tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post8430475788575256542..comments2023-01-24T10:06:57.212-08:00Comments on (Blog&~Blog): Graham Priest's Theory Of ChangeBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06702722560438833244noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-11579764121174547932009-07-29T12:34:08.187-07:002009-07-29T12:34:08.187-07:00Rafal and Deleet,
Excellent point about #2, worth...Rafal and Deleet,<br /><br />Excellent point about #2, worth following up in its own post. Stay tuned!Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06702722560438833244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-18115276380831466262009-07-09T12:14:25.691-07:002009-07-09T12:14:25.691-07:00I think you did a pretty good job with that argume...I think you did a pretty good job with that argument. I have the same "doubts" (?) about objection #2 as the above poster has.<br /><br />-<br /><br />Also I'm wondering what sense it makes to say that some percentage of an infinite set is e.g. even.<br /><br />Consider the set of integers:<br />{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...}<br /><br />The percentage of even and odd numbers "should" be 0.5, But how do we calculate this? We cannot do it the normal way: n/m where n is the item in question and m is the total amount. E.g. red bikes when I have 1 red bike and 10 bikes total: n/m=1/10. This doesn't work with two infinites: infinite/infinite=infinite (?).<br /><br />But I suppose there is a solution for this. I haven't learned math about infinites.Emil O. W. Kirkegaardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06373127088976173644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2631035637795172582.post-2111765987394276592009-07-06T02:55:15.283-07:002009-07-06T02:55:15.283-07:00Interesting. I'm wondering how damaging object...Interesting. I'm wondering how damaging objection #2 really is. <br /><br />(This will be a bit handwavy) Suppose I make a distinction between contexts which essentially involve change and contexts which don't do that.<br /><br /> Presumably, in the moment when the ash tray changes from being intact to being broken, even if we buy into the claim that it's both intact and not-intact, I can't argue:<br /><br />(i) The ash tray is intact.<br />(ii) Either the ash tray is intact, or I'm a pink elephant.<br />(iii) The ash tray is not-intact.<br />(iv) Therefore, I'm a pink elephant.<br /><br />Now, take the example you used:<br /><br />"Ryan is either downstairs playing Guitar Hero or in his room sleeping, since those are the only things he ever does. He's not playing Guitar Hero, so he must be sleeping."<br /><br />If the possibility of change should be taken into account, things get tricky - if Ryan is actually stopping to play Guitar Hero, he is simultaneously playing and not playing it, and DS becomes suspicious.<br /><br /> But this is not what is usually meant, when we use those arguments: we sort of interpret things statically. <br /><br />This suggests the following strategy: for arguments that involve change, the number of contradictions is pretty high, and thus DS is not reliable when we reason about changing objects if we admit they both are and aren't in certain states. For contexts where we interpret things "more statically", the number of contradictions is pretty low, and hence, when we reason in such contexts we have some reasons to accept DS.<br /><br />Of course, details of this distinction should be worked out, but I'm wondering if a Priestian cannot take this way out. How do you think?Rafal Urbaniakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10277466578023939272noreply@blogger.com