Teleportation

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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. ;-)

[CannonFodder]

motorollin wrote:
Sorry Dandy but the mention of the name ¨Hawking¨ normally means the end of the conversation for me :lol: IMO he's a crackpot.

--
moto

A crackpot? :-?

[CannonFodder]

motorollin wrote:
Yes, a crackpot.

--
moto

In what way do you consider him a crackpot?  He seems quite sane to me and his science is solid so I don't think he could really be described as a crackpot on either of those fronts.

I've been known to be wrong though. :-)

[CannonFodder]

motorollin wrote:
Explain to me how the theory of infinite parallel universes, some with black holes and some without, the one in which we live conveniently being one without (which is why we can't observe their effects) is scientific.

--
moto

That doesn't make him a crackpot.

[CannonFodder]

motorollin wrote:
@CannonFodder
The Oxford English defines a crackpot as "eccentric or foolish", and a crackpot idea as one which is "eccentric or impractical". Websters adds "unrealistic" to the list. By that definition, I think many of his ideas are crackpot ones, and he is potentially a crackpot himself.

Eccentric he maybe but I wouldn't say the man was foolish.  Foolish is calling your boss a c*nt! ;-)

We'll probably never find out though, since he will be the first of our kind to evolve in to an energy-based life-form and move to a higher plane of existence.

The first?  People die everyday. :-P

[CannonFodder]

You know what I meant. Stop beng awkward

You know you love it really. ;-)

[CannonFodder]

Apparently some theorists believe that computers will one day become powerful enough to exactly simulate the world as we know it. They have gone on to say that it is highly likely that we do in fact exist inside such a simulation.

This differs from the various religious teachings of a creator in what way exactly?

[CannonFodder]

Dandy wrote:
CannonFodder on 2007/6/21 20:27:55

CannonFodder wrote:

Apparently some theorists believe that computers will one day become powerful enough to exactly simulate the world as we know it. They have gone on to say that it is highly likely that we do in fact exist inside such a simulation.

This differs from the various religious teachings of a creator in what way exactly?

In that it's nowhere reported that the various religious creators used computers and simulations and so...

Again, whats the difference?

[CannonFodder]

In none of the various religions is it reported that the various religious creators did not use computers and simulations and so...

[CannonFodder]

bloodline wrote:
Sorry to interrupt this witty exchange... But if you create a perfect copy of someone (on an atomic level, yes yes, I know Heir Heizenberg would complain!) then you destroy the original... what difference does it make?

For the original it would just be like going to sleep... for the copy it would just be like waking up. You could say that the copy wouldn't be the same conciousness as the original... But then I put it to you that the conciousness you experience today is not the same as yesterday, it is a new conciousness.

If you died in your sleep you'd never know about it. If you died in your sleep then you were replaced with a prefect copy, no one would know about it.

You make the assumption that the clone would have the memories of the original.

[CannonFodder]

Of course it would

I don't think the clone would have the memories of the original.

When someone gets physical brain damage to the bits of the brain that control memory function, is it the memory that is damaged or the method of memory recall that is damaged?