Twin Earth Thought Experiment

[Guille]

One of the most famous thought experiments in contemporary philosophy is the twin earth thought experiment. Hilary Putnam proposed it in his famous article: The meaning of 'meaning'. He proposed the following scenario:

There are exactly identical Earth planets. Everything inside them is equal and so is everything surrounding them. Every single person in one earth exists also in the other earth (we will call it twin earth but the inhabitants of it would obviously call it earth) with every single atoms equal. The only unique difference between the two earths is that what is called water in earth is H2O, and what is called water in twin earth is a different chemical called XYZ. Both substances are exactly equal in appearance and abundance (quality and quantity).

What Putnam questions now is weather, say, a person called Oscar in Earth refers to water is the same as what the parallel Oscar (twin-Oscar) refers to as water in twin-earth. Imagine also that these two people leave at a stage in their earths where the content of water is not known, for they don’t’ have any chemistry. Any solution to this question fights strong arguments that lead to a conclusion, which Putnam defends: That the meaning of something is not dependent on its content in the brain of its reference. The important thing—Argues Putnam—is that the history of the content of the word ‘water’ is different in both worlds, for Oscar learned water in an earth where there was H2O and twin-Oscar learned water in a twin-earth were there was XYZ.

What I want to comment from this though experiment is:

First, that time is a much more relevant concept in the discussion about the meaning of words and it’s relationship to the object and the brain, than it is generally thought when studying the philosophy of mind.

Second, that as it is a thought experiment it is not always viable, and it refers to a world, which has nothing to do with our reality, and— as, many philosophers argue—a thought not about the world may lead to conclusions not about the world.

Third, that the analytic philosophy of the second half of the twentieth century differs primarily upon that of the first half in that it does not reduce everything to the thing-in-itself, and that it takes in account how the external property which is time can change the identity and meaning of concepts.

What do you think about this thought experiment? What do you think about my conclusions? Any other comment is also welcomed.

For information about the thought experiment go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Ea...ght_experiment

[michellemfry]

I want to discuss if twin and parallel have the same effect in the thought experiment. To be parallel to something, one can go on forever, function as is, and never know the other, never cross paths, never know anything in common.

To be a twin is to be potentially parallel, is it not?

[Guille]

I want to discuss if twin and parallel have the same effect in the thought experiment. To be parallel to something, one can go on forever, function as is, and never know the other, never cross paths, never know anything in common.

To be a twin is to be potentially parallel, is it not?

It isn't, but in the twin earth thought experiment it is. Twins can do different things, wiles in my experiment they always do exactly the same, when one jumps the other jumps int he same place, way.... The only difference between the worlds is that water means to different substances, although the occupation of these is the same and ha the same appearance to our perceptions.

[baudrunner]

"'meanings' just ain't in the head."

I use this partial quote of Putnam's to illustrate that the language he uses does not subscribe to that of the status quo in intellectual circles, therefore he should be taken with a grain of salt.

from Wikepedia..(my bold)

Some philosophers believe that all such science-fiction thought experiments should be viewed with suspicion. They argue that when a thought experiment describes a state of affairs that is radically different from the actual one (or what we think it to be), our intuitions become unreliable, and significant philosophical conclusions cannot be drawn from them.

In other words, Putnam's thought experiment is superfluous. In fact, there is no philosophy there, and I view it as a test to weed the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Don't be fooled Guille, for if Putnam is indeed genuine you run the risk of losing credibility by taking him seriously. If not, you would do well to give him a passing critique.

On the actual matter of whether we should think it significant that XYZ has a different chemical composition than H2O, I believe it to be irrelevent. It is a physical comparison. Putnam places us in a time where the chemistry of the water is not known so the analysis becomes superfluous. It is water to both Oscar and Toscar. Again, there is no philosophical relevance within the context of this experiment. The real question concerns the nature of the respective realities, that even though the two substances are the same in the minds of the two, the separation of their chemistry is external to the mental appreciation in the brains of the two subjects, which have exactly the same chemical pattern related to the engrams representing their knowledge of the water. To my mind, Putnam is trying to fool a non-existant contextual framework which he does not describe and therefore which does not exist outside his thought experiment. He is detaching himself from the topic altogether by not providing that contextual framework, therefore he is a fraud.

[Mohan.C]

this kinds of thread is what i like

what i say is that everytime time faces probabilities. the probabilitis branch off into a different reality. its just like u said there was a probabilities of water to be H20 or XYZ the probabilities but everything except that is the same. if u jump here the other u jumps. the realiy in which we live is decided by time wether it will be heads or tails when a coin is tossed also.

this is pure imagination nothing like this happens.
Because i cant sleep on the thought that TOE will be decided by time.
The other me would have he favour of knoing what is the TOE

[mkirkpatrick]

One of the most famous thought experiments in contemporary philosophy is the twin earth thought experiment. Hilary Putnam proposed it in his famous article: The meaning of 'meaning'. He proposed the following scenario:

There are exactly identical Earth planets. Everything inside them is equal and so is everything surrounding them. Every single person in one earth exists also in the other earth (we will call it twin earth but the inhabitants of it would obviously call it earth) with every single atoms equal. The only unique difference between the two earths is that what is called water in earth is H2O, and what is called water in twin earth is a different chemical called XYZ. Both substances are exactly equal in appearance and abundance (quality and quantity).

What Putnam questions now is weather, say, a person called Oscar in Earth refers to water is the same as what the parallel Oscar (twin-Oscar) refers to as water in twin-earth. Imagine also that these two people leave at a stage in their earths where the content of water is not known, for they don’t’ have any chemistry. Any solution to this question fights strong arguments that lead to a conclusion, which Putnam defends: That the meaning of something is not dependent on its content in the brain of its reference. The important thing—Argues Putnam—is that the history of the content of the word ‘water’ is different in both worlds, for Oscar learned water in an earth where there was H2O and twin-Oscar learned water in a twin-earth were there was XYZ.

What I want to comment from this though experiment is:

First, that time is a much more relevant concept in the discussion about the meaning of words and it’s relationship to the object and the brain, than it is generally thought when studying the philosophy of mind.

Second, that as it is a thought experiment it is not always viable, and it refers to a world, which has nothing to do with our reality, and— as, many philosophers argue—a thought not about the world may lead to conclusions not about the world.

Third, that the analytic philosophy of the second half of the twentieth century differs primarily upon that of the first half in that it does not reduce everything to the thing-in-itself, and that it takes in account how the external property which is time can change the identity and meaning of concepts.

What do you think about this thought experiment? What do you think about my conclusions? Any other comment is also welcomed.

For information about the thought experiment go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Ea...ght_experiment

As our great bard, sir William SH- once said a rose by anyother name,will smell as sweet.
kind regards michael.

[Guille]

As our great bard, sir William SH- once said a rose by anyother name,will smell as sweet.
kind regards michael.

Or not. Our thoughts are many times reduced to language and logic. In fact, can you now think, for example, another person apart from me, you, he, we, you they...? My sensation of things in nature is affected by the word used to describe it. Not totally, but it does have a place. And anyway, what if you have two different smells from two plants which appear exactly the same in all our other senses, one is a rose one isn't. How do you define their difference? The chemical composition.

[trombonetom]

If the Oscars knew the chemical make-up of water, they would know that is is different, even though is looks and acts in the same way. This is like us, since we know exactly what it is.
However, if they didn't know they would think* that it was the same thing. Because they had no reason to believe different. (like we were when we thought the world was flat.)
The answer to the original question "Are the chemicals different?" is yes. But to the Oscars it is no.


* Think means that they thought they knew. However, they were wrong.

[mkirkpatrick]

I want to discuss if twin and parallel have the same effect in the thought experiment. To be parallel to something, one can go on forever, function as is, and never know the other, never cross paths, never know anything in common.

To be a twin is to be potentially parallel, is it not?

Thats an affirmitive!


kind regards michael.

[theunify]

Many great philosophers, talk in code so that they are not understood. Leonarda eo of Da Vinci, Italy, wrote backwards using a mirror because he was left handed. One could argue he was a super genius and could very well have been writing backwards in spite of being right handed to copyright his work.