Teleporting Consiousness

[JJKazJr]

Well, assuming that the process of teleportation does not travel faster than the speed of light, then the two people would not be the same. The whole interem period has part of the body in one spot, and the rest in some other place. Durring this period your body is in a disconnected state. Signals from one side would not be able to reach the other. One could argue that the signals originating on the original side would be transmitted to the assembling side, but the response signals (thinking a lot about the nervous system, and brain thought) would reach the current bounds of the body/may not even be able to travel since there isn't a complete circuit. This would leave the new compiled body in a different state than before the transportation (plus I don't know how screwed up the body would be sending delayed signals and not being able to recieve any). So in short unless if the whole process of gathering, sending, and assembling is faster than it takes for an impulse to travel from cell to cell the compiled body would be screwed up to a point even if it is unbelievably small. And unless if the compiling of the body occurs at the same time (not head to feet or vise versa) the signals within the body would be off.

 

[Cags]

I hate to disagree (well actually I don't but still ), but I don't think you pooped on anyones parade, you just disagreed with us.

When you try to understand the basics of entanglement (not the mathematical physics, but the principles), you need to pay attention to what science says entanglement can do, not what it doesn't say entanglement can't do. The idea is not to say "well, maybe it can do this" and assume that it is, somehow, someday, possible until science disproves it.

Nobody assumed it could do anything we were simply hypothesising. In your own words entanglement defies locality.

Entanglement, in theory, allows particles to defy locality (locality being the idea that two particles cannot interact at a distance, limiting communication to nature's speed limit), but only in a manner that does not allow us to defy locality.

Since to the best of my knowledge nobody, worlds top minds included, understands how entanglement defies locality, what evidence are you using to support your argument that this defiance is not a reproducable effect. Having demonstratable evidence that locality can be defied, in my opinion, makes mskeels hypothesis more logically sound than the alternative.

If there was going to be 'pooping' on anyones parade I'm afraid it would have to be on Mike_Rs analogy. Serialization is a copy process. Since marble_eater pointed out a requirement for teleportation is destruction of the original object, the analogy is not sound. Having said this I total agree with the rest of what he said. I forget what the average turnaround for a human body is but its alot shorter than most people would expect. Oh and before somebody tries to correct me. Yes, I'm well aware that certain cells are not involved in this rotation process, brain cells for instance.

I feel JJKazJr also made some valid points, diss-assembly and re-assembly if not instantaneous could cause all kinds of cellular issues. However I disagree that non-instantaneous transportation of the particles would neccessarily be an issue. During this time the particles would cease being a person and just be a collection of particles. So long as they could near instantaneously be re-assembled in exactly the same state they started in there shouldn't be a problem. When broken down into basic particles there would be no life and it would be no different from pieces of an Ikea flatpack kit being transferred independently. Again though, this isn't an entirely sound analogy as your new bed won't die if certain bits are put together first and cannot communicate with the rest of the bed.

 

[mskeel]

Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!!

People are DATA!!!!

Don't you get it? When you teleport a person, you are teleporting data!!!

I like the idea of being "non-static". It just makes sense I think.

p.s. luminal, liminal...tomato, tamato....

 

[snarfblam]

As far as the issue of what happens to the body as it is being broken down and teleported, it all depends on how it is done. The particulars of the causality throughout the process are very hard to pinpoint. This is what makes it so difficult to transport a human in the first place (as I have mentioned) which is why this remains a theoretical discussion. At this point I won't deny the possibility of transporting a complex object without disrupting the causality that is essential to the object's being, though.

As far as me saying that entanglement defies locality, that is a matter of point of view at this point. No one understands, completely, the hows or whys of the fuzziness of quantum mechanics. Perhaps a second, hidden variable interacts with the probability waves of an electron to produce a product that is the resultant location. Or perhaps the fuzziness is only an illusion created by some sort of underlying mechanics. We say that entanglement defies locality, but that is based on the belief that the mechanics of the quantum world are really, truly, ultimately random and unpredictable. Many scientists believe this to be the case. I prefer to side with Einstein: there must be some sort of underlying variables or mechanics to the situation that we have yet to discover or observe. Attempts at a unified field theory usually try to explain the apparent fuzziness of quantum mechanics because so many people find it so hard to believe that the world would work in such a random, non-sensical fashion. As Einstein put it, "God does not play dice."

If Einstein and I are correct, then entangled particles do not really exhibit locality-defiant behavior, but instead, they really are, simply and plainly, equal but opposite reactions. I don't believe that there are magic particles that can defy the most basic rules of behavior governing every other particle. I think, rather, that entanglement simply provides us with a mechanism to peer into the quantum world in ways that we couldn't otherwise. If entanglement really defied locality it would be as though God had made a quick and dirty hack in the rules of physics to make things work.

 

[Cags]

It's important not to confuse the reality of physics with our understanding of physics. Quick and dirty hacks are not as unusual as you might think in our understandings of physics. This is why we ended up with the general theory of relativity and the special theory of relativity. Einstien came up with a theory, it was discovered that sometimes this theory wasn't sound, so he tacked another theory on to explain these situations. Ok this process wasn't neccessarily quick or dirty, but still.

It is worth noting that I'm presenting arguments here as a devils advocate, not neccessarily because I disagree.

Random fact:- When asked if he carried a notebook to take down his ideas Einstien replied 'No, I dont have enough of them'.

 

[snarfblam]

If there was any confusion between the reality of physics and our understanding of physics then we would all be calling it a day. The entire pursuit of scientific understanding is based on our acknowledgement that our understanding of the world around us is not complete.

Quick and dirty hacks are regarded as just that. They will always give a scientist a feeling that something about the theory isn't quite right. And quick and dirty hacks to make a theory functionable are not at all the same as a quick and dirty hack in the actual rules of the physical world. To not make such a distinction, that would be to confuse the ultimate world and our conception of it.

I'm no scientist but just like statistical fuzzy quantum mechanics, particles granted with the power to "communicate" in a locality-defiant manner that no other particles can express gives me a feeling that something about the theory isn't quite right. I can't help but think that the two phenomena could be explained by a combined theory that involves a simpler reality.

And no, neither of the relativity theories are hacks. One is not a patch for the other. General relativity was theorized because Newton's theory of gravity was not compatible with the theory of special relativity. Don't confuse that as a fix for special relativity. It is a fix for Newton's explanation of gravity. It is not a work-around or a special rule to make things work. Just a more complete theory on the way things work.

 

[Cags]

Granted relativity was a bad example. I obviously wasn't thinking straight. But that doesn't negate the fact that science, especially in the past has, contained many dirty hacks in an attempt to cling onto outdated thinking. Given the apparent improbabilty of human life, its hard to believe that anythings impossible.

Oh, whilst reading back over the posts I also noticed this..

If Einstein and I are correct

You've got to love the apparent pompousness in that statement.

 

[snarfblam]

It wasn't said without a sense of humor. And, yes, I'll gladly agree that science will hack out an explanation from time to time to explain what we see well enough to suit our purposes, but that has no bearing on what really goes on in physics.

Quantum mechanics tends to ignore gravity, for example, because no one has come up with a satisfactory representation of gravity in the quantum world and the effects of gravity are incredibly small and nearly irrelevant on the quantum scale, but it is obviously still there. Nature is still thoroughly consistent, regardless of our lack of a complete explanation of it.

As far as the improbability of human life, that is a very, very subjective thing. Unlikely things do and will happen, even in a very simple and consistent world. And then, life exists because God so desired it. Or life exists because our shortsighted view of the universe does not reveal the inevitability of it. Or (this is my preference) life exists because it is possible. I prefer to believe that anything that can exist will exist, regardless of ultimate representation, but that which could or could not exist is limited in ways that we have no conception of, either due to complexity or obscurity. But there is a lot of theory and philosophy going into that belief. The point is that I believe that the world, when you really get down to it, is a reasonably simple place and if it seems any other way it is only a product of our point of view. That is something that is difficult to argue, either for or against, and what it comes down is that you (or anyone else) have as much right and reason to believe otherwise. We can focus on particular theories, and support them or try to disprove them, but the true nature of the universe is the ultimate enigma that no one can seem to get a handle on.

 

[Mike_R]

If there was going to be 'pooping' on anyones parade I'm afraid it would have to be on Mike_Rs analogy. Serialization is a copy process. Since marble_eater pointed out a requirement for teleportation is destruction of the original object, the analogy is not sound.

Actualy, Cags, the analogy is 100% sound. You need to "serialize" the object, that is, to write down the exact blueprint or positioning of every atom and every electrical impulse. Then rip the body apart (you kill it), then transmit the atoms and the blueprint to the other side and re-assemble it. But the reality is, that if the blueprint describes the exact positioning of the matter and electrical impulses, sending that exact set of atoms is unnecessary. You can just send the blueprint and the correct types of atoms can be used to assemble the body on the other side. (Think of this as "atoms as lego blocks" if you will.) And since matter and energy are actually convertable, you could conceivably convert the original body's matter into energy, beam it over along with the blueprint, and then un-convert to atoms, and then re-assemble. But, again, the original energy (or matter) is irrelevant, all you need is the blueprint and the correct raw material. The blueprint is everything.

So this "teleportation" concept really is a copy-process. Or "copy-and-destroy-the-original" kind of process. That said, we "teleport in place" all the time, as we discussed above...

Further, if you do not kill the original -- which is a separate step from creating and transmitting the blueprint -- then you can easily have two copies of the same person. It all depends on what you want to achieve. (As if this is doable at all, lol.)

Having said this I total agree with the rest of what he said. I forget what the average turnaround for a human body is but its alot shorter than most people would expect. Oh and before somebody tries to correct me. Yes, I'm well aware that certain cells are not involved in this rotation process, brain cells for instance.

Some cells, may not die, but the atoms and molecules will still rotate out. Water in particular is going to cycle rapidly. My bet it that the calcium in the bones is the most static, possibly permanent. But if certain nerve or brain cells could be longer, you could be right, I really don't know.

 

[snarfblam]

The teleporting process as I described it is, theoretically speaking, possible. This means reproducing the state of an object on the quantum level. To do this you need to completely examine the state of each quantum particle, and by doing this you are disrupting the state of the particle, essentially "destroying" it. The object you are teleporting, be it a person or something inanimate, will not be intact when you are done.

Teleporting, as you describe it, recording the position of every atom and every electical impulse, adds an enormous amount of complexity. Somehow you would have to examine every atom, including those buried deep inside an object, without significantly disturbing others. Conversion of matter into energy and vice-versa is not an easy task either. It would be incredibly difficult if not impossible to convert energy into a specific isotope of a specific atom (or ion) with the correct energy levels. And then there is the matter of molecules, polyatomic ions, and the like. As far as duplicating the electrical impulse (and very many other kinds of energy), I can't imagine how one could examine these accurately, and then somehow inject them into the reconstructed object on the other side.

The problem is that the "atoms as lego blocks," as you put it, is a vast over-simplification of the way the world works. There is much, much more to an atom than its atomic number, and much more to the world than atoms. Put quantum particles in the right place in the right state and nifty things will happen. If you try to put the right atoms in the right place, you better cross your fingers.

 

[Mike_R]

Well, conceptually we're talking about the same thing. If the atomic-level is too crude, then the blue-print has to be at "quantum level" then that's fine. What I meant by electrical impulses was the position of electrical charges and therefore electron positions, so I was going beyond simple atomic-construction. But no matter, one needs sufficient detail for the blueprint, whatever that level of detail might be.

The next issue is transporting the actual matter of the original person (or not). The options I was suggesting were:

(1) Break apart the original down to atoms and transport them, then re-assemble on the other side according to the blueprint.
(2) Convert the original matter to energy and beam it over, re-convert to matter, and then re-assemble according to the blueprint.
(3) Don't transport the matter at all in any form, and simply re-assemble the object on the other side using *other* matter, that is identical down to the quantum level, as required.

(All this ignores issues with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of course, which we can abstract away for the purpose of this theoretical exercise, but in reality could be a problem depending on how precise the sub-atomic particle placement and energy potentials must be measured and re-created.)

That "transforming the matter to energy and back is impractical" is of no importance, as any of this is all impossible and theoretical to begin with. The real point I was trying to make is that, effectively, choice #1 and choice #3, above, really are identical if you think about it, and the way of getting one's head around that fact is to realize that choice #2 is a middle-ground between the two.

 

[snarfblam]

I know I made a bigger deal out of the conversion of matter to energy to matter than you did, but I did understand that it was only one of a set of possibilities. The real point I was after, though, is that the uncertainty principal is not one that can be set aside, simply by dismissing it or working around it by working on a level that is not subject to the uncertainty principal (atoms). The complete state cannot be observed directly. Entanglement allows us to “duplicate” a particle, but at the necessary cost of the destruction of the original. Maybe, some day very far down the road, we will discover another way, but the world as we (and the best minds on earth) know it simply does not allow a way to duplicate the state of a particle. At best we can transfer it directly to another particle. An implication of this teleportation mechanism is that there is no intermediate processes involved in the transfer. Storage in a computer or any other kind of medium is not possible, so we don't have a "blueprint" we can make copies from. You only get one copy, and if you mess it up you don't get any. Either way you lose the original (so don't mess up).

People keep coming up with a list of steps. There really are only two steps:
(1) Observe the state of the particle using particles from entangled particle pairs. Half of the state will instantly be represented at the destination in the second particle from the pair. This destroys the particle that is observed.
(2) Send the other half of the state of the particle using a conventional method (wire, fiber optics) and use that data to reconstruct the original particle.

Not only is this the only method that has ever been performed successfully, but it is the only method for which the mechanics of the process have even been conceived.

 

[Mike_R]

The real point I was after, though, is that the uncertainty principal is not one that can be set aside, simply by dismissing it or working around it by working on a level that is not subject to the uncertainty principal (atoms).

I'm not certain that this is true. Since our bodies go through atomic (or more accurately, molecular) replacement all the time, it is not clear at all to me that restructuring needs to be at a finer detail than that. That which requires finer detail, might be electrical potential of that person at that time, which could permit you to store thoughts, heart-beat impulses, etc. That said, the molecules alone, without the correct electrical potential states, could transport the body to exact specifications, but in fact be "dead". However, with oxygen in the blood, etc, and all the chemical positions in the correct place, it is possible that the body could "start right up" or maybe one would need to immediately shock the body with a difibulator. Not a fun experience, I'm sure, but I think that molecular-level assembly is quite possibly doable.

At this level, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is quite likely at a safe distance.

People keep coming up with a list of steps. There really are only two steps:
(1) Observe the state of the particle using particles from entangled particle pairs. Half of the state will instantly be represented at the destination in the second particle from the pair. This destroys the particle that is observed.
(2) Send the other half of the state of the particle using a conventional method (wire, fiber optics) and use that data to reconstruct the original particle.

Actually, your steps are quite specific to a given implementation. That there "really are only two steps" could be more generically written as:
(1) Observe the state of all *parts* at the granularity required, be it molecules, atoms, and/or sub-atomic particles.
(2) Transmit that blueprint and reconstruct the original object using the blueprint using like *parts*, be they molecules, atoms and/or sub-atomic particles.

Actually destroying the original object is optional, as is actually transmitting any matter either as matter, or transformed as energy.

Not only is this the only method that has ever been performed successfully, but it is the only method for which the mechanics of the process have even been conceived.

Ok, well this is interesting... I didn't know that teleporation of any sort had been performed. Are you sure? In any case this is new information -- and very cool at that, but does not really change the theoretical debate, does it?


The original theoretical question you proposed was the following:

My brother and I are in disagreement as to whether teleportation of a person (metaphysical issues and variables aside) would result in a new, different consciousness (essentially killing the original person) or the same consciousness in a different place. I'm just wondering what other people think. (And I'd like to see people on this increasingly quiet board thinking and interacting.)

His argument is that if you teleport a person, since the process of teleportation involves the destruction and then reconstruction of an object, the teleported would observe the world as he knows it end, and then another person will be constructed on the other end with all the memories of the old person and unaware that the original consciousness had ended.

In short, your brother is right. As I explained earlier, we "teleport in place" all the time. The illusion of self-consistency is just that: an illusion. This illusion is maintained by the fact that our memories are "teleported in place" as well, and the reproduction mechanism is so exact, and the change so gradual, that we ourselves and all others around us do not perceive the change and recognize us as the same. But we are not. We are not the same matter, and we are only "very close" to the same blueprint from one point in time to the next.

So teleporting with the same exact matter is not necessary. And once you make that step, you start to realize that you do not have to destroy the original at all. So you can "teleport" a clone, while killing the original is totally optional and most definately would be murder.

If you created a "clone" without killing the original in this manner, they will both feel like they are the original, and they would both be equally correct or equally wrong, depending on your definition of "same". (If your definition is "same-blueprint", then they are both correct, if the definition is "same matter" then they are both wrong; or wait a week or so and one will be 100% wrong and the other 98%+ wrong at that point...)

 

[snarfblam]

None of this is meant to insult or disparage you. It is good to see your brain in gear, and the logic is certainly there, but I can't help but believe that you are drifting into the philosophical end of the pool, and more importantly, that you are not recognizing certain fundamentals for what they are.

Like I said before, there is way too much going on in an atom for you to, in practice, say that "an atom is an atom". Two of the same kind of atom with the same electrical state in the same isotope with the same velocity and same position are not the same. Their states at the quantum level will vary and that will manifest itself in the form of different causality. Besides that, if you work in atoms, you have to take other kinds of matter and energy into special account, not just electricity. So many, in fact, that it would be much simpler to work at the quantum level. Not to mention the impossibly difficult task of reproducing these kinds of energy and matter in the reconstructed object accurately. There is also a possibility (no one knows) that certain phenomena such as entanglement might be vital to the workings of aspects of living creatures. Unless you work at the quantum level, you lose many important aspects of the state of an object. I cannot accept your method of teleportation as a possible viable solution, realistically or theoretically, because it is based on the misconception that an atom is some kind of fundamental building block in the world of physics (they are only so in the world of chemistry). Causality will not be maintained.

The two steps I listed are making the point that observing the state of the object and reconstructing the object are not two distinct steps in the only method of teleportation that has any scientific backing, and that destruction of the original is not a step but an unavoidable side-effect. And to clarify, this method of teleportation, at current, has only been used to teleport single quantum particles, where the definition of "teleport" is to entirely reproduce the relative state of the object at a different location or time.


Your concept of teleporting in space doesn't make my brother correct. You don't even address the text you quoted, as far as I can tell. Maybe I completely missed your point. If anything the transcendent nature of our being ("illusion of self-consistency") would make him wrong, undermining his concept of what a consciousness it.

I cannot respond to several of your arguments because they depend on "atomic teleportation."

 

[Mike_R]

You know, we can "teleport" from one place to the other all the time. Just get in a car, or walk across the room, even. The matter is transported from one place to the other with the molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles all in the exact same places. It's only when we get to the "breaking apart" and then "re-assembly" part that this starts to get theoretically interesting.

But what is interesting, is that we can transport ourselves across distance, but with DIFFERENT matter and still be considered the same. Your quanta-level replication is not necessary. For example, if I walked for a week and covered 200 miles distance I would have transported myself 200 miles. And the molecular replacement over that time would have been considerable as I drank and ate, replacing water and cells that died off. Give it a year and the molecular replacement would be 100% or very near 100%. But molecular replacement over even a two week period is probably rather high.

So your requirement for "sameness" is too strict. Or alternatively, your definition of sameness could be called "strict sameness" as compared to the sloppy "layman's sameness", which allows for full molecular replacement and yet as laymen, we still consider ourselves to be the "same" from day to day or year to year.

But if we loosten up our definition of "sameness" to be "layman's sameness," then things start to get interesting. Teleportation no longer required to be exact to the quanta level. The same types of molecules in the right positions ("laymans sameness") is sufficient. So now we can talk about telporting molecules, however crude you may find that, and its enough. Then we can take the next step of not even sending the original's molecules (because even 100% molecular replacement is allowed under "layman's sameness") and produce the object on the other side.

And since we no longer send the original matter along with the blueprint, this is now really more like a "replicator". That is, we don't even have to destroy the original if we don't want to. We can make clones of ourselves instantly in other locations. Under the rules of "layman's sameness", these beings are all the same and would all insist that they are the "real Captain Kirk". But which one would be right?

The answer: they all would be. Even if the original tried to claim that only he was the "real Captain Kirk" due to containing not only the exact blueprint, but also the exact matter (and therefore the only one with the exact quanta positioning), he could not maintain that claim a year later, maybe not even a few weeks later. They would all be clones. But by "layman's sameness" they would also all be the original.

 

[snarfblam]

I'm sorry. You seem to be missing my point altogether. The point is not that if we reconstruct an object from an "atomic point of view" such that the structure and causality are the essentially the same it somehow wouldn't be the same person. I have not said, implied, or implicated that in anything I said. The point is that an "atomic point of view" is not sufficient to describe a relatively complex object (like bacteria, or certain components in ICs). I keep using the word "causality" because it is of utmost importance in teleportation. I started writing a post with example after example after example, but I scrapped it, because all they do is steer the topic off course instead of driving the point home: "atomic teleportation" does not look at the world in enough detail to teleport a human being. Maybe a Lego. Maybe a can of soda. If you try it with a person I have absolutely no doubt that that person will look the same on the other side, but I also have no doubt that that person will come out dead. Maybe, just maybe, if you throw in all kinds of energy scanning and energy pattern reconstruction equipment, the people will come out alive. They will be infinitely lucky if they aren't insane or if they aren't vegetables, or if they don't develop hundreds of cancerous tumors within a week, etc., etc. How can you not see that so many processes are complex beyond the atomic level?

And you don't seem to even react to a certain kind of argument I have been making, so I'll make a point of trying this one on you again. Although not formally hypothesized, many believe that certain quantum phenomena, such as, but not limited to, entanglement, may play a necessary role in biology. How can reproduction at an atomic level possibly address this?

 

[Mike_R]

I'm sorry. You seem to be missing my point altogether.

Actually, I get your point, I do. By teleporting in the manner you described I have no problem accepting your conclusion: it is the same matter in the same exact configuration, so I cannot see how we can possibly say anything but that it is the same object and it is the same "consciousness".

But I do believe that we can loosen our standards, however, and still call the object "the same". My point is that we do so every day. For example, I am currently down in Florida with my parents, whom I had not seen in 6 mos. or so. When we see each other we say things like "it's so good to see you" or "you look great" or whatever... The weird thing is though, there is almost no doubt that my "parents" have had nearly full molecular replacement over the 6 mos. since I've seen them last, as have I. Certainly all the skin and eye epithelium are all 100% replaced (probably weekly). The only molecules that would be the same, certainly the only visible molecules, would be the lower portion of their hair and nails. That's it. That's all that is really the "same", at least at the molecular level.

So I accept your argument in the sense that the Entanglement-level of teleportation does reproduce the same object. The same matter and the same blueprint could only be judged as the "same".

However, I do believe that there are a couple of other issues here:

(1) Theoretically, a scanner could read the human body at the quantum level (or at whatever level of detail that would be required) and then reproduce the body to that level of specification using other matter. You have proposed that this is impossible, and that no other mechanism other than entanglement has ever been done, but this is not the same statement as proving that any other mechanism other than entanglement is impossible. If you prove it -- or if we agree to assume it -- then your statement stands uncontroverted.

(2) Even accepting the "Entanglement is the only way" proposition, there are still some interesting issues to consider with respect to "who we are" and what it means to be the "same". I think I've put together some interesting scenarios regarding "Molecular Replacement", but I guess that maybe I'm the only one that thinks so.

"atomic teleportation" does not look at the world in enough detail to teleport a human being...If you try it with a person I have absolutely no doubt that that person will look the same on the other side, but I also have no doubt that that person will come out dead.

Well, I tend to agree. I did hypothesize, above, that a defibrillator or the like might be necessary on the other side to jump-start the system. We might need to jump start the brain too, or we could get the heart going, but the person would be stuck in a coma. Or maybe an atomic-level blueprint is indeed too crude.

But I'm not stuck on atoms and molecules. Honest. I view the generalized procedure to be to read the "blueprint" at whatever level of detail is required. This may well be at the sub-atomic or quantum level, that's fine.

I am willing to relax the assumption, however, that the *same* matter be sent to the other side. Your Entanglement teleportation approach may not permit this, but theoretically, I can envision a process where the body is read, creating the blueprint, and then the blueprint is transmitted to the other side, where a new person is created according to the blueprint, but using other matter.

If Entangtement or some other theory proves that such a scheme is impossible, well, then I guess the debate is over. I just don't have the background in physics to know one way or the other... But it certainly sounds possible in theory, no?

 

[snarfblam]

The entanglement-based method of teleportation does not require that the same matter be used for reconstruction. It is, however, according the everything we currently know, the only way to completely examine the state of an object at the quantum level. I've already stated why I think it is important to work at the quantum level, but in order to do so we must destroy the orignal. Your "atomic teleportation" might be nifty for StarTrek-style replicators or very precise manufacturing techniques. I just don't want to be stepping on a teleporter pad and hoping that the next thing I hear is "CLEAR!"

 

[Mike_R]

I had not viewed the original intent of this debate as being "techonolgy-limited", but given the restraint that there is only way, the issue would seem settled.

The entanglement-based method of teleportation does not require that the same matter be used for reconstruction.

Well, even if it does not use the original matter to reconstitute the person, I think we can still safely view it as the "same" person in this case. As I've explained before, we can make a far-from-perfect copy and still be forced to consider it the "same". We do so every day. So this quantum-level copy process would most definately fit the bill. And that it forces us to destroy the original in the process is a bonus in that it eliminates any ethical dilemmas!

It is, however, according the everything we currently know, the only way to completely examine the state of an object at the quantum level. I've already stated why I think it is important to work at the quantum level, but in order to do so we must destroy the orignal. Your "atomic teleportation" might be nifty for StarTrek-style replicators or very precise manufacturing techniques...

Well, as I said before, I am willing to go as precise as required. If the blueprint must be measured to the sub-atomic / quantum level, then that's what what has to be done. I have no issues with this at all.

If however, we can achive required level of "blue-print creation" (at whatever level of detail is required to successfully reconstitute later), without actually destroying the original, it is at this point that we have some real head-scratching to do in terms of considering which is the "real" one. In my opinion, they would both have equal claim to being the "real Captain Kirk" in this scenario.