If we define "heap" as some certain amount of parts, then the paradox is resolved. So the confusion comes from "heap" being a vague predicate. It seems obvious to me that vague terms like "heap" should not be used when we are trying to establish facts about the world. They are only useful in day-to-day conversations where some vague meaning is permissible or useful.
I must be missing something here, because philosophers have gone to the effort of applying a whole lot of weird many valued logic systems to this problem.
Can anyone recommend some compelling critiques of my approach?
>>7806354
>complains about vagueness
>let's define "heap" as a CERTAIN amount of parts!
The point of the paradox is that it springs from vague predicates. It is not showing any "established facts about the world", but evicing the inherente vague nature of language and how we build our understanding of the world through it, even if it's flawed.
When does a heap stop being a heap? That is a decision as arbitrary as language itself.
At least that's what I gather from it.
this is a worthless line of thought
heap is somewhat vague by definition
fapping about what exactly constitutes as "heap" is pointless because there are far more precise concepts that can be used when necessary
same thing as with "few", you use it when you intentionally wish to be somewhat vague or lack necessary data to make more accurate judgments
>>7806467
I believe the point of the thing has been basically "from where does x stop and y begin?" which was something we once upon a time had not inquired into that deeply. so it's been basically an exercise in "how far can we take this thought? where are its limits?", which seems to have been the fav pastime of many a philosopher
A heaping tablespoon. Whatever remains on the spoon is a heap.
>>7806517
ok thanks i will delete thread
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox#Proposed_resolutions
Read all of that.
Also, why would you post this on /lit/ and not /sci/, you realize how much smarter mathematicians are right?
>>7806467
>This post is all over the place.
You are all over the place.
>>7806539
>how much smarter mathematicians are
hahahahahahahha
hahahah
>>7806622
Obvious troll?
>>7806539
How the fuck is this a philosophy or maths problem? A heap is something vague and intuitive; trying to define exactly how much is a heap is absurd.
>>7806354
And how would you decide the cut off point for a heap?
Isn't the whole point that from our common sense perspective 1 less grain (20,000 to 19,999 grains) wont be good reason to change the thing from a heap to not a heap?
>>7807453
I wouldn't. A heap doesn't have a cutoff per Se. It is a vague conception. It's useless to try to apply classic logic to a vague conception.
>>7808189
I guess the alternative systems for dealing with vaguest came about because some people thought it would be good if we could apply logic to vague predicates. In that case, we need to think about how useful these alternative systems are.
