On 19 January 2014 05:54, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote:
> Dear Bruno, > > I do not claim that UDA is "flawed". I claim it is incomplete and based on > a false premise. The problem is the assumption that one can reason as if > the physical world does not exist and discuss ideas that imply the > existence of Becoming and measures there of (time) all the while using > axioms that forbid their existence. It is the sound of one hand clapping in > a mind that cannot imagine air. > I don't see why any of AR implies the existence of becoming. Nor do I understand how Bruno gets computations out indexically. I suspect you don't, either, so you assume he uses "becoming" - if so we both need to know exactly what Bruno is arguing actually happens (I use the word under erasure!) before we can have an opinion on whether he's right or not. I have to ask, do you accept block universes? If not imho you're probably arguing from a false premise yourself. > The UDA can be useful and it is interesting, but it is a castle built in > midair and expected to float free because the designer does not admit the > existence of gravity. > "That's fighting talk!" :-) -- 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.
