Friday philosophical debating club (#6?): "Paradoxes"

[Skyborn]

I think we are on #6 but I figured this should be started up again...the most important parts are highlighted if you are too lazy to read the whole thing...

Today's topic will be Paradoxes, we will start with my personal favorite,

Theseus' Ship

Theseus is remembered in Greek mythology as the slayer of the Minotaur. For years, the Athenians had been sending sacrifices to be given to the Minotaur, a half-man, half-bull beast who inhabited the labyrinth of Knossos. One year, Theseus braved the labyrinth, and killed the Minotaur.

The ship in which he returned was long preserved. As parts of the ship needed repair, it was rebuilt plank by plank. Suppose that, eventually, every plank was replaced; would it still have been the same ship? A strong case can be made for saying that it would have been: When the first plank was replaced, the ship would still have been Theseus' ship. When the second was replaced, the ship would still have been Theseus' ship. Changing a single plank can never turn one ship into another. Even when every plank had been replaced, then, and no part of the original ship remained, it would still have been Theseus' ship.

Suppose, though, that each of the planks removed from Theseus' ship was restored, and that these planks were then recombined to once again form a ship. Would this have been Theseus' ship? Again, a strong case can be made for saying that it would have been: this ship would have had precisely the same parts as Theseus' ship, arranged in precisely the same way.

If this happened, then, then it would seem that Theseus had returned from Knossos in two ships. First, there would have been Theseus' ship that has had each of its parts replaced one by one. Second, there would have been Theseus' ship that had been dismantled, restored, and then reassembled. Each of them would have been Theseus' ship.

Theseus, though, sailed in only one ship. Which one?

[Badem]

Meh I much prefer this paradox

If you go back and shoot your grandfather, how could you go back and shoot him if you were never born?

This is a QUANTUM PARADOX,
lies along the lines of (assuming time travel worked) going back in time but not being able to alter a single aspect,merely being able only to observe, any action taken would alter the 'reality' you inhabit

So..
A girl is kidnapped , raped and murdered, th crime shocks the world. do you
1) go back intime and rescue here
2) Observe the incident then track the perpertrator to the current timeframe and apprehend him here, allowing all his previous crimes to go unaltered?

[Erroneous]

Changing a single plank can never turn one ship into another.

I disagree with this. The second you replace a plank the ship is not the same. I would also say that the act of reassembling even if wholly from original materials would be a different ship. This reassembled ship would be nearer the "same." The augmented ship would be nearer "Theseus' Ship."

[Galadrist]

i think...that RBD might be a minotaur somehow: half bull and half shit.

ONTOPIC: i say two ships. i would liken it to having two drivers in a car. X drives first while Z is on the passenger side.
at some point, X stays steering while Z manages the stick.
And at some point farther, Z takes the driver's seat and X switches to the passenger.
And farther still, X starts to manage the stick and Z stays with the wheel.
just before reaching their destination, X is back at full control.

Essentially, one car, two drivers who at some intermediate point became half and half. so i say there were two ships that made halfway proxies of the other at some point.

[Henu989]

If you go back and shoot your grandfather, how could you go back and shoot him if you were never born?
I've never gotten time paradoxes.

If you go back in time and shoot someone, then that has already happened in your past and therefore it can't be your grandfather.

The way that I see it is that if you go into your past then everything there has already happened.

Thus you cannot change the future, because all the actions you do in your past have been predetermined, just like the fact that you went to the past to begin with.

[Temet nosce]

It wasn't the same ship the moment any of it was replaced (or for that matter ever), things are never the same. Or rather not in the vague definition of the same, now if we were to be more careful about what precise "Sameness" we were talking about we might be able to answer this question more exactly.

Lets consider it this way, defining one sameness as relating to physical similarity and function, under this sameness the ship is indeed the same (assuming a perfect simulacrum anyways). However, if we ask whether the ship is the same in the sense of experience or relation to occurrence, it is not.

Anyways, I think Lictor intended to post one of these but you beat him. I may post another paradox later.

[Skyborn]

So...

Does the ship simply equal the sum of its parts? In which case any change = different ship

Or does it take more to change identity?

[5%Luck]

The main thing I think of when considering this one is Whoever was the original builder and who was the resembler/repairer. If it was the same set(s) of hands then it would infact be the same ship. Its the owner of the act that is what makes one thing itself instead of another.

If one plank was replaced by a inferior craftsman then that would not completely change the ship but, make it less of the original. Continuing down that path would lead to an inferior ship. The same can be said of the materials and of a greater craftsman geared to their own values independently.

I as a young man built my house. As I aged My son replaces each frame,wall and, shingle. Over time it is no longer my house and it becomes his.

Now to disassemble and reassemble of the same materials Leads me to a "model" of the original. A model isnt the same as an original nor does it engage me to think it is as worthy of value.

[Galadrist]

So...

Does the ship simply equal the sum of its parts? In which case any change = different ship

Or does it take more to change identity?

Sum of its parts. the moment 1 plank was replaced, it became two ships regardless of measure.

[Temet nosce]

So...

Does the ship simply equal the sum of its parts? In which case any change = different ship

Or does it take more to change identity?

Well, I think you could make a decent argument based on varying tiers of identity, but really in my opinion this all comes down to the definition of same/different/identity.

However, to answer your quest that was my assumption for the first part of my post due to the vagueness. As for your second question, see what I just said.

[Skyborn]

Sum of its parts. the moment 1 plank was replaced, it became two ships regardless of measure.

Ok then if that is the case your identity changes every time you lose skin cells or trim your nails...new cells = new planks.

[Galadrist]

Ok then if that is the case your identity changes every time you lose skin cells or trim your nails...new cells = new planks.

This would be true if every new cell was not of me. That ship had planks from some other place. Now if that ship grew its own replacement planks, then it remains a single entity.

EDIT: now if your fingernail were to be attached to my finger, that's a different story. think frankenstein.

[5%Luck]

On the other side of things we may take an example of a book. An author writes a novel and it is translated to another language by some one else. Now is this translated book a completely new work. No. Its the spirit of the original worker whose work is being kept and upheld.

[Skyborn]

This would be true if every new cell was not of me. That ship had planks from some other place. Now if that ship grew its own replacement planks, then it remains a single entity.

But the cells don't just magically appear, they are a sum of parts of food we ingest, so really we take other things into our bodies to replace our cells as they wear out. Same as replacing planks, so again is changing planks changing identity?

[Temet nosce]

But the cells don't just magically appear, they are a sum of parts of food we ingest, so really we take other things into our bodies to replace our cells as they wear out. Same as replacing planks, so again is changing planks changing identity?

Once again, you have to go back to defining identity. Really, until you define your terms more carefully there are multiple possible answers.

[Skyborn]

Once again, you have to go back to defining identity. Really, until you define your terms more carefully there are multiple possible answers.

So how would you define the key terms to solve this issue?

[Badem]

I've never gotten time paradoxes.

If you go back in time and shoot someone, then that has already happened in your past and therefore it can't be your grandfather.

The way that I see it is that if you go into your past then everything there has already happened.

Thus you cannot change the future, because all the actions you do in your past have been predetermined, just like the fact that you went to the past to begin with.

This possibly explains why we havenever seen time travellers
I seem time travel as more along the lines of Millenium (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097883/) and Minority report

You can altar something where it would have no effect on the time line ( mysterious dissapearences etc) and being able to observe the past through screens

So you could go 'tag' that person and then tell the 'machine' to track it to modern time, presto you have the realtime location of the 'tag'

Going back in time and altering the past causing a 'Quantum paradox (http://www.faqs.org/docs/qp/chap08.html) falls into teh same space as Schrodinger's Cat (http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/scat.html&edu=high)

[epicor]

in this example there are 2 ships. reconstruction and the orginal.

[Galadrist]

But the cells don't just magically appear, they are a sum of parts of food we ingest, so really we take other things into our bodies to replace our cells as they wear out. Same as replacing planks, so again is changing planks changing identity?

This is where the comparison fails. Autoregeneration is not the same as an organ transplant. The boat, in a sense is getting a transplant. different source.
Autoregeneration on the other hand, singular source. hence, this comparison is not appropriate.

[Temet nosce]

So how would you define the key terms to solve this issue?

See my earlier post for a bit of an explanation, but really it's personal preference. Perhaps if we break it down into multiple definitions, defining each area of similarity or difference?

I.E. if we categorize each type of similarity or difference we could point and indicate how depending on which definition you use it's the same or different.

[Galadrist]

See my earlier post for a bit of an explanation, but really it's personal preference. Perhaps if we break it down into multiple definitions, defining each area of similarity or difference?

I.E. if we categorize each type of similarity or difference we could point and indicate how depending on which definition you use it's the same or different.

this would be the best approach.

OR, we could just start a poll pitting Michael Bolton vs Kenny G. hair to hair.

[Henu989]

You can altar something where it would have no effect on the time line
No.
You cannot alter the past in anyway.
EVERYTHING there has already happened.

If you travel back in time, you were there in your past already and all of your actions have already happened.

If go back into your past and move a box ,then the box was already moved in your past and can therefore have no effect on the future.

You can go on a killing spree, but it won't change the future because it already happened in your past.

[Skyborn]

This is where the comparison fails. Autoregeneration is not the same as an organ transplant. The boat, in a sense is getting a transplant. different source.
Autoregeneration on the other hand, singular source. hence, this comparison is not appropriate.

Tree --> Board --> Replaced

Food --> Cell components --> Replaced



Ok if you don't like the boat comparison how about this.

You have a lumber mill made of wood. The mill produces the wood and the wood is also used to repair the building when necessary. Same concept.

[BladeofHearts]

It's the same problem that applies to the human body. Every 7 years there is a completely new us, however, we define ourselves no differently and neither do other people. For humans, what keeps us the same is a continuity of self found in our mind. We know we are who we are despite physical changes. A ship has no mind, however, it has only a body (I don't want to get into whether or not inanimate objects have minds, that's a whole other debate). Thus, how is its continuity of self preserved? I take to Plato's idea of the World of Forms. We, as humans, know a horse to be a horse because we compare it to a horse archetype. Some horses have a long, shaggy coat, other horses have sleek coats. Some have spots, some are solid in colour; some have three legs or are missing an eye. How do we know they are still horses? Because they resemble what we know to be the archetype for a horse in most ways. If Theseus' boat is redone repeatedly to preserve it, it is still Theseus' boat, because it matches the archetype for Theseus' boat. A change in the physical form, unless deviated in majority from the archetype, is still the form.

[Galadrist]

It's the same problem that applies to the human body. Every 7 years there is a completely new us, however, we define ourselves no differently and neither do other people. For humans, what keeps us the same is a continuity of self found in our mind. We know we are who we are despite physical changes. A ship has no mind, however, it has only a body (I don't want to get into whether or not inanimate objects have minds, that's a whole other debate). Thus, how is its continuity of self preserved? I take to Plato's idea of the World of Forms. We, as humans, know a horse to be a horse because we compare it to a horse archetype. Some horses have a long, shaggy coat, other horses have sleek coats. Some have spots, some are solid in colour; some have three legs or are missing an eye. How do we know they are still horses? Because they resemble what we know to be the archetype for a horse in most ways. If Theseus' boat is redone repeatedly to preserve it, it is still Theseus' boat, because it matches the archetype for Theseus' boat. A change in the physical form, unless deviated in majority from the archetype, is still the form.

Well said. bravo.

[Skyborn]

It's the same problem that applies to the human body. Every 7 years there is a completely new us, however, we define ourselves no differently and neither do other people. For humans, what keeps us the same is a continuity of self found in our mind. We know we are who we are despite physical changes. A ship has no mind, however, it has only a body (I don't want to get into whether or not inanimate objects have minds, that's a whole other debate). Thus, how is its continuity of self preserved? I take to Plato's idea of the World of Forms. We, as humans, know a horse to be a horse because we compare it to a horse archetype. Some horses have a long, shaggy coat, other horses have sleek coats. Some have spots, some are solid in colour; some have three legs or are missing an eye. How do we know they are still horses? Because they resemble what we know to be the archetype for a horse in most ways. If Theseus' boat is redone repeatedly to preserve it, it is still Theseus' boat, because it matches the archetype for Theseus' boat. A change in the physical form, unless deviated in majority from the archetype, is still the form.


Oooh Archetypes...interesting, so we reamin ourselves because of our mind (I am guessing you mean the inanimate "mind". So since the boat does not have it does the ship remain Theseus' due to the viewers perception?

And which of the two boats did he sail back on?

[Badem]

No.
You cannot alter the past in anyway.
EVERYTHING there has already happened.

If you travel back in time, you were there in your past already and all of your actions have already happened.

If go back into your past and move a box ,then the box was already moved in your past and can therefore have no effect on the future.

You can go on a killing spree, but it won't change the future because it already happened in your past.

But in the original future that might not have happened, to us it would change as we would not be aware of it but teh person who did the change would suffer the quantum paradox as they would not only know the original timeline but also the new one

So the box is at the top of a flight of stairs, in an original timeline you trip down it and die, sometime in the future X comes back to the past and moves the box, you no longer fall to your death, but becasue that to you would be your present you dont know any difference, to teh time traveller it is a difference the paradox would affect him, what the outcome of that paradox is no-one knows...

So in the kidnap case.
you go back in time and save the girl, the man gets captured and never goes on to kill the other 15 girls before being caught, the time line for all those girls would be altered, but they woudlnt recognise this, as the past is there present, the man from the future would see this past differently and therefore PARADOX

[Henu989]

But in the original future that might not have happened
You came from the future that happened.
Therefore, you cannot alter the past.

[Morthor]

Anyone who has read G.E.B. will be familiar with the idea that meaning can come from the inanimate or seemingly meaningless. Let me make it perfectly clear:

We, as humans are made up of atoms, yes? If, during the course of out lives, every atom is changed, moved, replaced, which they certainly are, does that make us somehow not ourself? No of course not.

@Blade of hearts, who I just realised stated the exact same argument: the mind is also made up of atoms in the exact same way. Meaning, or the sense of self which we experience (or the soul, or however you look at it) it only, essentially, atoms arranged in such patterns that meaning is generated.

So to your argument the gradually rebuilt ship remains Theseus' ship, not the second ship rebuilt from the original parts?

Exactly, yes. The second ship would just be 'a ship' which happened to be made of parts from the original.

[Skyborn]

Anyone who has read G.E.B. will be familiar with the idea that meaning can come from the inanimate or seemingly meaningless. Let me make it perfectly clear:

We, as humans are made up of atoms, yes? If, during the course of out lives, every atom is changed, moved, replaced, which they certainly are, does that make us somehow not ourself? No of course not.

So to your argument the gradually rebuilt ship remains Theseus' ship, not the second ship rebuilt from the original parts?

[Badem]

You came from the future that happened.
Therefore, you cannot alter the past.

would fate itself conspire to prevent this?

So if i went to shoot my grandfather 'fate' would cause the gun to jam?

Butterfly effect is a great example of time paradox, for teh travellers at teh time he remembers nothing, in the future he does and changes the past, however all those screwed up things still happen, fate finds a way to balance the staus uo

until he kills himself with his umbilical cord and prevetns his own birth...

[Henu989]

would fate itself conspire to prevent this?

So if i went to shoot my grandfather 'fate' would cause the gun to jam?

Look, if the gun fired and it actually was your grandfather then you wouldn't have existed and gone to your past in the future and shot your grandfather.

Therefore, it is impossible for you to go back in time and kill your grandfather.

[EagleEye]

With a ship, I'd say replacing just the planks it would still be the same boat to a large extent. Replacing something like the keel and rebuilding entirely with new wood would change the very core of the ship, making it a new boat. Reason being, no two trees are the same. No two boards of wood are the exact same. Therefore no two ships made of wood would be the exact same.

As for the time travel paradox, I've always assumed I wouldn't be able to kill my grandfather in the past for the reasons already discussed. If I was never born, I wouldn't have been able to make that change in the first place. In my mind I've always pictured it that if I tried to do something that would create a paradox time itself would simply reject me out of that temporal timeline and back into the one I originated from.

Or perhaps a change isn't locked into the timeline until the traveller returns to their own time and resyncs with the timeline and whatever changes they made in the past catches up?

[BladeofHearts]

Oooh Archetypes...interesting, so we reamin ourselves because of our mind (I am guessing you mean the inanimate "mind". So since the boat does not have it does the ship remain Theseus' due to the viewers perception?

And which of the two boats did he sail back on?

Well, by definition, restored means to be returned to a former, original, or normal condition. Thus, whether being restored wholely or piece-by-piece, it is returning to the same form as the original boat. I would say then, that Theseus sailed back on both, for they are the same boat. Either method of restoration continues what we perceive via its archetype as Theseus' boat. It is as I said, it is not the physical components of the boat, but the notion of the boat that gives it continuation of self. Thus, either way, the boat is the same boat that Theseus sailed home on. I suppose I should clarify that when I speak of archetypes and perception in regards to the inanimate objects, I mean the perception of the viewer.

[Badem]

Look, if the gun fired and it actually was your grandfather then you wouldn't have existed and gone to your past in the future and shot your grandfather.

Therefore, it is impossible for you to go back in time and kill your grandfather.

and thereby lies the paradox..

if you go back in time and kill your grandfather.you could never have lived to kill your grandfather, therefore you are born, in being born you can then go back and kill your grandfather, but you cant go back and kill hims cos you would never have been born..but by being born you have killed him..

wonder if that causes the universe to implode........

but in that same line of thought, Our future must also be predetermined and follow a set path with no deviance as to someone in the future the psat has already happened..

meh
I much prefer Rosenburg Bridges, they so much easier to understand

[omnigol]

Please stop substituting the word bullshit with 'philosophical'.

[Morthor]

Meh I much prefer this paradox

If you go back and shoot your grandfather, how could you go back and shoot him if you were never born?

This is a QUANTUM PARADOX,
lies along the lines of (assuming time travel worked) going back in time but not being able to alter a single aspect,merely being able only to observe, any action taken would alter the 'reality' you inhabit

So..
A girl is kidnapped , raped and murdered, th crime shocks the world. do you
1) go back intime and rescue here
2) Observe the incident then track the perpertrator to the current timeframe and apprehend him here, allowing all his previous crimes to go unaltered?

I'd say just by going back, and 'existing' in a time in which you did not exist, you'd alter the 'past' to the extent that the world in which you had come from would be radically different. Familiar with chaos theory? :)

[Erroneous]

I take to Plato's idea of the World of Forms. We, as humans, know a horse to be a horse because we compare it to a horse archetype. Some horses have a long, shaggy coat, other horses have sleek coats. Some have spots, some are solid in colour; some have three legs or are missing an eye. How do we know they are still horses? Because they resemble what we know to be the archetype for a horse in most ways. If Theseus' boat is redone repeatedly to preserve it, it is still Theseus' boat, because it matches the archetype for Theseus' boat. A change in the physical form, unless deviated in majority from the archetype, is still the form.

What archetype are we working from here, a boat, the boat belonging to Theseus, the boat belonging to Theseus after returning from the labrynth.

I think we can recognize the altered boat as a boat, it still sails on the water, it also still belongs to Theseus and so is Theseus' boat. But is it the same? Do we really have a shared archetype specific to each instance of anobject?

I agree we aren't going to get very far without defining same and identity more clearly. I would say that as we progress through time clipping our nails or losing a layer of skin whatever, we are constantly chaning and not the same, but we still fill many of the same identities.

[Henu989]

and thereby lies the paradox..
It isn't a paradox.

You simply cannot go into your past and kill your grandfather, because if you did you wouldn't exist and couldn't go to your past to begin with..

You can't alter your past using time travel.

[Skyborn]

It isn't a paradox.

You simply cannot go into your past and kill your grandfather, because if you did you wouldn't exist and couldn't go to your past to begin with..

You can't alter your past using time travel.

Ok jackasses its a circular argument...

Time for another paradox. (time travel and identity are still up for continued debate of course.

I will add Zenu's Paradox which covers motion and distance.
________________________________________ ________________
The Tortoise challenged Achilles to a race, claiming that he would win as long as Achilles gave him a small head start. Achilles laughed at this, for of course he was a mighty warrior and swift of foot, whereas the Tortoise was heavy and slow.

“How big a head start do you need?” he asked the Tortoise with a smile.

“Ten meters,” the latter replied. Achilles laughed louder than ever.

“You will surely lose, my friend, in that case,” he told the Tortoise, “but let us race, if you wish it.”

“On the contrary,” said the Tortoise, “I will win, and I can prove it to you by a simple argument.”

“Go on then,” Achilles replied, with less confidence than he felt before. He knew he was the superior athlete, but he also knew the Tortoise had the sharper wits, and he had lost many a bewildering argument with him before this.

“Suppose,” began the Tortoise, “that you give me a 10-meter head start. Would you say that you could cover that 10 meters between us very quickly?”

“Very quickly,” Achilles affirmed.

“And in that time, how far should I have gone, do you think?”

“Perhaps a meter – no more,” said Achilles after a moment's thought.

“Very well,” replied the Tortoise, “so now there is a meter between us. And you would catch up that distance very quickly?”

“Very quickly indeed!”

“And yet, in that time I shall have gone a little way farther, so that now you must catch that distance up, yes?”

“Ye-es,” said Achilles slowly.

“And while you are doing so, I shall have gone a little way farther, so that you must then catch up the new distance,” the Tortoise continued smoothly.
Achilles said nothing. “And so you see, in each moment you must be catching up the distance between us, and yet I – at the same time – will be adding a new distance, however small, for you to catch up again.”

“Indeed, it must be so,” said Achilles wearily.

“And so you can never catch up,” the Tortoise concluded sympathetically.

“You are right, as always,” said Achilles sadly – and conceded the race.

Zeno's Paradox may be rephrased as follows.

Suppose I wish to cross the room. First, of course, I must cover half the distance. Then, I must cover half the remaining distance. Then, I must cover half the remaining distance. Then I must cover half the remaining distance . . . and so on forever. The consequence is that I can never get to the other side of the room.

What this actually does is to make all motion impossible, for before I can cover half the distance I must cover half of half the distance, and before I can do that I must cover half of half of half of the distance, and so on, so that in reality I can never move any distance at all, because doing so involves moving an infinite number of small intermediate distances first.

[Temet nosce]

It isn't a paradox.

You simply cannot go into your past and kill your grandfather, because if you did you wouldn't exist and couldn't go to your past to begin with..

You can't alter your past using time travel.

Really? Ok, assuming time travel exists how would it be stopped? Especially considering that time travel can mean various things, including traveling to another place that's simply identical to the past. After all according to certain idea in the field of quantum physics, every possible occurrence is happening at once.

Definitions again really. It depends on how you define time travel.

[BladeofHearts]

It isn't a paradox.

You simply cannot go into your past and kill your grandfather, because if you did you wouldn't exist and couldn't go to your past to begin with..

You can't alter your past using time travel.

Assuming time flows in a manner in which the present is forever contingent on the past. What if each moment is a seperate instance in time which has affected the present but, following that affectation, no longer has any relation to the present?

[Spinewire]

I think we are on #6 but I figured this should be started up again...the most important parts are highlighted if you are too lazy to read the whole thing...

Today's topic will be Paradoxes, we will start with my personal favorite,

Theseus' Ship

Theseus is remembered in Greek mythology as the slayer of the Minotaur. For years, the Athenians had been sending sacrifices to be given to the Minotaur, a half-man, half-bull beast who inhabited the labyrinth of Knossos. One year, Theseus braved the labyrinth, and killed the Minotaur.

The ship in which he returned was long preserved. As parts of the ship needed repair, it was rebuilt plank by plank. Suppose that, eventually, every plank was replaced; would it still have been the same ship? A strong case can be made for saying that it would have been: When the first plank was replaced, the ship would still have been Theseus' ship. When the second was replaced, the ship would still have been Theseus' ship. Changing a single plank can never turn one ship into another. Even when every plank had been replaced, then, and no part of the original ship remained, it would still have been Theseus' ship.

Suppose, though, that each of the planks removed from Theseus' ship was restored, and that these planks were then recombined to once again form a ship. Would this have been Theseus' ship? Again, a strong case can be made for saying that it would have been: this ship would have had precisely the same parts as Theseus' ship, arranged in precisely the same way.

If this happened, then, then it would seem that Theseus had returned from Knossos in two ships. First, there would have been Theseus' ship that has had each of its parts replaced one by one. Second, there would have been Theseus' ship that had been dismantled, restored, and then reassembled. Each of them would have been Theseus' ship.

Theseus, though, sailed in only one ship. Which one?
Unless you view the ship in a %, with each plank you replace the original ship becomes less and less...

Not really a paradox just people wording things to suit there own ends.

Meh I much prefer this paradox



If you go back and shoot your grandfather, how could you go back and shoot him if you were never born?

Shame we can't go back in time...
Shit like this is too hypothectical and rather pointless.

[Morthor]

Ah I love Zeno's paradox.. that's a REAL paradox Spinewire, try to get your head around that one :) I will do my best to explain it a little:

Another common, maybe more accessible way of seeing it is to imagine a ray of light bouncing along a cone (or two converging lines). The light will obviously hit the end eventually because the lines converge (1+1/2+1/4+1/8... converges or, =1). The direction of the emergent ray would depend on the last mirror hit, but there is no 'last mirror'. The path it takes is finite, but it has no end (infinite) or 'direction' as it were.

Zeno's method is to split the problem into two - first you go halfway from point A to point B then you go the rest of the way. Think of each of these 'movements' as a goal. Now, each of these goals is then split into two further goals and so on as infinitum. Because of this process, you end up with an infinite number of goals rather than a single original goal, which was to go from A to B.

This is a very much mechanical process - first you move halfway, then again, half then half again and so on. The only way to look at this problem then would be to jump out of the system in which it operates and examine that system (this is an inherant trait of intellegence).

Well, that probably did show anything much but needless to say: Zeno's paradox has been 'debunked' by mathematics but don't ask me about that, i don't have a clue.

[Mulambo]

This is my favorite paradox poem:

Rotting from the inside
Over-incubated by the heat of fear and love
The self's coagulated

Egg...

La la la la la la la
La la la la la la la

Boiling hard in euphemism
Slowly becoming part of the water
Like a frog who never knows
The jacuzzi's getting hotter

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

How'd you know I was looking at you
If you weren't looking at me?

A stagnant pale perfume
Conceived to block the pores
The clotting glands encroach
The endless comfort of a mom
Deep inside my tanning salon
Wishing life was poached

La la la la la la la
La la la la la la la

I can't seem to differentiate
Between the yellow love you give and the white sex I take
I just want to fertilize you

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

The cracks finally appear
Release cholesterol tears
The flooded cyst drains itself of pus
The lonely stomach chills unless it's drunk
So as she drives she'll close her eyes
Feel it warming up inside

edisni eht morf gnittoR
evol dna raef fo taeh eht yb detabucni-revO
detalugaoc s'fles ehT

Egg...

Oh an egg comes out of a chicken
Oh a chicken comes out of an egg

There's no place like home...Here it is in the spoken word:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3H6I5Hxf-Y&feature=related

[Floyd]

If time travel were possible it would already be occurring. If time travel affected the present then we would never notice it. We could all be waking up to what we perceive as the same world we have been living in when in fact it all could have changed.

We would not know the difference because even though the time line changed we changed with it. Our memories of what occurred changed. To us it would seem like there is no change occurring. If you went back in time and killed your grandfather you would not exist. Any changes that occur in the present as a result to this would not be considered a change because it was the life everyone was living since you went back into time anyway.

The problem people have is grasping the concept of existing one moment and not existing the next.

[Attau]

It could be said that...

A.) Once a single plank is replaced, it is not the ship that the journey took place on.

B.) There were 2 (Or even more) ships, but it is easy to point out that only one made the physical journey... As the other wood was destined to become a part of the monument.

Of course you could argue using (A) that the second the ship reached port and the crew stepped off the ship it was no longer the ship from the journey, as time had already begun to wither it away.

It's so easy to over complicate things with overly specific definitions :sly:

[Henu989]

Assuming time flows in a manner in which the present is forever contingent on the past. What if each moment is a seperate instance in time which has affected the present but, following that affectation, no longer has any relation to the present?

Really? Ok, assuming time travel exists how would it be stopped? Especially considering that time travel can mean various things, including traveling to another place that's simply identical to the past. After all according to certain idea in the field of quantum physics, every possible occurrence is happening at once.

Definitions again really. It depends on how you define time travel.

But if you detach yourself from the past then it's no longer your past, is it?

You would be traveling into an alternative past where you existed at that point in time and none of your actions could change your own past.

Thus, you still couldn't alter your past.
Create a new time line, perhaps.
But it has nothing to do with your existence or past, making the paradox moot.

[Jess77]

Parallel worlds.

[Lictor]

Nice thread! ;)

When it comes to the Theseus paradox I would say, it's important to mention the concepts of holism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism) and its philosophical counterpart - reductionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism). So being a holist one could say the ship is more, then only sum of its parts and it will remain Theseus' ship as long as there is still this "certain something", which made it Theseus' ship. Example of this "certain something" of some particular ship, would be some feel the ship has to its crew (be it olfactory, sight, different kind of sounds it makes, when sailing, something else or all/any of those things at once). As long as replacing of ship's parts is not changing this "feel", the ship is still the same from a holistic point of view.

On the other hand, if we choose to see it from reductionistic point of view, the ship is not the same the very moment one plank is changed from it.

It wasn't the same ship the moment any of it was replaced (or for that matter ever), things are never the same. Or rather not in the vague definition of the same, now if we were to be more careful about what precise "Sameness" we were talking about we might be able to answer this question more exactly.

Yes, it is also very true.
Like Heraclitus' Panta rhei - everything is changing and nothing stays the same forever. So nothing is the same in time. Time changes everything. Theseus' ship is a slightly different ship each second even without a need to replace some of its parts.

Anyways, I think Lictor intended to post one of these but you beat him. I may post another paradox later.

This topic is Skyborn's idea, and it's good. He borrowed the thread idea and it's even better, considering how lazy I am lately. ;) The only thing I'd like to ask of you is not posting two Friday philosophical debating club threads on the same Friday and continuing the numbering - now it's correctly #6. Everything else is allowed and even encouraged!

On the other side of things we may take an example of a book. An author writes a novel and it is translated to another language by some one else. Now is this translated book a completely new work. No. Its the spirit of the original worker whose work is being kept and upheld.

That's a very cool example and one, I have thought about many, many times about. Can we consider the translators (especially talented ones) as co-authors of a piece?