The Instigator
Heineken
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
philochristos
Con (against)
Losing
16 Points

Star Trek technology is achievable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+11
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 13 votes the winner is...
Heineken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,367 times Debate No: 27645
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (40)
Votes (13)

 

Heineken

Pro

The technology on Star Trek is reasonably achievable. While the technology is inherently fictional, the function of the technology could be duplicated in the real world, including it's practical application.

I have provided a list of Star Trek technology. My opponent must choose one of these listed fictional technologies and argue why it's impossible to create. My burden of proof will be to explain why it is possible to create such a technology.



List:


1.> Transporter Technology

2.> Phase modulated Beam weapons (Phasers)

3.> Warp Drive Technology

4.> Force Field Technology

5.> Holographic Recreational Deck (Holodeck)

6.> Tricorder (Medical or General purpose Tricorder)

7.> Cloaking Technology

8.> Replication Technology (Replicator)

9.> Borg Nanites (Nanotechnology)


Rules:


Round 1 - Opponent accepts debate and announces which list item we will focus our discussion on.

Round 2-4 - Standard debate rounds.

Round 5 - Closing Arguments.
philochristos

Con

I accept. Let's do transporter technology (although I'm really curious how you'd defend warp speed technology and hope you'll initiate another debate on that).
Debate Round No. 1
Heineken

Pro

The Star Trek Transporter is used to move matter between two
locations. The transporter technology scans the entire atomic structure of
the subjective object and stores the exact “blue-print” on a computer database.
The subjective mass is then dematerialized and sent to its desired
location on a carrier wave. The point of transport collects the matter stream
and rematerializes the atomic structure according the blue-print snap-shot
stored on the computer.

Naturally, some obvious problems become immediately apparent
which the television show fails to address. The process would require the
receive location to contain a device to rematerialize the matter. Simply “beaming”
a stream of matter to a location would be no more effective than launching
applesauce at the floor, hoping it would materialize into an apple.

The burden at hand, however, requires a reasonable scientific mechanism that
would allow for matter transportation to be a reality, and furthermore, practical.

The Science

According to a 2007 article by the UK newspaper “The Independent”, a team of
scientists successfully transported a data packet over 89 miles of free space,
using a quantum entanglement field, which dematerialized a photon packet and
re-materialized the object at its distant end. [1]

The “photon packets” where transported through free space, entirely independent
from normal transmission methods, which usually require heterodyning circuits to
modulate an RF carrier wave. (Radio theory)

While the phenomenon is nowhere near able to transport humans or objects,
it’s the first step in developing such a technology. It is not a question of “if we
can teleport a structure”, but “how complicated can the teleported structure be?”

As quoted by the source: "We really wanted to show that this can be done in
the real world and our dream is to go into space and try it there.”

The Chinese are developing a similar technology, hoping to use it as a secure
communications array. The research team was able to replicate a photon particle
16 kilometers away. The intertwined photon-packet was dematerialized and
re-established across 16 kilometers of free space at 89% fidelity. [2]

Indeed the technology is progressing rapidly. In September of this year,
the University of Vienna broke the record by transporting a photon packet over
143 kilometers of free-space. [3]

In 2010, a Japanese physicist proposed his theory on transporting
energy, opening up the possibility of wireless energy distribution through
Quantum entanglement. Imagine getting your energy from a satellite transmitter.
[5]

The University of Heidelberg in Germany released its 2012 study of Quantum
teleportation, being the first laboratory to successfully transport solid matter.
The study was prompted due to the erratic nature of the photon transport.

"The problem with the photon is that it always keeps traveling. You have to keep it to do useful
quantum information processing tasks (in which case we call it a 'keeper').
Compared to the trapped ion experiment, an advantage of the atomic ensembles is
that they have a much higher success rate
.” [4]

The German lab was able to successfully transport 100 million rubidium atoms
across the modest distance of .5 meters. Rubidium is a soft, metallic element,
making it the first solid state particle cluster to be transported through free-space.



Conclusion:

Teleportation is a scientific reality. While we are years shy of transporting even a
bacterium, the implication of quantum entanglement research opens the door to
practical experimentation. The mere fact that a photon packet can be transported
across 143 kilometers of free-space immediately satisfies the burden, making secure
communication or free-space energy distribution a practical application of quantum
entanglement transportation. Additionally, the ability to transport solid state elements
like rubidium opens up new avenues for moving raw supplies to otherwise inaccessible
locations. Such a technology, if refined and advanced, could realistically be used for
mining resources from stellar objects, such as asteroids.

http://www.independent.co.uk... [1]

http://nerdbastards.com... [2]

http://phys.org...; [3]

http://phys.org...; [4]

http://phys.org...; [5]

philochristos

Con

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. A couple of people have already expressed interest in the debate, which I hope means we'll get a good voter turn out. I will try to do my part to keep it interesting.

Before we talk about whether Star trek transporter technology is achievable, we first need to talk about what they do.

1. They are able to send groups of people at the same time to remote locations and back.

2. They work by recording all the information about the person, disintegrating them, sending their parts along with the recorded information to a remote location, and reassembling them from the information and the original parts.

3. They are able to send people through solid walls.

Star Trek transporters unachievable for at least three reasons:

I. Disintegration and assembly problem

Transporters already exist. Cars, transport whole humans, in groups, to remote locations and back without disentigrating them. But in Star Trek, people must be sent through barriers at very high speeds. A whole human cannot pass through walls or survive traveling through space without a breathing apparatus, so they must be disassembled.

But how much? It won't do to cut their arms and legs off and ship them to Dr. Frankenstein who puts them back together. Nor will it do to break them down at the molecular level since cells cannot pass through walls. Breaking them down to the molecular level won't do because molecules cannot travel through barriers like we see on Star Trek. Breaking the molecules down to atoms won't work either because atoms cannot pass through walls unless they are porous enough, and space ship walls need to be air tight. Subatomic particles also have trouble penetrating barriers. Protons and electrons can just barely penetrate skin. Neutrons have great penetration power, but not enough. Three feet of water, by itself, is enough to attenuate most neutrons. But for our transporter to work, we need all of the neutrons in our body to pass through all the barriers. We can't have even a fraction of them attenuated if we want to reassemble the whole person.

We're going to have to break the subatomic particles into something more basic. We're going to have to convert the mass into energy, preferably in the form of electromagnetic radiation.

But that creates an insurmountable problem. The amount of energy contained in the mass of one human is enormous. A person weighing 160 lbs on earth has a mass of about 72 kg, which is equivalent to 1.5 x 10^3 megatons of TNT.[1] The most powerful nuclear bomb ever detonated only released 100 megatons of TNT.[2]

Things are further complicated when we have to reassemble the parts because we have to convert electromagnetic radiation into subatomic particles, such as protons, then fuse those protons into nuclei. It would require an insurmountable amount of energy to perform anything like that.

II. The recording problem

The information required to record everything about a person is prohibitive. There are about 60 to 90 trillion cells in the human body.[3] Each cell is extremely complex, containing thousands of proteins in different arrangements.[4] Each protein is made of long chains of amino acids. The shortest known protein is 20 amino acids long.[5] DNA is made of roughly 3 billion base pairs[6] ordered in a unique sequence in each person.

The brain presents a problem all its own. The brain has about 200 billion cells and about 125 trillion synapses, which is more than all the switches in all the computers on earth combined.[7] To preserve the person, all of the information in the brain must be accurately recorded and transmitted. If anything is missing, it could affect a person's cognitive functions, including their memories, personality, and bodily functions.

All of this information would have to be recorded by some type of computer with more switches than there are atoms in the human body because it's not enough to record each atom. The exact location of each atom must also be recorded relative to every other atom as well as all the chemical bonds between atoms. And there are about 7 x 10^27 atoms in a 70 kg body.[8]

We don't have the technology to build a computer that could process that much information. There is a limit to how powerful computers can be and how small recording devices can be. The smallest possible computer is a quantum computer that can store qubits of information on single atoms. Nothing smaller than that will work because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Quantum computers suffer from stability problems, though, and it's questionable whether they can ever be made to be reliable.

Another problem is how to collect and process the information from the body and transmit it to the computer's storage device, which I'll go into more detail about later if I can.

The two factors I have mentioned so far make Star Trek transportation unachievable by mortals, but the next factor makes Star Trek transportation unachievable even by immortals.

III. The problem of identity

Before our Star Trek transporter works as it ought, we must be able to transport the person himself and not just create a replica. The problem with Star Trek type transporters as that they kill a person by disassembling them and use their old parts to create a new person who happens to be just like the one who died.

Let me use a thought experiment to illustrate.[9] Let's say you build a card house, and you accidentally and knock it over. But you had hoped to show it off, so you decided to rebuild it. And such is your memory, that you are able to rebuild it exactly like it was before with each card in its original position. If so, then this second card house would not be the original. You've just used the same cards to build another card house just like the one before.

If you're unconvinced, suppose that instead of you, somebody else knocks it over while you're not around. Then they use those same cards to build a card house exactly like the one you built. Surely the one they built isn't the same one you built even though they're made of the same cards and even though it looks the same. It doesn't matter who does the building. If the new card house is not the original card house when somebody else builds it, then it's not the original when you build it either.

In the same way, if a transporter disintegrates you, then your parts are used along with your recorded information to build a new person with those same parts, then it is not the original person. It's a duplicate.

Conclusion

My opponent explained some of the research in tele transportation, but none of them overcomes the problems I've raised. The article in The Independent explains how information was transported using quantum entanglement. No substance was transmitted. The Chinese were only able to create a replication, not a transportation. The only article my opponent cited that might give us hope is the last one where solid matter was transported. But if you read the article, the 100 atoms were not actually transported. Rather, there were two collections of atoms 0.5 meters apart, and the "excitation, or spin wave state" of one collection was transmitted to the other collection by means of photons. None of these experiments are relevant to Star Trek transporters.


[1] http://www.1728.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[3] http://askabiologist.asu.edu...

[4] http://www.hfsp.org...

[5] http://www.science20.com...

[6] http://www.ornl.gov...

[7] http://news.cnet.com...

[8] http://education.jlab.org...

[9] Lest somebody accuse me of plagiarism, I am copying this from a discussion I had on a message board, but this is my original work. http://community.beliefnet.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Heineken

Pro

Con said:" They work....by reassembling them from the information and the original parts."

Rebuttal: Indeed. The Star Trek version of the technology does not follow an entirely rational method. However, that is not the burden. Consider the round one established guideline: 'While the technology is inherently fictional, the function of the technology could be duplicated in the real world, including its practical application.'

Nobody is claiming that teleportation should look, sound or behave exactly like the television show suggests. I said we could create a technology to mimic the function.

_____________________

Con established: "They are able to send people through solid walls."

Rebuttals: Shame! My opponent is not a Trekkie. According to the source, "the Transporter operations have been disrupted or prevented by dense metals, solar flares, and other forms of radiation, including electromagnetic and nucleonic radiation." [1]

Additionally, had my opponent researched the show a little further, he would realize that the "science officer" is tasked with scanning for "cracks" or fissures within enclosed locations, so that the transporter room can get a "lock on the target".

_____________________

Con claimed: ...Nor will it do to break them down at the molecular level since cells cannot pass through walls.

Rebuttal: Astounding scientific prowess. The Human cell is approximately 10 micrometers in diameter. The average atom is aproximately .3 nanometers in diameter.

There are 204 billion atoms in a single DNA molecule. [2]

There are two DNA molecules per Chromosome.

The average cell has 46 chromosomes inside it's nucleus.

A cell is not a molecule.

_____________________

Con believes: Breaking them down to the molecular level won't do because molecules cannot travel through barriers like we see on Star Trek.

Rebuttal: Interesting theory.

Not all molecules are equal. An Osmium Tetroxide (OsO4) molecule has more mass than a CO2 molecule. Stating that a molecule cannot pass through barriers is flagrantly false. Before we establish that a molecule cannot breach a barrier, you must first define the molecule and the barrier type.

In the human body, CO2 is able to pass through the cell membrane with ease. That's how gas exchange works. Without this phenomenon, we would not breathe. Molecules can certainly pass through barriers, if the barrier is porous enough.

Regardless, this is not part of the burden. I'm not tasked with convincing anyone that molecules pass through anything. Teleportation is defined by movement through "free space". As such, I'll limit my arguments to reality, not strawman objections.

_____________________

Con claimed: Breaking the molecules down to atoms won't work either because atoms cannot pass through walls unless they are porous enough, and space ship walls need to be air tight.

Rebuttal: Atoms can certainly pass through walls. The process is called quantum tunneling. [3]

The process requires the use of a laser. The beam heats the surface of a solid object and excites the molecules. The objective atom is able to push through the surface by displacing the electrons in its path. Essentially, the atom is "beamed" through the wall.

_____________________

Con said: " The information required to record everything about a person is prohibitive."

Rebuttal: The Human genome project began in 1990 on an IBM 468, with 32 Mhz of amazing processing power. The project was completed almost a decade ago in 2003. Information storage is not the problem, unless you assume Computer technology to suddenly stop advancing. [5]

IBM estimates a quantum processor PC will be market available within 10 years. The technology is already invented, the company is now designing the platform. As per the source, " a 250-qubit system contains more bits of information than there are atoms in the universe. In contrast to a traditional bit, which can either have the value "0" or "1", a qubit (Quantum bit) can have "0","1" and both values at the same time." [6]

_____________________

Con said:" To preserve the person, all of the information in the brain must be accurately recorded and transmitted. If anything is missing, it could affect a person's cognitive functions, including their memories, personality, and bodily functions."

Rebuttal: The implications of your argument dive into metaphysics and religion. The human brain is a collection of chemicals and proteins. Personality is based on genetic predisposition and experience. One is hard-wired into the DNA, the other is a flexible pathway in the brain, built by chemical interactions and firing neurons.

As long as the brain is rematerialized exactly the same way, we should assume the "personhood" will remain intact. We simply cannot conclude that the personality and memory would be lost, unless my opponent is hinting at the presence of a "soul".

Memories and behavior are directly tied to physical structures and chemical interactions. Claiming that the memories would be lost is an assumption based on religion, not science.

_____________________

Con argued: My opponent explained some of the research in tele transportation, but none of them overcomes the problems I've raised. The article in The Independent explains how information was transported using quantum entanglement. No substance was transmitted.

Rebuttal: Before the candle was invented, someone discovered fire. The debate topic is not concerned with "what hasn’t been discovered". We are debating "if it can be discovered". Your rebuttal argues that transportation is impossible because success has been limited to photon packets. By that logic, the cell-phone should be impossible because the radio was once considered the peak of wireless technology.

_____________________

Con Stated: The Chinese were only able to create a replication, not a transportation.

Rebuttal: I suggest my opponent procures a copy of the Star Trek technical manual. The food replicator technology is the same technology used in the transporter. Every transported object is a replicated object in the Star Trek Universe. The transporter does not need to use the exact same matter for re-materialization. It just requires equal matter.

As stated above, the re-materialized matter must be equal to the dematerialized matter. Assuming that the personhood is lost in the process assumes the presence of supernatural aspects to the human person, such as a soul or spirit.

_____________________

Con argued: "...if you read the article, the 100 atoms were not actually transported...None of these experiments are relevant to Star Trek transporters."

Rebuttal: Again, incorrect. The study showed that solid matter could be dematerialized on one end, and rebuilt on the other end using equal matter (not the same, but equal). That is the exact operating principle of a Star Trek transporter, including the transfer of information on a photon packet. Hence the term, "beam me up".

All arguments extended.

_____________________

Round three Arguments:

Manipulation of the Higgs Boson field

While the idea is raw, unrefined and purely speculative, it is by all reason possible to manipulate the Higgs field to de-materialize an object into energy. Many problems would need to be overcome, such as "how" to manipulate the Higgs field without super-heating it and re-materialization. [7]

http://en.wikipedia.org...(Star_Trek) [1]
http://michaelgr.com... [2]
http://www.livescience.com... [3]
http://news.sciencemag.org... [4]
http://en.wikipedia.org... [5]
http://www.tomshardware.com... [6]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [7]http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [8]

philochristos

Con

Pro insists that the function of Star Trek transporters and their practical application could be duplicated even if they don't work the same way. The function is to transport objects from one location to another, and the application is to transport people from the inside of one space ship to the inside of another (among other things). They disentigrating people in one location and "beam" them to another where they are reassembled.

It must be the same person on the other end, and not a replica since nobody on Star Trek expected to cease to exist while another took their place. Kirk said, "Beam me up," not, "Kill me and create a duplicate to replace me."

If we cannot achieve a technology that is able to perform the above functions and applications, then Star Trek transporters are unachievable.

I. Disentegration and assembly problem

Pro introduced a new argument, so let's deal with that one first. He cites an article in which Lawrence Krauss says it is theoretically possible to manipulate the Higgs field to detmaterialize matter into energy. But to be theoretically possible is not to be achievable, and Krauss says why this method is prohibitive. It's because it requires heating the body to "a billion, billlion, billion degrees." Krauss further mentions the obstacle of putting them back together, which my opponent has yet to deal with.

We can calculate how much energy would be required to heat a 72 kg person to a billion, billion, billion degrees (i.e. 1e+27 degrees). Assuming he means farenheit, 1e+27 F = 5.5e+26 C. 1 calorie is the amount of energy necessary to heat 1 gram of water by 1 C.[1] A 72 kg person has about 43 kg of water (assuming 60% water).[2] To raise the temperature of 43 kg of water to 1e+26 C would require 43e+26 cal, which is equivalent to 4.6e+12 megatons of TNT. See the problem? Remember, Czar Bomba released only 100 megatons of TNT.

Pro says transporters need not move people through walls since science officers were tasked with looking for cracks and fissures. If small particles of matter must pass through cracks and fissures, then he's got to explain some machanism to cause all of your particles to travel down hallways, around corners, and through cracks from the inside of the transporter room to the outside of a space ship while keeping them all together and distinct from everything else. It doesn't seem possible.

When I said, "Nor will it do to break them down at the molecular level since cells cannot pass through walls," Pro pointing out that cells are not molecules. He's right. I made a typo, which should've been obvious from the context. I meant to say "cellular level." His objection is irrelevent to the point of the paragraph.

I said that molecules cannot pass through barriers like we see on Star Trek. Pro rightly pointed out that molecules can pass through barriers depending on the molecule and the barrier type, but that is irrelevant since we are talking about "barriers like we see on Star Trek," including the walls and enclosures of the space ships.

In response to my claim that atoms cannot travel through the air tight walls of a space ship, Pro cited an article on quantum tunneling, claiming that "The objective atom is able to push through the surface by displacing the electrons in its path." But if you read the article, there's nothing about atoms passing through solid walls. Rather, it discusses "electrons escaping from atoms without having the necessary energy to do so." So this article does not support Pro's contention.

Pro ignored my argument about the energy that would be released if all the matter in a human body was convereted to energy.

II. Recording problem

In response to the recording problem, Pro made two arguments: (1) that technology will continue to advance, and (2) that IBM estimates they will have a quantum computer within ten years (which is unlikely [3]).

There are physical limitations to what matter and energy can do, so technological advancement, by itself, is no reason to think computers powerful enough to process all the information necessary for transporters are achievable. Even with quantum computers, the storage capacity and proessing power necessary would be prohibitive. A computer must record each atom's atomic number, what isotope it is, its exact location, and what chemical bonds it shares with atoms around it. The individual qubits of information would far exceed 7 x 10^27. Theoretical possibility is not the same as human achievability.

Collecting this information is a problem for two reason. First, most of our material is inside our bodies, and we've got to record with precision all the information before it's disentegrated. We can't use probes, so we've got to do it either by bouncing something off of us or by recording some information emmitted from them. Then, there's got to be some kind of detector that can collect the information and send it to the processor.

Second, we are limited by how fast we can collect and process this information. The body is in a constant state of change (e.g. chemical reactions, firing neurons, etc.), so we must record all this information in a very short amount of time. Otherwise, we'll create a deformed corpose on the other end. It has to be done almost instantaneously to get an accurate picture. To use an analogy, a sharp photograph must be taken with a fast shutter speed. If you photograph a moving object with a slow shutter, you'll get a blurred image.

Moreover, you need a certain number of pixels to get a sharp image. Think of the "pixels" required in a detector capable of recording all of the information about all of your atoms in an infintensimally small interval of time. It is highly doubtful that we will ever have that kind of technology.

III. The problem of identity

Although the problem of identity is the strongest argument against transporters, Pro made little effort to rebut it. He agreed that Star Trek transporters work by reassembling the same materal the original person was made out of, but then said it need not be the same material.

That presents an additional problem that I didn't mention before. If the new person is not even made up of the same parts as the original person, then it's even more obvious that it can't be the same person. Pro as much as admits this when he says the food replicator works just like the transporter.

He says that personhood consists of brain states and that as long as you rematerialize the brain exactly as it was before, it will result in the same memories, personality, etc. Personhood will be preserved.

I haven't brought the soul or religion into this discussion. I am assuming materialism just as he is. And I agree that if you reassemble the brain exactly as it was before, all the mental phenomena will go along with it. But that is not sufficient to preserve personal identity. After all, you could create multiple brains using the exact same blueprint, and they would each emerge with the same memories, personality, etc. But they wouldn't for that reason be the same person. If a transporter malfunctioned by assembling a person remotely but forgetting to disassemble them locally, then the person will remain on the platform, and some twin will be located elsewhere. The person will not have traveled anywhere. The remote person wouldn't be the original person just because the transporter disentegrated the local person, so either way, the transporter didn't function as transporters in Star Trek.

Star Trek transporters are unachievable primarily because they violate the laws of logic, namely, the law of identity. They are not merely unlikely; they are impossible.

Conclusion

Pro claims that "The [German] study showed that solid matter could be dematerialized on one end, and rebuilt on the other end using equal matter," but that is false as I showed. Even if true, it would suffer from the identity problem.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.livestrong.com...

[3] youtube watch?v=YgFVzOksm4o

Debate Round No. 3
Heineken

Pro

Con insisted:“It must be the same person on the other end,
and not a replica since nobody on Star Trek expected to
cease to exist while another took their place
.”

Rebuttal: Again, my opponent assumes that personhood is
lost in transport. Since the observable science dictates that
personhood is governed by genetics and brain chemistry,
we must conclude that the person is maintained.

The only way a person would cease to exist, is if the transporter
annihilated a portion of the human personhood that’s immaterial.
My opponent has provided no evidence of immaterial personhood, such
as a soul.
---------

Con stated: If we cannot achieve a technology that is able to perform
the above functions and applications, then Star Trek transporters are unachievable.

Rebuttal: Straw Man argument. The round one premise dictates the burden, not
my opponent’s objections. Again, I cite the burden of round one.

---------

Con argued that the Higgs field is impossible, because “to be theoretically possible is not
to be achievable, and Krauss says why this method is prohibitive
.”

Rebuttal: Actually, Krauss said that it is achievable, if we can overcome certain problems
in the process. Consider the actual quote: "If I could manipulate a Higgs field, that would
be a first step in making a transporter, but the only way I know of to manipulate the Higgs
field is to heat the whole thing up...
” [1]

Krauss concedes that the method has not been developed, but that does not prohibit the
mechanism from functioning. If we resolved to consider a mechanism impossible because
it hasn’t been invented, then we must cease all funding to AIDS research.
---------

Con stated: Naturally, Science does not work in this fashion. A theory is pursued until it becomes proven
impossible.

Rebuttal: Yet the research is expanding. Consider the University of Wien in Germany,
which has become the leading research entity in Quantum entanglement. Their research has
breached domains such as:

  • Quantum Entanglement for Space

  • Entangled photons over 144 km

  • Free-space quantum channel

  • 4-photon de Broglie wave

  • Long-Distance Free Space

  • Freely propagating teleported qubits

  • Entanglement of Orbital Angular Momentum States

  • Entanglement purification

  • Experimental realization of a GHZ state

  • Long distance Bell experiment

  • First quantum teleportation

Clearly, teleportation has not been proved impossible. In fact, I would counter state that it has been proved possible
and we have yet to research it’s limitations. [2]

---------

Con objected to Star Trek transporters navigating down hallways. He claims that “ it doesn't seem
possible.

Rebuttal: Radio theory dictates that waveform behavior changes with frequency. UHF and VHF
frequencies travel in a line-of-sight, which limits the communication distance of the radio by the horizon.

Consider, 1 Watt of transmit power allows RF wave propagation for approximately 1 mile.
Technically, a 4 kilowatt amplifier should propagate an RF wave for 4000 miles.
Yet, it doesn’t. The reason for this is the curvature of the earth. RF waves travel in a
straight line. Eventually the curvature of the earth will angle too far downward for the wave to continue.

My opponent assumes that a transporter beam would be limited in the fashion.

However, the HF (High Frequency) range (which starts at about 4 MHz), is not a ground wave.
This RF wave “bounces”, in a zig-zag pattern between the earth and the atmosphere. It’s
called a “sky-wave”. The sky wave will continue bouncing until the wave
has lost propagation. The higher the amplifier wattage, the further it will bounce. HF radios are used by ships and
aircraft to communicate with stations on the other side of the planet.

So how could we transport through cracks? The same way that you receive a cell-phone signal
if you stand by the ground-level window in the basement. We simply adjust the frequency of the
transporter to change the way the Quantum particles travel.
---------

Con established
:” Pro rightly pointed out that molecules can pass through barriers depending
on the molecule and the barrier type, but that is irrelevant since we are talking about "barriers
like we see on Star Trek," including the walls and enclosures of the space ships.

Rebuttal: Irrelevant to the burden. We are speaking about real-world applications, not fictional
Space-ship mechanics.

Now my opponent objected to quantum tunneling by stating: that the article “discusses electrons escaping from atoms without having the necessary energy to do so. So this article does not support Pro's contention.”

The article explains that the rules for quantum particles are unique, which is why we observe
electron shifts, even though the energy for it was absent. As the joke goes:

“Knock knock. -Who's there?
Quantum tunneling. -Quantum
tunneling wh --- Nevermind, I'm already inside.”

We know quantum tunneling works. We see it. We have duplicated it. It’s observed fact. My
opponent has stuck his head in the sand, pretending it never happened. So to solidify my
premise, please view the 4 minute video on Quantum tunneling.


---------

Con objected: Pro ignored my argument about the energy that would be released if all the matter
in a human body was convereted to energy.

Rebuttal: This premise seeks to increase the burden. By stating that the Human body must be
converted to energy before transport, you’ve excluded the possibility that solid
matter teleportation is possible.

Not to mention, the only reason you’ve insisted on this method is to negate the premise of
transport through solid objects. It’s a myopic reduction of the argument. I have provided quantum tunneling
as a mechanism for how a solid particle can (and observably) move through barriers.
You’ve chosen to ignore that evidence.

The matter does not need to be converted to energy because a solid particle can shift through solids
without breaking the integrity of the wall.
---------

Con objected to the recording problem.

Rebuttal: My opponent needs to familiarize himself with how a computer stores information.
I can convert complex information into a 5 kb text file without any hassle.
Consider these 811 amino acids in this TEXT to DNA converter from Colorado State University. [3]

Try it yourself:

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu...

Click – “Get Demo DNA”

Click – “Translate DNA”

Click – “Graphic output or Text Output” to view the data.

I copied the information into a text file. It was 5.4 kilobytes in size. My 1991 Packard Bell 386SX
has enough storage space to store over 10,800 copies of this file. My current hard drive could
store over 200 million. The recording problem is a ridiculous objection.

Arguments extended.
---------

Con stated: I haven't brought the soul or religion into this discussion. I am assuming materialism
just as he is.... But that is not sufficient to preserve personal identity.

Rebuttal: My opponent indeed assumes a soul by presuming that personhood is based on
anything more than materialism. As I’ve stated before, he is arguing from a perspective of
religion and metaphysics.

The truth is, my opponent has no real objection to my definition of personhood. His appeal to
emotion was an attempt to morally “block” teleportation. It has nothing to do with technical
application or ability. He is asking a question similar to: ”What is the meaning of life?”, “If a
tree falls in the woods….” [4]

Yet the laws of thermodynamics would dictate that the person is fundamentally equal in mass,
design and composition.
---------

Sources:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
[1]
http://www.quantum.at...
[2]

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu...
[3]

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com...
[4]

philochristos

Con

920 views so far! Wow! I hope that means we'll get a good voter turn out. Sorry about the length, but I've had to do quite a bit of editing in each round just to get my posts within the character limit.

Pro accuses me making a straw man argument because of how I explained his burden, saying, "The round one premise dictates the burden, not my opponent’s objections." But my explanation is consistent with the round one premise. The transporter must have the same function as Star Trek transporters as well as their practical application. I merely explained what the practical application and function were. I haven't made any strawman argument.

Let's have another look at how Pro deals with my objections.

I. Disentegration and assembly problem

Speaking of strawmen, Pro quotes me as saying "It doesn't seem possible" for transporters to navigate down hallways. Then he proceeds to explain how high frequency RF waves can travel around obstacles. But the context of my statement was about physical particles, like atoms and molecules, being caused to move around obstacles without being mixed up with the air and without being attenuated.

In answer to my objection about the energy that would be released of all of our mass was converted to energy, Pro said I "excluded the possibility that solid matter teleportation is possible." Isn't that interesting? He gets around the energy problem by proposing matter teleportation, but earlier he attempted to get around the problems with matter teleportation by explaining out high frequency RF waves can bounce around. Which is it? If it's RF, then he hasn't solved the matter/energy problem. If it's matter, then he hasn't solved the obstacle problem.

I made a math error in my last post. I said heating 43 kg of water to 1e+27°F would require 4.6e+12 megatons of TNT, but the correct answer is 2.37e+13 megatons of TNT. My bad.

Pro's response to this prohibitive amount of energy is basically that just because we haven't invented the technology yet doesn't mean we never will. This is a woefully inadequate response because the burden is on him to show that it's achievable, not just express optimism about it. I explained already why it's unachievable. It would require 744 times more energy than was released by the most poweful nuclear bomb ever detonated. And this energy must be applied to an average sized man without destroying the transporter itself because if you destroy the transporter in the process, you won't be able to send him on his way or put him back together.

Pro hasn't even made an attempt in this debate to explain how it might be possible to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, so he has clearly not carried his burden of proof.

II. Recording problem

Pro points out that one can store 811 amino acids using 5.4 kbs of storage. That's 6.66 bytes per amino acid. With that ratio, we could store 1e+27 atoms with 6.66e+27 bytes--again, a prohibitive amount. But it isn't just the number of atoms that is prohibitive. It's also all the information about the atoms, including its atomic number, isotope, location, and chemical bonds. Location alone would use up a prohibitive amount of bytes just because of the significant digits that would be required to precisely locate each tiny atom and disinguish them from every other atom.

And storage isn't the only issue. There's also the processing power and physical hardware necessary to deal with that much information.

There is the futher problem of actually collecting all that information from the physical body, which Pro hasn't even addressed. I gave an argument for why that is unachievable which Pro completely ignored.

III. Problem of identity

Again, Pro reserves his weakest responses for the strongest argument against his view. After quoting me as explicitly saying "I am assuming materialism," and that "that is not sufficient to preserve personal identity," he then goes on to say that my view "assumes a soul by presuming that personhood is based on anything more than materialism." But I assume no such thing. I don't know if this is a blatant strawman or if Pro is really having that much trouble understanding my words, but I don't know how to make them more clear.

I am not saying that personhood is based on anything more than materialism. What I am saying is that personhood cannot be preserved when you cause a person to cease to exist in one place and come into existence in another place. That will result only in creating a replica. I already explained why that would result in only creating a replica, and Pro has ignored that argument. That argument is air-tight and absolutely proves that teleportation is impossible. It is logically impossible, which is the most formiddable kind of impossibility there is. Pro expresses a lot of optimism in this debate that one day science will overcome these problems, but that's like saying science will one day achieve the technology to create square circles and married bachelors.

Pro says, "His appeal to emotion was an attempt to morally 'block' teleportation." What the what??? I fail to see how my argument from identity is an appeal to emotion. I have no idea where this came from.

Conclusion

Pro began this round by accusing me of making a strawman argument which was a false charge. It is ironic that in the same post, he would falsely attribute so many things to me that I didn't say or even imply. Besides the ones I've already mentioned, he also said, "Con argued that the Higgs field is impossible." And he said, "Con stated: Naturally, Science does not work in this fashion. A theory is pursued until it becomes proven impossible." I found these attributions weird since they don't come from anything I actually said.

Pro really hasn't made any good arguments for why we should think teleportation is achievable. He offers nothing more than blind optimism. Basically, his argument is that since science is making progress that therefore anything is achievable. By that reasoning, we should be able to create square circles, married bachelors, and perpetual motion machines. We should be able to go back in time and kill our grandfathers. No, I submit that more argument is needed, but since we are coming to the last round, I don't think we shall see it.
Debate Round No. 4
Heineken

Pro

Final Rebuttals

Con remarked that the round one burden requires real world transporters to be an exact match of the Star Trek version. He cited the round one statement which states that the “function of the technology could be duplicated in the real world, including it's practical application.

I understand that my opponent will persist on this position to the end, so I appeal to the voter to review the burden in context. You see, the burden also states the technology is reasonably achievable. It should go without saying, that the technology must function within reason in order to be reasonable. Hence, it would not be my burden to provide a mechanism for an inherently fictional processes.

On the topic of burden, I wish to conclude the following:

  1. I had the burden of proving that transportation is practically possible.

  2. I had the burden of overcoming certain intrinsic mechanical obstacles.

To satisfy my burden I provided the following:

  1. Two varied theories by respected Researchers on possible transportation mechanisms. The theory of Quantum Entanglement and the Higgs field manipulation theory are both good candidates for the technology.

  2. I overcame the problem of identity by showing the separation between the physical ability to teleport and the philosophical moral implications of it's practice. Indeed, the problem of identity does not relate the ability to teleport, but merely to the ability of the transported object to be considered metaphysically “self”. Anatomy, physiology, biology, memory, character and sense of self are retained. We are concerned with quantum mechanics, not deep, meaningful discussions on ethics.

  3. I overcame the problem of recording by demonstrating that a computer converts information to bits, which are stored as text. The data occupies mere kilobytes. My opponent argued that the amount of information is still to great, but that ignored my Quantum Processor argument which clearly explains that Quantum PCs are able to read/write 250 qubits per second, which is “more than every atom in the universe.” Obviously the problem is overcome, since we are dealing only with the atoms in the human body. Any appeal to the “monumental amount of information” simply seeks to exaggerate the data and undermine Computer technology.

  4. My opponent also objected that I did not argue how the human body could be scanned. Conveniently, he objected to this at the end of round four, hoping I would be trapped in my final round with a dropped argument. First off, the argument is not dropped if it was never brought up. If my opponent does not object to an atomic scanner, then it is assumed that there is no conflict. Fortunately, the rules do not bar me from addressing the objection, since it was brought up in round four. I would like to share a final source, which my opponent can attempt to refute in his final round. I would like to make a note about the poor conduct of final round objections. If we debate again in the future, please allow more room for rebuttals.

    Consider the article by the American Physical Society which presented the data for an atomic scan of a crystalline surface structure. [1] The Source originated in 1990. The source is quoted as stating:”High-resolution scanning tunneling microscopy data on the reconstructed Au(111) surface are presented that give a comprehensive picture of the atomic structure, the long-range ordering, and the interaction between reconstruction and surface defects in the reconstructed surface. “ We've been able to scan at atomic levels for over two decades.

  5. I overcame the problem of disintegration. My opponent remarks that my argument of RF wave propagation is insufficient. He obviously lost track of how the technology functions. Quantum entanglement deals with twin pairs of atomic structures. The physical mass does not travel around the corner. The photon packets do. The physical mass is manipulated at the distant end.
    It would appear that my opponent believes that the atoms are just “launched” at their target without riding on a medium. That is why I appealed to radio theory, because information is heterodyned (mixed) on a radio frequency wave before it is transmitted. Radio's don't receive soundwaves. They receive RF waves. The sound needs to me “mixed” with the RF, in order for a Radio to receive it.
    Naturally, teleportation would require the same. No antenna could pick up a “matter signal”. The physical properties must be “mixed” onto a carrier wave and then demodulated. That's what quantum entanglement is. Particle “As” information is sent via photon packets to Particle “B”, which now takes on the exact properties of particle A. That's how I can transport around corners. That's also how you can send a radio message from New York to Italy.

    Con stated:What the what??? I fail to see how my argument from identity is an appeal to emotion. I have no idea where this came from.”

    Rebuttal
    : The problem of identity does not prohibit the function of a transporter. It raises ethical problems, such as:” Is the original human dead and is the transported Human different somehow?” That is not an objection to mechanics. That's an appeal to ethics, which is an emotional appeal. It does not pertain to quantum entanglement theory.

    Let's assume I take 20 atoms out of my brain, and I replace them with 20 other, equal atoms. They are arranged the same way, occupy the same space and provide the same function. Did I become a different person? If not, why would a transported person suffer from the problem of identity? Does this premise only govern Macro constructs? If so, then the premise suffers from infinite regression.

    My opponent seeks to overcome an issue of technology through the method of philosophy. Fail.

Conclusion

My opponent is arguing:” Because it hasn't been invented and therefore never will.” The irony is that he accuses me of blind optimism, while he persists in blind pessimism.

Dear voters, teleportation is a reality. The technology is not a theory, it's in stages of practical application. My opponent cannot argue against it. The evidence speaks for itself. At best, my opponent could hope to argue it's limitations, but he chose instead to argue against the whole premise of teleportation.

He insisted that the problem of identity is pervasive, while real scientific study produced real teleportation. Identity was not a problem when the Germans teleported a photon packet over 143 kilometers. Identity was not a problem when the same team teleported Rubidium across 5 meters of free space on a spin weave photon packet. It would be the equivalent of calling the earth flat while standing in front of a NASA image of the planet. We are not dealing with paradox, like a "married bachelor" or a "Sqaure Circle." We are dealing with observable, practical science.

As a final note, here is a list of dropped arguments:

  • Quantum tunneling (Dropped in round 4)

  • Problem of identity relates to metaphysics, not temporal mechanics (Never addressed)

  • Matter does not need to be converted to energy (Never addressed)

  • Massive research efforts to further practical applications (Never addressed)

  • Krauss' argument for the Higgs field problem. (Dropped in round 4)

  • The Law of thermodynamics dictating the equal proportion of transported mass. (Never addressed)

I thank the voter for their patience. I strongly urge a vote for Pro. I have established my burden on practical evidence and field expert testimony. I have addressed every objection and labored to see my burden satisfied. My opponent has failed to provide sufficient reason to disprove teleportation. Additionally, his collection of dropped arguments and concessions make for an easy vote:

Vote Pro.

http://prb.aps.org...; [1]
philochristos

Con

Congratulations for finally making it to the end of this long debate. I'll bet you're ready for it to be over. I know I am. I'll try to make this short. If you read this far, then you might as well vote. :-)

I want to say thank you to Heineken for one of the most challenging and interesting debates I've had since I've been here. I also want to thank whoever was willing to read the whole thing.

In this round, I just want to briefly summarize this debate as sort of a reminder that will hopefully inform the voters. Rather than offer "blind pessimism," as Pro asserts, I actually gave three arguments for why I didn't think Star Trek type transporters would ever be achievable that had the same function and practical application--that is, transporting a whole human being from the inside of one vessel to the inside of another vessel without that person "traveling" in any conventional sense. That involved the person being disentegrated, beamed, and reassembled. If any one of my three arguments are sound, then I have succeeded in showing that teleportation is unachievable, so Pro needed to refute each one of them. Plus, Pro needed to build a case of his own that teleportation is achievable, and his case had to survive my critique.

My three reasons:

I. Disentegration and assembly problem

Since disentegration and assembly are both essential for a transporter to work, pro needed to give us some reason to think both were achievable. But unfortunately, Pro said nothing whatsoever about how the dificulties of reassembly could be overcome. This point alone means that Pro did not carry his burden of proof in this debate.

We considered two possible degrees of disentegration--to the atomic/molecular level and to the energy level.

1. atomic level

Pro never offered an explaination of how it might be possible to cause the atoms or molecules of a person to travel through open air and around obstacles while keeping those parts together and distinct from their environment, so again, Pro has not carried his burden of proof.

2. energy level

Pro offered one possible way of converting the mass of a person into energy, but that one way turned out to be unrealistic because it involved the use of an insurmountable amount of energy. Plus, converting our mass into energy would've released over 100 times more energy than was released by the 100 megatons of TNT nuclear bomb--Czar Bomba. I explaind why this was a problem, and Pro never explained how these problems could be overcome. Again, his burden of proof is unmet.

II. Recording problem

Exhastively recording all the information about a person is necessary in order to reassemble the person when they are transported, and there are two aspects of it that both present problems--the actual extraction of the information from the human body, and the processing and storage of the information extracted.

1. Information extraction

After explaining the difficulties of accurately and exhaustively extracting all the information about a human body, Pro completely ignored everything I said. He offered no response. Consequently, his burden of proof is unmet.

2. storing and processing information

Pro's response to the formiddable amount of information necessary to record all the information about a person was to tell us that IBM was going to have a quantum computer in the next ten years, and that computer technology is continually advancing. I admit that in the entire debate, this was his strongest response. However, I don't think Pro really appreciated how much information was required. As I said, there are 7e+27 atoms in an average human body, and there are a formiddable number of bytes that would be required to record everything necessary about each one (think of the significant digits required just to precisely locate each atom). Supposing, conservatively, that it was possible to record all the necessarily information about each atom using only one byte per atom, that would require 7e+18 tetrabytes! Think about that. And that's a conservative number.

III. The problem of identity

Pro dismissed the problem of identity as being "religious" or "metaphysical," but he never dealt with the argument. Unlike the first two problems I raised, this one proves with certainty that teleportation is unachievable. Even if my first two arguments completely fail, this argument alone utterly destroy's Pro's case since it renders the teleportation of a human being logically impossible. At best, all teleportation will ever be able to accomplish is replication, twinning, cloning, etc. It will never actually be able to transport a person. Since Pro all but refused to respond to this argument and instead decided to dismiss it as "unscientific," his burden of proof has not been met.

Conclusion

Pro didn't make much of a positive case for his position. He relied on the sensationalistic claims of the media and scientists that teleportation has already been achieved. But the devil is in the details. The articles that Pro cited did not actually support his position. What they called "teleportation" and what they compared to Star Trek was really not the same thing at all once you looked at the details. The rubidium atoms that were supposedly transported weren't actually transported at all. Rather, some of the properties of one collection of atoms were transfered to the other collection of atoms. All you have to do is look at the details. To call these experiments "teleportation" is just to equivocate on the word, and for Pro to use them in his argument is to commit the fallacy of equivocation.

And that's it. I gave three solid reasons for why teleportation is unachievable which Pro was not able to refute (especially the third), and Pro only gave a fallacious argument in favor of teleportation.

Before you vote, please take into account your own biases. Personally, I would love it if teleportation ever became possible. That would be wicked cool! I'm sure many of you are like Heinken and me in that you are optimistic about future techologies, and you really hope that some of the wonders of Star Trek will become realities. But it is not rational to base your belief on wishful thinking. In this case, there are solid reasons to doubt that teleportation of the kind we see in Star Trek will ever happen. Let's just be honest with ourselves about it. When you vote, I urge you to choose rational pessimism over blind optimism.

Also, just one final word of warning. If some sort of teleportation ever becomes a reality, do not ever use one to teleport yourself. You will not come out alive on the other side. You will be killed in the disentegration process, and a replica of you will take your place. There will be no more you. And that replica will probably make love to your girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse!

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. Please vote, and have a great weekend.
Debate Round No. 5
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jonwontonb 4 years ago
jonwontonb
Due to our recent advances in technology, we have the capability of obtaining this technology. However, some of the Star Trek technology does not follow the laws of physics that we know
Posted by covert 4 years ago
covert
it would be great, but, it's losing popularity.the vulcans were right, we are reverting back to a stone age.
http://covert.ias3.com...
Posted by thetallest1 4 years ago
thetallest1
Trekies!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by OberHerr 4 years ago
OberHerr
Damnit. Thought I would have had enough time. Regardless, I would have voted for Heinekein.
Posted by malcolmxy 4 years ago
malcolmxy
The "cracks" that they're searching for in Star Trek when trying to establish a "transporter lock" are not cracks at all, but instead weaknesses in the ship's energy based shielding. There's no question that they transport through solid matter, else we would see transporter rooms which were subject to the vacuum of space on the show (going from one ship to another is commonplace on the show).

That being said, neither argument convinced me of much. We went to the moon 40 years ago with a computer which had less processing power than the average microwave of today. In another 400 years (the time between now and Star Trek's imagined future), who knows what will be technologically possible and which scientific theories we will have, and will not have, proved or disproved?

We just saw the reality of the medical tricorder (it has to touch the skin, but still...and, an invisible beam of light replacing the contact is aleady almost within our grasp), and sometimes, the impetus for something becoming reality is that it is simply imagined (and sometimes, as with Tesla's free energy machine, it's not nearly enough.)
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
@Roy,

Nobody stated that photons have mass. Photons are described as information carriers in the process. The state of the rubidium particles was copied on the distant end with 80%+ fidelity. The photon spin weave carried the information from the transmitter to the receiver.

Teleportation is the transfer of information between particle A and particle B....not the magical displacement of particle A to a new location. Teleportation assumes that all mass is equal. One rubidium atom is identical to the next, so as long at the information carries with 100% fidelity, the transport is successful.
Posted by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
Photons are force carrier particles. They have no mass. That means that what they transport is energy. So if photons are th transport mechanism. then all the mass first be converted to energy. After the energy is transported, then it would have to converted back into mass. that implies a receiving device that captured the enormous amount of energy and converts it. However, a Sta Trk transporter only uses apparatus on one end.
Posted by IFLYHIGH 4 years ago
IFLYHIGH
RFD: Wow, what a confusing but interesting debate. The debate can be summed up in three arguments, the first of which is the problem of disintegration and assembly. The main issue here was whether we should consider quantum entanglement as transportation or replication. Pro's sources labeled it as as transportation because "photon packets" were in fact transported through free space in order to assemble objects. Since science calls it transportation, then it must be transportation. Overall, I believe Pro was able to explain how quantum transportation was achievable but was unable to adequately explain how we could manipulate the higgs boson field. The problem of recording was perhaps the most confusing. On one hand, Pro says that it only takes 5.4 bytes to record 811 amino acids. Con then goes on to say that every atom takes an estimated one byte of memory. Pro says we can record 250 qubits of info per second with a quantum computer which is more atoms than there are in the universe. That number(according to my source) ranges around 10^78 to 10^82. Con goes on to say the individual qubits of information needed to record the human body exceeds 7x10^27. I admit I am horrible at math but am very confused by these contradictory statements. I'm going to consider Pro's arguments more valid in this case since he actually provided sources for his math. The final argument was the problem of personal identity. The ironic thing is I actually believe this was Con's weakest argument. The problem of personal identity is irrelevant since this debate was to show that the star trek technology is achievable. Star trek transporter disintegrated and reassemble the human person. As long as pro explained how we transport human beings, he has fulfilled his BOP. Don't get me wrong, con has convinced me to stay far away from a star trek transporter, but his arguments still do nothing to negate the resolution. Again, interesting debate.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
=RFD= Pro starts out showing how limited transportation methods are already a reality and that the advancement of technology should lead us to the reality of Star-Trek like transporter methods. It was a good start but cons three contentions gave a crushing rebuttal in my opinion. Contention one and three were the strongest in my opinion since pro did demonstrate some remarkable recording capabilities that will become available. Therefore those points are the main reason for my decision It was clear that con was assuming materialism. Pro's statements that con was presupposing mind-body dualism were mostly just assertions. Con made a strong argument. A replica of a person =/= the same person. In order for pros case to have worked, the same person would need to come out of the other side of the teleportation. Con showed this was problematic. Con was right that pros arguments were too optimistic. Pro's case rested way too much on the premise that our limited transportation technology would get a lot lot better. Overall I found pro showed it implausible for atoms/molecules to be teleported through the air and reassembled keeping everything in tact. On the energy point, con showed how vast amounts of energy would be needed resulting in a big problem. Pro brought Lawrence Krauss into it but I found it unconvincing because it admitted to a number of problems and only assumed it was possible under the condition that some of those problems were overcome, but no theory showed how that was possible. Also con did a lot better keeping an easy to follow format. Pro should have kept everything under the contentions and it would have been easier.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
Don't feel guilty. I've got this!
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
HeinekenphilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The burden placed on Con is incredible: he must explain why the human race, given centuries-long timeframes, can never create a Star Trek style transporter. He does well in explaining why these devises cannot be made today... But does not explain why they can never become possible. (There is no "Law of Identity.") (I can explain further in the comments section, if I need to.) I awarded sourcing to Pro for including current-tech examples that were realistic and convincing.
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
HeinekenphilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Excellent debate, no matter the comments and vote bombing. Pro makes a better argument and rebuttals, but won specifically due to his premise set forth in round 1. Had the premise not been set the way it was, and pro set BOP to prove the tech in the show as it is depicted is achievable, con would have won easily though. Call it the "Practical Application" clause. We need rematches on the other technology now that this debate has hopefully "worked out the bugs" of said clause.
Vote Placed by IFLYHIGH 4 years ago
IFLYHIGH
HeinekenphilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD
Vote Placed by phantom 4 years ago
phantom
HeinekenphilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD =comment number 32
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
HeinekenphilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. This was one of the best debates I've read on this site. Before I explain my decision, I'd like to congratulate you both on an excellent debate. Although the quantum mechanics discussion in this debate was quite confusing, I managed to understand enough to make a decision on who I found more *convincing*. As for Con's first argument against teleportation, anent passing through walls, I feel Pro adequately rebutted this with quantum tunneling. Had that been Con's only contention, Pro would have won this debate. However, Con won his last two arguments. Con showed that the bytes of data required to store the exact information is immeasurably large -- Pro's response was only an optimistic prediction. Con's last argument is why I now believe transporter technology to be impossible. I did not find Con to assume any sort of spiritual aspect to the person, as he only argued against identity: his problem would still stand for any object, as the end result is merely a perfect replica.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
HeinekenphilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate. Pro rebuts all of Con's points, but it was a good back and forth. Pro makes a plausible case that the technology could be developed. The identity point is moot. We don't know what would happen. Con makes a metaphysical assumption about what constitutes personal identity, and Pro rightly reproves him for doing so. We don't yet know enough about consciousness, about how our sense of identity is constructed.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
HeinekenphilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con thought his "personhood" argument the strongest, but I don't see the problem if materialism is granted, as he did. An identical replica is identical. Pro did not have an adequate responses to the problem of reassembly without apparatus. He called upon use of photons to go though cracks, but as was pointed out, photons don't stop. Overall, Pro called upon some mechanisms and assumption to solve a certain problem, but then a different set to solve other problems. here was no plausible compatible solution. Use of the Higgs field calls upon new, unknown science and no just new technology; that's effectively a concession. The technology my be achievable, but not within the bounds of present science. There is a lot more science to come.
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
HeinekenphilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB Johnlubba, blatantly biased RFD, uses comments section as an excuse to give con more points, and sites way too many I's rather than Con's. For example, a normal RFD would be " Con successfully disproved ________" Rather than "I don't believe Pro" which is exactly what johnlubba is doing. Also, Johnlubba adds his own insight to the debate, which gives a clearly biased perspective. Adding information to aid a side is cheating in a sense, and I highly doubt Philochristos will be mad with me CVB'ing such an awful RFD. It seems as if Johnlubba didn't read con's arguments, rather he just read Pro's and chastised Pro using his own personal opinion even though he is not the opponent. He is essentially undermining both debaters abilities and adding himself as the third debater.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
HeinekenphilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:14 
Reasons for voting decision: Points to Pro for better spelling, Points to Con for most convincing argument, I find to many problems exist to make this technology acheiveable, Plus I do not agree with Pro who claims that the science dictates that personhood is governed by genetics and brain chemistry, This is a false statement. In fact the location of the mind is a mystery to science, and is not known to exist purely by brain function, Otherwise if it was, theen the question of the soul would not have any gravity whatsoever. Pro must first prove the identity of somebody is soley attributed to the physical brain. Afetr reading the debate I do not see how Pro can acheive the use of transportation via teleportation. Even if it may look good on paper Plus Pro loses a point for conduct for telling me to piss off in the comments below.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
HeinekenphilochristosTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering emospongebob for being stupid.