• S
    11.8k
    If change isn't possible, how are people responding to this thread?Terrapin Station

    They're not. It's an illusion. Like the value of philosophical discussions of this sort.
  • elucid
    53
    When someone disagrees with the statement, "A circle and a square are always different." That person is saying that "A circle and a square are sometimes the same." It is hard to make some comments on what that person is saying because it is very hard to understand what that means.
  • Jimmy
    15
    If magic mushrooms existed in front of you, you could eat them so they won't exist, and then the circle might even turn into a square? who knows?
  • elucid
    53
    I would appreciate comments on the following as well.

    A circle is always a circle. To disagree is to say a circle is always not a circle, or sometimes a circle is not a circle.
  • god must be atheist
    1.8k
    Hi,

    I would like comments on the following statements. It is about change.

    Statement 1:

    A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore, a circle is something that is never anything that is not a circle.

    Statement 2:

    Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent.
    elucid

    Change the stupid circle into a triangle or something. The circle ceases to be a circle, because it was cahnged into a triangle.

    What's the actual problem here, or the topic even?
  • elucid
    53
    Change the stupid circle into a triangle or something. The circle ceases to be a circle, because it was cahnged into a triangle.

    Once this circle becomes a triangle, what is that circle at this moment?
  • god must be atheist
    1.8k
    Once this circle becomes a triangle, what is that circle at this moment?elucid

    This circle is not existent at the moment. It has been changed, or it changed, into a triangle.

    I thought that the original topic was "change is impossible". Well, it is not. If you change a circle, a triangle, a geodesic tri-point transformation of an ancient Indian burial ground into something else, you've made the change.

    I can't see any difficulty there.
  • elucid
    53
    This circle is not existent at the moment. It has been changed, or it changed, into a triangle.

    I thought that the original topic was "change is impossible". Well, it is not. If you change a circle, a triangle, a geodesic tri-point transformation of an ancient Indian burial ground into something else, you've made the change.

    I can't see any difficulty there.

    If something changing means it becoming non-existent, then we should be dead by now. And are somebody else who thinks that they were somebody else in the past and have done those things.
  • god must be atheist
    1.8k
    Not all of us. Only those of us who are changed into a dead body. As long as we are alive bodies, we ought not to be dead. Live bodies have simply not changed into dead bodies.

    You may want to argue that our experiences from day to day change our psyche, and our metabolism and aging process and diseases change our physical being. In that case, one person is changed into another person. The person went from one formation to another formation, in other words, changed, and s/he is a different person. But s/he does not need to be dead to be different from what s/he had been. Two different people can coexist or exist in chronolgical sequence. There is no need to die to go into inexistence... if you change, your old self goes into inexistence, and a new self is created, but no death needs to be involved in this.
  • elucid
    53
    For sake of clarity, I would like to say what I have been trying to say in a different way.

    A circle is never the same as a square. Thus, a circle is never a square. Otherwise, it is either sometimes or always the same as a square. Thus, sometimes or always a square. This principle applies to all things.
  • HereToDisscuss
    68
    For sake of clarity, I would like to say what I have been trying to say in a different way.

    A circle is never the same as a square. Thus, a circle is never a square. Otherwise, it is either sometimes or always the same as a square. Thus, sometimes or always a square. This principle applies to all things.
    elucid
    "A circle is never the same as a square." simply means that, at time T, the thing can not be both a circle and a square. But it could be a circle at time T and a square at time T'-this is the whole idea of change.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    "You can't square a circle" isn't simple about the shapes/definitions of the shapes of squares and circles.

    That saying is rather about the challenge of constructing a square with the same area as a given circle by using only a finite number of steps with compass and straightedge.

    Per Wikipedia: "In 1882, the task was proven to be impossible, as a consequence of the Lindemann–Weierstrass theorem which proves that pi (π) is a transcendental, rather than an algebraic irrational number; that is, it is not the root of any polynomial with rational coefficients. It had been known for decades that the construction would be impossible if π were transcendental, but π was not proven transcendental until 1882. Approximate squaring to any given non-perfect accuracy, in contrast, is possible in a finite number of steps, since there are rational numbers arbitrarily close to π.

    "The expression 'squaring the circle' is sometimes used as a metaphor for trying to do the impossible"
  • elucid
    53
    "You can't square a circle" isn't simple about the shapes/definitions of the shapes of squares and circles.

    I am not talking about squaring a circle. I am basically saying something circular is never the same as something non-circular. Thus, something circular is something that is never non-circular. Thus, something circular always remains circular. I am just using something circular in this example, I am not saying it is true only for circular objects. I am saying that the following statement applies to every property of everything.
  • ZzzoneiroCosm
    741
    They're not. It's an illusion.S

    If change is an illusion the illusion of change is constantly changing.

    It's easy to say change is an illusion. It's also easy to say the idea that change is an illusion is an illusion.
  • HereToDisscuss
    68
    I am basically saying something circular is never the same as something non-circular.elucid

    I would like to see your justification. Why would that be the case?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Thus, something circular always remains circular.elucid

    That particularly seems odd to say.

    Imagine that we take this table:

    2_61948_s.jpg

    And take a saw to it so that we end up with something like this:
    T30SQ-B2015-31-LFT-NA_540x540.jpg

    Would something circular remain circular in that case?
  • TheMadFool
    4.9k
    Statement 1:

    A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore, a circle is something that is never anything that is not a circle.
    elucid

    Agreed though it appears tautological.


    Statement 2:

    Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent.
    elucid

    Begging the question.

    The word "never" is doing something odd.

    In the premise it expresses the contradiction existence vs non-existence which is acceptable.

    In the conclusion it makes a claim about the world viz. that existence is eternal. The premise doesn't support this conclusion.

    Clever.
  • elucid
    53
    I am basically saying something circular is never the same as something non-circular.
    — elucid

    I would like to see your justification. Why would that be the case?

    If it is not true, it means that something circular is sometimes or always the same as something non-circular. We know it is not always true, we obviously can see that.

    A circular object being the same as a square one would mean that it is circular and not-circular object at the same time.
  • HereToDisscuss
    68
    A circular object being the same as a square one would mean that it is circular and not-circular object at the same time.elucid

    Yes. But note the "at the same time" part that you have omitted in the first premise, you have said that "A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle." which is different from what you are saying now. A circular object can not, at the same time, be both circular and non-circular. But, at a later time, it can be something non-circular and it would not be a circular object at that time.
    So, i do not think the premise holds any water (maybe it's true if you look at it from the law of identity, but that does not support your consclusion).
1234Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment