Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:09:46 -0400

Dear Tom,

    I do not understand how you arrived at that conclusion! I am arguing
that Existence - the Dasein of Kant - is independent of space-time;
space-time is secondary. I would like to better undertand your idea "being
as (roughly) the integral of change, and change as the derivative of being".
I don't have a mental picture of what this statement means.

Kindest regards,

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: <daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden>
To: <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>; <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"


>
> [SPK]
>
>> Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no,
> Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static "Being".
>>...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold.
> That structure is a collective illusion - but still a "reality"- that
> results from the coincidental synchrony of our individual observables.
> We -in ourselves, are not "classical" entities, we are quantum. It is our
> observations that are classical. This is the lesson that Everett
> discovered within QM and people have for the most part not yet understood.
>
> Tom: This makes it sound like there's no such thing as (ontological)
> existence. I, for one, believe in "Being" as fundamental in some sense,
> and yet not necessarily in the sense of a physicalist space-time manifold.
> Also, we can look at being as (roughly) the integral of change, and change
> as the derivative of being, without having to first call either of them
> more fundamental, and without calling time fundamental. Just different
> ways of looking at things from different perspectives to get slices of a
> picture of reality.
>
> Tom
Received on Tue Jul 12 2005 - 17:39:45 PDT