My Canoe Challenge

[PhoceanCity]

I have to agree totally with this.

Perhaps a better question in my OP would be:

How old is this object?

The object is one day old since apparently somebody crafted it yesterday.

But what was it have to do with anything AVET?

 

[AV1611VET]

The object is one day old since apparently somebody crafted it yesterday.

But what was it have to do with anything AVET?

Just trying to get you to see that an object can have two different ways at looking at its age -- neither of which contradict the other.

 

[PhoceanCity]

Now here, you might have a point; but I'll consider this thread as having served its purpose if you can see how an object can have both and existential age and a physical age.

But if you understand my answer, I tell you that both the «existential and physical age™» of the CANOE <--- note the emphasis ...are the same

 

[BrianOnEarth]

It's a bummer being out of work, isn't it?

Can be.
My advice, don't ever go for a job behind a fresh food counter. The customers will not be sympathetic to your views of physical age.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can be.
My advice, don't ever go for a job behind a fresh food counter. The customers will not be sympathetic to your views of physical age.

Everything I touch automatically expires --

 

[3sigma]

Just trying to get you to see that an object can have two different ways at looking at its age -- neither of which contradict the other.

Tell us again how old the tree was. Give us its physical and existential ages (according to you).

 

[JustMeSee]

If the tree grew for a tree one thousand years ago, it is a thousand years old. If it was 'created' a week ago, it is a week old.

From what I understand, God is not a deceiver.

 

[Nathan Poe]

As I use it, it means: time in existence -- the amount of time something has been around.

So, "age," then.

 

[Freodin]

As I use it, it means: time in existence -- the amount of time something has been around.

Who´d have guessed that?

And now what is the "physical age"?

 

[Nostromo]

Now here, you might have a point; but I'll consider this thread as having served its purpose if you can see how an object can have both and existential age and a physical age.

No. In setting the challenge the way you did, you created a contradiction.

We have two premises:

1) The tree is 1000 years old, seemingly regardless of how old its constituent parts are or what they were doing before the tree existed.

2) The age of the canoe, however, depends somewhat on the age of the parts from which it was made.

The age is either related to the age of its component parts or it is not. As you made no mention of the history of the components that make up the tree it seems to me that you already agree with us, but as I said before you like creating examples using objects which have visible signs of their previous state because it is only those examples which can be seen ambiguously. In all other examples it is obvious what people mean when they say how old a thing is, like the tree.

How old is the tree?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, "age," then.

Yes -- age -- existential age.

The canoe is 1 day old existentially.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who´d have guessed that?

And now what is the "physical age"?

The age of the log that I used to make the canoe.

In this case, 1000 years.

 

[3sigma]

The age of the log that I used to make the canoe.

In this case, 1000 years.

Is that the tree’s physical age or existential age?

 

[PhoceanCity]

The age of the log that I used to make the canoe.

In this case, 1000 years.

I"ll ask you an honest question AVET, try to answer the best you can, why are you calling a log a canoe?

 

[AV1611VET]

I"ll ask you an honest question AVET, try to answer the best you can, why are you calling a log a canoe?

Have a good day.

 

[PhoceanCity]

Ok then, I'll rephrase that.
At wich moment did the log stop being a log and start being a canoe?
Can you, by looking at it with modern tools, put a date on the moment of fabrication?

For example I know my house can't be more than 100 years old, but the wall on the front is made of rocks at least 2 billion years old can I say my wall is 2 billion years old?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok then, I'll rephrase that.

And I'll rephrase as well:

Have a nice day.

I didn't start this thread so you skeptics can ask me a thousand questions.

Which word in the OP is hard to understand?

 

[PhoceanCity]

In fact I was adressing your existential vs physical age nonsense but since you don't want to give me any clarifications on that matter I will also close the subject.
Have a good day

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact I was adressing your existential vs physical age nonsense but since you don't want to give me any clarifications on that matter I will also close the subject.

Thank you.

Have a good day

You too --

 

[Delphiki]

Enough of this "have a nice day" wimping out business.

If you're unwilling to answer question to explain what seems to be failed logic, then what's the point in posting in a forum?

There's a reason people are asking you these questions -- It's because your logic is inconsistent.

You're saying the canoe is "existentially" 1 day old, but physically 1000 years old (or the other way around, it doesn't really matter, actually... because they are, by definition the same thing). So in whatever term you say it's 1000 years old, this means that you'd consider a tree a canoe long before it was a canoe.

Then there's the tree itself. How is the tree only 1000 year old? It too is made of pf components that predate it's organization as a tree. The water, carbon, sodium, and other organic compounds that make up the tree originated elsewhere -- trees don't just pop into existence. So what's this special condition that the tree falls under that you can't consider it older than it actually is?

Simply put (and definitely not for the the first time), an objects age is not determined by the age if it's components. It's the moment when the configuration of it's components make it that thing. Otherwise, everything is 14 billion years old.