Kdavidadeleye.es@Xerox.ARPA (10/16/85)
From: Kdavidadeleye.es@Xerox.ARPA Re:Matter Transmission It seems to me there are two fundamental approaches to matter transmission. One involves sending a map of the target, the other involves sending the territory of the target, i.e. the target itself. The distinction between the two is possibly critical when the target is alive (i.e. organic in the sense of life as it is loosely defined on Earth) and more so when the target is alive and possessed of that attribute we call consciousness. Consider, The MAP: If you're going to send maps then the essential problem begins to formulate itself in terms of accurate representations. The target needs to be scanned to a level that is pattern-preserving of structures, energies and elements that are 'descriptive' of even the subtlest energies of the target. There are a ton of interesting questions using a technology built from this approach. For instance do you do a destructive or non-destructive scan ? Once you have the target scanned into buffer storage startling possibilities emerge. Imagine buffer-storage as a form of static immortality (or long term storage in case of incurable disease, unlivable conditions, or a pocket-size way to move a colony ship at sub-light velocities across interstellar distances, - the population of Manhattan in a device the size of a refigerator, microwave oven or pack of cigarettes (choose your storage technology). Imagine Dynamic Genetic Programming: With a scanned target you can do a literal search of ALL gene strings, edit out large-scale features like acne (digital facial), scars, re-build fingerprints, make structures larger, smaller etc. It could get interesting. You could make copies though the fidelity of the isomorphs will instantly begin to depart from that of the original as its experience stream will be different. All experience shapes us, you and I would be different in large and small ways if our experience flows had been markedly different. Suppose you sent the map and were sophisticated enough to edit out its memory on a selective basis, or introduce completely fabricated memories. Life begins to get dangerous, which edition are you ? and how do you know ? The question that is always asked if 'posting' is done this way is universal "Is it really me or a decimal-place copy ?" This is a question that neither copy nor observer can decide once scanning technology crosses a similarity threshold in terms of the precision of representation. Consider the problem: If you're scanned non-destructively then the topology of the issue is obvious. Barring copies, there are two of you and the interesting question we can only speculate about at this point is what's the status of 'your' awareness ? Are there two separate consciousness's ?, one in two location ?s, one in two locations that rapidly/slowly becomes two ? Telepathy ?If the answer is that IMMEDIATELY (delta-t for observation >>>0) there are two (albeit identical in composition and behaviour) consciousness's then there are grounds for concern. Simply put, a decimal-place copy ain't me, and if you did a destructive scan to get it 'Ioriginal' am kaput despite the subsequent experiences of my wife. friends and 'Iisomorph'. More simply put, I don't like being kaput, no matter how neatly matters continue, or in slightly more formal terms , as Mayank Prakash <AI.Mayank@MCC.ARPA> quotes it: >> :"'Having the same indentity (identity?!)' is not an equivalence relation."...>just because it looks like me, talks like me, smells like me, acts like me, and thinks it is me doesn't make it me." The needed experiment requires 'telepathic' monitoring of targets and 'copies' involved in non-destructive scans. Consider, on the other hand, : The TERRITORY: This approach says simply, don't mess with the target. Move the space-time the target occupies and you've moved the target. Neat, Not simple, but No blackmail and NO DOUBTS. Physics (c. 1985) is still slightly out of reach, though it appears the theoretical basis for 'looking' this way is currently extant. The technologies and disciplines required to build a scanning device that would be operable on inanimate objects are here, albeit in their infancies. IF SDI survives and is successful in driving optical computing into hard forms and practical devices we'll have a grasp on the start of computing power required to not just design, but build devices like this. As long as 'post yer self for dinner at 7pm (Hong Kong time)' means sending by map, I ain't budging. When I go to dinner 'I' really want to get there. Though I can imagine companies competing (in, say, long-haul transportation - ?Earth/Moon, ?Earth/Mars, Los Angeles/Sidney?) saying: "Why leave her/him alone ?, Send a clone. One hour delivery time guaranteed. Destruct guaranteed." or "When you absolutely gotta be there, go yourself. One hour transit time. Guaranteed arrival. Insurance available." A last comment on social uses is obvious: scan target, edit buffer, activate serial number iterate and insert sub-routines, call 'wear-and-tear' function (cosmetic programming) , print n copies (Money, security keys, etc.) The limiting factors will (as usual) arise from the same four corners (process energy costs, implementation and payoff economics, technical imagination and motivation) My bet is, given the pulse and vectors of the state-of-the art that posting 'maps' will be here slightly ahead of posting 'territory'.The thing is, we already 'post' maps, albeit simple ones.