Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mcnc.mcnc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!ekp
From: ekp@mcnc.UUCP (Edward Pavelchek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Continuity arguments
Message-ID: <759@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 18:32:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: mcnc.759
Posted: Mon Aug 26 18:32:55 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 10:08:55 EDT
References: <581@utastro.UUCP> <1322@umcp-cs.UUCP> <588@utastro.UUCP> <1364@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: ekp@mcnc.UUCP (Edward Pavelchek)
Organization: Shipley Co.
Lines: 14
Summary: 

Paul Torek argues that identity of two objects seperated in time does
not imply continuity.  As an example, he supposes that an electron could
'dissociate' itself for 1sec, and if no other electron was unaccountable
for within 1 light second, then the 'reassociated' electron MUST be the
same one that disappeared. However, one might have 'dissociated' 2
seconds ago, within 2 light-seconds, or n.  This is a logical disproof not
requiring knowledge of QM.  
   On that question, I may be sadly out of date, but a fundamental
   assumption of QM was that all electrons are IDENTICAL except for
   spin. That means, taken literally, that it would have to be the same
   one!
WITHOUT traceable continuity, a very long discussion will develop over
the meaning of SAME, and I feel that Charley has a lot more arguing to
do.