/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6712966
we have two options:
1) we construct death-replication-chambers
2) we construct actual teleporters

>>6712967
what is an actual teleporter like?

>>6712966
wormholes i guess

>>6712966

Well I mean, apart from the bit where "death" isn't physically fundamental, sure, that's exactly what happens.

>>6712966
it really depends on how your self awareness actually works and if there is some magical 'soul' part. but we will never know

>>6712982
it depends on if they have an event horizon or some sort. the stargate wormholes are actually teleporters connected to wormholes.
1. you step through and disintegrate
2. if you are a complete packet you get send as data through the wormhole
3. you cannot see the flight like in the movie because you are frozen data
4. you reintegrate on the destination

>>6712966
There isn't some kind of you-fluid that ties your experience to a specific set of atoms. Probably. It's hard to say since it gets right into the heart of the mind-body problem.

>>6712966
integral over all states x of |x><x| dx = 1

|you> = 1^infinity |you> = (|you><you|)^infinity |you>

Ergo, you are "killed" an infinite number of times per second, where "killing" is defined as destroying and creating an identical state.

>>6712997
can you explain that notation and how you read it? or do you have a link that explains it... i never really understood this quantum state/entanglement notation

>>6712966
I don't see why it would be evil, but yes teleportation is suicide, just like mind uploading.

>>6713003
google braket notation. but don't expect to fully understand it at first

>>6713042
fuck this. all these explanations expect you to know what the braket notation is to understand the braket notation... way to go quantum scientists... this is how you actually hide that you have no clue what you do

>>6713055
tell me this is a troll

relevant vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdxucpPq6Lc

>>6713055
Be less lazy.

a ket is short for the wavefunction of an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian, or of the zeroth order Hamiltonian with respect to a perturbation. A bra is a ket's complex conjugate. Hence, <x||x> is the probability that the particle is in state x. You can span Hilbert space (the space of conceivable ways for the particle to be) fully with many different sets of eigenstates, but for any complete set the integral I posted is true, because the probability of a particle existing is 1.

>>6713055
i'm not here to teach you, kid

>>6712966
I have never understood this argument against teleportation. What's the problem?
The cells in your body are naturally dying and replenishing using the food you eat.
So in 10 years you will practically have an entirely different body than you have now.
Does that mean you "died"? Does that mean "someone else" has taken over your life?

Also there are no such thing as "souls" or whatever you want to prescribe conscience to.
Mind, memories, instincts, everything you learned and know are entirely made of neural cells which are in themselves made of atoms.
So if you copy your brain, you have copied yourself. No more no less.
If you feel "evil" or that you might have "killed yourself" this is up to you, it's not the machine that's causing this.

Imagine you have fell asleep, then somebody teleported you away, then teleported you back.
You would have NO clue that you were teleported 2 times.
It is because your body can only recognize the *pattern* of atoms, not individual atoms since they work all the same all across the universe.
So then what difference does it make to you if you have different set particles than the one you have now or the one you had at birth?
May I mind you, your particles change every time you eat or take a shit. So will you stop eating and shitting in order to "preserve" your current+ body?

>>6713115
That's the thing : we are all ship of theseus, and can't be anything else.
Doesn't makes swampmen anything but clones.

>>6712967
How will you know that it's a death-replication?

>>6713118
>we are all ship of theseus, and can't be anything else
Why ?

>>6712966
well it is true but the same is true about you reading this comment and you after an infinitesimal period of time later.
its just that the change in location emphasizes the fact that the two are not entirely the same person .

its a philosophical question really and it depends on how do you define a continuous self , if you cease existing now and a person which is the exact replica of you down to the thoughts you have at the moment appears a second later is that you ?

>>6712966
each and every thing in the universe changes every moment , infinitely many times for any finite time.
persistent things are an illusion we see on our physical scale because many things change so little we cant cant spot the difference .

an almost exact copy of you appearing in another location is no different then an almost exact copy of you appearing in the same location which happens all the time.

just as you feel a continuity with the old you because you are created just a moment after him, the teleported you will feel a continuity with the pre-teleported you because he will be created just a moment after him.

>>6712966
worth the read

>>6713698
part 2

>>6713703
part 3
if everyone wnats, I'll go through the end

>>6713710
please do. have a source? I'm not on my computer and won't be for weeks.

>>6713710
But how is he able to recreate the quantum state of the electrons of each of the atoms without breaking the uncertinity principle?

>>6713710
Posting the rest since anon mysteriously vanished

>>6713741
Also his logic is retarded
>if you survive sleeping, you can survive teleportation
>OMG I DO NOT SURVIVE SLEEPING

>>6713743

>>6713745

>>6713746
The end

>>6713754
Do you have the source?

>>6713754
Also for the source
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1

>>6713771
Thanks, I'm the mysteriously vanished anon
I thought the thread was dead, sorry

>>6713743
There is no fault in that logic.

1. A
2. A <=> B
3. B, QED

Your problem is not with his logic, it is with his morality. And (regular) death should be enough of an example of people acclimatizing to something horrible that argument from universality should be recognised as pretty shit.

Who knows, maybe when we're information blobs in computer-space we'll look back on discontinuity of consciousness (sleep, forgetting, etc.) as something similarly horrible as death.

>>6713771
>>6713778
thanks both !

The thing is, the type of teleportation described doesn't just cause discontinuity of consciousness, it also causes discontinuity of subconsciousness. Human consciousness isn't even attributed as something other animals like cats and lizards, but I care about their well being and wouldn't want them disrupted by teleportation either.

>>6713710
>Though of course, there is a short interruption of the consciousness, but no more then being knocked unconscious

It was doing great until this point. It was even explaining "patterns" n shit just in the previous panel. Teleporting wouldn't be the same as getting knocked unconscious or falling asleep, because in neither of those situations does your entire fucking body get copied and destroyed. In those cases, everything is still connected, just in a different state.

Though I do agree that it stops mattering *after* you've teleported, since everyone else has the copy of you to associate with the idea of you, and the original you is too dead to care otherwise.

consciousness is more than your waking experience. just because you are asleep doesn't mean that you are brain dead for the duration of the sleep. i say we have insufficient data on both the mind-body problem and teleporters to begin theorizing whether or not you are killed when you're teleported. if i were ask right now if i would want to be teleported i would refuse.

>>6712966
Here's the issue:
In order to teleport, a machine needs to be capable of building an exact replica of you.

The problem is that there is 0 requirements for the original you to be destroyed. In other words, there could be two of you.

Any practical for of teleportation is effectively killing you off and then making a clone of yourself somewhere else.

>>6712966
“I teleported home last night with Ron and Sid and Meg Ron stole Meggy's heart away and I got Sidney's leg.”

I'm interested in the social implications of such a device. It isn't impossible to just not destroy the original person, so Mr. Wizard, having no sense of right and wrong, can just create a machine that copies people.

The problem is that there is no way to handle having multiple people with the same identity. Each has the exact same memories and feelings, but there is only room for one. It's wrong to kill either, and you can't let one live his life without denying the other. The most ethical thing you could do is create a copy of everything else.

Wormholes son.

Learn about them.

>>6713754

I quite enjoyed the story, and of course it is at least partially tongue-in-cheek, but these lines right here:

>No one can possibly deserve the money they have, for it isn't them who earned it, but a past self. Anyone else has an equal right to it. So he gave whatever he could to those who were the poorest.

That such collectivist nonsense it makes my skin crawl. Maybe it's *meant* to be nonsense and at any rate it's *not* the point of the story, I know, I know, but it just so rubs me the wrong way, this philosophy of, "being unable to support yourself gives you a claim on the wealth of others, it's immoral to refuse a beggar, etc."

ANYWAY:
I would argue that it's impossible to make a copy of you that *isn't* you. Either it's not a copy, or it's you (even if this results in more than one of you).

>>6713881

Eh. It's not wrong if it's in line with the wishes of the person entering the machine. If, before stepping into the machine, the person is required to agree to waive all their rights and be destroyed upon successful copying, it need not be a moral dilemma.

What about a machine that does't touch your molecules but destroys the universe and rebuilds it around you at a different spot ?

>>6714073
that would be cosmoportation, not teleportation

Playing devils advocate here, why not just use your teleportation device for medicine instead of travel?

I mean such a device disintegrates and replicates an entire atomic structure, why not use that to simply "transport" tumors and cancer out of the human's body?

Better yet why not try your cards and use it to exchange bad/old organs with good/new organs? Put those nasty surgeons out of business and put the medical industry one step closer to a complete automated state.

Yeah sure there will be plenty of fuck ups in trying to be concise with the coordination of the method, but whats a few more dead bodies on the floor?

>>6712966
What if the actual exact same molecules are transported from one place to another at light speed and regenerated in the exact same position by using a previous scanning process of the subject to situate the exact same molecules in the exact same place?

>>6714088
That's retarded.

Why not have people just get scanned by the teleporter when they're young and healthy, and any time they show signs of poor health you remove them and replace them with a copy of their younger self? Much simpler and more effective.

>>6713710
>consciousness

>>6713881
>The problem is that there is no way to handle having multiple people with the same identity.
I don't see why not, I trust myself enough that I'd trust original me to treat me well if I was the copy.

>>6714190

Interesting and does that treatment come with a memory/motor function assurance clause? Cause unless you can back up their acquired skills through life up to the critical point you risk setting them back x amount of years.

I take issue with this comic.
The implied technology base that makes it possible to construct a functioning human being from base materials or energy also implies you could construct it at an arbitrary age or state of health.
Why then aging and illness?

>>6714205
Indeed. Anytime perfect duplication happens in fiction they always try to pull some drama out of distrust or jealousy, it makes zero sense to me. If I knew my duplicate was an exact copy, there would be complete trust and cooperation.

I liked the way Farscape handled it though.

Where the fuck does sleep = death comes from ?
Certainly not from a neurobiologist.
And somehow it's supposed to make death by teleportation or mind upload ok...

Fucking philosophers talking out of their asses.

Has anyone here ever thought about how this might indicate a 'soul' or the word I like to use 'perspective' that sets my view point?

>>6714504
Hello friend, you lost yourself in the jungle that is 4chan.
Here is where your kind is, and where you want to be : >>>/x/
;^)

>>6714371
For non-interplanetary distances, it also probably means really sweet telepresence just from advances in electronics and bandwidth required for it. Would make something good enough that could cost much cost less per trip than teleporting.

>>6714371
i think the idea might be that you can only construct the exact set of atoms and their states from a read port

>>6713768
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1

>>6713698
I like how how it completely disregards the argument that would invalidate it.
If it is a copy, it isn't you. You die. I don't know about anyone else, but I like my stream of conscious. If a clone is made, my conscious does magically transport to the clone. If I die, my conscious still won't teleport to the clone. If the clone dies, I do not die.
The people who don't care about this issue are morons no better than an ant, if they are more concerned about the relative appearance of their 'self' to outside observers than their own observation of self.

>>6714612

I'm not sure your argument is as water-tight as you think it to be.

>If it is a copy, it isn't you.
That is the intuitive viewpoint, but examination of that view raises some dilemmas. If two things are absolutely identical, in what *meaningful* sense can any distinction be made between them? Identifying one of two *truly* identical things as the original and the other as the copy is more a matter of philosophy and an act of convenience. I would argue that neither could truly be held to be "the original" with any meaningful conviction.

>>6714688
It is water tight, from the perspective of the self
>If two things are absolutely identical, in what *meaningful* sense can any distinction be made between them?
This only applies if you are an outside observer, not one of the two things themselves.
I already addressed this
>concerned about the relative appearance of their 'self' to outside observers than their own observation of self.

>>6714688

>>6714700
Fucking smbc. I swear that weiner's one-upped "simpsons did it" 100 times over. There is *always* a relevant smbc.

>>6714564
That would be a limitation by design, intentional. The question why remains

>>6712966
As soon as people start embracing the materialistic nature of the world and stop clinging to superstitional concepts of mind and soul, this will be no problem. It's the same person with the same memories.

>>6714688
>If two things are absolutely identical, in what *meaningful* sense can any distinction be made between them?
One has continuous history, the other does not. In other words, one collection of atoms is a continuous replacement of the collections that match to your memories. The other is only a copy of that, an instantaneous replacement.

If an atom travels from point A to point B and then you put an identical atom next to it, which is the first atom? The one that traveled from point A to point B.

>>6714742
No, YOU people are the dualists, somehow thinking your suicide is ok because the copy is your copy.
YOU people think we are not our brain, but just the configuration of our brain.
YOU are the ones believing in souls.

>>6714758
I don't understand how any of that connects to souls, but okay.

>>6714034
It's not a positive claim. The reasoning is that neither deserves it, but one needs it more than the other, so it defaults to the one with greatest need.

>>6714041
Human rights can't be waived, at least as they are formulated now. I don't know about you, but I can't shut off my empathy for someone at will. There is a moral dilemma if destruction is unnecessary.

>>6714371
The brain is the seat of consciousness. You can't rejuvinate it without erasing identity or having extremely good understanding of neurology, with does not necessarily follow.

>>6714504
Your "perspective" can be duplicated.

>>6714612
The system can be used to construct an experiment where you physically can't tell the difference between being transported and not being transported.

Your consciousness is duplicated. You would identify with both future yous. You get to choose which lives and which dies, so why not pick the more satisfied one (i.e. the one at the destination) to live? As long as neither exist at the same time, no part of the stream of consciousness is lost.

>>6714696
You, right now in the past, are an outside observer to both of them.

>>6714751
>If an atom travels from point A to point B and then you put an identical atom next to it, which is the first atom? The one that traveled from point A to point B.

This is physically incorrect. You're using classical mechanics phrases to describe a quantum system. It's pure anthropomorphism to say one atom is the first and the other the second.

>>6714758
If we are not the information our brains contain, what are we? You are a dualist for attaching extraphysical labels to structures so you can distinguish between them. You believe your identity is not entirely determined by physics.

>>6714758
>>6714696
If we teleported or uploaded you you would start babbling about how your consciousness survived the trip and that you can't be the copy because you didn't subjectively experience a discontinuity in your thoughts and experiences. You would refuse to be live that you were a new person or consciousness.

You always talk about what will happen to the original, but you never consider how the copy would feel.

>>6714780
>If we teleported or uploaded you
Forcefully ?
He would smile to you and said you changed his worldview.
But best hire a taster for your food m8 ;^)

Without my knowing ?
Well duh, how would he know he is a copy ? He'll simply think you're a troll.
But if you bring him proof you killed me, well, i don't know how he would react, as i am not a copy. As far as i know. But you'd still want to hire a taster.

>>6712966
>record quantum state
>deconstruct
>transfer it over to the other teleport pod somewhere else
>reconstruct

same thing really?

>>6714773
>You're using classical mechanics phrases to describe a quantum system.
The system I'm describing is a classical system.

>It's pure anthropomorphism to say one atom is the first and the other the second.
It's called an anology.

>>6714205
You may be able to trust yourself at the initial moment, because neither of you have yet experienced enough for there to be a significant divergence.

Think about it. You have a completely separate autonomous version of yourself running around with your exact identity. As time goes on, both of you will accumulate more and more different perspectives and experiences. Unless you stick together 24/7, eventually your and your copy will diverge enough to be considered different people.


Perhaps I was set on a situation where someone was forcefully copied against their will. Let's try another one: You are allowed to make a copy of yourself, but with the requirement that the copy is informed that he is the copy, and not the original. Psychological tests are performed beforehand to ensure that you truly accept both outcomes. You can't go in knowing that you'll come out as the original, because you'll screw over the copy, who will assume the same thing. For the benefit of the copy, you have to be truly convinced that you could come out as either, and must genuinely accept the life of being a copy.

After the procedure, your copy is issued a "birth" certificate, which includes a copy of your certificate, as well as extra info about the copy procedure. Every form of the copy's identification will have some indication that they are a copy. The must copy take on a different name, to avoid confusion. Now we have a situation that is effectively the same as if you and your copy were twins.

>>6714504
I think that souls are a misconception that consciousness has a physical embodiment, like a chair or a person, when really, it's more like language. The idea of language doesn't have a physical embodiment, but it does have physical *mediums*, like writing with ink, and speaking with airwaves. These things represent language, but they aren't the embodiment of it. Likewise, I would say that the brain is the medium of consciousness. You can't poke around inside a brain looking for a hard chunk of consciousness, because it's really just an idea that emerges from the brain's neural connections and impulses.

>>6714828
How would you legally indeify who is the copy? They could just swap at any moment.

>>6714230
>>6714230
this isnt retarded at all, it would be like those magic cure all stations from the film elysium.
p.s. id take my chances with "death teleportation" over actual death anydat

>>6713115
>The cells in your body are naturally dying and replenishing using the food you eat.

Different cells are replaced at different rates.

Brain cells are essentially permanent fixtures. This is why brain damage is so insidious. Your brain does not repair and replace itself.

So using the the fact that our skin cells are replaced in about a decade to make the argument that we as people are entirely different is nonsense. If we're anything, we're our brains.

>>6714850
As time goes on, the two copies diverge more and more, so it would become more and more difficult to swap. So much that it would be the same as two twins attempting to swap. It might work, but either would become more likely slip up.
If you wanted to swap, you would do it early on, when you and your copy are still very similar. At this point, the only thing that makes either of you unique is that the copy is convinced that he is the copy, and you are convinced that you are the original, thanks to the psychological test.

>>6714869
That's a good point that often gets overlooked. Although I wonder how much atom turnover there is inside those cells.

>>6714880
>Although I wonder how much atom turnover there is inside those cells.

Now that's also a good point.

>>6714828
I still don't see any trust issues, even years down the line. Have you never met a stranger, become a friend, or perhaps a lover, and come to trust them completely?
Maybe not, but the point is that there are people worthy of trust, and if you are the kind of person who would distrust your own identical duplicate, you might want to do some hard thinking on what kind of person you really are, and what kind of relationships you really have.

>>6714902
Behaviour is genetic.
If you are untrustworthy, no amount of introspection will change that.

We learn that the hard way with minorities.

>>6714902
The point I'm trying to make is that your copy becomes their own person as time goes on, due to having their own experiences. Initially, you can trust your copy like you would trust yourself, because you're still almost exactly the same. Years down the line, whether you trust them or not depends on the situation, like it would with any other person.

>>>6712966
>Will we never have practical teleportation?
Yes, By the time we have practical sleeping

>>6714780
As it will be a copy of ME, the copy will share my beliefs. If showed proof you have killed the original, I would believe you are a murderer.
If the copy didn't know that it was a copy, no shit it would think it was the original.

>>6714904
Lol

>>6713589

you wont. its pretty fucked up

Google up Ship of Theseus and you'll see there is no unanimous consent to this problem.