My Bicycle Challenge

[AV1611VET]

You cannot make a "new" car (or bike) with used parts.

[I never thought I would stoop to this:]

Define "new".

And I would like at least five definitions; none of which fit the definition of "new" in the OP.

Thank you.

 

[CabVet]

[I never thought I would stoop to this:]

Define "new".

And I would like at least five definitions; none of which fit the definition of "new" in the OP.

Thank you.

Haha, awesome, actually I almost asked you to define new, but I thought you would see it as evasive tactics. So here are some definitions:

1. Never used or worn before now. (e.g. new bicycle)
2. Recently arrived or established in a place, position, or relationship. (e.g. new wife)
3. Being the later or latest in a sequence. (e.g. new edition)
4. Not previously experienced or encountered; novel or unfamiliar. (e.g. new world)
5. Having been made or come into being only a short time ago.

I guess I am using definition 1 and you are using definition 5.

So, a better answer to your question would be that "physically" the bike is as old as its parts, and "existentially" it is "new" (according to definition 5).

 

[AV1611VET]

Haha, awesome, actually I almost asked you to define new, but I thought you would see it as evasive tactics. So here are some definitions:

1. Never used or worn before now. (e.g. new bicycle)
2. Recently arrived or established in a place, position, or relationship. (e.g. new wife)
3. Being the later or latest in a sequence. (e.g. new edition)
4. Not previously experienced or encountered; novel or unfamiliar. (e.g. new world)
5. Having been made or come into being only a short time ago.

I guess I am using definition 1 and you are using definition 5.

I'd say my new bicycle fits all your above definitions, with maybe the exception of #4.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, a better answer to your question would be that "physically" the bike is as old as its parts, and "existentially" it is "new" (according to definition 5).

-- Agreed!

(Note too that the bicycle is omphalos [I think].)

 

[CabVet]

A new bike with embedded age!

 

[AV1611VET]

A new bike with embedded age!

Omphalos -- I think.

 

[Orogeny]

So the gestalt I present to you (the manufactured bicycle) has gone around the sun three times?

It's parts have, but not the bicycle itself.

By the same logic, most of the atoms in the human body are replaced over the course of several years, so none of us is really much more than a few years old. Obviously this logic fails.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the same logic, most of the atoms in the human body are replaced over the course of several years, so none of us is really much more than a few years old. Obviously this logic fails.

All I'm asking for in the OP is two numbers; I couldn't care less if you think my logic fails or not.

 

[Orogeny]

That says more than you think, AV

 

[AV1611VET]

That says more than you think, AV

At least I'm saying something.

(One guy did [finally] answer it properly, but I had to lower my standards to get him to do it.)

 

[Skaloop]

1) Three years old.
2) One day old (or however long it's been since you put it together).

 

[AV1611VET]

1) Three years old.
2) One day old (or however long it's been since you put it together).

Thank you --

(Now you know why I called it a "challenge" -- )

 

[Split Rock]

So the gestalt I present to you (the manufactured bicycle) has gone around the sun three times?

It's parts have, but not the bicycle itself.

If I were buying the bicycle, I would consider it three years old. Would you consider it new?

 

[AV1611VET]

If I were buying the bicycle, I would consider it three years old. Would you consider it new?

No, I would not consider it new.

I would sell the bike according to its physical age, not its existential age.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I have a lot containing 100 brand-new shiny bicycles that I leave sitting out in the elements.

After three years, they are rusty & dirty.

I then build a bicycle, using one part from each of the bicycles: a seat from one, handlebars from another, front tire from another, chain from another, etc.

Two questions:

1. How old is the new bicycle physically?
2. How old is the new bicycle existentially?

1) Insufficient data. The parts have spent three years in the guise of 'old bike', and are now in the guise of 'new bike', but prior to that were in the guise of raw metal or unrefined ore or hydrogen atoms in a star.
2) However long ago the 'new bicycle' came into existence.

Let me ask a related question. Your body takes in new material in the usual way - respiration, digestion - and evacuates old material in a complicated process. On average, any given atom will spend about seven years in your body.

If it has been exactly 40 years since you were born, how old are you? 40 years? 40 years and nine months? Seven years, give or take? Which of these is 'physical' and which 'existential'?

It's related to the 'when is a pile a pile?' conundrum: if you have a pile of sand, and take one grain away at a time, when does it stop being a pile?

EDIT: Out of curiosity, what would your answers be?

 

[166mm]

What does all this have to do creation or evolution? Bicycle building is manufacturing. Or is this just another thread to show off your ability to be an absolute self-righteous moron?

 

[AV1611VET]

1) Insufficient data. The parts have spent three years in the guise of 'old bike', and are now in the guise of 'new bike', but prior to that were in the guise of raw metal or unrefined ore or hydrogen atoms in a star.
2) However long ago the 'new bicycle' came into existence.

Let me ask a related question. Your body takes in new material in the usual way - respiration, digestion - and evacuates old material in a complicated process. On average, any given atom will spend about seven years in your body.

If it has been exactly 40 years since you were born, how old are you? 40 years? 40 years and nine months? Seven years, give or take? Which of these is 'physical' and which 'existential'?

It's related to the 'when is a pile a pile?' conundrum: if you have a pile of sand, and take one grain away at a time, when does it stop being a pile?

That's already been brought up here: 27 .

I think people want to yak their way out of answering this simple challenge.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, what would your answers be?

My answers:

1. 3 years
2. 1 day

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What does all this have to do creation or evolution? Bicycle building is manufacturing. Or is this just another thread to show off your ability to be an absolute self-righteous moron?

With the apple challenge, his point was that, if something was created ex nihilo, there's little you can do to prove it. Thus, asking for evidence for Creation is a doomed endeavour, as there can't be any evidence: creation ex nihilo, like the apple ex nihilo, leaves no footprints. More or less.

With the bike challenge, he has this idea that the Earth is both 6000 years old and 4.5 billion years old. When pushed, he said that the Earth has gone round the Sun about 6000 times, and the '4.5 billion' figure is 'embedded history'. While this may sound a lot like the Omphalos defence - God made the world look like it's very old, but in reality it's very young - but he assures us that it is not. The bike challenge, then, could well be his way of trying to explain the difference between 'real' and 'embedded' age.

Or I could be way off on both counts. I've been here a while, and I still don't know

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's already been brought up here: 27 .

I think people want to yak their way out of answering this simple challenge.

My point was, given the vagueness of the question, there are many possible answers.

How old is the bike physically?

Three years, if it began when those original bikes came off the production line.
Four years, if it began when those original parts came off of their production line.
Millions of years, if it began when those original metals where ores.
Billions of years, if it began when...

Etc.

My answers:

1. 3 years
2. 1 day

Why three years? The bikes have been left out in the open for three years, sure, but unless we know what they were doing before that, they could be much older. Perhaps they sat in the factory store for a decade - they'd still be 'new', given the vagueness of the word 'new'. Perhaps the individual parts - the wheels, the gears - sat in a factory store before being made into bikes. What then?

 

[AV1611VET]

With the apple challenge, his point was that, if something was created ex nihilo, there's little you can do to prove it. Thus, asking for evidence for Creation is a doomed endeavour, as there can't be any evidence: creation ex nihilo, like the apple ex nihilo, leaves no footprints. More or less.

With the bike challenge, he has this idea that the Earth is both 6000 years old and 4.5 billion years old. When pushed, he said that the Earth has gone round the Sun about 6000 times, and the '4.5 billion' figure is 'embedded history'. While this may sound a lot like the Omphalos defence - God made the world look like it's very old, but in reality it's very young - but he assures us that it is not. The bike challenge, then, could well be his way of trying to explain the difference between 'real' and 'embedded' age.

Or I could be way off on both counts. I've been here a while, and I still don't know

This thread is to show that a simple object like a bicycle can have two different ages: physical and existential.

The bicycle is, in my opinion, omphalos -- not embedded age -- but if I can get someone with an ... education ... to admit it has two different ages, then it should be easy to argue for embedded age, which demands two different ages.