Professor Nathan Oaklander has recently given a lecture on Cosmological and Conscious Time. This can be viewed, here:
July 18, 2011
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
The guy introducing the introducer said the universe isn't alive, but we're part of the universe and we're alive.
Posted by: Paul | July 23, 2011 at 06:03 PM
Is this consistent with the Relational interpretation of quantum mechanics?
Posted by: Paul | 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?
Posted by: Paul | August 09, 2011 at 05:41 PM
Full Variables
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.
Posted by: Paul | August 09, 2011 at 06:09 PM