Jump to content

Is change possible?


Farid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

Let me know what you think about the following. 

 

Is Change Possible?

If something is red, circle and existent, and becomes a square, then something red, circle and existent is red, circle, existent and square. If it becomes green, then something red, circle, existent, square is red, circle, existent, square and green. If it becomes non-existent, then something red, circle, existent, green is red, circle, existent, green and non-existent.
 

Edited by Farid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change how? Personally or scientifically? 

Thats very confusing btw, like a tongue twister. 

Personally yes. If I hadn't changed I would be still be a arragont idiot, like I was in school. I change all the time. My views on certain subjects have been right wing all the way to left wing (in the middle now).

Scientifically yes as well, always to a lower state/energy I think. But I don't think that's what you mean though. It needs a more educated person to answer this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Farid said:

Is Change Possible?

The rest of your post is pretty incomprehensible but appears to be describing a process of change. 

Which sounds like “yes”

Also, the contents of this forum are not the same now as 5 minutes ago. So change is clearly possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

Also, the contents of this forum are not the same now as 5 minutes ago. So change is clearly possible. 

In this context, change (entropy) is not only possible but also inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that you guys have hard time understanding me, let me post a revised version. 

 

If something is red, circle and existent, and becomes a square, then that red, circle and existent thing is red, circle, square, and existent. If it becomes green, then that red, circle, and existent thing is red, green, circle, and existent. If it becomes non-existent, then the red, circle, and existent thing is red, circle, existent, and non-existent. 

 

I am sorry if I am still incomprehensible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Farid said:

It seems that you guys have hard time understanding me, let me post a revised version. 

 

If something is red, circle and existent, and becomes a square, then that red, circle and existent thing is red, circle, square, and existent. If it becomes green, then that red, circle, and existent thing is red, green, circle, and existent. If it becomes non-existent, then the red, circle, and existent thing is red, circle, existent, and non-existent. 

 

I am sorry if I am still incomprehensible. 

Not sure i get what you want to say but it sounds like this thing which "becomes" a square is supposed to "remember" that it was a circle? similarly with the colors.  If it were not for this i would agree with @Strange that it sound like the Theseus' ship problem.

Let me put forward another view, that change depends on the observer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try again at making this clear.

A = circle

B = square

When we say that object A changed into object B, we mean that object A became object B. Once object A has become object B, object A is object B. Therefore, circle is square. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Farid said:

Let me try again at making this clear.

A = circle

B = square

When we say that object A changed into object B, we mean that object A became object B. Once object A has become object B, object A is object B. Therefore, circle is square. 

So a circle has changed into a square. <shrug>

Not as impressive as a caterpillar turning into a butterfly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So a circle has changed into a square. <shrug>

If a circle has become a square, and it is only  a square, then the circle has not become a square. If it did, then it would be a square and a circle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Farid said:

Let me try again at making this clear.

A = circle

B = square

When we say that object A changed into object B, we mean that object A became object B. Once object A has become object B, object A is object B. Therefore, circle is square. 

They are the same in the sense that both are curves, but just because you can deform a circle into a square doesn't mean that a circle has four corners, or a square is smooth.

In the generality that you seem to intend it is trivially false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

but just because you can deform a circle into a square doesn't mean that a circle has four corners, or a square is smooth.

I am not saying that you can. All I am talking about is the definition of something "becoming" something else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Farid said:

If a circle has become a square, and it is only  a square,

If it is changed from a circle to a square then, yes, it is now a square and not a circle. That is because the circle became a square. 

Quote

then the circle has not become a square.

You can't start off by saying that a circle becomes a square and then say that it hasn't. This makes even less sense than your other thread.

Quote

If it did, then it would be a square and a circle. 

If it was a square and a circle (whatever that means) then it would have changed from a circle to a square-and-a-circle.

 

Seriously. This is just totally incoherent nonsense. 

What is the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am talking about the definition of something "becoming" something else. 

If a circle becomes a different shape, and the new shape is not a circle and some other shape, then we can say that a circle has not become a different shape. I know that I am saying that a circle becomes a different shape and I am saying that it did not, that is the reason I am discussing the definition of "becoming". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Farid said:

If a circle becomes a different shape, and the new shape is not a circle and some other shape, then we can say that a circle has not become a different shape. I know that I am saying that a circle becomes a different shape and I am saying that it did not, that is the reason I am discussing the definition of "becoming". 

You want to discuss the meaningless definition you have given to the word "becoming"? Why?

"My car is red, which means that it is not red." Nonsense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

You want to discuss the meaningless definition you have given to the word "becoming"? Why?

"My car is red, which means that it is not red." Nonsense

I just thought that people would find this to be very interesting because it gets contradictory.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Farid said:

I just thought that people would find this to be very interesting because it gets contradictory.  

It is only contradictory because you have changed the meaning of becomes to "doesn't become." Why would you do that?

Why would your misuse of words be interesting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Farid said:

I am discussing the definition of "becoming". 

If a square is turning and friction wears away the corners so it's now circular, why wouldn't you say the square "became" a circle? If you put bread in a toaster and heat it, it "becomes" toast. 

The toast is a subset of bread (all toast is bread, not all bread is toast). 

The square with the corners worn off into a circle is no longer a square, but you could classify it with "objects that started out square". If you painted it green when it used to be red, it could be "things which became green". 

But none of this is really interesting. Change is inevitable, as we observe with spacetime constantly, and as we observe with evolution. Evolution is literally changes over time. When something "becomes" something else, it can retain parts of it's original state (toasted bread), it can be completely different (square is now a circle), or it can be essentially unchanged (knowledge can change your perspective, helping you "become aware" without changing anything else about you).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just uncertain about the definition of change. What I think it means makes me think that change is something contradictory happening. 

Edited by Farid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farid said:

I am just uncertain about the definition of change. What I think it means makes me think that change is something contradictory happening. 

Again, a very unhelpful definition. Different is NOT equal to contradictory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sorry, I cannot become more detailed about this subject than I did. I am kinda stumped about this subject.  I would like to also add that I do not believe that change is not possible. I just wanted some help finding flaws in the statement about change. 

Edited by Farid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Farid said:

I do not believe that misuse of my words are interesting. I cannot tell you if I am misusing words or not. 

You are. Because you think “becoming” can mean “not becoming”. It doesn’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.