Talk:Ship of Theseus/Archive 1

Archive 1

tidy up

I have done some work to make this article focus on the actual philosophy rather than history or examples. I have moved all the examples that were building up on this page to the dedicated examples page which already exists for that purpose, apart from just the very best ones that are used to illustrate how the paradox gets applied in order areas of philosophy. We don't need a giant list of video games, scifi novels, and TV series examples here beyond that. Also I have tried to move the history all into its own section so that just the philosophical arguments themselves are present at the top. History of metaphysics is interesting and deserves its own section like this, but most modern metaphysicans and students are more interested in the actual arguments first and foremost.

Doesn't this article need citation?

I mean, granted, its a pretty famous philosophical paradox, the article really does need some outside support.--72.150.79.254 20:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sommit

What does the "Modern Embellishment" add to the concept at issue? The precision of the legalese seems to overwhelm any philosophic content.

I think what it adds is the idea that A and B can be both "the same for the purposes of X" but perhaps not "for the purposes of Y". Michael Hardy 17:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's an episode of "Only Fools and Horses" that refers to this. Trigger (the one who keeps calling Rodney Dave) gets an award from the Council for using the same broom for 20 years. It then transpires that the head has been replaced 14 times and the handle 7 - but Trig still thinks it's the same broom!

Sports teams?

Seems to me a much more common example of this phenomenon than say, "computer building" would be sports teams. I.e., people always talk about franchise history in modern baseball trying to relate it with what is currently going on, even though POSSIBLY the only uniting factor is the city/stadium. The whole unit is replaced by new parts, but it's still considered to be the same unit

And even then, the city and stadium occasionally change! Captain Quirk (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What a goofy analogy with no philosophical basis. It makes the whole article look like it was written by university freshmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.205.103 (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Human body

Does the human body completely regenerate itself every seven years? As in, no cells you had in your body seven years ago are still alive today. Therefor couldn't the Ship of Theseus argument apply to all humans? Would that support the fact that identity is a function of perception?

This is uncertain. However, in 2005 the New York Times (reproduced by the Rutland Herald) seems to have run an article where stem cell researcher Jonas Frisén used a method of carbon dating which indicates that if you are middle aged, the average age of all the cells in your body is about 10 years. However, this article does not give a primary source, but I suspect it is in Cell 122, according to Frisén website here . I will investigate this article when I get the chance; for now I will remove the uncited claim in this article.
--Negacthulhu 03:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though the only thing that a person might have in common with themselves from a decade ago would be their mind, although that is open to significant change as well. However even when our original bodies are completely replaced our assigned identities remain. Perhaps the "identity is derived from physical being" argument could be satisfied by defining every new cell as part of the person just as the originals were. Therefor even when the original cells have been replaced the person can still be defined with their original identity because that identity has been passed down through the new generations of cells.

However the strict definition of a body as an absolute object is wrong, to me it is more like how we define a wave. The water that actually makes up the wave is constantly changing, however it is the perceived idea of the wave the remains the same throughout and therefor that is how we must define the wave. So although the molecule that make up a person are constantly changing it is the perception of similarity that creates identity, nothing more.

There are many cells in your body that do not divide and cannot regenerate. Your heart is the big one (that's why heart attacks aren't something you can shrug off). All of the nervous tissue in your CNS essentially does not regenerate, nor divide. Your cartilage does not regenerate after age 30. I strongly doubt that you replace every single nucleotide in the genome in all of these cells, especially since the majority of it is wrapped up in heterochromatin... Your teeth certainly don't regenerate; your endocrine pancreas does not regenerate (Type 1 diabetes). Biologically this premise is demonstrably false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.207.108 (talk) 22:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Our article on neuroplasticity seems to suggest that the mind changes quite a bit. Even your argument about identify is suspect. You are not your mother nor your father. You are not the school that gave you an education nor are you the profession you work at. You are not a religion nor a government. All you are is culturally conditioned and artificially constructed. Remove it all and you have nothing resembling an "identity". That scares some people, but others find it liberating. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their associated articles, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have proposed expanding the criticism of the notion of identity in the article by incorporating items from the see also section inferred in my comments, most notably, Śūnyatā, and the argument against the inherent notion of a macroscopic "identity", which Buddhist philosophy negates. It sounds like you need to do some research rather than playing at gatekeeper of what people can or can't discuss. Improvement and expansion emerges from discussion just as discussion emerges from expansion. Oh, and surprise, surprise, the former section on Buddhist philosophy was deleted. Seems like my comments were more on topic than you are able to admit. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Fossil Dating

This is also something we creationists tend to cite whenever someone has claimed to have dated a fossil, since over time every particle of the original bone has been replaced by minerals, and thus you aren't even dating the original bone at all.

From what I've seen, creationists tend not to know a lot of scientifical methods and facts. Just think about the fact that mayybe the thousands of working paleontologists have already thought about any degradation and replacement that may happen to bones and taken that into account when they devised their dating methods.

As you say - creationists are not strong on science - but worse still they evidently aren't prepared to crack open a book now and again and read about how it's done. Fossils are dated in a wide variety of ways - I'm not typing them all in - but here is a small selection:

• Observations of the fluctuations of the Earth's magnetic field direction in the rocks comprising the fossil.
• Stratigraphy, studying how deeply and in what layer a fossil is buried.
• Tree ring matching.
• Radioisotope-dating of igneous rocks found near the fossil.

Radioisotope dating cannot be used directly on very old fossils since (as our creationist buddy is suggesting) they don't contain any of the original radioactive isotopes used in the dating process - so it's really irrelevent what happened to the original bone. Igneous layers beneath the fossil (ie predating the fossil) and above it (representing a time after the fossil was created) are dated giving a time-range for the fossil itself. But no one method alone is good - so you have to be sure that you have at least two separate estimates of the age of the fossil using different methods before you can be reasonably confident of its age. Some fossils may be a little 'off' in their dating - but they simply can't all be wrong. If just one fossil is correctly dated out of the millions and millions that have been tested then creationism is flat out busted. QED. SteveBaker 19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Digital Rights Management and Computer Modifications

These two sections are essentially the same. 64.94.49.252 15:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Bold text

Do we really need all these examples?

One or two good examples would have gotten the point across. There is no need to comprehensively list every single example where one thing is gradually entirely replaced. Furthermore, in many of these examples, everything is gradually replaced - LEAVING SOMETHING DIFFERENT AT THE END - which is not what we're talking about here. A Ship of Theseus is only when every part is replaced and the object remains essentially unchanged.

This article is gradually turning into a "List of Ships of Theseus" - which is probably a terrible idea.

We should remove the incorrect usages - and any that there is any debate about whatsoever. I think that'll leave just one or two examples behind - which is more than sufficient to provide backup for the article's message.

SteveBaker 12:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I think that the example of living things, as well as the Ship of Theseus itself, are the best examples. --Marcusscotus1 15:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I am in progress of moving all popular culture examples to a subpage --Byziden (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Heraclitus Quotation

There is a nice quotation from Heraclitus, but no citation. Which of the fragments is this text from? It sounds like fragment 91, but I cannot find a translation which has him saying "because neither the man nor the river are the same". So a citation to the fragments and, if possible, a translation would be helpful. Jonathonjones 18:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that the Heraclitus quotation was a little off. In Fr. 39.2 (22B12), Heraclitus is quoted by Arius Didymus as saying, "Upon those who step into the same rivers, different and again different waters flow." Plutarch notes that the reasoning is as follows, in 22B91a, b: "[The water] scatters and again comes together, and approaches and recedes." The one that most resembles the sentiment about man changing is as follows: "We step into and we do not step into the same rivers. We are and we are not." (22B49a) Any objections to changing it to that one with a proper citation unless the fellow who wrote this returns to explain himself? --jaggerblade

If you have a good citation for it - I'd say do it. The difference may be because two different people are quoting the guy - and it may also be because two different translators translated it from Greek to English - so it's perfectly possible that neither quotation is exactly what Heraclitus said - or it's possible that both versions are about as close as you can get in English to what was actually said in Greek. But I'll go for a quote with a good citation over one without every time! SteveBaker 12:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I waited a length of time to insure that everyone would have a chance to express their opinion before I made the change. I have now re-written the section on Heraclitus to include two cited quotes (rather than the one uncited), and language that is a little more neutral to allow for different interpretations since Heraclitean fragments are so rare. -- jaggerblade 04:10, 07 October 2006 (UTC)

Locke's Socks

After two weeks of silence and finally one second, I have merged the article "Locke's Socks" into this page. I don't find it a particularly compelling example, nor a very well-written paragraph. It certainly didn't warrant its own article, as I merged over half of it (that small tidbit in the examples section) and all I left behind was three links and a poorer version of the same Heraclitus Quotation that was removed from this article weeks ago. It could definitely use some rewriting, and I do wish someone would find where Locke actually talked about this, or at least why it carries his name.

You are totally in luck; I've been researching this topic for a philosophy class and I can tell you that Lock makes an argument very similar to Locke's Socks in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 2.27.3 here
--Negacthulhu 03:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I just found a literal reference to "Locke's Socks" in a October 31, 1981 New York Times article LOFTY DOCTRINES BROUGHT DOWN TO EARTH AT NEW MUSEUM AT PACE, but I have to pay to access it. I don't feel like spending the 5 dollars to buy the article, so I may check the local library to find out more about the museum and maybe put the mystery of hte origin of this idiom to rest. Root⁴(one) 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, somebody just edited the page to say that the fictional character, John Locke of Lost (TV series). appears to refer to this concept of sock patchwork and sock identity. But it seems like the idea still came from the other, "more famous" John Locke.

John Locke referring to John Locke. Weird. (And yet, do we even know it came from the non-fictional person? Maybe "Lost" writers read Wikipedia, especially our Ship of Theseus article?) Root⁴(one) 04:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources referred to here seems to give a reference to Locke's works. The NYT article talks about an exhibition where socks were used to illustrate Locke's theory of identity, and otherwise people seem to be copying from each other. Can whoever wrote this section add a reference to where the sock story originated?Wadh27 (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Jaggerblade 01:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Grandfather's old axe

Hi, I propose that Grandfather's old axe is merged into this page as they are fundamentally the same paradox. Do you agree? Andeggs 11:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact it is already discussed in the paragraph at the bottom of this article. I'd say do the merge. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it now, I'd say maybe not. The problem is when I think about the earlier comment regarding this page becoming a list of ships of Theseus and the inclusion of Heraclitus' river and Lock's sock here. These are fundamentally the same paradox because they are dealing with a fundamental question of identity. All of these could be combined into an article on metaphors used to discuss identity questions, but they perhaps don't belong together in one article, as each one has different pop culture references, was discussed in different contexts by different philosophers (although they did converge), etc. The article Identity and change seems to do this, however.

The Ships of Theseus are, to me, supporting articles to an article discussing the problem with identity. Keeping them separated allows each article to focus on the context and meaning of the individual story, especially cultural, historical, and contextual meanings of the story as the philosophic meaning is in the identity articles. This is similar to the problem created by Aesop's fables. I like how it is done between The Fox and the Grapes and Sour Grapes where each article is succinct and fairly complete (although there is some overlap). Other stories which have the sour grapes moral could easily get there own article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If a paradox has all its elements changed one by one, is the new paradox different from the original, and thus entitled to its own article, or is it the same, requiring a merge? ;-)CIngram99 (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CIngram99 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Four dimensions

This needs attention. Can someone with the cited source please try again summarize the idea. As it is it appears that we're just redefining "river" to mean "the four dimensional object of the river from when it comes into existence to when it stops." So the "river" never exists at any moment in time. Further this doesn't address the heap of sand issue, i.e. the river never at any moment in time comes into existence or stops existing. Arrow740 02:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't read the cite, so ... feel free to ignore me!

My interpretation of what you just said, "comes to existence" would rather be the fuzzily defined area where the river "begins", or water flows into the river. but this is a bit nonsensical since rivers often have multiple tributaries, tributaries have multiple creeks and streams, until frankly we remain with the entire river basin. Is the river basin where the river "begins"? Maybe.

Now if we look at the set of river basins as they change over time, we may be able to use some sort of four dimensional definition. A river basin may begin to exist when it "splits off" another basin (however you want to define that). The river may cease to exist if it joins another basin, or maybe a flood overwhelms the entire basin or some other phenomena happens.

Root⁴(one) 16:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

As it is we're just saying "the river is the four dimensional object which is the river," or "the river is the river as it moves through time and space." Arrow740 18:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. We're taking advantage of the vagueness of language to the extreme, I think. "Thus the 4-dimensional river is the same river as itself." Huh? I may strike out that sentence. I think the concept that had been attempted to be conveyed was that there is the continuity of perception of a river that relates to a 4-dimensional river object, and we think we can call it the same object because of this continuous relationship. But that 4-dimensional object needs to be labeled a 4-dimensional object unless in some context such a labeling is not needed. The quoted sentence is so ambiguous as to be nonsensical. Root⁴(one) 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at it now, it still sounds like hooey. When you say that "the river" is a four-dimensional object that covers the space occupied by the river basin, you're simply cutting the Gordian knot and saying sure, it's the same river. You could have defined the four-dimensional object to be, say, the bolus of water flowing down the river, or in the extreme the paths of every molecule of water in the past and future, and gotten very different "river"s. You don't need to talk about special relativity to say that you have the right to define the phrase "same river" however you want. Wnt (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophe and pronunciation of the possessive form

[1] seems to imply we can use "'s" after any s, however, our article, giving references like bartleby would suggest we can omit the s on "hard to pronounce" possessives. For instance "Jesus'" and "Socrates'" is apparently often used. So, is Theseus's that hard to pronounce? I don't think so... the "eeyoos" elongates the second syllable which would make "ez" much more clearer than saying "Jesusez" and "Socratesez". Root⁴(one) 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

paradox

What makes this a paradox? A paradox involved contradiction. There is no paradox here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.227.222 (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

A paradox occurs when something seems (intuitively) to be one way but is actually another, or if our intuition can lead to two different results when the thing is analyzed from two different perspectives. The Ship of Theseus is a paradox because we are calling something that contains no elements of the original, the same thing as the original, or rather, we identify it by the same name, although it is completely different (in terms of materials, etc). We're calling two different things the same exact thing.

Does that help? Root⁴(one) 12:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't really help. For it to be a paradox, you have to say something like "If it were the same, then X must be true. But if X is true, then it must not be the same". Unless you can come up with an example that fits that logical pattern, it's not a paradox. It's just a conflict between two different definitions of 'the same'. For instance, the ship is only replaced with different materials. If form, design, purpose, and intent are defined as the important elements in judging 'sameness', then it is still the same. In fact, the decay of the parts which were replaced was really making it DIFFERENT from the original Ship of Theseus. The replacements brought it CLOSER to being "the same" ship.

Whenever a word X is used with two different meanings, you have a paradox, because you can find something about which you can say "It is X, and yet it is not X!".--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The syllogistic formulation of this paradox goes something like this: An object in the present is identical to an object in the past whenever it shares a moment by moment history of identity with that previous object. An object is not identical to another object whenever it contains no identical components to the other object. Theseus's current ship is identical to Theseus's former ship because it shares that moment by moment history of identity (there is no point where it suddenly becomes not Theseus's ship). Yet, Theseus's current ship is not identical to Theseus's former ship because they share no common components. Theseus's former ship is identical to Theseus's current ship, and yet this is not so. --Thomas B♘talk 04:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Vehicle modification?

Is this article in the "Vehicle modification" category as a joke (I chuckled), or is it serious? It seems a bit out of place. Thank you. CSWarren 20:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems there have been some legal cases where a classic car was completely 'reenvisioned' by a coachbuilder-type shop and they tried to avoid the various elements of emissions/tax baggage that have unfortunately accumulated over the past hundred years or so. The taxman and the anti fun/petrol-consumption fascists didn't like this very much. 123.255.55.110 00:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I used to be an amateur hot-rodder when I was a young man back in the '80s, and sometimes among my friends, colleagues, etc., the owner of a car that he had heavily modifed would say something to the effect of: "I lifted off the radiator cap, drove a new car in underneath, and put it on!" Captain Quirk (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(P.S. -- I stand "shoulder to shoulder" with 123.255.55.110 in opposing the "anti-fun/petrol-consumption fascists"!)

Shinto shrine

I read about a particularly revered Shinto shrine all of whose parts are replaced every twenty years with exact duplicates. The old parts are then incorporated into other shrines all over Japan. That could go into the article too. Tualha (Talk) 11:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "the same"

I've removed the following comments from the section Definition of "the same":

(A problem: "Since nothing can be qualitatively different without also being numerically different, the river must be numerically different at different points in time." - this contradicts the example in the first paragraph of the painted bowling ball)

(Actually, "nothing can be qualitatively different without also being numerically different" is a false claim. Not all qualities must be different for a thing to be, overall, qualitatively different. For instance, numerical value might be a quality factor that remains the same, while other qualities change.)

--Niels Ø (noe) (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio ....

that should be included in this article.

(1) The same paradox/contradiction occurs in the Buddhist text, "The Questions of King Milinda." Milinda (aka Menander, Menandros) was an ethnic Greco-Macedonian ruler of Baktria. He held a "close encounter of the theological kind" to determine which of several religions was best. The Buddhists, BTW, claim to have won. The form the question takes there uses a chariot as the Greeks used the ship. Let's say I replace each spoke of the wheels, the axle, etc., etc., etc.,--is it the same chariot?

(2) I believe that most if not all Japanese shrines operate on the basis of regular replacement by an "exact replica." Within the complex surrounding the central pagoda, there will be TWO 'footprints' where alternate structures will be raised. When the new one is finished, the old one is, I believe, lovingly disassembled.

I need to check my sources before I add that to the main article; if somebody has more time and wants to beat me to it, go ahead.

BTW, if over time, tendentious editors replace every word of the original post, is it still the same article? Should all murderers in prison be released after--what is it, 17 years? After all, that's not the person who committed the crime.

76.170.95.226 (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. I forgot my tildes when I hit save, and though I edited them in, I guess it's too late. Sorry 'bout that, guys: I ain't tryin' to hide nuffin.

Terry J. Carter

The prisoner-release comment reminded me of a joke/anecdote (sorry, I know I'm getting a bit off-topic here -- my apologies)...apparently a man who stuck his arm in a window and stole an item that was sitting on a table nearby was charged with burglary. His defense was that only his arm entered the house, and that it would be unfair to hold him liable for what his arm did. The judge said "Very well. I sentence the defendant's arm to a year in jail. The defendant can accompany his arm or not, as he sees fit." The defendant had the last laugh, though, when he removed his prosthetic arm, laid it on the table, and walked out of the courtroom! Captain Quirk (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add a story about something that happened in Sweden. There is a train called "X2000" that is faster than other trains, the design is different (better chairs and internet connection) and the tickets are way more expensive than other trains. One of these trains broke and was temporarily replaced by an ordinary slower train. It could not keep the time schedule and the seats were uncomfortable, but the ticket price was the same. Someone representing SJ (swedish railways) tried to defend the use of the slower train. He said "X2000 is not a train, it is a concept". 212.105.38.3 (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Majority

If a majority of the parts were replaced, wouldn't it just be a new object with old parts? OVERTWITCH~Your Favourite Nerdy, Glasses Wearing, Hyperactive, little Asian

Popular culture

You might consider adding this:

In Philip Jose Farmer's Time's Last Gift, the primary character, a thinly disguised Tarzan, after time-traveling to 12,000 BC, smokes, drinks and does all sorts of bad things to his body on the last centruy before his birth in an attempt to change all the molecules in his body because of a theory saying that the same entity can not be in two places at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.39.79 (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Added to List of Ships of Theseus examples --Byziden (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Could also perhaps add a reference to "Trigger's Broom" - see the penultimate paragraph in the "Characteristics" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_(Only_Fools_and_Horses).

5.69.204.254 (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Added to List of Ships of Theseus examples --Byziden (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

After I was pointed to this while reading a fanfic, the first thing that came to mind is Leonard "Bones" McCoy's opinion regarding transporter technology in Star Trek. If you're being disassembled in one location and reassembled in another (which is what transporting is, basically), isn't that a practical application of this theory? And then, of course, the 'fic in question goes into pretty much the exact same example. (Well, not the Bones part, the transporter part.) I just hadn't read that far yet.

lichtenberg german philosophist 18th century

this can be related to Lichtenberg Knife: "a handleless knife which miss a blade", one can assume it is still a knife hence it was named a knife. The Identity prevail the existence, and the ship even after been rebuild with new pieces is still the same, as is name , is place hence is identity is still the same.

sorry for bad english ;-) antoine sorel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.162.141 (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the same as the "grandfather's axe" already on the page... AnonMoos (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the additional point here is that the lost handle and blade haven't even been replaced with new ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.39.66 (talk) 13:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

4'th Dimensionalism...

Ok so we're invoking time travel or some 'magic past place' as a solution to the paradox? What am I missing here? The past and future are a part of perception, they exist conceptually, all that quantitatively exists is the present. All of the same matter and energy that made up 'the past' now makes up the present, if I cut down a tree and build a house all of the same matter and energy that made up the tree now makes up the house, or it has been absorbed into a thousand other systems. There is no reason to believe that the tree ever still exists as a living growing tree, that is unless the roots sprouted a new sapling which is beside the point. --67.132.247.216 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Locke's socks

I removed the arguments by an anon in this section and copied them here to avoid accidentally driving him off Wikipedia and making him believe his comments are not respected. Protactinium-231 (talk)

Argument 1

I propose, Yes it would be still the same sock, because until even after the last thread had been replaced the original information of it's is still apparent and permeates the time/space continuum (even fragments of information still bear the original information). The required proof of its existence can be found in strings and in esoteric realms. That will have implication to the so called 'Chicken and Egg' paradoxon, simply put: we can not straight compare the both because, if you leave out all the events that lead to the chicken's ability to lay eggs in the first place than of course the logic is defied only by the stupid idea to ask one's self this highly mind-disableling question that serves no purpose; maybe only in a symbolic manner as what-is-there-first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.120.49.68 (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Argument 2

I propose, Yes it would be still the same sock, because until even after the last thread had been replaced the original information of it's is still apparent and permeates the time/space continuum (even fragments of information still bear the original information). The required proof of its existence can be found in strings and in esoteric realms. That will have implication to the so called 'Chicken and Egg' paradoxon, simply put: we can not straight compare the both because, if you leave out all the evolutionary events that lead to the chicken's ability to lay eggs in the first place, than of course the logic is defied only by the stupid idea to ask one's self this highly mind-disableling question that serves no purpose simply because there cannot be any logic therefore it is not a hallmark of a philosopher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.120.49.68 (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mind Uploading

"The concept of mind uploading brings Theseus's paradox to the question of human identity: it would seem to be possible to transfer a human mind from an organic brain to a computer, incrementally and in such a way that consciousness is never interrupted, e.g. by replacing neurons one by one with electronics designed to simulate the neurons' firing patterns."

I submit that this is a hypothetical process. The sentence should be amended to read:

"The concept of mind uploading brings Theseus's paradox to the question of human identity: This is the hypothetical process of transferring a human mind from an organic brain to a computer, incrementally and in such a way that consciousness is never interrupted, e.g. by replacing neurons one by one with electronics designed to simulate the neurons' firing patterns."

The point being that with current technology, it is not possible, nor does it "seem to be", the latter being close to using weasel words. Keithcurtis (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree

-Pollinosisss (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

in popular culture revisions

At least two examples (those from Only Fools and Horses and Terry Pratchett) appear twice in the article, once in "Popular culture" (where they probably belong) and earlier in other sections. They need only be mentioned once. — Paul G (talk) 11:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Added to List of Ships of Theseus examples --Byziden (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd say they don't need to be mentioned at all. Seriously, this is an article of a philosophical problem, why is there a list of TV series where it is referenced? --King Klear (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Added to List of Ships of Theseus examples --Byziden (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the section is too large, but I'd still like to mention, if only here in the talk page, that the longest running film series, the James Bond series, now has none of the original recurring cast or crew members, and really hasn't since GoldenEye. Producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman have been replaced by Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson, composer John Barry was eventually replaced with David Arnold, title designer Maurice Binder with Daniel Kleinman, stunt coordinator Bob Simmons with Vic Armstrong, and cast members Bernard Lee, Lois Maxwell, and Desmond Llewellyn were replaced with Judi Dench, Samantha Bond, and John Cleese. Some of them have even been replaced. This is of course not to mention the changes from Sean Connery to Daniel Craig (who was born after the films started). I think I read somewhere that the oldest crew member on Quantum of Solace had been working on the films since Goldfinger, the third film, but I can't remember what his job was. Sheavsey33 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Added to List of Ships of Theseus examples --Byziden (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Quantum mechanics

From a quantum mechanical viewpoint, two particles of the same variety (ie an electron and an electron) are absolutely indistinguishable. If you have both particles in a box, it is theoretically impossible to say this is particle 1, and this is particle 2; you simply have 2 particles in a box.

Now if you take this into consideration, suppose you have two pieces of the ship that are identical on a quantum level. When you swap them out, the old ship is indistinguishable from the new ship. So they must be the same ship. The only difference would be the amount of time and space between considering if it were the Ship of Theseus.

There may be a number of practical and philosophical problems with this, but just throwing this out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.113.115 (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Every electron in the universe resonates with a unique particular frequency. Therefore no 2 atoms can ever be identical. It's called the Pauli exclusion principle --Byziden (talk) 00:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Where does Pauli exclusion principle say that? -- 07:06, 8 May 2017‎ Blue Mist 1

Some comments about this article

This article is turning into a piece of original research and as such maybe should not be on Wikipedia at all in this form.

One aspect of this is that there seems to be a tendency to merge all articles which describe the same idea. However, perhaps, if the idea was put forward by a different person, using a different anecdote (for instance), at a different time, and it is referred to by a different title, then it deserves its own page. The process of merging them in this particular way is, in itself, the carrying out of a research program, and as such is maybe inappropriate on Wikipedia.

Or maybe I am wrong. The creation of an Encyclopedia always involves some (original) research in creating the articles. It is hard to know where to draw the line. The points I am making of course are very close to Mereological questions (about articles and research) in themselves. Perhaps the answers depend on one's Mereological stance!

I do, however, have an urge to get rid of most of this article.

What do people think? What is Wikipedia's position?

Keith Bowden Keithbowden (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not wrong. This problem goes back at least as far as Heraclitus, and it primarily poses the paradoxes of the identity of a changing object in a changing environment over time. The problem is inadequately understood and remains unsolved. Since the setup of the problem is broader in scope than what is mereology, an understanding is not forthcoming.

I think it might be best for the article not to pretend to anything more. == 15:53, 8 May 2017‎ Blue Mist 1

The Temptations

The singing group "The Temptations" fired and replaced members with such frequency that ex-Temps soon out-numbered the members of the "original" group. These men decided to form a second group, also called "The Temptations." Both groups toured at the same time, and both claimed to be the "real" Temptations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshmutt (talk • contribs) 01:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ise Grand Shrine

I've come to this article after an edit was reversed on the Ise Grand Shrine article referring to the Ship of Theseus. While the Ise Grand Shrine is indeed replaced every 20 years, a new building is created on an adjacent site, then the old building is taken down and parts of the old building are sent throughout Japan to other shrines. I can't see how this matches the "Ship of Theseus" concept at all as the new building is not in anyway considered to be the same as the old, other than the same traditional methods are used to build it.

The whole purpose of building a new shrine and tearing down the old is to symbolise death and rebirth in nature. The new building has it's own dedication ceremony and exists as a separate entity for 20 years until it too is taken down. While the shrine grounds are considered to be around 1,500 to 2,000 years old, the actual main shrine building is considered only 18 years old (to be replaced in 2013). For this to be an example of a Ship of Theseus, there would need to be some who believe that the new building is somehow the same building as the old, which defeats the purpose of taking down the building every 20 years and building a new one. It is, at best, a very poor example to be used on this page, but more likely it is an incorrect one and really should be removed from this article. Ka-ru (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good rationale, patiently explained Alistair Stevenson (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Fuzzy Logic

I noticed a link that mentioned "read more: fuzzy logic", but it really didn't address WHY one would want to look at that article? I thus propose that something along the lines of the following be added:

"Is it the same ship?" is a black-and-white concept that doesn't necessarily reflect reality (which is a fuzzy logic scale between "black and white" and "fuzzy logic"). Thus, if one piece of material from the ship was replaced, then it is "almost mostly completely Theseus' ship, with one piece of material replaced" or "it is now no longer 100% Theseus' ship, but more like 97.13% Theseus' ship"; conversely, the piece that was originally part of Theseus' ship but now is in the scrap heap is "merely 2.87% the remains of Theseus' ship". This will continue on as more and more pieces are removed and replaced; soon it'll be:

• "mostly Theseus' ship, with some replaced parts" or "75% Theseus' ship, 25% replacement parts",
• and then "mostly replaced parts, with some of Theseus' original ship left" or "25% Theseus' ship, 75% replacement parts"
• and finally "completely replaced parts, with none of Theseus' original ship left" or "0% Theseus' ship, 100% replacement parts"

Likewise, it could be said that the pile of scraps which once were part of Theseus' ship could be "25% the remains of Theseus' ship", then "75% the remains of Theseus' ship" and finally "100% the remains of Theseus' ship."

... Unless I completely glazed over this article, I didn't see anything along these lines of what I wrote, apart from the single link to the "Fuzzy Logic" article. Therefore, if someone could thus add something along the lines of the above, that would be super! I mean, the Ship of Theseus paradox is only a "paradox" to someone who thinks in black-and-white all the time, and reality isn't always "black-and-white" but in "shades of grey"... this situation being the perfect example of something that can't be accurately described using "black and white" terms. -- 66.92.0.62 (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Bicentennial Man?

Isn't this paradox mentioned in the movie Bicentennial Man, when Andrew approaches the World Congress at one point to petition being human? I haven't watched this movie since it was in theaters, but I distinctly remember Andrew replying to the congressman that since he (the congressman) had an artificial heart that made him at least part not-human. If anyone remembers better, or has seen this movie more recently, could someone verify this? Sailorknightwing (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a good point, I'm not sure if they actually mentioned the paradox though, I'll check when I see it again --Byziden (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Car breeding

Aren't there some examples of car models that have more existing copies than built copies? Hcobb (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A) No, of course not. Cars don't build themselves. I suppose it is possible that more cars exist than were officially built according to company records, but not more than were ever built. B) What does this have to do with this article, and what change are you proposing? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I recall reading an article with the example of old parts from several cars being combined with new parts to build more cars than existed in the first place. I thought that would be a suitable example for the concept here. Hcobb (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can cite a reliable source, it might be. Recalling an article, though, won't help us much. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Heritage movement

This is a question that arises frequently in the heritage movement. If you add modern components to make a particular artifact useable in modern life, at one point is no longer a vintage piece. THis has occupied English Heritage from time to time. When renovating an old building can one replace lead with composition, or a cement fillet where a roof meets a chimney stack with modern flashing. And so on. 81.132.122.13 (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Theseus ship

The Theseus ship question is a pseudo-problem. The "Theseus ship" proper only consists of parts which where there when the ship was Theseus', say, property. After a portion of it deteriorates, and you replace, say, 10% of it, you end up with 90% of the Theseus' ship, and 10% modern replica. Once you replace 100% of the parts, Theseus' ship is no more, you only have a replica of it. There can be more examples of this: for instance, the Warsaw Royal Castle is a replica of the original building, which still stood there in 1939, before Germans first heavily damaged it, then plundered, and finall have blown it up. The replica is very accurate, it gives very good idea on how the original building looked like, it even has some original parts. But in fact the Warsaw Royal Castle is no more. -212.87.13.78 (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Judgment in the Case of Bentley Old Number One

I haven't the time myself (if I had I'd be spending it on the MIL-STD-1553 page anyway), but I wonder if there's any value, from the perspective of showing that sometimes such issues have real value [for some value of real], in adding a section on the case of Bentley "Old Number One".

This was, in effect, a legal review of a car, a transcript for the judgment of which can be found at http://www.gomog.com/articles/no1judgement.html, that someone agreed to buy for £10 million, but "then subsequently resiled [withdrew] from the deal when they suspected the authenticity of the car." This was because all the parts of the original car had been replaced in 1932, particularly the chassis and engine. It was also reportedly destroyed in the same year when it went over the banking at Brooklands at 120 mph, killing the driver (Clive Dunfee). This, according to the defence, resulted in discontinuities in its existence, and thus was not, after 1932, "Old Number One".

However, as part of the rebuild prior to the 1932 race, much of the chassis and the chassis number, running gear, and body were retained, and the engine was only changed later. Also, after the fatal crash, it was rebuilt (and re-bodied as a coupe) incorporating the original speed six radiator engraved with the cars successes, despite the then and later reports of its total loss. The then owner (Joel Woolf Barnato) ran the car on the road for several years before selling it on (but keeping the radiator), referring to it at the time as "Old Number One".

To quote from the judgment, "I am satisfied that the car which was the subject matter of the contract for sale on 7th April is the Bentley known as Old Number One. The car can properly be refereed to as Old Number One." However, to quote further, "The car is not and cannot be considered to be, or be known properly as the 'original' car which won either the 1929 or 1930 Le Mans." But yet "... the expression Old Number One... is justifiably applied to the car which in a succession of forms raced at Le Mans between 1929 and 1932 when it crashed [sic: crashed at Brooklands, not Le Mans]. It is the 'authentic' 'Old Number One'".

So (and this may be the part most worth adding to the page), according to legal precedent [?], the ship is the "authentic" Ship of Theseus, but not the "original" Ship of Theseus. However and as pointed out in the judgment, the car could only be the "original" were it still 'as raced', including the same tyres, etc., (and then only of the car in one specific race). So nothing that contains service items is ever truly "original" once it's been serviced. So, the original Ship of Theseus, but with new oars, is not the "original" Ship of Theseus, either.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 16:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's somewhat interesting, but of course it only resolves one particular legal case -- not the whole philosophical paradox... AnonMoos (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What an idiotic paradox

The entire premise hinges on the definition of "the same" and it's many interpretations.

If you have a constant and static interpretation of the same there is no paradox.

If you define same as being same in function, then it's the same ship.

If you define same as being identical, then if it's replaced identically it's the same ship.

If you define same as being the original parts, then it's not the same ship.

It's not a paradox. It's a fool's paradox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allcarwiki (talk • contribs) 02:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Yet it and its variant forms (such as the "grandfather's axe") have engaged the interest of a number of people (some famous) over thousands of years... AnonMoos (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the article doesn't currently include the most classic form of the "Grandfather's axe" story: "This is my grandfather's axe: my father replaced the blade, and I replaced the handle"... AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

On a good day, I might feel qualified to take a position in this centuries-old debate. But how much chutzpah is required to effectively refer to many of history's great philosophers as fools for engaging in such a silly question? As a lay student of human nature, I find this fascinating!Mandruss (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems more fascinating to me that you'd rather respect authority than think for yourself, even in such a simple. :P That's a much more incredible example of what you call "human nature." :P

Now, philosophers need to examine concepts like "sameness" to understand the working of things like language and logic better, so thought experiments like this aren't just an exercise in futility. But we don't need to pretend that they are unsolvable conondrums - that may not even have been the intent of the philosopher, but rather merely the demonstration of a problem. Vree65 (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Although, isn't the idea Hobbes created (What if you gathered up the original pieces after they had been replaced, could you make a second ship, etc.) a bit nonsensical? It doesn't make much sense when you remember that the pieces would have been removed as they started to break or rot, etc. So his idea is to gather up a bunch of broken/rotten/worn out pieces and try to build an exact replica of the original ship. That always bugged me199.212.11.124 (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the Buddhist section?

I remember there being a Buddhist section years ago, now its deleted. What was the reason? 67.189.90.207 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that large chunks of the article from a year back have been removed for space which makes me sad. Vree65 (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Checking the history the section was removed in 2012 "due to undue weight & original research. sources do not mention this as a view on the ship of Theseus paradox", rather than "space". --McGeddon (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

My original contribution was For Madhyamika-Prasangika's following Nagarjuna, Candrakirti, and Lama Tsongkhapa For Madhyamika following Candrakirti replacement paradoxes such as Ship of Theseus are answered by stating that the Ship of Theseus remains so (within the conventions that assert it) until it ceases to function as the Ship of Theseus. But it got needlessly (imo) extended. (20040302 (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC))

References

Example farm

"Gee, this sounds kinda like that one episode of that show. I'd better add it." No, find a reliable source comparing it to the "Ship of Thesus", then add it.

In the process of yanking some of the example farm that makes up the bulk of the garbage here, I was reverted by another editor who wants to keep it and add sources. Have at it. I'll stop back in a while and remove what's left. I strongly suspect the overwhelming majority has never been discussed in the context of this paradox. Maybe I'm wrong. Good luck. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed them again. If you disagree, feel free to restore any or all of them with reliable sources describing them in relation to the Ship of Theseus. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles of this type frequently attract large numbers of "In popular culture" style examples. Unless there are independent reliable sources giving meaning to this, it is merely an example. Pick a topic. How about "God". How many movies, TV shows, books, songs, plays, paintings, knock knock jokes, etc. can you think of that refer to "God"? Hundreds, if you set your mind to it. Should you start adding them to God? Would that be useful and provide meaningful content about "God"? No, it would be an " indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft". - SummerPhD (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Restored Sugababes

The section citing the Sugababes as an example of the phenomenon was removed here as a "minor example". (*)

I understand the dislike for "in pop culture" lists of endless fan-added examples. However, while I appreciate that Sugababes aren't huge in every market, in general terms they're still a massively-successful band, making them a notable example that nevertheless closely mirrors the phenomenon described. The referenced text clearly and credibly illustrates the correlation. The fact that the original members have reunited while the band is still in existence makes it stronger still. Given that it's concisely described (i.e. only three or so lines long), I've re-inserted it.

((*) Ironically, I note that someone- presumably independently and not aware of the original- saw fit to add a different paragraph about them shortly afterwards. I feel that my version uses the referenced text to make the point more strongly, but have retained one of *its* references).

Ubcule (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's a useful example of another context for the paradox, but isn't this just a comparison made by one journalist once? The notability of the subject might help us to pick one example over others (skimming Google, the same comparison has been made of the Dillinger Escape Plan and the Boston Red Sox), but the fame of the band doesn't confer any significance onto the review quote. --McGeddon (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I accept your point to some extent, but the nature of the Sugababes has been commented on quite a lot in the media, even if that particular article is the best and most directly made analogy to the Ship of Theseus.

As for the Red Sox, that one's not specifically notable purely because it's an arbitrary choice for the sake of the writer's argument (i.e. it applies to virtually every sports team more than a generation old). The general phenomenon of sports team continuity *is* IMHO quite definitely notable, and would warrant mention. Ubcule (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

We can talk here all day about various "examples" (the local store that's 80 years old, sports teams, families, corporations, folk tales after countless versions, old houses after several rehabs, etc.). The question I think we should be asking is what the best sourced examples we have are. The band in question is one of countless bands whose membership has been entirely replaced (giving birth to this kind of thing). Conceptually, I think its a good fit. As for sourcing, we have but one source specifically tying it to "Ship of Theseus", the topic of this article. Articles of this type are often spawning grounds for example farms. The best defense against this is removing all examples that do not have a reliable source directly using the term ("Ship of Theseus", in this case), pruning bare mentions, avoiding trivial lists (see WP:IPC and, seemingly, much of the "In fiction" in this article...) and -- and this is the hard part -- finding reliable sources that provide substantial discussion of particular examples. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

All of the examples in the "In fiction" section were merely references to the original books, lacking reliable sources connecting them to the topic. I've removed them. If anyone wants to argue that, gee, we ought to include them 'cause it's obvious, please explain why this (admittedly meta) example would not belong here as well. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Planarian genetic replacement

Here's another story. Your cells age and die, and are replaced, but "you" as an individual, continue. With planarians, that can get genetically odd. The Reddien lab at MIT irradiated planarians, killing their cNeoblasts (stem cells, from which other cells are made). Normally, such a planerian would slowly die, lacking the stem cells do replacement. But if it received a transplant of cNeoblasts from a healthy donor planarian, it survived. And would live on, while its cells were gradually replaced with new ones, made from the donor cNeoblasts. Eventually resulting in an individual planerian, with a continuous identity, whose genetics are now those of the donor, and unrelated to its parent(s) and younger self. 76.24.24.241 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source directly relating this the the Ship of Theseus? - SummerPhD (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Off topic chat

5 Chimps Story - different individuals, same society belief 5 chimps were placed in a room with a ladder. Food was placed at the top of the ladder and whenever a chimp tried to climb said ladder they all got sprayed with water from the ceiling. They stopped going for the ladder. Replace one chimp. He goes for the ladder, other chimps beat him up before he can reach it and activate the water. Everyone stays dry though one chimp is a little hurt. Replace another chimp. Same thing happens. Eventually all the chimps have been replaced and the water hasn't been activated at all. The chimps will beat up any newcomer who tries for the food on top of the ladder but none of them know what will happen if one does reach the ladder. Left as an exercise for the enthusiast. 14.202.185.106 (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to their related articles, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

World War II aircraft

Yes, various models changed over time. Yes, sources support this. However, we need reliable sources that directly relate this to the "Ship of Theseus". It is all too easy to find examples that could be added here. Is this the same talk page now that I've edited it? I put a new kitchen in; how do I answer someone asking if we still live in the same house? My wife comes home with a new haircut; is she the same person I married? My dad re-paints his house; is it the house I grew up in? We list every band, team, family, TV show, corporation, government, etc. whose members have changed. We could list every film, book, album, etc. released in more than one version. We could list possible examples all day. This would result in an article swamped by purported examples of no real value.

The only way to escape this is to limit the examples to those that independent reliable sources discuss as examples of this specific paradox. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

By that definition, there is no real example other than the original philosophical discussions and, at a stretch, Trigger. The WWII aircraft example was an example of the theory in a much more complex setting than "Three members of a band" and "A broom with a new head and a new handle" and, I believe, worth including on that basis. Many <insert generic object here>'s have changed to a great extent over time, but very few are entirely renewed which is the whole point of this article. Your father has painted his house, that's not an example of the Ship of Theseus (has your father replaced every item, brick, stone, rafter in his house? If so, perhaps his house is worthy of inclusion).

I think you're completely misunderstanding the concept of "Changing part of a whole" and "Changing EVERY part of a whole and declaring it to still be the same thing". Your father's repainted house, your wife's new hair, your new kitchen, films and books with changed sections are NOT related to this article. The example you removed IS. The government question is interesting, but I've never heard of a government claiming to be unchanged, while having none of the original members left. I will be reverting the article, as I do not believe you have justified the removal of that section based on the examples you've given. Audigex (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not debating whether or not your analysis is correct. I am saying your analysis is original research. "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." In other words, at a minimum, examples included in this article must include sources that directly compare the example to the "Ship of Theseus" paradox. Without that, we could easily spend the rest of our lives adding, removing and debating various possible examples. "Is this your glass of water?" "It was, until the temperature changed, a few molecules evaporated and a speck of dust landed on it." - SummerPhD (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But if someone had written about the glass of water in a book, that would be acceptable? We may as well remove the entire article, as there's nothing in this entire concept that could be "researched" - there are merely people who wrote it down before Wikipedia existed. It's a thought experiment, by definition there's no research involved. Audigex (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)