Current Events > Where do you stand on the Ship of Theseus thought experiment?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

TL;DR: Is a complex object (like a wooden ship, for example) that has had all of its pieces replaced over time the same object that it started out as, or is it a completely different object with the same name?

There's really a bit more to it than that, but that's essentially what the problem boils down to.

Neither is the original as one is merely replacement parts and the other is a recreation of the original.

I steal the ship.

Now the ownership of Theseus is irrelevant.

You're welcome, philosophers.

Honestly, the best breakdown I have seen of the Ship of Theseus is with the two Visions at the end of WandaVision. The answer they come up with is pretty good too:

"Neither is the real ship. Both are the real ship."

Its the same ship

TC you should play the Zero Escape series.

It's still the same ship.

PrsdntHeidecker posted...

TC you should play the Zero Escape series.

The story looks interesting, but I utterly refuse to play visual novels.

It's a question where the answer is obviously between the two extremes, and also different depending on the context of the question, thus it's really just a dumbo gotcha question requiring an immediate and unqualified short answer rather than a long, probing and explanatory answer that removes the need to set it up as a "thought experiment"

I think its not answerable with one single answer. I think that in certain cases it's not and in certain cases it is. For example, there's a reason why old original antiques are worth way more than ones that have been restored or altered from their original pieces, even if these antiques are in horrible shape. However when speaking about something that could carry an "essence" of sorts like a car/ship/sword etc I can see it being considered to be the same object in terms of value as those were used as vessels for more than just their intended purpose. Let's say for example of the sword of Excalibur was real and it had it's handle replaced and then soon after had anew blade forged and retrofitted to the new handle. That would still be considered of the same value over another sword from that era that underwent similar a similar process

Heartomaton posted...

The story looks interesting, but I utterly refuse to play visual novels.

Then you're a close minded fool and the shallow depth of conversation you get from bringing this to CE is what you deserve.

PrsdntHeidecker posted...

Then you're a close minded fool and the shallow depth of conversation you get from bringing this to CE is what you deserve.

I'm sorry I triggered your unwarranted hostility. It'll be okay.

It's the same ship because people view it as the same ship. In reality, the object is just a mass of mutilated wood. A "ship" is a social construct, an idea.

Heartomaton posted...

I'm sorry I triggered your unwarranted hostility. It'll be okay.

If you think outing yourself as close minded counts as triggering. It's probably best if I add you to my ignore list and we part ways here.

PrsdntHeidecker posted...

If you think outing yourself as close minded counts as triggering. It's probably best if I add you to my ignore list and we part ways here.

Weren't you leaving CE?

PrsdntHeidecker posted...

If you think outing yourself as close minded counts as triggering. It's probably best if I add you to my ignore list and we part ways here.

If you think refusing to play visual novels makes a person close minded. It's probably best if you add me to your ignore list and we part ways here.

It's the same ship

Why not both?

same ship, next.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I'd never really thought about trying to pin down exactly how I feel but reading this is pretty fitting to the way I think about it. unless the parts of it are special in some way, its identity is based solely on its connection to a person/place/event/etc

My resolution is to think of the ship as an object that we divulge meaning onto, therefore the materials it was once made of are not necessarily inherent to it being "Theseusian", unless of course the materials are given meaning as well.

A ship is just an arrangement of planks and nails. There's no inherent universal "Ship-ness" to them. We call it a ship because it's shiplike. Planks and nails are just an arrangement of fibers and metal. Fibers and metal are just an arrangement of atoms. We give meaning to these things, they don't have inherent "nail-ness" or "atom-ness" to them.

in other words it's just our brains classifying things as objects with properties and uses that are relevant and known to us and our own perceptions of things.

This example is unrealistic. Renovated stadiums are still the same stadium fundamentally.

Damn_Underscore posted...

This example is unrealistic. Renovated stadiums are still the same stadium fundamentally.

What exactly do you mean by "fundamentally"?

Background_Guy posted...

It's the same ship because people view it as the same ship. In reality, the object is just a mass of mutilated wood. A "ship" is a social construct, an idea.

This

ZMythos posted...

What exactly do you mean by "fundamentally"?

It is the same object it started out as.

It has just changed, like how a person grows.

My first thought is that it's not the same ship after the first part is replaced.

The way I see it...
It's the same object, just upgraded or "improved" from it's original state.
The old object needed it's parts replaced right? Just because old parts were taken out and replaced doesn't mean the object is any different from what it was once...
So long as it functions the "same" if not better is all that matters in the end of the day?

zero escape is a garbage franchise anyway...or at least the first game. (I didn't play the sequels)

Nah under the bridge is better, you'll find all sorts of opportunities under your local bridge or I95 highway.

Far more simply, if the ship was made of one single piece of wood, and you moved it to the side and put an identical piece of wood in its place, I'd say the ship at the side is the real one, and the other is a phoney taking up the original's space. Both parts are discrete things. Maybe same if you swapped halves or even thirds (with a break in continuity during replacement for what you consider a 'whole' ship) but at some point you'd maybe flip that around. But what point?

Far more complexly, your whole body replaces all of its atoms every 5-10 years but you'd consider your continually rebuilding self as the real you. The you part of you is a continuum that persists through the changes. Even if some weirdo scientist thief collected all your lost matter and managed to rebuild a clone from it, you'd still consider you as the real you, and the indentical Frankenstein you to be a phoney clone. Your atoms are interchangeable, but they form a continuous and uniform result.

A real ship is somewhere in the middle then, it's many planks somewhere in relation to each other, which we collectively conceptualise as the 'ship'. But the ship could be defined as the continuum of the set of planks in any order which would allow it to stay afloat on water, regardless of how those planks are arranged, rearranged, removed or replaced. But also separating a ship with only one or two parts would break that continuum, seeing each part as essential 'components' rather than indistinguishable 'pieces'.

'Pieces' in this sense meaning something that you wouldn't assign individually to (eg. pints of water in a barrel) and 'components' meaning something you would, even if identical things exist (eg. a car engine with unique serial number). So it's not a well defined question - if you consider the planks conceptually as pieces then it's the original ship (with parts replaced) that's the real one, where the ship is like a piecewise convergent continuous function. If you consider the planks conceptually as components then the new ship (with original parts) is the real one, where the ship is like a uniform convergent semi-continuous function.

tl,dr: I don't know, feat. ship calculus

https://youtu.be/LAh8HryVaeY

In seriousness, for inanimate objects, the physical components are arbitrary. A "ship" is a concept we created ourselves. To the natural world, it's just a bunch of random wood, canvas, and hemp stuck together. Humans are the ones that decide that, that specific set of materials, in that arrangement, made to serve that particular purpose, is a "ship".

So whether or not it's the same, or different, is based entirely on our perception of continuity. Most people would consider the new ship to be the same as the old, because we observe the continuity of that concept's existence.

Now, if we blow up the old ship, forget about it, and use the materials originally meant for its repair to make a new ship from scratch, we call it a new ship. Because there is no observable continuity connecting the two.

it's the same ship unless the ship has a 'face' that can be changed, maybe its sail or flag could set an identification

what i mean is, if people mostly identify another through facial recognition then people are mostly just 'faces', documents require our heads and shoulder portrait, rarely the whole body, if someone's face is attractive and posts it on social media, nobody questions if the person has no arms nor legs or changed body parts

Identity is created from the relationships between entities. Replacing the parts of the ship does not change your relationship to the ship and what sentiments you have towards it. Someone who you considered a friend who suddenly acts as a dick toward you is also someone who is not who you thought they were and though you may consider them a changed person with the same identity, the friend you once knew lives on in your memories as basically as different (the original) identity.