Scott: that was clearly ill-thought-out. Of course difference does not imply
time, and of course this e-mail is not proof that there is a 'person' called
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: James Higgo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 3:25 AM
Subject: Re: on formally indescribable merde

> On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, James Higgo wrote:
> > Of course, 'your' current OM, which includes reading this email, is
> > unrelated to 'my current' OM. But since all OMs exist I can be sure that
> > there will be an OM which includs 'I am Bruno and I am reading this
> You are James.
> Bruno is Bruno.
> Why is James locked into the James OMs and Bruno locked into the Bruno
> OMs?
> Why don't James OMs become Bruno OMs?
> You can say they do, somewhere... but that somewhere is not here.  That
> somewhere is the same somewhere where James will try to explain to me
> why time doesn't exist -- but that somewhere is not here, therefore,
> doesn't that provide for a definition of "I" ?
> James -- can there be difference without time?  What I mean
> is, as soon as there is difference, doesn't that demand
> that time exist as well?
> Scott

Reply via email to