3 ms·

> Do triangles exist? Is the definition of triangle "bereft of any definition that can be objectively measured"? Certainly not, the definition of a triangle is

> Do triangles exist? Is the definition of triangle "bereft of any definition that can be objectively measured"? Certainly not, the definition of a triangle is quite a rigorously defined mathematical construct. > Is the Ship of Theseus fundamentally different than a triangle, or is it merely a difference of degree? It is not a difference of quantity but quality. A triangle is an objectively defined, mathematical concept; identities are as I said “You know it when you see it, and different men see it differently.”. — you will not find many mathematicians disagreeing on what is, and is not a triangle. Another fundamental difference is that a triangle is an abstract reasoning tool, not an empirical one, and no mathematician would suggest that real life objects are, or are not, triangles. > Ask any random human to define some extremely complex mathematical entity, and you'll get various fuzzy answers. A lay human being with no mathematical understanding perhaps, but all of these entities have been defined rigorously in mathematical terms. > Does that mean complex math doesn't really exist? You were the one who speaks in such terms as “existence”. I will not have you put words in my mouth. All I said is that one has an objective, rigorous definition such that you will find that every single educated man in the field agrees on what is, and what is not a triangle, such that a machine proof assistant can be fed this definition, and verify machine-level proofs that reason about them, and that the other lacks this such that you find that nigh any man, expert or not, has a different definition of what constitutes the identity of a physical object, and where a new object starts.

otabdeveloper4 6y ago
> It is not a difference of quantity but quality. There is no evidence for this, you're claiming this purely out of personal bias. Just because nobody bothered yet to define a rigorous mental model of 'Ship of Theseus' doesn't mean such a model doesn't exist in principle. (In fact, the job of programmers is exactly that - to define rigorous models for things that nobody bothered to define before.)
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > Just because nobody bothered yet to define a rigorous mental model of 'Ship of Theseus' doesn't mean such a model doesn't exist in principle. Bothered to? MY good man, giants have attempted, and failed. — you speak as though no one attempted, rather than that many have, and none could. > (In fact, the job of programmers is exactly that - to define rigorous models for things that nobody bothered to define before.) The difference being that they generally succeed and when after millennia of attempts none have, tend to acknowledge that it probably cannot be done.

otabdeveloper4 6y ago

> It is not a difference of quantity but quality. There is no evidence for this, you're claiming this purely out of personal bias. Just because nobody bothered yet to define a rigorous mental model of 'Ship of Theseus' doesn't mean such a model doesn't exist in principle. (In fact, the job of programmers is exactly that - to define rigorous models for things that nobody bothered to define before.)

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> Just because nobody bothered yet to define a rigorous mental model of 'Ship of Theseus' doesn't mean such a model doesn't exist in principle. Bothered to? MY good man, giants have attempted, and failed. — you speak as though no one attempted, rather than that many have, and none could. > (In fact, the job of programmers is exactly that - to define rigorous models for things that nobody bothered to define before.) The difference being that they generally succeed and when after millennia of attempts none have, tend to acknowledge that it probably cannot be done.