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