SHIP OF THESEUS

[Skepdick]

Balderdash and codswallop.

Sorry, no comprende.

Can you explain it to me like I am 5?

[attofishpi]

-

[Harbal]

Balderdash and codswallop.

Sorry, no comprende.

Can you explain it to me like I am 5?

Yes, of course. You've been a very silly boy, and you can go to your room until you learn how to behave properly.

[attofishpi]

Balderdash and codswallop.

Sorry, no comprende.

Can you explain it to me like I am 5?

Codswallop was my Grand Father speak.

There probably is no explanation for it...beyond it is the speech of our wise Grandfathers, as they were nattering around the nethers..of their favourite place, the "shed" where they fix things.

"now where is that silly sod"..etc..


My favourite riddle..from Gramps.
"I walked along till i found it. I picked it up to look for it. I found I couldn't find it, so I put it down and walked away with it...."

What is "it"?

[Skepdick]

Yes, of course. You've been a very silly boy, and you can go to your room until you learn how to behave properly.

Sorrry, no comprende.

I didn't have my own room when I was 5. We was poor and shared the lounge as a sleeping space.

[attofishpi]

..or as ChatGPT has it

The term "codswallop" is believed to have originated in England in the early 20th century. It is a slang expression that means nonsense, balderdash, or something that is foolish or untrue. While the exact origin of the word is not entirely clear, there are a few theories about its etymology:

Hiram Codd and Bottled Drinks: One theory links the term to Hiram Codd, an English soft drink maker who invented the Codd-neck bottle in the 19th century. These bottles had a marble in the neck that sealed the carbonated beverage. It's suggested that "codswallop" might have been used humorously to refer to the sound made when the marble dropped into the bottle, implying that the drink was full of nonsensical "bubbles."

Hokum and Nonsense: Another theory is that "codswallop" is a combination of the word "cod," which can mean "foolish talk," and "swallop," an informal term for a drink. The term would then refer to foolish or nonsensical talk, much like an empty, meaningless drink.

Slang Evolution: Like many slang terms, "codswallop" might have simply evolved over time through colloquial usage, combining elements that sounded humorous or fit the context of dismissing something as nonsense.

Regardless of its precise origin, "codswallop" has become a recognizable term for describing something that is considered absurd or devoid of meaning. It's often used informally and playfully in conversation to express skepticism or disbelief.


Ergo.

Seems this "harbal" chap disagrees with you, Skep..:
The physics reason for this is quite simple - quantum information is a conserved quantity.
Making a perfect copy of a quantum system violates conservation of quantum information.

If you can make a perfect copy of a quantum system you've doubled quantum information.

[Skepdick]

Seems this "harbal" chap disagrees with you, Skep..:

I think Hairball isn't disagreeing, so much as he expects short inferential distances. And I am sure even the phrase "short inferential distances' sounds like "codswallop" to him...

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances

[attofishpi]

Seems this "harbal" chap disagrees with you, Skep..:

I think Hairball isn't disagreeing, so much as he expects short inferential distances. And I am sure even the phrase "short inferential distances' sounds like "codswallop" to him...

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances

..well, without reference it sounds like codswallop to anyone like us that only deal with "long inferential distances".

[Skepdick]

Seems this "harbal" chap disagrees with you, Skep..:

I think Hairball isn't disagreeing, so much as he expects short inferential distances. And I am sure even the phrase "short inferential distances' sounds like "codswallop" to him...

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances

..well, without reference it sounds like codswallop to anyone like us that only deal with "long inferential distances".

Short. Long.

Shlong.

[Dontaskme]

My sense of this is that we are not our form. It is a continually-regenerating organic form that eventually withers, as all organic forms do. The essence that animates that form (and all others) is what we actually are. That essence has no need for identity.


And just like 'losing oneself' in a really good engaging movie, we need not take it all -- or ourselves as actors and directors -- too seriously. Just make a really good movie!

The life that we think we have and lead is the film, the movie and we are a character in the movie, or we think we are.
But as our mind quietens, it can become clear that what we are is this formlessness, this spirit, this aware presence in which all name and form appears.

The movie and the screen are one.

If you reach out and touch the movie, you'll touch the screen and you can't find any movie apart from the screen, they're one substance.

You can say the substance or the material basis of the movie is the screen, this formless spirit, this awareness, this consciousness, this knowingness in which all arises and as which all arises.

But, they are not the same. Whilst they are one, they are not the same. The movie is not the same as the screen.

Screen always here no matter whether the movie's playing or not.


Nonduality, the one question to ALL our answers.

[Skepdick]

Also, how did I forget to post this ...

[Gary Childress]

Also, how did I forget to post this ...

I posted this one recently somewhere else on the forum but I think it segues very nicely here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYV-qYeWPkk

[Toppsy Kretts]

Everything hinges on tracking down the Somali pirates and recapturing the ‘soul’ of the real boat.

The most rigid thing of all possibly being one's perspective with which it is seen and experienced.

je suis le navire de thésée.
None of us have a single molecule that was present in our bodies seven years ago, it is said.

In the case of nonconscious entities, such as a home, the physical entity comprises the individual entity, such that after a home remodel, many consider their home changed even though it is in the same location, at the same address with the same footprint and, say the same exterior appearance.

A ship has history.
An electron doesn't.

If all the atoms in your body are replaced, is it still you?

If you can make a perfect copy of a quantum system you've doubled quantum information.

This my friends is why I am grateful for finding this forum. Its conversations like these with somewhat likeminded people that make me appreciate the questions in life. And I would like to thank each and every one of you for analyzing them along with me.

[Dubious]

Is anything the same thing it used to be? Time changes everything.

Time is a result of causality...it changes nothing.

We don't know how time came to be and neither do you. Time as a result of causality explains absolutely nothing! It's one of the main mysteries in how the cosmos came to be. Causality is not something which pertains to physics; there are no "causality equations". So you're half right. Causality changes nothing; time changes everything without being a product of causality which is more of a debatable subject in philosophy than in physics.

[Sculptor]

Also, how did I forget to post this ...

I posted this one recently somewhere else on the forum but I think it segues very nicely here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYV-qYeWPkk

Except that in most examples of the ship of Theseus, and of course Triger's Broom, there was only ever one. The question still remains is the ship or the broom the same one as the original?