On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote:
> Hi LizR,
> I would like to say that as a philosopher I have one problem with
> Bruno's assumptions: There is no explanation for how any form of change and
> interaction obtains. This is the main problem that I have with Plato's
> theory of Forms, and since Bruno's seems to be using a concept equivalent
> to the Forms (in AR), his idea has the same shortcoming.
> It was for this reason alone that I reject Plato's theory of the forms
> and use a variation of "Process Philosophy" instead. Becoming is
> ontologically fundamental and all things, even numbers, are the products of
> processes. Processes would be defined as the members of the Class:
> Becoming. Being is the class of automorphism of Becoming, and as such Being
> supervenes on Becoming.
OK, but bear in mind that to be consistent you will also have to reject
Newtonian machanics and Special and General Relativity, as well as (most
formulations of) Quantum theory, because in all these cases what looks to
us like change is actually a pattern embedded in a higher dimensional space.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.