On 30 December 2013 19:36, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi Jason, > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear Jason, >>> >>> You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in >>> the discussion here. >>> >> >> I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is >> fundamental rather than emergent. >> > > How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires some > process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be > emergent. Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses > the obvious. > It can be emergent exactly in the way Jason explained. It emerges because instants are connected to each other in a way that makes there appear to be smooth change between them. The snapshots used in FOR illustrate this. -- 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.
