|
Magic door would be equally problematic
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
A Gnarlacious Bro posted:True but also it’s not their fault this triggers some people’s anxiety and desire to articulate their concerns It's an interesting aspect of the setting that there is a machine which kills you, that everyone uses to get to work
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2020 20:47
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Tons isn't a unit of energy. It is when we’re referring to tons of TNT. “2 gigatons” is the short way of saying 8400000000000000000 joules, which is roughly the amount of energy produced by two billion tons of exploding TNT (or one fully ‘energized’ transportee).
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2020 21:13
|
|
|
A Gnarlacious Bro posted:Magic door would be equally problematic See also: the good place
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:No it isn't. It certainly is!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Tons isn't a unit of energy. You're no einstein thats for sure! A ton is 8.1533714586 x 10^19 joules of energy 1 US ton is 907,185 grams 907,185 grams is 5.08893441381487 x 10^38 electronvolts 5.08893441381487 x 10^38 electronvolts is 8.1533714586 x 10^19 joules hakimashou fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Mar 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
its time to fess up: im a magic door
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
Squizzle posted:its time to fess up: im a magic door bringing kids inside you to take them to a magic land is considered gauche these days, you should just take them to day care or something
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
2house2fly posted:It's an interesting aspect of the setting that there is a machine which kills you, that everyone uses to get to work For real. Star Trek's entire premise was trying to put human ideals under a microscope and to attempt to provoke thought and discussion via their presentations. The transporter problem is this fascinating problematic idea that they never even intended to happen and it actually cuts directly to the heart of several very important unanswered questions regarding the definition of death and what precisely makes up a person's identity. By talking about it even if we can't come to any better understanding than we had going in we are still doing our part to experience the legacy star trek hoped it could leave us with. I know it'd be easier if they had just written the premise so that we never actually had to bring it up in these terms but the questions would still have been out there and eventually the human race would have gotten around to pondering it. That we've hit such a deep mine of ideas because we all watched a pajama pants spaceship show from the sixties is a blessing and we should be looking at it as a blessing imo. Edit- cleaned up my work a bit
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2020 22:58
|
|
|
"Hyperion suggests that you do not think about the fact that this is only a digital reconstruction of your original body, which died the first time you respawned. Do NOT think about this!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
It's important to note that even Barkley, who's a hypochondriac especially when it comes to transporter stuff, is never once concerned that he is dying and being reborn.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 03:53
|
|
|
The reason the transporter problem is good is because the real life version of it - is the person who wakes up in the morning at all the same as the person who fell asleep in that body the night before aka do you just 100% die when you fall asleep - is pretty rad as philosophy questions go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
2house2fly posted:It's an interesting aspect of the setting that there is a machine which kills you, that everyone uses to get to work this describes automobiles too
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 05:40
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:It's important to note that even Barkley, who's a hypochondriac especially when it comes to transporter stuff, is never once concerned that he is dying and being reborn. Disco bones is, however
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 07:44
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:It's important to note that even Barkley, who's a hypochondriac especially when it comes to transporter stuff, is never once concerned that he is dying and being reborn. He was either tricked, or else truly believes in Parfitian ideas about identity. It would be very easy to trick people, just make everyone go through a transporter and ask them "did you die?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 07:51
|
|
|
FunkyAl posted:Disco bones is, however No, Bones didn't think it would work correctly. He was afraid his molecules would get scrambled, because the transporter would fail while he was getting transported.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
If a transporter merely pushes material from one place to another, there should be no need to disintegrate it first. Why bother with the extreme cost of disassembling and reassembling the object every time? But although all transportees are definitely dead, it’s not a super-interesting topic. It comes down to a boring argument over whether there’s a literally-existing afterlife: the transporter doesn’t kill you if there’s a God who simply lets you survive the complete obliteration. (Of course, by this logic, you can argue that nothing ever kills anyone & there’s consequently no such thing as murder.) What’s actually interesting is, again, in the economics of all this. For every ‘energization’ of a transportee, it takes vastly more power to put one back together again. Imagine the amount of energy needed to reassemble 2 billion tons of TNT, atom by atom, after it’s exploded. You’re reversing entropy. Plus, consider the energy need to run the scanner, for the computer to interpret the assloads of information, to absorb/contain the massive explosion, to project this stuff through space, etc. And, y’know, people don’t just spontaneously turn into energy. It takes roughly 1.5 gigatons of energy just to vapourize a person. Energization goes way beyond that. How is this better than using a shuttle, which is basically just a stupid helicopter? Ultimately, it’s conspicuous consumption. Transporting yourself is a power-display, like regularly smashing a priceless teacup in front of your subordinates. Only backwards plebs prefer the shuttle. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Mar 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
At this point, I'm now firmly convinced that, "the transporter actually kills you and makes a copy," is the TimeCube of Star Trek fan wankery.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
Wasn't there one episode where someone from the original series was transported and then kept on file for years instead of being reassembled? Scotty, I think? Where was he that whole time? Was he conscious?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:If a transporter merely pushes material from one place to another, there should be no need to disintegrate it first. Why bother with the extreme cost of disassembling and reassembling the object every time? The fact that you think this is how transporters work does not support your idea that it kills you (it totally doesn't)
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
I dunno let me check this nerd wiki, because maybe there’s some esoteric bullshit in the lore that says you aren’t actually turned into energy. “The transporter was a subspace device capable of almost instantaneously transporting an object from one location to another, by using matter-energy conversion to transform matter into energy, then beaming it to or from a chamber where it is reconverted back into its original pattern. (TOS: "The Squire of Gothos", "The Savage Curtain")” Welp looks like you get turned into energy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 18:45
|
|
|
Ok. You also get turned into a moving body when you're in a car. The transporter problem is an interesting problem arising from Star Trek fan fiction that's perfectly reasonable for a philosophy class but wholly irrelevant to analyzing Star Trek as a piece of text. If you're caught up on the literal atoms being the same, then cellular regeneration, or drinking water and then pissing it out, raise the same issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
Since matter nor energy can be destroyed, it's just a zero sum transfer. You get turned into 10 gazillion joules of energy, sent through subspace, then turned back into 90kg of mass. The method by which this occurs is "bullshit space magic", and doesn't use a significant, in the context of an antimatter powered space ship the size of a small town capable of accelerating to speeds vastly exceeding c, amount of power perform.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
Finger Prince posted:Since matter nor energy can be destroyed, it's just a zero sum transfer. You get turned into 10 gazillion joules of energy, sent through subspace, then turned back into 90kg of mass. The method by which this occurs is "bullshit space magic", and doesn't use a significant, in the context of an antimatter powered space ship the size of a small town capable of accelerating to speeds vastly exceeding c, amount of power perform. If the argument is that it’s a just a fantasy series, that’s avoiding the issue: why this specific fantasy? Whose fantasy is it? Going back, it was Keynes’ fantasy of a peaceful capitalist utopia: that “[the] errors of pessimism which now make so much noise in the world will be proved wrong in our own time - the pessimism of the revolutionaries who think that things are so bad that nothing can save us but violent change.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Welp looks like you get turned into energy. Yes, but it uses that energy to make you later. It's not like they're recreating your body using a different energy source and just dispersing the energy that was harvested from the conversion of your body.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:If the argument is that it’s a just a fantasy series, that’s avoiding the issue: why this specific fantasy? Whose fantasy is it? Except that the federation was born in the ashes of devastating wars (Earth-Romulan) and the political organizations are more Soviet than Keynesian. It is above all the fantasy of 60s counter culture, not the fantasy of 60s hegemonic culture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
It's not turning them into energy as in like igniting the body or triggering a fusion reaction in their atoms, it's turning them into energy as in some kind of bizarre conversion into a weird subspace radio transmission working off of science that doesn't exist and probably never will. There's some kind of premise of contiguity of existence as energy, even if most lifeforms are incapable of interacting with the outside world while energized. This seems to be supported by all the alien lifeforms they meet that are composed of pure energy, often they even meet aliens that were once physical and becoming energy was some huge developmental leap that gave them godlike powers. It's kind of a cross between musing at the infinite nature of life and a weird secular supposition of an afterlife or god.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 20:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
is that some sorta early hovercar??
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2020 22:00
|
|
|
So what happens in the episodes where there can't get a good transport lock? We all know the scenes where the target is kind of shifting in and out from the transporter pad, then the transport fails and the target is back where it started off. How does that one work if the transporter kills you and makes a copy? Also how did barkley wrestle some wack-rear end aliens in the transport stream? I feel like the answer is "if transporters were real, they'd 100% kill you and make a copy. But in the fiction of the ST universe, they move you from point A to point B*" *point B can also be back or forward in time, out of phase, in the mirror universe, or maybe you just get turned into a literal child Poopernickel fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Mar 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2020 01:39
|
|
|
Tulip posted:Except that the federation was born in the ashes of devastating wars (Earth-Romulan) and the political organizations are more Soviet than Keynesian. You’re the first person I’ve ever encountered to characterize the Federation as Soviet. That demands some explanation. Keynes wrote these quotes in 1930, i.e. not long after the Great War - and in the middle to the Great Depression. That’s around the time that the failure of laissez faire capitalism and fear of communist revolution led to the near-universal adoption of Keynesian economics. I’d say that’s pretty much what Star Trek depicts with its ‘eugenics war’ (and explains the series’ frequent weak jibes against greedy stockbrokers). Now, Keynes was personally anti-war and against military spending - but that did nothing to prevent the rise of what’s pejoratively (but accurately) known as ‘Military Keynesianism’. This is because Keynes naively saw war and “civil dissentions” as a product of the corruption of an otherwise-functional capitalist system rather than an inevitable byproduct. We don’t need a revolution to end strife; we can just choose to adopt a ‘philosophy of self-enhancement’: “The pace at which we can reach our destination of economic bliss will be governed by four things-our power to control population, our determination to avoid wars and civil dissensions, our willingness to entrust to science the direction of those matters which are properly the concern of science, and the rate of accumulation as fixed by the margin between our production and our consumption; of which the last will easily look after itself, given the first three.” Note that, as in Star Trek, there’s nothing egalitarian there. It’s all pacification and risk management. And while we wait for science to kick in and bring about utopia on its own, we’ll just have to grin and bear the inequality : “The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to every one that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.” Now, you’re right that Star Trek was tied to 60’s counterculture - but so was Steve Jobs. Couterculturalism and leftism aren’t synonyms. Anyways, the above details explains a lot of things - like why there is so much paternalistic racism directed at the ‘childish’ Ferengis, why certain “self-enhancements” are illegal, and why Federation military ventures are referred to euphemistically as scientific exploration. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Mar 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
Unbearable loser poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
Poopernickel posted:So what happens in the episodes where there can't get a good transport lock? barkley was a great rebounder
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2020 04:08
|
|
|
ofc he could deal w space cloud problems
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2020 04:09
|
|
|
A Gnarlacious Bro posted:Magic door would be equally problematic Its just a wormwhole, though? Bending space is something that per our current understanding is the only thing keeping us attached to Earth, not a philosophically problematic impossibility.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2020 04:34
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTDUXTpxoGU Here's the transporter clone of Riker stealing a ship in the name of the maquis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2020 05:30
|
|
|
Here's how the transporters REALLY work: a tank of glitter is shot next to a black screen and swirled around, possibly on high contrast stock. the film is then matted and "double packed" on an optical printer to acheive the superimpositon "cutout" matte of commander shrek transporitng down onto the planet. The film is exposed for different lengths of time by frame to acheive the "fade" effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2020 05:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You’re the first person I’ve ever encountered to characterize the Federation as Soviet. That demands some explanation. David Graeber goes into fairly great lengths in Utopia of Rules, mostly in the (much better) latter parts. Also the reason why "60's counterculture" is valuable here and why I invoked it: 60s mainstream was Keynes. Star Trek is part of a (quite mild) attack on Keynes from the left. It's easy to forget that such a thing existed, given that the Keynesian consensus collapsed to the right, but the most obvious issue with treating Star Trek as Keynesian is the lack of mixed economy. The Keynesian practice of running an economy means admitting that large corporate interests are a part of the deal, and you just gotta live with them, at best you can make some industrial policy that pushes them in socially useful directions. Star Trek does not propose a balance of forces between large dictatorial private corporations and a notionally democratic public sphere, it proposes a total domination by a semi-scientific military bureaucracy. DS9 has Quark's bar, which is tolerated as a quaint embassy from a foreign power, useful for its secondary diplomatic and security applications rather than being necessary to the basic function of the station. Ultimately treating Star Trek as a Keynesian fantasy means either substantially misunderstanding Keynesian political economy, substituting fanfiction for text in Star Trek, or both.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2020 06:33
|
|
|
Tulip posted:the most obvious issue with treating Star Trek as Keynesian is the lack of mixed economy. “The Dytallix Mining Company (also known as the Dytallix Mining Corporation and the Dytallix Mining Consortium) was a Federation-based company in the mid-24th century concerned with mining mineral substances as resources. ... Dytallix Mining was one of several mining companies licensed by the Federation to mine the Sol system's asteroid belt.” Corporations are a huge part of Star Trek’s Federation setting, though kept conspicuously offscreen along with nearly everything else unrelated to military service. What does a space-miner look like? What does their work entail? In all the hours of New Generation media, we never really find out. But there is no known rule against capitalist states gaining Federation membership. The Federation Charter is all generically about law enforcement and multicultural tolerance (while putting resources into scientific exploration, in order to improve standards of living...). In this ostensibly Soviet setting, nobody makes a single reference to such basic concepts as the labour theory of value. It’s as it is with the transporter thing: the onus is on you to explain how disintegration is nonlethal, because that’s the outrageous claim. The claim that future-America doesn’t have a mixed economy has a much higher burden of proof, because America currently does have a mixed economy, and there is no indication in Star Trek that it ever went away. You can’t just assume that America has no corporations. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Mar 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2020 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
why would there be a necessary division of labour of any kind? why would there be labour or capital? all the categories of classical political economy--to say nothing of the derivative division between a state sector and a private sector--are irrelevant. a replicator can just make it.
Zane fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Mar 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2020 10:44
|
|
