Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (
More info?)
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 03:40:01 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:a0lt41pcp8q8hbl5tdopi7n1ash0lihsqd@4ax.com...
>> >I'm not a trekkie or anything, so maybe you could enlighten me. Under
>what
>> >circumstances would something be NON-transportable/replicatable?
>>
>> It would be because the molecular or atomic configuration of the substance
>is
>> strange enough that the emitters that cause the subatomic particles to
>coalesce
>> out of the energy beams, simply can't avoid interfering with one another.
>
>Yes, I understood that earlier, but what I was saying was that usually the
>trekkie guys have some psuedo-science explanation for WHY such things would
>happen. What is the property of "latinum" that interferes with these
>transporters?
>
>I mean, we know a LOT about the composition of earthly materials, and have
>found what we consider to be a mostly comprehensive list of the first X
>elements(103??, a few notable exceptions in the pattern aside), and even for
>the ones we don't have at the moment, we have a working model of how they
>would look and act and behave etc. I have to wonder how complicated a
>material could be that could not be replicated/transported in such a device,
>given that human flesh, let alone current brain status, would be hard enough
>to replicate/transport.
While, I just told you what the property was that causes the interference. It's
the molecular structure of the substance. (I don't think the audience is ever
told whether it's an element or a compound, but for purposes of this thread we
will go with the latter.)
For the energy beams that create the subatomic particles, you have to have at
least three beams of different energy wavelengths. The three beams intersect at
a specific point in space. The type of subatomic particle created is determined
by the strength and wavelength of energy used for each beam, much like the
electron beams in a TV set reproduces all the colors of the spectrum by mixing
various strengths of red, green, and blue light for each pixel.
The molecular structure of latinum is a odd kind of knotted, four-dimensional
shape that exists partly in in substance at all times, like a Klein bottle. The
three electron beams of a replicator or transporter simple can't replicate
four-dimensional matter. While the "visible" part of the latinum are easily
reproduced, there is no known science for extending the beams into the fourth
dimension with the precision required to manipulate matter. Warp drive allows
starships to pass into substance but the margin of error for the movement of
mass is on the order of hundreds of meters, rather than the order of picometers
required by replicators. The laws of nature clearly permit the latinum molecule
to 'twist' into the fourth dimension, so it is theoretically possible to
replicate latinum and other four-dimensional compounds, but replication
technology would have to be mated with much more highly developed space-warp
technology to break this barrier.
>On a side note, what is the provided (scifi) explanation for why a
>replicator can't simply replicate a human being(given enough time), but a
>transporter can disassemble and reassemble one theoretically perfectly?
>Couldn't you just make what amounted to a single station transporter and
>replicate people?
To be honest, there isn't an explanation that I'm aware of, although the book
"The Science of Star Trek" might hold the answer to that.
I don't see why a society couldn't engage in cloning via replication, but if you
think about it, even today cloning is considered unethical: if you turned one
person into a set of identical twins, which is the "real" one, and which is the
"copy"? Especially if the clone was identical in every respect, from age to
scars to fingerprints to brainwave scan, how will anyone ever know which is
which? Unless you tagged of them immediately after the cloning (like the method
used in the movie The Sixth Day), it becomes less and less likely that the
original individual can be determined, while (ironically) the twins will become
less and less similar as they have different experiences and live out different
lives.
But even if you could keep track of the original, does the duplicate have the
same position in society and the same assets and the same privileges as the
original? Let's say we replicated a starship captain. Are both captains entitled
or required to captain their ship? Do they take turns? What happens when the
captain is up for a promotion? Would it be fair if the captain could literally
do the work of two people and do a whole lot more, while everyone else is stuck
with only one? If there can't be two captains, then who decides which one is
supposed to resume the captain's former life, and who has to go and find some
other life to lead? What happens to the extra in this case?
There was a Star Tre: Next Generation episode that dealt with these questions,
where Commander Riker (Johnathon Frakes) got split into two people accidentally
many years before the episode took place. When the Enterprise-D crew encountered
him, they were having to deal with some of the problems that having two Rikers
posed. If memory serves, the alternate-Riker chose to go by their middle name
Thomas. He eventually turned evil and went away to make trouble; a later episode
had him show up again making trouble again, with the Rikers' father showing up
and having to deal with the situation (not sure if that character actually was
there for that episode though). In the final episode that the character appears,
Thomas Riker is eventually rehabilitated and makes peace with his 'brother'.
>> >Like I said, though, i'm no trekkie. I know it's fiction and all that,
>but
>> >the fans of star trek seem fairly interested in making sure their world
>is
>> >fairly "plausible", at least as plausible as science fiction can ever be,
>so
>> >they have an explanation that makes some degree of sense, I'm sure.
>>
>> Plus, it's fun to try to "fill in the gaps".
>
>I've noted that this is what they often try to do. Unfortunately, your
>explanation is probably incomplete or something, because you've only noted
>why problems would exist, not the explanations provided that supposedly
>solve those problems. I know it's all scifi stuff and all that, but often
>the trekkies will provide "explanations" to answer the obvious gaps. What
>you've done is describe the gaps, not tell me what the party line on filling
>those gaps is. Oh well, just curious anyways. I'm sure there's a website
>on this, I just don't really feel like doing pseudoresearch right now.
Well, I hope I've put forth a better rationaliz^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hexplanation
for latin, replicators & transporters, and human beings, this time.
--
Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)
"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram