Skip Navigation
300 comments
  • Use it on myself? No.

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

    Yes.

  • 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

    • 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.

      • In real life, I think we'd probably glean some insights to the soul in the development process. Like say, if one of the first human test subjects goes through it, only to have their personality irrevocably changed, and no one can identify any external reasons why, then that would warrant further research before billions of humans start using it and it becomes an actual problem.

        I think part of my "resistance" to this question is that by default, I'm approaching it from the assumption that I'm living in some hypothetical world where a teleporter is as common and everyday as a car or train, and extrapolating from there, so a lot of the hypotheticals don't exist for me because I'm imagining public use. "What if someone puts the version of you that didn't teleport in their basement" well then they would have to coerce me out of the presumably public location for teleports between cities or wherever, because if I step on a pad expecting to be halfway across the globe in two seconds and instead I'm still in the same room, I'm not gonna leave until it's explained to me what went wrong and I'm given assurances for future service and compensation for the failure that already happened.

        "oh well what if it only created copies of you" well then it probably wouldn't supplant any existing forms of transportation :), and of course then I wouldn't use it to get around.

    • 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.

    • Alright, but now instead of disintegrating and reconstructing, consider if a similar machine just duplicated your body atom for atom. Is that "you", or a clone?

      • Let's assume the machine works one of two ways. It either destroys the original as it's read into the machine and reconstructing on the other end, or it's not destroying the original and simply reading and copying simultaneously.

        In the first case there are zero complete copies of you in existence as you're undergoing a phase of removing information from place and reconstructing it in another, I'd call that death and cloning.

        In the second case there are two identical copies of you in existence until they destroy the original, I'd call that a clone.

      • A clone. As far as I know, there's nothing in our established understanding of the world to suggest that merely copying the physical materials of my atoms would reproduce my memories and personality.

    • Death is information-theoretic, fight me OP. /s

      I'll add the caveat that it's entirely possible I still couldn't afford teleportation.

      • If you were a Federation citizen living on any of the core worlds (earth, vulcan, andoria, and tellar prime) I think you'd be okay. It's not like it's something you have in the home anyways - we don't get much civilian life in Star trek but it's implied that you just physically go to the transport pad you want to use and use it.

    • What if the original wasn't destroyed? Wouldn't it be a clone then? Which one would feel like it was really you?

      • Both of us would be me. Then, as our experiences diverged from the point of duplication, we'd become different people (See: Thomas, the duplicate of William Riker in Star Trek. The only reason Thomas and not Will is considered the copy is because of audience perspective, but empathizing with each of them makes one see how both are Will Riker at the start of the episode). This all of course, assumes we don't discover something like the popular conception of souls during the early trials. But I don't believe there's anything about a "soul" that can't be tied to the sum of one's lived experience, which would be copied too.

        I would consider a clone to be more expansive of who it could include besides copies of myself as I am now - it would also be someone grown from the literal same embryo as me who'd lived a completely different life with even a different name.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • We've seen someone's POV going through a transporter. From your own perspective you would just see some glowy shit and appear at your destination. Of course, I would make an army of myself with another me in the transport buffer tweaked to retain the pattern for a long time. But instant transportation is invaluable.

  • I won't. I take public transportation with friends and teleportation doesn't really have that social aspect.

  • Imagine you have a device that transmits your brain signals into another body so that you can control 2 bodies at once. Clearly you are one self that is controlling two bodies. Clearly destroying either one of these bodies wouldn't really kill you (so long as your brain is fine) you'd just continue existing in the other body.

    Now let's say we copy your brain exactly and put it in the other body, and then a device that synchronizes your memories and experiences. body 1 would act exactly like body 2 in every circumstance. I don't see the difference between the first scenario and the second, you are one self, distributed across 2 brains and 2 bodies. If you killed one of the bodies, no one would die, it would be more akin to losing a limb.

    Now let's remove the synchronizer, for the first instant it's identical to scenario 2, but over time the 2 selves would diverge and become separate people.

    so as long as we kill off the old self immediately before or at the same time as the new body comes online then I don't see it as a murder machine like you describe.

    however, if we have the tech to copy the body perfectly, who is to say we can't improve the body as teleport them, make the new body stronger or disease proof. And if we do that, who's to say we couldn't make small changes to the thoughts or memories, make you more docile or forget injustices. That seems pretty risky to me.

  • Anyone remember that Outer Limits episode about this? They thought the teleporter malfunctioned, but it really just failed to destroy the source "copy" of the girl at the point of origin. Since she also appeared at destination, the station operator had to flush the original out of the airlock.

    TLDR- Would totally use it.

  • I've always had a hard time understanding what's so bad about the person who arrives being a clone, never saw the downside. Yes, I 'd definitely use it. One of the biggest hurdles in my everyday life is the "going there". When I was still working, the one thing I always complained about and what ruined my every morning was having to go there and return after. If I'd had the option to instantly teleport to work, I would have loved every day because I loved my work and I wanted to be there. Now that I'm disabled, I regularly have to cancel stuff like doctor's appointments last minute because my chronic exhaustion is acting up and I physically can't move my body there.

    (If teleporting isn't available, I'd settle for a ship's computer core as a PDA)

  • Oh, hell yeah. Plus it's canon that it can heal some diseases.

    Now, WRT the continuity of consciousness... hell, I lose that every night, and whenever I get major surgery. Heck, I've transported innumerable times if teleporting a break in continuity of thought plus a change in location. I passed out once from heat stroke and woke up in an infirmary.

    Yeah, I'd use it.

    • Do you consider your brain going in to sleep mode, providing you with filler content that you largely forget, and then waking you back again later to be the same as being vaporised in your original location?

300 comments