There are no degrees of "uniqueness"; something is either unique or it isn't.

[Nottseagull]

Have you noticed in recent years the alarming increase in people expressing the absurd notion of something being more unique than something else? A recent example on NSC was the design was even more unique than what we'll eventually get.
Why can't people use more appropiate terms such as innovative or pioneering?

 

[Uncle C]

Have you noticed in recent years the alarming increase in people expressing the absurd notion of something being more unique than something else? A recent example on NSC was the design was even more unique than what we'll eventually get.
Why can't people use more appropiate terms such as innovative or pioneering?

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

 

[clapham_gull]

Depends on whether you are using classic two value boolean or fuzzy logic as a basis on which you are expressing the degree of certainty.

 

[Uncle C]

Depends on whether you are using classic two value boolean or fuzzy logic as a basis on which you are expressing the degree of certainty.

Well that argument could be taken just past infinity.

 

[clapham_gull]

Well that argument could be taken just past infinity.

You may be unsure as whether something is unique or not.

In that case the degree to which something belongs to the set of unique things could be expressed within the interval of 0 and 1.

In other words, you could be 90% sure something is unique. Such a proposition implies there are levels of uniqueness within human understanding and therefore describing things in degrees of uniqueness is perfectly valid.

 

[Buzzer]

You may be unsure as whether something is unique or not.

In that case the degree to which something belongs to the set of unique things could be expressed within the interval of 0 and 1.

In other words, you could be 90% sure something is unique. Such a proposition implies there are levels of uniqueness within human understanding and therefore describing things in degrees of uniqueness is perfectly valid.

Disagree. You may be 90% sure that pink seagulls do not exist. It does not follow that there are degrees of pink seagulls only that there are either pink seagulls or there are not pink seagulls in your understanding.

I'm with the original poster. Having degrees of uniqueness is logically flawed.

 

[Uncle C]

You may be unsure as whether something is unique or not.

In that case the degree to which something belongs to the set of unique things could be expressed within the interval of 0 and 1.

In other words, you could be 90% sure something is unique. Such a proposition implies there are levels of uniqueness within human understanding and therefore describing things in degrees of uniqueness is perfectly valid.

I think your chances of convincing me are less than zero.

 

[clapham_gull]

Disagree. You may be 90% sure that pink seagulls do not exist. It does not follow that there are degrees of pink seagulls only that there are either pink seagulls or there are not pink seagulls in your understanding.

I'm with the original poster. Having degrees of uniqueness is logically flawed.

As I said it depends on which "version" of logic you use.

I never say that levels of uniqueness actually exist, just that it is perfectly valid to express a level of uncertainty.

 

[The Large One]

As I said it depends on which "version" of logic you use.

I never say that levels of uniqueness actually exist, just that it is perfectly valid to express a level of uncertainty.

In this example, it's the level of certainty that is being challenged - not the level of uniqueness.

So the concept of 'unique' being an absolute still holds.

 

[clapham_gull]

In this example, it's the level of certainty that is being challenged - not the level of uniqueness.

So the concept of 'unique' being an absolute still holds.

Which is exactly what I said, to a degree of certainty of 1.

 

[Sweeney Todd]

I work with the sort of people who say "I'm not entirely sure". Sureness is an absolute. Either you are sure or you are not. You cannot be partially sure.

 

[clapham_gull]

I work with the sort of people who say "I'm not entirely sure". Sureness is an absolute. Either you are sure or you are not. You cannot be partially sure.

They are expressing a level of certainty regarding their sureness.

 

[Buzzer]

As I said it depends on which "version" of logic you use.

I never say that levels of uniqueness actually exist, just that it is perfectly valid to express a level of uncertainty.

But your level of uncertainty as to whether something is unique or not is not the same thing as the intrinsic uniqueness or not of the object you are unsure about.

Or am I going round in tautological circles here? Long time since I studied logic so will quite happily defer to you on this.

 

[clapham_gull]

But your level of uncertainty as to whether something is unique or not is not the same thing as the intrinsic uniqueness or not of the object you are unsure about.

Or am I going round in tautological circles here? Long time since I studied logic so will quite happily defer to you on this.

I'm making this up as I go along and haven't got a clue what I am talking about.

 

[Buzzer]

I'm making this up as I go along and haven't got a clue what I am talking about.

An approach that I have found never fails. You win.

 

[Uncle C]

An approach that I have found never fails. You win.

Yep, you win, but only by a small part of a fraction of a percent.

 

[Taybha]

no i havent

 

[beorhthelm]

Having degrees of uniqueness is logically flawed.

uniqueness implies a quality, so you can have degrees of it that. for a stadium for example it might be the number of unique features compared to others.

 

[Buzzer]

If something has unique features then those features make it unique. There are no degrees. It either is unique or it is not. It cannot be partially unique. Maybe.

 

[Taybha]

this is a my willy is bigger than your willy thread isnt it.