The creepy reality about that technology is that it effectively

>>8633208
baby's first steps into the philosophy of the metaphysical

>>8633217

What the fuck is metaphysical about quantum indeterminacy sperg?

>>8633221
You're talking about life and death, about concious. You smegma smear.

>>8633242
Life, death and consciousness aren't metaphysical either, idiot.
Bullshit like souls are, but there's nothing philosophical about saying "you die when the teleporter transports you". That's a fact. You are murdered by the machine, and a copy of you is constructed that doesn't know any better.

It's not a deep thought, it's just a dry observation.

>>8633208
Nothing about that is creepy, though. Are you afraid of dying, anon?

>>8633791
I'm afraid of living to see you two interact more

>>8633208

I like how you think!

In response to all the metaphysics bullshit that got posted as replies, I think they could use their own logic to claim that their souls are hiding up their assholes.

I swear. Some of those philosophy folk (hopefully they are arm chair philosophers) can be just as religious as religious folk.

>>8633208
The star trek transporter isn't like teleportation. The star trek tech actually keeps your mind intact but in an energy form. There is even an episode where some people "wake up" inside the transporter buffer and have to face a monster. Teleportation on the other hand kills you and makes a copy somewhere else, though it doesn't actually need to kill you in some sci-fi, they just do it to prevent problems with more than one person running around.

>>8633828

This reminds me that Dark Matter has an excellent way to deal with all these problems. Their teleporters do make clones and they are very conscious of it. The clones remain clones and they die shortly after and the original does not die of course.

What is great about that solution is that even if one claims "yeah, but the clones would not want to die", it's not a problem at all because the original getting into the machine has made peace of that so he doesn't give a shit, WHEN he becomes a clone.

>>8633208
>Due to quantum indeterminacy your molecules aren't exactly stable. It comes to reason you are constantly in a state of death and life.

What in the everloving shitfuck are you talking about OP. Do you not realise this doesn't make the smallest speck of sense. What you mean with death and life is having your heart pump blood around your body and not. To question a broader sense of aliveness you will first have to define what you mean by this.

Is the life and death you are talking about not metaphysical? Let me hear it OP! The things you talk about is just a concoction of inconsistent ideas.

>>8633544
>>8633797

The metaphysical is not about souls. It is about philosophising about the human condition, the one thing every single human will think about in their lifetime, the ultimate meaning of life, whatever you want to call it, everyone has these thoughts. The simple fact is we cannot explain it in our current view of the world, I am talking about science here. If we cannot explain something that doesn't mean our system is inconsistent, there are simple things we cannot provide proof for, or it's negation ofcourse.

For example take the sentence "this sentence is false", the famous liar paradox. This is a paradox in the same system as we are discussing this problem and you could argue this extends to the underlying mechanics of our brains. This sentence you could say is one of meta-language, it goes outside of the bounds of our system of language, we cannot say anything about the truth of it. It doesn't make our system inconsistent and the sentence itself is completely valid in the system.

>>8633891
You should be only allowed to teleport if you're prepared to personally execute your clone after it's served its purpose.

But, presuming your clone is just a fork () of your mind, it would know this and, once it figured out that IT was the clone, would get scared and probably try to go AWOL.

>>8633828
>Teleportation on the other hand kills you
No actual teleporation doesnt kill you, turning into energy then reappearing isnt teleporting, the shit that Shirai Kuroko does is actual teleportation meaning instantly appearing in a place without any movement.

>>8634036
(continuing my masturbation session here)

The ultimate question of humankind, the ultimate meaning of the universe, the origin of the universe, the meaning to life, whatever label you want to give it, falls in this category. There simply exist questions unanswerable in our system and that doesn't make the system inconsistent. I have not argued why this question is unanswerable. I feel this is something every person has to figure out on their own. It is also not a case of saying "everything is physical LOL" either, if you do that you just shove the big pile of dust that is the ultimate question under the rug and pretend it is not there.

>>8634036

I think almost all paradoxes are invalid, unsound, or have poor definitions/wordplay/unnecessary ambiguity.

> Some paradoxes have revealed errors in definitions assumed to be rigorous, and have caused axioms of mathematics and logic to be re-examined.

For example, that "liar paradox" can be evaluated to false if the hidden implicitness is revealed explicitly.

Don't get me wrong, philosophy is fun and interesting, but it confuses a lot of non-scientists (people that like to go on drug induced trips, people that do not believe in evolution, etc.).

I am scared to even bring up the word, but "duality" is sometimes used very casually and in ways that promote scientific illiteracy.

So when I start seeing metaphysical conversations, I immediately stop thinking about the thought experiment and start thinking about the 99% chance that the person making the argument is not interested in being a rational person.

>>8633208

No it doesn't. Do you die every single time you go unconcious? Do you die if your heart momentarily stops, but is then restarted? Do you die if your brain is momentarily removed from your body, but the put back in?

Why do you think you would die if you're momentarily disassembled but then put back together?

>>8634108
>Why do you think you would die if you're momentarily disassembled but then put back together?
It opens up the idea that if you were disassambled and re-assembled, the exact atoms could be entirely different ones, just of identical type.

Does that make a difference? Your head tells you that there is absolutely no value in choosing between two, say carbon atoms of the same isotope.

If you accept that it makes no difference this opens up the possibility of another version of you made from different atoms could exist at the same time as you, rather than at separate times.

Surely both of these individuals would have an equally valid claim to being you (if you accept that a you made from different but identical atoms is you).

It would surely be unethical to kill either?

>>8634122
>It opens up the idea that if you were disassambled and re-assembled, the exact atoms could be entirely different ones, just of identical type.

Which is correct.

>Does that make a difference?

No, it doesn't, This is constantly happening to your body. You are constantly losing and gaining various atoms, and it does not affect the continuity of your being.

>Surely both of these individuals would have an equally valid claim to being you

Correct.

>It would surely be unethical to kill either?

Of course it would be unethical to kill a sentient being.

>>8634135
Yes but there's this weird "explanatory gap" for me. Like if you're disassembled and reassembled quickly you're apparently not dead but if I built a machine that constructed an atom-perfect Isaac Newton, everyone would say that's not really him, he's been dead for years.

And if you can make a clone of someone and it doesn't matter if the atoms aren't the same indvidual ones then it means that both could exist at the same time, so it's not really teleporting but murder and then a cloning.

Isaac Newton died: my clone isn't him, even though it vehemently tells me it is really him.

But I didn't die in the "teleportation" machine?

I just don't know what to conclude.

>>8634150
Like, what if instead of disassambling you at one end, then reassembling you at the other they sent the information through first, then when they recieved confirmation of a successful transmission, the operator pulled out a gun and shot the original you in the head - would that not be murder?

>>8634150

This is just the ship of Theseus paradox. It's only a paradox because the english language doesn't have a precise definition of "you."

>>8634176

What is interesting about OPs question is that it is a little more specific.

We are cool knowing that we are not the same person that we used to be (atoms are replaced and change over time) and are fine with that (i.e. we are okay with dealing with the ideas surrounding the Theseus paradox).

Yet, if a machine or cloning process were to occur, there is something that is different and disagreeable. We view this scenario differently from the first.

But why? What makes those 2 situations so different?

File: apu.jpg (34KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 655x527px

>>8634176
sci tier "argument"

>>8633208
At the level of atomics, the variety in atomic structure after reassembling is trivial to your consciousness. You as your own observer wouldn't know that you died. If you want to make it interesting, try using the beam to clone 5 more of you using the apparatus.

>Due to quantum indeterminacy your molecules aren't exactly stable.

what a load of crap

>>8633208
It's not real so when you say reality you mean I'm an idiot

There's one episode in Next Generation when Number One takes the teleporter and it malfunctions, resulting in two of him (one on the target planet and one remaining on the ship).

So yeah, you die every time.