Do you have a function

[Jeremiah Ames]

Everything has a function.

Without a function no thing could exist.


For instance, a tree has a function. Actually, more than one.

Such as providing support to animals and people in the form of food, shelter, and maybe other things.


The tree is composed of many parts. Obvious ones like roots, bark, leaves. Each of these have a function. In support of the tree, as well as additional functions.


Then the leaves are composed of numerous parts, that provide a function to the leaf.


Each part of the leaf is composed of many parts. Each of those parts has parts etc, all the way down to molecules, then atoms, then the parts in atoms, which include electrons.


I want to focus on the electron. It is said that it is an elementary particle. Why should we think this is the case? Isn’t it more likely that we will find the electron to be composed of parts unknown today, and even those parts composed of more parts, and so on and on, maybe endlessly?


My second question which arises from the title, can you think of any thing that does not have a function?

 

[Stevicus]

Do you have a function

What's my function?

Hooking up words and phrases and clauses.

 

[ChristineM]

Everything has a function

I must have but ill be damned if i can figure out what it is.

 

[Polymath257]

What is a Schoolhouse Rock song going through my head?

Conjunction Junction, what's your function?

 

[Polymath257]

In any case, my function is to be a teacher, a friend, a lover, a drinker of coffee, and all the other things I do.

Don't confuse 'function' with 'purpose'. As far as I know, i don't have a purpose.

 

[Audie]

Everything has a function.

Without a function no thing could exist.


For instance, a tree has a function. Actually, more than one.

Such as providing support to animals and people in the form of food, shelter, and maybe other things.


The tree is composed of many parts. Obvious ones like roots, bark, leaves. Each of these have a function. In support of the tree, as well as additional functions.


Then the leaves are composed of numerous parts, that provide a function to the leaf.


Each part of the leaf is composed of many parts. Each of those parts has parts etc, all the way down to molecules, then atoms, then the parts in atoms, which include electrons.


I want to focus on the electron. It is said that it is an elementary particle. Why should we think this is the case? Isn’t it more likely that we will find the electron to be composed of parts unknown today, and even those parts composed of more parts, and so on and on, maybe endlessly?


My second question which arises from the title, can you think of any thing that does not have a function?

Given my family name I must be a function of X

 

[VoidCat]

Breathing and circulating blood through my body I guess.

 

[Jaycee97531]

Functionality only applies within a specified context. A tree has no function to a washing machine. You are simply looking at a thing and deciding its function within a frame of reference. Functionality then is a subjective idea not objective idea.

 

[Quintessence]

Hmm. It sounds that by "function" you mean teleologically speaking. That sort of function is something humans ascribe to things. Teleological thinking is also to be avoided in the sciences. That we observe trees do X does not mean their function or purpose is X. Human-ascribed functions are certainly not necessary and I can name no thing that requires them. Except maybe humans, who can't seem to help assigning teleological meaning to things.

 

[Skwim]

Everything has a function.

Two words: Male nipples.

.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is a Schoolhouse Rock song going through my head?

Conjunction Junction, what's your function?

That is the first thing that popped into my mind when I read the OP.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Two words: Male nipples.

.

They are a consequence without a biological function. If Genesis were correct and God created Adam first, why give him nipples?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Given my family name I must be a function of X

f(X) = Audie.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I must have but ill be damned if i can figure out what it is.

I do not know mine either.

 

[Skwim]

They are a consequence without a biological function. If Genesis were correct and God created Adam first, why give him nipples?

Why indeed. And for that matter, why give them these?

But maybe that's because god had a belly button

​

And god had one because . . . . .errrr . . . . . . . . . . .Hey look! it's raining outside.
.
.

 

[osgart]

Aesthetics

 

[exchemist]

Everything has a function.

Without a function no thing could exist.


For instance, a tree has a function. Actually, more than one.

Such as providing support to animals and people in the form of food, shelter, and maybe other things.


The tree is composed of many parts. Obvious ones like roots, bark, leaves. Each of these have a function. In support of the tree, as well as additional functions.


Then the leaves are composed of numerous parts, that provide a function to the leaf.


Each part of the leaf is composed of many parts. Each of those parts has parts etc, all the way down to molecules, then atoms, then the parts in atoms, which include electrons.


I want to focus on the electron. It is said that it is an elementary particle. Why should we think this is the case? Isn’t it more likely that we will find the electron to be composed of parts unknown today, and even those parts composed of more parts, and so on and on, maybe endlessly?


My second question which arises from the title, can you think of any thing that does not have a function?

What is the function of a stone?

As for the electron, it behaves according to all our observations as if it has no constituent parts. Therefore, applying Ockham's Razor, as we implicitly do in science, our model of the electron does not invoke any.

It is important to keep in mind that science works all the time with models of reality that are in principle always provisional and subject to update in the light of new observations. There is never a last word on any subject.

There is in fact a suspicious lack of symmetry between the unit charge on the electron and the charges on the constituents of hadrons (quarks) which are multiples of 1/3. This seems aesthetically inelegant, at the very least. It may signify that there is more to learn.

It is a curious fact that scientists tend to believe that the universe is based on elegant symmetry and simplicity in its core processes and structures. Perhaps this aesthetic belief is the" God" of science. This belief has served science well, but why it should be so is not clear, or not to me at any rate.

 

[Augustus]

What is the function of a stone?

To pelt adulterers with of course

 

[Willamena]

Functionality only applies within a specified context. A tree has no function to a washing machine. You are simply looking at a thing and deciding its function within a frame of reference. Functionality then is a subjective idea not objective idea.

That's relativity, rather than subjectivity. It's all relative.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Two words: Male nipples.

.

Whoa.

Darn good one there.