• Default_Defect@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    1 year ago

    As long as we aren’t trying to fuck with the transporter technology that kills you and makes another you somewhere else, I’m fine.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      But if the another you is undistinguishable at the quantum level… then it’s still you (as seen by external observers, and honestly, I could use a break).

            • Default_Defect@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              The “Ship of Theseus” example is how our bodies work normally, the transporter makes a new you out of separate matter in another place. Nothing implies a transfer of consciousness, just an exact copy of you is there. Of course, I realize that for the purposes of the shows and movies, none of this is a concern, but a real version of this would be ethically fucked up.

              • jarfil@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                In practical terms, the transporter in order to preserve quantum identity, would need to be reproducing you at the same time as it destroys the old you. To be widely accepted by society, it would need to preserve consciousness continuity, so you’d briefly feel being in two places at the same time, then just at the destination.

                Now, a power failure mid transfer… wouldn’t be pretty.

        • Illiterate Domine@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A transporter that can recreate you with all your memories can also recreate you with new Transporter Corp ® approved ones. I think I’ll pass.

          • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            not necessarily. having the transporter means we have figured out how to make exact one to one copy of an object on a molecular level. that doesn’t mean we understand how the informations in human brain are organized and that we can change them.

          • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            i think while it is interesting philosophical question, in reality we would get used to it quite quickly. every time you get in a car you place lot of trust in people driving in the opposite direction. everyone of them can be drunk or just a moron and every car ride can be your last. and in spite of that we don’t really give it a second thought and it usually works out just fine.

            • Default_Defect@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not even close to the same thing. If you create an exact copy of me at a destination, that doesn’t make me okay with being disintegrated because another me is at the other end.

              • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                are you ok with closing your eyes when you go to sleep? how do you know you weren’t replaced during sleep? 😆

                • Default_Defect@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Are you suggesting my consciousness can be transferred to another body? Do you think that if an exact copy of you were made in another place, that shooting the first version of you in the face would cause you to suddenly wake up in the other body? I’m not understanding how you think this works.

                  • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not understanding how you think this works.

                    that makes two of us, i am not really sure what you are trying to say.

                    your “consciousness” is just a result of biochemical processes in your brain. if you have the ability to create a copy of your body on a molecular level, then that new copy has your consciousnes, your memories, it is you. so if you create new copy and don’t destroy the old one, there are now two of you. if you destroy the original, then there is only one of you, possibly in different location.

                    from the point of view of your copy, it is no different than you going to sleep and then waking up. you have no idea what was going on with your body during the sleep. you simply accept all the memories you have as yours and move on with your day.

        • lingh0e@lemmy.film
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s also a Family Guy episode that touches on this issue… but it’s less philosophical since neither version realizes the other exists. That and some doubles/originals die in convenient ways.

      • TheHalc@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe I have read that it’s literally impossible to copy an object’s quantum state without destroying it, so in a real sense a transporter that’s indistinguishable at a quantum level would be moving you rather than creating a copy and killing the original.

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Both are true. Copying a quantum state means moving it from one object to another, which turns the target into the source, and the source into… something else. If we managed to do that at a full body scale, a “you” would appear at a target location, while a bunch of “something else” would be left at the source location.

          An external observer would say “you moved”, turning a pile of target “something else” into you, and leaving a pile of “something else” at the source. You yourself… well, as long as you don’t worry too much, you would also perceive having just moved from source to target.

          Still, there remains that pile of “something else” that used to be you at the source location… but as long as everyone, including you, don’t decide to call it “a corpse” or “your previous you’s remains”, everything would be fine.