Transporters might be cloning machines not true transporters

[Crazy Eddie]

Let me pose this thought experiment to better explain what I'm getting at.

You go into a booth which scans you. And then in another booth, you are replicated down to the sub-atomic level and beyond. Now in this situation it is very clear that you are the original person and are the continuation of the original consciousness. But it is also quite clear that the new being that is just created is a duplicate and not the "real" you. This other being is simply a "perfect clone", not just in DNA but in every atomic and sub-atomic arrangement of its being at the point of creation.

Semantics. When Jim goes through the booth, Jim's clone--call him Jim2--is "the real Jim." He is as much Jim as Jim1, and both of them are 100% Jim. Jim2 and Jim1 are BOTH "the real Jim."

The thing is, uniqueness is not an intrinsic property of existence. It is a consequence of the way human beings come to exist and the characteristics that define our identities. If that situation were to change, we would rapidly discover the painful truth that our uniqueness is quite accidental, and it is all the more illusory if a method exists to create complete human beings without all the time-consuming work of personality/character building.

Other than that this scan is "destructive", how is it fundamentally different?

It's not. Jim1 and Jim2 are both 100% Jim, and both are equally "the real Jim" in every way that matters. That Jim0 was vaporized at the moment of creation doesn't change the properties of Jim1 and Jim2, nor would it change the properties of, say, Jim3 and Jim4 when they are created a week later from a backup copy leftover from the original scan.

 

[Da'an]

When you move a file on your computer from one folder to another folder, what actually happens physically (or the software equivalent) to the file and the data in the file?

 

[kv1at3485]

When you move a file on your computer from one folder to another folder, what actually happens physically (or the software equivalent) to the file and the data in the file?

The directory the file is being moved to gains a pointer to the location of the file data. The directory the file is being moved from has the pointer removed. File data doesn't move physically. Unless you are moving the file to a directory on another physical drive, then the file data does have to be physically moved.

Or something like that. Things may be different depending on the file system used.

Things are a bit different if the file is being copied, opposed to just being moved.

 

[polyharmonic]

It's not. Jim1 and Jim2 are both 100% Jim, and both are equally "the real Jim" in every way that matters. That Jim0 was vaporized at the moment of creation doesn't change the properties of Jim1 and Jim2, nor would it change the properties of, say, Jim3 and Jim4 when they are created a week later from a backup copy leftover from the original scan.

Not quite. From the POV of Jim0, he no longer has a POV because he is dead. Whether Jim1 is just as real as Jim0 as far as everyone else is concerned doesn't change the fact the Jim0 now experiences death and nothingness. So from Jim0's POV, Jim1 is NOT real in the way that matters the most to him, which is for Jim0 to continue being Jim.

And if people understood that they aren't actually being transported but "cloned" and killed in the process, I imagine the vast majority of people wouldn't use it.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It's not. Jim1 and Jim2 are both 100% Jim, and both are equally "the real Jim" in every way that matters. That Jim0 was vaporized at the moment of creation doesn't change the properties of Jim1 and Jim2, nor would it change the properties of, say, Jim3 and Jim4 when they are created a week later from a backup copy leftover from the original scan.

Not quite. From the POV of Jim0, he no longer has a POV because he is dead.

Sucks for Jim0, but irrelevant for Jim1 and Jim2; the pov of a being or beings accurately called "jim" has been preserved. One iteration of Jim has been suspended, but two others still exist.

I repeat: all three Jims are distinct individuals, but at the instant of their creation, they are identical to Jim0. For all intents and purposes they are indeed Jim, but different iterations of Jim still have separate existences despite the fact that they are Jim.

Or let's put this another way to make it easier to understand. You have one Human. You then copy this human's DNA and scan it into a computer. You then re-sequence the DNA of a fertilized gerbil egg and place it in a Borg maturation chamber and VOILA! You have a human, identical to the human you cloned. This clone, though created artificially, is still a human in every meaningful sense. Why? Because it has a full human genotype and a full human phenotype: all the characteristics that make a meaningful definition of "human."

In Jim's case, what you have copied is basically a "memotype," that is the full set of mental/psychological/memetic data that makes "Jim" the person he is. As "Jim" evolves in his life, that basic structure changes slightly, just as a cloned human's offspring will have different traits of the original (even if they both marry the same woman; genetic roll of the dice).

Try wrapping your brain around this: at the moment, human identity is singular; that is to say, there is usually only one of each of us. There is no logical reason why this MUST be the case; just because we're used to the idea that there is only one "Jim" doesn't mean that "Jim" may not also describe an entire CLASS of individuals all incredibly similar to Jim. Consider, for example, that while there is only one Enterprise, there are several Constitution class ships in the fleet.

Whether Jim1 is just as real as Jim0 as far as everyone else is concerned doesn't change the fact the Jim0 now experiences death and nothingness. So from Jim0's POV...

Jim0 no longer has a pov if he is dead, so that's a non-starter. OTOH, if Jim0 is still alive, it remains the fact that his pov is just as valid as Jim1s, because they are both "Jim." BECAUSE they are both Jim, both of them believe they have just experienced the act of scanning and duplication, and both of them are literally correct. What differs is their point of view AFTER duplication; then and only then do their povs diverge.

Jim1 is NOT real in the way that matters the most to him, which is for Jim0 to continue being Jim.

But the same goes in reverse: Jim1 ALSO continues being Jim, because he has his own pov in which Jim0--who he is looking at--isn't as "real" as he is. Only the self is completely real from any particular point of view, and unless Jim1 is a holographic simulation on a disk somewhere, both povs are equally valid.

And if people understood that they aren't actually being transported but "cloned" and killed in the process, I imagine the vast majority of people wouldn't use it.

Transporters don't work that way, so it's a non-issue. OTOH, if the transporter really was a cloning device, you better believe it would be used ALOT of different ways, particularly in espionage and intelligence gathering, not to mention--maybe in the most important case--the replication and mass production of Data as per Commander Maddox's wet dreams. Transporter-as-cloning device just isn't consistent with how they're used, and more importantly, how they're NOT used; such a device would render death fundamentally obsolete and would have extremely disruptive implications for the very notion of identity and individuality that would make episodes like "The Masterpiece Society" fatuous at best.

 

[polyharmonic]

And if people understood that they aren't actually being transported but "cloned" and killed in the process, I imagine the vast majority of people wouldn't use it.

Transporters don't work that way, so it's a non-issue. OTOH, if the transporter really was a cloning device, you better believe it would be used ALOT of different ways, particularly in espionage and intelligence gathering, not to mention--maybe in the most important case--the replication and mass production of Data as per Commander Maddox's wet dreams. Transporter-as-cloning device just isn't consistent with how they're used, and more importantly, how they're NOT used; such a device would render death fundamentally obsolete and would have extremely disruptive implications for the very notion of identity and individuality that would make episodes like "The Masterpiece Society" fatuous at best.

I am not claiming that the transporter NECESSARILY works in this way (as a machine that scans the original person while dematerializing him and killing him and creating a new perfect clone), I am merely pointing out that it could POSSIBLY work this way. The only episode that contradicts this theory is when Reginald Barclay goes through transportation and is conscious and aware the whole time (like us going in an elevator IRL). So there was no point in time where he was unconscious. I had forgotten about that episode but let's say it didn't exist.

If we disregard that episode then it is certainly POSSIBLE that a person coming out of transport is in fact a new person in the same way a clone is a new person and that you yourself actually died. There are certainly many OTHER episodes as well as novels and comics which suggest that the transporter actually works in the manner I describe (consider Kirk splitting, Tuvix, etc). That is to say it scans the person, stores all the data in the transport buffer and then replicates the person anew from the sub-atomic blueprint.

Now many people have pointed out that in "practical" terms in doesn't matter. Except once again it matters to the actual "self" that is being killed in the process who is dead. Again IF for the sake of argument, that the transporter MIGHT work the way that I suggest, would most people still use it? I would gather that most would not regardless of arguments about how the clone will continue being you even though you yourself died.

 

[polyharmonic]

The fact that your clone/duplicate would carry on in your stead doesn't change the fact that you yourself DIED.

But why should you care? It worked all right for Unca Bob, and when you yourself tried it, you noticed no difference between before and after. It would be no different from going to sleep and waking up: an argument could be made that you died in between, but you'd dismiss that argument because it has no practical consequences. And if a bunch of engineers argued that you die in a transporter, this argument would probably be just as difficult for the layman to follow or believe as the argument that you die when you fall asleep.

Timo Saloniemi

Let's imagine that in our future history, we develop a method of cloning a person, then aging that person to be the same age as you are now, performing surgery or other treatments to match the current condition of you body due to exercise, injury, etc and then implanting all your memories into that other person. But in the process of extracting your memories, it could only be done by removing your brain, dissecting it to scan it and clearly killing you. Then a week later or so, your memories would be "downloaded" into this clone at some other location a great distance away and he is "awakened" to take over as you in that other location.

In this example of "transport", would it not be clear to MOST people that you are actually being killed? In this example of primitive "transport" would you agree that MOST people would resist unless they were willing to self-sacrifice due to extreme need? To the people that are seeing this new YOU, would it not be obvious to them that it is not the original you but a clone?

If the above example is so easy to understand, why would it be difficult for the layman to understand that the Startrek style transporters are operating in the same way except just at a more detailed sophisticated level? That is that they are doing fundamentally the same thing except at the sub-atomic level and with greater detail so that not only are memories copied but also tissue damage, injury, etc in a more exacting perfect way than with surgery or other treatments of the clone in the "primitive method of transport" I described earlier?

If such a transporter somehow existed tomorrow and someone claimed that its merely cloning you (in a perfect way) but killing you in the process, I really don't see how this concept is that hard to understand for the layman. And if the layman saw this as a POSSIBILITY how many would be willing to transport themselves?

 

[polyharmonic]

We've seen the process take place from the POV of the person being transported (Barclay) and they obviously didn't die...

There are also other episodes though that clearly contradict this such as splitting of Kirk, Tuvix, Tom Riker, etc. As someone said Star Trek hasn't treated transportation consistently. For the sake of a more interesting discussion, let's pretend that the Barclay episode didn't exist.

Consider Tuvix example. Two consciousness were clearly killed and created a totally new being Tuvix. Tuvix clearly could not have experienced what Barclay experienced because Tuvix is clearly clearly a whole new consciousness clearly distinct from Tuvok and Neelix. If anything Tuvix shows that transport works in the manner of scanning individuals, storing all their data, then replicating it. In Tuvix case, the data was simply scrambled together.

In fact Tuvix, not the Tom/Will Riker episode is a great example of what I am talking about. Is Tuvix not a whole new individual and whole new consciousness? Of course and in this case it is obvious and undeniable! But when Janeway in the end restores Tuvok and Neelix, why could these people not be new creations just like Tuvix is clearly a new creation rather than continuations of Tuvok and Neelix pre-accident? That is Tuvok and Neelix are clones of the original Tuvok and Neelix with new consciousnesses just as Tuvix himself clearly was a new consciousness.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

And if people understood that they aren't actually being transported but "cloned" and killed in the process, I imagine the vast majority of people wouldn't use it.

Transporters don't work that way, so it's a non-issue. OTOH, if the transporter really was a cloning device, you better believe it would be used ALOT of different ways, particularly in espionage and intelligence gathering, not to mention--maybe in the most important case--the replication and mass production of Data as per Commander Maddox's wet dreams. Transporter-as-cloning device just isn't consistent with how they're used, and more importantly, how they're NOT used; such a device would render death fundamentally obsolete and would have extremely disruptive implications for the very notion of identity and individuality that would make episodes like "The Masterpiece Society" fatuous at best.

I am not claiming that the transporter NECESSARILY works in this way (as a machine that scans the original person while dematerializing him and killing him and creating a new perfect clone), I am merely pointing out that it could POSSIBLY work this way.

Of course it would, just not INTENTIONALLY, and no one knows how to use transporters this way. If they did, there are plenty of narcissists, terrorists, criminals, revolutionaries and spies who would have done it by now. It has already been firmly established in ENT and other places that you cannot replicate a LIVING body--let alone an actual person--and therefore some kind of environmental anomaly/plot device must be present first.

Again IF for the sake of argument, that the transporter MIGHT work the way that I suggest, would most people still use it?

Of course they would. But in that case, they wouldn't call it a "transporter" and they wouldn't use it as a means of transportation. It would simply be a giant replicator, and it would be regularly used for that purpose, replicating everything from food and fuel to dead crewmembers and POWs.

 

[Captain Fine]

First off the use of the word "clone" in this context is just completely off. Thomas Riker was in no way, shape, or form a clone whatsoever. What you want to call him is up for debate (a duplicate, a copy, whatever), but he is definitely not a clone.

It does bring up an interesting point about whether a soul can be duplicated in such a manner, but it really depends on whether you believe in a "soul" or not.

William and Thomas are the same person. Really, they're like the Prime Timeline and the JJ timeline. Both are valid, but they diverged at a single point.

 

[timelord1010]

Then how do you explain such freakish transporter accidents like Tuvix, where two people are fused into one with shared memories, or Captain Kirk split into a good Kirk and morally absent Kirk?

I'll be riding the shuttle with Leonard McCoy or maybe the dimensional shift that the rebels used to kidnap Dr. Crusher and attack the Enterprise-D.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Then how do you explain such freakish transporter accidents like Tuvix, where two people are fused into one with shared memories, or Captain Kirk split into a good Kirk and morally absent Kirk?

As exactly that: freak accidents that combine the workings of transporters with something they are totally NOT designed to do through the addition of some kind of one-time-only environmental phenomenon. What gets glossed over is the fact that nine times out of ten these kinds of accidents result in the transported person DYING HORRIBLY without any kind of splitting/combining/copying going on; in essence, under any normal circumstances Neelix and Tuvok would have both died in agony, one materialized halfway inside of the other with their internal organs hemorrhaging all over the place. The only reason they were combined so neatly was a pure fluke of luck; that they were able to be separated again is just another vacuous application of the Great Voyager Reset Button.

 

[ShinRa Actual]

Just to throw out a reference, the novel Federation brings this concept up, which has a fellow who's not familiar with 'modern' treknology told that he was beamed on the ship; His initial reaction is panic, because he thinks the 'real' him was killed, and he's just a copy, but the helpful ensign explains that he's still the real person, and that the original person was transported, not copied. My memory may be off, but the explanation given was something along the lines of a Transported disassembling an object (or person) at the [really small] level, shunting it through subspace or quantum tunneling or whatever, and then reassembling the original molecules or whatnot.

 

[Captain Fine]

Just to throw out a reference, the novel Federation brings this concept up, which has a fellow who's not familiar with 'modern' treknology told that he was beamed on the ship; His initial reaction is panic, because he thinks the 'real' him was killed, and he's just a copy, but the helpful ensign explains that he's still the real person, and that the original person was transported, not copied. My memory may be off, but the explanation given was something along the lines of a Transported disassembling an object (or person) at the [really small] level, shunting it through subspace or quantum tunneling or whatever, and then reassembling the original molecules or whatnot.

That explanation is going to calm someone down?
I think it's best left undiscussed, because if you think about it, you'll freak out about it as much as McCoy does.

 

[Longinus]

Transportation theory has always been a bit... wobbly in Trek, like their handling of time travel. A couple of episodes of TOS and the TNG episode with Thomas Riker clearly show individuals literally created out of "new" matter. Some technical jargon in other episodes suggest it's a person's own matter that is disassembled, sent through the beam, and then reconstructed at the other end. There is a critical difference.

Look, if the matter is taken apart on atomic or subatomic level, perhaps even converted to pure energy, what bloody difference does it make were those specific electrons and what not part of the original you?

But anyhow, I believe that transporter works by transferring a quantum state of the matter, and as I do not understand heads or tails about quantum mechanics, it is perfectly satisfactory explanation for me.