View Single Post
Old May 18 2013, 02:20 AM   #57
Re: Would you use a transporter?

iguana_tonante wrote: View Post
How do you know that? That's the point you keep missing.
Entropy. Once you destroy something you can't get it back.

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.
Does the tree still exist if you burn it and enjoy the heat? Is the heat the same as the tree?

And your point is? It contains the same information. Why do you care which one is the original?
I may not care, but the piece of paper that I pick up off the scanner and set fire to certainly would care (if it was able to). Do you think it's comforted by the fact that an identical copy of it will continue existing, and that no one will notice that it isn't the original? Of course not.

I think you missed the point. Oh well.
I didn't see one. Perhaps you could be clearer?

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.
And what exactly is your point here?

If you were to die, you'd be happy because there would still be rocks and the rocks are made up of the same subatomic particles that you are, so in a sense you aren't really dying?

Tiberius wrote: View Post
Way to avoid answering my question.
Way to avoid answering mine.
I've already answered your question at least twice in regards to other examples - I may not be able to tell, but the original car will be able to tell, and that's what makes the difference.

Because if I step into a transporter, the fact that an exact duplicate of me will come out the other side doesn't comfort me at all, because I know for a fact that I will die. The fact that what comes out the other side has my memories doesn't make it me.

Now, answer my question. Would it be the same car?

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.
Me too.
Tiberius is offline   Reply With Quote