I just thought the discussion on the fallacy was really interesting and people here might want to know about it. I haven’t read the book , but been looking at teh reviews and some of Dyke’s free papers.
From the summaries she’s saying it has implications eg for people who are interested in metaethics or metaphysics and talk about moral language or material constitution.
It probably is relevant to some of the sequences here. Especially the one on reductionism , language and philosophy in general.
I definitely think the A vs B theory debate is interesting. It really about time as we represent it in physics vs time as we experience it and describe it in language (at least that’s what I feel the major issue is).
I just thought the discussion on the fallacy was really interesting and people here might want to know about it. I haven’t read the book , but been looking at teh reviews and some of Dyke’s free papers. From the summaries she’s saying it has implications eg for people who are interested in metaethics or metaphysics and talk about moral language or material constitution. It probably is relevant to some of the sequences here. Especially the one on reductionism , language and philosophy in general. I definitely think the A vs B theory debate is interesting. It really about time as we represent it in physics vs time as we experience it and describe it in language (at least that’s what I feel the major issue is).