On 5/21/05, Henry Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 22 May 2005, at 02:27, Robert Sayre wrote: > > On 5/21/05, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Robert Sayre wrote: > >> > >>> Temporal order of what? They are all the same entry, so what is it > >>> you are temporally ordering? > >>> > >> We are discussing the temporal ordering of multiple non- > >> identical > >> *instances* of a single Atom entry. It is common in the realm of > >> software > >> engineering to deal with this concept of "instances." > >> > >> Things are often > >> considered to be simultaneously "different" and "the same". (I am > >> who I am > >> today -- as I was when I was a child, nonetheless, I am very > >> different today > >> than I was when I was a child. The instance of me today differs > >> from the > >> instance of me that you might have come across many years ago.) > >> But, perhaps > >> this concept is too abstract for some readers... > >> > > > > I'm unconvinced. Have a giant -1. > > How can you be unconvinced about something so fundamentally basic > to human thought? People change over time. When you clip your nails > your body is not the same as it was before, yet as far as the law is > concerned, you are the same person who went to whatever school you > went to. > Change over time exists. For something to be able to change there has to > be something that is the thing that changes. > > Really you can't get more basic than this. If you are left to argument > over this, I would suggest moving your discussion over to a philosophy > forum.
Gee, Henry, maybe you should draw us a UML diagram to explain all this. Robert Sayre
