Teleportation

[Pesto]

And then I explained my rationale:

Atoms are indistinguishible from one another. Any carbon atom* is the same as any other one. This is a fact.

It doesn't matter which atoms you're made out of, just how they're arranged.

*Sure there's isotopes, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Please stop going in circles. Do you want to discuss this or not?

I'm not going in circles. I gave you a scenario which calls your definition into question and you simply repeated your assertion.

If we were to take a vase in Boise and construct a "completely indistinguishable" vase, atom for atom, in Tucson, that would be manufacturing a copy.

Yes or no? If not, why not?

[daoist]

Are you identical to the person you were yesterday?

[Talenos]

Good avoidence strategy.

[daoist]

it's simple:

If you're going to say that having physically different atoms makes the vases different vases, then you also are stuck saying that moment to moment we become different people. Every time you inhale and exhale you lose some atoms that were part of you, and gain some that weren't.

So which is it? Do we die each and every single moment we exist (since we stop being us, it's the same as dying, right? Same as being deconstructed atom-by-atom, right?) -Or- is your concept of being and existence wrong?

[Pesto]

Good avoidence strategy.

Daoist: Answer my question, they we'll talk.

[PaulMuaDib]

okay skip the vase. if we made an identical copy of you, just across the globe, which is the original? if i stab you here, and your identical copy in vietnam is unharmed, is it murder or did i just teleport you to vietnam?

[daoist]

Good avoidence strategy.

Daoist: Answer my question, they we'll talk.

I did.

[Pesto]

Good avoidence strategy.

Daoist: Answer my question, they we'll talk.

I did.

Judges?

[PaulMuaDib]

Good avoidence strategy.

Daoist: Answer my question, they we'll talk.

I did.

Judges?

not really. he keeps repeating that since we can't differnentiate between atoms of the same kind (true) then two groups of the same types of atom arranged in identical ways would be exactly the same thing. which while true, dao isn't going into any of the metaphysical bullshit that it seems you want to go. dao needs to just explain himself further along the metaphysical lines to "answer" the question.

[daoist]

Do we die each and every single moment we exist (since we stop being us, it's the same as dying, right? Same as being deconstructed atom-by-atom, right?) -Or- is your concept of being and existence wrong?

Pesto is on the horns of a dilemma. The burden is up to him to either show the dilemma untenable, or to answer it.

[daoist]

Here's another thought-experiment.

What if we deconstructed you, packed all your atoms into a box with some instructions (Tab A, slot B, etc) and shipped the box to Walla Walla, and you were reassembled ikea-style?

This is your exact individual atoms being reassembled. Would you agree that this is not a copy of you?

What if I fucked up the instructions and some of the carbon atoms that were in your head and feet were accidentally swapped (but the molecules and everything work out just fine), are you still you, or are you now a copy?

[Pesto]

Good avoidence strategy.

Daoist: Answer my question, they we'll talk.

I did.

Judges?

not really. he keeps repeating that since we can't differnentiate between atoms of the same kind (true) then two groups of the same types of atom arranged in identical ways would be exactly the same thing. which while true, dao isn't going into any of the metaphysical bullshit that it seems you want to go. dao needs to just explain himself further along the metaphysical lines to "answer" the question.

I don't believe I've made any references to metaphysics.

[daoist]

metaphysics is the entire issue.

[Reagraham Lincool]

copy:

int a;
int b;

b = a;

teleport:

int a;
int b;

&b = &a;

Get it?

[themadninja]

ok, but WHY?

[MarcusAurelius]

odds of there being more than a couple bigger trekkies than myself on here are slim; that said, dumbest thread ever.

[Reagraham Lincool]

If I copy something, and then destroy the copy, the original is not also destroyed. Why not? Because the copy and the original are not the same thing, even if composed of indistinguishable (in terms of composition) parts.

Objects have properties other than their compositions which distinguish them.

[daoist]

but the notion of "original" and "copy" are man-made. They're metaphysical constructs.

[themadninja]

If I copy something, and then destroy the copy, the original is not also destroyed. Why not? Because the copy and the original are not the same thing, even if composed of identcal parts. Objects have properties other than their compositions which distinguish them.

ok... we all understand the idea that there's an "original" and a "copy" and one isn't the same as the other.

But that's boring. The interesting question is, IS there really a fundamental difference between the two, specifically when we're talking about a human, and does that difference matter? If I make an exact copy of someone, atom for atom, put both of them behind a curtain so you can't see which is which, and have you shoot one of them, does it matter whether it was the original that died? If they're so identical that you can't determine which was the original, I can just tell you that you killed the copy, and you'd never know if it was a lie. So does it matter, in the end?

[Reagraham Lincool]

If I copy something, and then destroy the copy, the original is not also destroyed. Why not? Because the copy and the original are not the same thing, even if composed of identcal parts. Objects have properties other than their compositions which distinguish them.

ok... we all understand the idea that there's an "original" and a "copy" and one isn't the same as the other.

But that's boring. The interesting question is, IS there really a fundamental difference between the two, specifically when we're talking about a human, and does that difference matter? If I make an exact copy of someone, atom for atom, put both of them behind a curtain so you can't see which is which, and have you shoot one of them, does it matter whether it was the original that died? If they're so identical that you can't determine which was the original, I can just tell you that you killed the copy, and you'd never know if it was a lie. So does it matter, in the end?

Well it's certainly going to matter to the one being shot...

[Pesto]

If I copy something, and then destroy the copy, the original is not also destroyed. Why not? Because the copy and the original are not the same thing, even if composed of identcal parts. Objects have properties other than their compositions which distinguish them.

ok... we all understand the idea that there's an "original" and a "copy" and one isn't the same as the other.

But that's boring. The interesting question is, IS there really a fundamental difference between the two, specifically when we're talking about a human, and does that difference matter? If I make an exact copy of someone, atom for atom, put both of them behind a curtain so you can't see which is which, and have you shoot one of them, does it matter whether it was the original that died? If they're so identical that you can't determine which was the original, I can just tell you that you killed the copy, and you'd never know if it was a lie. So does it matter, in the end?

[logical argument a la daoist]
Yes it does.
[/logical argument a la daoist]

Wow! Holy crap that was easy! Look at how I demolished your position.

[themadninja]

this thread is pretty dead, huh?

[Pesto]

Yep.

[MarcusAurelius]

if you are physically teleporting the actual atoms making up the body, moving them to a new location and reassembling, it is the same person. just like moving around, just much farther.

if you break apart a body and send the data of the atoms, and rebuild the body with atoms already present at the destination, you are not actually transporting, but copying. because you can turn 1 body into 50. in order to teleport an original human you must be unable to make two.

in star trek technology, the actual molecules are being broken apart and sent to their destinations and reassembled. nothing is being "duplicated". pattern buffers control the molecules being beamed through subspace. don't make me cite a bunch of episodes, because i can and it'd be embarassing.

[Reagraham Lincool]

this thread is pretty dead, huh?

I guess I don't understand the debate. Yes, destroying the copy at one end is murder because compositional identity is insufficient to make two things the same.

[Pesto]

if you are physically teleporting the actual atoms making up the body, moving them to a new location and reassembling, it is the same person. just like moving around, just much farther.

if you break apart a body and send the data of the atoms, and rebuild the body with atoms already present at the destination, you are not actually transporting, but copying. because you can turn 1 body into 50. in order to teleport an original human you must be unable to make two.

in star trek technology, the actual molecules are being broken apart and sent to their destinations and reassembled. nothing is being "duplicated". pattern buffers control the molecules being beamed through subspace. don't make me cite a bunch of episodes, because i can and it'd be embarassing.

What about the two Rykers?

[MarcusAurelius]

What about the two Rykers?

trumped, you son of a bitch...

so star trek is inconsistent, gimme a break. but touche.

[daoist]

[logical argument a la daoist]
Yes it does.
[/logical argument a la daoist]

Wow! Holy crap that was easy! Look at how I demolished your position.

Stop being a douchebag. Go back and RTFT. I gave reasons.

[Talenos]

Kill my clone if it will save me from a 4 hour car drive.

[Pesto]

[logical argument a la daoist]
Yes it does.
[/logical argument a la daoist]

Wow! Holy crap that was easy! Look at how I demolished your position.

Stop being a douchebag. Go back and RTFT. I gave reasons.

Okay. I did. No, you didin't.

Why don't you take a bit of your own advice and point out to me where you actually answered this question.

If we were to take a vase in Boise and construct a "completely indistinguishable" vase, atom for atom, in Tucson, that would be manufacturing a copy.

Yes or no? If not, why not?

[Pesto]

Not sure if this was posted the first time around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc

[GPCR]

Good to know Sherm was an imbecile as far back as 2006.

[MarcusAurelius]

i can't believe toilet hanako tried to start a serious thread on the ramifications of teleporters while presumably over the age of 18.

[Uncle Sherm]

Good to know Sherm was an imbecile as far back as 2006.

Go stone an adulturous woman, orc.

[THW]

Science magazine breakthrough of the year

http://www.kurzweilai.net/sciences-brea ... um-machine

[Mr. F]

Genes used to get all the glory. Now, however, researchers recognize that these protein-coding regions of the genome account for just 1.5 percent of the whole. The rest of the genome, including small coding and non-coding RNAs—previously written off as “junk”—is proving to be just as important as the genes.

Tangent: I hate when people repeat this story.
http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2 ... st-series/
http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2 ... -junk-dna/
(TL/DR: We've known for decades that some non-coding regions of DNA have function. The term "junk DNA" was not used to propose that all non-coding DNA is non-functional.)

[Gretyl]

That's a whole 'nother science!

[Uncle Sherm]

Genes used to get all the glory. Now, however, researchers recognize that these protein-coding regions of the genome account for just 1.5 percent of the whole. The rest of the genome, including small coding and non-coding RNAs—previously written off as “junk”—is proving to be just as important as the genes.

Tangent: I hate when people repeat this story.
http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2 ... st-series/
http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2 ... -junk-dna/
(TL/DR: We've known for decades that some non-coding regions of DNA have function. The term "junk DNA" was not used to propose that all non-coding DNA is non-functional.)

Has anyone used this to argue the existence of an intelligent creator yet? That's seems to be a common requirement for all scientific advancement these days.

[GPCR]

wut?

[Reagraham Lincool]

I think he forgot the word "against."