this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
137 points (94.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43963 readers
2204 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

You know those sci-fi teleporters like in Star Trek where you disappear from one location then instantaneously reappear in another location? Do you trust that they are safe to use?

To fully understand my question, you need to understand the safety concerns regarding teleporters as explained in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQHBAdShgYI

spoilerI wouldn't, because the person that reappears aint me, its a fucking clone. Teleporters are murder machines. Star Trek is a silent massacre!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 59 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If it opens a spacetime tunnel and I cross it with all my original atoms, yes.

If it disintegrates me to 3d print a copy on the other side, no.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago (20 children)

Stargate yes, Star Trek no.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Stargate lore incorporates buffers holding your intermediate information, so it's the same than Star Trek, actually.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also if there's any chance of a Fly situation happening I'm not going. Even if it's like a .00000001% chance then fuck that lol

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When just driving down a freeway, you have a much, much greater than 0.00000001% chance of suffering a worse outcome than the "fly situation" ;) .

Just sayin'.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I mean I'd probably rather be dead than Fly'd, so I dunno what the odds of something worse than that actually are lol.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Assuming we're talking about our reality, this device is getting made by a corporation who will release it as soon as the potential profit exceeds the cost from its non-zero error rate.

No, I'm not getting into some Musk 2.0's shoddy body disintegrator.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I always assume this is asking me as if I was in one of the examples universes like Star Trek. I 100% would never get in Musk's Teslaporter, but in a world where it's as widespread as airplanes and trains? Would use, wouldn't be murder.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes. I get to die and pass all my responsibilities to my quantum clone. Sign me the fuck up.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Instant cloning opens up many interesting possibilities:

  • Dying of old age while having some unpaid loans on your account? Don't worry, per your loan contract you signed, your creditor can "revive" you using the cloning tech so you can continue working and paying your debt.
  • Do you have an illness that's very expensive to treat? Just die and pass everything to your clone.
  • There might be some black market cloners so you can create an illegal clone to do unpleasant stuff (e.g. working, cleaning house, etc) while you're relaxing at home. Once the illegal clone finished their task, they can just die and disintegrate wherever.
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And the clone gets a great excuse to get out of things. β€œThat wasn’t me, that was my clone”

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago (3 children)

There's a Ship of Theseus aspect to Star Trek's transporters in particular that I find interesting. In that there is an actual matter stream sent to your destination. But ultimately I couldn't be sure that the me I am now would come out the other side - and I probably wouldn't.

I have the same concern about uploading my brain to a computer. Even if it's a perfect copy it's still a copy. And that's before you factor in for other things like, I am not just my brain I am also the hormones that affect my brain.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your hormones make you weak! Let go of your mortal shell and live in the sweet embrace of 1s and 0s. None of those pesky shades of gray. Everything in it's own happy 'float'ing bucket.

We'll even throw in a RNG if you ever want to get the thrill of hormones.

Join us.

Sincerely, Totally not a bot

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yup.

Not only would I use it, I would abuse it.

I'd duplicate myself more than once, and at least once so I could fuck myself.

I'd tweak the transporter to adjust my body as I went through it. Best weight-loss, gym routine, plastic surgery, dick-enhancement pill ever, all in one.

I would be the reason such devices would be strictly regulated by people with ethics. "Is it murder if you kill your clone?" "Who cares, energize and last one stabbed wins!"

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

This guy rikers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

Use it on myself? No.

Use it to start a combination movers / electric / tunneling / waste management / highly-illegal-hardware-pirating company?

Yes.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (10 children)

This question all comes down to your opinion of what makes a person a person, whether that means we have something greater than the collection of our atoms, or whether we are simply the emergent outcome of the complex arrangement of atoms. If you subscribe to the former then you also need to believe that this machine is somehow capable of either transporting/transplanting that "soul" for lack of a better expression. Where if you subscribe to the latter than this is most certainly a suicide cloning machine.

I personally subscribe to the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of complexity. Given a sufficiently large enough series of inputs you can observe new and unexpected outputs that appear to be on higher orders of complexity than their inputs. This response is an example of that, from electrons flowing through transistors we end up with operating systems, hardware IO, web browsers, networking protocols, ASCII standards, font rendering, etc. All of that complexity emerges from a massive amount of on/off switches arranged in patterns over time.

Following this chain of reasoning I believe that making an exact duplicate of me down to the state of each atom is no different than that entity being me, however as a conscious being with human ethics and morals I put value in the singularity of my existence, and so a plurality of Zetaphor is something I find undesirable as it fundamentally challenges my perception of what it means to be myself.

So assuming the entity leaving the transporter is me, there's two ways to approach the way a machine like this could operate:

  • It reads my state in its entirety and then destroys (or encodes for transport) that state
  • Or it's creating the new instance of me bit by bit as it reads my current state

That means one of two things, either there is a brief moment of time where two identical copies of me are in the universe, or there is a period of time where zero complete copies of me exist in the universe. So either I stopped existing momentarily and then was recreated from scratch (death and clone birth), or I existed in two places at once and then died in one (cloning and suicide).

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If it's wormhole based tech then yeah why not, atomic based teleportation comes with too many philosophical and existential flavors for me personally

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Absolutely! I might even die instantly, which is just a bonus :V

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (18 children)

I don't buy the idea that disintegrating my molecules and reconstructing new ones is tantamount to murder or suicide.

If all I experience is being one place one moment and another place the next, then it's me. It's isn't some fucking clone, it's me. You're just being turned into some other form (energy, if we're using Star Trek rules) and then being turned back.

I'm pretty sure that at 26, I'm already a completely different person than the baby I was born as, literally. My cells have all died and been replaced. The horror. ./s

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don’t buy the idea that disintegrating my molecules and reconstructing new ones is tantamount to murder or suicide.

I definitely don't think teleportation in science fiction is meant to be killing the person using it and making a clone of them. Like unless a story is specifically about that, I don't think any given sci-fi author is trying to set up some sinister background plot where everyone is unknowingly killing themselves all the time.

But I do still have to wonder if that's how it would end up working out in real life. Sure all our cells have died and been replaced since we were born, but that typically doesn't happen with all your cells at the same time lol. imo it's probably less about cells and more about like... Consciousness or "the soul" or whatever, I don't know. Whatever it is, I accept that teleporters in fiction have some way to store and transport it, whether it's stated in the narrative or not. But in real life I have no idea how we'd be able to tell if such a thing could even work.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If all I experience is being one place one moment and another place the next, then it’s me

If I make an exact molecular copy of you and set that copy free into the world thinking it had just successfully transported, but then I take the original you that entered the transporter and lock them up in a basement somewhere, how is that any different? From the perspective of the conscious being that came out the other end their continuity is uninterrupted. They will think they are the only version of themselves to have ever existed and that they simply moved from one place to another, as opposed to being a duplicate of the original entity, and that the original entity may be dead or in this case locked in a basement.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It's a literal suicide booth.

Sure, you can go on all day about changing out broom handles and whatever other metaphor you like, but I don't need my body to be a point of interaction with any consciousness and the world, i need it to be a point of interaction between my consciousness and the world.

I have a lot of feelings about the emptiness of identity and the ultimate unity of the universe, but that doesn't mean I'm going to off myself for the sake of convenience.

If I make a copy of myself, I'm still myself. I don't become the copy. I have no reason to believe that a genetically identical clone that's somehow got a copy of my memories will spontaneously cause my consciousness to jump to the other clone. No evidence of any such thing happening.

If I, then, make a copy of myself on Mars, why would I expect to spontaneously inhabit it?

The only reason being ripped apart and having an identical copy made looks like teleportation is the timing. There's a short story about this, where a teleporter malfunction leaves the original version of the traveler alive. Protocol is to 'balance the equation' by incinerating the survivor, which as it turned out was the fate of anyone who stepped into the teleporter under normal circumstances.

Think about a file in a computer system. Copying the file and making changes doesn't change the original file. When you download something and alter it, that's a different copy of the file that's been changed, not the original. Even when you move something rather than copy it, what's actually happening is it's being copied and then the original is destroyed.

Seamless for everyone else, sure. But a tragic, needless, and utterly stupid death for the one who enters the machine.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

I am with Bob Johansson (Bobbyverse) on this one. Star trek is utterly inconsistent with how transporters work. They only ever play up when it's convenient for the plot line, but the rest of the time they're totally fine and no one worries about it.

Transporters are supposed to move the atoms by converting them into energy, moving that energy through subspace, and then converting them back to atoms on the other side, the only energy in the system is the energy that was created when the atoms were converted, so it shouldn't be possible to create a transporter clone, no matter how many "confinement beams" you have, as where would it's atoms come from?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

Depends on the technology employed.

Quantum entanglement? Sure. All day, every day.

That annihilation shit that Star Trek does? Hell no.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Star Trek Transporters don't annihilate you. According to all the stuff from Star Trek it literally disassembles you, moves your particles through space in a matter stream held in a containment field, and reassembles you at the new location.

So the Ship of Theseus question doesn't actually apply, your physical material is the same before and after. The question is if disassembly constitutes dying, and if the reassembled you at the new location is a resurrected you, or if disassembly isn't dying, then it is in fact just a form of transport.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Nope, I have a hard enough time thinking about my consciousness being "the same person" even after sleeping. No way am I getting taken apart and cloned by choice.

Arthur C. Clarke covered it in his first published story.

I don’t travel by wire! You see, I helped invent the thing!

https://zoboko.com/text/qll1oe8j/the-collected-stories-of-arthur-c-clarke/7

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Of course I would.

Everything that makes you -you- is contained in the physicality of your brain. Even fairly small changes in your brain will create large shifts in cognition and personality. So anything that replicates your body and brain, down to the last atom, is going to be creating -you-. As far as you are concerned, nothing happened; you ceased to be in one place, and immediately sprang into existence in another.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would use it. Anything to not have to use public transportation or fly in an airplane ever again.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I was a definite "no" until you made me consider it as an alternative to flying Delta.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Imagine it malfunctions while you dissappear and you never reappear in another location, getting stuck in the void forever until the end of time

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

if you translocated Theseus' ship, is it still the same ship? what if you extracted the data from the transport buffer to reassemble the original in its original location?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Do you trust that they are safe to use?

Making an assessment on that requires a whole lot more context.

We trust in car safety because of regulation, established supposed Brand trustworthyness, and widespread use.

If teleporters had the same, and in terms of use at least significant precedent, there's no reason most people would use them. Traveling convenience would be a great upside.

Unser Those circumstance I'd be fine using them.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

I get the disintegration qualms. But slap some TNG-era biofilters on that baby and filter out heavy metal accumulations, budding cancer cells, chest congestion, etc., and I'd be first in line.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

I definitely wouldn't use the disintegration/reintegration type. If it worked some other way, like through mini-wormholes or something, sure I would use it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Fuck yeah I would. As long as it's cheap and relatively safe I'd take instant transportation over spending hours sitting in a metal box any day.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Depends on how the teleportation worked and also how our consciousness worked. I’m not against the idea of creating exact copies of myself who, from their point of view, are indistinguishable from the me they were copied from. I am, however, against the idea of deleting the original me, which from my point of view would be indistinguishable from death,

Transferring consciousness is different from copying consciousness, even if the copy is flawless.

This is the same answer as the question of uploading our consciousness to a computer.

To my limited understanding, the us that exists is just a network of neural connections. If you could somehow copy that network exactly, you could conceivably create a complete personality copy of an individual, but that’s not the same thing as moving their consciousness.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If it existed, was proven safe, and was widely available enough for anyone to use, then of course.

The auto and airline industries would collapse, reducing pollution and global warming.

The biggest downside I can think of offhand is that everyone could vacation wherever they like, and that would quickly overcrowd and ruin all the nice places.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

What if it's "proven safe" in the same way that surgery under general anaesthetic is safe - nobody remembers feeling pain. Nobody (mostly) reports pain after waking up. But what if it's torture and you just don't remember it afterwards.

Teleporter is kinda the same, but no one coming out of the other end remembers dying because in their memory they didn't.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

No, I don't see any possible solution to continuity of consciousness. See Walk like a Dinosaur to understand the implications, but basically you would need to destroy the original and duplicate it from scratch.

If there is such a thing as a soul, it would likely be impossible to duplicate, but even if not, you would have to destroy the original.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Doesn't Star Trek's transporter solution involve converting your atomic structure to Energy, beaming that energy to another place, and reconstitution your body using the same atoms? If so, that's not really dying anymore. Just re-arranging your original atoms.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Do I trust that an ephemeral pseudoscience concept of "teleporter technology" is safe to use...? No...? On what basis would anyone make that judgement.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

I`v seen the fly, fuck this shit.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί