On 19 December 2013 12:13, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/18/2013 1:05 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King > <[email protected]>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. :-) >
Yes, that's what I just said. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
