Ship of Theseus Paradox

[88m3]

The more I think about it, you're right.

It really is the only reasonable conclusion.

 

[Blackking]

Are you drunk right now?

Dumbest shyt you have ever said Blackking. The entire post is just garbage from start to finish aside from your point about quantity/numerical identifications.

lol, The point about quantity/numerical identification.. was the reason that I said the paradox was dumb. I mean.... you're first though should have been," the original parts is the c*nt.. this shyt is dumb. " I was trolling about africa/greek knowledge shyt because I know u lames hate that type of shyt, lol. I'm not sure if you get where I was going with gymnasiums.. but if you did get it, then mission accomplished.

 

[zerozero]

lol, The point about quantity/numerical identification.. was the reason that I said the paradox was dumb. I mean.... you're first though should have been," the original parts is the c*nt.. this shyt is dumb. " I was trolling about africa/greek knowledge shyt because I know u lames hate that type of shyt, lol. I'm not sure if you get where I was going with gymnasiums.. but if you did get it, then mission accomplished.

you're all over HL posting and then declaring everyone in here is a square or some shyt. Admit it, you're an HL poster now, you <3 our style breh

 

[Blackking]

you're all over HL posting and then declaring everyone in here is a square or some shyt. Admit it, you're an HL poster now, you <3 our style breh

You got me... blaming Islam for everything, fighting for gay rights when we don't even have privacy rights, associating atheism with high IQ levels, falling for the official story with every event in history, Ignoring the problems of urban communities, hating pro black people, and finding groupthink frankly orgasmic. Those are things that I hold dear to my heart.

I only said two people were lame, I was only serious about one. and the one wasn't @vvd.

I love the style of some posters... most of those poster aren't the ..... so-called "best posters in HL" clique. lol.

 

[blackzeus]

From the wiki

Correct, you have to add time as a dimension, and to answer the question:

1) If you rebuilt a second ship from the old parts of the Theseus, yes, it is the same ship.

2) If you replaced all the parts of the Theseus, even though it is identical, it is a new ship.

 

[Broke Wave]

Let's think about it from a diff perspective.

The c*nt of The Sea didn't ever really exist in and of itself, it only ever existed as a perception of our reality. What you had was a collection of wooden planks nailed toghether to create what we humans commonly call a boat. Therefore whichever ship we term to be the true c*nt of The Sea, a human construct, is the true c*nt of The Sea.

There are qualifiers as to which of the two c*nt of the Sea's is more "original", such as which contains more of the original woodwork, which was created first, which was first to functionality or to be used, etc etc, but those are all qualitative qualifiers based on our interpretations of reality. Therefore it's not really a paradox, but simply a matter of perceptions.

 

[blackzeus]

Let's think about it from a diff perspective.

The c*nt of The Sea didn't ever really exist in and of itself, it only ever existed as a perception of our reality. What you had was a collection of wooden planks nailed toghether to create what we humans commonly call a boat. Therefore whichever ship we term to be the true c*nt of The Sea, a human construct, is the true c*nt of The Sea.

There are qualifiers as to which of the two c*nt of the Sea's is more "original", such as which contains more of the original woodwork, which was created first, which was first to functionality or to be used, etc etc, but those are all qualitative qualifiers based on our interpretations of reality. Therefore it's not really a paradox, but simply a matter of perceptions.

That's incorrect, a car isn't just a bunch of refined metals and oils (plastic is oil), it's a car. And object is equal to the sum of its parts. That would be like saying 2 is just a bunch of 1s put together. 2 is 2, 1 is 1. Yes 1+1 = 2, but 2 /=1,1. 2 is it's own unique number. So using the same rationale, the c*nt of the Sea is it's own object, the sum of its parts. So the basic paradox you have to make it in laymans terms, is that c*nt of the Sea A = 1 + 1 = 2, and c*nt of the Sea B = 1 + 1 = 2, so IN THEORY c*nt of the Sea A = c*nt of the Sea B. Of course in reality, it doesn't, because there is a missing factor, which is half-life, exponential decay, father time, whatever you want to call it. So technically it should be something like c*nt of the Sea A = e^-ax*(1+1), and c*nt of the Sea B = e^-bx*(1+1), where a and b are time coefficients equal to when the original completion date was. More or less, at least to me, it seems like the paradox is a hidden simplistic logical proof of the 4th dimension, time. If we were frozen in time, yes, both ships would be the same, but since they're not, they're not the same.

 

[Ghost Utmost]

Human bodies have the same situation except you can't save the parts and reassemble the original. The idea of sameness of object is only in your stupid ass mind.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Are you drunk right now?

Dumbest shyt you have ever said Blackking. The entire post is just garbage from start to finish aside from your point about quantity/numerical identifications.

Nah. That post was dumb, but it probably doesn't even crack the top 25 of all time idiotic blackking statements.

 

[Mr. Negative]

the moment you have another one totally made out of new parts, it ceases to be the original?

It's the c*nt of the Sea in name and name only.

Hell, when you build the boat out of those old boat parts, even you'll admit that you're just looking at the same shytty boat that you started replacing parts on.

I don't see how this is a paradox.

 

[Type Username Here]

at people saying a 2,000 year old paradox, agreed to be a paradox and argued for 2 millennia is NOT a paradox.

1) A paradox sometimes can be solved
2) This paradox has much less to do with the material aspect of the ship as it has to do with our perception of "things"

A paradox is an argument that produces an inconsistency, typically within logic or common sense. Most logical paradoxes are known to be invalid arguments but are still valuable in promoting critical thinking. However, some have revealed errors in definitions assumed to be rigorous, and have caused axioms of mathematics and logic to be re-examined (e.g., Russell's paradox). Still others, such as Curry's paradox, are not yet resolved. In common usage, the word "paradox" often refers to irony or contradiction. Examples outside logic include the Grandfather paradox from physics, and the Ship of Theseus from philosophy. Paradoxes can also take the form of images or other media. For example, M.C. Escher featured perspective-based paradoxes in many of his drawings.

It has already yielded some positive discussion in here and some good points across the spectrum.

 

[NZA]

of course, this paradox asks us to make an assumption that is actually too important to skip over, and that is the nature of true identities for crafted objects a human has given a name to. unless that object is imbued with some kind of magic, we just have to accept that that object, as a distinct entity, only exists in the minds of the people who acknowledge it.

anyway, i feel the identity of the ship was gradually transferred to the growing pile of parts, and at some point, even when the ship still had some original parts, it became something other than c*nt of the sea. i dont know exactly when this happens, but i believe it happens before the transfer of parts is 100% complete. the most iconic parts of the ship are probably important to this. depending on the type of ship, the most iconic or functionally important parts may hold more identity than other parts (the wood of the hull is more important than the nails)

what i am more certain of is that once every single part of the ship was replaced, it definitively ceased being the true c*nt of the sea. the ship composed of all original parts is c*nt of the sea again

what to take away from this:

1. identity in inanimate objects can be transferred gradually

2. certain parts of the object hold more importance to the identity of the object than others

3. i want a ship named c*nt of the sea, and a dog named fukkface

 

[Broke Wave]

@Type Username Here i think I had a great answer 2 years ago


Did you see the mf who quoted me though? talk about aspergers

 

[Chez Lopez]

at this post.

 

[blackzeus]

I'm sure some of you have heard of this paradox, but for those that haven't it basically goes like this (overly simplifying it):

Imagine you have a wooden ship and it was called "c*nt of the Sea". After originally buying it in pristine condition, you find yourself replacing major wooden parts/planks of the ship. The original parts you replaced are set aside. Eventually, after all parts of the ship are replaced, you have the original parts available to assemble the same exact ship you originally had. When you assemble the older parts, you now essentially have two "c*nt of the Sea" ships, but which one is the true "c*nt of the Sea"?

Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1) If you took it down to the molecular level it would obviously be two different ships

2) From a philosophical standpoint they are the same, because if your concept of a ship is a ship, then yes, both are true c*nts of the Sea. If I build an identical Rome from the old Rome it's still Rome, the only reason why it would be considered not Rome if as aforementioned time was added as a characteristic, (e.g. the "original" rome was built in BC 300, and the "new" Rome in 2015)

3) Greeks had way too much time on their hands, must have been nice