Do transporters kill?

[Simon_Jester]

That's fine, but my point is but how one "feels" about an event has no impact or relevance to the event itself. Feelings would effect how WE act toward the event but not the event itself. To give an example say my TV breaks and I have to replace it. Now I can feel depressed, angry, happy or ambivalent toward the TV breaking but how I feel about it doesn't change the event of the TV breaking. The TV is permanently destroyed and is replaced with another of the same model, how I felt about it doesn't change a thing about the event. From the external perspective I still have a TV and life goes on.

True. On the other hand, there's a word choice issue.

"Death" is generally a big deal. If a hated enemy dies, it's actually important and you're happy; if a beloved friend dies it's important and you're unhappy. People get all twisted up about death, the fear of death, the fear of others dying, and so on.

Transporter-death is... it's harder to justify making it a big deal, let's put it that way, because it just doesn't have all the ramifications of conventional death.

[Wyrm]

Being spatially separated is not sufficient to demonstrate uniqueness... unless it is blindingly obvious that the objects in question are not bosons or fermions. Which, in this case, it is.

"Blindingly obvious"? You're appealing to common sense, Simon. The problem is that our common sense is based on prior experience... prior experience that is formed in the complete absence of perfect copy machines. You cannot expect this "blindingly obvious" shit to hold in this arugment about a technology very much outside our prior experience. You must prove it before I will accept it.

======

I will bang my head whenever I need to, to get my point across fishbait. Whether you want to refer to it as trauma or not it is still the Cause Of Death. Most people understand this without needing it explained to them that is why I was using the terms death and killed in the manner I was. It does not change that the COD is still disintegration.

IF it is, indeed, the cause of a death! You have yet to prove that the kind of disintegration you cause need result in an actual death.

You go right from "disintegration" to "death" as if it's obvious, skipping over the not-insiginficant point that it is completely and routinely reversible in complete defiance of other forms of death except "clinical death", which no one at all agrees results in zombies walking the earth. If the definition of "death" you use here by axiom is the only result of transporter disintegration, then of the two of us, only you care about it.

Your argument is because it lacks emotional impact? I'm not sure whether to bang my head, piss myself laughing or to keep staring at the post with a what the fuck image on my face. Emotional impact....what the hell does the FEELING evoked by the death have anything to do with weather someone has died? I didn't feel anything when Saddam Hussein died does that negate his death? NO! Feelings have nothing to do with the physical nature of death.

I won't dignify this rant except to point out that the kind of "death" you claim is happening with respect to transporter disintegration lacks any of the features of a definition of death I would worry about. As such, only you care about this definition of death.

[SapphireFox]

"Blindingly obvious"? You're appealing to common sense, Simon. The problem is that our common sense is based on prior experience... prior experience that is formed in the complete absence of perfect copy machines. You cannot expect this "blindingly obvious" shit to hold in this arugment about a technology very much outside our prior experience. You must prove it before I will accept it.

You don't get to bitch about common sense here fishbait. The human body is not made up of sub-atomic particles exclusively, it is made of larger more complex structures like atoms, molecules, proteins, in turn creating cells, organs and finally the combined structure as a whole. ANY form of matter larger than the sub-atomic can be demonstrated to be unique by being spatially separated.
While the transporter is indeed not within prior experience, bosons and fermions are so in this case it is indeed blindingly obvious that being spatially separated DOES demonstrate uniqueness. Common sense does indeed apply to the things we know like bosons and fermions. Simon_Jesters's point still stands.

IF it is, indeed, the cause of a death! You have yet to prove that the kind of disintegration you cause need result in an actual death.

You go right from "disintegration" to "death" as if it's obvious, skipping over the not-insiginficant point that it is completely and routinely reversible in complete defiance of other forms of death except "clinical death", which no one at all agrees results in zombies walking the earth. If the definition of "death" you use here by axiom is the only result of transporter disintegration, then of the two of us, only you care about it.

I won't dignify this rant except to point out that the kind of "death" you claim is happening with respect to transporter disintegration lacks any of the features of a definition of death I would worry about. As such, only you care about this definition of death.

The point is that the disintegration is NOT reversed. To reverse a disintegration the same matter would need to be returned to a point exactly as it was before the disintegration happened. Since the the transporter obviously does not use the same matter to create the clone at the transport site the reversal of disintegration does not occur instead other matter is used to create a clone copy. This is why the "Whole of X" survives an individual being disintegrated while the individual does not. Because the individual has not been put back together he is dead and the clone carries on with the original's life. Indeed the clone could scrape his original's microscopic remains off the transporter pad, point to the remains and say that the remains were not alive anymore. Can you say honestly that if you scraped up you're own disintegrated body bits, that it wouldn't give you a pause for thought?

[Kamakazie Sith]

3) A death occurs when you permanently terminate any consciousness.

This is important: the word "death" does NOT necessarily describe loss of information. The most reasonable definition of "death" is the permanent termination of a consciousness. Notice the indefinite article there: A consciousness. In other words, any consciousness that is permanently terminated constitutes a death. Now, the Simon_Jester class includes a consciousness property, (because all Simon_Jesters are self-aware) so all instances of Simon_Jester have a consciousness. Now, remember that the transporter moves data, which involves a copy operation followed by a destroy operation. So the transporter must destroy an instance of Simon_Jester in order to move (transport) it. Therefore, the transporter is terminating a unique consciousness. It doesn't matter that it creates a new instance: it still destroyed the old instance. So in other words, the transporter kills you.

Actually, I've shown that it doesn't terminate consciousness. This point continues to be ignored so this ridiculous discussion can continue.

[Kamakazie Sith]

The point is that the disintegration is NOT reversed. To reverse a disintegration the same matter would need to be returned to a point exactly as it was before the disintegration happened. Since the the transporter obviously does not use the same matter to create the clone at the transport site the reversal of disintegration does not occur instead other matter is used to create a clone copy. This is why the "Whole of X" survives an individual being disintegrated while the individual does not. Because the individual has not been put back together he is dead and the clone carries on with the original's life. Indeed the clone could scrape his original's microscopic remains off the transporter pad, point to the remains and say that the remains were not alive anymore. Can you say honestly that if you scraped up you're own disintegrated body bits, that it wouldn't give you a pause for thought?

Obviously? You haven't presented a single bit of evidence that supports your conclusion, and no citing transporter malfunctions and anomalies isn't that evidence.

[Simon_Jester]

"Blindingly obvious"? You're appealing to common sense, Simon. The problem is that our common sense is based on prior experience... prior experience that is formed in the complete absence of perfect copy machines. You cannot expect this "blindingly obvious" shit to hold in this arugment about a technology very much outside our prior experience. You must prove it before I will accept it.

Fair enough.
[digs out textbooks for reference purposes]
[cracks knuckles]

To begin:
Axiom: "Fermion" and "boson" are scientific terms, whose meaning is not changed by the existence of new technology.
This needs to be formally stated, because it is implicit in the rest of my argument. I find it difficult to believe that you would object to this principle, though. The alternative is absurd. Redefining "fermion" or "boson" to mean something different in a Star Trek context than what it means in real life is no more sensible than redefining "heat" or "gravity" to mean something different. The latter would be an abomination against scientific language; so would the former.

I assume for the sake of argument that real life definitions of fermions and bosons can be applied in Star Trek. If so, fermions and bosons can be defined as follows, in terms of their wavefunctions, which I will denote using Dirac bra-ket notation:

Pi j |(N identical bosons)> = |(N identical bosons)>

Pi j |(N identical fermions)> = -|(N identical fermions)>

In somewhat more detail:
The wavefunction of a system of N bosons is unchanged when we apply the permutation operator Pi j, which interchanges the ith and the jth particle, where i and j are arbitrary. The wavefunction of a system of N bosons is therefore "symmetric;" interchanging any pair of bosons within the system causes no change. It is this property which allows a large number of bosons to occupy a single quantum-mechanical state, allowing for interesting phenomena such as the Bose-Einstein condensate.

The wavefunction of a system of N fermions is "antisymmetric:" interchanging a pair of fermions within the system leaves the waveform unchanged except that the sign reverses. For many purposes this interchange will not cause a visible difference, since the wavefunction is squared in order to find the probability of locating the particle at a given point in space, and (ψ(x))2 = (-ψ(x))2. However, the antisymmetry of a system of fermions forbids any two fermions from occupying the same quantum-mechanical state, leading us to interesting results such as the Pauli exclusion principle.

More detailed explanations are available on request. Non-physicists will probably need one, for which I apologize, but a really detailed explanation would distract from the main argument.
_________

Now, while it pains me to contradict SapphireFox, the human body can be represented as a system of subatomic particles. It is a very complicated system, but it still is one. And there is a precedent for treating composites of multiple particles as fermions or bosons: The helium-4 nucleus, for instance, is a boson and can be used to form Bose-Einstein condensates. The helium-3 nucleus, by contrast, is a fermion. Therefore, we can at least imagine claiming that Captain Kirk is a boson or fermion, in the same sense that we can make the claim of helium nuclei.

Consider the physical parameters. At a given time, a Captain Kirk is a collection of... at a rough estimate, something on the order of 1E29 particles.* Moreover, because of the sheer size of the systems involved, the minimum separation distance between Captain Kirks is on the order of a meter, even if we pack them into an enclosed space like sardines.

*I can nail that down more closely if need be. It is not necessary to this argument.
_________

A problem arises when we examine two Kirks in widely separate positions. Consider one Kirk located on the bridge of the Enterprise and one Kirk located in Iowa. Over any extended period of time (say, a millisecond), each Kirk will undergo random quantum-mechanical processes. Radioactive nuclei within Kirk's body will decay (or not). Each Kirk will absorb ionizing radiation (or not). Electrons in each Kirk's body will absorb photons and rise to excited energy states (or not), and excited electrons in each Kirk's body will emit photons and return to the ground state (or not). All these things happen at random.

Therefore, if we begin with two Kirks at separated positions in spacetime, we see that they are exposed to different patterns of ionizing radiation: even if the level of radiation is identical, the positions at which individual particles are absorbed will not be. We see that the Kirks will experience different sequences of atomic decays: they may have started with the same number of radioisotope atoms in the same configuration, but there is no assurance that Kirk-1's carbon-14 atoms will decay at the same instants that Kirk-2's will. We see that the question of which atoms in their bodies contain excited electrons depends on which Kirk we examine.

Consider the magnetic potential energy of the two-Kirk system. Each Kirk will have energy μKiBi, where μKi is the magnetic moment of the ith Captain Kirk, and Bi is the ambient magnetic field at the ith Kirk's position.

Imagine that the Kirk standing on the bridge of the Enterprise experiences no magnetic field (since he's standing in a Faraday cage), while the Kirk in Iowa is exposed to the Earth's magnetic field, B.

Now suppose that we interchange the two Kirks, moving one from Iowa to the Enterprise and vice versa.

If the two Kirks have identical magnetic moments, the magnetic potential energy is unchanged: the change in energy experienced by the Kirk moved from the Enterprise to Iowa is exactly cancelled out by the change in energy experienced by the Kirk moving from Iowa to the Enterprise. The net energy of the system is preserved, and the two Kirks can be interchanged freely, with no observable input or output of energy from the process. The magnetic potential energy of the system remains μKB, where B is the ambient magnetic field in Iowa.

But if the two Kirks have been separated in spacetime for periods that are long compared to the time scales of subatomic processes, they need not have identical magnetic moments. Even assuming that the magnetic field in Iowa has not caused some of the Earthside Kirk's particles to flip their spins, some of each Kirk's atoms will have undergone beta decays, which alter their magnetic moment... and it won't be the same atoms, or precisely the same number of atoms, in each case.

Define μK1 as the magnetic moment of the first Kirk (currently on the Enterprise), and μK2 as the magnetic moment of the second Kirk (currently in Iowa). If we interchange the two Kirks, a change in the energy of the two-Kirk system equal to ΔE = |(μK2 - μK1)B| must occur.
________

Now, if we find that ΔE is nonzero for two spatially separated Kirks, we have evidence that the Hamiltonian of the two-Kirk system is not symmetric when we interchange the Kirks. This forces us to conclude that the two Kirks are not identical particles.

And it is extremely probable that ΔE will NOT be zero; see above.

It is at least possible that the two Kirks will be identical, giving ΔE = 0, at a particular instant in time. It is (for all practical purposes) not possible that this will remain true indefinitely. In the general case, the two Kirks will not be identical particles, even if they were when you put them there.

But if Captain Kirks are not identical particles, then clearly they cannot be bosons or fermions. Therefore:

Captain Kirk is neither a boson nor a fermion, in the general case.
___________

Now, looking this over, I cannot expect all this to be "blindingly obvious" to the average person. Moreover, it is not strictly impossible for a pair of Kirks to be identical, over extremely short time scales. Short enough that the probability of particle interactions within either Kirk occuring approaches zero, which is really short when you're multiplying the probability over roughly ten to the 29th particles.

Therefore, I retract my previous claim that it is "blindingly obvious" that Captain Kirk is neither a boson nor a fermion. I replace it with a new claim, one that is functionally similar and better informed, one which I make in light of the fact that the argument above is fairly trivial by the standards of a good physics education:

It is blindingly obvious to anyone who knows what a fermion or boson is that Captain Kirk is not a fermion or boson in the general case, with exceptions occuring at extremely low probability and only over extremely short time scales.

This still makes your original argument "Electrons can occupy separate places and not be unique!" disingenuous, assuming that you know what fermions and bosons are, which I believe you do. You are arguing that Captain Kirks might be identical, when in fact the probability of this happening is extremely small, and is effectively zero over human time scales. Taken over periods of time a human can actually perceive, we can say with extreme confidence that the Captain Kirks will not be identical, and will indeed be verifiably unique.

Methods of verification include, for instance, measuring the change in energy of the two-Kirk system as we vary the ambient magnetic fields around them.

[SapphireFox]

Obviously? You haven't presented a single bit of evidence that supports your conclusion, and no citing transporter malfunctions and anomalies isn't that evidence.

That's a pretty big claim, especially considering the anomalies give us insight into how the transporter functions. For example the two examples of the transporter creating two individuals(Kirk and Riker) at the same time shows us that the transporter does not use the same matter during transport otherwise there would not be enough matter to go around to create two whole bodies. Yes this is an anomaly in that the transporter isn't supposed to make an extra person during the beam down but it does reveal in insight into how transportation works. Any theory about how transportation works NEEDS to account for the anomalies otherwise the theory lacks accuracy and/or validity. If someone said transportation works by switching the space on the pad with the space at the beem down site well that would account for the transporters normal function but it doesn't account for the anomalies in particular the two Kirks in "The Enemy Within", simply switching space with another would not account for the creation of matter. So do you understand that the anomalies are indeed evidence indicating how transportation might work or are you like those trekkies who dismiss the 200 GT figure in the ICS simply because they don't like the evidence.

Actually, I've shown that it doesn't terminate consciousness. This point continues to be ignored so this ridiculous discussion can continue.

Actually you don't have a point. Consciousness can only continue if there is a brain to support it. In the short span of time the physical body is non existent consciousness ceases to be for that span of time because it is not being supported by the brain. What you see in the episode "Realm of Fear" is either the hallucinogenic perceptions of a brain being taken apart or the "Ghost in the Shell" moments in the pattern buffer(in which exists a persons data). We can essentially dismiss the hallucinogenic perceptions as being not being true perceptions (remember Barclay perceives other patterns as worm creatures with a mouth). The "Ghost in the Shell" patten buffer moments are a little harder to explain remember in the pattern buffer exists data so there is no physical movement on the part of the patterns so it seems like the loose patterns were drawn to active patterns in use by the transporter. Now as for movement during transport the only way to move during a transport is during the pre/post transport phase while your brain is still intact enough to send commands to your body. We haven't ignored your "point" rather than dismissed it out of hand for the most part.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, while it pains me to contradict SapphireFox, the human body can be represented as a system of subatomic particles. It is a very complicated system, but it still is one. And there is a precedent for treating composites of multiple particles as fermions or bosons: The helium-4 nucleus, for instance, is a boson and can be used to form Bose-Einstein condensates. The helium-3 nucleus, by contrast, is a fermion. Therefore, we can at least imagine claiming that Captain Kirk is a boson or fermion, in the same sense that we can make the claim of helium nuclei.

Consider the physical parameters. At a given time, a Captain Kirk is a collection of... at a rough estimate, something on the order of 1E29 particles.* Moreover, because of the sheer size of the systems involved, the minimum separation distance between Captain Kirks is on the order of a meter, even if we pack them into an enclosed space like sardines.

*shrug* You made decent point. I bow and acquiesce to your superior physics knowledge besides the "effective point" has been clarified and still stands.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's a pretty big claim, especially considering the anomalies give us insight into how the transporter functions. For example the two examples of the transporter creating two individuals(Kirk and Riker) at the same time shows us that the transporter does not use the same matter during transport otherwise there would not be enough matter to go around to create two whole bodies. Yes this is an anomaly in that the transporter isn't supposed to make an extra person during the beam down but it does reveal in insight into how transportation works. Any theory about how transportation works NEEDS to account for the anomalies otherwise the theory lacks accuracy and/or validity. If someone said transportation works by switching the space on the pad with the space at the beem down site well that would account for the transporters normal function but it doesn't account for the anomalies in particular the two Kirks in "The Enemy Within", simply switching space with another would not account for the creation of matter. So do you understand that the anomalies are indeed evidence indicating how transportation might work or are you like those trekkies who dismiss the 200 GT figure in the ICS simply because they don't like the evidence.

No, the instance of a transporter creating two individuals shows you what happens when an foreign phenemonea interferes with the beam. You, and others, are adding the conclusion that it uses new matter instead of the original matter during normal operations. You are probably right that Kirk, Riker, and any others who have had similar instances have been killed and duplicated.

However, Realm of Fear shows us what happens during normal operations and you're trying to dismiss that evidence by explaining it away so your theory still holds instead of actually considering it.

I'm not sure where the ICS whining comes from. Stay on topic, ok? Though I find it interesting that it is you who is ignoring evidence since you don't like it. You even admitted as much when you said you dismissed my point. Comedy gold.

Actually you don't have a point. Consciousness can only continue if there is a brain to support it. In the short span of time the physical body is non existent consciousness ceases to be for that span of time because it is not being supported by the brain. What you see in the episode "Realm of Fear" is either the hallucinogenic perceptions of a brain being taken apart or the "Ghost in the Shell" moments in the pattern buffer(in which exists a persons data). We can essentially dismiss the hallucinogenic perceptions as being not being true perceptions (remember Barclay perceives other patterns as worm creatures with a mouth). The "Ghost in the Shell" patten buffer moments are a little harder to explain remember in the pattern buffer exists data so there is no physical movement on the part of the patterns so it seems like the loose patterns were drawn to active patterns in use by the transporter. Now as for movement during transport the only way to move during a transport is during the pre/post transport phase while your brain is still intact enough to send commands to your body. We haven't ignored your "point" rather than dismissed it out of hand for the most part.

It cracks me up that you state consciousness can only continue if there is a brain to support it, and imply that Barclay isn't conscious but then suggest that he was hallucinating. Maybe he was hallucinating, but you need a brain in order to hallucinate and since the video evidence I provided shows him hallucinating from start to finish then that is pretty damning evidence against your theory that normal transporter operations kill. Furthermore, it also shows that his hallucination was somewhat real since he was able to bring other crew members back.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, I've shown that it doesn't terminate consciousness. This point continues to be ignored so this ridiculous discussion can continue.

Actually you don't have a point.

Speak for yourself. I'm not sure that he's wrong; I'm just willing to concede for the sake of argument.

No, the instance of a transporter creating two individuals shows you what happens when an foreign phenemonea interferes with the beam. You, and others, are adding the conclusion that it uses new matter instead of the original matter during normal operations.

Yes, but the alternative is... problematic. Otherwise that is a LOT of energy being slung around, and a lot that needs to be accounted for in cases of duplication.

[SapphireFox]

No, the instance of a transporter creating two individuals shows you what happens when an foreign phenemonea interferes with the beam. You, and others, are adding the conclusion that it uses new matter instead of the original matter during normal operations. You are probably right that Kirk, Riker, and any others who have had similar instances have been killed and duplicated.

However, Realm of Fear shows us what happens during normal operations and you're trying to dismiss that evidence by explaining it away so your theory still holds instead of actually considering it

Okay lets say you are right and you do somehow maintain consciousness during transport and everything the episode is as you say it is. If this is true please explain the following.

1. How is it possible to maintain your consciousness after you have been dematerialized and before you have been rematerialized during this time your physical body does not exist? If you can not then explain what we are seeing during the episode.

2. If the transporter uses the original matter only then explain where the matter for the duplicate Kirk and Riker came from or for that matter where where the matter for crew for the crew of the USS Yosemite came form after it had been lost in the plasma streamer.

3. How is it possible to move during transport while your body is being taken apart during the dematerialization process? Or for that matter how is it possible to move when your body has been fully dematerialized and thus not there to move?

If you can't explain then please concede the point however if you can explain them all to my satisfaction then I will apologize for my rude tone, consider your point, and modify my transporter theory accordingly to account for the new data.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Okay lets say you are right and you do somehow maintain consciousness during transport and everything the episode is as you say it is. If this is true please explain the following.

I don't need to explain any of that. The video clip I provided clearly shows Barclay, and the "creature" maintaining consciousness throughtout the entire transport sequence. This is demonstrated easily because Barclay and the creature respond to each others movements.

1. How is it possible to maintain your consciousness after you have been dematerialized and before you have been rematerialized during this time your physical body does not exist? If you can not then explain what we are seeing during the episode.

I have no idea why it's possible. It just is as demonstrated in the video sequence.

2. If the transporter uses the original matter only then explain where the matter for the duplicate Kirk and Riker came from or for that matter where where the matter for crew for the crew of the USS Yosemite came form after it had been lost in the plasma streamer.

In Rikers case just before he was transported there was a energy discharge that interacted with his transport. I haven't seen the Kirk episode in a while so I can't comment.

3. How is it possible to move during transport while your body is being taken apart during the dematerialization process? Or for that matter how is it possible to move when your body has been fully dematerialized and thus not there to move?

I don't know, but they are obviously moving.

If you can't explain then please concede the point however if you can explain them all to my satisfaction then I will apologize for my rude tone, consider your point, and modify my transporter theory accordingly to account for the new data.

Rude tone huh? Spare me, please. You can be as rude as you want to. I do not care.

There is no need to explain any of those. I do not have to satisfy your questions. All I have to do is do what I've already done. I provided visual evidence of consciousness being maintained throughout the entire sequence. If you want me to concede then you'll have to defeat that evidence. Asking a bunch of stupid questions (stupid because of the nature of science fiction) isn't the way.

[Simon_Jester]

I still find the idea that the matter from the transportee is being physically moved... troubling. Because it raises a proof-by-contradiction issue when combined with the issue of transporter duplicates.

I'm not going to address the "are you conscious going through the transporter?" question one way or the other, but that's an issue I think is worth being addressed. It would take so much power to create that kind of mass from nowhere in the case of duplication that the effects really ought to be more far-reaching than we see. Trek ships aren't built to sling around that kind of power casually.

[SapphireFox]

Rude tone huh? Spare me, please. You can be as rude as you want to. I do not care.

Fine, I'll start taking pointers from Mr. Coffee then.

There is no need to explain any of those. I do not have to satisfy your questions. All I have to do is do what I've already done. I provided visual evidence of consciousness being maintained throughout the entire sequence. If you want me to concede then you'll have to defeat that evidence. Asking a bunch of stupid questions (stupid because of the nature of science fiction) isn't the way.

To your credit you at least addressed the questions, but either don't know or don't care about the answers. Tho I did decide to address the data from the episode and its not as earth shattering as you seem to think.

The brain of the copy would perceive no loss of consciousness because it would have all the memories of the original including being transported thus what would appear from its perspective to be maintaining consciousness throughout the transport.

[SapphireFox]

I still find the idea that the matter from the transportee is being physically moved... troubling. Because it raises a proof-by-contradiction issue when combined with the issue of transporter duplicates.

I'm not going to address the "are you conscious going through the transporter?" question one way or the other, but that's an issue I think is worth being addressed. It would take so much power to create that kind of mass from nowhere in the case of duplication that the effects really ought to be more far-reaching than we see. Trek ships aren't built to sling around that kind of power casually.

Simon, what order of magnatude of power are we talking about here? 1e18, 1e24, 1e38, more?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Fine, I'll start taking pointers from Mr. Coffee then.

Like I said before. Do what you want. I do not care.

To your credit you at least addressed the questions, but either don't know or don't care about the answers. Tho I did decide to address the data from the episode and its not as earth shattering as you seem to think.

The brain of the copy would perceive no loss of consciousness because it would have all the memories of the original including being transported thus what would appear from its perspective to be maintaining consciousness throughout the transport.

I disagree with your assessment. Individuals who are transported under normal conditions do not suffer any of the symptoms of losing consciousness such as disorientation, loss of balance, or confusion.

[SapphireFox]

I disagree with your assessment. Individuals who are transported under normal conditions do not suffer any of the symptoms of losing consciousness such as disorientation, loss of balance, or confusion.

Why would the subject suffer those symptoms if he perceives no loss of consciousness? Alternatively perhaps a person who knows they are going to be transported can prepare for any symptoms and effectively mitigate them. We have seen people who have been transported unawares (aka snatch and grab transporting) be confused and disoriented after transport and if I recall correctly Archer had a minor loss of balance after being transported from the suliban helix.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon, what order of magnatude of power are we talking about here? 1e18, 1e24, 1e38, more?

If we're talking about conjuring up the mass to create a new person from nowhere, it strongly implies matter-energy conversion of something on the order of 50-100 kg of matter (for typical military personnel). At 9*1016 joules per kilogram... well, you do the math. But yeah, we're talking about something like a gigaton of energy, more than is contained in a photon torpedo, for example.

I feel the same way about replicators: they can't just be creating matter out of power drawn from the ship's electrical grid; they have to be doing something exotic to matter that is already present. Some settings have the capability to handle the power levels energy-to-matter conversion would require, but Star Trek just isn't one of them.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I disagree with your assessment. Individuals who are transported under normal conditions do not suffer any of the symptoms of losing consciousness such as disorientation, loss of balance, or confusion.

Why would the subject suffer those symptoms if he perceives no loss of consciousness? Alternatively perhaps a person who knows they are going to be transported can prepare for any symptoms and effectively mitigate them. We have seen people who have been transported unawares (aka snatch and grab transporting) be confused and disoriented after transport and if I recall correctly Archer had a minor loss of balance after being transported from the suliban helix.

So, your argument is basically they do lose consciousness but nobody can perceive it. Not even the audience. Sounds like you're admitting you have zero evidence.

You'll have to go into more detail on those other examples. The Archer example doesn't sound like a normal transport operation. As for the other people in snatch and grab they are able to quickly orient themselves. People who lose consciousness have a noticeable delay in establishing their orientation.

[SapphireFox]

I disagree with your assessment. Individuals who are transported under normal conditions do not suffer any of the symptoms of losing consciousness such as disorientation, loss of balance, or confusion.

Why would the subject suffer those symptoms if he perceives no loss of consciousness? Alternatively perhaps a person who knows they are going to be transported can prepare for any symptoms and effectively mitigate them. We have seen people who have been transported unawares (aka snatch and grab transporting) be confused and disoriented after transport and if I recall correctly Archer had a minor loss of balance after being transported from the suliban helix.

So, your argument is basically they do lose consciousness but nobody can perceive it. Not even the audience. Sounds like you're admitting you have zero evidence.

I dout that the writers of the show would bother to show it (even if they cared or bothered to think about it) as it would only create questions among fans that would detract from the storytelling. Considering that in the same episode Barclay stated that in his transporter theroy class that Dr. Olafson informed him about "the body being converted into billions of kiloquads of data, zipping through subspace." now as stated in the episode the transpoter DOES NOT use the matter of the body of the subject only the information gathered from it. How it is possible to maintain consciousness through such a process is a logical incongruity I can not answer any more then I can answer how Data's cat Spot changes genders midway through TNG. Now as stated in the episode the trasporter does not use the matter of the person only the data gained from that person to create a body at the transport site.

You'll have to go into more detail on those other examples. The Archer example doesn't sound like a normal transport operation. As for the other people in snatch and grab they are able to quickly orient themselves. People who lose consciousness have a noticeable delay in establishing their orientation.

The Archer example was a perfectly normal transport, the system did not malfunction nor was there any transport altering technobabble BS in the area at the time. In "Tomorrow is Yesterday" Captian John Cristopher was beamed aboard the Enterprise to avoid him being killed by the ships tractor beam he experienced confusion and disorientation more importently he was not prepared for transport just like Archer. I'm still looking for episode names for the others.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I dout that the writers of the show would bother to show it (even if they cared or bothered to think about it) as it would only create questions among fans that would detract from the storytelling.

I doubt they would as well. I doubt even more they intend for transporters to kill people. Don't you?

Considering that in the same episode Barclay stated that in his transporter theroy class that Dr. Olafson informed him about "the body being converted into billions of kiloquads of data, zipping through subspace." now as stated in the episode the transpoter DOES NOT use the matter of the body of the subject only the information gathered from it.

That quote is in reference to the function of the heisenberg compensator, and not the actual process of beaming.

How it is possible to maintain consciousness through such a process is a logical incongruity I can not answer any more then I can answer how Data's cat Spot changes genders midway through TNG. Now as stated in the episode the trasporter does not use the matter of the person only the data gained from that person to create a body at the transport site.

Unfortunately, it seems you misunderstood the context of that quote.

The Archer example was a perfectly normal transport, the system did not malfunction nor was there any transport altering technobabble BS in the area at the time. In "Tomorrow is Yesterday" Captian John Cristopher was beamed aboard the Enterprise to avoid him being killed by the ships tractor beam he experienced confusion and disorientation more importently he was not prepared for transport just like Archer. I'm still looking for episode names for the others.

No amount of being prepared will prevent you from the disorientation associated with loss of consciousness. Furthermore, these examples are clearly exceptions to the rule as most people do not experience any confusion or disorientation.

Also, in Ent "Vanishing Point" Hoshi is trapped within the pattern buffer for approximately 8.3 seconds, but experiences a dream that turns out to be the story line for the entire episode. Again, not dead.

[SapphireFox]

I doubt they would as well. I doubt even more they intend for transporters to kill people. Don't you?

Actualy Roddenberry never intended to use the transporter concept at all, his original plan was to land the ship on the planet but since he spent most of the money on the first pilot that never aired he needed a cheap and quick way to get down to the planets surface and thus the transporter concept was born.
Although to answer your question directly, no I doubt it even entered the writers tiny minds.

That quote is in reference to the function of the heisenberg compensator, and not the actual process of beaming.

Don't feed me that bullshit KS they are working on the compensator not talking about it here is the scene in question.

Geordi: Reg, there is a lot of energy floating in the matter stream maybe you saw a surge in the matter stream.

Barclay:*depressed sigh* yeah.

O'brien: I'll run a scan on the heisenberg compensators.

Barclay: Oh no no c.chief you've done enough already.

O'brien: It's no problem why don't you give me a hand
(O'brien walks over to raised transporter pad Barclay joins him)
Barclay:You know maybe ignorance really is bliss.

O'brien: Sir?

Barclay: Well if I didn't know so much about these things maybe they wouldn't scare me so much.

O'brien: *amused grunt*

Barclay: I can still remember the day in Doctor Olafson's transporter theory class when he was talking about the body being converted into billions of kiloquads of data zipping through subspace and I realized there's no margin for error one atom out of place and puff, you never come back. It's amazing people aren't lost all the time

O'brien: With all due respect Sir I've been doing this for 22 years and I haven't lost anybody yet.

Barclay: Yes! But y..you realize that if the imageing scanners are off even one 1000th of a percent..

O'brien: That's why there's four redundant scanners if any one fails the other three take over.

Geordi: How many transporter accidents have been in the last ten years? two three? There are millions of people who transport safely without a problem.

Barclay: I I've heard of problems what about transporter psychosis?

O'brien: Transporter psychosis? There hasn't been a case of that in over 50 years not since they perfected the multi-plex pattern buffers.

Geordi: Reg, transporting really is the safest way to travel.
(Barclay looks at Geordi like he has lost his mind sighs and continues working)

Nowhere in that scene was any mention that the heisenberg compensator was what they were talking about. Only that it was the component of the transporter they were working on and the fear the transporter evokes in Barclay. So if watch the scene Barclay is obviously speaking about the transporter as a whole. It's transporter theory class NOT heisenberg compensator class.

Unfortunately, it seems you misunderstood the context of that quote.

Or perhaps it is you that hasn't watched the scene.

No amount of being prepared will prevent you from the disorientation associated with loss of consciousness. Furthermore, these examples are clearly exceptions to the rule as most people do not experience any confusion or disorientation.

Because you say so? I already pointed out that the examples have the commonality of not being prepared so it clearly is a factor.
Unless you have missed the concept of this part of the discussion the fact that they do experience disorientation and confusion where a normal prepared transport doesn't is the point.

Also, in Ent "Vanishing Point" Hoshi is trapped within the pattern buffer for approximately 8.3 seconds, but experiences a dream that turns out to be the story line for the entire episode. Again, not dead.

I haven't seen to much about the episode so I can't comment to much but it sounds like it might be related to what happens with Barclay I don't know

[Simon_Jester]

I doubt they would as well. I doubt even more they intend for transporters to kill people. Don't you?

Actualy Roddenberry never intended to use the transporter concept at all, his original plan was to land the ship on the planet but since he spent most of the money on the first pilot that never aired he needed a cheap and quick way to get down to the planets surface and thus the transporter concept was born.
Although to answer your question directly, no I doubt it even entered the writers tiny minds.

Obviously they don't intend that people in Star Trek believe that transporter jumps kill them... but that doesn't necessarily prove that they're right. The Federation wouldn't be the first society to ignore a major philosophical question about its own practices for the sake of expediency.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Actualy Roddenberry never intended to use the transporter concept at all, his original plan was to land the ship on the planet but since he spent most of the money on the first pilot that never aired he needed a cheap and quick way to get down to the planets surface and thus the transporter concept was born.
Although to answer your question directly, no I doubt it even entered the writers tiny minds.

Or maybe they did and that's why they created episodes which clearly show a person is alive while in transport.

Don't feed me that bullshit KS they are working on the compensator not talking about it here is the scene in question.

Nowhere in that scene was any mention that the heisenberg compensator was what they were talking about. Only that it was the component of the transporter they were working on and the fear the transporter evokes in Barclay. So if watch the scene Barclay is obviously speaking about the transporter as a whole. It's transporter theory class NOT heisenberg compensator class.

Ok, I'll give you that. Still doesn't say that new matter is used either.

Furthermore, it doesn't address the examples of consciousness that I've cited. Again, I'll direct your attention to ENT "Vanishing Point"

Because you say so? I already pointed out that the examples have the commonality of not being prepared so it clearly is a factor.
Unless you have missed the concept of this part of the discussion the fact that they do experience disorientation and confusion where a normal prepared transport doesn't is the point.

You have pointed out jack and shit. Jack left town, and he left a message for you telling you that he isn't coming back!

You've pointed out very few examples. There are other examples of people being beamed without warning and not being confused, disorientated, etc.

Furthermore, it isn't because I say so. The closest example I can find that would be on the same level as being killed, as you claim the transporters do, would be a syncope episode. Again, loss of consciousness associated with a complete stop of brain functions is highly disorientating.

I haven't seen to much about the episode so I can't comment to much but it sounds like it might be related to what happens with Barclay I don't know

Really? In what way? Besides the whole "not dead" part...

[Wyrm]

"Blindingly obvious"? You're appealing to common sense, Simon. The problem is that our common sense is based on prior experience... prior experience that is formed in the complete absence of perfect copy machines. You cannot expect this "blindingly obvious" shit to hold in this arugment about a technology very much outside our prior experience. You must prove it before I will accept it.

You don't get to bitch about common sense here fishbait. The human body is not made up of sub-atomic particles exclusively, it is made of larger more complex structures like atoms, molecules, proteins, in turn creating cells, organs and finally the combined structure as a whole. ANY form of matter larger than the sub-atomic can be demonstrated to be unique by being spatially separated.

Being spatially separated has zip, zilch, nada, and nothing to do with what I was talking about. I can tell two protons are spatially separated, too. Their identicality (to call it a name) is a completely different property from whether or not they are spatially separated. It is not sufficient to demonstrate uniqueness.

Also, the quantum effects we observe with protons and electrons is also observed with atoms and even small molecules, albeit to a lesser exent. Simply aggratating particles does not let you escape the quantum wierdness — the proton is itself an aggragate. Instead, we find that the quantum wierdness fades into the classical regime as we increase the number of particles involved. This begs the quesiton of where the hell the dividing line between the quantum world and the classical world is.

While the transporter is indeed not within prior experience, bosons and fermions are so in this case it is indeed blindingly obvious that being spatially separated DOES demonstrate uniqueness. Common sense does indeed apply to the things we know like bosons and fermions. Simon_Jesters's point still stands.

It does not. If being spatially separated was enough to demonstrate uniqueness, then the same goes for protons, which can be localized to very small volumes that can be spatially separated. While two protons sitting in locations A and B is distinct from two protons both sitting in location A, proton 1 sitting in location A and proton 2 sitting in location B is NOT distinct from proton 1 sitting in location B and proton 2 sitting in location A. It is THIS distinction that is blurred in quantum mechanics and causes the wierd behavior that I aluded to in discussions in non-uniqueness — they relate only to whether the two individuals produced are interchangable, not whether we can tell that there are two of them.

IF it is, indeed, the cause of a death! You have yet to prove that the kind of disintegration you cause need result in an actual death.

You go right from "disintegration" to "death" as if it's obvious, skipping over the not-insiginficant point that it is completely and routinely reversible in complete defiance of other forms of death except "clinical death", which no one at all agrees results in zombies walking the earth. If the definition of "death" you use here by axiom is the only result of transporter disintegration, then of the two of us, only you care about it.

I won't dignify this rant except to point out that the kind of "death" you claim is happening with respect to transporter disintegration lacks any of the features of a definition of death I would worry about. As such, only you care about this definition of death.

The point is that the disintegration is NOT reversed. To reverse a disintegration the same matter would need to be returned to a point exactly as it was before the disintegration happened.

Why? Because you say so? I don't have to be revived in the same location to reverse clinical death. Why should I expect it to be the same for any other form of death, including transporter death?

Since the the transporter obviously does not use the same matter to create the clone at the transport site the reversal of disintegration does not occur instead other matter is used to create a clone copy.

And what difference does it make, physically, if I use the same matter or some similar matter for the reconstruction? If I put the raw matter I was disassembled from into a container, an identical amount of similar matter put into another container, mixed them up and then chose one canister from which my pattern would be reassembled from, what physical test can you perform on me to decide whether or not if the canister used was the original stuff or the similar but different stuff?

I seriously want an answer to this question. No, simply being done in a different place is not enough. The point of a transporter is to bink me from place to place, and if I agreed that being reconstructed in a different place was enough to kill me, we wouldn't be having this... discussion.

This is why the "Whole of X" survives an individual being disintegrated while the individual does not. Because the individual has not been put back together he is dead and the clone carries on with the original's life. Indeed the clone could scrape his original's microscopic remains off the transporter pad, point to the remains and say that the remains were not alive anymore. Can you say honestly that if you scraped up you're own disintegrated body bits, that it wouldn't give you a pause for thought?

As you've pointed out before, my feelings about a matter are immaterial to the physics. Yes, I would pause for thought, just like I would be scared shitless in Stark's example. However, that is simply millions of years of evolution talking: my ancestors had no experience with transporters or perfect copy machines. My exhausted breath and other bodily waste was also as much a part of me as the rest of my body, but that doesn't mean I hold a funeral every time I breathe out or go to the bathroom.

Did my original die on the transporter pad, or did my existence get transmitted to the remote site as the matter of that original body utterly lose that identity to be gained by another bit of matter? What if that matter was used to reintegrate a woman — am I that woman now? If I was copied, is it meaningful to talk about an original me and a clone me, or has my existence instead split into two beings that are (for the moment) identical, interchangable and as much claim on my identity as my pre-copy self? Or were there somehow two people in my body originally that now can lead separate existances?

I do not pretend that the above questions have easy answers.

=====

"Blindingly obvious"? You're appealing to common sense, Simon. The problem is that our common sense is based on prior experience... prior experience that is formed in the complete absence of perfect copy machines. You cannot expect this "blindingly obvious" shit to hold in this arugment about a technology very much outside our prior experience. You must prove it before I will accept it.

Fair enough.
[digs out textbooks for reference purposes]
[cracks knuckles]

To begin:
Axiom: "Fermion" and "boson" are scientific terms, whose meaning is not changed by the existence of new technology.

Yes. But "original" and "copy" are not scientific terms.

<snip extended spiel>

While your discussion of whether Kirk is a fermion or a boson is quite interesting, it has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. What I focused on was one pretty surprising property shared by all subatomic particles: the fundamental inability for one proton, electron, muon, whateveron to be distinguished from each other — to give it a name, "identiciality".

What you missed in your spiel is that considering interchange of two particles causes a superposition of states, rather than a mixture of states that would result if the particles could be individually labeled. In other words, the property of identicality (together with the particle's spin) causes fermions to obey Fermi-Dirac statistics and bosons to obey Bose-Einstein statistics. Your discussion about whether Kirk is a fermion or a boson is really beside the point.

I recognize the limits of the comparison. I realize that macroscopic objects are made from shittons of particles that are jostling around and doing their own thing. However, this is beside the point. While each of Kirk's bodies may be doing their own thing, interacting in different environments, if one is a perfect copy of the other, the distribution of the possible quantum-mechanical events is identical. The "original" and "copy" Kirk (assuming we know what those words mean) will behave, statistically, in an identical manner in this one environment. The very fact that the two scenarios are goverened by quantum mechanics means that I can really get no better than this, anyway.

It seems to me that, while the two Kirks will behave in a different manner because of their spatial separation, that this is induced by the environment and quantum-mechanical happenstance and not by anything inherent in the configuration of Kirk's matter. If I were to disagree on which Kirk I label "Kirk-1" and "Kirk-2," whould anyone have any physical basis to dispute my claim? It doesn't seem to be the case, as the two copies are initially identical in every physical sense, right down to the initial positions/states of each subatomic particle, and as such will evolve in statistically identical ways.

THIS is the question I want answered, Simon: Is the original/copy distinction even physically meaningful in a world with perfect copy machines? If so, how? If not, why is it so "blindingly obvoius" that the two verions are "unique" — that is, distinguishable?

[SapphireFox]

Ok, I'll give you that. Still doesn't say that new matter is used either.

Barclay: I can still remember the day in Doctor Olafson's transporter theory class when he was talking about the body being converted into billions of kiloquads of data zipping through subspace and I realized there's no margin for error one atom out of place and puff, you never come back. It's amazing people aren't lost all the time

I underlined the relevant parts for you. Now unless you would like to claim that information is a form of matter then you would need new matter at the transit point to make a body from.

You've pointed out very few examples. There are other examples of people being beamed without warning and not being confused, disorientated, etc.

Furthermore, it isn't because I say so. The closest example I can find that would be on the same level as being killed, as you claim the transporters do, would be a syncope episode. Again, loss of consciousness associated with a complete stop of brain functions is highly disorientating.

I find it funny that you bitch about me providing few examples when you have yet to give me even one example supporting your statement about disorientation or about the disorientation itself for that matter. Provide an example of someone who was transported without being prepared and displayed nothing that could be construed as disorientation, confusion, or loss of balance otherwise concede the point.

Considering I haven't seen an example of any one who snaps out of having no brain functions like the transporter does I have no comparisons on how you came to your statement would you care to tell me how you came to your conclusion? For reference if nothing else.

Furthermore, it doesn't address the examples of consciousness that I've cited. Again, I'll direct your attention to ENT "Vanishing Point"

The whole episode is a delusion created by having difficulty in reintegration aka putting the subject together because of a storm. If If I recall correctly Reed even stated that at the end of the episode. I would hardly accept a delusion caused by a transporter fuck up
as being of proof anything considering all sensations caused by delusions are a lie. Hoshi experienced I think days worth of fake experiences.

Now there are two different scenarios arising from this First that something in Hoshi's brain didn't quite rematerialise exactly perfectly during a fucked up transport thus causing the fake memories of the delusion. Or that being stuck momentarily in the transporter caused some kind of time dilation effect allowing the pattern buffer which apparently now causes delusions as part of its function to experience days worth of fake memories to accumulate in just over 8 seconds.
I think its apparent that the first one makes more sense, especially considering the funky things transporters can do to the body.