Teleportation

[Zac67]

Cymric wrote:

This is the famous no-clone theorem in quantum information theory, which states that you cannot create perfect copies of arbitrary and unknown quantum states. And it's all Heisenberg's fault that we cannot know exactly what all quantum states in a given object are. Ergo, by definition the clone cannot be an exact replica of the person going into the transporter.

This may not be entirely true. Of course, due to Heisenberg, you can't measure the quantum state of the body to be transported in order to duplicate it elsewhere. But it may be possible to clone its exact state onto an entangled set of matter (Heisenberg was talking about measuring; as long as you don't actually know the state, it might be transportable).

However, as mentioned earlier, I think this method is far too complex to be feasable with an entire human body, no matter what technology.

[Cymric]

This may not be entirely true. Of course, due to Heisenberg, you can't measure the quantum state of the body to be transported in order to duplicate it elsewhere. But it may be possible to clone its exact state onto an entangled set of matter (Heisenberg was talking about measuring; as long as you don't actually know the state, it might be transportable).

Quite. I forgot that there is a difference between copying with knowing and copying without knowing.

[motorollin]

How can you copy something without knowing its current state?

--
moto

[Zac67]

This is one of the (many) weird concepts of quantum mechanics. Today it's only possible on a particle level, though just recently some scientists have managed it with a cloud of atoms. I don't actually claim to understand it, but it's pretty interesting.  :-D

[CannonFodder]

motorollin wrote:
How can you copy something without knowing its current state?

--
moto

How can you believe in a God without knowing it's state?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

CannonFodder wrote:

motorollin wrote:
How can you copy something without knowing its current state?

--
moto

How can you believe in a God without knowing it's state?

:idea:
Maybe one day, we'll be able to transport god!

[CannonFodder]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

CannonFodder wrote:

motorollin wrote:
How can you copy something without knowing its current state?

--
moto

How can you believe in a God without knowing it's state?

:idea:
Maybe one day, we'll be able to transport god!

Maybe we already can.

[motorollin]

CannonFodder wrote:

motorollin wrote:
How can you copy something without knowing its current state?

How can you believe in a God without knowing it's state?

I don't. But somebody who does would argue that he is evident through his works. However, I don't think this is entirely relevant. We're talking about making a copy of a living, physical being, not belief in a spiritual deity.

--
moto

[CannonFodder]

motorollin wrote:

I don't. But somebody who does would argue that he is evident through his works.

I do and I don't.

However, I don't think this is entirely relevant. We're talking about making a copy of a living, physical being, not belief in a spiritual deity.

I disagree, it depends on how deep one goes into their understanding of of the metaphysical.

[motorollin]

CannonFodder wrote:
I do and I don't.

Do you mean that you do believe in God but you don't argue his existence in that way?

CannonFodder wrote:

However, I don't think this is entirely relevant. We're talking about making a copy of a living, physical being, not belief in a spiritual deity.

I disagree, it depends on how deep one goes into their understanding of of the metaphysical.

If you're talking about the physical structure of an object then I don't think it's a matter of metaphysics. The argument was that you can copy something without knowing its structure, not whether that object exists or not.

--
moto

[CannonFodder]

motorollin wrote:

CannonFodder wrote:
I do and I don't.

Do you mean that you do believe in God but you don't argue his existence in that way?

Yes.

CannonFodder wrote:

However, I don't think this is entirely relevant. We're talking about making a copy of a living, physical being, not belief in a spiritual deity.

I disagree, it depends on how deep one goes into their understanding of of the metaphysical.

If you're talking about the physical structure of an object then I don't think it's a matter of metaphysics. The argument was that you can copy something without knowing its structure, not whether that object exists or not.

--
moto

Now then,  step back and put the Judaeo-Christian model of "God" to one side for a moment (It's irrelevant whether you believe in it, but you grew up here so thats the model you either accept or in your case reject).

Now consider how some people are "joined" by some "unknown bond", like twins for example.

Ponder on why for a bit.

Then ponder on my comment of "Maybe we already can." in relation to "moving God".

I could go into further detail and mash your head up with my own thoughts but I'm at work atm.

Basically, the thoughts most people have when stoned or on mushrooms I have when clean. ;-)

[motorollin]

CannonFodder wrote:
Basically, the thoughts most people have when stoned or on mushrooms I have when clean. ;-)

Must must be quite inconvenient :lol:

I don't fancy an existential crisis right now so I won't think too hard about your comments. I'll leave it until I'm a bit more chirpy :-)

--
moto

[Karlos]

How can you copy something without knowing its current state?

Easy, make sure whatever it is implements the following:

Code: [Select]


class Cloneable {
  public:
    virtual Cloneable* clone() = 0;
    virtual ~Cloneable() {}
};


and leave it up to the thing itself to worry about how it is copied ;-)

[motorollin]

Karlos you're such a geek :lol: :-P But I thought your post was funny, so I suppose that makes me one too...

--
moto

[Karlos]

Your signature said as much already ;-)

[Dandy]

motorollin wrote:

Karlos wrote:

if the original person is not destroyed before their clone is reconstructed at the receiving end, they are not the same person anymore

...
I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here as I don't really buy the concept of the soul.

Well, fo me "soul" = "consciousness"

motorollin wrote:

But don't you think it's possible that destroying the original body would effectively kill any non-corporeal element of the person's existence? (just like if they died). The duplicate might end up a soulless being.

If really "soul" = "conscious" and if "an exact duplicate of the same brain physiology and chemical layout results in an identical, or even shared, consciousness", I would say the duplicated being should still have its soul, provided it had one before the duplication...

motorollin wrote:

Karlos wrote:

I would imagine the cloned entity would eventually develop some form of neuroses deriving from the knowledge of the destruction of their original self

I'm not sure about that. Assuming that their body was *exactly* as it was before, and they retained all of their memories and personality traits, then their sense of continuity of the self would be preserved (as in your sleep example). I don't think the destruction of their old body would be as much of an issue for most people as you think since they don't 'lose' anything. But again, we just don't know.

--
moto

Hmmmm - I think of it like of an backup of an HD.
Once you have your backup, you can destroy the original machine and restore the backup on a new, identical one (identical to avoid hassle with the HW drivers).

Provided that the backup was O.K., I would not expect any loss of data...