Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

0% of the phrases of the original Wikipedia "Ship of Theseus" article remain

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 129 posts

Re: 0% of the phrases of the original Wikipedia "Ship of Theseus" article remain

#11

Post by pavel_lishin »

midtake wrote: post #7
duskwuff wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the first version was pretty rough. It was only a couple of sentences long, and included a bizarre, irrelevant tangent ("a modern embellishment"). It's no surprise that every part of that has long since been replaced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/1154003 TBH, the same is probably true of most Wikipedia articles which were created early in the site's history. It took a while for editors to settl…

This is a problem with the Ship of Theseus thought experiment as well. When did the Ship of Theseus become a "ship"? With that being nebulous it becomes even stranger to discuss whether switching out parts compromises its personal identity.

> When did the Ship of Theseus become a "ship"?

Another submission currently on the front page might help answer that! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38670845

Re: 0% of the phrases of the original Wikipedia "Ship of Theseus" article remain

#13

Post by stevenwoo »

I read The Wager earlier this year and it’s implied that every active wooden ship eventually is a ship of Theseus, for a trip from England to the passage around South America at that time many of the ships had to be repaired along the way, though they didn’t start with all new ships.

Re: 0% of the phrases of the original Wikipedia "Ship of Theseus" article remain

#14

Post by pooper »

porphyra wrote: post #12

To be fair, the original article was rather terrible. Like what the heck is with the "modern embellishment"?

That is the secret of writing. Usually, everything is written in private. Edited, refined over time. And then published. The key is you have to start writing. Something might sound wrong or feel like sand in your socks. This is probably the most difficult part of learning to write. You can't edit and improve what you haven't written yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ship_of_Theseus&o...

Re: 0% of the phrases of the original Wikipedia "Ship of Theseus" article remain

#15

Post by airstrike »

Just like a ship would be "christened" before its maiden voyage, it feels like the very first blob of text added to a draft of an article doesn't really constitute "the original" article. It's still "being built" until it gets a sufficiently decent grade. Right now it is still rated C, even though it's been around for decades. It's like an abandoned half-built ship

(Which is not to say this tweet isn't uninteresting... but it's funnier than it is insightful)

Re: 0% of the phrases of the original Wikipedia "Ship of Theseus" article remain

#18

Post by thfuran »

tripdout wrote: post #6
duskwuff wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the first version was pretty rough. It was only a couple of sentences long, and included a bizarre, irrelevant tangent ("a modern embellishment"). It's no surprise that every part of that has long since been replaced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/1154003 TBH, the same is probably true of most Wikipedia articles which were created early in the site's history. It took a while for editors to settl…

I feel like the overall description from 2003 better explains the concept than the current article: > According to an ancient Greek legend, Theseus had a warship that was preserved as a historical relic by the Athenians. Some of its boards rotted and had to be replaced. After many, many years, many such replacements occurred. Eventually, none of the original boards were present. Philosophers could then debate whether…

Yeah, the old version is definitely much better.

Re: 0% of the phrases of the original Wikipedia "Ship of Theseus" article remain

#19

Post by hinkley »

midtake wrote: post #7
duskwuff wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the first version was pretty rough. It was only a couple of sentences long, and included a bizarre, irrelevant tangent ("a modern embellishment"). It's no surprise that every part of that has long since been replaced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/1154003 TBH, the same is probably true of most Wikipedia articles which were created early in the site's history. It took a while for editors to settl…

This is a problem with the Ship of Theseus thought experiment as well. When did the Ship of Theseus become a "ship"? With that being nebulous it becomes even stranger to discuss whether switching out parts compromises its personal identity.

I think that actually simplifies things.

You go down to the docks, you see a half assembled ship, you ask about it, and they tell you that’s Hector’s ship. It’s not a ship yet. It’s a promise of a ship, and idea.

It’s still Theseus’ ship until he loses it gambling, and whether it continues to be a ship or is sold for scrap and becomes part of five other ships… well then the idea of the ship has died.

Post reply on HN