Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no,
Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static
...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold.
That structure is a collective illusion - but still a "reality"-
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 yet understood.

Tom: This makes it sound like there's no such thing as (ontological)
> 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.

Dear Tom, 
I do not understand how you arrived at that conclusion! I am arguing
that Existence - the Dasein of Kant - is independent of space-time; space-time is secondary.

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. 
Kindest regards, 

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.


Reply via email to