Philosophy problem dealing with logic...nice practice for computational logic

[gilgalad]

Man, I love hearing the answers of other people. To be honest, I still don't have an answer to this question. I proposed an answer that the T.S. is actually B1000, but the question remains: when does something cease to be and becomes something else? One reply in particular, Remote_Access' response, was my initial one. My professor told me that is wrong, though, because of a fundamental numeric identity theorum:
If x = y and y = z, then
x = z
And because the T.S. has an essence (so to speak) there can only be one exactly like it, and that is itself. The T.S. can't coexist with another T.S. However, the conclusion that neither of the ships are the T.S. can still be a legitimate answer .

[imported_Remote_Access]

How is that wrong? Because the professor is the teacher and he says so? Numeric identity theorum is a bunch of crap.

If a Red M&M = Blue M&M and
Blue M&M = Green M&M
Then a Red = Green M&M

M&M's have an essence and there's millions of those. They're all the same. That's like saying there is only one red M&M and it can't coexist with another one because it has an "essence".

[gilgalad]

It's wrong because there can't be more than one thing. Yes, there can be multiple red M&M's, but no two are exactly the same. Therefore, the numeric identity theorum is not a bunch of crap. The teacher isn't right because SHE says so, she's right because what she says makes logical sense. If you had a twin, of course the twin would look like you...but does that mean the twin is you?

Cheers,
gilgalad

[imported_Remote_Access]

According to this "theorum", a red and a green M&M is the same thing. There CAN be more than one thing. There is more than one M&M in the world. Of course the twin wouldn't be me but you just said there can't be more than one thing so there for I don't even have a twin because he wouldn't be able to exist...

[gilgalad]

Really, as in all philosophy, it's hard to find an absolute truth in dealing with abstract concepts. It's all about terminology. I just wanted to see what people thought. Concerning the answers to the question, though, it's been a fun run.

gilgalad

[imported_Remote_Access]

Indeed, indeed.

I'm takeing intro to philsophy and trying to get into debateing my point of view. It's a fun class, quite different from the other ones. Instead of being taught what to think and memorizeing trivial things, we're learning how to think and why we think that way. I look forward to more philosophic discussions.

Cheers,
Remote

[OverdueSpy]

First the assumption that the two ships are identical is an incorrect assumption. As stated earlier no two objects can be exactly the same. Also to consider - any two objects when compared to each other exclusively, at a given point in time, will always have the same difference. So the real T.S. is actually the difference between two ships. Wink, Wink.

[imported_Remote_Access]

*gasp* what thought provoking input...

[NeuTron]

Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
First the assumption that the two ships are identical is an incorrect assumption. As stated earlier no two objects can be exactly the same. Also to consider - any two objects when compared to each other exclusively, at a given point in time, will always have the same difference. So the real T.S. is actually the difference between two ships. Wink, Wink.

Hear, Hear...Well stated. I raise my brandy glass to you sir!

[Und3ertak3r]

They wont be the same ship.. they will have different captains..

It is like cloning yourself.. is the clone you? no.. Are you still you? .. yes.. While the Clone may have similar characatistics, and the personality traits will be similar.. the clone will have a different "Captain".. that is a different consiousness..

In the case of a ship.. had they cloned the captain and crew as well, then my idea falls in a screaming heap.. .. cloning the consiousness of a person.. the final link to being able to teleport..

Cheers