On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > Why do some people have such a problem with "how change can emerge from > something static" ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation describing > something changing. Change is by definition things being different at > different times. If you map out all the times involved as a dimension, you > will naturally get a "static" universe, just as putting together all the > moments making up a movie gives you a reel of film - but only from a "God's > eye perspective". This is the perspective science gives us, the perspective > given by using equations and models and maps to describe reality; it isn't > the world of everyday experience, which (at best) views those equations and > so on from within (assuming for a moment they are so accurate as to be > isomorphic to reality). > > Obtaining change from the static view used by science is a non-problem, > and has been since Newton published his Principia. >
Is a description the same as emergence though? We can read a film strip as a moving picture because of the nature of our sensory capacities, not because the moving picture emerges from the God's Eye view of the frames. F=ma begins with acceleration already assumed, so it is an equation that we interpret as referring to motion, nut the equation itself doesn't refer to anything. It's neither static nor dynamic, its just conceptual. > There *are* problems with comp, of course, like the "white rabbit" > problem. Does anyone have any new views on the real problems, rather than > worrying about straw men? > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
