ads

dualism exists

Imagine if a mistake was made, where the old you wasn't destroyed. Which you has the rights to your property? Which is the real you? The old you hardly has priority because, if you have teleported before, it is also a copy of a prior you.

For the Copy being created it would feel like you just did get teleported.

But for the one being destroyed you would just die. This makes me sad. Pretty sure if this existed on a practical scale, id be afraid to use it.

>>4556557
could you please stop using this image for anything. its boring and not funny at all

>>4556554
So what's the problem? If the copy is an EXACT copy, fuck me, who cares?

I think that if it's an exact copy of you, it'll have your mind.

>>4556581
The problem is that you died. It's equivalent to you being kidnapped in the middle of the night, cloned, the clone is placed in your bed, and you are killed.

No one else can tell the difference. Not even the clone of you can tell the difference. But *you* have died.

>>4556596
I understand that. I'm asking why that matters in any way. Who cares if the original ME is gone? If it's an EXACT copy, there's no difference as far as my impact on the universe.

>>4556583
All that means is that its cognition is the same. It remembers everything you remember, it has the same self-concept and worldview as you, it has the same personality as you. But it's not as if you have traveled somewhere.

For example, say you come across a strange new planet with a life-sustaining atmosphere. You, Spock, and McCoy decide to beam down to the planet to see what it's like. In the transporter room you die, so you never get to experience what the planet is like. Your identical copy does. It reacts the exact same way as you would. But you didn't experience the new planet, you died.

>>4556583
It won't have YOUR mind though, it will have a mind identical in structure to yours that was assembled from the matter that was available in the distant space you are traveling to.

ITT: People mistake the perceived continuity of consciousness for something tangential and "real".

>>4556604
Holy shit, I just had one of those moments spoken of in zen koans where the student suddenly realises something of vast importance...

>>4556600
The problem is precisely that no one cares if the original you is gone. No one else can even tell that anything happened.

The philosophical issue is that you can't even care. You are the only possible person who would know that it's not you. Even the exact copy wouldn't know. But the problem is that you aren't alive to know or care.

Or rather... I'm trying to establish if that's even a problem.

To me this has far-reaching implications. For example, if you are murdered, you cease to exist. You're not around to care that you were murdered. So does that mean that murder is only wrong because it affects others who cared about you? Others are impacted by your lack of existence. In teleportation, it's one step further: others aren't even impacted, so it seems okay to teleport.

Suppose I find someone living in isolation. His parents and everyone else who knew him have died. Is it okay if I kill him? It technically doesn't impact anybody. It would impact him, except that he's dead and can't be impacted.

So if we teleport, and everyone's lives go on as if nothing happened, can I kill anyone I find who is living in isolation, because everyone's lives still go on as if nothing happened?

>>4556604
Please elaborate.

>>4556601
>>4556602
You're too selfish. From the point of view of any individual clone, they never died, so why does it matter if I did? Me and the clone are the same, therefore it is me and I still live. I just lost one consciousness out of many.

On another note, why kill the original? The clone is never going to make it back so leave the clone there and just have them report back to you.

>>4556611
This has nothing to do with murder. Murder implies that whatever effect they would have on the universe in the future, you have taken away from them, but with teleportation, they are annihilated and rebuilt, so whatever future effect they would have had, they will still have. It changes nothing. If you kill that hobo on that island, the fish he would have eaten two weeks from now doesn't get eaten, and therefore has spawn that it wouldn't have otherwise had, etc. If you kill him and replace him with an EXACT copy, the fish still gets eaten. It's the replacing that makes the difference.

>>4556559
Forget property rights, which one has the right to live?
Surely they don't want hundreds of copies of someone running around which I would assume would also mean they could have two of the same person running around, so it is acceptable to destroy one of the copies even though they now know for sure that they are not the same since they no longer have an identical set of memories?

>>4556612
Your consciousness ends every time you sleep and is rebuilt from your memories when you wake up. It's not a single thing that makes you you. If you got amnesia, you wouldn't even be you anymore, consciousness or no.

>>4556611
Not OP, but I do care if I die. Yes, I'm that selfish, and for me everything loses meaning when I die. I think you do understand that.

>>4556618
why? Why wouldn't they clone geniuses and soldiers over and over? More of you means more mouths to feed = more cheap labor.

I don't think anyone would give a shit if you and your clone were alive. Except your wife.

I have been waiting for a while to post this

>>4556620
How would you know you died if you suddenly woke up alive?

>>4556618
I see two possible outcomes:
A) All the copies intend to create more copies, and take over reality agent-smith-virus style. They do so, or are stopped.
B) All the copies see the terrible outcome projected by A, and decide against it, therefore they all decide to reduce the number of copies to 1. They are all absolutely identical, therefore it doesn't matter which one is selected to remain, and they draw straws and say their prayers, all is well.

>>4556619
Sleeping is not the same as unconscious though.

>>4556619
This is just semantics. It's like claiming that, if I open up a game and load a new savefile, I am not playing the original character but something that simply appears to be the original character. The faulty assumption is that "original character" is well-defined. Just like here, what "consciousness" is what "we" are is ill-defined. It is just as meaningful to say we are the same person when we go to bed and when we wake up.

>>4556619
[citation needed]

>>4556623
Regarding the translation part, I don't see how it's different from communicating with someone using a translator.

>>4556619
No, thinking are continuous process, somewhat comparable to computer process. It never gets interrupted until death, if it would, then it would be different. It does not matter if every cell is replaced, since the continuity of process is what matters.

>>4556611
>Suppose I find someone living in isolation. His parents and everyone else who knew him have died. Is it okay if I kill him? It technically doesn't impact anybody. It would impact him, except that he's dead and can't be impacted.

each year a lot of them homeless folk gets murdered and nobody really gives a shit. the police sure don't express an eagerness to commit themselves to those if they can solve the murder of "important" civilians, aka people who "contribute to society". whatever the fuck that means.
I think that pretty much answers your question.

also, have you ever heard of the saying: "no corpse, no murder" ?
not to say, I don't understand your moral dilemma.

>>4556627
Sleeping is exactly being unconscious.

>>4556634
>No, thinking are continuous process, somewhat comparable to computer process.

Computer processes are not continuous processes and not comparable.

>>4556637
In typical medical parlance, unconsciousness is a state where a person (or etc.) does not react to stimuli, which you still do while asleep. Once again, though, this is just differing semantics. The basis of the argument does not change whether you considering someone asleep or someone unconscious.

>>4556615
unless you, you know, TELEPORT the guy someplace else, so he still doesn't eat that exact fish.
but that's just nitpicking.

inb4 he will eat some other fish there.

Is teleport-cloning a whore or a slave piracy?

>>4556643
Yea, I see your point, but the fish isn't important. If he is gone, and there is no copy, he cannot do anything at all. If he is gone, and there is a copy, it can do whatever he was going to do. I.e., his "free will" (if such a thing exists, if not, something comparable) isn't removed from reality forever, it's just transferred to another vessel.

>>4556625
Except, the moment two of them exist at the same time, they are no longer identical and when they looked at each other and judged each other externally, they would realize that they are two separate consciousnesses and if one died, then that one would no longer have a unique perception.

>>4556633
the original philosophical question was how can even a turing complete computer be called intelligent when all it does is follow an algorithim, and to demonstrate this the example used was answering questions in chinese by using a manual; would this mean that he knows chinese?

>>4556651
>Except, the moment two of them exist at the same time, they are no longer identical and when they looked at each other and judged each other externally, they would realize that they are two separate consciousnesses and if one died, then that one would no longer have a unique perception.

This isn't true. It may be true for you, but not for, say, me. If my clone was really a clone of me, we wouldn't think of ourselves as individuals.

>>4556651
This is assuming we know how they view the world, and their own perception of their selves. It's entirely possible they don't see themselves as discreet "islands of man", but instead as merely a coherent waveform flowing through spacetime such that "all for one, and one for all", or rather "all is one, and one is all". If that's the case, there is no difference between there being one of them, or there being one hundred of them.

>How would you know you died if you suddenly woke up alive?

Please, please do not assume that exact copy of your memory is you. With mind uploading it would be possible to create hundreds of copies of you, and for outsider each one would like you, but for you would be still in your head, in your body. And if you die - poof, you don't think, you don't care, you don't exist anymore. Though there are hundred dumbasses hanging around and trolling /sci/ now.

>>4556656
One common answer is that the system knows Chinese, even if the parts of the system do not. I dislike the Chinese room thought experiment, though, because it assumes humans are 'special' compared to computers. That somehow we are non-deterministic and non-algorithmic in a way a computer can not. It's fallacious.

>>4556656
Which is what I don't understand. If a human were to do it, would it mean they were unintelligent? Whether they knew Chinese or not doesn't matter. They would still be able to give answers.

To relate it back, if a robot can simulate intelligence, then what's the difference between it being truly intelligent? It is not even a question that matters.

>>4556659
but, from the moment of being copied, you would have two different sets of memories, perceptions, and experiences, and you have no way of telling how long you and your clone will share that way of thinking or when a differing memory or experience will cause conflict

>>4556669
Why? Think back to your early childhood, do you not already have competing versions of the same events? If it works fine in one, why not in more?

>>4556660
They would view the world exactly like the person they cloned from up until the moment the original's mind was copied. What you are saying only matters if it applies to the species of the original because the clones will think exactly the same way. In fact, the clone would not even have awareness of being cloned because it will assume that the original was destroyed in the transportation process as intended, but being confronted with the original and realize that he did not even know the original still existed, the clone would have to realize that it has an entirely separate perception from that which it was created from.

>>4556676
No, not at all. What separates them?

>>4556669
If it truly has my personality, it will act the same as me in any situation I would encounter. I don't think the universe is deterministic but I do think personalities are. We may become unable to relate to each other if separated for long periods of time, but we should always be reasonably able to guess what the other is thinking.

>>4556673
No, I have never experience an event from multiple perspectives.

Actually, I really have no idea what point you are trying to make, but my point was that if you had two different clones, they would have to think of themselves as different individuals at the moment in which they had differing or conflicting ideas, the moment their experience (or what they took from those experience) differed, or the moment in which one was given bias over the other.

>>4556680
Their individual perception and senses specifically not even being aware of an identical copy still sensing and perceiving what you could have been sensing and perceiving, but completely missed out on.

>>4556687
Just me then?

We can study this sort of. There are species that you can split in half. You can see if they come to act any differently.

>>4556690
Exactly, it's a perfect copy, experiencing the world just as the original would have, so who cares?

>>4556686
But, your personality is constantly changing due to new events and perspectives because I am sure you are not the same person making the same choices as you were when you were five.

Evey moment you are separate (not even separated even separate as in experiencing the same thing from separate perspectives) from your clone is a moment more of differing perception and experience and a moment more for your personalities (and the way you make choices) to diverge.

>>4556694
You're missing the point. Nobody cares how they behave looking from outsiders perspective. It's not the point of this discussion.

>>4556554

philosophy is not a science.

philosophyforums.com

>>4556701
But is has direct implications on ALL the sciences. How we construct the models in our heads of the world directly influences our understanding of what is going on around us. Without perception, what good is measurement?

>>4556695
but the original and the clone both exist and are separate, so they by definition can NOT have an identical experience and thus are now different people with identical genetics and very similar memories (identical only up to the point of teleportation)

>>4556554

This question used to bother me deeply; seriously, I thought if teleporters were invented tomorrow I'd be the only tinfoil-hat-idiot not to take them to Mars Colony IV or whatever.
But I've come to support the idea that the thing that my neurological system defines as "I" is simply a self-modeling process created ad-hoc whenever it's needed: I wake up - it's strapped together and given some access to internal/external information, I fall asleep - it's unraveled and disappears.
In that respect, the "I" that was "destroyed" when the body entered the teleporter was never really a "someone" to begin with, and if it was then it was created when I woke up that morning, and died tens of thousands of times before.

tldr: the self is a temporary process the system recreates every day, stopping or restarting it is meaningless.

> inb4 nihilism; fuck yeah, nihilism.

>>4556698
>I am sure you are not the same person making the same choices as you were when you were five.

My brain wasn't fully developed then, so of course not. I'm pretty much the same person I was a decade ago, though. Might I remind you, I originally said:
>It may be true for you, but not for, say, me.
You may be more wishy washy than me and change they way you act a lot. I pretty much have my way of acting and stick with it.

>>4556701
but... science is a philoshopy and this is technology that can only be realized with science

>>4556703
How is that any different than a tangent universe branching off where it IS the same person? It's STILL the same person, regardless of how many times they have burned and risen from the ashes, or how many tangents spin off. The question is, what is a person? How do we know that we still are what we were a second ago? What if the me then is dead and gone? Dust in the wind? and this moment is an entirely new one, that is the clone, and not the copy. I can't see that, I couldn't if I tried, so again, who cares?

>>4556705
I don't believe you, but I believe you believe you, so I doubt we will get anywhere with this.

>>4556701

Some discussions in philosophy (epistemology, logic, philosophy of science in general) are critical for scientific research. You cannot make science in a vacuum.

>>4556709
No, its not. They don't even exist in the same universe, how can they be the same person?

The difference however is that in your new case, one of the people doesn't have to die just so that the other person can be somewhere else more conveniently.

So does that mean everytime you use a teleporter you have to wonder whether you will be the man disappearing into the box or the one that appears on the stage?

>>4556718
You're still assuming that the only type of consciousness in all the universe is single-point and discreet.

>>4556719
No, you KNOW that you are going to be the one disappearing, you just won't be sure if it is really you on stage or if the one on the stage is a completely separate perspective that you will not be able to see from because you have been annihilated.

>>4556722
No, I am assuming that consciousness is the result of a mind which is an emergent feature of a brain.

> 2012
> believing in consciousness

mfw

>>4556725
And how sure are that assumption is correct? Also, what's the difference? That's exactly what I said. Single-point and discreet.

Amusing thread. I'm a diiferent person now, after having read that.
Just one thing though. The possibility of creating a completely identical clone denies afterlife altogether (which is fine by me, just wanted to point that out). So, if there's no afterlife, teleportation would be something just the same as the normal processes of metabolism and energy transfer in humans, just sped up, which in that case makes this kind of "teleportation through cloning" a metaphor for our whole existence, just a lot quicker.
Also, amusing fact for OP: over the course of your life ALL of your body's cells and all of your body's molecules and atoms get completely replaced by new ones approximately every decade.
That's not to say I have a solid opinion or a conclusion about the topic.

>>4556728
That is the only type of consciousness we have found evidence for.
If you have evidence for some other kind of consciousness, feel free to present it.

Also the difference is that the brain relies on many many points, neurons, but yes, brains are discrete elements because two brains can only communicate with external senses and there is no consistent evidence that our internal monologues are psychically transferable.

I'm going to go a lil /x/ in here and just say. Given all the accounts of extra terrestrial encounters, let's just say for an instance are some real once, very extremely rarely does any "witness" ever mention any sort of teleportation tech... it's always a "lifting" beam of sorts, now let's say any of that to be true, I would think if a single story of space fairing life visiting and interacting with us is true, and tales of their tech are true, they aren't utilizing teleportation tech, given if any of these species have capabilities of FTL travel or dementional travel certainly they could maybe teleport complex matter, as opposed to our current limited ability of teleporting sub atomic matter. But if none of them are utilizing any said tech, they're probably already figured out maybe it's not in their best personal interest.

>>4556583
You'd be a redshirt. So you'd die anyway

>>4556746
That's because you're looking in the wrong place. The sort of consciousness I spoke of is all around you, everywhere. Your scale factor is off a little bit.

>>4556743
>over the course of your life ALL of your body's cells and all of your body's molecules and atoms get completely replaced by new ones approximately every decade.
Yes, but in a continuous fashion and certainly without entire annihilation the whole brain. We just don't know if the unique consciousness from the continuity of brain development would be the same in a teleporter clone as a person who never broke that continuity or if a new consciousness was created to look similar to the original based on brain structure.

>>4556743
that's certainly not the case for your bones and teeth. and if I remember correctly, it only applies limitedly for your nervous system.

Consider that you're teleporting infintesimal distances every fractional moment of your life.

Teleportation sci fi style should be the same, physical laws permitting.

>>4556780
No, we are operating in continuum. Time and distances are not discrete spaces.

> inb4 Plank's time and Plank's length, which are arbitrary measures.

>>4556795
What's the difference between continuum and time slices so small we can't see them?

>>4556795
they are less arbitrary and more some of the limits to our understanding. though that doesn't give them any "magical" meaning or implies and significance for and withing the universe...

>>4556780
If you are talking Hyperdrives or FTL travel, then yes it is movement similar to the motion of walking, but quantum teleportation is quite different and no, we are not teleporting infinitesimal distances this makes me think you do not know what teleport means because teleport implies that you are bypassing the space between points A and B rather than traversing the space.

>>4556803
one is a continuum, the other is a grid.
god, why do idiots always questions a difference although the words themselves describe that difference

>>4556819
How do we tell the difference if the grid is beyond our resolution?

>>4556803
Learn some mathematics first. Continuum can be divided into smaller intervals infinite times, so it cannot be discrete by definition. So our brain does not "teleport", because there is no "jumping" in space as time goes by.

>>4556822
with experiments that don't need us to look directly at it.

>>4556827
I'm not the guy arguing about the teleporting, I'm the guy arguing that there isn't any difference to us if the frame rate is so far beyond our understanding that it seems infinite. Also, can you prove that we live in a continuum?

>>4556822
simple: no matter how high the resolution, no matter how unlikely our possibility to perceive it, it' still a grid.
doesn't matter what we assume, doesn't matter what we expect.

>>4556828
Such as?

>>4556834
Eh, I'm on your side. We're both in the grid party.

>>4556835
if there was a grid then QFT would give infinite momentum transfers in reactions and so you would only get infinities and would have to normalize the answer... wait...

>>4556854
[citation needed]

>>4556839
actually I'm in the "I don't give a fuck what it may be"...party.
you asked what the difference is. one is a continuum, the other a grid.
of course depending on how you look at it, one seems similar to the point a difference becomes marginal and invalid. altough there is a difference, so it must have some impact.
but that wasn't your original question. you wanted to know the difference. not in how far that difference affects us.

>>4556854
you mean if there wasnt a grid

>>4556861
What's the difference between the difference and how that difference affects us? Isn't that the entire point we ask such questions?

My soul would be tranferred to my new body

>>4556871
the point is moot, as we yet have no means to prove or disprove either assumption, or how I like to call'em: OPINIONS (all over the place)

all we can say is, these two opinions share a difference, else we wouldn't argue.

>>4556887
Then why the fuck is this on /sci/?

in loop quantum gravity (which will most likely turn out to be correct) area and volume is quantized.
area is 8\pi h G c^{-3} \sum \sqrt{j_i(j_i+1)} with j in intervals of half integers and volume is something i cant remember.

>>4556890
cause you started it (if you still are the same guy)?
this wasn't about THE TRON GRID and STARGATE CONTINUUM, but about teleportation and its implications

>>4556882
If there was an actual thing as a soul, how exactly could two identical souls exist simultaneous or how would two new souls be created from 1 soul, in the case of a destruction malfunction?

>>4556895
Most likely < absolute
>Prove that shit, this isn't /x/.

>>4556897
I had nothing to do with starting this thread. I'm not OP.

>>4556895
I do have to question that equation: what's the point of quantizing stuff with it, if it contains an irrational number, which itself per definition can't be "quantized"? namely pi.

>>4556904
with "it" I meant our discussion about difference and ducks fapping about, not this thread.

>>4556909
You're saying we can't quantize the area of a circle? The volume of a sphereoid?

>>4556898
I guess he would be getting new soul(conciusnes)

>>4556915
no, that's absolute, or at least appears to be. which is a very agnostic thing to say.
anyways. all I say is pi isn't. we use it, then we get some inconclusive number and we choose to round, calling that solution the absolute volume of a spheroid.
I'm questioning that we use such a number to calculate the quantum of existance ... such an overdramatic expression.

>>4556926
If we haven't taken pi out to it's conclusion, how can we know it's truly infinite?

>>4556926
pi is in all QM. if it bothers you just work in base pi. now its rational.

Teleportation was a plot device created for Star Trek as a convenient excuse because having the crew go down to planets in shuttles almost every episode would consume too much episode time and special effects money. It was never meant to be taken seriously or considered philosophically.

>>4556917
I geuss that sounds super scientific. GREAT JOB!

>>4556938

>>4556938
and the healing device was actually a salt shaker one of the actor took from the snack table.

>>4556938
>implying the concept did not predate Star Trek

>>4556930
well, we call it an irrational number, and use it as such. so any conclusion we gain must be assumed to be not correct, or "barely" so. (hyperbole)
and until the point we can prove it, in fact, is not an irrational number, we must assume it is, or else we can throw all of math in a bin and call it done.
if in near future, that means I still live at that time, pi turns out to be some stupidly, ridiculous huge fraction, then I must retract my skepticism and accept that equation, and pi's absolute relevance.
until that point however, I will choose to step lightly and blabla.

>>4556958
So since we can't see the entire universe we should assume it's infinite?

>>4556958
>pi turns out to be some stupidly, ridiculous huge fraction
lol. wat the fuck...

>>4556958
Pi is already a fraction because a fraction is a ratio and pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference and diameter.

>>4556978
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

>>4556963
since we can't see, we can assume whatever the shit we want. better even, if we actually did.
it all comes down to probability really. and always has, and should. until we know all variables, which we most likely never will do.
so to me the universe is a sock coiled around itself, soaking wet, floating in a puddle of spit made by the giant Olktenburg. every thursday of his imaginary reality, his wife Penisface comes and cleans the sock, thus resetting our reality.
highly inprobable, but certainly not impossible as far as we know.

>>4556966
yeah I wasn't too clear on that.
huge applied to the fraction's numerator and denominator, not the value of the fraction itself. that one gotta somewhere around 3 now, doesn't it.

>>4556984
But whatever model we use, isn't perfect. We'd need to use the entire universe to model the universe. Also, what we think doesn't matter. It is what it is regardless. So I guess the question is do we want to know, or do we want to pretend to know?

Funny how the discussion stayed on track.

>>4556980
>pi turns out to be some stupidly, ridiculous huge fraction
Just pointing out that it will turn out to be a fraction because we already know it IS a fraction... the ration of a circle's circumference to diameter, but I can see how you are having trouble finding a point to this since you had no point to begin with and you are trying to say that we can't math with irrational numbers when irrational numbers appear in EVERYTHING we math.

>>4556993
>>4556993
he meant a fraction of whole numbers you retard.

>>4556992
I for one am impressed. I'm proud of you /sci/. All of you.

>>4556989
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_that_%CF%80_is_irrational

>>4556993
irrational numbers are not fractions. they earned that name for a reason, you know.

>>4556990
it probably won't make a difference. we can try for all I care, and I think it a noble raison d'être to apply one's life to figure out ... well, pretty much everything. plus we usually use our understanding to built neat technology to ease our lifes. there is always that.

>>4556995
I was talking about whole numbers too... the whole circumference and the whole diameter.

>>4557002
Hey, I love that neat tech as much as the next man, I'm just pointing out that it's all built on a model of what we assume reality to be, and that's fine for said neat tech, but that will hit a limit, and we will either have to accept said limit to our energy capacity as a race, or redefine what we consider a "model" to be.

>>4557007
rimjob.mp4

>>4557008
sure, then we need to change our assumptions. as I said, it were best if we assumed all kinds of shit just to be sure and have all kinds of shit backhand once we realize a certain kind of shit isn't enough anymore to describe whatever it is, it was supposed to describe.

and to explain my resistance to using pi in that one equation:
how can we use a number that in itself as yet per definition is "infinite" in how small it can go, to calculate and prove that the universe itself can NOT be "infinite" in how small it can go.
to me that seems a bit controversial.
now of course, it might just be that I'm too stupid to understand, and that in itself is not a problem to me. but ya'll shittin' on ma' face for me thoughtfullness. yet you, who tried to argue against me, failed to perceive my predicament.

>>4557023
>>4557023
>number that in itself as yet per definition is "infinite" in how small it can go
that makes absolutely no sense. what the hell are you saying? pi is pi, not infinitely small.

>>4557016
He meant rimshot, but he said rimjob because its on his mind because the taste lingers.

>>4557026
it's a fucking irrational number. it doesn't have a freaking end to it. it goes on and on and on, without and end in sight.

>>4557023
That does not mean that pi is infinite, it means that pi has infinite resolution which kind of favors the argument that the universe is continuous instead of discrete since we have mathematical tools that can theoretically calculate to infinite precision.

>>4557036
No they can't because an infinite number of decimal places would take an infinite number of bits to store. I don't know about you, but my computer can't do that...

>>4557036
that's what I tried to convey by "infinitely small".
and that's the whole point to my argument. trying to use something that is continuous to describe something supposedly divided.

>>4557038
I think he just meant you could theoretically go smaller and smaller without hitting a boundary, beyond the one you described.

>>4557050
With what exactly?

>>4557038
No, it means as many bits as you can store is the resolution with which you can directly calculate and use pi.

>>4557060
How is that any different than what I just said?

>>4557051
a better computer

>>4557032
WORK IN BASE PI THEN ITS NOT RATIONAL. RATIONALITY IS A CONSTRUCT OF OUR NUMBER SYSTEM

>>4557066
More massive than our entire universe? Good luck.

you people are fucking retarded. im out.

>>4557077

>>4557062
The difference is pi is as useful as the resolution you can calculate. It is not, as you imply, completely useless until you can calculate it completely.

>>4557091
And why is that?
If you don't know what it is, what possible use can it have?

>If you don't know what it is, what possible use can it have?

Right, kill yourself then. After all, what possible use can you have of your brain if you can't account for it?

We know what it is in sufficient detail, lrn2math.

>you die every time you go to sleep

in all honesty. I would probably share the property with my old self.
Then we would have glorious man sex.

I'm not even kidding.

/sci/ I'm proud

No time to contribute right now, but get in here and archive that wonderful thread.

http://chanarchive.org/request_votes
http://chanarchive.org/request_votes
http://chanarchive.org/request_votes

captcha: heressy Charteris.

>>4557092
You have it backwards friend.

We measure circles and their diameters and circumferences and pi holds up to the resolution with which we can measure.

LOL

>>4557230
I hear that bro.

Teleportation does could pose a philosophical dilemma if you define it in a way that poses a philosophical dilemma.

Since it doesn't really exist, it doesn't have any implications. All you're doing is speculating about something based on how it's described, which is pretty much physically impossible.

I am SICK of this philosophical exercise. You guys wanna know the answer? The answer is that the technology in question is imaginary, so it works however the fuck you want it to.

>>4559227
>>4559425
Yes, we should simply develop technology and never ever worry about the philosophical implications of the distant technology we are working on realizing because its not like quantum teleportation is a thing and even if it was, its not like it could ever work on humans.

>>4560266

I knew some buttmad philosophy fag would rage that someone insulted his star trek fantasy.

Tear a human apart atom by atom and put them together, alive, at the other end? No.

>BUT IT COOOULD HAPPEN, THERE WAS A TIME WHEN WE THOUGHT FLYING WAS IMPOSSIBLE

Monkeys flying out of my but is impossible, like the traditional unscientific explanation of sci-fi teleportation.

Could some form of teleportation exist? Like some vague facsimile of a former sci-fi concept much like androids or space travel? Like some process that we'll call teleportation even though it's nothing like vaporizing a human and rebuilding them a billion miles away? Sure.

That's what I meant by my post. Why don't you go concern yourself with the philosophical implications of Martians or mutant humans with super powers.

>>4560290
I agreed with you that teleportation for humans was not possible and those other things have nothing to do with technology which is what I like to think about... now if you said hyperdrives and FTL travel, then I would consider putting thought into it.

stop the subject conscious thought and create copy and while both copies are without thought destroy the old copy. Since the subjective experience was identical for both beings then neither could be said to be an individual merely a dual data copy so when the non destroyed subject was revived non one was killed.

continuity of consciousness

Why would teleportation mean destroying yourself and creating an exact copy? Why can't it be, you know, transporting yourself at extreme speed to another place, while still being you and not needing to create a "clone" ?

>>4560327
Because that is the definition of teleportation, getting from point A to point B without traversing the space in between, otherwise you are just traveling fast.

>>4560322
>continuity of consciousness
>completely separate brains

>>4560357

brains != consciousness

brains generate consciousness they're not the consciousness itself

>>4560446
Yes, however, a consciousness is unique to a brain and when you have two different brains, you have two separate streams of consciousness that will always be separated by individual perception.
If you could create a distant brain that was identical in structure to your brain, it still would not be your brain or your consciousness, so if your brain original brain was destroyed, your consciousness would also be destroyed.

>>4556554
Come back and ask your philosophical question when we actually have a device that works as you described. Until then, it's a pointless waste of time to discuss.

>>4560475
Yes, philosophizing should be done well after a technology or product has been developed and released to the masses instead of before/during their development when the philosophy can guide the design and it would be far less a waste of time, effort, and resources than if you made the technology, then realized it was bad, morally or philosophically.