The Metaphysical Mindbender Thread

[steve_bank]

There are two expressions.

The only constant is change.

The more things change the more things stay the same.

How can they both be true?

 

[Copernicus]

The first is just the observation that everything physical changes over time. The second is essentially gallows humor about the slowness of social change. George Orwell's book Animal Farm is an excellent example of the sentiment that nothing ever really changes. In that book the slogan "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" was an attempt to portray the Communist revolution as a change that failed to produce any real change in social inequalities.

 

[Jarhyn]

Neither is true about all things.

One thing describes the nature of matter and the other describes the nature of images.

One is of physics, and the other of metaphysics.

"The more things change the more things stay the same" is more properly exposed as "the more time goes on, the more we recognize the persistence of image against time".

"The only constant is change" is more properly exposed as "entropy will act on all physical matter".

 

[Copernicus]

The person who coined the expression "The only constant is change" was the Greek philosopher Heraclitus in roughly the fifth century BCE, so he wasn't really thinking about entropy when he said that. He was thinking about the fact that reality is always in a state of flux. Nothing remains the same forever. He famously claimed that a person could not technically step in the same river twice. The theory of thermodynamics didn't come about until the 19th century CE.

 

[Jarhyn]

The person who coined the expression "The only constant is change" was the Greek philosopher Heraclitus in roughly the fifth century BCE, so he wasn't really thinking about entropy when he said that. He was thinking about the fact that reality is always in a state of flux. Nothing remains the same forever. He famously claimed that a person could not technically step in the same river twice. The theory of thermodynamics didn't come about until the 19th century CE.

The theory perhaps; but early understandings of it, vague and fuzzy, pervaded. An early understanding of it is as such, "the only constant is change". Thermodynamics didn't just start being a reality when someone pinned it down so it couldn't keep squirming; it was always there and making certain things true.

I don't think he could have made the observation if not for the truth of such things as the demands of entropy and information theory that demand change.

Of course I'm also aware at this point that I'm a little wrong about which fundamental property of the universe resolves to "things gotta change, and every moment is unique in microstate."

Still, the fact is that different things can still have the same image on them, and certain things translate between image and instantiation.

 

[Copernicus]

Or you could just go with the idea that Heraclitus just observed that all physical things that he observed changed. Particularly rivers. Keep it simple. No need to overanalyze it.

 

[steve_bank]

They are both true and both contextual when used in situations. They are neither logical nor literal.

Yesterday it was 'raining cats and dogs' in Seattle.

Management changes at a company and somebody says 'The more things change the more they stay the same'.

I call it 'applied philosophy'.

 

[steve_bank]

Or you could just go with the idea that Heraclitus just observed that all physical things that he observed changed. Particularly rivers. Keep it simple. No need to overanalyze it.

I suppose that is the point of the tread.

 

[steve_bank]

The person who coined the expression "The only constant is change" was the Greek philosopher Heraclitus in roughly the fifth century BCE, so he wasn't really thinking about entropy when he said that. He was thinking about the fact that reality is always in a state of flux. Nothing remains the same forever. He famously claimed that a person could not technically step in the same river twice. The theory of thermodynamics didn't come about until the 19th century CE.

The theory perhaps; but early understandings of it, vague and fuzzy, pervaded. An early understanding of it is as such, "the only constant is change". Thermodynamics didn't just start being a reality when someone pinned it down so it couldn't keep squirming; it was always there and making certain things true.

I don't think he could have made the observation if not for the truth of such things as the demands of entropy and information theory that demand change.

Of course I'm also aware at this point that I'm a little wrong about which fundamental property of the universe resolves to "things gotta change, and every moment is unique in microstate."

Still, the fact is that different things can still have the same image on them, and certain things translate between image and instantiation.

People developed spin stabilized feathered arrows without science. All from observation and imagination.

I started the thread to see who would launch down the rabbit hole of analysis and who would simply understand the meaning and usage.

A Zen master gives a student a koan, a puzzle..what is the sound of one hand clapping.

The student returns and launches into a detailed analysis, and the master whacks him on the head telling him to try again.

The student returns and simply waves one hand back and forth, an acceptable answer. Direct understanding without complicated reasoning.

The opposite of trying to shoe horn everything into Aristolrilean logic like we do in the west.

The best yiu can say is a saying is attributed to somebody thousands of years ago. Those ancient aristocratic intellectual Greeks had nothing else to do but coin clever sayings.

 

[rousseau]

There are two expressions.

The only constant is change.

The more things change the more things stay the same.

How can they both be true?

The world is in constant flux, but human nature is mostly static.

 

[Copernicus]

People developed spin stabilized feathered arrows without science. All from observation and imagination.

I started the thread to see who would launch down the rabbit hole of analysis and who would simply understand the meaning and usage.

A Zen master gives a student a koan, a puzzle..what is the sound of one hand clapping.

The student returns and launches into a detailed analysis, and the master whacks him on the head telling him to try again.

The student returns and simply waves one hand back and forth, an acceptable answer. Direct understanding without complicated reasoning.

The opposite of trying to shoe horn everything into Aristolrilean logic like we do in the west.

The best yiu can say is a saying is attributed to somebody thousands of years ago. Those ancient aristocratic intellectual Greeks had nothing else to do but coin clever sayings.

I don't think that Buddhists had a very good understanding of the nature of presuppositions and linguistic discourse. It is easy to construct examples of linguistic expressions that lead to presupposition failure, and I think that slapping people in the head doesn't actually knock sense into them. More often than not, it knocks sense out of them. I do think that Heraclitus and Aristotle produced much better results than Buddhists without slapping anyone around. From Aristotle, we got the concept that underlies the equal sign--a necessary precursor to all of formal mathematics and logic. So I would prefer to go with them rather than risk getting whacked by a Buddhist, thank you very much!

 

[none]

hmm... the foundddddation of sceeeee.ince... well... err the foundation of science is observation, following that is the question.