Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static
Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no,
that results from the coincidental synchrony of our individual
observables. We -in ourselves, are not "classical" entities, we are
quantum. It is our observations that are classical. This is the lesson
that Everett discovered within QM and people have for the most part not
That structure is a collective illusion - but still a "reality"-
...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold.
> existence. I, for one, believe in "Being" as fundamental in some
sense, > and yet not necessarily in the sense of a physicalist
space-time manifold. > Also, we can look at being as (roughly) the
integral of change, and change > as the derivative of being, without
having to first call either of them > more fundamental, and without
calling time fundamental. Just different > ways of looking at things
from different perspectives to get slices of a > picture of reality.
Tom: This makes it sound like there's no such thing as (ontological)
that Existence - the Dasein of Kant - is independent of space-time;
space-time is secondary.
I do not understand how you arrived at that conclusion! I am arguing
Tom: OK. I was looking at your statement about change being
fundamental, and not being.
I would like to better undertand your idea "being as (roughly) the
integral of change, and change as the derivative of being". I don't
have a mental picture of what this statement means.
Tom: By alluding to a mathematical analogy, I was just showing that
change and being are two equally legitimate perspectives of reality.
The state of something is an accumulation of all of the changes that it
has gone through (given an initial condition), and change is just the
difference between states.
- Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dim... daddycaylor