carl@proper.UUCP (Carl Greenberg) (09/28/85)
The matter transmission might destroy a soul if we had one. What are the char- acteristics of the soul, if one exists? Consider what matter transmission could do for surgery: load someone into memory and just edit them, removing cancers and such. Maybe even take out the brain of a youthful backup and substitute the one of the aging current one, and PRESTO! instant youth. Is someone legally dead when they only exist on magnetic tape or whatever we use for storing them? Suppose there's a glitch in the tape when you're restored, heavens forbid.... Think of what could be possible for transporation: assuming the ability to digitise someone and recreate them later, it might be able to post a copy of yourself to net.net-people and be created for a conversation. Or famines and droughts: take the digitisation of several acre-feet of water and just supply the energy from a nuclear power plant and create water or food! There's a lot more than souls in danger here- transporation, factories, and much more would be made completely obscelescent... Carl Greenberg
mikel@codas.UUCP (Mikel Manitius) (10/05/85)
> The matter transmission might destroy a soul if we had one. What are the char- > acteristics of the soul, if one exists? > Consider what matter transmission could do for surgery: load someone > into memory and just edit them, removing cancers and such. Maybe even take > out the brain of a youthful backup and substitute the one of the aging current > one, and PRESTO! instant youth. Is someone legally dead when they only exist > on magnetic tape or whatever we use for storing them? Suppose there's a glitch > in the tape when you're restored, heavens forbid.... > Think of what could be possible for transporation: assuming the ability > to digitise someone and recreate them later, it might be able to post a copy of > yourself to net.net-people and be created for a conversation. Or famines and > droughts: take the digitisation of several acre-feet of water and just supply > the energy from a nuclear power plant and create water or food! There's a lot > more than souls in danger here- transporation, factories, and much more would > be made completely obscelescent... > Carl Greenberg What everyone seems to be forgeting here, is that, as you may be able to digitise the atomical structure of a living organism, how are you going to digitise the information it contains, namely the "energy" within it. What I'm getting at, is that you may very well be able to re-create the physical body of the organism, but how are you going to restore the "life" within it? Imagine that you can digitise a computer, in order to restore it exactly to the point it was at which you digitised it, you must also store the information in it's memory, this is not matter, it is energy. The problem comes when you try to restore all of the processes running in the computer that you had when you started, and make it all continue. Now go back and solve the problem of digitising atmoic information, or earth's orbit around saturn for that matter! -- ======= Mikel Manitius ==----===== AT&T (305) 869-2462 RNX: 755 ==------===== Information Systems ...{akguc|ihnp4}!codas!mikel ===----====== SDSS Regional Support ...attmail!mmanitius =========== Altamonte Springs, FL My opinions are my own. =======
moews_b@h-sc1.UUCP (david moews) (10/08/85)
> Imagine that you can digitise a computer, in order to restore it exactly > to the point it was at which you digitised it, you must also store the > information in it's memory, this is not matter, it is energy. The problem > comes when you try to restore all of the processes running in the computer > that you had when you started, and make it all continue. > [...] > ======= > Mikel Manitius ==----===== AT&T > (305) 869-2462 RNX: 755 ==------===== Information Systems > ...{akguc|ihnp4}!codas!mikel ===----====== SDSS Regional Support > ...attmail!mmanitius =========== Altamonte Springs, FL > My opinions are my own. ======= But...computers store data by moving around electrons, so the data in a computer's memory *is* included in the structure of the "matter" in the computer. If all the electron positions were recorded correctly, the computer would presumably continue running with no problems. Anyway, it's not clear that the matter vs. energy distinction is really relevant at this level (one might view a photon as a material particle instead of an energy packet), so matter transmitters will have to scan all the mass/energy in an object (somehow) before reproducing it. David Moews ...!harvard!h-sc4!moews moews%h-sc4@harvard.arpa
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (10/08/85)
> Imagine that you can digitise a computer, in order to restore it > exactly to the point it was at which you digitised it, you must > also store the information in it's memory, this is not matter, it > is energy. Ah! But all you need do to `remember' the state of a memory chip is to record not only the positions of all those electrons, but their velocity as well! :-) [For those that have not yet realized it: Heisenberg may have slept here.] -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu
jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal) (10/08/85)
In article <587@h-sc1.UUCP> moews_b@h-sc1.UUCP (david moews) writes: > But...computers store data by moving around electrons, so the data >in a computer's memory *is* included in the structure of the "matter" in the >computer. If all the electron positions were recorded correctly, the >computer would presumably continue running with no problems. Anyway, it's >not clear that the matter vs. energy distinction is really relevant at >this level (one might view a photon as a material particle instead of >an energy packet), so matter transmitters will have to scan all the >mass/energy in an object (somehow) before reproducing it. Wrong! The position of an electron is NOT sufficient information to reproduce the state of the object (be it a computer memory, human mind, or whatever). The momentium of the electron is an independant quantity which must be measured and reproduced. Now, here is the relevant point: Modern quantum mechanics tells us that the lower limit for the product of the uncertainty obtained when measuring the position of an electon and its momentium is h, Plank's constant. So, it appears this is the end of the line for matter transmittion....(unless...:-)) Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS
ramsay@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC440) (10/10/85)
[ munchkin, munchkin ] With regard to storing all the electron positions, surely Heisenberg's uncertainty principle puts the kibosh on that since we need to know both where the electron is and how fast it's travelling. Besides, think of the memory required.... R.Ramsay (Westfield lives!)
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Colonel'K) (10/10/85)
>Ah! But all you need do to `remember' the state of a memory chip >is to record not only the positions of all those electrons, but >their velocity as well! :-) >[For those that have not yet realized it: Heisenberg may have slept >here.] But if he did, we don't know WHEN! "Penfold! I've GOT it! This grandfather clock is a great big time machine!" "Aren't ALL clocks time machines, DM?" "No no no, Penfold, this machine travels THROUGH time." "Oh...like that Doctor fellow." Scott J. Berry ihnp4!hou2g!scott
Slocum.CSCDA@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (10/11/85)
From: Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA
Let's not forget the Uncertainty Principle in the context of matter
recording/ duplication. A simple way of stating this is the following:
"When dealing with sub-atomic particles (electrons, etc.), the more
accurately the velocity of said particle is known, the less accurately
its position is known, and visa versa".
So, if you know the position of an electron to infinite precision, you
know nothing about its velocity. This kind of screws up the copying
process. I would hope that the copier was awfully precise.
I was just thinking about this... What happens if you apply uncertainty
to an entire person. Figure out the person's velocity to infinite
precision, and he vanishes and appears somewhere else that is unknown.
Hows that for a nifty solution. A random teleporter.
Brett Slocum
(Slocum@HI-MULTICS.ARPA)mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/12/85)
In article <3998@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Slocum.CSCDA@HI-MULTICS.ARPA writes: >Let's not forget the Uncertainty Principle in the context of matter >recording/ duplication. A simple way of stating this is the following: > "When dealing with sub-atomic particles (electrons, etc.), the more >accurately the velocity of said particle is known, the less accurately >its position is known, and visa versa". >So, if you know the position of an electron to infinite precision, you >know nothing about its velocity. This kind of screws up the copying >process. I would hope that the copier was awfully precise. Well, actually, since the person himself constitutes an observing system, it's only necessary to be as percise in observation as the human body is of itself. My guess is that this is going to be (by most standards) quite sloppy, especially as the need for real precision is going to be concentrated in relatively small volume. The atom-by-atom structure of bone, for instance, is likely to be of little importance compared to its gross structure. There are lots of fluid areas where we surely do not care where the water molecules are (as long as we have them at the right temperature-- a VERY low precision measure of energy). So from that point of view, my estimate is that the problem is not that difficult. The chief problem is simply acquiring the information without destroying it too soon, and then finding a place to put it all. Charley Wingate
jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal) (10/15/85)
In article <1825@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >In article <3998@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Slocum.CSCDA@HI-MULTICS.ARPA writes: > >>Let's not forget the Uncertainty Principle in the context of matter >>recording/ duplication. A simple way of stating this is the following: >> "When dealing with sub-atomic particles (electrons, etc.), the more >>accurately the velocity of said particle is known, the less accurately >>its position is known, and visa versa". > >>So, if you know the position of an electron to infinite precision, you >>know nothing about its velocity. This kind of screws up the copying >>process. I would hope that the copier was awfully precise. > >Well, actually, since the person himself constitutes an observing system, >it's only necessary to be as percise in observation as the human body is of >itself. My guess is that this is going to be (by most standards) quite >sloppy, especially as the need for real precision is going to be >concentrated in relatively small volume. The atom-by-atom structure of >bone, for instance, is likely to be of little importance compared to its >gross structure. There are lots of fluid areas where we surely do not care >where the water molecules are (as long as we have them at the right >temperature-- a VERY low precision measure of energy). So from that point >of view, my estimate is that the problem is not that difficult. The chief >problem is simply acquiring the information without destroying it too soon, >and then finding a place to put it all. > >Charley Wingate This is pure nonsense. So what if the atom-by-atom structure of bone is or is not reporduced. In fact, you could still achieve human matter transmision without sending bone at all. It is the thoughts and ideas, contained in the mind, which is important and this is the part that CAN NOT be measured with sufficient accuracy. Period. No if's and's or but's (sorry for the cliche). (sigh, let me repeat myself) There is an absoulte, lower limit on the accuracy with which one can measure both the position and momentium of any particle (an electron). Specifically, the uncertainty (product of uncertainty of position and uncertainty of momentum) can be no less than h (Planc's constant). One can not hope to reproduce the state of a human brain since doing so would require reporducing electric impulses and energy states of atoms/molucules. It is not enough to know that "there are a few electrons flying around." You must also know where they are and where thay are going. Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS
samson@h-sc1.UUCP (gregory samson) (10/15/85)
So it doesn't matter that the water molecules are all in the same place, as long as they're water and they have the same average kinetic energy? Not quite... imagine what might happen if a couple of very energetic water molecules happened to be transmitted through right next to some of your DNA. Mutagens, anyone? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- G. T. Samson The Evil MicroWizard gts@wjh12.ARPA
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/16/85)
In article <87@mit-eddie.UUCP> jbs@mit-eddie.UUCP (Jeff Siegal) writes: [ The story thus far: Someone suggested that atom-by-atom copying of humans was made very difficult by the uncertainty principle. My reply pointed out that the precision needed was drastically reduced by the limits the human body faces when observing itself. And now, the reply. ] >This is pure nonsense. So what if the atom-by-atom structure of bone is >or is not reporduced. In fact, you could still achieve human matter >transmision without sending bone at all. It is the thoughts and ideas, >contained in the mind, which is important and this is the part that CAN >NOT be measured with sufficient accuracy. Period. No if's and's or >but's (sorry for the cliche). (sigh, let me repeat myself) There is an >absoulte, lower limit on the accuracy with which one can measure both >the position and momentium of any particle (an electron). Specifically, >the uncertainty (product of uncertainty of position and uncertainty of >momentum) can be no less than h (Planc's constant). One can not hope to >reproduce the state of a human brain since doing so would require >reporducing electric impulses and energy states of atoms/molucules. It >is not enough to know that "there are a few electrons flying around." >You must also know where they are and where thay are going. Well, much of this is supposition. What constitutes the essential state of the human brain is essentially unknown. It may in fact be true that it depends entirely upon the presence or absence of various chemicals in various places, and that the momentum is unimportant except as far as getting the temperature right is concerned (and as I said before, temperature is about as imprecise as one can measure molecular velocity). The only upper limit in precision of either velocity or position is what the human body can observe. If it can't tell the difference, then for all intents and purposes there is none. It may in fact be impossible to achieve that level of precision. But I don't see any reason for presupposing that we cannot. Charley Wingate
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/16/85)
In article <590@h-sc1.UUCP> gts@wjh12.ARPA writes: >So it doesn't matter that the water molecules are all in the same place, >as long as they're water and they have the same average kinetic energy? >Not quite... imagine what might happen if a couple of very energetic water >molecules happened to be transmitted through right next to some of your DNA. >Mutagens, anyone? We have that same problem now. The qualifier is that statistically the event is quite rare, so that water is not a serious mutagen. Charley Wingate
appatel@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC???) (10/18/85)
In article <196@argon.kcl-cs.UUCP> thornton@argon.UUCP (znac468) writes: >In article <195@argon.kcl-cs.UUCP> ramsay@argon writes: >> >>With regard to storing all the electron positions, surely Heisenberg's >>uncertainty principle puts the kibosh on that since we need to know both >>where the electron is and how fast it's travelling. Besides, think of the >>memory required.... >> >> R.Ramsay > > Surely at the instant of transmission you would only have to map the >electron densities that existed in the object at thet moment. After >transmission all electrons would take up their original motions which were >only due to the electron densities anyway. Despite this I think the process >will NEVER be used as the problems involved will always be unsolvable. > Star Trek should have made more use of 'THE VALID TRANSPORT DEVICE' >e.g. shuttle. > Someone please correct the above if it is wrong. > > Andy T.(Not a physicist) > > ('GENTLEMEN, I SUGGEST YOU BEAM ME ABOARD'...) > > DEFEATIST! ('HUMANS CEASE TO EXIST WITHOUT A CHALLENGE TO SPUR THEM ON').
thornton@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC468) (10/21/85)
In article <197@argon.kcl-cs.UUCP> appatel@argon. writes: > > DEFEATIST! > > ('HUMANS CEASE TO EXIST WITHOUT A CHALLENGE TO SPUR THEM ON'). > > OPTIMIST!!! ('IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR AN OPTIMIST TO BE PLEASANTLY SURPRISED'). Andy T.
steven@hp-lsd.UUCP (steven) (10/21/85)
>but's (sorry for the cliche). (sigh, let me repeat myself) There is an >absoulte, lower limit on the accuracy with which one can measure both >the position and momentium of any particle (an electron). Specifically, >the uncertainty (product of uncertainty of position and uncertainty of >momentum) can be no less than h (Planc's constant). One can not hope to >reproduce the state of a human brain since doing so would require >reporducing electric impulses and energy states of atoms/molucules. It This is not quite the right way to look at it. The electron does not _have_ a position and momentum within an uncertainty of less than h. All it has is a wave function. If this wave function can be reproduced exactly, the resulting particle has the same distribution of positions and momentums as the original. The uncertainty principle states that this wave function is the best model we can possibly have for the particle and therefore contains all the information we can have about it. If the original particle behaved differently than the duplicate, then that would give us more information about it than was contained in its wave function. Actually, the position will only be the same relative to a translated frame of reference if any transportation is to take place, and differences in electromagnetic fields and such will not allow exact duplication of wave functions, but the resultant changes would probably be less than those that would occur in the original in a small fraction of a second of passing time anyway. Any other form of travel would result in much greater changes between the departing and arriving people, except that the changes would have been continuous. Also, while we are discussing the effects of quantum mechanics, if the copy came out scrambled, I could point out that there was a small probability that the original would have scrambled itself also. I still agree that matter transmission is not feasible with current knowledge. Steven Sharp
thornton@kcl-cs.UUCP (ZNAC468) (10/25/85)
Why would you have to know the PRECISE location of every electron?
These change all the time in the human brain so knowing where they all are
at one instant is unneccesary. The worst that could happen is that the
beamed down copy may arrive with different thoughts to what he left with
or maybe even different memories. In this case he could be completely
different in attitude and temperament (ala MIRROR,MIRROR).
Andy T.
("MY GOD..IT'S FULL OF PRECISE ELECTRON POSITIONS...")franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/28/85)
[Not food] If the person arriving at the far end of the transporter has different memories, attitude, and temperament, then it is NOT the same person as the one transmitted. Actually, if you scramble the memories, you probably wind up with a drooling (grown up) infant, not a functional adult. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (11/01/85)
[Please, oh please, eat me, Brer Line Eater Monster!] > In article <1825@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > >In article <3998@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Slocum.CSCDA@HI-MULTICS.ARPA writes: > > > >>Let's not forget the Uncertainty Principle in the context of matter > >>recording/ duplication. A simple way of stating this is the following: > >> "When dealing with sub-atomic particles (electrons, etc.), the more > >>accurately the velocity of said particle is known, the less accurately > >>its position is known, and visa versa". > > > >>So, if you know the position of an electron to infinite precision, you > >>know nothing about its velocity. This kind of screws up the copying > >>process. I would hope that the copier was awfully precise. > > > >Well, actually, since the person himself constitutes an observing system, > >it's only necessary to be as percise in observation as the human body is of > >itself. My guess is that this is going to be (by most standards) quite > >sloppy, especially as the need for real precision is going to be > >concentrated in relatively small volume. The atom-by-atom structure of > >bone, for instance, is likely to be of little importance compared to its > >gross structure. There are lots of fluid areas where we surely do not care > >where the water molecules are (as long as we have them at the right > >temperature-- a VERY low precision measure of energy). So from that point > >of view, my estimate is that the problem is not that difficult. The chief > >problem is simply acquiring the information without destroying it too soon, > >and then finding a place to put it all. > > > >Charley Wingate > > This is pure nonsense. So what if the atom-by-atom structure of bone is > or is not reporduced. In fact, you could still achieve human matter > transmision without sending bone at all. It is the thoughts and ideas, > contained in the mind, which is important and this is the part that CAN > NOT be measured with sufficient accuracy. Period. No if's and's or > but's (sorry for the cliche). (sigh, let me repeat myself) There is an > absoulte, lower limit on the accuracy with which one can measure both > the position and momentium of any particle (an electron). Specifically, > the uncertainty (product of uncertainty of position and uncertainty of > momentum) can be no less than h (Planc's constant). One can not hope to > reproduce the state of a human brain since doing so would require > reporducing electric impulses and energy states of atoms/molucules. It > is not enough to know that "there are a few electrons flying around." > You must also know where they are and where thay are going. > > Jeff Siegal - MIT EECS For an area of science where we are still very ignorant -- we still have very little knowledge of how thoughts and memories are organized in the brain -- you talk awfully certain. It seems quite unlikely to me that thoughts are placed at the level where quantum uncertainty is an overriding factor -- for the simple reason that such would make thoughts and memories too unreliable to be useful. Why build a brain like that? It seems much more probable that, however it is organized, the information *can* be reliably read, written, and stored. If the living brain can do it, eventually I suspect we'll also learn how. Once the thought and memory structure is extracted and transmitted, creation of the destination brain doesn't need to involve control of the exact positions and energies of every electron -- which is, of course, impossible -- but "merely" must ensure that analogues of the original thoughts and memories are circulating in the brain. It is no more forbidden by the uncertainty principle for us to do this with a brain than it is for a computer. Computers are also subject, in the small scale, to the uncertainty principle, yet we *do* manage to reliably transfer information and programs between them, don't we? -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Fool. The reason why the seven stars are no more than seven is a pretty reason. Lear. Because they are not eight? Fool. Yes, indeed. Thou wouldst make a good fool. William Shakespeare, *King Lear*, Act I, Scene 5