Search results for query: *

As was noted previously, pood succinctly noted a problem with the growing block theory as it appears to be typically depicted: And I responded suggesting that the problem with that growing block theory is a matter of expression having to do with the use of exist and existence. I posited that...

The so-called "growing block time" as I have been pondering and presenting it (in terms of determinateness or fixedness being seemingly necessary both for actuality and observability) has no need of a single or absolute present. Is it not the case that static block time also has no absolute...

How/where is such an assumption included? If the internal perspective is singular (such as that experienced by an individual), then there is no need of an absolute time. An absolute time seems that it would have to hold not only trans-perspectivally but, indeed, over every possible...

Of course the "outside" is hypothetical. Maybe it is best called flat out imaginary. The "outside" goes along with or follows from the figurative "block" shape as a way of expressing thinking about occurrences occurring "within" the where-when "container" which is the spacetime universe...

"Block" in "block universe" refers to a shape. It is supposed as if there is an outside. "Content" would be whatever occurs within any given shape. Even if the "shape" is static, even if the shape is not static but is instead determined to be what it is to be, it does not necessarily follow that...

Right. That's what I was acknowledging when I said "mapping (or locating) occurrences in terms of the relative wheres and whens". Rather than the content, those wheres and whens seem to be more about the shape (so to speak) as seen from different perspectives.

Doesn't that all just indicate a problem with the insistent use of exist and existence? This can be tied in with the never-ending determinism ruminations by instead saying that the terms past and present always refer to determined, set, fixed states/situations so that (let's just call it) the...

Nothing new there. All that has been addressed repeatedly. Ad nauseam. It is not a detour. It is a perspective which you have not addressed with your account. You only take your one interpretation into account. That is tunnel vision. Tunnel vision is a malady. Because of your tunnel vision...

Uh, you missed something. I said, "I admit that I did not need to describe your analogy as terrible. I admit that I could simply have said: "Your analogy is delusive for positing a business email as if it were a love letter", and I could have gone on from there, and my points would be the same."...

In fact, I called it terrible. But I also indicated how you can recognize a deficiency which you had not noticed previously. Hence, it was no dodge. I admit that I did not need to describe your analogy as terrible. I admit that I could simply have said: "Your analogy is delusive for positing a...

Yet another ambiguous statement on your part. If you understood the relationships between possibility, actuality, understanding, and expression, and if you used awareness of those relationships when expressing yourself, you would not so often resort to ambiguity - except on purpose, when...

Huh? I did not pivot. I pointed out that, when you attribute a position to me without even being bothered with any need for justification, you are not being intellectually honest. I pointed out that, when you realize that you have erroneously attributed a position to me but are unwilling to...

So, it is for the sake of intellectual honesty that you attribute a position to me without caring to justify your attribution or, in the alternative, without caring to acknowledge an error on your part?

Prove it.

All irrelevant. You said "your claim as to the absolute authority" which as a reference means you attribute that claim to me, and there is no such claim. You are wrong. Adding more words does not make you less wrong. Adding more words is merely a distraction from what is/was the issue.

There is no such claim.

You acknowledge that there are actual emotive factors. You acknowledge that actual emotive factors can significantly affect actual expression. You do not factor in actual emotive factors, because (you erroneously assume that) they are insulated from "intersubjectively checkable evidence." You...

When you “discipline” claims “by restricting” them such that they do not take account of author subjectivity, you ignore all emotive possibility, and you ignore the person of the author.

A purposefully ignorant method guarantees a decisively ignorant result.

That is a lie. You admit that you ignore the person of the author. Ignoring effects ignorance. You are purposely ignorant, and your “argument” is rife with ignorance, and your “argument” depends on your purposeful ignorance.