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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!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: <615@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 09:03:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.615
Posted: Tue Aug 27 09:03:36 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 21:41:34 EDT
References: <581@utastro.UUCP> <1322@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 20

> 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.

Is *observed*? I would be interested in seeing a reference for this.

Thanks in advance.

Padraig Houlahan.