> [Krimel]: > You say, "From the perspective of Essence evolution is a > fait accompli." I take this to mean from some Godlike perspective > time is static and that we only perceive its directional flow by > virtue of being the kind of critters that we are. > > If this is indeed what you mean then I must point out that the > statement is false. This was the kind of universe that Laplace > envisioned and everything we have learned since demonstrates > that it is just not so. The future is not determined even from God's > perspective. History can not be rewound or played forward.
[Ham] Thanks for giving me credit for the one statement you understand, Krimel. As I said to Ron, I'll be happy to answer any questions that will help you "make sense" of my metaphysics. [Krimel] Ok, lets stick with the statement that I might actually understand: "From the perspective of Essence evolution is a fait accompli." I take this to mean that you think time is fixed and absolute. Then you say the source is timeless as through time does not exist at all. Which is it? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
