3 ms·

The quote isn't talking about physical distance. It's talking about "close" in the sense of progress. You haven't made any progress towards walking on the moon

by im3w1l 4y ago

The quote isn't talking about physical distance. It's talking about "close" in the sense of progress. You haven't made any progress towards walking on the moon even if the pile of chairs is as big as Mount Everest. There isn't just the question of toppling either, the chairs would start physically crushing each other and then they are no longer chairs.

glenstein 4y ago
I think this misunderstands my point across the board. Physical distance is progress, and not only that, it's the most fundamental kind of progress for this type of problem. Chairs run up against practical limitations but not in-principle limitations, and people invoke the piling-up-chairs argument because they are confused about which kinds of arguments are about practicality and which are about illustrating a conceptual principle. >You haven't made any progress towards walking on the moon even if the pile of chairs is as big as Mount Everest. I literally gave an example where this is exactly the thing that does, in fact, happen. >There isn't just the question of toppling either, the chairs would start physically crushing each other and then they are no longer chairs. I guess this means you actually read to the end of my comment, so that's good, but, this introduces JV debate team metaphysics that has nothing to do with anything, and if it did matter, you could substitute out chairs for just about any other physical material where the property of chair-ness is moot and the point would be the same. Gravel? Let's go with gravel. But I shouldn't even have to make the point because the fundamental insight is that the nature of the problem is about the traversibility of space. Again, this quote and this argument have been around for decades now, and it has been used to support an a whole range of arguments, some of which are now being abandoned because they seem increasingly untenable with recent advancements. If the people who used this example in the 1960s knew that, come 2023, people were no longer making the in-principle argument, and were even denying that it was ever ever about the possibility in principle, they would wonder what the hell was happening in 2023 that rendered this position of theirs no longer respectable.
- im3w1l 4y ago
  The moon is 30 earth diameters away. There isnt enough gravel on earth to build a pile that high. It's just not a working approach. If you are standing on a giant pile and want to get to the moon your best bet is walk all the way down again and start building a rocket.

by im3w1l 4y ago

glenstein 4y ago

I think this misunderstands my point across the board. Physical distance is progress, and not only that, it's the most fundamental kind of progress for this type of problem. Chairs run up against practical limitations but not in-principle limitations, and people invoke the piling-up-chairs argument because they are confused about which kinds of arguments are about practicality and which are about illustrating a conceptual principle. >You haven't made any progress towards walking on the moon even if the pile of chairs is as big as Mount Everest. I literally gave an example where this is exactly the thing that does, in fact, happen. >There isn't just the question of toppling either, the chairs would start physically crushing each other and then they are no longer chairs. I guess this means you actually read to the end of my comment, so that's good, but, this introduces JV debate team metaphysics that has nothing to do with anything, and if it did matter, you could substitute out chairs for just about any other physical material where the property of chair-ness is moot and the point would be the same. Gravel? Let's go with gravel. But I shouldn't even have to make the point because the fundamental insight is that the nature of the problem is about the traversibility of space. Again, this quote and this argument have been around for decades now, and it has been used to support an a whole range of arguments, some of which are now being abandoned because they seem increasingly untenable with recent advancements. If the people who used this example in the 1960s knew that, come 2023, people were no longer making the in-principle argument, and were even denying that it was ever ever about the possibility in principle, they would wonder what the hell was happening in 2023 that rendered this position of theirs no longer respectable.

im3w1l 4y ago
The moon is 30 earth diameters away. There isnt enough gravel on earth to build a pile that high. It's just not a working approach. If you are standing on a giant pile and want to get to the moon your best bet is walk all the way down again and start building a rocket.