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!)(some hope!)
Message-ID: <609@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 12:00:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.609
Posted: Mon Aug 26 12:00:27 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Aug-85 11:08:45 EDT
References: <581@utastro.UUCP> <1322@umcp-cs.UUCP> <588@utastro.UUCP> <1364@umcp-cs.UUCP> <599@utastro.UUCP> <1375@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 20

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

Padraig Houlahan.