So let me phrase this question with emphasis on the word "greater" using baseball as the example. One might say baseball is a great game. 9 players, 9 positions, 2 teams and an audience. To the teams, baseball as a whole is fundamentally sound and perfect. What makes it great is the universal application of the sport. To the players, baseball is greatest when your defensive position is mastered. It would be difficult to say that a star shortstop is greater than a star center fielder unless we use the context of the batter's box. To the audience, baseball is always greater when your team is winning. Now putting all these elements together in the name of a unified vision for the whole, one could argue baseball cards solve this paradox by placing value on the sum of the parts (players, positions, stats) as a procedural step to define the greatness of the whole. Without the context of baseball, this particular vision of whole cannot be defined, however.
I believe the whole to be greater than the sum of it's parts. Would you rather donate 100$ to a charity of your choice or 10$ to ten different charities? Assuming they are each equally effective at what they do, a 100$ donation would get an organization closer to achieving it's goal. Lets make a less careful calculation of dividing a sum. If you cut up a pizza randomly, you only have it's parts leftover. If you didn't do that, you'd have the greatest sum of the whole pizza again. Nobody wants a slice of crust, but most people would have a problem with it if their pizza lacked it.
I see what you mean I think about that first part. The term "greater" places a value supposition to a condition of "why?". We don't ask why the whole isn't the summation of it's parts, rather how we can see the whole as being greater than if it were divided into it's summed parts. Like if you wanted an ounce of weed and decided to get one solid strain for a lesser price than say, two half ounces of two strains you equally like for a small premium more. No matter how you choose, you are left with buyer's remorse, yet only one option can give the opinion of the whole being greater than (the other possible whole) after said choice has been made. I'm high.
Sorry for the really late reply, guys. I haven't been able to sit down & post at my leisure for some time; but now that I can, I'll take advantage. I don't think that there's any paradox in what you've stated; but the appearance of there being one is simply the result of equivocations, equivocations of the word "greater" - which should be understood in strictly the quantitative sense, as in meaning "more than." Consequentially, when these equivocations are cleared up below, it should become obvious that the whole can't be greater than the sum or relation of parts. For instance, an equivocation of the word "greater" with "better," when you say, Sure, when a player, e.g., "John Doe," has mastered his defensive position, he ("John Doe") is better than when he hadn't mastered his defensive position, yet, he isn't more than what he was, i.e., "greater" as understood in strictly the quantitative sense, since he's still the same player, i.e., "John Doe"; unless perhaps this references either one or several of his statistics becoming "more than" what it previously was, i.e., "greater" as understood in strictly the quantitative sense (& which wouldn't be "greater" in a subjective, but in an objective, sense, since the fact of an increase in one or several of his statistics can't vary from person to person, but it's true to all). For a second instance, an equivocation of the word "greater" with "more enjoyable," when you say, Sure, to a given audience, baseball may be more enjoyable when their team is winning, but baseball itself, technically speaking, can't be "greater" or more than what it is, i.e., "greater" as understood in strictly the quantitative sense, since it's still baseball that's being played, regardless of the score, i.e., there's still only one pitcher on the mound, one batter who's batting, one catcher in the catcher's box, there are two teams who're playing, four bases, etc.,. Lastly, when you say, No, in this case, it wouldn't, that is, if we (1) are to understand the word "greater" in strictly the quantitative sense & (2) then solely compare, on the basis of the quantitative sense of the word "greater," a statistic or statistics, such as who's gotten more outs; then, again, it wouldn't be difficult to say who's "greater," because we'd just have to see which player has the aforementioned statistic more than the other player (& the fact of which can't vary from person to person, but it'd be true for all, i.e., who's "greater" would be determined objectively rather than subjectively). So, you see, if the word "greater" is understood in strictly the quantitative sense, as in meaning "more than," the fact that the whole can't be greater than the sum or relation of parts becomes obvious. Yet, given that you've donated $100 to a particular charity on one day, say that another person has donated 10 installments of $10 throughout the same day to the same charity, & that another person has donated 20 installments of $5 throughout the same day to the same charity, then would any of you've donated either more or less than each other at the end of the day, i.e., either more or less than $100? No, obviously not. So, no matter how the whole was given, the parts still equaled or added up to the same amount, i.e., no whole was greater than its own parts or that of another's. But could that whole pizza, which was yet to be sliced, still be if all of its ingredients, e.g., the bread, sauce, cheese, etc., were to be eaten? In other words, is that pizza greater or something more than the sum or relation of its ingredients? If so, then the pizza should still exist even if all of its components or ingredients were to be eaten up; which is obviously absurd. So, as should be clear from the case of a pizza, no whole without the sum or relation of parts, i.e., the whole isn't greater or something more than the sum or relation of parts.
Ok go take every part off your car or bicycle etc. The whole is greater than the sum of its because it doesn't work in pieces.
Nowhere is it claimed that any part or piece of a whole, by itself or by themselves, is equivalent with the whole. So, sure, no piece in isolation from the others constitutes, for example, a car; but the point is that all of the pieces or parts put together, i.e., their sum or relation, is what makes up the whole, which in this case would be a car. If the car was greater or something more than the sum or relation of parts, then it should still exist despite all of its parts being taken apart, i.e., without an engine, chasis, body, tires, rims, etc.,. Go separate or take away all the parts of a car & then tell me if there's still a car. So obviously the car can't be without the relation of parts, since it's nothing greater or more than that.
Yes, the whole is greater than the parts! You take flour, eggs, leavening, sugar, oil and a liquid, mix, bake, and you got a cake - which is a lot greater than the original ingredients. Or if you want it cannabis-related, look into the "Entourage Effect" of THC, CBD and the terpenes! A mix of THC, CBD and terpenes work better than any of them alone! What is the Entourage Effect? (news – 2016) https://hellomd.com/blogs/articles/what-is-the-entourage-effect Granny
Hello. The question isn't, whether the ingredients or parts, separately by themselves, make up the cake, but whether the cake is anything more than the combination or relation of the ingredients or parts? So, sure, flour, eggs, leavening, sugar, oil & a liquid, mix, & bake, taken separately can't make up a cake; yet can a cake exist without their combination or relation? If it was something more than their combination or relation, it could; but since it can't, obviously it isn't. Or, look at this way, say that you make a cake but without one of those aforementioned ingredients included, like sugar; & then you make another cake with sugar included. Would the former & the latter cake be or taste the same? No. Now say that you make a cake without any of those aforementioned ingredients included. How would this last cake's taste differ from the one with, & the one without, sugar included? Lol, would it have any taste at all? No, obviously not, because it doesn't even exist. Thus a cake can't exist without the combination or relation of those aforementioned ingredients, since it's nothing greater or more than that very combination or relation. Right, a mix, combination or relation of parts or things is greater or more than any part or thing taken separately by itself; but, again, as the first sentence in the first part of this reply of mine to you states (or as should be clear from the O.P. & this thread), that's not what's being argued for here, Granny; in fact, I've argued against that very point throughout the thread. Rather, realism. Pessimism is to be diagnosed when one says that the parts shouldn't even be combined, because it would be just as bad as they are when they're by themselves, i.e., when both the parts separately by themselves & the whole as the combination of the parts are viewed negatively.
Car + gasoline gets you somewhere. Dough + yeast rises and makes bread. Oats + yeast make beer. Weed + Bowl + lighter make me happy. Need I say more.
So the car's drive = car + gasoline? That is, it's the sum of that relation? Right. So bread = dough + yeast? That is, it's the sum of that relation? Right. So beer = oats + yeast? That is, it's the sum of that relation? Right. Unless you want your post to blatantly contradict your poll vote, saying more may not be such a bad idea. I'm indifferent though, buddy.
I don't get you. A car with gas is better than one without. Meaning the sum is greater than the parts. Bread without yeast is a cracker. Oats in water just get moldy.. Potassium Perchlorate is an oxidizer. Add to it a metallic fuel such as aluminum it goes boom. Alone they are inert. The sum of two parts can very well be greater than the parts themselves. What then are you asking?
By "greater," I don't mean "better," see the first part of post #25. Also, I'm not saying that the parts separately by themselves are greater than their combination, see post #30. What's not to get? Is bread something more or other than the sum, relation or combination of its ingredients? If so, it could exist without them; but since it can't, obviously it's not. In other words, bread as a whole isn't something more or other than the sum, relation or combination of its ingredients or parts, but it's equivalent with it, i.e., the whole (bread) isn't greater than the sum of the parts but equivalent with it. Similarly, is beer something more or other than the sum, relation or combination of its ingredients? If so, it could exist without them; but since it can't, obviously it's not. In other words, beer as a whole isn't something more or other than the sum, relation or combination of its ingredients or parts, but it's equivalent with it, i.e., the whole (beer) isn't greater than the sum of the parts but equivalent with it. All of your other examples should be understood, & consequentially answered, in like manner. Simple.
If your whole premise is conservation of energy then why ask the question? Oats and yeast turn sugar into alcohol. It's more useful for me cause I like beer. Converting a substance to a more useful substance adds value. Figure Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Add oxygen and it's the basis of life as we know it. Those two parts together are more than those two parts alone. If it's just conservation of energy, ok.
My whole premise is logical, not empirical or scientific; although, sure, if that's your bent of mind, the principle holds good in that context too. Point being, such a conversion is the result or sum of the relation of substances, & not something independent of or greater than that, i.e., a whole is the sum or relation of the parts & not something greater than that. It's not just that, it's fundamentally or essentially a logical principle.
... & just like I've originally said in my first reply to you, you've ended up contradicting your poll vote, i.e., you've ended up accepting the opposite of what you've voted for in the poll.
Ok. Add 1 + 1 you can never get more than two. Logically. But the sum of two parts can be more useful than those parts alone. If we're playing with words ok. You win.
How's this playing with words & not exhibiting what's fact? So you're saying that the whole not being something more or other, i.e., "greater," than the sum of parts is a play on words & not true in fact? If so, give me an example of where it doesn't hold true in fact. Yet, since you've tried & couldn't, obviously you can't; & therefore it's true in fact, not a mere play on words. Nice job of trying to trivialize something when you view another as winning in contrast to you losing. Beside the point; besides, that was never called into question.
What is your point? I still don't get it. Of course there is no zero sum device. What are you trying to prove? In fact 2+2 = less than 4 in reality. So what are you getting at?