Originally posted by sven432Agreed.. read through the posts again.
There is no such thing
The fact that it doesn't exist, has been established.
But since it's a thinking game the absence of
the real macoy, is merly to be considered
a peculiarity of the entity.
And yes. This is like trying to come up with ways to go
back in time and change history. Fiction. A logical construct.
A, in the best of times, an amusing way to occupy your mind.
Originally posted by chasparosWell of course you have to decide what a sheep and what a not sheep is or things are just pointless. Maybe I don't understand your question. If you define a sheep in terms of 4 legs, white & woolly, eats grass etc.. all of these can be artributed to other creatures. Sheep DNA is the most unique field to the sheep, which will also cover cosmetic differences e.g. black or white. Conversely it would be almost impossible to define a Not-sheep in normal terms. But in terms of DNA one could say
this doesnt really cut it...
It's still the same question.
To know if it's really sheep-DNA
You have to have already decided what a sheep is.
Other wise it would be just DNA.
All DNA - Sheep Dna = Not-Sheep dna (NSD).
Therefore
If x = NSD, then x = Not-sheep
If x does not equal NSD, then X = sheep
the only failing that I can see are objects made out of sheep material, wool etc... which would also be classed as sheep.
Originally posted by chasparosNo, it's worse than that. It's not that not-sheep don't exist in the real world, it's that the very concept of them cannot exist, so long as we can conceive of sheep. This makes a nonsense of any discussion about not-sheep.
Agreed.. read through the posts again.
The fact that it doesn't exist, has been established.
But since it's a thinking game the absence of
the real macoy, is merly to be considered
a peculiarity of the entity.
And yes. This is like trying to come up with ways to go
back in time and change history. Fiction. A logical construct.
A, in the best of times, an amusing way to occupy your mind.
A NOT-sheep is an entity which possesses
all characteristics not possessed by a sheep.
So this sheep simultaneously possesses a size that rivals a galaxy and a size that rivals that of a virus. It's definition is paradoxical.
This leads to the question of whether its possible to
exactly define a sheep in such a way that no nonsheep is
contained in the set, and all acctual sheep must be
accounted for.
Well of course. You define a sheep, and automatically all sheep are in the set and all nonsheep are excluded from it. The problem is - what is the definition of a sheep? We all have a vague idea, but a vague idea is not good enough for this analysis, so an arbritrary definition needs to be made. It might be something like "something that every being in existence would agree is a sheep" or something. Regardless of how you define it, once you've defined it, the including all sheep and excluding all nonsheep would follow automatically.
If this can not be done then it must
per definition be possible to define a NOT-sheep.....
You already defined a NOT-sheep.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungVery nice... Hadn't considered that logical grip. Nice, nice.
Well of course. You define a sheep, and automatically all sheep are in the set and all nonsheep are excluded from it. The problem is - what is the definition of a sheep?
.....
You already defined a NOT-sheep.
And a fine paradox (one of many) that we managed to define an, by definition(!!?), undefinable entity....
I might be the sickest man in existance, but I find this hilarious. :-)