identity, and I understand what is being said here: Existence has a set of properties, these properties construct identity.

However, how I've pondered this in my mind is as follows:

It seems more clear to me things just are before meaning/identity is applied. The existence has no identity before rationalization, in this case, conscious rationalization by a human. Therefore, all identity is subjective, as it is an application of meaning. There is no objective meaning -- we apply the meaning. The asteroid in the sky only becomes the asteroid in the sky after it's observed and identity applied. Before that, it just was.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

This is Ann Rand's Law of Identity, in a nutshell, as noted earlier.

Oops! Sorry. Well, then I'm with Ann, I guess.

Zetherin wrote:

It seems more clear to me things just are before meaning/identity is applied. The existence has no identity before rationalization, in this case, conscious rationalization by a human. Therefore, all identity is subjective, as it is an application of meaning. There is no objective meaning -- we apply the meaning. The asteroid in the sky only becomes the asteroid in the sky after it's observed and identity applied. Before that, it just was.

I agree there is no objective meaning, and so this property that identifies an object to a subjective consciousness (which is required to infer meaning) is a property of the subjective identity only. This does not prohibit us speaking in abstract of the objective identity though: in fact in an abstract problem we cannot possibly consider a general subjective consciousness and so cannot use 'meaning' in the treatment at all. If the question were worded differently we might.
I'm rather reminded of the electrostatic phenomenon of images, though this is just as analogy. Take two particles of like charge: an electron and muon, say, and place them equidistant from a perfect conductor. These two particles are different: they have different unique sets of properties. However the image charges created on the conductor are identical.
The charges are objects with objective properties and objective identities. The conductor is subjective consciousness. The image charges are subjective identities: our ideas of what the objects are. Since we don't have all the information, the subjective identities are less complete, but since we are inside the subjective consciousness, they are the only identities that are useful to us in practical situations. Fortunately we have abstract minds so we can consider objective identities in principle.
As for the asteroid, this perhaps is a difference in ontology. An asteroid, to me, is an object that has a set of properties. These properties identify it as an asteroid - not as the word 'asteroid' or the idea of 'asteroid' but as a body in space. An unobserved asteroid is different to an unobservered comet. Those differences identify them as that which we call asteroid and comet respectively.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

I would sail on the One made of new parts, and the one made of old I would turn into a museum, to help pay for the trip.
Bon voyage!

=
MJA

0 Replies

@sthack99,

Quote:

These properties identify it as an asteroid - not as the word 'asteroid' or the idea of 'asteroid' but as a body in space. An unobserved asteroid is different to an unobservered comet. Those differences identify them as that which we call asteroid and comet respectively.

I completely understand where you're coming from. Before this thread, I probably wouldn't have used "identity" to describe these objective properties. Thanks once again for the insight.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I completely understand where you're coming from. Before this thread, I probably wouldn't have used "identity" to describe these objective properties. Thanks once again for the insight.

Thank you also for the discussion. It's certainly made me think differently. Still can't solve the Theseus thing though... :brickwall:

0 Replies

@sthack99,

Here is an excerpt from a book I'm reading regarding the matter:

"Theseus' victory over the minotaur in the labyrinth of Crete was commemorated every seven years using the ship. Over time the planks and other parts had to be replaced. Eventually entirely new materials composed the ship. Was it same ship?

There is no question that it was the only ship entitled to participate in the ceremony. So perhaps the identity of the ship is a social ascription."

From an objective standpoint, if it didn't have the same exact properties, it wouldn't be the same ship (anymore than two asteroids would be the same asteroid). From a social standpoint, considering the consensus was that it's memory remain, it would be the same ship.

EDIT: It appears the Theseus question posted here, and the one in this book, are a tad different -- there isn't a second ship created. Nevertheless, neither ship would be the original Theseus, from an objective standpoint. Socially, the 'real' ship would be determined by consensus (whichever ship was decided to be held in the ceremony).

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

From an objective standpoint, if it didn't have the same exact properties, it wouldn't be the same ship (anymore than two asteroids would be the same asteroid). From a social standpoint, considering the consensus was that it's memory remain, it would be the same ship.

This was my original thinking behind stating the ship of old parts to be the real Theseus. However, this depends on whether or not the properties that constitute an identity are fixed or time-varying.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

This was my original thinking behind stating the ship of old parts to be the real Theseus. However, this depends on whether or not the properties that constitute an identity are fixed or time-varying.

I think the time-varying constitution is irrelevant, in this particular problem. Yes, the universe is in a constant flux, meaning nothing is exactly the same as it was a moment before, but I don't think deterioration is a factor here. The properties that constitute the objective identity here are fixed insofar as there frankly isn't much of a time spread (so far as I've assumed).

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Nevertheless, neither ship would be the original Theseus, from an objective standpoint. Socially, the 'real' ship would be determined by consensus (whichever ship was decided to be held in the ceremony).

Yes, I agree. But one hopes it would not be the ship with the old parts, as it would probably sink!

1 Reply

@ACB,

ACB wrote:

... But one hopes it would not be the ship with the old parts, as it would probably sink!

... or it would last longer; having been built prior to the time when we decided to design in component failure to necessitate buying more Smile

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I think the time-varying constitution is irrelevant, in this particular problem. Yes, the universe is in a constant flux, meaning nothing is exactly the same as it was a moment before, but I don't think deterioration is a factor here. The properties that constitute the objective identity here are fixed insofar as there frankly isn't much of a time spread (so far as I've assumed).

On the contrary, I think it's the crux of the matter. The ship of new parts has constantly changed physical constitution, and so some of its properties, since it was the Theseus. The ship of old parts has been dismantled and re... mantled since it was the Theseus.

If all identity properties are immutable
--New ship cannot be the Theseus
--If an identity can be unoccupied and reoccupied
----Old ship is the Theseus
--Else
----No ship is the Theseus
If identity properties may be time-varying
--If first and foremost property is immutable
----New ship is the Theseus
--Else
----Old ship is the Theseus

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

On the contrary, I think it's the crux of the matter. The ship of new parts has constantly changed physical constitution, and so some of its properties, since it was the Theseus. The ship of old parts has been dismantled and re... mantled since it was the Theseus.

If all identity properties are immutable
--New ship cannot be the Theseus
--If an identity can be unoccupied and reoccupied
----Old ship is the Theseus
--Else
----No ship is the Theseus
If identity properties may be time-varying
--If first and foremost property is immutable
----New ship is the Theseus
--Else
----Old ship is the Theseus

What I meant was, since the time span isn't very long (in this particular problem), I don't see deterioration of the wood being a factor. The ship of new parts did change physical constitution, but the old parts I don't think varied from what the old parts were initially (or maybe they do and that's why they were replaced in the first place)

Objective identity properties are mutable, the way I see it. If we cut down a tree, we're changing the form of that once particular identity (the tree). Some instances are irrevocable, but it appears some are revocable, as I will detail.
Objective identity properties are time-varying, but as I note, I don't think deterioration is a factor here -- the parts were redistributed, but the properties not completely changed (from each piece of old wood), from what I understand.

I've reconsidered this some more, and I don't see how the new ship constructed could be the 'real' Theseus, from an objective standpoint. It's not constructed by the same materials that held the ship's initial objective properties. New properties (from new wood) mean a new ship.

The only thing I'm debating now is whether the old ship reconstructed is still the same ship objectively. If the same components were reconstructed in the same exact way, couldn't it be deemed the same ship -- the 'real' Theseus from an objective standpoint? The same properties (from old wood) could yield the same ship. Granted, if there would be any deviation either in the wood (due to time-variance, etc.), or construction (ship builder deviation), there could be argument against the objective identity being the same.

I think this is what you reiterated above, and after reconsidering, I'm still not sure.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Ultimately, all that can be said is the following:

In one (objective) sense, the old ship is the Theseus.
In another (objective) sense, the new ship is the Theseus.
In a third (objective) sense, neither ship is the Theseus.

Any of these senses can be justified, by thinking of 'identity' in different ways. There is no unique answer to be discovered.

2 Replies

The Ship Theseus

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know