On 19 January 2014 05:54, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.