On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

>   No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to "interpret" the
> mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models, are immune
> from my critique.
>

Special Relativity leaves no room for this, you need to accept the reality
of all points in time as equally real.

See: http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/SS04/PutnamJPhil.pdf
 and  http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/

The relativity of simultaneity makes the idea of a single existing present
inconsistent.

If you want an explanation for the illusion of time, you will need to
examine the brain that creates (not the ontologies of physical theories)

Consider this: If there were two "present moments" one day apart, that
moved along in parallel, would you have any way of knowing?  Then what if
there were a million co-moving presents?  Then what if all present moment's
existed at once?  How would you refute it?  If you can't tell if there are
two presents (and not one), I see no way you could rule out the existence
of all presents.

Jason


> Newtonian mechanics, while a useful tool to use to build bridges and
> rockets, is problematic as it implies the Laplacean vision of the universe.
>   That change can be identified with a static pattern in a higher
> dimensional space is OK, so long as we don't ignore the fact that it is we,
> as transitory entities, that are interpreting that map. The map is never
> the territory. When we try to use a timeless interpretation of the
> universe, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the
> universe: this is cheating don't you think?
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:05 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/1NWmK1IeadI/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@provensecure.com
>
>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>
>
> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
> immediately.”
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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