X-Message-Number: 21314
From: 
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 00:20:43 EST
Subject: Proof of why a duplicate cannot be the original -revisited.

--part1_149.b8e07bb.2b919d2b_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I gave a proof of why a duplicate cannot be the original that seems to be so 
solid, that all the duplicators replied with their old, different-subject 
examples, analogies and skirted trying to fault the original argument.   Make 
me feel that my argument is sound.  So let me repeat it one more time.

1. X is really distinct from Y if and only if X can exist without Y and Y can 
exist without X

2. By definition, a duplicate would have to be separate from the original to 
qualify in the discussions/debates we have been having on this subject of 
duplicates, on this forum.

3. So if there was a real duplicate, it could exist apart from, and without, 
the original, and by premise one it would be distinct.  In other words a 
duplicate is distinct from the original.

4. Therefore, there is no time when a duplicate is the original.

5. If you are the original (and we all are our originals), and a duplicate is 
made of us, it is distinct, so if we die, even though the duplicate lives on, 
we (the original) did not survive.

This argument appears to be air-tight, so don't tell me about books and how 
you feel when you wake up, if you want to prove a duplicate surviving the 
original's death equals the survival of the original, find a hole in the 
above argument.

David

--part1_149.b8e07bb.2b919d2b_boundary

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21314