The only other way that I've seen mentioned in literature is for the transporter to open a temporary mini wormhole between the two points and push you through it.
transporter army
- Thread starter soornge
- Start date
The only other way that I've seen mentioned in literature is for the transporter to open a temporary mini wormhole between the two points and push you through it.
No, it's not clear and it wasn't intended to destroy and recreate, although it may appear that way. I did some googling and found this thread.
http://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/13437/in-star-trek-does-the-original-die-in-teleportation
Someone even quoted the Star Trek Writers Technical Manual and it explains how the transporter works.
But to your credit, real life scientists believe that if a teleporter were really to be created, it would destroy the original and create a copy at a new location. The writers of the show just got it wrong.
Except all the times when it did.
Really, I like trying to understand and find logic in Trek technology (where this thread should be?) but in reality it does what the writers want it to do to fit the needs of the story. Which is how it should be really, I'd rather watch an entertaining episode than get bogged down by fictional limitations.
None of that matters. Canon trumps all of that stuff. And in the canon -- aka, the shows -- transporters most definitely destroy and create duplicates, and have the power to create multiple copies, de-age people, recreate people from a previous transport, and all other kinds of silliness along those lines.
Most people in the show just don't let it bother them, because in their heads, it's no different than buying a car, completely dismantling it, shipping the parts somewhere else, and then rebuilding it (even if you needed to replace/repair parts that were lost/broken during the shipping). It's still the same car, ergo, you're still the same person. Even if it/you were completely destroyed in the process. At no point does it mean it/you weren't destroyed in the process, however. Only that most people don't seem to care in this fictional universe.
It certainly explains why McCoy and those like him absolutely hated the idea, however.
Not to mention Honest Abe.
And the rock people.
No I'm still not convinced that it destroyed the original. I believe it is stated to be a matter/energy converter. Meaning it doesn't destroy the original and create another from new material. It converts the particles of the original to energy and that energy is converted back into the original particles at a different location.
So I don't think it's like a fax machine where it kills you and makes a copy. I think it works as stated that it takes you apart and puts you back together again.
Now it certainly can destroy and create copies as evidenced on screen. But that doesn't mean it does do that every time it is used.
So I don't think it's like a fax machine where it kills you and makes a copy. I think it works as stated that it takes you apart and puts you back together again.
Now it certainly can destroy and create copies as evidenced on screen. But that doesn't mean it does do that every time it is used.
But if it takes you apart then how does it know how to put you back together? It has to follow a blueprint of some kind otherwise all you have is matter, not living matter. So before it takes you apart it must make a complete recording of your molecular structure. If that recording is then used more than once then you end up with copies of yourself.
Agreed. Which accounts for the various copies we've seen. So yes, it can make copies. Yes, it can destroy originals. But it doesn't do that as normal operation.
The problem is that once you've been taken apart you're really dead. Because there's nothing of you but dead matter and a blueprint. That dead matter is not you because it lacks any structure so it no more you than a decomposed corpse and the blueprint is just information, it's not you either. So for all intents and purposes you are dead. What's put together later is just a copy.
I wont be able to recall all dialogue, but isn't that what the transporter pattern is? It's YOU in energy form. But this is where the topic turns philosophical. What makes you, you.
If I have highly advanced medical facilities and I chopped of your arms, legs, and head. Then while keeping the pieces alive I sent them one by one by truck to the other side of the country. Then put you back together again. It would be fairly easy to say that it is still YOU.
What if I did this at the cellular level. I took you apart cell by cell and put you back together again. Would you still be YOU or just a copy?
Since the cells in my body have been replaced over time. Maybe I'm just a altered copy of my younger self. Maybe my younger self ceased to exist and is dead, while I retain all his memories.
It's an excellent question. But I still maintain that the transporter as depicted transport the original person. While, it does also have the capability of destroying and duplicating.
thank you : very helpful sincerely
That's not what happens, once you've been dismantled at the atomic level it is impossible to tell say an atom of hydrogen from your foot, from one from your head. You can only build the body from scratch following the precise blueprint that you've previously recorded. So you've effectively killed the person and rebuilt a new one. The new person is only a copy of the original who's lost forever.
doesnt seem fair though great episode idea for someone attacking the ship kind of trouble with tribbles but with an edge
I've never understood why it wasn't Starfleet protocol to have weekly transporter-buffer scans stored on file so that in case of death, the matter can be beamed back into the most recently backed up transporter pattern. Real life save states!
The problem with immortality through the transporter would be the inability to retain your memory, right? Since your old brainwaves would be saved with your old pattern? It could definitely be used as a type of sleeper ship (ala scotty) or as a bootleg form of time travel (same concept) lol.
And they keep it that way because of the ethical side of the argument. It's in the old Making Of Star Trek. If science can't determine the existence of something like a soul (the argument as to whether it exists is a different area entirely to be honest) from an audience standpoint it's better to go with the approach Star Trek has always taken. Dark Matter uses consciousness transference to clones in a very similar way, but always transfers back to the original.
That ethical angle will always be there...its tied into identity and individual rights too much not to be. Trek may have to invent science to get round that, but it's absolutely right for it to do so....and before people can say 'it wouldn't work that way' remember, that implies there is a definitive answer to how it would work...and there really isn't. Partially because we have no where near the scientific knowledge needed, and after thousands of years, not even a philosophical concrete consensus.
The incidents of 'magic' with the transporters always start with a base of real science, and plausible made up science, then of course you throw in a mysterious energy field or substance of the week to get the result for the story you want to tell. But again, the reasons for that are sound....Thomas Riker for instance is both an exploration of exactly the concepts we are talking about here (which is the real you if you can be copied perfectly, what rights carry over?) but is more about the concept of how much does experience define who we are, or who we are define those experiences....and then a bit of 'if I could do it all over' and an exploration of the Riker and Troi characters.
All valid reasons for a mysterious energy field of the week, and we can accept the magic of gravity deck plating, warp drive and virtual life forms, then we can definitely get over transporter beams that don't kill you.
Similar threads
