[Ship Of Theseus Movie Download Torrent
Iberio Ralda
The Ship of Theseus, also known as Theseus's Paradox, is a thought experiment and paradox about whether an object is the same object after having had all of its original components replaced over time, typically one after the other.
In Greek mythology, Theseus, mythical king and founder of the city Athens, rescued the children of Athens from King Minos after slaying the minotaur and then escaped onto a ship going to Delos. Each year, the Athenians would commemorate this by taking the ship on a pilgrimage to Delos to honour Apollo. A question was raised by ancient philosophers: After several hundreds of years of maintenance, if each individual piece of the Ship of Theseus was replaced, one after the other, was it still the same ship?
In contemporary philosophy, this thought experiment has applications to the philosophical study of identity over time, and has inspired a variety of proposed solutions and concepts in contemporary philosophy of mind concerned with the persistence of personal identity.
In its original formulation, the "Ship of Theseus" paradox concerns a debate over whether or not a ship that had all of its components replaced one by one would remain the same ship.[1] The account of the problem has been preserved by Plutarch in his Life of Theseus:[2]
The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.
Over a millennium later, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes extended the thought experiment by supposing that a ship custodian gathered up all of the decayed parts of the ship as they were disposed of and replaced by the Athenians, and used those decaying planks to build a second ship.[2] Hobbes posed the question of which of the two resulting ships, the custodian's or the Athenians', was the same ship as the "original" ship.[1]
For if that Ship of Theseus (concerning the Difference whereof, made by continual reparation, in taking out the old Planks, and putting in new, the sophisters of Athens were wont to dispute) were, after all the Planks were changed, the same Numerical Ship it was at the beginning; and if some Man had kept the Old Planks as they were taken out, and by putting them afterward together in the same order, had again made a Ship of them, this, without doubt, had also been the same Numerical Ship with that which was at the beginnings and so there would have been two Ships Numerically the same, which is absurd... But we must consider by what name anything is called when we inquire concerning the Identity of it... so that a Ship, which signifies Matter so figured, will be the same, as long as the Matter remains the same; but if no part of the Matter is the same, then it is Numerically another Ship; and if part of the Matter remains, and part is changed, then the Ship will be partly the same, and partly not the same.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the most popular solution is to accept the conclusion that the material out of which the ship is made is not the same object as the ship, but that the two objects simply occupy the same space at the same time.[1]
Another common theory put forth by David Lewis, is to divide up all objects into three-dimensional time-slices which are temporally distinct, which avoids the issue that the two different ships exist in the same space at one time and a different space at another time by considering the objects to be distinct from each other at all points in time.[1]
According to other scientists, the thought puzzle arises because of extreme externalism: the assumption that what is true in our minds is true in the world.[5] Noam Chomsky says that this is not an unassailable assumption, from the perspective of the natural sciences, because human intuition is often mistaken.[6] Cognitive science would treat this thought puzzle as the subject of an investigation of the human mind. Studying this human confusion can reveal much about the brain's operation, but little about the nature of the human-independent external world.[7]
Following on from this observation, a significant strand[who?] in cognitive science would consider the ship not as a thing, nor even a collection of objectively existing thing parts, but rather as an organisational structure that has perceptual continuity.[8]
This solution (proposed by Kate, Ernest et al.) sees an object as staying the same as long as it continuously exists under the same identity without being fully transformed at one time. For instance, a house that has its front wall destroyed and replaced at year 1, the ceiling replaced at year 2, and so on, until every part of the house has been replaced will still be understood as the same house. However, if every wall, the floor, and the roof are destroyed and replaced at the same time, it will be known as a new house.[citation needed]
In Europe, several independent tales and stories feature knives that have had their blades and handles replaced several times but are still used and represent the same knife. France has Jeannot's knife,[11][12] Spain uses Jeannot's knife as a proverb, though it is referred to simply as "the family knife", and Hungary has "Lajos Kossuth's pocket knife". Several variants or alternative statements of the underlying problem are known, including the grandfather's axe[13] and Trigger's broom,[14][15] where an old axe or broom has had both its head and its handle replaced, leaving no original components.
The ancient Buddhist text Da zhidu lun contains a similar philosophical puzzle: a story of a traveller who encountered two demons in the night. As one demon ripped off all parts of the traveler's body one by one, the other demon replaced them with those of a corpse, and the traveller was confused about who he was.[16]
In Japan, the Ise Grand Shrine is rebuilt every twenty years with entirely "new wood". The continuity over the centuries is considered spiritual and comes from the source of the wood, which is harvested from an adjoining forest that is considered sacred.[17][18]
As a project evolves, does the new code just add on top of the old code? Or does it replace the old code slowly over time? In order to understand this, I built a little thing to analyze Git projects, with help from the formidable GitPython project. The idea is to go back in history historical and run a git blame (making this somewhat fast was a bit nontrivial, as it turns out, but I'll spare you the details, which involve some opportunistic caching of files, pick historical points spread out in time, use git diff to invalidate changed files, etc).
The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned from Crete had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their places, in so much that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.
We can compute the decay for individual commits too. If we align all commits at x=0, we can look at the aggregate decay for code in a certain repo. This analysis is somewhat harder to implement than it sounds like because of various stuff (mostly because newer commits have had less time, so the right end of the curve represents an aggregate of fewer commits).
I suspect a slightly better model would be to fit a sum of exponentials. This would work for a repo with some code that changes fast and some code that changes slowly. But before going down a rabbit hole of curve fitting, I reminded myself of von Neumann's quote: With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk. There's probably some way to make it work, but I'll revisit some other time.
Linux also clearly exhibits more of a linear growth pattern. I'm speculating that this has to do with its high modularity. The drivers directory has by far the most number of files (22,091) followed by arch (17,967) which contains support for various architectures. This is exactly the kind of things you would expect to scale very well with complexity, since they have a well defined interface.
Somewhat off topic, but I like the notion of how well a projects scales with complexity. A linear scalability is the ultimate goal, where each one marginal feature takes roughly the same amount of code. Bad projects scale superlinearly, and every marginal feature takes more and more code.
It's interesting that moment has such high half-life, but the reason is that so much of the code is locale-specific. This creates a more linear scalability with a stable core of code and linear additions over time. express is an outlier in the other direction. It's 7 years old but code changes extremely quickly. I'm guessing this is partly because (a) lack of linear scalability in code (b) it's probably one of the first major Javascript open source projects to hit mainstream/popularity, surfing on the Node.js wave. Possibly the code base also sucks, but I have no idea ?
Interestingly, I don't find any clear evidence of #1 in the data. The half-life for code written earlier in old projects are as high as late code. I'm skeptical about #3 as well because I don't see why there would be a relation between survival and code structure (but maybe there is). My conclusion is that writing code has fundamentally changed in the last 10 years. Code really seems to change at a much faster rate in modern projects.
795a8134c1