this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
147 points (95.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43940 readers
624 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Quantum entanglement would mean that while it reads your initial state and encodes the new state there are two copies of you in existence, that is cloning, then the initial state dies. Unless the process of reading that state is destructive, then you just die and are cloned.
The method between the two you suggested also means you die momentarily and then are recreated. For the period of time it takes to encode your atoms into a method of transport and then reassemble them at your destination, you no longer exist in complete form.
The cute thing about quantum entanglement is that it provably CANNOT create a clone of you. It is conveniently called no-cloning theorem. It can either move your exact quantum state from a collection of particles in one place onto a collection in another, or it can create imperfect clones of you, but in no situation can it create an exact quantum clone of you in addition to the original.
But I still exist and am not quantumly annihilated.
And afaik about entanglement, it would just clone me on the other side leaving another copy of me at the start. At least, that's how it reads when describing the difference between entanglement and how Star Trek works.
Exactly, if you are not annihilated then that means two identical versions of an entity that thinks it's you exist simultaneously, and now one of them has to be killed to maintain the illusion of this being transport rather than cloning.
This is not true. There would not be two exact copies, quantum entanglement cannot clone things. It is literally not possible. It goes by the name of "no-cloning theorem".
I've seen the 6th Day. I think I can manage 😤
Those old Arnie moves have some deep philosophical quandaries huh. 6th day, Terminator, Total Recall, Last Action Hero, Running Man, Junior.
Yeah but the quantum entanglement ensures the new copy is like you down to every last detail. Atomic resolution digitizes you and probably loses information.
That’s not what quantum entanglement means, but either way, you die when you step into the teleporter. Some clone that thinks it’s you on the other side lives out the rest of your days. There aren’t two ways about this.
If they could make a portal that bent space time so that origin and destination were “next to” each other, I’d consider it.
Anything that has to take me apart and put me back together is just creating a copy of me, my consciousness would not be continuous no matter what illusion we put the clone under.
So no, fuck teleportation.
If you actually lose consciousness during the process, there might be an argument, but if I can walk onto a platform while having a conversation with someone and continue that conversation seamlessly with no gaps in my short term memory then I did not die and there was no destruction, merely the encoding and decoding of myself into my equivalent in energy in a process that might as well be instantaneous.
We can re-attach limbs, imagine if it were possible to be completely disassembled, shipped first class mail around the world, and then re-assembled. Wouldn't we be the same person?