• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,593
52,505
Guam
✟5,127,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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.
 
Upvote 0
P

PhoceanCity

Guest
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
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,593
52,505
Guam
✟5,127,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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 --
 
Upvote 0

Nostromo

Brian Blessed can take a hike
Nov 19, 2009
2,343
56
Yorkshire
✟25,338.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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?
 
Upvote 0
P

PhoceanCity

Guest
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?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,593
52,505
Guam
✟5,127,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,593
52,505
Guam
✟5,127,370.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Delphiki

Well-Known Member
May 7, 2010
4,342
162
Ohio
✟5,685.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
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.
 
Upvote 0