• nathanjent@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    29 minutes ago

    My theory is that the being who created the totems is borrowing the power of each soul’s death and using that to recreate their body on the other side. There must be some minor difference in power that this being collects for itself. Even a small difference would be worth it at scale.

  • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Atomic teleportation where a pattern or parts are converted or reassembled = death

    Quantum teleportation where particles exist in multiple locations states before collapsing into one… not so sure.

      • Aniki@feddit.orgOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        my personal opinion is that instant (i.e. arbitrarily close to speed of light) teleportation machines could be built in theory, but doing so is really expensive and there’s just no economical reason to do so.

        for example, for fast travel, we already have aircraft and rockets. Yet nobody would use them to ship objects produced in china to europe, e.g. cars, if there’s no time-critical component (i.e. food that spoils very quickly etc.). So the fastest way of travel is typically also the most expensive one, while cheaper modes of transport take more time.

        Then, you can think of a teleportation device as a mode of transport where the speed approaches the speed of light. If our previous experience is anything to go by, that means that the cost of transport would increase enormously, and thus practically nobody would use it anyways. So that’s the practical side to this thing.

  • zabadoh@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    18 hours ago

    That is one theory of how teleportation will work. Otherwise, you have a replication machine.

    • AeronMelon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Star Trek has multiple stories about people being accidentally cloned by the transporter.

      Which implies it is creating a copy.

      Which implies it is destroying the original.

      • GraniteM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        In the TNG episode Lonely Among Us, while under the influence of an alien entity, Picard disintegrates himself into a nebula. The crew spend hours trying to get him back and are about to give up, when Troi senses Picard’s disembodied presence nearby, and they are able to reconstitute his body from the transporter buffer, reuniting it with his mental energy.

        So Star Trek has effectively confirmed the scientific existence of the soul, and the fact that it exists independently of the body, and that the soul can continue to exist without the body, and that the transporter can transport the soul without destroying it. So, no, the transporter is not a suicide machine.

        • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          TL;DR, they cheat by having magic Philantery’s in StarCraft, however…

          …this means all the clone bodies are the real him, and share a soul, and feel everything at the same time?

          • GraniteM@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            7 hours ago

            Yes, they confirmed the objective existence of the soul within the context of their fictional universe, alongside faster than light travel, time travel, accessible parallel universes, stable wormholes, hand-held weapons that can vaporize a human being, and artificial general intelligence.

            On the scale of science fiction hardness, Star Trek is somewhere between warm jello and cotton candy.

            • Dion Starfire@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Ironically, Star Trek is considered “hard sci-fi”, even if there are other shows/books that are harder. The hardness of science fiction isn’t related to how plausible the science backing it is, but how much effort the story puts into explaining the “science”, and how internally consistent that explanation is. Trek spends a fair amount of effort into technobabble, and had dedicated technobabble writers whose job was to try to maintain consistency with those explanations.

              Compare this with something like Star Wars (the movies, not third party novels), where nearly zero effort is put into explaining how magical Force powers work or why laser swords have a fixed length.

              Hard sci-fi says “this is how this works”, even if it’s complete bullshit. Soft sci-fi says “just accept that these things work, so we can use them as plot devices”.

            • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 hours ago

              Ah, in-universe.

              hand-held weapons that can vaporize a human being

              About that, the US military did experiments with powerful lasers in 2000. The result:

              • first few milliseconds create a superficial wound
                • spark of hurt paralyzes the target
              • vaporized mass creates a charged plasma, that shields against further shots
              • longer pulsing frequencies literally eat through the target (ablative)
                • explosive pulses (more powaar) are less effective

              This one i think?

              Woah, a epstein hijack on Archive? And no pdf upload…

    • scholar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 hours ago

      In fairness to Mr Tesla, his machine didn’t kill. It made a perfect living duplicate. (The magician on the other hand…)