Teleporting Consiousness

S

snarfblam

Ultimate Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
2,097
Location
USA
I hope no one minds a post that has nothing to do with programming.

My brother and I are in disagreement as to whether teleportation of a person (metaphysical issues and variables aside) would result in a new, different consciousness (essentially killing the original person) or the same consciousness in a different place. I'm just wondering what other people think. (And I'd like to see people on this increasingly quiet board thinking and interacting.)

His argument is that if you teleport a person, since the process of teleportation involves the destruction and then reconstruction of an object, the teleported would observe the world as he knows it end, and then another person will be constructed on the other end with all the memories of the old person and unaware that the original consciousness had ended.

My take is that, essentially, any two objects, even people, are the same object if they are in exactly the same state (same particles in the same relative locations with the same velocity/polarity/spin/etc.), even if only for a single instant (think of it as a crazy spin or extension on entanglement). For instance, if two objects (object A and object B), identical down to every quantum detail, are sent (sans teleportation) through space from sender A to receiver A and sender B to receiver B (respectively), maintaining their quantum equality throughout (even if they are temporally separated), it is scientifically impossible to prove that the two objects did not instantly "magically" change places and that receiver A did not actually receive object B, and vice-versa. Likewise, it is impossible to prove that they weren't, at least temporarily, two manifestations of the same object. For all intents and purposes, they are the same object.

Since teleportation is a process of reconstructing the quantum state of an object in a different location (with the necessity of destroying the original), the post-teleportation person is the same person, not a new person despite being a replication, hence the consciousness is the same consciousness.

It is purely theoretical (and maybe philosophical), of course, especially since, as far as anyone knows, teleportation of complex objects will never be a practical possibility, but does anyone have any thoughts? Or does anyone care?
 
I'm not sure what's possible, but if teleportation works by not destroying/creating, but by moving things around then there may be no argument.

If it works by destroying/creating I guess it comes down to whether the destroying/creating is the SAME or not - whether it's a copy really. I like to think that there is a soul of some kind and so a simple destroy/create wouldn't be possible. Much like creating an EXACT clone of someone else wouldn't really be two of the same people.

My bottom line, I think you'd be the same person - but, that assumes it's not really a destroy/create.

-ner
 
I'm personally of the opinion that you would be the same person as I don't believe in a mystical object such as the soul. In my opinion every part of you has a physical presence. With this being said anything you could constitute as a soul would be re-produce along with everything else. Nerseus brings up several good points. Both the entity 'destroyed' and the entity 'created' would have to be identical right down to the sub-atomic level and probably further than we know exists with the current state of physics. The actual breaking down of the material and 'moving' it across space seems unlikely, more likely is the reconstruction from particles of the same type. As Nerseus said, this would essentially lead to a clone, but in my opinion the clone would be identical to the original person. Incidently if this is the case and the process involves copying rather than moving, making clones would be easy as there would like be no reason to take the person to bits in the first place. This actually reminds me of star-trek where they end up with 2 will rikers (sad I know).

Unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty sure scientist have actually succeded in teleporting a single particle from one point to another. I don't remember the details, I just vaguely remember reading about it.
 
The way you're describing it, there are three steps:

1. Scan the body to copy all the information.
2. Kill the body via disentigration.
3. Create a clone based on information.

If 1 & 2 happen without 3 occuring, does that mean that the person had died? If you consider this death, but not death if #3 takes place, then death has to be redefined that a body can shut down or be destroyed, but life continues if a copy is created.

If just 1 & 3 happened, are they both the same person since you can't tell them apart? You have two people who are identical, one was born and the other was cloned. At what point do they become different people? When they eat different food and you can tell them apart biologically?

If #3 happens on day 1, day 2, day 3 & day 4, each of the 4 persons are exact copies of the person as of when they were scanned as they are constructed. Is the newest one constantly the "real one" because he's identical to the base self? Or are they all the real living one even though they're no longer identical?

What makes a person the real copy? Just the first one? The additional ones are just clones that aren't the person?

What if a person is recreated, then killed and another copy is recreated? Is that person also "real" because he's identical to the data copied from the origional? Or is the "real" person dead because the first copy was killed?

If you go by "identical = actual person" then this is a recipe for immortality.

But by our current definition of death (ceasation of bodily functions) and how this "teleportation" concept was presented, the origional is dead. The new one is an identical clone. If this becomes possible, someone is going to have to redefine what death is.

I admit, without Copy&Paste/Cloning records, if you're identical to your base self, there isn't any real way to proove that someone has died.

But not being able to proove something doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
 
I made a point of excluding metaphysical considerations (souls, consciousness as a non-physical entity, etc.) because any metaphysical aspect of a teleported object would not be teleported, hence you would essentially die, but (not to offend anyone) metaphysics have little bearing on concrete theoretical science (excuse the paradox). It is like believing that taking a photograph will steal your soul. In order for one to consider such a metaphysical belief to have merit, one must be a believer of that metaphysical reality, which makes it particularly impractical to consider in a scientific context.

I can make the much simpler argument that a person's identity, inclusive of their consciousness, is a product of person's physical self and that an identical copy of a person would result in the same product, hence the same identity, hence the same consciousness. But then everyone comes back with metaphysical arguments.

Cags, I believe you are right. I think individual particles have been teleported. If not, we are not far from it, and the means necessary to do so is certainly known at this point. As far as how teleportation is achieved, it is the destruction of an object and recreation elsewhere. It is the process of reproducing the quantum state (this is important) of an object elsewhere.

The reason that an object must be destroyed to be teleported is that, as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal says, by observing an aspect of a particle's state the state of that particle becomes altered in such a way that we can not observe other properties that the particle had had at the same time, i.e. the entire quantum state of a particle can not be observed. If you observe the position of an object, it then become impossible to find out how fast the particle was moving. If you observe the speed it becomes impossible to observe the position. If you observe both at once you will get both values, but they each only be half accurate (or one 25% and one 75%, or one 10% and one 90%, there will always be a compromise, though). Essentially the observation corrupts the state of the particle, hence the "destroying" the particle and the object of which the particle is a component.

Through the use of entangled particles (see the link in my first post) it becomes possible to observe the entire state of a particle, but the state of the original particle is still corrupted afterwards. A copy of that particle can be re-created elsewhere with the exact same quantum state that the original had, using the information discovered and transmitted via entanglement, but because of limits of quantum mechanics and entangled particles, only one copy can be made and the destruction of the original becomes a necessity. The teleported particle is not actually the same particle (in an “ultimate” sense) but it is the same particle in the sense that it continues the quantum state of the original particle after the original particle’s state is disrupted.

Repeat this process over all the particles of an entire object and the entire object is teleported. Scientists generally agree that teleportation of something as complex as an animal would never be practically possible, which makes this discussion purely theoretical.


Denaes, your steps 1 and 2 are actually one step. The scanning of the object requires the destruction of said object, and actually also results in half of the reconstruction of the original object.

Also, if you prove, using perfect logic of course, that an argument can never be proved or disproved, then that argument is essentially both simultaneously true and false, isn't it? In other words, the truth to an argument becomes irrelevant when it can never have meaning. (Or are we getting into metaphysics again?) I say that identical objects swap places freely and you say that they don't. Well, whether I'm right or you are right, the ultimate meaning of the universe does not change. Both my belief and your belief result in the same, exact, identical world, down to the teeniest quantum detail. Not even the objects that might be magically swapping places can possibly know the difference. That is the logic from which I derive the conclusion that any two objects that are in identical quantum states are essentially the same object, hence the you before teleportation and the you after teleportation, even though composed of particles that can be observed to be separate particles, are still the same person.

I'm not saying that you are the same person after teleportation because you magically swap places. I'm saying that you are the same person because, in a relative manner (and the universe as it is scientifically know is a very relativistic thing), you are the same person. Just because you are separated spatially and temporally doesn't mean that you are not the same person. There is a different instance of you in every instance of the universe, separated temporally and most likely spatially, yet over all those instances that pass by you still consider yourself to be the same person that you were born as. In a way, you are more the same person after teleportation than you are after, for example, sneezing (sneezing results in a change in your relative state, teleporting doesn't).




I don't know. Should I be writing a book? I seem to have a lot to say.
 
I heard an interesting theory of what the soul is, that our minds actually work as a type of radio, tuned into a specific frequency of a higher dimensional being. I'm not sure what that would actually mean, scientifically, but just a random thought.
 
I'm going to go with the theory that teleportation doesn't really destroy/create but rather opens a wormhole, of sorts, to move you from one place to another. In that case, it's like walking through a very hippy-free-like door.

Of course, as a kid I thought that kind of technology would be awesome - teleport anywhere at any time. Now, it scares me a bit - if unchecked. You could easily see a very bad use of that technology, such as teleporting a bomb anywhere. Or a tiny pebble right inside of someone.

I once read some sci-fi story where the teleportation technology only worked like an elevator. You had to enter a specific zone to get teleported to another specific zone. I believe the story had these zones setup on every street corner, so by taking a step into a zone you'd jump to the next block. Take another step and you'd be on another block. You could quickly get to where you were going just by walking. Sounded good enough for me :)

-ner
 
The zone idea would be a good thing... Similar to stargates, but obviously one per tower or something. Otherwise star trek teleporting would be to powerful for reasons you've just said. Initally it would be hard for other people to copy (say if it was military controlled. But eventually with time technology becomes old and more people understand. For example nuclear weapons.
 
Two words: Entangled Networks.

Why teleport yourself and worry about whether your soul will still exist when you get to the other side when you can get just as much benefit from zero latency transfer of data? There is no way I am ever going to step into a teleporter...my email can, but I think I'll pass.
 
Entanglement can't really be used to transmit data any faster than traditional methods. Information cannot be transferred through entanglement. Entanglement can have a "non local" effect (i.e. an action on one particle has an instant (not limited by the speed of light) apparent effect on another, distant particle), but the effect that can be had is very limited. The only effect that can be achieved is that after having examined an (assumed to be random by quantum physics) property of a particle, we know that another entangled particle will reflect that property predictably (non-randomly) and instantly. This can't be used to transmit data, only to provide two, and only two, sets of random data at two different locations, instantly (no matter how far away). Think of entangled particles as read-only. You can have data in two far away places instantly, but you can't inject data into the stream, only read what is already there.

An network that employs entanglement only provides encryption that is physically impossible to break, because, similar to issues involved in teleportation, the encryption key can only be observed one time, after which its state is disrupted irrevocably. With entangled particle pairs a random key can be derived from the random quantum states of a particle, which will be reflected identically in each particle in the pair, providing someone on the other end with the only other copy of the encryption key that can ever exist. The data itself must still be sent in a traditional (radio, wire, etc.) method.

I'm sure that a lot of people will tell you that entanglement can be used to transmit data instantly, but there are a lot of misconceptions about entanglement. Many people think that entanglement can scientifically define or identify our souls or be used to travel through time. If you pick up a book by a reputable author, however, you will see that what entanglement does is really very limited. All it really does is give us a back door on the apparent randomness of the quantum world.
 
I'm no expert, but it seems plausible to me. Of course, this is wikipedia, which isn't 100% reliable, and I could be misinterpreting the information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
Wikipedia said:
The parts of a maximally entangled two-qubit state are distributed to Alice and Bob. The protocol then involves Alice and Bob interacting locally with the qubit(s) in their possession and Alice sending two classical bits to Bob. In the end, the qubit in Bob's possession will be in the desired state.
Click to expand...
So, the way I understand it, if Alice and Bob each have a part of an entangled pair, Alice can manipulate qbits to store specific classical data and then share her qbits through the entangled pair -- basically Bob's qbits will exactly mimic Alice's thus transferring the data. The most important thing to remember is that the "network" is a dedicated, point to point communication where only Alice and Bob may communicate with one another. IF this were to become a reality in some future internet, there would probably be entangled routers that communicate across the oceans or through space, or entangled network cards issued by ISP's, crazy stuff like that. You certainly would not be able to instantly communicate with any computer on the planet.

The bottom line is that if it is theoretically possible to teleport a person, then data should be even easier. It has to be possible to manipulate and interpret qbits otherwise it would be impossible to have quantum computers. And just think, every time you generate true random numbers with this link, you immediately cause multiple dimensions to instantaneously split all around you. :cool:

Of course, I'm no expert, so I could be theoretically off base...but wouldn't it be cool if...?
 
All this talk of qbits makes my head hurt ;)

qbert-side-lg.jpg


[ok, ok...it's a bad pun, I know.]
 
People, strictly theoretically speaking, can be teleported, but at the speed of light at the fastest. It isn't that much more efficient than hopping into a (hypothetical) light speed space ship, but it has the added advantage that it could be done over fiber-optic networks instead of large open spaces.

The very first line in the article you posted is this:
Wikipedia said:
In quantum information, quantum teleportation, or entanglement-assisted teleportation is a technique that transfers a quantum state to an arbitrarily distant location using a distributed entangled state and the transmission of some classical information. Quantum teleportation does not transport energy or matter, nor does it allow communication of information at superluminal speed.
Click to expand...
Entanglement can't transmit energy, matter, or data.

Note this part of the Wikipedia text you originally quoted:
mskeel (quoted from Wikipedia) said:
Alice sending two classical bits to Bob
Click to expand...
A "classical bit" is a bit that is sent over a wire, via radio, through two cups and a string, whatever. In order to make any use of quantum entanglement, data must also be sent in via some sort of "classical" mechanism. All the entangled particles allow us to do is (1) have a source of random data in two locations simultaneously, provided that entangled particles have already been separated and distributed to these two locations, and (2) fully examine the state of a quantum particle. (1) is used for encryption that is unbreakable and (2) is used for teleportation.
 
The fact is that many scientific 'facts' aren't set in stone they are just our current understanding. Many things accepted as fact are based on very loose interpretations and should be refered to more correctly as 'Theories'. Now based on current theories, the transfer of data through quantum entanglement is impossible. It is always possible of course that by this time next week a new discovery will have been made that will prove mskeel's theory possible, i.e. controlled quantum entanglement. The fact is if everyone subscribed to all current theories, alot less scientific advancement would have been made.

Scientists once claimed that it was impossible for a Bee to fly. This falacy was caused by a simplified model that represented the Bee as having fixed wings like an aircraft, failing to take into acount the extra lift afforded by 'flapping'. If it wasn't for the fact people had seen Bees flying, this could have forever been accepted as fact. Incidently this is one of the problems involved with identifying extinct creatures.
 
Quantum teleportation does not transport energy or matter, nor does it allow communication of information at superluminal speed.
Click to expand...
Hmm...I interpreted this slightly differently -- simply that you can't transmit something faster than you can think it, essentially, you can't travel through time. The "transfer" of data, I think (?), is the whole point of teleportation. It wouldn't be the same data, but a direct representation of the original data, a copy (thus you may or may not have the same soul/conciseness on the other side). I think there may be some confusion in what a qubit can hold and it's relationship to classical bits. I think (again, no expert, just wikipedia educated on this subject) you can load qbits with classical data -- probably even more data since a qbit can hold 1, 0, or both. This is interpreted by the spin of subatomic particles or something like that which up until to point of observation might have either + or - spin so you have to assume both...blah, blah as you've already said and will have an effect on an entangled partner instantly and predictably, also as you've said.

You see, marble_eater, the internet is a series of tubes. The internet isn't something you just dump something on, it's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes, tubes that can hold enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material. Sometimes those tubes can get filled and when they are filled and you put your message in, it gets in line and is delayed by anyone who put material in the tube before you. ;)

Cags has the right idea here. Everything we're talking about is theoretical and being innovated daily. There’s no reason to death ray my zero latency world just because you don't think it's possible or it isn't currently possible. It’s cool, though. I’m learning a lot, even if it turns out that I'm waaay off base.
 
I hate to be a party pooper. It isn't that I don't think it is possible. It is that, according to all accepted science, theoretical or not, with the exception of entanglement, this sort of instant, zero latency network would not be possible, leaving entanglement as the only current possibility. So let's discuss that.

When you try to understand the basics of entanglement (not the mathematical physics, but the principles), you need to pay attention to what science says entanglement can do, not what it doesn't say entanglement can't do. The idea is not to say "well, maybe it can do this" and assume that it is, somehow, someday, possible until science disproves it. That is for science-fiction. What you need to do is look at what entanglement enables us to do (in theory or in practice), and then determine how we can apply that.

It can provide random data in two places where the entangled particles have already been distributed there. That doesn't do anything for our ability to communicate, except give us very nifty encryption keys. And it can allow us to duplicate the state of a quantum particle, which, again, does nothing for our ability to communicate.

Entanglement, in theory, allows particles to defy locality (locality being the idea that two particles cannot interact at a distance, limiting communication to nature's speed limit), but only in a manner that does not allow us to defy locality. Ultimately, all entanglement really does is give us a back door on the fuzzy nature of quantum mechanics, allowing us to make predictions on part of an entangled pair that we would not be able to make otherwise (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle). If you think about it, that is all entanglement needs to do to give us unbreakable encryption and (at the speed of light) teleportation: give us a back door on the uncertaintly principle.

And besides that, looking at the text you quoted, it is important to note the word "superluminal," faster than the speed of light, not faster than it can be conceived.

I'm done pooping on your party. Now I'm going to poop on Cag's.

In the scientific community (which I am not part of, just in case anyone thinks that I think I am) people are very careful to properly refer to an idea correctly as a theory, principle, or whatever, for the sake of keeping in mind what a given "fact" really is.

As far as what entanglement could be able to do when our understanding changes, like I said, for a given theory, you need to focus on what it can do, not what we say it can't not do. You are right that subscribing to currently accepted science does little for the advancement of science. Speculating at what a rule might not prohibit is very logically unsound, though, and really won't get you anywhere. Questioning particular aspects of a theory might lead to a discovery. Viewing it in a different light can (or we wouldn't have a theory of relativity). Hoping that a certain theory somehow makes a certain action possible, and then trying to figure out how, is hopeless though.

But the real problem is that so many people don't understand the real nature of the theories and principles of entanglement. The very essence of entanglement is derived from the fact that physics must maintain certain balances such as the conservation of energy, or more specifically, for every action there is an equal but oppisite reaction. Quantum physics is fuzzy--it doesn't say that when you do this, that will happen. It says that when you look at an electron, has a certain probability of being in a certain area. There is no way to know until you actually check. All the theory of entanglement says is that, because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, you can know where a particle is without actually looking at it by examining another, entangled particle, hence the back door on the fuzzy nature of quantum mechanics. When you look at the heart of entanglement, it really does not provide any kind of mechanism to defy locality. It really has nothing to do with faster-than-light anything.

I'm pooped out now. I won't rain on any more parades if it bothers people, but it just kinda gets at me, in an OCD-ish kind of way, when I see misconception. Maybe I'll go get started on that book.
 
Denaes had it right in Post #4.

In computer terms, the analogy would be Serialization and Deserialization, which can be used to (a) transmit an object, (b) store and then later reconstitute an object, or (c) clone an object.

If you make a clone, then both would feel like they are the "real Captain Kirk", and both would be right!

We teleport ourselves in-place all the time. Yes, that's right, we are not static. There is some rate of molecule replacement constantly. The water in our bodies (around 90% of our mass, I think) might be replaced nearly 100% every week. Other molecules like muscle tissue might have a longer turn-around, and some molececules like calcium in our bones might take years to cycle through, but we are on a constant replacement cycle. So the only constant is not the molecules, but the "blueprint".

And even the blueprint is not constant: we do age slowly. And we gain new knowledge and forget some lesser-used facts, etc. But we do "teleport in place" all the time. So if you think that a Teleport-as-Clone operation leaves the 1st person as the "real" version and the teleported person as the "clone", then you are wrong. Even if you "tag" all the molecules in the "real version" give it a couple of weeks, or maybe a year or so, and they will both be clones of the "original".
 
I tried to make that point, but you made it so much better than I. "We are not static" is a very good way of putting it. When all is said and done, almost none of what we were originally made of is left. Besides our bodies we find our personalities and our very identy to be something transcendant. We are still considered the same person now and twenty years ago even though the matter and the thought that we are composed of are not the same as they were then. They are connected only by a long sequence of events, and what would teleportation be but another event, one that leaves you more who you are than a day of living your life.

Our consiousness ends every day, and begins again the next day. I consider myself to be the same person today as I was yesterday. What would transportation be except, at worst, a more transparent end and beginning.
 
Back
Top