The Deep Flaw in Star Trek

[Ezra]

I'm actually not surprised by ed comment. If something doesn't fit inside his way of thinking it should be destroyed.

It's his social justice to protect the world from everything that doesn't fit in his worlds view.

Leave it to Ezra to manufacture a personal attack out of it, no matter what stupid topic it happens to be.

Truth hurts doesn't it.

No, actually it just manifests how you have nothing better to do than be adversarial when there was no call for it.

What did Star Trek ever do to you? Hello pot meet kettle.

[EdGoble]

Wow thanks for that. Yes, you all have certainly put your Geekness on display. There is no way I would remember details from the Next Generation from so long ago. I still think that by the 23rd century we will have limitless memory capacity, and so, I think that the concept that they wouldn't have that kind of capacity is flawed.

If I recall correctly, in a single human DNA strand there are about 440 million nitrogenous bases. Adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine each have different numbers of atoms but all combined a pair of strands making up the chromosome contain about 1.5 GB of data. With 23 chromosome pairs, 46 chromosomes, there is around 69 GB of data. But those strands also contain over 200 billion atoms. Just using one adenine base for example you would have five hydrogen, five carbon, and five nitrogen atoms. That's 14 protons, 14 neutrons, and 14 electrons plus other subatomic particles to account for. And each proton and neutron is made up of five quarks. For each one of those particles you would need to store its state, location, energy, and motion. The amount of data required just to account for the chromosomes in one cell is mind numbing. With estimates of 100 trillion cells in the human body, and an estimated 100 trillion atoms per cell, I wouldn't want to try to estimate the amount of information required to make a computer model of a human body.

It is clear that you are assuming that every bit of information about the state of things and the makeup of things in a body would need representation. Its true that if you are talking about "raw" data, that you would need some crazy amount of storage. But even that is not unimaginable that we will have those kinds of storage capacities in the future. However, I think, that you are also underestimating the ability of computers to use compression, and various types of algorithms to encode and extrapolate the fundamentals of those states and makeup. For example, DNA is encoded in information systems using 4 symbols: A (Adenine), T (Thymine), G (Guanine) and C (Cytosine). If you are representing a genome, you only need to encode for these 4 nucleobases, not the information for each molecule, because the molecules that make these things just repeat over and over. So the atomic structure of each nucleobase would only has to be stored once in the information system, and a symbol can be used in an information system to represent it, as a mapping to it. Similarly, if you have a known gene sequence that is the same everywhere in every human being, you can store that string of symbols in just once in one memory or storage location, and then you can map a unique code or identifier to it. Every time it occurs, you can use that code or identifier instead of the gene itself. If you have variants to that, then you map where the variations are in it from the general case, and you don't have to store all the information on the variant, just the information about how that variant varies from the general gene case.

Furthermore, in the brain, once you are able to identify the fundamental things in the brain that need representation, rather than the constituent parts of the brain that repeat themselves over and over, you can map the states and makeup of the fundamental parts rather than the constituents of these fundamental parts. In other words, it is a false assumption that you would need to have a representation of each and every molecule and each and every atom.

Then, once you encode all this in these types of encoding schemes, then you can use general compression algorithms to compress all of this on a storage device.

Even if you successfully copy the information in a brain, the flaw in all of this, however, is the assumption made by atheistic individuals is that the seat or substrate of a person's soul is in the matter that makes up the brain, or that it doesn't matter what substrate contains the information. Rather, it is the substrate of the spirit-brain that contains the information, and what is going on in the physical or temporal brain is just a mirror image of that, and what truly makes a person who they are is actually the substrate of the spirit-brain. Remove the spirit from the body, and the spirit continues to contain this information. You may be able to copy the information but you will never be able to truly replicate the soul or person. For example, if someone makes a copy of my brain right now, there might be a virtual me in a computer, but the observer that is me will still be here where I am, looking through my same eyes. I call this flaw in the argumentation of atheists "the observer flaw." Because the observer that is truly me will always be truly what makes me what I am. The observer that sees through my eyes is me. If you merely copy the information for this observer, you have not and cannot ever transfer the essence that is me as this observer to that copy of information. Therefore, there will only be one true me, no matter what someone may try to do with a representation of the information in my mind. That observer is constituted both by the unique, individual substrate of the spirit matter that makes up me, as well as the information stored on that substrate. It is a flaw to assume that I am just information. I am both the substrate as well as the information. And the substrate of the spirit matter that makes me who I am is even more fundamental to who I am than the information. For example, right now, I don't have access to information that used to be a part of me, namely, the information about my past and the memories of who I used to be in pre-mortality before birth. Access to that information has been denied to me in this state that I am. And so, a more rudimentary version of me is acting out my mortal state right now, but it is still fundamentally who I am. Once I have acted out everything without access to this information, assuming that I can be faithful, the information will eventually be restored to me, and I will be the full combination of who I once was along , with who I now have become.

[EdGoble]

Leave it to Ezra to manufacture a personal attack out of it, no matter what stupid topic it happens to be.

Truth hurts doesn't it.

No, actually it just manifests how you have nothing better to do than be adversarial when there was no call for it.

What did Star Trek ever do to you? Hello pot meet kettle.

Wow. You really are bored aren't you.

[Robin Hood]

Is there anyone out there that agrees with me that Star Trek is rubbish?

[captainfearnot]

This isn't so much related to Mormonism as it is a general sort of transhumanist/philosophical argument.

Now you're talking.

The Star Trek Transporter is a great metaphor for questions about what it means to be alive. In one sense it's just a fancy suicide machine, killing people and replacing them with clones, over and over. But the conceit on the show is that, if the clone has the same state of mind, memories, and consciousness as the person it is replacing, then it is the same person, and the person has not died but has been transported.

If transporters were real then it might allow us to test various religious beliefs about the spirit or soul and how it functions as a person's identity. Is the soul embedded in the person's consciousness, the precise arrangement of the neurons in the brain or whatever, allowing it to be cloned along with the body and mind? Or is it independent, meaning that when the transponder destroys the body, the spirit then ascends to heaven or wherever, and the clone that is 3D-printed far away will not be inhabited by a spirit? Fun stuff.

As far as the show goes, this idea of using transporters to "resurrect" people has been addressed a couple of times, but it always fails. (See Voyager season 1 episode 15 "Jetrel," or The Next Generation season 6 episode 4 "Relics.") I think it would be a detrimental short circuit to the plot to have such easy access to immortality, so the writers have to contrive barriers against it.

You see this a lot in imaginary universes, where advanced tech or magic could easily solve problems in way the writers didn't intend. For example, why didn't Frodo just ride a giant eagle into Mordor? Well, the only real answer to that question is because then there wouldn't be a story. But fans of the universe love to come up with theories to essentially paper over such plot holes. You see it with Star Wars, the DC and Marvel universes, etc.

[Ezra]

Truth hurts doesn't it.

No, actually it just manifests how you have nothing better to do than be adversarial when there was no call for it.

What did Star Trek ever do to you? Hello pot meet kettle.

Wow. You really are bored aren't you.

It's entertaining to show hypocrisy. My own hypocrisy makes me laugh too when I see them.

[Benjamin_LK]

Wow thanks for that. Yes, you all have certainly put your Geekness on display. There is no way I would remember details from the Next Generation from so long ago. I still think that by the 23rd century we will have limitless memory capacity, and so, I think that the concept that they wouldn't have that kind of capacity is flawed.

If I recall correctly, in a single human DNA strand there are about 440 million nitrogenous bases. Adenine, thymine, guanine, cytosine each have different numbers of atoms but all combined a pair of strands making up the chromosome contain about 1.5 GB of data. With 23 chromosome pairs, 46 chromosomes, there is around 69 GB of data. But those strands also contain over 200 billion atoms. Just using one adenine base for example you would have five hydrogen, five carbon, and five nitrogen atoms. That's 14 protons, 14 neutrons, and 14 electrons plus other subatomic particles to account for. And each proton and neutron is made up of five quarks. For each one of those particles you would need to store its state, location, energy, and motion. The amount of data required just to account for the chromosomes in one cell is mind numbing. With estimates of 100 trillion cells in the human body, and an estimated 100 trillion atoms per cell, I wouldn't want to try to estimate the amount of information required to make a computer model of a human body.

It is clear that you are assuming that every bit of information about the state of things and the makeup of things in a body would need representation. Its true that if you are talking about "raw" data, that you would need some crazy amount of storage. But even that is not unimaginable that we will have those kinds of storage capacities in the future. However, I think, that you are also underestimating the ability of computers to use compression, and various types of algorithms to encode and extrapolate the fundamentals of those states and makeup. For example, DNA is encoded in information systems using 4 symbols: A (Adenine), T (Thymine), G (Guanine) and C (Cytosine). If you are representing a genome, you only need to encode for these 4 nucleobases, not the information for each molecule, because the molecules that make these things just repeat over and over. So the atomic structure of each nucleobase would only has to be stored once in the information system, and a symbol can be used in an information system to represent it, as a mapping to it. Similarly, if you have a known gene sequence that is the same everywhere in every human being, you can store that string of symbols in just once in one memory or storage location, and then you can map a unique code or identifier to it. Every time it occurs, you can use that code or identifier instead of the gene itself. If you have variants to that, then you map where the variations are in it from the general case, and you don't have to store all the information on the variant, just the information about how that variant varies from the general gene case.

Furthermore, in the brain, once you are able to identify the fundamental things in the brain that need representation, rather than the constituent parts of the brain that repeat themselves over and over, you can map the states and makeup of the fundamental parts rather than the constituents of these fundamental parts. In other words, it is a false assumption that you would need to have a representation of each and every molecule and each and every atom.

Then, once you encode all this in these types of encoding schemes, then you can use general compression algorithms to compress all of this on a storage device.

Even if you successfully copy the information in a brain, the flaw in all of this, however, is the assumption made by atheistic individuals is that the seat or substrate of a person's soul is in the matter that makes up the brain, or that it doesn't matter what substrate contains the information. Rather, it is the substrate of the spirit-brain that contains the information, and what is going on in the physical or temporal brain is just a mirror image of that, and what truly makes a person who they are is actually the substrate of the spirit-brain. Remove the spirit from the body, and the spirit continues to contain this information. You may be able to copy the information but you will never be able to truly replicate the soul or person. For example, if someone makes a copy of my brain right now, there might be a virtual me in a computer, but the observer that is me will still be here where I am, looking through my same eyes. I call this flaw in the argumentation of atheists "the observer flaw." Because the observer that is truly me will always be truly what makes me what I am. The observer that sees through my eyes is me. If you merely copy the information for this observer, you have not and cannot ever transfer the essence that is me as this observer to that copy of information. Therefore, there will only be one true me, no matter what someone may try to do with a representation of the information in my mind. That observer is constituted both by the unique, individual substrate of the spirit matter that makes up me, as well as the information stored on that substrate. It is a flaw to assume that I am just information. I am both the substrate as well as the information. And the substrate of the spirit matter that makes me who I am is even more fundamental to who I am than the information. For example, right now, I don't have access to information that used to be a part of me, namely, the information about my past and the memories of who I used to be in pre-mortality before birth. Access to that information has been denied to me in this state that I am. And so, a more rudimentary version of me is acting out my mortal state right now, but it is still fundamentally who I am. Once I have acted out everything without access to this information, assuming that I can be faithful, the information will eventually be restored to me, and I will be the full combination of who I once was along , with who I now have become.

Does anyone remember the episode from the original series where Kirk and Spock meet an AI. The end result is that while the creator of the computer gave the computer his memories and his knowledge, he could not give it his soul.

[captainfearnot]

Do any of you read TVTropes? It's one of those websites like Wikipedia that can suck you into a rabbit hole. Their article on Teleportation is pretty good, but the real value of the site is that it links to how the same narrative trope is addressed by many different works across all media.