How long until we figure out teleportation?
Is it even possible?
even if we could transfer and replicate with 100% accuracy the entire atomic makeup of your body, there's still the unknown problem of whether or not 'you' will still exist in the teleported body
who would want to be teleported if it's no different than dying?
teleportation is theoretically possible, but it's several thousand years away (assuming steady human technological progress, which probably won't happen)
>>8164340
Im pretty sure it kills you, so i would never do it
>>8164340
How did that monitor get up there
>>8164806
my guess would be someone climbed a pole, then release it by attaching the monitor to an anchor somehow. that would explain it hanging in the middle of the wire (since at day the wire expand and will form a parabola)
>>8164340
>Is it even possible?
If you accept modern physics you also must believe that space travels and teleportation are possibly
>>8164340
teleporting is to perfectly clone something to a specific location with the extra work of undoing the input matter.
>>8164367
Why not?
The copy will have the same ambition and wishes. He will keep doing what you wanted to do before teleporting.
>>8164340
Quantum tunnelling is the solution!
>>8164844
That's not teleportation. That is a death machine that creates a clone at the exit.
Teleportation is impossible.
>>8164935
The clone would think it teleported.
Teleportation isn't possible, but if you had advanced enough knowledge and technology you could warp gravity waves and manipulate matter [and it's trajectory] in the past the "build" something there, albeit nearly impossible and exceptionally complicated, even for the simplest of concepts.
It would also warp everything else and would take billions of suns to do... and it would be detected for billions of miles unless you found a way to chain link micro-gravity wells, which would be an impressive feat of mathematics.
At that point it might was well be a miracle.
>>8164838
Science isn't science until it's tested and proven.
I don't think you have a clue as to what science is.
It isn't pop-cultural "arguments from ignorance" just because it hasn't been proven untrue.
I don't understand two things.
1) Why anyone would willingly suicide by teleporting themselves.
2) Why you couldn't just be scanned not destructively, i.e. teleportation without killing the original.
Either way, i'll take the long road, thank you very much.
How does the transporter in Star Trek work? Bent space-time or murder-copy method?
>>8165081
murder
>>8165081
Murdercopy. They're very clear about that actually.
The murder happens first. Then a pattern is stored electronically.
They can also then build multiple copies from the pattern, but try not to because ethical and moral ramifications.
The Culture novels by Iain Banks (may he RIP in peace) include both nondestructive teleportation (displacement) and the backing up of "mind states" so people(and machines)can be reborn after death. Whether or not the copies are "the same" individual is left to those individuals to decide. Some people choose never to be backed up.
>>8164967
But it isn't you. You cease to experience the world.
>>8166076
>tfw i think i have a magical soul that God will transport to the new me
ben there done that .
>>8166402
>tfw adding "magic" to a sentence makes your argument sound better
>>8166399
How is a perfect copy of yourself not "you". You ain't same as yesterday anyway.
>>8166426
It's the same structure as you, but it has its own consciousness. If I scanned your body and replicated it somewhere else, you wouldn't be able to see what the clone sees. Now if I kill you, you still can't see what it sees and you're dead.
>>8166428
I'd argue that if the clone has exactly same memories as me, it would be more like splitting, both versions feeling themselves being real.
>>8166434
I never said any version was any less real. Both are legitimate versions of the original. But the person who enters the machine dies. They cease to perceive. They come to an end.
>>8164974
Good.
I'm glad I'm not the only one here who thinks quarks, black holes and string theory have no place in science
>>8166436
That's not the most terrifying part of teleporting. If the orginal dies, it's effectively just fast travel, 'cause version of you left has no memory of dying. Better reason not to use teleport would be that you would never know if you'll be forced split more than once and copies of you would be used in unethical medical research. And you'd have no idea.
>itt: no one understands physics or the physical world
>>8164347
>>8164388
In the grand scheme of things, consciousness is an illusion and the destruction of the "you" holds no intrinsic difference in any aspect of reality, so basically, you died - yes, but by the logic applied to quantum teleportation you have died thousands of times already throughout your lifetime. I'd like to hear on your thoughts, since it doesn't seem provable or disprovable.
>>8166417
>tfw what are you even saying i'm lost
>breaking down cells
lol u dead nigga
>>8164340
Why is everyone getting so flustered about 'murder-copy'?
>>8167077
>Hey /sci/, let's just forget about everything we've figured out about life and medical science and accept that dying is totally like cool, my dude haha xD
>>8164347
There is no "problem", it's only your limited terminology and imagination that can't compensate whats happening. No matter how you call it, if you assume that the person is killed and its copy is someone different or whatever, it all will only be a guy entering machine and leaving other machine somewhere else that will be indistinguishable from the guy who went in, even for himself.
>>8164367
Going to sleep every night kills you.
>>8165001
1) It's not different from sleeping
2) Not all scanning methods are nondestructive, especially when it comes to atomic scale. But there is no reason to think it's impossible.
>>8166556
>since it doesn't seem provable or disprovable
it's called "meaningless drivel"
>>8167217
in what way does going to sleep 'kill you'
>>8167089
State one logical premise that 'dying' in this context, or simply moving from an inorganic state to stored information which is then replicated, is an inherently negative thing?
Your statements are based on intuition.
we already figured out quantum teleportation
Upscaling it is the hard part
Maybe in 10 years we can teleport a Hydrogen atom and in 25 years a water molecule
its certainly further away than fusion energy
>>8168879
It kills you as much as getting your whole body disintegrated and assembled somewhere else. From your perspective it's no different than sleeping, you just lose consciousness and then get it back, possibly somewhere else because you've either fallen from bed or you were on a party and your friends thought it would be a great prank.
>>8164967
>The clone would think it teleported.
Your clone would.
Mine is smarter than that.
>>8166578
>>tfw what are you even saying i'm lost
You both think the other's philosophy requires a soul.
The "teleport is murder" guy is right though.
We can already make nano-scale transistors with a few dozen atoms, and each atom's placement is part of the blueprint.
If I build such a transistor, then dismantle it, then build a new one to the same blueprint, NOBODY would suggest it's the same transistor.
Everyone would acknowledge it's a copy.
Unless you believe humans have quantifiable souls, teleported copies are just that: copies.
