On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 07:40:06AM -0000, David Nyman wrote: > > Why do we need to assume TIME as an ordering process for 'successive' > moments under the RSSA assumption? Isn't it the case that, under the > ASSA assumption, 1st-person experience would continue to appear > 'time-like' (because of its 'relative' internal structure within each > 'time capsule') without the need for a TIME postulate (i.e. Barbour's > position)? > > David >
If you can demonstrate this as a theorem, or even as a moderately convincing argument why this should be so, I'd be most grateful for a presentation. I'm all for eliminating unnecessary hypotheses. I haven't read Barbour's work, but from everything I've read about it, his approach simply skirts the issue without facing it head on. Cheers -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
