View Single Post
Old May 17 2013, 05:40 AM   #33
Re: Would you use a transporter?

iguana_tonante wrote: View Post
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).
Once you take an atom and convert it into energy, that atom is GONE. You can convert the energy back into an atom, but it's not the same atom.

That's what happens when you ENERGIZE - you convert it into energy. Change it back into matter, and it's not the same matter.

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.
No it isn't a good analogy, because the bricks still remain as matter. They never go through the destructive "change to energy" process.

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.
No, it isn't made with the same matter, because the original matter ceased to exist when it was converted into energy.

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.
Anyone who saw me make the copy would say that the original is the one I put onto the glass scanner and the copy is the one that came out of the paper tray. The fact that you can't tell them apart in no way changes the fact that one was put on the scanner and the other wasn't.

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.
Are you kidding me? You're defending your position by claiming that, "Well, maybe we're physically destroyed when we go to sleep!"

Come on, is that the best you've got?

And how the hell did you get the idea that I was saying that "you can be actually be dead and not realize it because you are still alive."

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.
No, it's not.

Ice is made up of H2O molecules. So is Water. It's the same building blocks, just arranged differently. Changing matter into energy doesn't rearrange what's there, it changes it fundamentally. If I take some iron and some gold and convert them into energy, could you tell me which energy came from the iron and which energy came from the gold? No. There's no way to tell. But simply heating something up until it turns into a liquid, you can tell just fine. If I show you liquid water and some liquid iron, could you tell me which came from ice and which came from iron ingots? Of course. So your analogy doesn't work.

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?
Way to avoid answering my question.
Tiberius is offline   Reply With Quote