If I replace the part of the ship with an identical one nothing about the function of the ship changes.
But words and sentences carry information and any change to it alters that information, even if it’s still about the same subject. The newer sentences may also be written by different people then the original sentences
2 texts from different authors covering the same real life event are considered different. Even if they are sold by the same store and got their titles mixed up.
On the other side you could define a Wikipedia article with its transformative nature over time as one of its main properties, in which case this is just a later stage of that same wiki article. Which does feel accurate.
So its not the same text but it is the same wiki article.
The ship is still the ship identified by the same name and repairs are normal part of ship maintenance. But we don’t usually specify this transformative nature when we define a ship or anything else.
Same when a child grows up. Is it the same person? Any sane person would say yes. Anybody who just enjoys debating pointless things would open a Pandora’s box.
I mean that’s what the Socratic method is getting at - things that are “sane” “true” “known” “proven” in actuality are none of those things. It asks you to define where you draw the line.
I was just thinking that a reasonable person wouldn’t consider it the same article anymore. Subject is the same but the article has been completely changed
“Debate solved”
Pandoras box opened they must mean.
If I replace the part of the ship with an identical one nothing about the function of the ship changes.
But words and sentences carry information and any change to it alters that information, even if it’s still about the same subject. The newer sentences may also be written by different people then the original sentences
2 texts from different authors covering the same real life event are considered different. Even if they are sold by the same store and got their titles mixed up.
On the other side you could define a Wikipedia article with its transformative nature over time as one of its main properties, in which case this is just a later stage of that same wiki article. Which does feel accurate.
So its not the same text but it is the same wiki article.
The ship is still the ship identified by the same name and repairs are normal part of ship maintenance. But we don’t usually specify this transformative nature when we define a ship or anything else.
So is it solved?
Yes.
Same when a child grows up. Is it the same person? Any sane person would say yes. Anybody who just enjoys debating pointless things would open a Pandora’s box.
I mean that’s what the Socratic method is getting at - things that are “sane” “true” “known” “proven” in actuality are none of those things. It asks you to define where you draw the line.
I was just thinking that a reasonable person wouldn’t consider it the same article anymore. Subject is the same but the article has been completely changed
Thesus just needed version tracking
“It’s not the same article because you’re looking at version 2024-03-22-11-54-12-023a and I’m looking at version 2025-08-02-08-15-59-01b”
deleted by creator