The ethics of it are dubious because every time you see someone transport they are being literally killed in front of your eyes and a new copy created elsewhere.
They “nuh-uh’d” this in Enterprise. The inventor of the technology is introduced and basically says the people who propagate that theory are a constant thorn in his side, despite having no basis for it in the reality of that universe.
They also show people experiencing, and reacting to other things in, the matter streams during longer transports. Kind of hard to do if you’re dead.
They “nuh-uh’d” this in Enterprise. The inventor of the technology is introduced and basically says the people who propagate that theory are a constant thorn in his side, despite having no basis for it in the reality of that universe.
You’re welcome to believe the inventor if you wish, but I’d ask if you also believe the CEO of Boeing when he says their planes are safe…
They also show people experiencing, and reacting to other things in, the matter streams during longer transports. Kind of hard to do if you’re dead.
Yeah I can see why this’d be confusing. Keep in mind the transport process at the referenced time periods takes ~ 6 seconds. 3 to dematerialize, near instantaneous travel to the destination, and 3 to rematerialze. It is that part in the middle which makes it clear the person has died. Being conscious in the matter stream and hence thinking you’re the same person is the result of it being a near-perfect copy.
There are far more examples that refute the inventor:
Dr. Mbemba kept his daughter stored in a transporter buffer for months. She retained no memories of during her storage. Her brain and heart both stopped. This is clinical death by definition. Thus,
every time the transported are held within the buffer completely for any period of time (seconds while they disarm weapons, or decide what to do with them on screen) they are clearly dead and a floppy disk is being discussed.
Thomas Riker’s accident creating Wil’s duplicate. People are almost literally photocopies of a destroyed original by this example alone.
I think you give valid examples and make your point well.
However, another weird thought is perhaps we’re always slowly dying to some extent. For instance, you at age 7 is dead; today, yourself at age 7 cannot speak or act or think. For instance, in a situation where your young self may have tried to buy a toy, you have different wants and make different decisions - you cannot perfectly replicate what that past self would have wanted.
This might be true even of myself from five seconds ago - I hadn’t thought of a certain wording of this concept yet, and so might have worded it differently under different circumstances - that “me” is gone and can’t do anything. This could be true even a millisecond ago, or a duration approaching either an instant or perhaps one cycle based on whatever the “clock rate” (if there is such a thing) or the human brain is.
However, to function, we need a convenient abstraction for what life and death are. I think my definition of life would be when one particular sum of experiences permanently terminates its (mostly) granular evolution.
Thomas and Will Riker both evolved from the same sum of experiences of the original William T Riker; since those sums of experience are still evolving, he is, within our convenient definition, alive.
They “nuh-uh’d” this in Enterprise. The inventor of the technology is introduced and basically says the people who propagate that theory are a constant thorn in his side, despite having no basis for it in the reality of that universe.
They also show people experiencing, and reacting to other things in, the matter streams during longer transports. Kind of hard to do if you’re dead.
You’re welcome to believe the inventor if you wish, but I’d ask if you also believe the CEO of Boeing when he says their planes are safe…
Yeah I can see why this’d be confusing. Keep in mind the transport process at the referenced time periods takes ~ 6 seconds. 3 to dematerialize, near instantaneous travel to the destination, and 3 to rematerialze. It is that part in the middle which makes it clear the person has died. Being conscious in the matter stream and hence thinking you’re the same person is the result of it being a near-perfect copy.
There are far more examples that refute the inventor:
I think you give valid examples and make your point well.
However, another weird thought is perhaps we’re always slowly dying to some extent. For instance, you at age 7 is dead; today, yourself at age 7 cannot speak or act or think. For instance, in a situation where your young self may have tried to buy a toy, you have different wants and make different decisions - you cannot perfectly replicate what that past self would have wanted.
This might be true even of myself from five seconds ago - I hadn’t thought of a certain wording of this concept yet, and so might have worded it differently under different circumstances - that “me” is gone and can’t do anything. This could be true even a millisecond ago, or a duration approaching either an instant or perhaps one cycle based on whatever the “clock rate” (if there is such a thing) or the human brain is.
However, to function, we need a convenient abstraction for what life and death are. I think my definition of life would be when one particular sum of experiences permanently terminates its (mostly) granular evolution.
Thomas and Will Riker both evolved from the same sum of experiences of the original William T Riker; since those sums of experience are still evolving, he is, within our convenient definition, alive.