Teleportation (forked from Sci-Fi Anti-G suit design)

[Eli13]

I say that the probe will prohibit this.
Why? I don't know, I just think the probe will.
Why the probe will? It has a good reason.
Whats that good reason? Don't ask me any more questions.

 

[fsci123]

Well I you wanted to teleport someone by disassembling them and re-creating them you would[u/] have to recreate every atom evey photon... You would have to duplicate the spins of EVERYTHING... And all that info would be impossible to store on any computer...

 

[Jarvitä]

Well I you wanted to teleport someone by disassembling them and re-creating them you would[u/] have to recreate every atom evey photon... You would have to duplicate the spins of EVERYTHING... And all that info would be impossible to store on any computer...

Hush now, we're assuming the technology exists and discussing the philosophical implications.

 

[Hielor]

I find it strange that no one has pointed this out...

Yes, because it is exactly the same as the original one - there is no difference.
All the atoms are the same, which ones it's made off does not matter.

It's the pattern that matters, not the atoms used.

Except that the original teapot was handcrafted by your grandmother and has belonged to many people in your family. There's an emotional attachment there that transcends the fact that the new teapot is identical to the old one. The atoms comprising the new teapot were assembled by a machine. The atoms comprising the old teapot were assembled naturally and then shaped into their current form by your grandmother's hands.

As nice as it would be if humans were actually robots and could cut emotions out of the picture, that's not the case. People have emotional attachments to objects and ascribe more value to them than just the sum of the atoms involved.

You can't leave that out of the equation.

 

[Quick_Nick]

You close your eyes, you're put in a box, you emerge from the box and open your eyes and find that there is an exact 'copy' of you. However, you both have the same memories, including of entering the box. What do you do? Do you assume you are the copy and abandon your life, your spouse, everything, for the other person? Do you assume yourself the original and order the 'copy' to abandon everything? Do you try to kill the other person?
(just some thought provocation)

 

[palebluevoice]

Don't all your cells replace themselves periodically? This reminds me of this paradox.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus[/ame]

 

[fsci123]

You close your eyes, you're put in a box, you emerge from the box and open your eyes and find that there is an exact 'copy' of you. However, you both have the same memories, including of entering the box. What do you do? Do you assume you are the copy and abandon your life, your spouse, everything, for the other person? Do you assume yourself the original and order the 'copy' to abandon everything? Do you try to kill the other person?
(just some thought provocation)

I have a similar situation with my dog...

 

[Artlav]

You can't leave that out of the equation.

True.
Then if none of them knew it was done, then none of them would ever notice a difference. Emotional attachment is an imaginary value, and such values can change rapidly as history shows.

What do you do?

Ask us both to be vaporised and random one of the two re-created?
It's already a matter of availability and capacity of technology - if the pattern was not deleted, then destroy both and re-create. If a merging method is available - merge.
If none is, then there is no 100% fair solution, and we have to suffer the consequences of the accident like i said at the start.

Well I you wanted to teleport someone by disassembling them and re-creating them you would have to recreate every atom evey photon... You would have to duplicate the spins of EVERYTHING... And all that info would be impossible to store on any computer...

Not necessarily.
Cell-level reproduction should probably be largest sufficient one, with the same statistical distribution of active chemicals - atoms are swapped in and out of a living thing constantly. But it really is something we would only find out experimentally.

 

[Jarvitä]

I find it strange that no one has pointed this out...


Except that the original teapot was handcrafted by your grandmother and has belonged to many people in your family. There's an emotional attachment there that transcends the fact that the new teapot is identical to the old one. The atoms comprising the new teapot were assembled by a machine. The atoms comprising the old teapot were assembled naturally and then shaped into their current form by your grandmother's hands.

As nice as it would be if humans were actually robots and could cut emotions out of the picture, that's not the case. People have emotional attachments to objects and ascribe more value to them than just the sum of the atoms involved.

You can't leave that out of the equation.

But what if they're so identical they can't be told apart by any process, and you forgot which one was the original? Do you decide which one to hold an emotional attachment to at random?

 

[Ghostrider]

Religious?
An old tale about a thing outside the universe controlling the action of people inside the universe?
But if anything can interact with the universe then it's inside the said universe.
And as such would be copied along with the rest of the person.

Not all religions contemplate an entity outside the universe, or encompassing it. Buddhism, for instance, does not AFAIK but it's still very concerned with the essence of humanity.

Now, the nature of one's own "soul", or anything is something best left to philosopher or, better, to SF writers. PK Dick wrote a lot of good stories on the argument. If your consciousness could be duplicated like a computer program and be loaded into an android body, would it still be "you"?

I know there was a nice Fredric Brown short story about a device that could copy a human being perfectly, by simply transmitting the information about it to a remote machine that would then use raw materials to reassemble a duplicate at the atomic level. Little catch, the duplicate had absolutely no moral sense whatsoever because of a replication error that zeroed out those areas of the brain. The result was that the duplicates on Mars had decided to wage war on Earth (always a good thing IMHO, everybody loves space independence wars) and infiltrated key positions on Earth by putting duplicates in place of the originals. Not going to spoil the story here and I can't remember the title, but it's worth checking out (like the whole Brown production).

The problem I have with teleporters is not where my soul could end up - I trust it can keep up with the rest of the stuff unless the thing works like the transport portal in that Stephen King short - but transcription errors creep me out. No machine is perfect, and there's bound to be some little errors in the reconstruction process (just like in Timeline). Since it takes very little in the way of errors to end up with a tumor somewhere (which is tissue with some bad transcription errors itself), I'm sending my healthcare providers first.

 

[Artlav]

If your consciousness could be duplicated like a computer program and be loaded into an android body, would it still be "you"?

A computer and a brain are two somewhat different devices, so it's not a plausible scenario. If a copy is done, then neither of the two would be me. Who would do the job of a clone and who would live the original life is entirely up to random picking.
I mean, if i got through a copy machine i've already accepted doing both.

See the post above about in-place copying - where does that "me" should be?
At what moment does the copy stops being the original?

transcription errors creep me out. No machine is perfect

Ain't that the truth.
Practical aspect of such machine would have to be very well thought out and tested for all kinds of worse-than-death accidental stuff.

 

[T.Neo]

That's dodging the question again. We assumed the technology exist and is perfect.

I know, I'm just pointing out the other problems of a device, as a seperate issue.

Now, let's try it the other way - suppose the machine vaporize and reform parts of you in place. It cycles your finger (assuming it's done clean enough not to sense any pain). Are you still you, not copy?
Now, the whole body except the head. Still you?
Now body and skull except for brain.
Then with some brain parts.
Etc.
Where would you stop being you and became a copy?

The minute it cycled through your finger. You'd then be partially a copy, then progressively become a copy and regressively become you.

Of course, if the finger was assembled using the atoms it was dissasembled from, it's almost like a remuddling of the finger; if one could imagine somehow breaking grandma's teapot, and then somehow reforming and refiring the clay from the fragments. Still not the same teapot.

Don't all your cells replace themselves periodically? This reminds me of this paradox.

Yeah, but that's a whole different process; a process that occurs on the small scale, gradually. Non-bone cells in the human body have an average age of about 10 years (apparently).

This is different. It's a discrete destructive event. You're destroying something and then creating another something.

It isn't about emotions, it isn't about perceptions, it's the way the universe works. An object is not just a pile of data, it's an object. What it is isn't defined only by its structure, or what atoms it is made of, but how and why and where it came to exist.

Basically, as I understand it, the argument here is that the copy is the same entity as the original. But if both the copy and the original exist, how can they possibly both be the same entity? And if there are billions of copies, how can they all be the same entity simultaneously?

Sorry, but it's just entirely illogical. The sort of philosophical, emotional value stuff fits into it as well, but logically it just doesn't work out. They're two different entities, and while they might be identical, they're still different entities.

Then if none of them knew it was done, then none of them would ever notice a difference. Emotional attachment is an imaginary value, and such values can change rapidly as history shows.

So the core of the human psyche is imaginary? I'll remember that... :facepalm:

Not necessarily.
Cell-level reproduction should probably be largest sufficient one, with the same statistical distribution of active chemicals - atoms are swapped in and out of a living thing constantly. But it really is something we would only find out experimentally.

Cell-level replication would be incredibly sloppy- there are all sorts of fine structures in there that you could miss entirely, trace elements that you would not include, and fine states that you would not capture.

Practical aspect of such machine would have to be very well thought out and tested for all kinds of worse-than-death accidental stuff.

One could potentially consider the use of such a machine as a fate worse than death...

 

[Artlav]

Yeah, but that's a whole different process; a process that occurs on the small scale, gradually. Non-bone cells in the human body have an average age of about 10 years (apparently).

This is different. It's a discrete destructive event. You're destroying something and then creating another something.

Difference, difference?
What if the same process was sped up?
What if the are refreshed artificially?
Where is the border between "natural" and "artificial" reconstruction?

how and why and where it came to exist.

Sure, which is a part of the pattern that object forms. Kind of like a trace it left throughout history. But that trace stays there, it's in the past. And the remade object is the same as far as the future is concerned. Like the emotions, it does not belong to the object.

But if both the copy and the original exist, how can they possibly both be the same entity?

They are not. They are the same kind of object the original was, but neither is the original.

So the core of the human psyche is imaginary? I'll remember that... :facepalm:

Sure, emotions are as real as other thoughts.
But they are your properties, not properties of object you have them about.

It's knowing the thing is a copy that triggers the emotions, not the it-being-a-copy by itself.

Cell-level replication would be incredibly sloppy

Like i said, i don't know. Nothing like that was attempted before, so which level is sufficient is pure speculation.

 

[T.Neo]

Difference, difference?
What if the same process was sped up?
What if the are refreshed artificially?
Where is the border between "natural" and "artificial" reconstruction?

Generally the difference is when you destroy structures. Within a cell structures might change, cells within a structure might change, but the whole thing doesn't just explode and then magically reform itself.

See the attached image. The top line is a "world-line" of an entity, curving and flowing to denote evolution. The bottom line is a world-line of an entity, depicted as straight to simplify things (presumably that entity would be evolving as well). That entity is destroyed (its worldline ends) and a new identical entity is created; i.e. a new worldline is created.

The old worldline ended, a new worldline began. They are two seperate entities. Evolution changes an entity, but does not destroy or create it.

Sure, which is a part of the pattern that object forms. Kind of like a trace it left throughout history. But that trace stays there, it's in the past. And the remade object is the same as far as the future is concerned. Like the emotions, it does not belong to the object.

The trace is in the past, along with the object. It's been destroyed. That's the whole point. It no longer exists. Now you have a new trace in a new object that isn't the old object.

They are not. They are the same kind of object the original was, but neither is the original.

So if identical object 1 is 10 years old and identical object 2 is 5 years old, identical object 1 isn't the original? How does that work? :facepalm:

Sure, emotions are as real as other thoughts.
But they are your properties, not properties of object you have them about.

It's knowing the thing is a copy that triggers the emotions, not the it-being-a-copy by itself.

The problem is that such "emotions" are inherent to the object itself- they're traits, not really emotions, but emotions can be a good human analogy for them.

Like i said, i don't know. Nothing like that was attempted before, so which level is sufficient is pure speculation.

I think it's pretty clear that a cell-scale resoloution would lose a very large level of detail from the original...

 

[Rtyh-12]

Wikipedia is right - the problem of this is that our definition of 'the same' has to be changed.

One common argument found in the philosophical literature is that in the case of Heraclitus' river one is tripped up by two different definitions of "the same". In one sense things can be "qualitatively identical", by sharing some properties. In another sense they might be "numerically identical" by being "one". As an example, consider two different marbles that look identical. They would be qualitatively, but not numerically, identical. A marble can be numerically identical only to itself.
See also: Mutual Information and Fuzzy Logic
Note that some languages differentiate between these two forms of identity. In German, for example, selbst ("self-same") and gleich ("equal") are the pertinent terms. At least in formal speech, the former refers to numerical identity (e.g. die selbe Murmel, "the same[numerical] marble") and the latter to qualitative identity (e.g. die gleiche Murmel, "the same[qualitative] marble"). Colloquially, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably however.

This is more of a philosophical issue. We'll have to try it first.

Destroying the original doesn't somehow magically make the copy the original. It just makes the copy a copy of an original that has been destroyed.

If the copy looks the same as the original, if it feels the same, if it sounds the same, if it behaves the same, if it can't be told apart by any physical process, then isn't it the same?

The only difference would be that the atoms it's made of are different. But... all the atoms are identical (of course, the same element, isotope...). So, how can you tell them apart?

What if someone stole your grandmas teapot while you are sleeping, destroys it and replaces it with a copy. When you wake up, you would think that nothing happened and you would still have the same emotional attachment to it.

 

[Artlav]

Generally the difference is when you destroy structures. Within a cell structures might change, cells within a structure might change, but the whole thing doesn't just explode and then magically reform itself.

The atoms move in and out of the cells. A month from now you would have changed about 50% of atoms your body had.
Suppose a machine changes them all, what is the difference?

About the natural cell regrowth process - bad example, i agree.

See the attached image.

You lost me there. What worldlines?

So if identical object 1 is 10 years old and identical object 2 is 5 years old, identical object 1 isn't the original? How does that work? :facepalm:

And maybe there. We were talking about making an exact copy, no?

If you mean that object one was made 1000 years ago by a craftsman and object two a moment ago by a copy machine, then what difference does it make if they are identical?
They are the same, and neither is original - there is no detectable difference.

The problem is that such "emotions" are inherent to the object itself- they're traits, not really emotions, but emotions can be a good human analogy for them.

Uh, there too i think.
If you don't know your prized heirloom is a copy, then how could you feel emotions about loosing the original?

I think it's pretty clear that a cell-scale resoloution would lose a very large level of detail from the original...

Maximum plausible approximation. Upper border of reasonably small resolution. Most likely not enough, but could just make it.

 

[T.Neo]

The atoms move in and out of the cells. A month from now you would have changed about 50% of atoms your body had.
Suppose a machine changes them all, what is the difference?

The machine destroys the structure, the natural process evolves the structure.

You lost me there. What worldlines?

Perhaps you could call them "timelines" or "existence lines".

The wavy existence line explains how an object still exists but evolves over time. The double existence line explains how an object that is destroyed and then copied isn't the same object afterwards (there are two seperate 'existence lines').

They are the same, and neither is original - there is no detectable difference.

But the fact remains that one was crafted by hand and the other was copied from it.

If you don't know your prized heirloom is a copy, then how could you feel emotions about loosing the original?

Just because I don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't a copy.

Maximum plausible approximation. Upper border of reasonably small resolution. Most likely not enough, but could just make it.

Could just make it to whom?

It'll be a blatantly different. It'll have all sorts of different structures. It won't be near being an identical copy.

What if someone stole your grandmas teapot while you are sleeping, destroys it and replaces it with a copy. When you wake up, you would think that nothing happened and you would still have the same emotional attachment to it.

What if grandma's keepsake is a mass-manufactured antique, and the one that is stolen is replaced with another?

Is it the same object? Of course not...

 

[Artlav]

But the fact remains that one was crafted by hand and the other was copied from it.

Assuming such a copy technology, objects becomes data. That data was formed by shaping, chiselling, etc. Then added on by all the events across time.
In the end we have a pattern of matter. If we make an exact copy of that pattern it would be the same as the master copy. And neither would be the original.

That seems to be the core difference in your and mine understanding.

Just because I don't know about it, doesn't mean it isn't a copy.
...
What if grandma's keepsake is a mass-manufactured antique, and the one that is stolen is replaced with another?

Is it the same object? Of course not...

Sure, but it shows that emotions and thoughts are not bound to the object as you defined it, and are part of you instead.

 

[T.Neo]

Assuming such a copy technology, objects becomes data. That data was formed by shaping, chiselling, etc. Then added on by all the events across time.
In the end we have a pattern of matter. If we make an exact copy of that pattern it would be the same as the master copy. And neither would be the original.

That seems to be the core difference in your and mine understanding.

Data, not object. It's data about an object.

I don't care how identical it is. It can be 200% identical, if you wish. But the fact remains that it is a copy, it is a different object, it is not the same.

Object B was copied from Object A. You might not be able to tell them apart, but Object A was still copied and Object B was the result.

Sure, but it shows that emotions and thoughts are not bound to the object as you defined it, and are part of you instead.

Not quite. The fact that it's a different object is just unknown to the person, and if they found out, I'm pretty sure they'd be pretty angry...

 

[Artlav]

But the fact remains that it is a copy, it is a different object, it is not the same.

Object B was copied from Object A. You might not be able to tell them apart, but Object A was still copied and Object B was the result.

That's right.
I guess whether it matters or not is a question of situation, preferences or beliefs.
And in real world also a question of the technology's limitations.

Then again, there are major theories (holographic principle for example), that suggest information, matter and energy are equivalent.
If so, the true object would be the information, and material things would be cases of it.

Not quite. The fact that it's a different object is just unknown to the person, and if they found out, I'm pretty sure they'd be pretty angry...

Unknown, exactly. And so the emotion is not coming from an object, but is something you have.