Pareto and Theseus

Thoughts.

Unfortunately, it does not seem like my Occidental Observer essay on The Ship of Theseus is still online.

Perhaps the Pareto Principle ratio (see this) can help with the Ship of Theseus problem with respect to physical objects. Thus, up to 20% of the original physical entity can be changed without saying the entity is clearly different with respect to the identity being different; but it cannot be any 20% - it has to be non-distinctive, relatively non-important components of the object.  This would be the most non-distinctive 20% that is important for stabilizing the object (20% that gives 80% of stability?). This would not apply to human admixture, where much, much less than 20% would change identity - and the more genetically distant the admixture the less is necessary to change identity. For humans, the overall genetic structure (and phenotype) is important, and that is changed with relatively very minor admixture with genetically distant stocks.  But with respect to physical objects, 20% may be the yardstick.

With respect to the entire Ship of Theseus problem, what we are interested in is essence. What is the fundamental essence of the entity under consideration? What is the essence of the definition of what the entity is? That’s why it doesn’t matter if the actual water molecules of a river changes over time – a river is defined as a moving body of water:

A river is a natural flowing watercourse, usually freshwater, flowing towards an ocean, sea, lake or another river.

So, by its very definition, a river is something that is constantly changing, by definition, by its very essence, it does not have the same composition of water molecules from one moment to the next. Thus, a “a natural flowing watercourse” in a particular location, defines a river, so the Nile river of today has the identity of the Nile River of ancient times – obviously, the actual physical water at any given time does not matter. The actual specific physical water doesn't matter, that's not the essence of what a river is.

But, an actual specific fixed physical entity is defined by its stable, material actuality over time.  Thus, a ship is defined as the physical material built for a particular form and function, and if that physical material is changed, then the entity of a “ship” is changed. As stated above, we could put a 20% mark as a threshold on the acceptable amount of change for a physical entity. I realize that’s a bit arbitrary, but at least it is dependent on the Pareto Principle that is based on actual real-life observations.  And, as stated above, not all 20% is equal. If some nails and wood planks of Theseus’ ship were changed, that’s one thing – but if the bow ornamentation or steering oars are changed, that’s another story.

If human ethnoracial identity is defined by an ethnotype, if the essence is a particular genetic structure or phenotype, then if that is significantly changed – and that, as stated above, will take much, much less than 20% - then the ethnotype no longer exists. The essence of ethnoracial identity will be irrevocably changed with a substantial admixture – substantial being a combination of both the amount of admixture and the type of admixture – the genetic and phenotypic distance between the admixed stocks.

Food for thought.