On 7/29/2012 2:35 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 28.07.2012 23:43 Stephen P. King said the following:
On 7/28/2012 4:23 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
Now I have found the original paper by McTaggart in Internet:



Dear Evgenii,

Never would I cast aspersions upon McTaggart, but what he actually
proved was not the "unreality of time"; for Reality is what which is
 incontrovertible to all intercommunicating observers. What McTaggart
 proved was the non-existance of an observational stance that might
allow all moments of time to be apprehended simultaneously. His work
can be seen as a reiteration of the truth that Einstein was able to
show us with his General theory of Relativity.


I do not see how Einstein could describe the transition from being to becoming. Einstein's four-dimensional timespace does not have changes. This is the reason why Popper has called him once as four-dimensional Parmenides.

In Einstein's general theory of relativity, one could after all introduce the B-series. Yet, the A-series are not there.


Dear Evgenii,

Einstein tried very hard to not describe any becoming whatsoever. But one recovers the variability of Becoming when one considers such things as minisuperspace <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minisuperspace>. Basically one considers the possible initial conditions (or metrics) as generating different possible universes. But this is problematic itself. The problem is that we are confusing the transition from state to state with the ordering of an indexing set.



"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to