On 12/18/2013 1:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com <mailto: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.

If one of the dimensions is called "time" I think that means there is change. 
:-)

Brent

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to