If change isn't possible, how are people responding to this thread? — Terrapin Station
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
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.
"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.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
"You can't square a circle" isn't simple about the shapes/definitions of the shapes of squares and circles.
They're not. It's an illusion. — S
I am basically saying something circular is never the same as something non-circular. — elucid
Thus, something circular always remains circular. — elucid
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
Statement 2:
Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid
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?
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.