View Single Post
Old May 17 2013, 12:18 PM   #37
iguana_tonante's Avatar
Location: Italy, EU
Re: Would you use a transporter?

Third Nacelle wrote: View Post
But if you take a hammer and start pounding away at those pieces, at some point the vase ceases to exist.
So, where you draw the line? That's the basis of my argument. You just believe "there must be some point where identity cease to exists". My argument is that identity is fiction.

Third Nacelle wrote: View Post
It is not something you can quantify scientifically.
Or, in other words:

Third Nacelle wrote: View Post
all "metaphysical nonsense" as Emory Erickson claimed

Avro Arrow wrote: View Post
Unfortunately for the person who stepped into the transporter at the departure point, they are not able to revel in this sense of continuity and oneness, what with being dead and all.
All our past selves are unable to experience continuity and oneness, since they don't exist anymore. The only self that exists (if it exists ), is the present self. The transporter is just an extreme version of our continuity that makes us face something very uncomfortable: our self ceases to exist every second... and a new version takes over. It happens so fast we don't realize it. The transporter just make it apparent.

Avro Arrow wrote: View Post
(Now that i type that out... I think that may have actually been the premise of a SF story I read once.)
Yeah, I think I've read that too. Can't remember the title, tho.

Avro Arrow wrote: View Post
Anyway, as has been mentioned upthread a few times now, the transporter in ST does not appear to be a kill&copy type, probably to avoid this very issue.
Yep, I think most of us agree about that.

Tiberius wrote: View Post
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.
How do you know that? That's the point you keep missing.

Tiberius wrote: View Post
No it isn't a good analogy, because the bricks still remain as matter. They never go through the destructive "change to energy" process.
I don't see why changing to energy is so fundamentally different that any other transformation (more on that later). In any case, we are fast reaching the point where no analogy is good enough, so I see no point in upping this.

Tiberius wrote: View Post
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.
And your point is? It contains the same information. Why do you care which one is the original?

Tiberius wrote: View Post
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."
I think you missed the point. Oh well.

Tiberius wrote: View Post
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.
Water and ice are made of the same molecules, just in a different arrangement. Water and hydrogen peroxide are made of the same atoms, just in a different combination. Water and iron are still made from the same basic components (protons, neutrons, and electrons), just in a different mix. And protons and neutrons are again made from the same sub-components (quarks and gluons). You disregard molecular structure, fixate on the atomic level, and ignore subatomic hierarchy, but there is no logical reason to do that: it seems to stem more from personal preference. No level is more "important" than the other per se: it depends on the complexity of your system. Star Trek biological transporters, for example, claim to work on the "quantum level", which is different from your argument at the "atomic level". And that's ignoring all the shenanigans of quantum physics, which shows that the difference between matter/particles and energy/waveforms isn't so clear cut.

Tiberius wrote: View Post
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.
Way to avoid answering mine.

GalacticWierdo wrote: View Post
This conversation, while fascinating to watch, will obviously go nowhere fast because of the apparent vast differences in morals/perceptions that each one of the speakers has.
I agree. Still, I think it's interesting.
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote