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

[T.Neo]

The fact that it's a different object?

Let me put it this way: imagine that this is your grandmother's teapot, that's been in your familiy for generations.

I scan it, smash it on the floor, and then create a new teapot from a computer file.

Is that still your grandmother's prized family heirloom?

 

[Artlav]

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.

 

[T.Neo]

Who says so? You might hold that philosophy, that does not mean that it is universal.

If I kill a person and make billions of copies, are those copies all the original person?

 

[Artlav]

Will be a mighty confused planetfull.
For a moment they will all be the same person, then slowly they'll diverge as the experiences would differ.

You still failed to show any actual difference.
Flat Earth or round Earth is philosophy, but the round planet we live on is fact.

 

[T.Neo]

A copy being the original is philosophy, a copy being a copy is fact.

I never said anything about the planet-of-a-billion-copies being the same person, I was talking about them being the original person.

A copy might be the same person- subjectively- but they're still a copy, they're still different, just by the mere fact that they exist. The only way a person/object/file can be the original, is if it is the original- in other words, if it was never copied at all.

 

[Artlav]

they're still a copy, they're still different

Different in what? Made of different atoms? Moved slightly?

It behaves the same on any level, it's the same thing.

It being a copy is a fact, it being different is philosophy. There being an original is a philosophy as well.

 

[T.Neo]

So if I have two teapots, one the original, and one a perfect copy, they're both the same thing?

They're both the same object?

That sounds pretty philosophical to me. They're identical, but they're two different objects. They're made different just by the fact that there is more than one object.

 

[Artlav]

No, they occupy different spaces.
And they will become more and more different as time go, obviously.
But each can be used for exactly the same purposes.

If only one copy is made and the scanned thing then destroyed, then the copy is for all intents and purposes the same thing.

 

[T.Neo]

I have a torch. I'm sure that somewhere, there is a factory that makes these torches. There must be millions of them on the planet. They can all be used for exactly the same purpose. Are they all the same object? :facepalm:

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.

 

[selden]

Artlav,

Suppose we did it to you: flash-fried you with a gamma-ray laser, recording all atoms, positions and energy states.Then we failed to reintegrate a copy in a receiving station, for any of a number of different possible reasons.

Is that murder?

The availability of this kind of technology would require the rewriting of many laws.

Whether or not a copy is the "same" as the original is essentially a religious argument. There have been quite a few SF stories written examining the various aspects of such a process, whether the scan is destructive or non-destructive.

However it is claimed to work, you wouldn't get me into one of those things!

 

[Artlav]

I have a torch. I'm sure that somewhere, there is a factory that makes these torches. There must be millions of them on the planet. They can all be used for exactly the same purpose. Are they all the same object?

No, they're different objects that are very much alike.

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.

A copy that is for all intents and purposes exactly the same as the original. Were is the difference? If you haven't knew that it was made you would never have guessed.
So any difference would be imaginary.

---------- Post added at 01:40 ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 ----------

Is that murder?

In current laws and morality - yes, it is. Accidental murder most likely.

Imagine we put you inside a metal box with wheels and an engine and accelerated it slowly, but fail to decelerate it slowly for any of a number of different possible reasons.

Is that murder?

The availability of this kind of technology would require the rewriting of many laws.

That's why they are written on paper.

Whether or not a copy is the "same" as the original is essentially a religious argument.

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.

 

[Coolhand]

Artlav,

Suppose we did it to you: flash-fried you with a gamma-ray laser, recording all atoms, positions and energy states.Then we failed to reintegrate a copy in a receiving station, for any of a number of different possible reasons.

Is that murder?

The availability of this kind of technology would require the rewriting of many laws.

Whether or not a copy is the "same" as the original is essentially a religious argument. There have been quite a few SF stories written examining the various aspects of such a process, whether the scan is destructive or non-destructive.

However it is claimed to work, you wouldn't get me into one of those things!

Whether its murder or not might be essentially down to intent and performing an act based on that to make the transport go wrong. Whether you actually die or not within a machine like that is irrelevant from an outside point of view - the cloned entity will still fill in the same tax form and go home and kiss the same wife, or her identical clone if she wanted to save a few steps home that day and you presumably know the risks involved.

Basically no matter what you call it, your body is destroyed and that is death. that a copy is made digitally doesn't matter, thats just a different iteration of the same thing, or something to within x tolerance of what you were once you stepped into the machine. I mean there might be other "me's" and other "you's" in other parallel universes, but these are not you, even if they have the exact same experience, they are still separate entities.

It certainly raises all sorts of interesting questions about what we are exactly and how we percieve ourselves as 'alive' beings. But from my POV i would consider using such a device as suicide and i'll catch the next shuttle thanks

 

[Face]

Star-Trek equivalent of Schrödinger's cat?

Let's put the desintegrator and the assembler into a box, put T.Neo (or Artlav) in, tell him to either go through the beamer or not, close the box.

If we open the box, we see him again. Is he a copy or the original? While the box is closed, we can't say if he is still the original or already the copy.

What if he goes through the beamer a second or third time?

Ok, this is getting weird, I think it is time to go to bed here :tiphat: .

regards,
Face

 

[Artlav]

Is he a copy or the original?

Except that unlike Schrödinger's cat that is an easily resolved paradox - you just need to recognize the words copy and original as artificial concepts.
The real fact is in the box and is likely getting annoyed at you.

And i'm in a sleepy mood as well...

 

[Jarvitä]

So, if the scanning process is non-destructive, you recognise the second object as being the copy of the original?

Why does this change once the scanning process is destructive?

 

[Eli13]

I'm just afraid of what happens on the return trip.
Copies of copies usually don't end well.

 

[T.Neo]

Another thing to consider is the uncertainty principle and on a larger scale, the fact that on the scale of atoms, things would be moving incredibly fast, which would make scanning difficult.

Essentially, a perfect scan is impossible and the higher the resolution of the scan the harder it is to achieve.

So even if you could solve all technical difficulties- the copy won't be the same as the original. Unless some quantum effect makes copying on that scale impossible. altogether.

I suppose you could slice the body into micrometer or submicrometer slices and "print" it out on the other side (somehow preventing everything from going splat in the process), but such a copy would actually be extremely sloppy in terms of accuracy standards.

 

[Eli13]

And if thats the case, hope it isn't a Vegas plastic surgeon putting them together.

 

[T.Neo]

Depending on the resolution, the result might range from having effectively having severe radiation poisoning, to being frozen and re-thawed...

 

[Artlav]

Another thing to consider is the uncertainty principle and on a larger scale, the fact that on the scale of atoms, things would be moving incredibly fast, which would make scanning difficult.

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

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?

So, if the scanning process is non-destructive, you recognise the second object as being the copy of the original?

Why does this change once the scanning process is destructive?

Because there is a quantative difference then. We have two subjects, which would quickly diverge in their experiences and thus cease to be exact copies.