MovieChat Forums > Philosophy > The Invisible Dollar

The Invisible Dollar

posted 8 years ago by Creator-Of-Images
8 replies | jump to latest

Two brand new $1 bills are stuck together. The mint doesn't catch them, so they are sent to the bank counted as one, then the bank teller doesn't catch it and they are handed out as one, then the recipient doesn't catch them and they are spent as one, then the cashier doesn't catch them and gives them out in change as one, the new recipient doesn't catch them and places them in a savings jar as one, the jar then sits for years until it, and all of its contents, is destroyed in a house fire.

So, did the second $1 bill ever actually exist? Does it depend on context, whether counted physically or economically? If they were effectively just $1, which dollar existed and which didn't?

What does this mean for other things?

[–] matt_shade 8 years ago

Both bills existed physically but "value" is a fiction.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

[–] RayRaggy 8 years ago

You keep using that word. Have you ever bothered to define the term' fiction' as you use it? Cos if not, you're using it wrong.

This thread, for example. You toss the word out with no context, and so your use of it is a fiction.

[–] matt_shade 8 years ago

Fiction is something that does nothing outside the mind. E.g. a "law" doesn't physically throw people in jail and Superman isn't physically out selling comic books to people for DC Comics and movie tickets for Warner Brothers.

EDIT: And yes, I have said this in threads before.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

[–] cosmic_surveyor 8 years ago

The bills are printed in sheets with their sequential numbers. Therefore, it is part of the inventory in number and in value. After the bills are cut, and two are stuck together and never unstuck, then the one bill is considered lost. Unless Quality Assurance allowed this to happen frequently, the loss is insignificantly small compared to the trillions and trillions being traded annually.

_________

Est modus in rebus sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum Goldilocks

[–] Saoradh 8 years ago

Subjective would be a better word to use.

Life springs from death and from the graves of patriot men and women spring living nations

[–] matt_shade 8 years ago

No, it wouldn't since it would be misunderstood. "Value" is not subjective, it's completely and utterly fictional.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

[–] matt_shade 8 years ago

There is no "real value". What is gold or oxygen worth before organic life comes along? The same as today; Absolute zero.

"Need" is just a fiction. As is "should", "must", "value" and "importance".

[–] Faustus5 8 years ago

There is no "real value". What is gold or oxygen worth before organic life comes along? The same as today; Absolute zero.

You really need to watch this video from beginning to end. I normally don't respond to or create links to anything on YouTube, but since this is just a lecture by a prominent, respected philosopher and nothing else, I'll make an exception:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcVKxeKFCHE