Is change possible?

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Farid said:

I would like to also add that I do not believe that change is not possible. 

Strange pointed out the problems with your definition of "become". Also, "not possible" is the same as impossible, meaning it can't EVER happen. Yet we KNOW change occurs, we see things changing by the normal, mainstream definition of the word ALL THE TIME (especially since the most fundamental change is time itself - something may not physically change in a nanosecond, except it does become a nanosecond older -- which is change!). All around us, things are changing in many ways. A tree can take the carbon away from a CO2 molecule to leave oxygen. The CO2 is transformed, the tree gets bigger, the O2 is converted to a breathable form. Change, change, change.

I would encourage you to do some detailed, mainstream study to see what others have already determined on the subject. They'll use terms and definitions that most who study these things use, so discoveries and experiments are testable and repeatable by everyone. It will certainly make discussion more useful and meaningful to you.

[Farid]

Quote

I would encourage you to do some detailed, mainstream study to see what others have already determined on the subject. They'll use terms and definitions that most who study these things use, so discoveries and experiments are testable and repeatable by everyone. It will certainly make discussion more useful and meaningful to you.

Thanks for the advice. 

Quote

 Also, "not possible" is the same as impossible, meaning it can't EVER happen

I agree that "not possible" is the same as impossible, I also know something being impossible to happen means that it cannot happen, but I cannot agree that it means that it cannot ever happen. 

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Farid said:

I also know something being impossible to happen means that it cannot happen, but I cannot agree that it means that it cannot ever happen. 

So when do you expect the impossible to occur? Next Tuesday, maybe? I would like to put it in my diary so I don't miss it.

[John Cuthber]

9 hours ago, Farid said:

 I cannot agree that it means that it cannot ever happen. 

Then you are wrong.
However there are constructs like "it is impossible until..."

[Farid]

Quote

Then you are wrong.
However there are constructs like "it is impossible until..."

You might be right. 

[zapatos]

22 hours ago, Farid said:

I agree that "not possible" is the same as impossible, I also know something being impossible to happen means that it cannot happen, but I cannot agree that it means that it cannot ever happen. 

Your continued misuse of the English language is another factor making it difficult to have meaningful discussions with you.  

[John Cuthber]

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Your continued misuse of the English language is another factor making it difficult to have meaningful discussions with you.  

To be fair, I strongly suspect that English is not Farid's first language.

[Farid]

Hi everyone,

This post is similar to my posts in the thread about change, but I decided to create a new thread about this post since that thread is already two pages long. 

I would like your opinions on the following. 

If object A becomes something different, then that different object is A and not different, therefore nothing can become different. 

 

Thank you.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Farid said:

If object A becomes something different, then that different object is A and not different

I reject your foundational premise 

[Bufofrog]

8 hours ago, Farid said:

If object A becomes something different, then that different object is A and not different, therefore nothing can become different.

So the sun is a molecular cloud?  But the molecular cloud is made of hydrogen from the big bang and heavier atoms from supernovas.  But the supernovas were from stars that were made from collapsed molecular clouds.  The hydrogen was formed from energy as the universe cooled.  It all seems different to me!

"Nothing can become different" is clearly seems like semantic philosophical tripe.

 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Farid said:

Hi everyone,

This post is similar to my posts in the thread about change, but I decided to create a new thread about this post since that thread is already two pages long. 

I would like your opinions on the following. 

If object A becomes something different, then that different object is A and not different, therefore nothing can become different. 

 

Thank you.

!

Moderator Note

No, they are largely the same discussion, so they belong in one thread. Merged.

 

[Strange]

12 hours ago, Farid said:

If object A becomes something different, then that different object is A and not different, therefore nothing can become different. 

More of your ridiculous misuse of language.

First you say: "A becomes something different" then you say "A is not different." This is exactly the same idiocy you posted before.

Things obviously change: a seed becomes a tree, a small tree becomes a larger tree. You can call the small tree Acer palmatum and you can call the larger tree Acer palmatum but that doesn't mean it hasn't changed.

Please stop posting this nonsense and wasting everyone's time (including yours).

[Phi for All]

On 7/10/2019 at 1:29 PM, Farid said:

You might be right. 

Of course he's right. "Nothing can change" is probably the most untrue sentence ever uttered. The whole universe is based on change, try studying some chemistry.

[Farid]

Quote

 

 I think that I am not getting understood here, that is the reason for so many disagreements and bashing. 

Quote

First you say: "A becomes something different" then you say "A is not different." This is exactly the same idiocy you posted before.

Again, I would like to say that I am not getting understood easily here. If A becomes something different, then A and that different thing are both one and the same thing and not different from each other, therefore A cannot become different. 

Edited July 13, 2019 by Farid

[iNow]

Here’s a another approach.

We are all made of atoms. Even when I lose an arm or leg, the parts of me that remain are still made of atoms, too. In that sense, I’m the same. However, I am definitely different than I was before when viewing my body as a whole.

Parts of me are the same. Other parts are different. 

My best guess here is that you’re mixing reference frames and believe you’ve stumbled on some profound truth, but to the rest of us you just look a bit confused. 

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Farid said:

Again, I would like to say that I am not getting understood easily here. If A becomes something different, then A and that different thing are both one and the same thing and not different from each other, therefore A cannot become different. 

So let's say that "A" is a seed, and which becomes a massive tree that you call "A".

You are saying that the 100 foot high tree is identical to the tiny seed? Do you see how utterly ridiculous this is?

The problem is you are confusing the name (A) with the thing it refers to. If you did a basic course in philosophy, you would learn not to make such silly mistakes. You would learn that stupid word games are not a substitute for thinking or logic.

 

[John Cuthber]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

The problem is you are confusing the name (A) with the thing it refers to.

Have we ruled out trolling as the cause of the problem?

Anyway, it seems that nearly everything can change- everything except Farid's mind.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Anyway, it seems that nearly everything can change- everything except Farid's mind.

  That cracked me up.

[Phi for All]

On 7/9/2019 at 3:00 PM, Farid said:

I agree that "not possible" is the same as impossible, I also know something being impossible to happen means that it cannot happen, but I cannot agree that it means that it cannot ever happen. 

Let's really look at what you're doing here. You THINK you're allowing for possibilities you can (or can't) imagine with your "ever" restriction, but you're only taking a perfectly great definition (impossible = can't ever happen) that gives you a LOT of clarity in descriptions, and lends a great deal of persuasive power to any argument you might make, and watering it down to meaninglessness. How does it help to use "impossible" when I really mean "can't be done (unless we figure out how to do it in the future)"? I really NEED to use the accepted definition of "impossible" when talking about violating the laws of thermodynamics, and I have lots of other words to describe things that aren't possible NOW. You're polluting essential language! 

I don't think you understand how critical it is for science to remove subjective influences, and use rigor and precision when verbally explaining a phenomenon. Remember, theories are describing mathematical models, so we can't afford to misuse definitions. Does that make sense to you?

[Ken Fabian]

Farid - Leaving aside the logical inconsistency in proposing that changing something (B is changed into A) doesn't change it (B is unchanged from A) - perhaps the totality of matter and energy in the universe can be considered unchanged but the arrangements of them definitely does get changed. Even the separateness of material objects gets a bit blurry at smaller scales; sublimation and erosion and chemical changes of surface material will be going on constantly, exchanging substance with the air and water they are immersed in. An object (or drawing) that we would agree is "square" will turn out to have no straight lines or perfect corners at nano-scales - and will be changing in it's fine details over time. Was it ever truly "square"? Depends on how you define "square".

What did come to mind - not quite sure it strictly applies - is the old joke about topologists; topologists cannot tell the difference between a donut and the cup their coffee is in. As topology defines them they have the same shape. (As they would - iiuc - consider a circle and square to be the same kind of thing). It seems to me that appropriate definitions definitely do matter - and failing to get them correct leads to mistakes.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Ken Fabian

[Sensei]

On 7/9/2019 at 11:12 PM, Strange said:

So when do you expect the impossible to occur? Next Tuesday, maybe? I would like to put it in my diary so I don't miss it.

I suggest 30 February. It will be good date for it..

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

I suggest 30 February. It will be good date for it..

There have been February 30ths. Just FYI

https://www.timeanddate.com/date/february-30.html

 

[Sensei]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

There have been February 30ths. Just FYI

https://www.timeanddate.com/date/february-30.html

Yes I know. If you change the rules during the game, you can have things normally impossible.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Sensei

[Farid]

I still think that I am not getting understood here. I will try again to explain what I am saying here. 

Things are always what they are. Suppose someone claims that a circular object will become a square object. That person is saying that a circular object will be the same as a square object, which is obviously not true because a circle and square are two different shapes. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Farid said:

Suppose someone claims that a circular object will become a square object. That person is saying that a circular object will be the same as a square object

No, that person is saying the circle transformed into a square, not that the circle it is equivalent to a square.