poly_chromatic | audio; backdated to the 20th

[The recording starts mid-conversation (caused, perhaps, by excited gesticulating). Chekov's voice is loud and clear; any number of other voices can be in the background, along with the occasional clink of glass on glass and the roar of laughter. The words of whoever he's talking to can't be made out.]

--method of teleportation that you are talking about does not lead to the destruction of the individual. I think that you misunderstand how the process works.

[A pause. More background noise.]

No, no no no. Our identity depends upon how the constituent molecules that we are made of are arranged, not upon which molecules have been arranged. There is no difference between one carbon atom and another, do you understand? And so if the position of everything that makes us up is copied perfectly and this information is transmitted and we are annihilated and reassembled, we will, in the end, be the same person as we were at the start.

[His conversational partner apparently has something to say to that.]

No one is killed. I cannot be more specific about the process, but I understand your concern about personal identity and the destruction of the individual being teleported.

[A much longer pause.]

Now you are making the assumption that there is something more than the physical arrangement of constituent particles that leads to this thing called the individual. Unless you are telling me that there is an immaterial soul to be concerned with, what is the concern? From the perspective of the individual being teleported, the process is nearly instantaneous and they experience no cessation of existence or consciousness. As I said, arrangement is what matters.

[Short pause.]

Of course duplication would be possible, that is why any technology capable of copying individuals down to the quantum level would necessitate a number of safety precautions. Responsible engineering can prevent paradoxes like the one you pose.

[Another long pause.]

No, I have not. What is the Ship of Theseus?

[OOC: Open to action at the Wolf's Den. Sorry for backdating, but yesterday's curse was perfect and I missed it and everything was sadness. That said, I don't think Chekov's probably the best of philosophers...]

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It is a fine tradition. My mother was Jewish, but science always made more sense to me.

Then you're Jewish too, faith or no faith. And to be fair, some people treat science like a religion.

[He doesn't necessarily disapprove. Science does make more sense, to him, at least. He and Chekov can agree there.]

That doesn't make philosophy useless, though.

I suppose, yes, and I have met science fundamentalists. They are very narrow-minded.

[COUGHvulcansCOUGH. Chekov can appreciate imagination.]

No, but I think that philosophers might do something useful periodically.

You don't see thinking about the nature of the world and the universe as being useful? You don't think conceiving of new ideas, coming up with new solutions to human questions of existence and meaning, analyzing the very nature of humanity is useful?

There's a place for science, sure. A big one. But would people have ever thought about experimenting with and manipulating the world around them in scientific ways without first trying to understand their own place in the universe? Everyone asks the question who am I at some point in their lives, don't they? Isn't that philosophy, in a minor scale? You want we should stop asking those questions entirely?

No, no! I think that asking who we are and all other questions is what gives us our inventive genius and the desire to do science. Thinking is very important.

My problem with philosophers is that dreaming and thinking is all that they do. Scientists can dream, think, and make use of what they find.

Is being a scientist and being a philosopher mutually exclusive?

[You have him there, Meyer.]

...No. Science grew from philosophy.

And a scientist who never thought about philosophic matters would probably be just as useless as a philosopher who never thought about scientific matters.

[A pause.]

In my opinion, at least.

I may not disagree with you.

[As loathe as he is to admit it.]

Philosophy has value.

Enough so that you seem to be enjoying discussing it, at least.

I may be a philosopher at heart.

God help me.

[He laughs.]

Maybe you are. It certainly sounds that way to me.

Theoretical physics is dangerous that way. It lends itself to more philosophy than other sciences.

The way I see it, that just means you're particularly well-rounded.

You have no idea.

audio; backdated to the 20th

Audio

Re: Audio

Audio

Re: Audio

Audio

Re: Audio

Audio

Re: Audio

Audio

Re: Audio

Audio

Re: Audio

Audio

Re: Audio

Audio