3 ms·

I ponder similar themes and they are indeed very thought-provoking. There's a loose precedent for this in things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_i

I ponder similar themes and they are indeed very thought-provoking. There's a loose precedent for this in things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation: you've got to jump through some pretty narrow hoops to end up with a scientific argument for objectively-conscious human beings with a distinct past, free will about the future, a clear arrow of time, and a concrete notion of identity. And yet the human experience is one of being conscious, having a past, having choices about the future, and being the only "me". For myself I am generally satisfied with the answer that this experienced reality belongs to my personal spirituality (with or without some higher power), and that spirituality is a different matter than science.

galaxyLogic 4y ago
This makes we ponder StarTrek "beaming" of humans from one place to another. Obviously (?) the process must mean that a COPY of captain Kirk is assembled at the destination (also think about "Ship of Theseus"). But if StarTrekkers beam copies of themselves up and down, it seems they also must destroy the original. Else they would have multiple Captain Kirks competing for attention (and perhaps in some episodes they do). But then why do they destroy the original? Wouldn't two Captain Kirks be better than just one? My conclusion is that StarTrek is poorly thought out fiction. It doesn't follow the most compelling questions. Do you make copies when you beam people around? And if you do why not keep the original?
- XorNot 4y ago
  Star Trek perfectly answers what the transporter does: it destroys the original, creates an exact copy simultaneously, and this is fine because in Star Trek's lore consciousness is an observable process from matter and as such there's no problem. It's you who has the problem with that conclusion, not Star Trek. They even ably do some episodes where people do get duplicated, and the answer is that both have equal claim to rights and life and go on with their lives. The bigger problem return the transporter is logistical: it's a superweapon. Mining - obsolete, use the transporter. Ship repair? Just beam new parts directly into place. Surgery? Beam organs in and out. TNGs transporter has more problems in this regard due to just how powerful it's shown to be. What the transporter should be able to do is near endless and makes a lot of other things in the setting obsolete or quaint (but that's Star Trek - being inconsistent due to episodic events is just what goes with the setting).
- benreesman 4y ago
  Au contraire! They just anticipated the many-worlds stuff! Every transporter trip fails in one timeline and succeeds in another, so while one version of the old Kirk is in fact atomized on the surface of planet Nebulon VII, he has an independent future in the world where the one-episode guy couldn't get a lock ;)

galaxyLogic 4y ago

This makes we ponder StarTrek "beaming" of humans from one place to another. Obviously (?) the process must mean that a COPY of captain Kirk is assembled at the destination (also think about "Ship of Theseus"). But if StarTrekkers beam copies of themselves up and down, it seems they also must destroy the original. Else they would have multiple Captain Kirks competing for attention (and perhaps in some episodes they do). But then why do they destroy the original? Wouldn't two Captain Kirks be better than just one? My conclusion is that StarTrek is poorly thought out fiction. It doesn't follow the most compelling questions. Do you make copies when you beam people around? And if you do why not keep the original?

XorNot 4y ago
Star Trek perfectly answers what the transporter does: it destroys the original, creates an exact copy simultaneously, and this is fine because in Star Trek's lore consciousness is an observable process from matter and as such there's no problem. It's you who has the problem with that conclusion, not Star Trek. They even ably do some episodes where people do get duplicated, and the answer is that both have equal claim to rights and life and go on with their lives. The bigger problem return the transporter is logistical: it's a superweapon. Mining - obsolete, use the transporter. Ship repair? Just beam new parts directly into place. Surgery? Beam organs in and out. TNGs transporter has more problems in this regard due to just how powerful it's shown to be. What the transporter should be able to do is near endless and makes a lot of other things in the setting obsolete or quaint (but that's Star Trek - being inconsistent due to episodic events is just what goes with the setting).
benreesman 4y ago
Au contraire! They just anticipated the many-worlds stuff! Every transporter trip fails in one timeline and succeeds in another, so while one version of the old Kirk is in fact atomized on the surface of planet Nebulon VII, he has an independent future in the world where the one-episode guy couldn't get a lock ;)