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 James... ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott D. Yelich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: James Higgo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[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 merde'. > > 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 > > >
