A little philosophy anyone?

loveisallyouneed

loveisallyouneed

Well-Known Member
There Are No Ordinary Material Objects:

Ok before I present the argument there are some things people should know. Philosophy has quite a bit to do with rhetoric and very little to do with common sense. This argument pisses the hell out of me because well, it makes absolutely no sense but at the same time makes tonnes of sense. We'll see if anyone has a coherent argument. The idea here is to find a premise that doesn't make sense but the numbers after each line tell you where that line came from, if you accept #1, you must accept #2 and so on. Here goes:

(1) Before us there is a jug whose mass is, let us say arbitrarily, 100,000 milligrams (i.e. 100 grams).

(2) Necessarily, reducing a jug's mass by only one milligram (i.e. .001 grams) never turns the jug into a non-jug. [Premise]

(3) So: For any positive integer n, if a jug has a mass of n milligrams then it would remain a jug even if its mass were reduced to n-1 milligrams. [From (2)]

(4) So: For any n < 100,000, if the jug's mass were reduced to n milligrams, it would remain a jug. [From (1), (3), by Mathematical Induction]

(5) So: If the jug's mass were reduced to 0 milligrams, it would remain a jug. [From (4), by Universal Instantation]

(6) Necessarily, no jug has a mass of 0 milligrams. [Premise]

(7) So: It is not the case that (5). [From (6)]

(8 ) So: It is not the case that (1); there is not a jug before us. [From (1), (5), (7), by Reductio ad Absurdum]

(9) The jug is a paradigm case of an ordinary material object: If there is not a jug before us, then there are no ordinary material objects. [Premise]

(10) So: There are no ordinary material objects. [From (8 ), (9), by Modus Ponens]

Insane I know. I would love to prove the argument wrong but some very smart peers have been shut down cold by my prof.
 
reddan1981

reddan1981

Well-Known Member
maybe the dialogue loses me a little. 3 is the potential. Number 2 suggests reducing 001 from 100,000. From 3 onward the assumption is on mass being reduced from 100,000 to 001 and still remaining a jug. To be classed as a jug through its functional capacity it must complete its function
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
premise 2 is false.

but the argument you are citing with that premise does do some marvelous things in the philosophy of knowledge.

you have a headache at time X. you know you have a headache at time X. you cannot tell the difference in headache levels of increments below the pain threshold, which we'll call p.

your headache gradually decreases by p from time X --> time Y until you have no headache at time Y. at no point from time X to time Y did your knowledge change, but at time Y you have no headache. but you know you have a headache. thus knowledge is false, it is only belief.

so can we really know anything?

this is the type of grabage that made me abandon a philosophy major in favor of math.
 
G

god1

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
premise 2 is false.

but the argument you are citing with that premise does do some marvelous things in the philosophy of knowledge.

you have a headache at time X. you know you have a headache at time X. you cannot tell the difference in headache levels of increments below the pain threshold, which we'll call p.

your headache gradually decreases by p from time X --> time Y until you have no headache at time Y. at no point from time X to time Y did your knowledge change, but at time Y you have no headache. but you know you have a headache. thus knowledge is false, it is only belief.

so can we really know anything?

this is the type of grabage that made me abandon a philosophy major in favor of math.
Click to expand...
There's another way to look at the problem; it's an acquisition issue, simply lack of sensor resolution, hence the apparent wrong conclusion; bad data.

Edit: to be clear this in response to Bucks question, " ... can we really know anything?"
 
Last edited:
curious2garden

curious2garden

Well-Known Mod
Staff member
loveisallyouneed said:
.......snip......... I would love to prove the argument wrong but some very smart peers have been shut down cold by my prof.re no ordinary material objects. [From (8 ), (9), by Modus Ponens]

Insane I know.
Click to expand...
Actually this is math. I'm going with Sativied's answer because I don't feel like reading so I'm going to cheat.

Then I made the mistake and read. You are on a stoner's site wanting us to do your math homework? SERIOUSLY! LOL I just hope you turn in what you get :)
 
Last edited:
D

Dyna Ryda

Well-Known Member
curious2garden said:
Actually this is math. I'm going with Sativied's answer because I don't feel like reading so I'm going to cheat.

Then I made the mistake and read. You are on a stoner's site wanting us to do your math homework? SERIOUSLY! LOL I just hope you turn in what you get :)
Click to expand...
I've got some stats homework I need you guys to help me with. Should I just add on to this homework thread?
 
G

god1

Well-Known Member
Sativied said:
2) is false, if the jug has a mass of 1 mg and you remove 1mg there's no mass left, no jug, poof. The rest is based on that false premise. (3) should be for any integer above 1.
Click to expand...

It's #4 that's the issue, he's got the less than equal to sign; should be just less than.

Edit; #2, bad premise.
 
Last edited:
KLITE

KLITE

Well-Known Member
My first ever philosophy exam was composed of one question: Why? I was only 14 and had only tried hash a couple of times. I asked a friend before the exam to share a joint with me. Caned as fuck i went into the exam saw that question and wrote: Because... stood up and left.
I got a 20/20 and people whod been there the whole 90 minutes writting crap didnt get as good grades as me.
To this day im still sure the teacher just liked the size of my balls.
 
dr.gonzo1

dr.gonzo1

Well-Known Member
loveisallyouneed said:
There Are No Ordinary Material Objects:

Ok before I present the argument there are some things people should know. Philosophy has quite a bit to do with rhetoric and very little to do with common sense. This argument pisses the hell out of me because well, it makes absolutely no sense but at the same time makes tonnes of sense. We'll see if anyone has a coherent argument. The idea here is to find a premise that doesn't make sense but the numbers after each line tell you where that line came from, if you accept #1, you must accept #2 and so on. Here goes:

(1) Before us there is a jug whose mass is, let us say arbitrarily, 100,000 milligrams (i.e. 100 grams).

(2) Necessarily, reducing a jug's mass by only one milligram (i.e. .001 grams) never turns the jug into a non-jug. [Premise]

(3) So: For any positive integer n, if a jug has a mass of n milligrams then it would remain a jug even if its mass were reduced to n-1 milligrams. [From (2)]

(4) So: For any n < 100,000, if the jug's mass were reduced to n milligrams, it would remain a jug. [From (1), (3), by Mathematical Induction]

(5) So: If the jug's mass were reduced to 0 milligrams, it would remain a jug. [From (4), by Universal Instantation]

(6) Necessarily, no jug has a mass of 0 milligrams. [Premise]

(7) So: It is not the case that (5). [From (6)]

(8 ) So: It is not the case that (1); there is not a jug before us. [From (1), (5), (7), by Reductio ad Absurdum]

(9) The jug is a paradigm case of an ordinary material object: If there is not a jug before us, then there are no ordinary material objects. [Premise]

(10) So: There are no ordinary material objects. [From (8 ), (9), by Modus Ponens]

Insane I know. I would love to prove the argument wrong but some very smart peers have been shut down cold by my prof.
Click to expand...
Can someone explain this like I'm five?
 
Last edited:
bradburry

bradburry

Well-Known Member
loveisallyouneed said:
There Are No Ordinary Material Objects:

Ok before I present the argument there are some things people should know. Philosophy has quite a bit to do with rhetoric and very little to do with common sense. This argument pisses the hell out of me because well, it makes absolutely no sense but at the same time makes tonnes of sense. We'll see if anyone has a coherent argument. The idea here is to find a premise that doesn't make sense but the numbers after each line tell you where that line came from, if you accept #1, you must accept #2 and so on. Here goes:

(1) Before us there is a jug whose mass is, let us say arbitrarily, 100,000 milligrams (i.e. 100 grams).

(2) Necessarily, reducing a jug's mass by only one milligram (i.e. .001 grams) never turns the jug into a non-jug. [Premise]

(3) So: For any positive integer n, if a jug has a mass of n milligrams then it would remain a jug even if its mass were reduced to n-1 milligrams. [From (2)]

(4) So: For any n < 100,000, if the jug's mass were reduced to n milligrams, it would remain a jug. [From (1), (3), by Mathematical Induction]

(5) So: If the jug's mass were reduced to 0 milligrams, it would remain a jug. [From (4), by Universal Instantation]

(6) Necessarily, no jug has a mass of 0 milligrams. [Premise]

(7) So: It is not the case that (5). [From (6)]

(8 ) So: It is not the case that (1); there is not a jug before us. [From (1), (5), (7), by Reductio ad Absurdum]

(9) The jug is a paradigm case of an ordinary material object: If there is not a jug before us, then there are no ordinary material objects. [Premise]

(10) So: There are no ordinary material objects. [From (8 ), (9), by Modus Ponens]

Insane I know. I would love to prove the argument wrong but some very smart peers have been shut down cold by my prof.
Click to expand...
i dont know how to answer that ..........¿
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top