starman2112 comments on Teleportation problem

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I'm assuming this is a transporter as exists in Star Trek, and not some kind of wormhole.

Imagine if it didn't deconstruct your original body, and only made the perfect copy at the exit. Would there be two "yous?" Under your definition, yes, but they are very clearly two separate entities. There is a "you" that walked into the entrance, and there is a "someone else" who walked out of the exit. I think a continuous consciousness is not only relevant, but crucial to a meaningful definition of "you."

And nobody post that "you die when you fall asleep" comic. It equivocates different definitions ofbghese words in a confusing and misleading way.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

I don't see an issue with having two yous that are nonetheless separate people from eachother, that's actually exactly what I think would happen in such an instance. Asking which is "you" would be like watching a cell undergo mitosis and then asking which one is the original cell. Continuity mattering seems like a problem to me because it feels like it should require involving something outside the material universe to make it make sense. I'm not sure how best to explain this, but it seems to me that:

you exist, for obvious reasons, since you perceive yourself
you aren't everyone and everything
the previous two things should mean that there is something about what you are that makes it, you, and not someone else, nor some unconscious zombie

If that thing, whatever it is, is part of the material universe, then the perfect copy must have it too by definition, it wouldn't be a perfect copy if there was something materially different about it, and then it would have to be you, because it has whatever that thing is that makes it "you". If that thing exists but is not present in a physically identical copy, then wherever it exists must be outside the physical universe, yet capable of some kind of interaction with it (since presumably you cease if killed materially). That isn't logically impossible, but requires adding an entire layer to reality to make it make sense, which seems premature when other interpretations don't require this (and we could end up in the same boat anyway, if I made a thought experiment that suggests some really advanced technology has found a way to manipulate this other layer too, and copies you there as well) Continuity (for anything, not just humans) by itself isn't really a "thing". It isn't made of anything, and doesn't seem to interact with the physical world in any measurable way. As far as I can tell, it requires making fewer unproven assumptions about how the universe works to assume that continuity is merely a concept we made up due to the manner in which we perceive time, without any actual physical validity to it.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

Apologies for the point-by-point reply. I have many responses to many things, which don't necessarily fit into a cohesive structure of paragraphs.

Asking which is "you" would be like watching a cell undergo mitosis and then asking which one is the original cell.

Disagree. In mitosis, both child cells contain parts of the original. This is akin to Farscape Season 3's "twinning—" a method of cloning in which neither result has any claim over being the "original."

This is different from a Star Trek/The Prestige style transporter—you can keep track of which one is the original: it's the one who went into the entrance. No part of their physical body is present in the transporter clone.

the previous two things should mean that there is something about what you are that makes it, you, and not someone else, nor some unconscious zombie

Yes. A continuous conscious experience. Notably different from an experience of continued consciousness. We must avoid equivocation here. "You" has multiple definitions, some of which are more useful and relevant than others.

If that thing, whatever it is, is part of the material universe, then the perfect copy must have it too by definition, it wouldn't be a perfect copy if there was something materially different about it, and then it would have to be you, because it has whatever that thing is that makes it "you".

There is something materially different about the you that steps out of the transporter. They're made of different atoms and subatomic particles. This isn't even a Ship of Theseus situation—like, if you replace every single part of your car over the course of a year until every single part is different, there's some ambiguity about whether it's the same car as it was the year before. But the car that came off the production line right after it may be made using the same materials in the same pattern, but it is unambiguously a different car.

You could say it's the "same" car, in that it's the same color, make and model using the same materials, but if someone crashes it, you would not say they crashed your car, no matter how arbitrarily similar they were at the time of the crash.

Continuity (for anything, not just humans) by itself isn't really a "thing". It isn't made of anything, and doesn't seem to interact with the physical world in any measurable way.

Continuity isn't a physical object, but it definitely exists. For one example, the lithium in my phone's battery is the same lithium that was in it when it was made. The phone would work just fine if the lithium atoms were constantly being replaced, but they don't seem to be. Continuity is a real phenomenon.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 1 point 1 year ago

The bit about things being made of different subatomic particles is interesting, because its actually, to my knowledge, difficult to truly prove that, because fundamental enough particles dont seem to have a lot of the differences seen between similar objects of larger scale. There are even ideas (not proven ones mind, just food for thought) that some of them might actually be the same, for example, theres an idea that there might be just one electron in the universe that bounces around in time and space such as to look like there are more of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

My point there though, is if "different" fundamental particles are so similar as for it to not even be clear that they are necessarily different, what would the underlying mechanism be for a notable difference to using different ones?

Im not really convinced by your final bit about continuity, but I think its more down to my difficulty in explaining what I mean exactly by calling it not real. I dont mean to say that we cant define a label for an idea like "no atoms entered or left this battery pack", but rather that theres no particular indication that the universe "cares" (cares really isnt the right word but I simply cant think of the right one and I guess cares is as close as I can think of, just strip the part out that implies conscious intent or thinking) about that label once we've defined it.

If we return to your analogy of cars, "cars" also arent really real, not in the sense that the concept applies only to things that are completely fictional the way, say "vampires" does, but in a sense like, there is a fundamental, non-arbitrary difference between, say, an electron and a photon, such that they interact with the physical laws of the universe in a distinct way. A car meanwhile, is just a collection of these fundamental particles, which does not have any distinct rules for itself among the physical laws of the universe, and rather has behavior that is merely emergent from its constituent parts following the behavior of those particles. The universe has no distinct concept that a given mass is a "car", but does seem to for an electron (again, "concept" isnt really the right word because it implies thinking and intent, which Im not trying to ascribe to the universe here, but again I struggle to find a word that better fits the idea that Im trying to communicate).

If, suddenly, every electron, proton etc (fundamental particles that is) in your phone's battery were suddenly swapped with others of the same type of particle from elsewhere in the universe, there would be absolutely no way to detect it. Presumably, this would break the continuity of that battery, but if we took a snapshot of the universe right before the swap, and one immediately after such that no time has passed between them, the only way there could be any difference at all between them would be if there was some kind of unique "label" for each particle fundamental particle to make them distinct from one another, something that, as far as I am aware, there isnt any evidence to suggest is the case. Without that added layer of complexity added to the universe, the swap would be like swapping one pixel of an image with another pixel elsewhere in the image that has the exact same color value- the result there wouldnt be a new image, because no information has been changed, it would just be the exact same image again. That is to say, the particle swap wouldnt be physically meaningful at all, unless you assume the universe has that specific unproven property added to make fundamental particles non-interchangeable, which occams razor would suggest I discount until proven otherwise, because a universe with non-unique fundamental particles is simpler than one with extra information to distinguish each. And if that swap isnt physically meaningful, then the universe before and after the swap dont have any change in information to them that could represent the break in continuity in the first place, which drives me to the conclusion that either continuity somehow exists outside the universe, which again adds another unneeded bit of complexity to reality that I can discount as less likely with occam's razor, or else that the concept of continuity is just one of the many made-up concepts that we use to help make the universe easier to think about, like labeling some arrangements of matter "cars" based on their general emergent properties, that dont have any true basis in the physical laws that actually describe the behavior of the universe.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent