Fyron's 5000th Post

[narf poit chez BOOM]

by defining opposite as that which opposes, and a clock as a temporary collection of matter, i reduced the question down to the oposite of matter. and i think my reversed matter would opose matter.
now, a device which renders a clock useless, would be the oposite of a clock.
or, if you talk about oposite as 'across from' then a device which would cause you to keep track of time worse, would be the oposite of a clock.

[Fyron]

My arguments have had far fewer holes in them than those arguing for an anti-clock, actually.

Your point about something useless being the opposite of something useful does not mean that all useful things actually have something that is the opposite of them. In fact, almost none of them do. Only a very small range of objects/ideas/concepts actually have an opposite. You have yet to prove that there is anything that could be the opposite of a clock (even with a narrower definition of what a clock is). Just saying that it is theoretically possible is not any sort of valid logical argument. Furthermore, by your definition, any useless object could be the opposite of any useful object. But, opposites are by definition unique. They are 180 degrees apart (and they have to be able to be compared to each other for any sort of opposite to be able to make sense). You can not have 2 objects that are opposite, and hten have a 3rd object that is opposite to one of them. Useless A is the opposite of Useful B. But, it would also be the opposite of Useful C, as useful is the opposite of useless (going along with your reasoning, ofc). So, are Useful B and Useful C the same thing? Probably not.

You can not isolate one trait of an object and find something that appears opposite to that trait, and then say that that object is the opposite of the first object. Is a black horse the opposite of a white horse? Hardly. Black is the opposite color of white (one being no visible light, the other being all wavelengths of visibile light (which is a highly artificial definition that only makes sense with our extremely limited perception of reality)). But, the black horse and the white horse are still both horses. They are still the same objects, just with very slightly differing DNA, resulting in different pigmentation. So what would be an opposite to a black horse? Or a white horse, for that matter? Such an object would have to be the opposite of a horse itself. Is a pony (very small horse) the opposite of a Clydesdale (very big horse) just because they have opposing sizes? Not at all.

[geoschmo]

Even a stopped clock is still a clock. And a stopped clock is right twice a day. Of course a clock can be running but have the wrong time and never have the correct time. But even then it is still a clock.

Geoschmo

[narf poit chez BOOM]

it's an anti-matter device that never lets any clock run and always gives incorrect time.
unless you want the oposite of a single clock, in which case it only has to never let that clock run.
and for most of this, theoretical is as good as were gonna get.

[ April 15, 2003, 22:05: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
it's an anti-matter device that never lets any clock run and always gives incorrect time.
unless you want the oposite of a single clock, in which case it only has to never let that clock run.
and for most of this, theoretical is as good as were gonna get.

I can stop a single clock from ever running by the simple and forceful application of a ball peen hammer. But that does not make my hammer the opposite of a clock.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

what does that have to do with what i said?
i'll be playing the non-existant seIV now.

[ April 15, 2003, 22:29: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Cyrien]

All the arguments have so far had many holes in them and the fact that opposing arguments have holes in them does nothing to fill the holes up in either of them. Just because my sinking ship has more holes in it than your sinking ship (which it does not) does nothing to stop your ship from sinking.

I never once claimed that everything has an opposite.

Proving some is theoretically possible is in fact logically valid. Proving something theoretically possible does not prove it does exist but it shows that it MIGHT exist. I have in fact not shown that it can exist but that it might.
But my entire point in my Posts has not been to prove that it does exist but to attempt to show a method in which one might be able to identify the opposite of clock should it exist.

In point of fact opposites are not necessarily unique.

A is the opposite of B

C is the opposite of D

E is both B and D and thus the opposite of both A and C.

It is a matter of how you group things. A smaller group may be contained by a larger group. Just because it is the opposite of more than the smaller group does not make it any less the opposite of the smaller group.

You can isolate all the traits of the thing and while the smaller grouping is not the opposite of the larger the larger meets all requirements for being the other. Thus you could have the opposite of grandfather clock and clock and the opposite of clock INCLUDES grandfather clock.

My conclusions have been it is not even possible to identify the opposite of clock as the identification of clock itself is impossible.

If you can't identify the components of the thing you need to identify the opposite of then you have no chance of ever identifing the opposite itself.

Thus as things get more and more complex it gets harder and harder to define the thing and thus harder and harder to define an opposite. Thus the only things we have opposite for are indeed simple things. This does not however preclude the existence of the opposites themselves. It just means we have no way of identifing them and thus no way of proving or disproving their existence. Leaving us in limbo.