Transporter video from youtube.

[Gingerbread Demon]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Some of you guys might have seen this video before but it seems to contradict a lot of what I have read in books and seen on all the various TV series. The transporter isn't a "death machine" and doesn't kill you and recreate you. It just doesn't work that way.

It's taken me a while to agree on what this device does but I think it's basically sending the original like a radio signal from point A to point B, nothing more, nothing less.

If it were a death machine wouldn't there be at the most a few people with gaps in their memories or other medical issues?

 

[1001001]

Moving to Trek Tech

 

[DanGovier]

I've always assumed that the presence of a matter stream, and the ability for that matter stream to degrade in the pattern buffer (and become irretrievable), means that it's not a simple copy/paste of your atomic structure stored as data. For example, you can't transport a teapot and re-materialize a whole bunch like a replicator (although I think the tech is similar).

It is instead the sum of your atomic mass removed from the environment and suspended momentarily within an energy field before being re-assembled elsewhere, hopefully with a very small margin of error. Thinking about it in terms of the quantum, if our consciousness is a form of quantum energy there's no reason to assume its association with our atoms is harmed in any way during the transportation process.

If instead you take the atheistic stance that our consciousness is purely a chemical reaction, it gets even easier, because as long as we are re-assembled exactly as we were before there shouldn't be any perceptible change in our personality.

It's an interesting philosophical point, but I don't see transporters as being death boxes unless the matter stream is lost. It's simply matter displacement.

 

[Idran]

For example, you can't transport a teapot and re-materialize a whole bunch like a replicator (although I think the tech is similar).

Identical, in fact; a replicator is just a molecular-resolution transporter with a database of patterns and a large store of existing matter.

And yeah, it really depends on what precisely you mean when you say "death" and what precisely you mean when you say "self". This is the sort of question where you really need to define your terms in advance, because big arguments can hinge on subtle differences in definition, and the best way to avoid that is to define your terms precisely from the start. If by "death" you mean "the irreversible cessation of existence" (not clinical death, but the actual final one), and by "self" you mean "continuity of memory" or "continuity of body" or something in that vein, then a transporter is no more death than going to sleep is; both are an interruption of awareness and consciousness, but that's all. Even if you get a Tom Riker situation, you're just making two selves (who then go on to diverge from the creation point).

And honestly, I'd say even from a religious perspective, ignoring science at all and going for a purely spiritualistic view, there's no reason why a transporter should somehow leave you soulless either. You would hope that if the soul does exist in some supernatural manner, being taken apart and put back together properly somewhere else wouldn't somehow confuse it into thinking "Welp, he's gone, off to go back to soul-land". That just feels like the spiritual equivalent of faking out your dog by pretending to throw the ball.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Identical, in fact; a replicator is just a molecular-resolution transporter with a database of patterns and a large store of existing matter.

And yeah, it really depends on what precisely you mean when you say "death" and what precisely you mean when you say "self". This is the sort of question where you really need to define your terms in advance, because big arguments can hinge on subtle differences in definition, and the best way to avoid that is to define your terms precisely from the start. If by "death" you mean "the irreversible cessation of existence" (not clinical death, but the actual final one), and by "self" you mean "continuity of memory" or "continuity of body" or something in that vein, then a transporter is no more death than going to sleep is; both are an interruption of awareness and consciousness, but that's all. Even if you get a Tom Riker situation, you're just making two selves (who then go on to diverge from the creation point).

And honestly, I'd say even from a religious perspective, ignoring science at all and going for a purely spiritualistic view, there's no reason why a transporter should somehow leave you soulless either. You would hope that if the soul does exist in some supernatural manner, being taken apart and put back together properly somewhere else wouldn't somehow confuse it into thinking "Welp, he's gone, off to go back to soul-land". That just feels like the spiritual equivalent of faking out your dog by pretending to throw the ball.

I don't see the soul as being an internal part of you but tied to you via some kind of quantum entanglement. It may reside outside of your body but in the same space, or underspace.

 

[Mytran]

There are several examples in Trek of transportees remaining conscious (Realm of Fear) or talking (TWOK) throughout the entire process, which would tend to fly in the face of the "kill and copy" transportation theory.

There's also the absurd amounts of energy concerned, when reducing a 180lb person into the energy equivalent - not to mention that matter annihilation is always supposed to be the sole purvue of the warp core - otherwise, why have one?

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

There are several examples in Trek of transportees remaining conscious (Realm of Fear) or talking (TWOK) throughout the entire process, which would tend to fly in the face of the "kill and copy" transportation theory.

There's also the absurd amounts of energy concerned, when reducing a 180lb person into the energy equivalent - not to mention that matter annihilation is always supposed to be the sole purvue of the warp core - otherwise, why have one?

OK didn't think of that last point. OK we have

1. Warp engines
2. Holodecks
3. Transporter systems
4. Consoles and equipment

4 systems that each need or generate their own individual power needs. So If the warp engines are the most powerful of that lot you'd have to wonder how much energy they are actually generating that the transporter itself needs for this matter annihilation, not to mention reconstruction at the quantum level.

Has anyone calculated just how much energy the warp reactors create? Or that the other systems need?

 

[Timo]

Since we have no idea how much energy the wholly fictional warp drive consumes, we can't calculate the amount produced by starting out at that end. OTOH, we can speculate as regards the energy released by annihilating a given amount of deuterium with antideuterium, but we never get onscreen figures for amounts.

What we do know is that transporters run just fine in ships said to be suffering from severe power shortages, and have been shown powered up with a hand phaser battery; that holodecks operate on so little power that our Voyager heroes trivially dismiss that when shutting down life support on Deck Nine will amount to the same; and that cloaking devices are just about the last thing to fail on a powerless ship. When power consumption in Trek is discussed, it's really a neck-to-neck contest for the least power-hungry system, surprisingly enough.

This unfortunately tells us nothing absolute. We just know that system after system is declared less power-hungry than others. But the fact that the cloak stays up in ST4:TVH while the transporter fails may mean nothing much: perhaps cloaks consume immense amounts of power and transporters virtually none, but Kirk cannot afford the cloak to fail so he can't spare even a smidgen for the transporters and thus those fail first.

In any case, the mere E=mcc of turning a human body into energy sounds pretty insignificant for starship operations: surely the fuel tanks of the starship (which also contain stuff turning totally into energy) are larger than a person or a dozen? But the transporter could easily "cheat" there, as one half of the process consumes and the other half releases energy. The whole E=mcc amount of it might never actually manifest in the cycle.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Idran]

I don't see the soul as being an internal part of you but tied to you via some kind of quantum entanglement. It may reside outside of your body but in the same space, or underspace.

That's not really how quantum entanglement works at all, unfortunately. It doesn't actually connect two things in any significant fashion whatsoever. Quantum entanglement is just the particle equivalent of writing a 1 on one card, a 2 on another, putting them in separate sealed envelopes, and shuffling them up; measuring one gives you information on what you would measure about the other, and that's the limit of what entanglement does. It's a statistical connection, not a physical one in any real sense. When two things are quantum entangled, it just means that measurements about their state are statistically correlated.

And you need two identical particles to entangle them anyway. The only thing you can entangle with an electron is another electron.

that holodecks operate on so little power that our Voyager heroes trivially dismiss that when shutting down life support on Deck Nine will amount to the same

Eh, we don't really know this; it was explicit that whatever powered holographic systems on Voyager was somehow incompatible with the rest of the power grid. Stupid design purely to avert out-of-universe questions about resource consumption for the Doctor or holodeck episodes, but explicit.

 

[Timo]

What is clear from the dialogue in "Parallax" is that the holodeck slice of the power pie is not important, and that Chakotay's counterproposal of using Deck 9 life support power is the thing that allows the issue to be forgotten altogether.

What's also clear is that the power they expect to get, either from the holodecks or then Deck 9, is going to be routed to warp propulsion so that they don't have to go out and push. So it's a significant slice after all, in relative terms. We just don't know how significant. It's not indicated to compensate for their current predicament of "another 14%" of propulsive power drain, in whole or in any specific part. But it will make a bit of difference in the one system we may argue is fantastically power-hungry, as warp drive is basically the first one to go down in times of power shortage, regardless of tactical considerations or whatnot.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ithekro]

It is not so much that the cloaking device is the last thing to fail on a ship that is losing power, but more the priorities for power usage is the cloaking device first with only perhaps life support being more important, as both are the last things keeping your ship alive and not detected. The ship might not be out of power, just that what is left is going to the cloaking device first.

 

[uniderth]

I'm of the opinion that the transporter somehow maintains your consciousness throughout transport. So there isn't a time when you aren't you, except for when it breaks. But I could be wrong.

 

[Idran]

I'm of the opinion that the transporter somehow maintains your consciousness throughout transport. So there isn't a time when you aren't you, except for when it breaks. But I could be wrong.

You don't need continuity of consciousness to stay yourself, though. Your consciousness literally shuts down for measurable lengths of time while you're asleep.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

You don't need continuity of consciousness to stay yourself, though. Your consciousness literally shuts down for measurable lengths of time while you're asleep.

OK but the guy in the video was claiming when you sleep there's literal breaks in consciousness as if another entity becomes you when you wake up. That's not quite right either I think.

BTW thank you for the explanation regarding quantum entanglement. I wasn't sure.. I still however think the "soul" or whatever that is is external.

 

[Timo]

Hmm. Take Vulcans.

They believe in a concept that sounds much like a soul. They are a telepathic species that does concrete and (to them) tangible things with that soul. For all their technological brilliance, they didn't want to put themselves through the transporter in 2151 yet, or at least fostered the impression that they didn't. Were they perhaps afraid of losing touch with their inner katra? But then they did start transporting, and nothing adverse happened to the katra: it could still be perceived and manipulated the ancient way.

Do Vulcans believe in a supernatural soul in addition to the natural one they have? Even if so, it doesn't stop them from using the transporter nowadays.

Telepathic species abound in Trek. Can they cross-check for each other's souls? Or would Vulcans fail to perceive (or admit to) a pagh and Bajorans a katra? At least Bajorans don't think twice about accepting and accessing the pagh of aliens like Sisko. And no species sprouts "aliens are soulless" propaganda, even though one would assume such a thing would come naturally to Vulcans at least.

It would be a bit odd for transporters to fail to move the soul along with the rest. They aren't supposed to differentiate, unless very specifically commanded to "biofilter" or whatever.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Idran]

OK but the guy in the video was claiming when you sleep there's literal breaks in consciousness as if another entity becomes you when you wake up. That's not quite right either I think.

That's just a bad description on their part. Consciousness doesn't actually have to be continuous, you aren't becoming a different person during those interruptions or anything. It's no different than turning a computer off and on; it's not a different computer while it's off.

They believe in a concept that sounds much like a soul. They are a telepathic species that does concrete and (to them) tangible things with that soul.

Do they universally, though? Even after the rediscovery of their telepathic heritage post-Syrranite revolution, who's to say that some Vulcans wouldn't take a more transhumanist take on the katra and just consider it a form of mind-uploading? You're conflating the mind and the soul a ton in that post overall there, they're very different things.

It would be a bit odd for transporters to fail to move the soul along with the rest. They aren't supposed to differentiate, unless very specifically commanded to "biofilter" or whatever.

If the soul exists, it literally can't be physical or made of actual matter or else we would have found it by now. I don't really understand this argument.

 

[Timo]

Do they universally, though? Even after the rediscovery of their telepathic heritage post-Syrranite revolution, who's to say that some Vulcans wouldn't take a more transhumanist take on the katra and just consider it a form of mind-uploading?

No matter what they call it, it still exists for all of them, supposedly and objectively.

You're conflating the mind and the soul a ton in that post overall there, they're very different things.

What other distinction is there besides the soul being fictional/supernatural?

Katra is the thing that survives death, so it's rather solidly in the religion/soul camp in that respect. Then again, it is a known quantity, so it's also in the reason/mind camp. Why build a fence in between?

If the soul exists, it literally can't be physical or made of actual matter or else we would have found it by now.

Nonsense. If science has taught us anything, it is that we still have a lot to learn. If there's a soul to be found, there's no specification or limitation on how, when and whether that will happen. It's like with dark matter, only worse, because there's no reason to believe a soul even exists.

I don't really understand this argument.

The transporter moves not just physical matter but everything, including the thing we currently call dark matter. Nothing indicates our Trek heroes would understand dark matter. But like us, they must know the universe can't exist without dark matter - if it didn't ride along, the transporter would just spit out weird non-matter not out of this universe. What possible reason could there be for a soul to be less transportable than all the other things the transporter builders don't understand and don't take into account?

It's like arguing that souls must be left behind when people walk around. This assumes silly things about the nature of souls, and goes against our one and only criterion for them - that they work the way we wish them to work.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Draculasaurus]

I figure the transporter uses some special field to relax the bond between your molecules and then essentially pours you down a straw (confinement beam) to the planet where they just all snap back into place.
No death, just a squeeze.

 

[Idran]

What other distinction is there besides the soul being fictional/supernatural?

That is the distinction. The soul is dualistic, the mind is not. The mind is just the software running on some sort of strata, the soul is some other spiritual concept somehow associated with consciousness. It's not a question of discovering it or not, because if the soul exists, it exists in a manner such that it doesn't need to be discoverable.

The transporter moves not just physical matter but everything, including the thing we currently call dark matter.

Based on what? Dark matter doesn't interact with baryonic matter by definition, it's not like it's necessary for life processes or anything. It's not even detectable except gravitationally. And I am saying that even if it did transport only baryonic matter, it wouldn't somehow abandon the soul, because the soul is by definition something immaterial and Other, and it isn't somehow physically associated with the body.

I mean, you're arguing against a conclusion I'm not making. You're arguing as though I'm saying the transporter would disconnect body from soul. If you're going to argue with me, then argue against what I'm actually saying: that the transporter doesn't need to move the soul, because if the soul exists, it exists in a manner such that it doesn't need to physically travel with the material body. I'm not doing this ridiculous "god in the gaps", "MAYBE SCIENCE CAN PROVE RELIGION SOMEDAY" thing.

Edit: You know what this is? It's another definition clash, because of not defining terms.

When you say soul, you seem to mean "some not yet discovered phenomenon that happens to coincide with many of the properties ascribed to souls by various religious beliefs".

When I say soul, I mean "a spirit or ephemera beyond the constraints of the physical universe that is the essence of being". I'm referring to the actual theological concept itself. I'm saying that if some religion in reality happens to be 100% right about the nature of the soul, in both observed properties and spiritual aspects, then there is still no a priori reason why a transporter would separate such a thing from the body, any more than (to use your example) a reason why walking around would do so.

 

[uniderth]

You don't need continuity of consciousness to stay yourself, though. Your consciousness literally shuts down for measurable lengths of time while you're asleep.

Well I was using the term consciousness in the context of the entirety and brain function. While parts of your mind may change states while sleeping you aren't being turned off. Your entire brain isn't shutting down and rebooting. The only state we know of where the entirety of brain function is terminated is death. And even death is a process, not a simple on/off state.

Its hard to define what "you" is. The only way to really know is subjective observation. I know I'm me. But if my brain was completely such off and turned back on you might think I'm me. But only I can tell if I'm really me.