  Height: Hopefully the same as usual, but who can tell these days. Weight: Don't know, didn't think of it. Was distracted by some deep thoughts that didn't concern the amount of matter I consist of. Pages of Nussbaum read: 20, plus some scanning to find a quote I was sure existed but failed to find.
Today I have not watched tv (yet). I have discovered (re-discovered) Civilization. It's a great game that fits on two floppy disks. My highest score ever is 123% and I challenge you all to beat that. Just so you have some hope, you need to be on King Level with 7 Civilizations. Evil laughter. I have not done a lot today and it can be summarised quite briefly: Slept crap, up at 10:30 Played Civ until laptop crashed (was going quite well too) Had shower Read Nussbaum until finished chapter Went into uni and borrowed book (and re-borrowed Nussbaum).
Thanks to Hannah for initial borrowing of Nussbaum. Went to Dave's and updated blog Who knows what the future holds. You can't change it. Saw this recently - in Adelaide at Philosophy Conference (from Prof J C C Smart) "Think you can change the future, raise you left hand or your right hand". Raise a hand. "Have you changed the future? No, that's in the past. " I am becoming more and more convinced of presentism and relativism, for time. But I don't know how this relates to space yet. In case you are aliens (or not very philosophical) I will explain: Presentism is just that only the present exists. So Napoleon doesn't exist, but he did and Prince Williams children don't exist (but they might). (As opposed to Four-Dimensionalism , which is what Prof Smart is, I think. That is just that space-time exists constantly in four dimensions - people argue about it because it tends to lend itself to a static universe (if the future exists you can't change it)).
Relativism is just that thing that Einstein goes on about with trams and clocks and the speed of light. (Time is relative to the observer). (As opposed to Absolutism which is what Newton might have been and his little minion Clarke had big words with Leibniz. Newton and Leibniz were having a fight about who had priority on calculus ( priority is pretty much who published it first and therefore "discovered" it) but why they got so nasty about space is beyond me. I reckon Newton was annoyed because of the Rise of the Apples*. If he had called it something better than "method of fluxions" people might have taken him more seriously and students wouldn't be making fart jokes during his lectures.
) See urlLink Newton vs Leibniz Celebrity Death Match (not in clay). *Rise of the Apples: What happens to nasty vegetarians when the Civilization of the Apples began to fall (one fell onto Newton) and then the Apples took their revenge by rising against people who refused to eat meat. Newton should have had his chair at Oxford placed somewhere other than the orchard and none of this would have happened. ** ** I think I'm drivelling. Invention for the day: Drivel catcher. 
