-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.3 May 2004

Claptrap. I don't allow for the possibility that a machine could 'detect and measure' an atom. The notion of 'detecting an atom' is really the notion of 'making some observations which, in my model, are explained by the notion of an atoms.'

If a soul-believer claimed he had a machine which could detect a soul, he wouuld have to specify what observations the machine was making when it gave a positive. He has three options:

1. Tautology: "It is observing a soul." Buncombe.
2. Mysticism: "It is detecting something that is otherwise undetectable to humans." Buncombe.
3. A proper answer: "It is measuring X observable quantity."

If 3, then I say, "Oh, is that all you meant by 'a soul'?" He then has two replies:

1. "Yes, that's all," in which case I say "So you've just given a funny mystical name to the observation of X?" He replies, "But that's just what you've done with an atom." I say, "Yes, an atom is just a funny name for talking about certain observations."

2. "No, but it's an unmistakable sign that a soul is nearby." in which case I say, "But how can you distinguish between this pattern of X spontaneously appearing, and this pattern of X being caused by a soul?" He then has two replies:

1. "This pattern can't appear except when a soul is near," in which case I say, "How can you tell?", and he says "Because every time I've measured it, my machine has detected a soul!!"

2. "There is no difference; that's what a soul is," in which case I reply "So a soul is just a funny name for X?" etc.

Q.E.D.