/sci/ - Science & Math

We just do not know what would happen in that case. It's in science fiction territory.

Use metaphors or something, idk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%27s_room

Imo you wouldnt be "you"

>>2635890
It's a philosophical question more than anything. About what makes you who you are.

But of course we have no idea what would really happen and whether it's truly possible. But that doesn't mean it's not worthy of discussion.

>>2635878

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

Given enough time, matter will eventually rearrange itself into a form that is exactly the same as the form of your body right now.

Print this out for them
http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf

>>2635904
It would. If universe could attain a steady state. Or if constant creation was true. Or multiverse.

>>2635904
>Given enough time, matter will eventually rearrange itself into a form that is exactly the same as the form of your body right now.

Thats completely false since theres no guaranteed force that is constantly going to move atoms around.

>Thats completely false since theres no guaranteed force that is constantly going to move atoms around.

There doesn't need to be said force

>>2635917
<span class="math">\Delta x\, \Delta p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}[/spoiler] wouldn't this do the job?

>>2635917
>guaranteed

do you understand what probability means?

>>2635917

An atom is an atom and your body is filled with atoms. You don't need to use exactly the same atoms, just the same type.

>>2635917
Sounds like a more improbable version of the hundred monkey theory.

>>2635928
>There doesn't need to be said force

Then how do you expect the universe to rebuild a human body naturally?

All forces in the universe that could move an atom could vanish tomorrow.
Its unlikely but you said "it WILL"

>>2635935
>do you understand what probability means?

Do you understand the guy said that its definite that it WILL happen?

>>2635940
see
>>2635938

>>2635942
infinite

that makes something definite now does it?

sure is kaku up in here

>>2635946
I never said that it couldn't be different physical atoms. Im saying that there is no guaranteed way of the atoms to get into the state your saying. All of the hydrogen atoms could be sucked into a black hole and destroyed. You cant tell me that it cant happen. That is why it is not definite that the atoms will rearrange themselves into a human.

>>2635963

well in that case, god could just cuck the whole universe up in a straw and nothing would ever happen again.

Deus ex machina is not a valid argument in theoretical debate.

>>2635963
given enough time, all the hydrofenatoms will eventually tunnel out of the black hole.
Given enough time -> infinite time

>>2635975
*hydrogen atoms

>>2635970
The reason doesn't have to be made up though...
It could get to a point where the world is so static that there is literally 0 forces being released. Atoms wont be able to move...

Even if thats not theoretically possible then lets say that all the carbon atoms are where they are at right now. Lets say all those locations the sun for those particular places (or whatever force they have being put on them dies out) (suns can die out) and now a hydrogen atom has to come in contact with a carbon atom but it cant travel to one because there is no force pulling toward the carbon.

All I need is 1 possible scenario and your claim is automatically null because you said that it is definite. This is an extreme scenario though I agree.

>>2635985

ok motherfucker, you don't seem to understand the original premise.

>The idea of being broken down in particles in rebuilt at another point in space or time.

This isn't even proven to be fact. When I cite the infinite monkey theorem, I'm breaking free of our universe and creating a purely hypothetical one as a thought experiment.

The universe in the thought experiment is like our own except it doesnt have black holes and matter and energy are completely conserved.

Given enough time in this universe, a life form would eventually be "copied" exactly at another point in space and time.

You fuckers need to use your goddamn imagination more often instead of being stuck inside only what we know for a fact to be true.

>>2635998
>You fuckers need to use your goddamn imagination more often instead of being stuck inside only what we know for a fact to be true.

And I thought I was the one thinking outside the box.

But I still think
"Given enough time in this universe, a life form would eventually be "copied" exactly at another point in space and time. "

doesn't make sense at all. That "copier" doesn't exist. Their is nothing in the universe that is guaranteed to put those atoms in that combination as that copier could go extinct. (whatever it is)

Btw im not saying that it couldn't happen cuz i believe anything can happen but you cant say that its a fact that this will happen (speaking from a science point of view)

>>2636020

Infinite monkey theorem.
READ IT MOTHERFUCKER

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem


Given enough time, a copy will be made.

>>2636029

I'll just post it here.

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces a random sequence of letters ad infinitum. The theorem illustrates the perils of reasoning about infinity by imagining a vast but finite number, and vice versa. The probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe is minuscule, but not zero.

>>2636029
Well ya if there was a constant force on every type of atom in balanced directions for eternity. Just like the monkey needs a computer and electricity for eternity.

>>2636029
That's assuming there's infinite time for it to form, and that's not true.

>>2636045
<span class="math">\Delta x\, \Delta p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}[/spoiler]
This will give you all the randomness you need to avoid the "stalemate universe"

>>2636062
Im not a scientist and I have no clue what any of that means but...
the stalemate universe is just 1 thing. We might not even have infinite time like that guy said above

>>2636029
you have zero understanding of infinite

infinite is not an amount

finally,

your an idiot

>>2636075
B U trollin me?

Anywyas, that's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It states that the sum of the uncertainties of a particles position and momentum can't be smaller then a certain finite amount (reduced planks constant divided by two). This means that no particle in this universe may have zero momentum and a stable position. It must have momentum, and/or it must have an undefined position. This means that you can't have the conditions for a stalemate universe where nothing ever moves again.
As for infinite time, that was a premise for his argument. Given enough time.

>>2636122
What about since the universe is expanding...

What if a atom that is necessary for building a human is drifting off towards the direction of the expansion. That atom would never come in contact with the other parts needed. You could say that its only 1 atom but thats not relevant. All there needs to be is 1 null atom for this claim to void. Because he is saying that using all the current matter that a human can be reconstructed. However he doesnt know how much of every atom their is and he just guesses this "well theres a lot more than just 1 hydrogen atom" when in reality that 1 atom could be VITAL. That sounds really dumb but its true. You cant just claim something and be all like " well theres probably more hydrogen atoms not drifting off into the unknown expanding universe" you cant say probably when you say its definite.

The possibility of consciousness carrying over to a qualitatively identical body leads to the absurdity that if these bodies existed concordantly they would share a consciousness.

>>2636147
I think I understand what you mean. In an infinitely expanding system with a finite number of particles it is not given that they will recombine to a given form. But they will. I think you have troubles with the meaning of infinite. Given infinite time, all possibilities will happen. There are no possibilities that will not happen.

>>2636197
>Given infinite time, all possibilities will happen. There are no possibilities that will not happen.

That would be implying that we currently have all the knowledge of the universe. Because whose to say that the whole universe isnt going to explode.. We dont know ... Atoms might actually be able to be destroyed we don't know that. Not even that though, anything is possible. This whole universe could just cease to exist for no reason, tomorrow. There is no way any scientist in the world can tell me otherwise.

>>2636194
No. There would be two identical consciousnesses. If they shared a consciousness, they would have to be conscious of each other.

>>2636214
>We dont know
>anything is possible
Exactly. And if this is possible, then these possibilities will ALSO happen. EVERYTHING that is POSSIBLE will happen given infinite time. We KNOW that it's possible for particles to self-organize into complex objects, so we can say with certainty that , given infinite time, this WILL happen. We do NOT know that it is possible for matter/energy to be destroyed, so we can NOT say with certainty that this can happen. We can also NOT say with certainty that it will NOT happen, given infinite time.
m'kay?

>>2636249
EVERYTHING that is POSSIBLE will happen given infinite time.

NOOO
THERE WELL ALWAYS BE SOMETHING THAT COULD COMPLETELY END THIS CYCLE

THAT "INFINITE TIME" COULD BE PUT TO A HALT AT ONE POINT FOR ETERNITY

>>2636269
>THAT "INFINITE TIME" COULD BE PUT TO A HALT AT ONE POINT FOR ETERNITY
no, because the premise is that the laws of physics are true.
<span class="math">\Delta x\, \Delta p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}[/spoiler]

>>2636285
I JUST SAID THOUGH...

If the atoms required to build the particular object are floating out into an expanding universe with literally nothing out there. Those atoms are UNCONTACTABLE for eternity because an object in motion stays in motion. Meaning other atoms cant react with it.

>>2636222
If the bodies do not share one consciousness how can the original expect to continue existence in the teleportation scenario? It would be no more comforting to the original to be assured that an identical, seperate consciousness would occur after the breaking down of her body than to be told a duplicate would be made of her after which she will be shot in the head.

>>2636301
yes but you won't have to experience dying. It's more like when you wake up in the morning. You have changed, you are no longer the same person as you were the day before, many of the atoms that used to be part of your cells have been ejected from your body, many of your cells have died and been replaced, but you are still you. If this bothers you psychologically, then don't go into the teleporter.

>>2636291
Ah, yes, but it is still possible for enough particles to tunnel towards each other. It is not possible for all particles to remain in one state for eternity due to quantum fluctuations, tunneling and uncertainty.

>>2636367
Thats your opinion. In my opinion if a particle is constantly moving out towards empty space ( completely nothing) then its going to continue to do so and wont interact with another atom for eternity.

>>2636383
Quantum mechanics is not an opinion my friend
I understand what you mean, and I appreciate that it makes sense, but in this case, it is not true.

>>2636391
>>2636391
Quantum mechanics, also known as quantum physics or quantum theory

THEORY

>THEORY

THEOOOORYY

>>2636393
Yes, but as I said
>>2636285
the premise for the statement is that QM is true.

>>2636410
Ya and your still also implying that you have all the knowledge of the universe and you know every combination that can occur and that the universe cant come to an end.

you know just as much as me
you just think that every possible combination will happen if given enough time and i believe it can come to a halt ( the more open minded choice) because i think every possible combination could happen AND it could come to a halt

im not sure

>>2636393
Oh god, not this shit again. A theory isn't what you think it is.

You don't understand how science works and therefore you have no right to comment on it. Go read up.

>>2636430
You are wrong. I don't imply that.
I presupposed that the laws of physics as we know them are universal, and that the universe will not come to an end. If those conditions are true then my prediction must come true. I never said that I believe that we know everything about the universe, or that the universe will not end IRL. It was simply a thought experiment.

U mad yet?

>>2636393

so's germ theory

better drink that homeopathic water. protects you from the gay and cancer