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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to