On 12/18/2013 1:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com
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
obtains. This is the main problem that I have with Plato's theory of Forms,
since Bruno's seems to be using a concept equivalent to the Forms (in AR),
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
all things, even numbers, are the products of processes. Processes would be
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.
If one of the dimensions is called "time" I think that means there is change.
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.