It's true that you can't really have two originals and that the duplicate Rikers and Kims are distinct individuals after the point of divergence. My point was simply that there is a common point of divergence and that each version comes from exactly the same background. Neither one can lay claim to being the one, true version of the person. The anomaly that makes it possible cannot be explained; we just accept that the results are what the episode presents in that situation. The writers take great pains to present those cases as exceptional, so nothing much should be inferred about regular operations of the ship/universe from those episodes.
When a person is beamed up it's not the same person
- Thread starter ReadyAndWilling
- Start date
3D Master
Rear Admiral
I came up with it myself.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
So - the Rikers may be 1 original and 1 copy, but you can't tell who's the copy and that's all right?
I'm not convinced that's the case: Thomas Riker - ironically - seems to be the original (left at the beam-up point), and the Riker we watched until then (arrived at the beam down point) the copy.
Of course, it's also possible that they're both copies and the 'original' was killed during transport.
In any case, during 'normal' transporter procedures, you know exactly who the copy is - the person who materializes at the 'beam down' point. And the original died on the transporter platform.
This means that, strictly speaking, the original Picard, Data, etc were killed a long time ago, when they first used a transporter and we watched copies and copies of copies.
I agree that Trek Tech can map a person's electromagnetic brain impulses. The point I labour on is that that our brain impulses are not the whole person (chemical memory signatures and DNA are also required and these require matter and not simply energy). One can argue that the brain's electomagnetic impulses are preserved somehow in the matter stream but the the body they are re-inserted back must still be a duplicate. If this is enough to mean it isn't a total copy then that's fine by me but the body is a copy.
Daedalus is the only episode that formally touches on the 'copy' debate and even then I don't think that they put any effort into explaining it, they simply laugh it off don't they?
Yes this is the best theory I think. The act of dematerialisation can be like a dimensional shunt. You aren't being 'deconstructed' and turned into energy per se, but replaced with energy from a separate source as your body is phased out of our reality intact. However, without an intact pattern it isn't possible to re-introduce the matter back into our reality in the right order and if too much energy is lost from the anular confinement beam, you have insufficient energy to unphase the target in total.
ProtoAvatar, you seem to be starting from a conclusion and trying to make all the available evidence fit it rather than the other way around. The available evidence in that episode suggests a duplication from splitting, not copying. Just like you would not say that the "good" Kirk or "evil" Kirk from "The Enemy Within" is an original or a copy, those designations do not apply to Will or Thomas Riker. Copying would be something closer to the creation of the Kirk android in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" If it helps, think of the "Second Chances" case like The Prestige. The anomaly caused an effect similar to Tesla's device. Is the Riker who wanted beamout the man on the planet or the man on the starship? He's both.
The preponderance of evidence across the series and movies indicates that it is the same person in every way that matters that appears at the destination from the transporter site. How this is done is unknown; it's magical technology.
The preponderance of evidence across the series and movies indicates that it is the same person in every way that matters that appears at the destination from the transporter site. How this is done is unknown; it's magical technology.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Smiley
About the Rikers:
Your definition of a 'copy' is limited, incomplete.
Assume you have 2 dvds.
One is inscripted with a program - 0s and 1s.
The other is blank, until you burn the same program, the same 0s and 1s on it, making no mistake.
Now, you have 2 identical dvds - you hold one in each hand. One is the original, one is a copy (as in NOT the original you hold in the other hand.
You see, Smiley, it doesn't matter how perfect a copy is - it's still a copy!
You see, when you have two dvds/Rikers in a room, if one of them is the original, the other one is, by definition, a copy. What they can't be is two originals (because there was only one original dvd as there was only one original Riker who stepped on the transporter platform).
One Riker is the original and the other Riker a copy - meaning the transporter works by creating copies and - normally - killing the original (who can be retrieved alive).
And about the transporter:
What happens to a human body when it's stabbed in the chest?
It looses information - it's composed of the exact same elements as before, but they're not ordered like before.
How does a transporter work?
First, it scans one on the quantum level (heinsemberg compensators), storing this information in the pattern buffer.
In DS9: Our man Bashir, it was this information that filled all hard-drives of the station - computer memory stores information, it's not a capacitor that stores energy.
Second, the body is 'dematerialised', its matter turned into some unspecified form of energy.
What is known about this 'energy' is that it can't hold the information necessary to build a human - it degrades rapidly (evidence in practically any episode dealing with transporter malfunctions). This is why the body needs to be scanned in the first place, in order to preserve the information that 'defines' a person'.
Third, the body is rematerialised, using the information stored in the pattern buffers.
Attention - the 'energy' degraded to a level at which, if it is 'rematerialised' without using information from the pattern buffers, the body transported is dead (evidence in practically any episode dealing with transporter malfunctions). This body lost information, the person died, regardless if the copy is composed of the same atoms or not.
What is rematerialised is a copy of the person. And, in TNG: Second chances, it is shown how more than one copy can be created.
Trek may claim that the transporter doesn't kill the original and make a copy - but trek conistently described the transporter tech as doing just that.
You mentioned "The Prestige". An apt comparison for the transporter. The person who steps on the transporter platform is much like the illusionist who drowns - minus the unpleasantry of getting rid of the body, allowing the federates to think that no one dies during transport.
About the Rikers:
Your definition of a 'copy' is limited, incomplete.
Assume you have 2 dvds.
One is inscripted with a program - 0s and 1s.
The other is blank, until you burn the same program, the same 0s and 1s on it, making no mistake.
Now, you have 2 identical dvds - you hold one in each hand. One is the original, one is a copy (as in NOT the original you hold in the other hand.
You see, Smiley, it doesn't matter how perfect a copy is - it's still a copy!
You see, when you have two dvds/Rikers in a room, if one of them is the original, the other one is, by definition, a copy. What they can't be is two originals (because there was only one original dvd as there was only one original Riker who stepped on the transporter platform).
One Riker is the original and the other Riker a copy - meaning the transporter works by creating copies and - normally - killing the original (who can be retrieved alive).
And about the transporter:
What happens to a human body when it's stabbed in the chest?
It looses information - it's composed of the exact same elements as before, but they're not ordered like before.
How does a transporter work?
First, it scans one on the quantum level (heinsemberg compensators), storing this information in the pattern buffer.
In DS9: Our man Bashir, it was this information that filled all hard-drives of the station - computer memory stores information, it's not a capacitor that stores energy.
Second, the body is 'dematerialised', its matter turned into some unspecified form of energy.
What is known about this 'energy' is that it can't hold the information necessary to build a human - it degrades rapidly (evidence in practically any episode dealing with transporter malfunctions). This is why the body needs to be scanned in the first place, in order to preserve the information that 'defines' a person'.
Third, the body is rematerialised, using the information stored in the pattern buffers.
Attention - the 'energy' degraded to a level at which, if it is 'rematerialised' without using information from the pattern buffers, the body transported is dead (evidence in practically any episode dealing with transporter malfunctions). This body lost information, the person died, regardless if the copy is composed of the same atoms or not.
What is rematerialised is a copy of the person. And, in TNG: Second chances, it is shown how more than one copy can be created.
Trek may claim that the transporter doesn't kill the original and make a copy - but trek conistently described the transporter tech as doing just that.
You mentioned "The Prestige". An apt comparison for the transporter. The person who steps on the transporter platform is much like the illusionist who drowns - minus the unpleasantry of getting rid of the body, allowing the federates to think that no one dies during transport.
Last edited:
I think the confusion seems to be with this notion that a copy is something different from the original. All we are saying is that if the physical being is broken down from matter into energy then the physical being no longer exists as a physical being. When you re-form the matter you cannot rebuild the original because the act of turning it into energy has already destroyed it. Therefore what you are building is a new being based on the original pattern. You are using the same sub-atomic particles overall but you can't recreate what has already been destroyed. This is why displacing the matter and replacing it with energy from another source works and why dismantling the matter and turning it into energy doesn't work.
Good point. Trek seems to believe that an artificial copy is still the real person even though it is clearly still a copy. We see this several times across TOS, TNG, DS9, & Voyager. If Trek believes that these clear artificial copies are 'real' then it is no wonder that they consider the transporter copies to be 'real'.
I think I got a good metaphor for this: a glass of lemonade.
Now, if you pour the lemonade from one glass to another, we all agree it is the same lemonade. So forget the container, and let's use the term "glass of lemonade" to describe the contents.
If you take a sip, it is still the same glass of lemonade. It has changed a bit, but it is still the same lemonade (just less of it).
Now suppose you drank a little bit more, then added more lemonade to bring the level back up. We might agree that it was still the same glass of lemonade, though again obviously changed.
Now suppose I pour half the lemonade into each of two other glasses, then fill them both up.
Neither glass is a copy of the other, and in fact neither would be well described as a copy of anything. Both would have an equally valid claim to being the original, since we agreed that taking some out and refilling the glass did not make it stop being the original.
That would appear to be what had happened in the episode with Riker(s). The key is that the filling the glass back up is NOT something Starfleet knows how to do on purpose: it happened by accident, and a pretty freaky accident at that. Normally all you get is a couple of half-glassfulls of non-living goo. But somehow that didn't happen to Riker.
Not a perfect metaphor. Among other things, I can drink the whole glassful and then refill with new lemonade and I'll still have a tasty glass of lemonade, whereas if the transporter tries that you'll get a transporter pad covered in goo.
But it gives some clue as to how you can wind up with two identical objects where once there was one, and neither is a copy of the other nor are they both copies of the original, and both in fact have equal claim to being the original.
Proto:
I say tomato (tuh-mey-toh) you say tomato (tuh-mah-toh). So at first glance, your argument doesn't appear to be any more valid than mine. However, there is one clear difference that makes my argument stand out above yours and makes mine the more correct one each and every time.
SINCE THE CREATOR OF THE TRANSPORTER PROVEN THAT IT IS NOT A COPY MACHINE: THE TREK-VERSE HAS USED THE TRANSPORTER FOR OVER 200 YEARS AND IT HAS NOT DESCRIBED IT AS A MURDER / COPY YOU MACHINE IN ALL THAT TIME!!!
However, if that doesn't convince you, then please look the rest of my explanations here...
http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=4091381&postcount=265
But if it makes you feel better, I will put to rest your concerns.
Well concerning your "Loss of Information during a transport" argument:
You have actually defended my argument for me. When your pattern degrades you degrade, if your pattern dies, you die. Unless of course in certain cases: fresh new DNA (like in Unnatural Selection) can be used to refresh a person's original pattern. But this doesn't mean you are a copy. A copy would suggest that you are making a version that is no longer distinguishable to the original anymore. Sure you can argue semantics and say that it is still a copy. But that wouldn't be true. How can I know this? Well, Doctor Crusher says that there is no difference between the two Rikers. They are virtually identical to one another. Granted one had different experiences than the other. But that was after transport all those many years ago.
Let me put it to you another way. If I took both Rikers and put them under large paper cups and moved them around on a really large table or stage...
Would you be able to tell me which one was the original and which one was the copy?
No. You couldn't. Even Crusher couldn't tell the difference. And she has a 24th Century medical facility at her disposal.
So calling the other Riker an identical copy is not a valid description of what a real copy is if you can't tell one from the other (i.e. if there are two original versions of the same person).
I am not making a mistake. Star Trek tells me that your theory is not valid. So a more proper use of fanon is needed to explain the fictional device. But for the sake of argument: The information or data that was filling Deep Space Nine is energy. What? Do you think that the station's software (data) is made out of bread pudding? No it's made out of energy. Kirk said that you get converted into energy. And the fact of the matter is that you don't know that the patterns are not in fact alive. I say that they are alive. Because you cannot create a living person without a living pattern. This suggests that the energy is just waiting to be converted back to it's original indistinguishable living state.
Oh, and in addition, before you mentioned synthetic biology. Well, after looking at the article and thinking about it's meaning, the very term is false. I don't care what some Wiki article says. Someone made up that name and it is an entirely inaccurate use of the word. Scientists do not create life in any way. God created life. Man is simply manipulating the life that already exists. So that magical spark still exists. It is the human soul that makes every life unique and distinctive in this world. Still doubt that we have a soul? I would suggest doing a personal study on the issue before you completely dismiss it out of hand.
In fact, I used to be an atheist. So I know how you feel and where your coming from (if you don't believe).
Yes. I know you were. But you don't know for sure. We could live on as unconscious energy with our real body and mind being slightly in state of quantum flux. True. There is no evidence of this in Trek; then again, there is no concrete evidence that a transporter is a murdering copy machine, either.
But the fact my theory aligns with what Trek says about the transporter makes my argument more valid.
Actually, you have it backwards. The program you copied is more than likely copy right protected. So you would need a run around program to get past the copy right. So in this case there would be a difference between the original and the copy. If no such copy right protection exists for the program and you could create a flawless copy that is totally indistinguishable from the top experts in the field from the original cd produced in the factory, then you have created two originals or two versions of one program flawlessly. Sure you can call it a copy. And that term would be a bit more acceptable within those parameters. But usually most programs and movies (even home-made ones) use a different brand of media to put it on and such. Thus making them different from one another. But when we start to add in the human element into the equation, using such words to describe them as a copy is no longer appropriate. They are now living souls that can each take on unique and different lives from themselves (that can think and act independently). But at the core they are both one and the same and are originals (because of what they are).
Again, this losing of information argument proves nothing. My transporter pattern can still be living energy with my physical body anchored to a quantum flux reality. The pattern simply helps me bring that body and mind out of that state of flux.
Just because my pattern is degraded means nothing but the fact that some part of my living energy self during transport has been lost. Which would mean my body in flux or phase could be lost.
Which could be as living energy. Which is no more than a leap than your kill and be copied theory.
Wrong. Some type of software (i.e. energy) obviously runs through out the station. It is moronic to think that the computer doesn't store or run some type of energy based system.
But just because the body is scanned and transformed into energy and can degrade (if it remains in the buffer too long) doesn't mean that you are not living as energy. In fact, the proof that you come out living on the other side is evidence enough that your pattern is in fact alive. If your pattern was dead or degraded... you would be dead or degraded.
Yes. A person's body is re-materialized with information stored in the pattern buffers. But that very pattern must be alive. In other words, the transporter can only bring back the pattern it is given. It doesn't bring back a degraded or second rate copy. If that key code (or pattern) is lost, then that person cannot be brought out of phase or their energy living state (that has the physical instructions waiting to be reverted back).
Again, this was a special case. But two originals still does not mean that one is less real or a copy of the other.
It could look that way at first glance. But with a little imagination (whether it sounds fictional or not), there are two workable solutions that fit the working of the transporter as it was intended.
Last edited:
What?
To what copies do you refer?
Pauln6:
I do like this theory. It took a bit for it to grow on me. But it could work this way (despite it's similarities to the dimensional transporter that was harmful to humans in TNG). But it appears to be slightly different enough, though (when you take into account that the body is being phased and what not).
I also still like my living (unconscious) energy being state (with your physical instructions imbedded into your being (sort of like instructions for a caterpillar to change into a butterfly), too.
For me: both these theories are a relatively sound explanation for the operation of the transporter.
But the theory that the transporter is a "kill / copy machine" is just ridiculous.
Oh, and as for the time line argument:
What if someone from a parallel separate time line or universe (who is identical to you physically in every way) met up with you? Are you both copies then? No. You are both identical originals.
What if someone from a parallel separate time line or universe (who is identical to you physically in every way) met up with you? Are you both copies then? No. You are both identical originals.
M
Marth22
Guest
With real science it is not possible, but if it were I think a copy would not be able to have same memory, it would have to be with same molecules
Our memories are chemically encoded onto our brains (like movies on a disc) and we can access them through bio-electrical impulses that leap between neural connectors (like a laser reading that disc). As such, memory is a physical thing that is part of our physical brains. I agree that you can preserve these memories in energy format and I agree that you can re-create them by simply reproducing the chemical signatures in the brain that you re-materialise.
What I find harder to explain is why anybody can think that the memories encoded into an energy form are anything other than copies of the original memories. The original memories can't exist because they are physical chemical signatures. This is exactly how computers transfer information when you cut and paste a file from one PC to another. It isn't the original file; it just looks exactly like the original and you treat it exactly like the original, but it's a copy.
You're not so much standing still in the warp bubble as the bubble is centered on the ship (actual the the engines), how ever the ship moves or is moving the warp field also moves, the field can't move independently. In terms of the ship stopping, in reference to what? The Earth revolves around the sun at sixty-seven thousand miles per hour, the sun moves at five hundred and fifty-nine thousand, our galaxy at six hundred and seventy thousand.
You step onto the transporter. The process creates either a field of vibration or a eletricified field that cause your molecules to separate. Think of a low energy plasma or a gas (the suspended energy state). The technology prevents the gas from being a random swirl, the molecules are in normal position and motion. This separation does not stop movements or interactions within the "body." When the field is deactivated, the gas collapses back into a corporeal form. For travel, the gas moves through a subspace conduit (the matter stream) to the destination.
I'm not completely happy with this theory, but it does match some of what we've heard/seen on screen while still allowing for the actual original body to be delivered to the destination and permitting the survival of the individual personality.
It's a work in progress.
I don't seem to need much sleep.
More eletro-chemical. Nerves are fairly short, in between the nerve endings the gaps are bridged with a short squirt of chemical, then a zap of electricity moves to the next gap. So zap-squirt-zap squirt-zap-squirt-zap squirt.
Not really, energy comes in a few different basic forms.
Less loses information, as the information changes as the body changes shape owing to the alteration caused by the stabbing. What exactly is lost?
This upset Kirk. Why? The men he was beaming down were dead anyway, now the new men, the copies, they were also dead. Is this why Kirk was upset, because he lost the use of his "Replicants?"
What are Little Girls Made of (Korby)
The Motion Picture (Ilia - Decker is still in love with her even though she is a mechanism with duplicated memories - oo-er)
The Schizoid Man
Our Man Bashir
The EMH
The EMH is a very good exampe of a program (i.e. copy) based on a person that gave the appearance of being real but is still just a program. The EMH is not a copy of a person but a set of commands to make him appear to act like a person. We the viewer are encouraged to think of him as a person but the amount of memory required for a whole person to be copied in this form would be too huge. If a whole person was copied in an electonic format, they would not be the person - the electronic format would have to add information and programming to make the artifical form appear to function like a person - they are a copy.
But this is your attitude to 'replicants' not Kirk's. If in the 24th century clones have full rights once complete (DS9) and they consider these transporter replicants to be the 'real' people then of course he would be upset. We need to separate our attitudes from their futuristic attitudes and focus on the way they demonstrate the science on screen.
TG:
You raise a good point. If you are in fact a copy from the transporter, then why isn't your pattern saved in the buffer as a back up during transport?
Oh, and I know it has nothing to do with pattern degradation either. I mean, patterns do degrade if they remain in the buffer for too long. But patterns have also been saved or suspended in the buffer (within a span of minutes), too. So it wouldn't be all that hard to create a secondary back up or retain the copy still when the person re-materializes at the other end for a few more seconds (if indeed a person was a savable copy that you can simply just duplicate again).
In fact, I believe that pattern degradation or whenever a person is lost during transport is proof that the transporter is not some kind of kill and be copied machine. Otherwise the Federation would duplicate the entire patterns of the most important people within the Federation then.
The transporter being a copy machine suggests that it can make a copy more than once under normal conditions. If something can be copied once, it should be able to be copied again. "Second Chances" being the exception of course because it was a freakish and rare incident (that is not the normal operation of the transporter).
Last edited:
Similar threads
