@Cirrus Light
I try to apply Taoist-like philosophy and some mediocre science knowledge for possible explanations, at least you know physics enough to try to apply it to something confusing as this xD
But we can say time-flow could change, correct?
Could we say that they did teleport though? Teleportation doesn’t yet exist, so this is all theoretical, but I hear the theory is that at one end they copy all the body’s information, send the information to the other end, where a new body is constructed and at the same time the old one is destroyed.
This isn’t exactly the same, but say the body went through the portal, was deconstructed into information(or molecules idk) and then a body was reconstructed at the other end of the portal. This could be a reasoning behind why they change from being horses to human-things, since their new bodies was reconstructed, but could this be a way to avoid being crushed by the forces? Is this what you meant by teleport?
I try to apply Taoist-like philosophy and some mediocre science knowledge for possible explanations, at least you know physics enough to try to apply it to something confusing as this xD
But we can say time-flow could change, correct?
Could we say that they did teleport though? Teleportation doesn’t yet exist, so this is all theoretical, but I hear the theory is that at one end they copy all the body’s information, send the information to the other end, where a new body is constructed and at the same time the old one is destroyed.
This isn’t exactly the same, but say the body went through the portal, was deconstructed into information(or molecules idk) and then a body was reconstructed at the other end of the portal. This could be a reasoning behind why they change from being horses to human-things, since their new bodies was reconstructed, but could this be a way to avoid being crushed by the forces? Is this what you meant by teleport?
I can’t stop it!
The timespan thing is more of a spiritual aspect than anything, just ignore it if you like.
I didn’t say the copy is you, it is definitely a carbon copy, and if you made a copy and you killed me, you did kill me.
The mind-body problem has more to do with philosophy, “I think, therefore I am” is personal based. For example, I do not know whether the person next to me thinks the way I do as a person. It’s like being a protagonist in a video game, you the player, are in the game, however there are NPCs, we don’t know if our real world is like that either.
For all we know, we could be a character who is surrounded by programmed machines, we have no real idea if the other person can think and feel like we do. It’s not like I can connect to someone else’s brain and know what they’re thinking.
You could apply this to even non-living things, for example, in the Shinto religion, the general belief is that everything has a spirit, everything is alive in some way. However, we wouldn’t know that even if that was true, our classification of living things, does not include spiritual elements.
And yes, you would die and the copy would live, but from the copy’s perspective who is acting as you, would continue living as you, as if it was them. From the clone’s view and a third person’s view, they are you, but the only person who cares if you’re actually dead, is you. Not saying this is good or anything or if anyone should actually do this, this is what the situation might be like.
(Not at all science, so ignore this is you like, but let’s say reincarnation happened, then your body may have died, but your spirit moved on to the new body, you technically still exist as you. This is all spiritual rubbish, but this would technically be the only way the whole thing would turn out and you are still you.)
But why is the timespan over which the replication occurs relevant? If I could create a perfect copy (carbon copy, I think, is the term) of you, then I did so, then that copy would be just a copy. Still alive, you’d experience life through your own eyes, not the copy’s. So why is it any different if I kill you as I make the copy?
The problem here is the mind-body problem, and it’s a fundamentally unsolvable one. No matter how complex you make any physical system, it should only be a complex physical system, and our perception of reality as it is, simply should never exist by any physical description - “I think, therefore I am” is the only real way we know we exist. A Furby (a talking, robotic doll that was popular in - was it early 2000’s or late 1990’s?) does not actually feel hunger even if it says it does. So no matter how complex you made it, there’s never a line you cross where it should suddenly feel it.
There is absolutely no physical, non-arbitrary justification for us to be aware as we are. Awake, yes. Form memories, yes. Respond to stimulus, yes. But actually feeling as we do - no.
We don’t know what makes us experience/perceive reality as we do, and this isn’t a problem of how much we know, it is a fundamental problem that cannot be solved, so nothing will ever truly convince me that the re-assembled copy of me is me, rather than just a copy of me.
In other words, you fundamentally cannot prove that the copy of you is actually you - you can prove the copy has the same brain, the same memories, etc., but not that it’s actually you, the same being that actually perceived those memories a few years ago, thus, you cannot prove to me that the copying process doesn’t actually kill you, thus, I won’t risk my life on it :q
There are some ethical reasons why people don’t like that idea, and I can see why. However the way I see it is that it’s a bit different than making a clone.
Clones are genetically identical in of DNA the time you first extract it from the original, however DNA is always changing, after the clone is constructed, it’s not you, you yourself are still existing and information is being collected, already you are different than your clone just genetically.
“You are what you eat” is literal, your DNA is always taking in information and changing, thus why nurture is just as important as nature. Nature is what you’re given, while nurture is a continuous process. So while the base DNA is the same, you and your clone are already separate beings as genetically, the two of you are different.
And this part is just really a rant ||but I can’t believe people actually think that if they clone their dead dog that it’d be the same dog. Your real dog is dead, I get it, you feel sad and want them back, but paying a million dollars for a base genetic replicate, whose DNA had already changed because recreation/cloning process in general means it ain’t the same. ||
The teleportation theory, in my opinion, is doing the deconstruction and reconstruction almost simultaneously, therefore there are never 2 of you, only one exists, therefore there is absolutely no change genetically and ‘you’ don’t see from your original, ‘you’ see in your new body. That’s how I see it anyway.
In of every atom/cell in your body being replaced, there’s been a study or something that says in 7 years every cell of a human body has been replaced with new ones, thus why people say (I’m not sure if this is a joke or serious) that if you haven’t seen a person in a very long time, they’re a complete stranger, you don’t know them, they’re not the same person and you don’t have to act like you do know them.
Another point is that comparing ratios of the number of your cells compared to bacteria in one’s body, there’s more bacteria than actual human cells. Which brings up the question “Are you really you?”
Spacetime is like an elephant, in that there are many ways you can describe it. Have you heard the old metaphor of ten blind people trying to describe an elephant?
One blind person grabs the ear, and says, “an elephant is a thin, flappy sort of animal.” Another grabs the leg, and says, “no, it is thick and strong like an oak tree.” Another grabs its tail and says, “No, it is thin and brushy, with long hairs.”
When describing different properties of spacetime, it can be useful to visualize it in different ways.
What I had in mind is, if spacetime is like a fabric, and each universe is a different sheet, then you cut off a patch of the fabric on one sheet, then sew it into the other sheet. There would be no tidal forces in this case, but cutting and sewing spacetime doesn’t make any sense in general relativity (GR) - GR describes spacetime as a curved geometry, but says nothing about any ability to “tear” it, or even worse, to “sew” it into another space. So that part would have to be magic / some physics not yet known to mankind :p
The form of teleportation you describe could, though, in theory, allow you to move through any zone with tidal forces. After all, if you’re torn apart into constituent atoms, then you’re already dead, and tidal forces re-arranging that organic powder isn’t really going to do much, so long as it’s nicely re-built on the other side.
But that sort of teleportation has always bothered me - it nails on to some really deep and impossible questions about the nature of reality and our experience of it. Isn’t that effectively killing yourself and just making some copy that’s identical to you, but not “you”? Wouldn’t you experience death if you did that?
The counter-argument is that every atom in our body is slowly replaced - it’s an old thought experiment of a ship that has individual pieces replaced until every part of the ship is made of new parts, and no original parts remain. Is it the same ship anymore?
While whether it’s the same “ship” or not is purely a matter of how you define things, our own conscious awareness of reality is not. If I make an identical copy of myself, I don’t see reality through my copy’s eyes, I still experience reality through my own eyes, so if you kill me, I’ll still die, and my copy will exist, but I will be dead.
Same applies to this de-construction and re-construction method of teleportation, hence why it’s never been one I never particularly liked :q