[Mars]

I feel like Dragon is making a reference to the soul. Not sure if that is conjecture. The real thing that holds things to a name is form information, as has been stated (memes.) That is something that can be grasped even in a materialistic philosophy.

[Herra Tohtori]

I guess it wouldn't be far off to speak of machine spirit...

[watsisname]

Here's another question: if I duplicated a computer down to every single atom so that every component, every speck of dust, every electrical charge were completely identical, then destroyed the original at exactly the same time, why wouldn't it be the same computer?

Because, while the parts are identical, they aren't the same parts

What makes them different?  The atoms that make it up carry absolutely no information about what it is they're constituting, so what is it that makes these two hypothetical computers different?

Their world lines.

[Dragon]

I feel like Dragon is making a reference to the soul. Not sure if that is conjecture. The real thing that holds things to a name is form information, as has been stated (memes.) That is something that can be grasped even in a materialistic philosophy.

Note, I was not speaking of "soul" in the spiritual sense. There really isn't a different word that can describe things which are unrelated, but have the same effect of "personalizing" an object such as a computer, a car or a ship. For a person, this indeed is information and memes, the actual personality. For computers, it's the HD contents (hardware quirks can happen, but are rare, reinstalling the OS usually results in a "blank slate" without the usual glitches). However, for other things, it's various things that either appear over time or are inherent in the construction method. Those thing make a complex piece of technology unique, despite being made of mass produced parts.

Okay then, is it still the Ship of Theseus if you probably still have original planks on board but maybe have already replaced them all?

If you can't be sure of whether there are still original parts left, you can't be sure of that, either (the probabilities of either state are proportional to the average confidence level in it). If nobody knows for sure and there are no logs (with probabilities being 50-50), then this question can't, in fact, be answered for that particular vessel. If you want to be pedantic, you might assume a superposition of both states, but I'm not sure if doing it for the entire ship is a valid reasoning (works for particles, though).

[zookeeper]

So I've been studying Metaphysics lately. It's fun! Recently we tackled a very interesting question:

In ancient times, Theseus built a ship he used to defend Athens. After Theseus died, the Athenians decided to preserve his ship as a memorial. But after a time, a few of the planks started to rot, so the Athenians removed them and replaced them with fresh ones. A few years later, more planks started to rot and were replaced. This continued for centuries, until one day every plank of the ship had been replaced- there wasn't a single original plank left! Is it still the same ship Theseus used? If not, when did it stop being Theseus's ship?



For an added twist, suppose the old, partly-rotted planks were not discarded, but stored in a museum. Then, after every single plank has been replaced, someone takes all the rotted planks and puts them back together to form a ship. So now you have two ships. Which one is the ship of Theseus?

Who wants to try and answer? I myself am stumped.

I don't understand why people bother with questions like that. It's just a matter of semantics, nothing more. If you want to define the idea of "ship of Theseus" so that both ships match, then fine. If you want to define it so that only one of them matches, then fine. Whichever definition you pick, it doesn't matter at all, and certainly the answer doesn't tell us anything about anything but yourself.

[Gray]

So I've been studying Metaphysics lately. It's fun! Recently we tackled a very interesting question:

In ancient times, Theseus built a ship he used to defend Athens. After Theseus died, the Athenians decided to preserve his ship as a memorial. But after a time, a few of the planks started to rot, so the Athenians removed them and replaced them with fresh ones. A few years later, more planks started to rot and were replaced. This continued for centuries, until one day every plank of the ship had been replaced- there wasn't a single original plank left! Is it still the same ship Theseus used? If not, when did it stop being Theseus's ship?



For an added twist, suppose the old, partly-rotted planks were not discarded, but stored in a museum. Then, after every single plank has been replaced, someone takes all the rotted planks and puts them back together to form a ship. So now you have two ships. Which one is the ship of Theseus?

Who wants to try and answer? I myself am stumped.

I don't understand why people bother with questions like that. It's just a matter of semantics, nothing more. If you want to define the idea of "ship of Theseus" so that both ships match, then fine. If you want to define it so that only one of them matches, then fine. Whichever definition you pick, it doesn't matter at all, and certainly the answer doesn't tell us anything about anything but yourself.

I tend to agree here, though i occasionally follow such discussions.


On a somewhat related note:

If i disassemble and take most parts (apart from tires, rims, license plate and the ugly Spoiler) off my neighbours car to complete the car i have in my garage, is it still my neighbours car?

[karajorma]

If you can't be sure of whether there are still original parts left, you can't be sure of that, either (the probabilities of either state are proportional to the average confidence level in it). If nobody knows for sure and there are no logs (with probabilities being 50-50), then this question can't, in fact, be answered for that particular vessel. If you want to be pedantic, you might assume a superposition of both states, but I'm not sure if doing it for the entire ship is a valid reasoning (works for particles, though).

Do you see why a definition which allows us to categorically state that it is the Ship of Theseus is preferable to most of the people who have commented on the thread yet?

[InsaneBaron]

Here's another question: if I duplicated a computer down to every single atom so that every component, every speck of dust, every electrical charge were completely identical, then destroyed the original at exactly the same time, why wouldn't it be the same computer?

Because, while the parts are identical, they aren't the same parts

What makes them different?  The atoms that make it up carry absolutely no information about what it is they're constituting, so what is it that makes these two hypothetical computers different?

Atoms still exist. I can hold up two virtually identical pieces of wood, one in each hand, and no matter how similar they are, I can say that they aren't the same object. Same with the computers.

[InsaneBaron]

So I've been studying Metaphysics lately. It's fun! Recently we tackled a very interesting question:

In ancient times, Theseus built a ship he used to defend Athens. After Theseus died, the Athenians decided to preserve his ship as a memorial. But after a time, a few of the planks started to rot, so the Athenians removed them and replaced them with fresh ones. A few years later, more planks started to rot and were replaced. This continued for centuries, until one day every plank of the ship had been replaced- there wasn't a single original plank left! Is it still the same ship Theseus used? If not, when did it stop being Theseus's ship?



For an added twist, suppose the old, partly-rotted planks were not discarded, but stored in a museum. Then, after every single plank has been replaced, someone takes all the rotted planks and puts them back together to form a ship. So now you have two ships. Which one is the ship of Theseus?

Who wants to try and answer? I myself am stumped.

I don't understand why people bother with questions like that. It's just a matter of semantics, nothing more. If you want to define the idea of "ship of Theseus" so that both ships match, then fine. If you want to define it so that only one of them matches, then fine. Whichever definition you pick, it doesn't matter at all, and certainly the answer doesn't tell us anything about anything but yourself.

It's a metaphysical question, about the nature of identity.

[zookeeper]

It's a metaphysical question, about the nature of identity.

Yes, exactly.

[StarSlayer]

You are attempting to apply an emotional/sentimental human value to an inanimate object.

The value of it being the "Ship of Theseus" purely exists as an intangible mental construct, the truth of it is always going to be defined by the beliefs of the person asked. 

There is no "right" answer.




That said as a human being I love the Constitution, she's such a bad ass.



Fifth rates eat your heart out.

[Dragon]

If you can't be sure of whether there are still original parts left, you can't be sure of that, either (the probabilities of either state are proportional to the average confidence level in it). If nobody knows for sure and there are no logs (with probabilities being 50-50), then this question can't, in fact, be answered for that particular vessel. If you want to be pedantic, you might assume a superposition of both states, but I'm not sure if doing it for the entire ship is a valid reasoning (works for particles, though).

Do you see why a definition which allows us to categorically state that it is the Ship of Theseus is preferable to most of the people who have commented on the thread yet?

Notice that this definition is flawed in that you can make a certain statement without certainty about the actual state of the ship. This definition makes the term lose meaning (i.e. anything we call Ship of Theseus is Ship of Theseus). To be able to categorically state a fact about a thing, you need to know something about that thing for certain. If you make such a statement without knowledge, you're either lying or making a meaningless statement. If there is uncertainty, you should either use superposition (it is and it isn't) state likelihoods (it might be with x% chance) or refrain from a concrete statement (it is or it isn't; I don't know).

[Phantom Hoover]

I mean, if either ship can be categorically called the One True Ship of Theseus, it's the one with the replacement parts by continuity. But what the scenario really shows is that the abstraction of there being a thing called 'the ship of Theseus' only goes so far in describing what is ultimately a number of parts arranged in a certain way.

[Aesaar]

Atoms still exist. I can hold up two virtually identical pieces of wood, one in each hand, and no matter how similar they are, I can say that they aren't the same object. Same with the computers.

They aren't virtually identical, they are completely identical.  That it isn't the same atoms doesn't matter, because, again, atoms don't carry any information about the object they make up.

Why are you so sure about the computers when you're not sure about the ship?  The computer may have had everything replaced at once, but the end result is the same.

Worth noting that the computer analogy comes from a conversation in #bp about a year ago in which we tried to determine if continuity of consciousness would be maintained through quantum teleportation.

[The E]

Worth noting that the computer analogy comes from a conversation in #bp about a year ago in which we tried to determine if continuity of consciousness would be maintained through quantum teleportation.

#bp has the best discussions.

[Bobboau]

every time you replace a plank on the ship, that plank becomes a part of the ship. if you replace every plank on the ship, one by one, then each one of those planks is a plank of the ship, every time the the ship emerging whole because every part of it is part of it. the ship is an arrangement, a pattern, a collection of matter, and the fact that things enter and leave that collection does not mean that it is a different collection.

of course this is less a discussion about the nature of things as it is a discussion about how humans decide to label the world and psychology.

[Dragon]

Well, it doesn't matter for the ship if it's "of Theseus" or not. It's a ship, and will sail the same regardless of who it belonged to (well, that's assuming the person in question left it in good order. Sometimes they don't, and you don't want to be the next captain on schedule if that happens... ).

[Bobboau]

what, you mean like replacing rotting planks?

[InsaneBaron]

WiPhi addresses the question and its significance for Khan Academy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYAoiLhOuao

[Flipside]

There's also the proprietorial factor to consider, rather than a soul as such. Maybe as you replace memory, hard drives etc, it remains your computer because it is your computer, there are many computers in the world, there are many boats, but what makes them distinct in many ways is who owns them. It is mostly that, not wood and cloth, not hard-drives or memory that makes an item distinct.