• Benj96
    2.3k
    “I have never gone to the local shop” would mean I went to the shop with a frequency of zero times whilst “I go to the shop every month” could mean I go to the shop with a frequency of 12 times a year.
    This is fine when we consider the shop and I as discreet definitive objects of a stable unchanging state. So it’s useful in a pragmatic everyday life sense.

    But what about in a physical, scientific, more accurately objective sense. I am an open system and so is the shop. We both exchange information and material with the external world and interact with the environment so that the shop and I of last month are not the shop and I of the next. We are in a state of flux changing in both material composition, Spatio-temporal location, organisation and structure, regulation and even behaviour and function.

    So in essence what “I” visited what “shop” with a frequency of “anything”? - because both parameters have changed. The initial starting point of the frequency is the shop I’m in at the present moment. But once I travel away and return I’m not returning to the original starting point. Can I truly say then that anything has an actual frequency more than zero - a state of pure unrepeatable flux.
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    The one and the many. Sameness and difference. Context and applicability. Got it! Your point?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.