20
Please advise on this conversation we had over on c/Piracy. Transporters and replicators, basic operating principles?
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2025
20 points (95.5% liked)
Star Trek Social Club
10743 readers
69 users here now
r/startrek: The Next Generation
Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...
Maybe a little slash fic.
New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?
Rules
1 Be constructive
All posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.
2 Be welcoming
It is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.
3 Be truthful
All posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.
4 Be nice
If a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.
5 Spoilers
Utilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episode. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.
6 Keep on-topic
All busmittions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books, etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/Quarks.
7 Meta
Questions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.
Upcoming Episodes
| Date | Episode | Title |
|---|---|---|
| 11-28 | LD 5x07 | "Fully Dilated" |
| 12-05 | LD 5x08 | "Upper Decks" |
| 12-12 | LD 5x09 | "Fissure Quest" |
| 12-19 | LD 5x10 | "The New Next Generation" |
| 01-24 | Film | "Section 31" |
In Production
Strange New Worlds (TBA)
Section 31 (2025-01-24)
Starfleet Academy (TBA)
In Development
Untitled comedy series
Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
IIRC there are 3 different methods seen for food creation in Star Trek.
Protein Resequencers (ST:ENT, ST:TOS): which presumably take stored amino acids and combined them with supplementary minerals and flavouring into nutritious cubes that look like marshmallows.
Matter Recombinators/Food Sythesizers (ST:TOS): capable of taking stored matter and producing 'simple' foodstuffs like drinks, iced cream, slabs of protein similar to chicken breast or steak, etc. I think these were sometimes called replicators but the distinction is the production is done elsewhere and the food delivered in seconds on request.
Replicators (ST:TNG +): I swear they described this as direct energy to matter conversion but I can't find the source for this. The seemingly ridiculous energy demands this requires can be justified by the fact they use matter+antimatter reactions for energy supply. A cup of water would take a cup of fuel give or take. (edit: To confuse the issue, it's also described in Discovery that waste matter is broken down and used for things like replication, but matter=energy so it is all the same in the end).
Transporters: it's been clear from the beginning the matter is being deconstructed into energy and sent to the destination where it is reconstructed using the original's pattern. The ethics of it are dubious because every time you see someone transport they are being literally killed in front of your eyes and a new copy created elsewhere.
They "nuh-uh'd" this in Enterprise. The inventor of the technology is introduced and basically says the people who propagate that theory are a constant thorn in his side, despite having no basis for it in the reality of that universe.
They also show people experiencing, and reacting to other things in, the matter streams during longer transports. Kind of hard to do if you're dead.
You're welcome to believe the inventor if you wish, but I'd ask if you also believe the CEO of Boeing when he says their planes are safe...
Yeah I can see why this'd be confusing. Keep in mind the transport process at the referenced time periods takes ~ 6 seconds. 3 to dematerialize, near instantaneous travel to the destination, and 3 to rematerialze. It is that part in the middle which makes it clear the person has died. Being conscious in the matter stream and hence thinking you're the same person is the result of it being a near-perfect copy.
There are far more examples that refute the inventor:
I think you give valid examples and make your point well.
However, another weird thought is perhaps we’re always slowly dying to some extent. For instance, you at age 7 is dead; today, yourself at age 7 cannot speak or act or think. For instance, in a situation where your young self may have tried to buy a toy, you have different wants and make different decisions - you cannot perfectly replicate what that past self would have wanted.
This might be true even of myself from five seconds ago - I hadn’t thought of a certain wording of this concept yet, and so might have worded it differently under different circumstances - that “me” is gone and can’t do anything. This could be true even a millisecond ago, or a duration approaching either an instant or perhaps one cycle based on whatever the “clock rate” (if there is such a thing) or the human brain is.
However, to function, we need a convenient abstraction for what life and death are. I think my definition of life would be when one particular sum of experiences permanently terminates its (mostly) granular evolution.
Thomas and Will Riker both evolved from the same sum of experiences of the original William T Riker; since those sums of experience are still evolving, he is, within our convenient definition, alive.