Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: LAST WORD on "souls" (I hope!)(some hope!)
Message-ID: <1396@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1396
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 11:03:16 EDT
References: <581@utastro.UUCP> <1322@umcp-cs.UUCP> <588@utastro.UUCP> <1364@umcp-cs.UUCP> <599@utastro.UUCP> <1375@umcp-cs.UUCP> <609@utastro.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 31
Summary: Like I said before...

In article <609@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
>> My example is easily corrected.  No other particles (than the two mentioned
>> above) of any kind were within one light-second, and there was not enough
>> other energy (light, etc.) in the area to form an electron via E=mc**2.
>> --Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink
>
>Your example is still incorrect. It is an assertion on your part that the
>electron did not exist in between measurements - this is not
>to be confused with "logical" possibility. 

Like I said before:  the electron interacts with another particle,
disappears, and reappears later.  Need I mention that all of this is 
observed?  (If it weren't, there wouldn't be much point in talking about it.)
The electron is *observed* to disappear between time A and time B.

>To prove your point you
>need to show that the second electron was indeed the same as the first,
>which, as far as I know, is not possible, 

It must be the same electron because there was not enough mass/energy
and negative charge within one light-second to form the electron, except 
for the results of the interaction of the electron and other particle.

>and you need to show that it did not exist between measurements. 
>You cannot assume what you are trying to prove!

Again, it is *observed* not to exist between times A and B (your phrase
"between measurements" suggests, wrongly, that no measurements occur
between times A and B).  There is energy there, but no electron.

--Paul V Torek, hoping it's finally sinking in.