View Single Post
Old May 17 2013, 02:45 AM   #28
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: Would you use a transporter?

Tiberius wrote: View Post
iguana_tonante wrote: View Post
If you disassemble a house, brick by brick, move it in another place, and they reassemble it without any loss of information, then it's the same house.
But that's not how the transporter works.
Actually, in the magical universe of Star Trek, that's exactly how the transporter works.

From Memory Alpha:

Matter stream

In a transporter system, the matter stream referred to the energized form of the matter being transported.

Transporter matter stream
The matter stream consisted of the stream of sub-atomic particles that resulted from the dematerialization of a transport subject. The stream was relocated from the original site of the subject, passed through the pattern buffer, transferred as an energy beam, and rematerialized into its original form again at its destination (often a transporter platform).

Tiberius wrote: View Post
A better analogy would be that you disassemble the house brick by brick, get an expert sculptor to make exact duplicates of each brick, then put the duplicates back together and destroy the originals.
Given the above explanation, an even better analogy (always taking in mind that analogies are inherently flawed - quantum particles are definitively unbricky in their properties and behaviour) would be this: disassemble the house brick by brick, make each brick into powder separately, move the separate bags of powder into a different location, remake every brick with the same matter and the same pattern, and rebuild the house. As you can see, the issue becomes much more muddied.

Tiberius wrote: View Post
No, I'm just saying that an exact copy of me isn't me. If it was, it wouldn't be called a copy.
The point is that it isn't just a copy. It's a copy made of the same materials, with the same patterns, who thinks it's the original.

Tiberius wrote: View Post
If I take a perfect photocopy of a piece of paper, then destroy the original, can we still say I have the original?
I don't know. That is the point. You have no way of knowing which one is which.

You are arguing from an ontological point of view: there is the "original", and there is the "copy". I am arguing from a practical point of view: the "copy" is indistinguishable from the "original", so it's irrelevant which is which, especially given that the "original" is no longer when the "copy" is created.

Tiberius wrote: View Post
Except the person snoozing on the plane doesn't have his body destroyed, does he?
How do you know he doesn't? You don't know what happens when you are asleep. Point is: if we believe your theory, then you can be actually be dead and not realize it because you are still alive. That's a contradiction. Reduction ad absurdum.

Tiberius wrote: View Post
Yes, it IS matter. When the transporter takes you apart, your body ceases to exist as matter. You lose the matter of your body.
Matter and energy are just different states of the same stuff. Like ice and water.

Tiberius wrote: View Post
Two cars that come off the production line are identical. Are they the one car? Of course not.
If I switch one for the other, will you notice any difference?
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote