Prishon, defining things does not destroy the thing itself. In fact, if you find you cannot define something, it's an indicator that you need to think carefully about what you are saying, or that the idea is fiction, and does not exist.

Of course the things get not destroyed in the litteral sense. If I define an electron to be three rishons then the electron is not destroyed. But defining means placing it in another framework. In that sense its destroyed.Or better, changed into something new. Because, then whats the electron itself? The three rishons? The electron as a point particle? The last has a different definition from the three rishon definition. Off course a different definition can be given on top. The electron, just as virtual particle pairs, is just a popular scientific picture. A "real" particle is an excitstion of an electron field. But then again, an excitation *can* be expressed as a collection of simultaneous trajectories in phasespace. So what is the real thing? The mathematical field or the trajectories it describes? Particle Scientists are inclined to say the excitation of the field (the math) is more real. Or better: real. Logical, because with that they can make an impression on whoever.