Talk:Teletransportation paradox
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Clarity...
I really like this idea for an article, but I found it to be difficult to follow. Also, there is no definition(s) in the first part of the article. Please provide clear definition(s). Thank you. Misty MH (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the proposed thought experiment is a very persuasive proof that identity is not tied to physical parts. Detractors can simply say all of those clones are not really "you" at all. I think a far more persuasive argument is partial-brain-replacement scenarios, where you replace a portion of the brain but in the end it's physically identical. There's no line you can definitely draw that says "this is the point I became someone else". Something like my blog post https://blog.maxloh.com/2019/06/mind-uploading-wont-kill-you.html but from a more credible source. Does anyone know of any? Theguyi26 (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am familiar with Lem's chapter from Dialogs (1957) later enlarged in Summa Technologiae (1964) in original Polish. He presents two teleporters in exactly the way Parfit did later, and shows that it is not possible for a person to experience being teleported. The original person experiences everything up to the scan (if destructive) or through the scan and for however long the original lives (if non-destructive). The original never experiences being successfully teleported. It's the copy that has the memory of first being the original, and continuing existing as the copy. If there are multiple copies, each has the same experience. Lem does not draw any conclusions as to whether any copy can claim to be a continuation of the original. He only says each copy would naturally make such a claim. This is the paradox: the original and the copy(ies) have different experiences, and from the viewpoint of the original, teleportation is unsuccessful. Morycm (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
No-cloning theorem
Should the no-cloning theorembe mentioned in this article? Reciprocist (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)