Another transporter morality question

[Batman]

The problem is that when it comes down to it we really have no fucking clue WHAT the transporter does (or, more precisely, we have any number of clues, most of which are mutually contradictory).
The 'who cares if the original is destroyed' argument breaks down the moment the thing copies you (resulting in the you Riker that was destroyed, they you Riker that thinks he is the real Riker assuming transport had failed, and the you Riker who assumes he got beamed back up)
or splits you in a good and evil half or drops you in a parallel universe.

[Molyneux]

P

That kind of thing is non-falsifiable though: there is no experiment you can do to prove it is not the case. The person at the other side is identical in every way to you; if you scan, you'll see that, if you ask him, he'll agree, etc. It cannot possibly be disproven without arguing about metaphysics, which doesn't have an objective answer either.

It literally comes down to "I say it is" vs "I say it isn't" with no way to win or lose.

The problem is that if you go in and get transported without destroying the original...you find yourself on the new world. Good.

If you go in, are destroyed and a copy is made on the new world...your copy believes it is you, and has no way of knowing that the original was destroyed. The only person in a position to know that it is indeed destructive is the person who was just killed - your original.

Given that, I cannot justify ever trying something like that unless it can be verified that it is safe. If you don't know either way, it's not safe to transport.

By what criteria are you distinguishing between an original and a copy? If you cannot provide some testable quality, then you're spinning philosophy in place of science.

There is no outwardly-testable quality. The ONLY viewpoint that can tell the difference is the viewpoint of the original...and in the case of a destructive copy, the original suffers from the slight disadvantage of being dead afterward.

A steps onto the pad.
Either:
A is instantaneously transported to the other side, and is fine; he walks off into an alien world, and is promptly eaten by an iguana.

OR:

A is destroyed and perfectly scanned. The "receiver" pad constructs a perfect copy of A, to be designated A'. As far as A' is concerned, he IS A; he has all of the same memories, right up until the moment of transport. However, the viewpoint of the original A terminated when he flicked the switch; he's dead, and a perfect copy is running around the new planet.

If the transporter could be rejiggered to not destroy the original somehow:

A steps onto the pad.
A' is instantly created on the new planet.
From A's point of view, he just stepped onto the pad and stayed there.
From the point of view of A', he just stepped onto the pad and instantly teleported across the galaxy.
However, once A' comes into existence, the two diverge; they are distinct viewpoints, with differing experiences after the point of divergence.


Given the difficulty of determining precisely which scenario is at play, I would advise against any transporter travel. Even if the perfect copy THINKS he's me, the original me may still be dead.

[Rossum]

If using a transporter is the only way for humanity or other types of organic life to leave the planet then would you use it? Would you mind of other people used it if they knew the (unverifiable) risk?

I'm just going to say "It kills you and makes a copy on the other side." because the question is non-falsifiable and if someone walks through it and it turns out that magically the 'soul' is transferred then it would be a pleasant surprise instead of a horrible shock if people found out.

The question is... given that humanity has to find a way off the earth to guarantee our survival as a species, and if scientists had a transporter that could spread the human species to other planets (or at least make sure that humans with pure genomes and a head full of knowledge and skills show up on another planet even if their 'origional' died in the transfer) would you consider it ethical to use?

Would you be willing to use it if it meant that a copy (however you define copy or whatever) of yourself could arrive on a distant colony somewhere and start a new life for themselves and their potential children? If someone you knew decided to take the transporter and colonize another planet (while knowing the potential risk or ethical paradox) then how would you react? If they took the trip and their exact copy in every way down to the subatomic level arrived on a distant planet a solar system away and sent back letters about how things were going then how would you treat them?

Or, if the guys working on the transporter built in a filter making it not only 100% likely to end the person to the other side (with the whole copy thing a concern) but the transfer removed all disease, effects of old age, and genetic damage in the process, would that change anything? If a 90 year old bedridden man on life support could go through the transporter, get their atoms sorted out in transit, and step out onto a new colony world light-years away in a healthy young body and a few more decades if not centuries to live... would that make it any better?


I'm not so much asking "do you think the transporter kills you?" as I am asking "Are there any possible benefits for your transporter copy, potential grandchildren born post-transport, or for the human race in general that would make stepping though a transporter seem worth it?"

Even if a whole line of people with protest signs were standing outside the buildings shouting "Transporters Kill!" or "No transporter beam to heaven. Only a highway to hell!" or other such things?