3 ms·

It's unusual because our ordinary language does not talk about objects being new with every change. The ship that sets sails is supposed to be the same ship tha

It's unusual because our ordinary language does not talk about objects being new with every change. The ship that sets sails is supposed to be the same ship that returns. And yet change is part of life. Everything undergoes change, as Heraclitus noted a long time ago. So why do we talk so imprecisely about objects as if they have permanence? Why is it the same river the next time we step in it?

deltron3030 7y ago
> Why is it the same river the next time we step in it? Maybe because the river bed is more or less still the same location. Location is important for mapping the environment.
smallnamespace 7y ago
> So why do we talk so imprecisely about objects as if they have permanence? Why is it the same river the next time we step in it? Why do most languages allow variables to mutate, rather than forcing us to write in static single assignment style? Because it is useful; the imprecise name still communicates something of value to both parties: that variable foo and variable foo', although not identical, are joined by a common purpose.
coldtea 7y ago
>So why do we talk so imprecisely about objects as if they have permanence? Why is it the same river the next time we step in it? Because the concept of river describes a body of water in flow starting from and passing through specific geographical locations. Those all remain, even if the water at any point X of the river changes...
- goatlover 7y ago
  Those all undergo change as well. In context of the parent, any change whatsoever results in a new object. Which was the point of Heraclitus not being able to step in the same river twice. It's all flux. That's what motivated Plato and Kant to come up with their philosophical responses to the flux. One with eternal forms and the other with categories of thought.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Those all undergo change as well And we are free to disregard small changes, like we do everywhere. I'm aware of Heraclitus' thought (and other pre-socratics, Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hegel, and many others besides) but it's not a binding observation (that one should fell compelled to respond by resolving some great paradox). "Yeah, the river undergoes small changes all the time, and bigger changes from time to time. Still enough remains common for us that we still don't care and will call it by the same name, what are you gonna do about it?" is a nice common sense response...
    - goatlover 7y ago
      Right, but the paradox is that a bunch of inconsequential changes lead to major changes over time, such as the ship being replaced plank by plank until it has none of the original material.

deltron3030 7y ago

> Why is it the same river the next time we step in it? Maybe because the river bed is more or less still the same location. Location is important for mapping the environment.

smallnamespace 7y ago

> So why do we talk so imprecisely about objects as if they have permanence? Why is it the same river the next time we step in it? Why do most languages allow variables to mutate, rather than forcing us to write in static single assignment style? Because it is useful; the imprecise name still communicates something of value to both parties: that variable foo and variable foo', although not identical, are joined by a common purpose.

coldtea 7y ago

>So why do we talk so imprecisely about objects as if they have permanence? Why is it the same river the next time we step in it? Because the concept of river describes a body of water in flow starting from and passing through specific geographical locations. Those all remain, even if the water at any point X of the river changes...

goatlover 7y ago
Those all undergo change as well. In context of the parent, any change whatsoever results in a new object. Which was the point of Heraclitus not being able to step in the same river twice. It's all flux. That's what motivated Plato and Kant to come up with their philosophical responses to the flux. One with eternal forms and the other with categories of thought.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Those all undergo change as well And we are free to disregard small changes, like we do everywhere. I'm aware of Heraclitus' thought (and other pre-socratics, Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Hegel, and many others besides) but it's not a binding observation (that one should fell compelled to respond by resolving some great paradox). "Yeah, the river undergoes small changes all the time, and bigger changes from time to time. Still enough remains common for us that we still don't care and will call it by the same name, what are you gonna do about it?" is a nice common sense response...
  - goatlover 7y ago
    Right, but the paradox is that a bunch of inconsequential changes lead to major changes over time, such as the ship being replaced plank by plank until it has none of the original material.