Teleport -> Telefax
Tero Niemi
Legends of the swedish language lessons:
Have any of you noticed, that the easiest way to teleport is to make a
copy? Let me clear myself...
The Classical (not hard) sf teleport:
You "scan" the structure of the object. You get information.
You blow the object into tiny bits. You get energy.
You transfer the info and the energy from A to B.
You make a lot of tiny bits from energy.
You BUILD object from tiny bits using the information.
Do you have to break the object into tiny bits to read it's structure? In
sf, guess no. And is there a difference between energy and energy? Like
any physic knows, no. So, the easier teleporting:
You "scan" the structure of the object. You get information.
You transfer the info from A to B.
You make a lot of tiny bits from LOCAL energy source.
(or use a bucket of sand)
You BUILD object from tiny bits using the information.
So: all that teleports is the info. Problem: You end up into a situation
where you got two objects, instead of one. Is this a problem? Two copies
of a scientist is allways better than one, They can do the same research
x2 faster =). And if you save the info, you can "sleep" for centuries.
And if you wan't to destroy the original, use a shotgun. It's energy saving.
In Star Trek.... (the teleporter classic) I wonder why they do not use
all the advantages of teleports.
Sick person: read info, fix info with qedit, kill original
Suicide missions: Klingons makes a 100 copies of one warrior info
they have saved into their computer.
Personal backups: read every crewmembers info weekly.
Perhaps the original object does not want to become dead? Would you like
to die if a copy of you continues living. This is a bad excuse anyway.
Human mind get's used to its own idioticies.
--
"No more human sacrifice she said...
tni...@cc.joensuu.fi ... how about a dry martini?"
irc aranel
-- a dead dm-band member
Matthew Skala
This is a general discussion of teleporters with some specific
references to Star Trek. It is not intended to be Star Trek only, and
is being posted where I found the referent, in rec.arts.sf.science.
TT> You make a lot of tiny bits from LOCAL energy source.
TT> (or use a bucket of sand)
TT> You BUILD object from tiny bits using the information.
The problem often cited is that things, living things anyway, involve a
lot of quantum-level information which, due to Heisenburg, *cannot* be
copied without destroying the original. On the other hand, using
transporter-type technology to duplicate objects from information and
molecular raw materials or pure energy is exactly what the Star Trek
(and other) "replicators" do.
TT> Sick person: read info, fix info with qedit, kill original
They've done that in Star Trek, even though it's not consistent with the
above.
TT> Personal backups: read every crewmembers info weekly.
Done this too with "transporter logs".
As far as I know, Star Trek characters have never *deliberately*
duplicated people, though on occasion they have done it by mistake in
"freak accidents". (Thomas Riker, for instance, and any number of poor
novels involving Spock).
TT> Perhaps the original object does not want to become dead? Would you like
TT> to die if a copy of you continues living. This is a bad excuse anyway.
The ethics of duplicating people are always a problem. Personally, I'm
more interested in the question of nondestructively downloaded
intelligences, which seem more possible. If I put a Brain-O-Drain on my
head and copy my intelligence into my computer, what are the
implications? Is "DEL MATTHEW.EXE" murder? If I start the program
running, is it murder to turn it off? If I do have the right to destroy
a downloaded copy of my intelligence, does that downloaded copy have the
right to destroy the original wetware copy? Why or why not?
Ultimately, is it me? If I'm married when I do the download, who is
married to whom after the download is complete? What happens if I make
two hundred thousand more copies of my downloaded intelligence? Are
they *all* me?
--
Matthew "The Coroner" Skala, VE7MSK * Hunting ears, Can make a bull - *
Sysop of Ansuz BBS (604) 642-7820 * But eyes, And brains, Make spacefen - *
msk...@island.amtsgi.bc.ca * And fools, Make only, Corpses - * - Brin
http://www.islandnet.com/~mskala Gender War conscientious objector ATUDA
* RM 1.3 00829 * "Hell had, indeed, frozen over." - ron...@linknet.net
WalkerStan
ken_a_a...@ccmail.orl.mmc.com (Ken Ailsworth) writes:
>
>ps - I just recalled an old Outer Limits episode called "the Duplicate
Man"
>that closely follwed this plot idea. As I recall, however, the duplicate
was
>
>not created in the fashion outlined here, but rather was a robot designed
to
>temporarily take the place of the original, who was in physical jeopardy
for
>a
>reason I cannot recall. So although the plot structure is similar, the
>actual
>story is driven by entirely different factors that the OL episode.
>
>
The Outer Limits episode was based on the story "Good Night, Mr. James"
by Clifford Simak, which is copyright 1951. The two differences between
the
story and the show are that:
1) In the story, the duplicate is hunting for a puudly. In the show, a
puudly
is mentioned in passing, and the duplicate is hunting a megasoid.
SPOILER WARNING
2) In the show, the original eventually kills the duplicate. In the story,
the duplicate
has the original identified as the duplicate and then killed. THEN the
duplicate
finds out he was created with a built-in lifetime of AT MOST 24 hours.
Stan Walker
Bronis Vidugiris
Matthew Skala <msk...@islandnet.com> wrote:
)The problem often cited is that things, living things anyway, involve a
)lot of quantum-level information which, due to Heisenburg, *cannot* be
)copied without destroying the original. On the other hand, using
)transporter-type technology to duplicate objects from information and
)molecular raw materials or pure energy is exactly what the Star Trek
)(and other) "replicators" do.
All things have a lot of quantum-level information in them. The question is
- is this information significant? The answer is not really known. I suspect
one can put some upper limits on the amount of quantum-level information
needed - if you're the same person when you walk across a room, and this
radically scrambles certain types of quantum-level phase information, it
seems logical to say that this information is not really needed to make you
"you".
)The ethics of duplicating people are always a problem. Personally, I'm
)more interested in the question of nondestructively downloaded
)intelligences, which seem more possible. If I put a Brain-O-Drain on my
)head and copy my intelligence into my computer, what are the
)implications? Is "DEL MATTHEW.EXE" murder? If I start the program
)running, is it murder to turn it off? If I do have the right to destroy
)a downloaded copy of my intelligence, does that downloaded copy have the
)right to destroy the original wetware copy? Why or why not?
)Ultimately, is it me? If I'm married when I do the download, who is
)married to whom after the download is complete? What happens if I make
)two hundred thousand more copies of my downloaded intelligence? Are
)they *all* me?
Take a look at "Permutation City" by Egan. It appears to be raising some
of these same questions - with a few added twists, such as "hidden"
computations. (I'm about halfway through it - it's living up to
it's billing as a very good book so far.) It has just been released
in the US (other countries have been luckier in getting it earlier).
Eric Edwards
> The problem often cited is that things, living things anyway, involve a
> lot of quantum-level information which, due to Heisenburg, *cannot* be
> copied without destroying the original.
There is absolutely no evidence that biological structures have dependencies
at the quantum level. To date, I haven't even heard of a *theory* that
suggests this.
----
Eric Edwards: Bang= cello.qnet.com!wolf359!eric Domain= er...@exile.org
Remember the home hobbyist computer: Born 1975, died April 29, 1994
Douglas J Renze
>Have any of you noticed, that the easiest way to teleport is to make a
>copy? Let me clear myself...
>The Classical (not hard) sf teleport:
> You "scan" the structure of the object. You get information.
> You blow the object into tiny bits. You get energy.
> You transfer the info and the energy from A to B.
> You make a lot of tiny bits from energy.
> You BUILD object from tiny bits using the information.
>Do you have to break the object into tiny bits to read it's structure? In
>sf, guess no. And is there a difference between energy and energy? Like
>any physic knows, no. So, the easier teleporting:
> You "scan" the structure of the object. You get information.
> You transfer the info from A to B.
> You make a lot of tiny bits from LOCAL energy source.
> (or use a bucket of sand)
> You BUILD object from tiny bits using the information.
>So: all that teleports is the info. Problem: You end up into a situation
>where you got two objects, instead of one. Is this a problem? Two copies
>of a scientist is allways better than one, They can do the same research
>x2 faster =). And if you save the info, you can "sleep" for centuries.
>And if you wan't to destroy the original, use a shotgun. It's energy saving.
Treknophysics aside for the moment, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would
seem to suggest that the *only* way to record the original object accurately
enough to dupe it would be to scan it destructively.
On the other hand, this doesn't really mean that you couldn't create *multiple*
copies of your original...
--
Doug Renze, N0YVW * dre...@isca.uiowa.edu * N0YVW @ W0IUQ.ia.usa.na
Encrypted with rot0, the only encryption scheme 100% approved
for export by the NSA.
Tero Niemi
Matthew Skala (msk...@islandnet.com) wrote:
: <about star trek>
Good that they are using a bit more... imagination? Still i would like to
see those 'copy klingon' armies, or those.... borgs or something.
: <snip> Is "DEL MATTHEW.EXE" murder? If I start the program
: running, is it murder to turn it off? If I do have the right to destroy
: a downloaded copy of my intelligence, does that downloaded copy have the
: right to destroy the original wetware copy? Why or why not?
: Ultimately, is it me? If I'm married when I do the download, who is
: married to whom after the download is complete? What happens if I make
: two hundred thousand more copies of my downloaded intelligence? Are
: they *all* me?
You know, the same problems occur with time machines.
I think that 'at the beginning' your copies would think like you.
-> identical to you -> you
Then they would gain their own memories, own experience.
-> (very quickly) no longer identical to you -> notyou
You can say that killing 'the actual person' is a murder. Killing 'copy'
is just an elimination, but generally, if the copy doesn't know about
other copies, He(r) could be fooled to think that he(r) is the actual
person.
-> there is no 'actual' person after 'inforead'
So, how about this: Destroying information is a murder.
No good. I could slaughter a entire Word Perfect population without being
criminal in my soul=) Or some _stupid_ sex/violence rap-cd's.
This? To destroy information without it's permission is a murder?
Aargh, no good, I say. You can save information in so various forms.
Murder, is history. I give up.
BTW: Do you know why Well's Time Traveller never returned? Simply, he
travelled into past, changed the future and can not ever return to his
own reality. Sad, but true;)
: Matthew "The Coroner" Skala
Tero Niemi
: <blah blah>
: In fact, call the story "The Surplus Man."
: Someone want to write this? I'm too busy, and I claim no rights for the idea.
: Only this I would ask is that, if you get it published, I get an autographed
: copy of the publication saying something like, "Thanks for the inspiration."
: Of course the inspiration for this inspiration is the original poster, Tero
: Neimi; don't know how he (she) would feel about it. How about it, Mr/Ms
: Neimi?
: Ken
Mr. Tero Petteri Niemi
Joensuu University, Finland (north europe, between sweden/old cccp)
Actually I am an amateur sf-writer, but I do not claim any rights. All we
have our sources=)
Peter C. McCluskey
>Matthew Skala (msk...@islandnet.com) wrote:
>: <snip> Is "DEL MATTHEW.EXE" murder? If I start the program
Deleting a person who is trapped in a DOS/Windoze program is euthanasia -:).
>: running, is it murder to turn it off? If I do have the right to destroy
>: a downloaded copy of my intelligence, does that downloaded copy have the
>: right to destroy the original wetware copy? Why or why not?
>You can say that killing 'the actual person' is a murder. Killing 'copy'
>is just an elimination, but generally, if the copy doesn't know about
>other copies, He(r) could be fooled to think that he(r) is the actual
>person.
> -> there is no 'actual' person after 'inforead'
>So, how about this: Destroying information is a murder.
>This? To destroy information without it's permission is a murder?
Instead of trying to define murder, let's just worry about when punishment
should be possible. That is what life insurance contracts should be for.
Instead of just protecting my next of kin, life insurance should protect
me by guaranteeing that there is someone (i.e. the insurance company) to
sue the killer or otherwise seek retribution.
Then the effective rights of a newly made copy of me depend on what
provisions I made with my insurance company before making the copy. If
I am making multiple copies of myself to explore different parts of the
galaxy on our way to the Far Edge Party, I will almost certainly want
to purchase protection for all of them. If I am just making a daily
backup of myself, I wouldn't expect to buy any special protection,
and would keep the backup in an inactive form so that it would probably
not find a way to purchase protection on its own.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter McCluskey | p...@rahul.net | http://www.rahul.net/pcm
p...@quote.com | The opinions expressed above are objective truths
http://www.quote.com | as revealed by the Dendarii Free Mercenary Fleet.
Nicholas M. Moffitt
: seem to suggest that the *only* way to record the original object accurately
: enough to dupe it would be to scan it destructively.
: On the other hand, this doesn't really mean that you couldn't create *multiple*
: copies of your original...
How about a field that leapfrogs, destroying and rebuilding as it goes?
--
----
The tao is in all programming languages, but try and avoid using COBOL.
Nick Moffitt nmof...@usfca.edu