Professor Nathan Oaklander has recently given a lecture on Cosmological and Conscious Time. This can be viewed, here:
Posted by Jonathan Tallant on July 18, 2011 at 05:16 AM | Permalink
The guy introducing the introducer said the universe isn't alive, but we're part of the universe and we're alive.
July 23, 2011 at 06:03 PM
Is this consistent with the Relational interpretation of quantum mechanics?
July 26, 2011 at 04:34 PM
What's the definition of the R-series?
Is the ontology of succession the same as the ontology of the temporal moments? So, if you have two temporal moments t0 and t1 and an irreducible succession between them t0St1, you now have three distinct things in physical existence: t0, t1, and t0St1?
August 09, 2011 at 05:41 PM
Define a time variable as full if it is of the form T = (t, t'), where
(1) t is a variable whose values are mathematical objects (e.g. numbers)
(2) the value of t' is the present of the reader of (2)
Both t and t' are variables modelable in a mathematical theory, but their behavior with respect to the objects in the ontology of the theory are different.
I believe the use of full variables would clarify things in fundamental physics.
Similarly, define GREEN as full if it is of the form (green, green'),
(3) green is a variable that ranges over knowledge about a particular shade of green
(4) green' is a variable that ranges over █
Dualists claim fullness is non-trivial.
August 09, 2011 at 06:09 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.