Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid
You have to decide what you mean by "existent." And then what you mean by "change." Work within those constraints. Then if you like change your definitions and see what follows. But as it stands, without guide rails, so to speak, the conversation is already an aporia.Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid
Since non-existence can never be productive, much less be, — PoeticUniverse
You have to decide what you mean by "existent." And then what you mean by "change." Work within those constraints. Then if you like change your definitions and see what follows. But as it stands, without guide rails, so to speak, the conversation is already an aporia.
Welcome to the club. But you're also missing a point. You're not being asked to determine what change is, merely to define it for present purpose to guide discussion. If the definition is a good one, then we'll find it so. If it's not-so-good, back to the drawing board, but with new insight.I find defining change extremely difficult, — elucid
And if you will think about this a bit, you'll see lots of problems. But that's an exercise I leave for you.a circle is always a circle, a square always a square, a man always a man, something existent always existent, and something non-existent is always non-existent, etc. — elucid
You're not being asked to determine what change is, merely to define it for present purpose to guide discussion. If the definition is a good one, then we'll find it so. If it's not-so-good, back to the drawing board, but with new insight.
So instead of defining change, you’re going with the impossibility that a thing can be other than it is, and by that, denying change.
The statements, ultimately, are saying that a circle is always a circle, a square always a square, a man always a man, something existent always existent, and something non-existent is always non-existent, etc. — elucid
You didn't answer my question, but never mind. I'll proceed without your answer. A shape can change from a circle to a square. There are animations of this which you can find online. Either you're saying something logically irrelevant or you're saying something false. — S
Again, I feel that you did not understand my statements. — elucid
What do you mean, "again"? This is the first time that you've bothered to reply to me, and you haven't bothered to explain why you think that, or to clarify your point, or properly address any of my replies. — S
Hi,
I would like comments on the following statements. It is about change.
Statement 1:
A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore, a circle is something that is never anything that is not a circle.
Statement 2:
Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid
When changes occur, the stuff that changed isn't the same after the change as it was before the change, sure. That's the whole idea of change. If it were the same, then it wouldn't be the case that it changed. — Terrapin Station
I am very sorry that you're not only presumptuous, but incompetent.
Hold on a minute, now you're being sensible again. How can you just switch it up like that?
I will use a circle in the following example. Basically, I am saying that a circle is never the same as something that is not a circle. Saying that I am wrong is saying that a circle is sometimes the same as a square or something else that is not a circle, is that something you agree with? — elucid
Statement 1:
A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore, a circle is something that is never anything that is not a circle.
Statement 2:
Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent.
Statement 1:
A circle is never the same as anything that is not a circle. Therefore, a circle is something that is never anything that is not a circle. — elucid
Statement 2:
Something existent is never the same as something non-existent. Therefore, something existent is something that is never non-existent. — elucid
Your argument here is that change is impossible. However, if you add certain elements to A, and it becomes B, haven't you produced a change? So even if the law of identity holds, transmutation is a possibility correct? It therefore follow that your second statement is false, and that your first statement is simply the law of identity, which as ↪S pointed out, does not negate transmutation from A to B given particular conditions.
If change is impossible, you cannot add any elements to A.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.