Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: LAST WORD on "souls" (I hope!)
Message-ID: <599@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 24-Aug-85 11:52:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.599
Posted: Sat Aug 24 11:52:20 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Aug-85 01:04:38 EDT
References: <581@utastro.UUCP> <1322@umcp-cs.UUCP> <588@utastro.UUCP> <1364@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 60

> In article <588@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
> >> >Resurrection implies continuity of something. The continuity
> >> >is contained in the "we" that is resurected, since the "we" was there
> >> >before, and after, resurrection. There's no way out of this. 
> 
> and he later explains:
> 
> >  1) Let A be life before death, and B life after death,
> >  2) we have X at A where X is the "we" in "we are resurrected"
> >  3) we have X at B where X is the "we" in "we are resurrected"
> >
> >These assumptions are implicit in the resurrection claim. These are not
> >being challanged here. Now X forms an uninterrupted succession, therefore
> >it is continuous.
> 
> WRONG!  Look, I'm the last one to argue for Wingate's religious beliefs,
> BUT:  it just ain't implied by a person's existence at time A, and later at
> time B, that he must have existed during the time between.  (It happens
> to be always true in the real world, but as a matter of physical law and
> boundary conditions, not as a matter of logic.)
> 
> CASE:
> An electron exists at time A (7:00:00 am), and at time B (7:00:01 am),
> but not in between.  It interacts with another particle, and both disappear
> for one second; then both reappear.  (Physics experts, correct me if this
> is not possible; I've read that it is.  Anyway, even if it is not physically
> possible, it is *logically* possible [i.e. it involves no contradiction].)

This is really ripe: "...even if it is not physically possible it is
*logically* possible ...". This begins to stink of the problem concerning
the amount of teeth that women have.

> OBJECTION:
> If the electon at time A disappears, how can you identify the electron at
> time B as THE SAME electron?
> 
> REPLY:
> No other electrons were within one light-second at the time of the
> observation.  Since the electron observed at time B obviously has a
> lot in common with the one observed at A, and since no other particle
> is a candidate for being that electron, it makes perfect sense to say
> that the electron at time B is THE SAME electron.

This is garbage. Electrons can be created in many ways through interactions
among other atomic particles. That none are within a certain volume at
a certain time does not preclude them forming, through decay perhaps,
 there.
  
I note that an interesting consequence of Charley's view is that man is
nothing more than an assemblage of chemicals. (Maybe some good has come
from Rosen's and my postings!) As an analogy one could consider a stack
of coins, say, and have some klutz knock them over. The stack is rebuilt,
but the question is whether or not it is the "same" stack, in the same
sense as that for a similar one that existed all the while.

I have no idea why he
opts for denying the existence of a soul since it presents a simple
and "natural" explanation for his scenario, and is just as credible.

Padraig Houlahan.