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

81–90 of 129 posts

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

#81

Post by tiffanyg »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #17

From the first reply to the Mastadon post linked by u/manicennui: >@mori@mastodon.au @wikipedia And yet, the Ship of Theseus page remains, thus proving a bird in the hand is worth two stitches in time.

Would have been better if they hadn't bungled their mixed metonymy...

It's a stitch in the bird is worth a pound of eggs off a duck's back, as everyone knows...*

* Courtesy of the excellent "Field Guide of Egregious Mixed Metonomies", soon to be published by Penguin Random House Simon Schuster Merriam Webster Britannica, I'm told

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

#82

Post by ordu »

deadbabe wrote: post #34

The solution to the Ship of Theseus is obviously that there is no Ship of Theseus. All things are just events in time, long moments where matter is organized into some structure for a while and then breaks apart again, and we assign names to those events. Some happen so quick that naming them is pointless and others are so slow to dissipate that a name becomes useful.

The solution is to treat the Ship of Theseus not as an object but as a process. I believe it is what you are saying just with different words. It is no help to claim that there is no Ship of Theseus, because it is. Or at least it was. Or some says it was.

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

#84

Post by escapecharacter »

deadbabe wrote: post #34

The solution to the Ship of Theseus is obviously that there is no Ship of Theseus. All things are just events in time, long moments where matter is organized into some structure for a while and then breaks apart again, and we assign names to those events. Some happen so quick that naming them is pointless and others are so slow to dissipate that a name becomes useful.

yeah but how can you be sure things are different if they share the same name?

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

#85

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 »

elif wrote: post #67
deadbabe wrote: post #34

The solution to the Ship of Theseus is obviously that there is no Ship of Theseus. All things are just events in time, long moments where matter is organized into some structure for a while and then breaks apart again, and we assign names to those events. Some happen so quick that naming them is pointless and others are so slow to dissipate that a name becomes useful.

That is simply a one sided reduction of the ship of Theseus dilemma. In it's reduction, it necessarily negates the essence of ontological meaning, including the meaning of the statement you are making. The dilemma is not in search of a solution but instead it offers meaning exactly because of it's lack of resolution.

The Ship of Theseus was originally proposed as a paradox, not a question of where subjectively to draw a line between the identity of objects. Like most paradoxes it is the result of a flawed assumption. Here the assumption is that there is a Ship of Theseus. If we assign a definition to "Ship of Theseus" then the question of whether a given object is a Ship of Theseus is trivial. But the paradox assumes there is a Ship of Theseus object on its own rather than a definition of Ship of Theseus. The subjective question of "when, generally, should we consider the Ship of Theseus to be gone" is a separate and arbitrary question.

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

#86

Post by Too »

deadbabe wrote: post #34

The solution to the Ship of Theseus is obviously that there is no Ship of Theseus. All things are just events in time, long moments where matter is organized into some structure for a while and then breaks apart again, and we assign names to those events. Some happen so quick that naming them is pointless and others are so slow to dissipate that a name becomes useful.

Wow, someone took yesterday’s article about event sourcing way too seriously. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38664412

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

#87

Post by selcuka »

echelon wrote: post #71
deadbabe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. The time and space in which they exist acts as a unique identifier.

What's the unique identifier, what's the resolution, and how many bits of information is it? What if we're in a procedural simulation?

> What if we're in a procedural simulation?

We ARE in a procedural simulation, with a random seed determined at The Big Bang.

Whether someone monitors the simulation or not is a different question.

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

#88

Post by BLKNSLVR »

_8j50 wrote: post #76

Just like the article, the ship of Theseus changes in its constituency but not in its identity. Am I a different person because almost none of my cells at the time of my birth remain in me? Of course not. And the wiki article is the same article. Whether something can be identified as a specific thing is a matter of social convention. A transformation of something is not a new thing but exactly the former: a transorm…

Yes! This is the discussion starter we've been waiting for.

Then you're admitting that there's something non-physical that defines the identity of the physical thing, is it possible to argue against that?

Or is identity itself meaningless? But it cannot be because without identity there can be no understanding of the universe. Thus, the non-physical is a requirement of the physical. One cannot exist without the other. But where, in what non-physical plane (is there a word for that? ideamension?), does the non-physical inhabit?

Or is "understanding" also only existent in the ideamension, not a requirement of the existence of the physical universe? But if not for understanding, why does the universe exist in the first place? Reason; yet another resident of the ideamension.

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

#89

Post by BLKNSLVR »

pooper wrote: post #14
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...

Well said.

Every well-written piece of text is, in itself, a ship of theseus. And only a ship of theseus piece of text can float, having had all the leaky boards replaced.

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

#90

Post by toasterlovin »

deadbabe wrote: post #34

The solution to the Ship of Theseus is obviously that there is no Ship of Theseus. All things are just events in time, long moments where matter is organized into some structure for a while and then breaks apart again, and we assign names to those events. Some happen so quick that naming them is pointless and others are so slow to dissipate that a name becomes useful.

The solution to the Ship of Theseus is that telos, not atomic physics, is how the vernacular We identify and organize the contents of our existence. I am the same me as the me of 10 years ago, even though we have zero cells in common, because we are iterations of an ongoing physical phenomena the same root cause: my conception.

And so it is with Theseus and his Ship.

Post reply on HN