Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 19:25:36 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:v38051hpeb6nbsgtranclg69jrhk3dasnv@4ax.com...
>> 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.)
At this point I should confess that for the most part I have been making a lot
of this stuff up.
There is some "established" pseudoscience for how
transporters work, and it's established that Trek sensors cannot detect certain
substances (from which I inferred that if you can't see it, you can't target it
and dissolve it or accurately reproduce it in a transporter). There's also
source material that says some elements are "odd" like dilithium, which are
indistinguishable from the standard 92+ known elements, but extend into subspace
(I think). Dilithium looks like lithium unless you have the sensor technology to
tell dilithium and lithium atoms apart. Nowhere in Star Trek is it ever implied
that dilithium can be replicated; as far as we know, it can't be. Maybe latinum
is another transdimensional element or compound.
>Well, we understand most of what there is to know about molecular structure
>of "earthly compounds", and we just assume that any other elements/compounds
>that we haven't run into will be similar in structure and properties and
>adherence to what we know as natural laws(atomic bonding and so on).
Assuming we have determined all the natural laws that govern chemistry, yes.
Assuming there is such a thing as transdimensional chemistry and
fourth-dimensional matter, where lithium and dilithium look the same to us but
behave differently in subspace, then we might not even be aware of dilithium's
existence.
>Usually if the star trek guys give some reason, it doesn't necessarily
>contradict known rules of the universe, per se. The warp drive, for
>example, as I understand it, uses some form of wormholing or something,
>which while not proven is theoretically possible. But we have a fairly
>clear conception of what elements and compounds consist of and how they
>interact and so on, and thus far, nothing has fallen outside the basic laws
>of chemistry in that regard, at least to my knowledge. Usually the star
>trek guys wouldn't go so obviously against conventions like that, from my
>experience. Maybe they just don't have a scifi-ey enough explanation
>thought up, but that seems unlikely, given the depth of fanaticism that most
>trekkies have.
Agreed. Suspension of disbelief depends heavily on not violating [commonly]
known laws of nature. Faster-than-light travel is against all known laws of
nature but the writers and the fans have invented warp drive and inertial
dampeners and things like that, special technologies or special exceptions to
the laws of nature that let the characters in the TV show/movies break the laws
of nature.
For any given instance of violation, as long as it's acknowledged that yes,
we're breaking a law of nature, and that there is this nifty technology that
lets us do it, and there's a good reason to have this in the show, then
generally the writers can get away with the violation.
>> 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.
>
>Err... I thought (in old TV's, maybe it's changed, I dunno) the electron gun
>fired at three separate colorized spots on the screen for every pixel,
>accentuating more red and less green and less blue or whatever the mix might
>happen to be. Oh well, I don't really know exactly how they work, so I'm
>probably wrong.
I suppose a CRT could do with one or three electron guns as long as the
electronics were designed for it. You get a higher frame rate in a CRT using
three guns however, one for each primary color.
>It sounds like a creative theory, nonetheless.
>
>> 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 fourth dimension being ... time?
I always figured that time was the zeroth dimension. It's easier to discard any
of the three spatial dimensions than to discard the dimension of time, and it's
more difficult to have a meaningful discussion without assuming its existence.
Consider that when scientists talk about hypercubes and hyperspheres, these
objects are talked about as existing in the fourth dimension. If time is the
fourth dimension, then that would imply that all objects we're familiar with are
four-dimensional. Of course they are, since they exist in three spatial
dimensions plus time. But "four-dimensional" usually refers to existence in four
spatial dimensions. Notice also that when someone talks about a hypersphere,
they usually assumed to have an existence in time, making it technically a
five-dimensional object although it's talked about as having /four/ dimensions.
So this context, it makes more sense to call time the zeroth dimension. Most
people don't even count time as a "dimension" normally, so the "fourth
dimension" gets described as hyperspace. Star Trek calls the fourth dimension
subspace, which is the opposite. Perhaps hyperspace is "above" and subspace is
"below" in the fourth dimension. It doesn't matter too much, but the point is
it's better to think of time as being dimension 0 since it's so fundamental and
can be ignored most of the time as a dimension, rather than dimension 4.
>> 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.
>
>I don't know if time travel is practically possible, but I suppose it's a
>valid explanation to say that we can't manipulate time, and therefore can't
>replicate anything that exists at different positions along the 4th
>dimension(time).
Well, manipulating time gets into issue like free will and predestination and so
forth, and Trek has messed with time travel who knows how many times, but at
least in the Trek universe, you can change events at will as long as you have
the technology to time travel. The Trek universe also assumes that characters
who travel back in time are immune to any changes in the time stream that would
theoretically terminate their existence. The Grandfather paradox can't happen in
the Trek universe because even if you killed your own grandfather, you would
continue to exist after the deed was done. You would never be able to return to
your former life, however, and your father or mother would have ceased to exist
(except in your memories). There's also technology called temporal shielding (I
think) that gives them immunity to changes in the timeline while still existing
in the present.
>> >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?
>>
>> 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:
>
>I honestly don't understand why. Personally, I would have no problem if
>there was a clone of me around, for like spare parts n stuff. If the
>religious people are right, the clone wouldn't have a soul, so it would more
>or less be a vegetable anyways, so why not, ya know? 😉
I dunno about that. There's no question of whether maternal twins both have
souls. I don't know that it would make any difference when one being was split
into two, whether inside the womb or outside. I doubt that a new organ like a
heart or a liver grown from stem cells would have a soul. I would think that a
soul or "personhood" would reside in a body with a living brain since a living
brain is the one thing all persons have in common, and brain death is cause
enough to issue a death certificate. Of course, there is still the question how
much of a new brain can a scientist grow in a lab from scratch before it counts
as a person? If/when a disembodied brain grown from scratch spontaneously
becomes conscious, does it count a person then? How would we even know? Can even
a small clump of living neurons separated from the mass have a form of
consciousness unto themselves?
>BUT, if the religious folks are WRONG, and people can exist independantly of
>the will of the god they happen to believe in, then cloning would be
>"problematic" to say the least, for any of a variety of highly inflammatory
>reasons.
Indeed
>> 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?
>
>That's one of the major problems, the creation of a sub-species for lack of
>better phrasing.
I suppose the best approach from a legal standpoint would be to consider a clone
to be a child of the original. If a person was cloned against their will,
ostensibly they would have the same rights as a woman who was impregnated
against her will. Moreover, the cloned individual is mentally and
psychologically a clean slate. You would need some kind of neurological
programming technology to implant knowledge and memories and so on. Assuming the
clone did not have mental disorders caused by damage to the brain in the cloning
process, he or she would have the mind of an infant no matter how far along the
body matured in the lab before it was released.
>> 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.
>
>That was such a stupid episode. 😉
Yeah, I thought the reasoning for Shinzon's existence coming from Picard in Star
Trek: Nemesis was much more plausible, relatively speaking -- you would think
that a transporter beam that got "split" during materialization would recreate
two half-formed, non-viable identical organisms at both destinations. Two dead
half-Rikers instead of two living fully-formed ones. But hey, what do I know.
>> 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'.
>
>I guess I must have missed the "evil riker" episode, in the episode I saw,
>"bad riker/thomas" became used to living alone and not following orders,
>etc, and then they came back and found him like 10 years later or something,
>and he was just out of touch, not necessarily "evil" or anything. Was there
>another "double of riker" episode that I missed or just don't remember?
I did some research. The first appearance of "Thomas Riker" was in the TNG
episode "Second Chances". In the DS9 episode "Defiant", Thomas Riker had left
Starfleet and joined the Maquis. He was eventually captured and put in a
Cardassian labor camp.
>> 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.
>
>Good enough for me to go "*knowing smile* hehehe those keerazy trekkies!"
>😉
Heh.
--
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
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 19:25:36 -0400, "Jeff Goslin" <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Matthias" <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:v38051hpeb6nbsgtranclg69jrhk3dasnv@4ax.com...
>> 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.)
At this point I should confess that for the most part I have been making a lot
of this stuff up.
There is some "established" pseudoscience for howtransporters work, and it's established that Trek sensors cannot detect certain
substances (from which I inferred that if you can't see it, you can't target it
and dissolve it or accurately reproduce it in a transporter). There's also
source material that says some elements are "odd" like dilithium, which are
indistinguishable from the standard 92+ known elements, but extend into subspace
(I think). Dilithium looks like lithium unless you have the sensor technology to
tell dilithium and lithium atoms apart. Nowhere in Star Trek is it ever implied
that dilithium can be replicated; as far as we know, it can't be. Maybe latinum
is another transdimensional element or compound.
>Well, we understand most of what there is to know about molecular structure
>of "earthly compounds", and we just assume that any other elements/compounds
>that we haven't run into will be similar in structure and properties and
>adherence to what we know as natural laws(atomic bonding and so on).
Assuming we have determined all the natural laws that govern chemistry, yes.
Assuming there is such a thing as transdimensional chemistry and
fourth-dimensional matter, where lithium and dilithium look the same to us but
behave differently in subspace, then we might not even be aware of dilithium's
existence.
>Usually if the star trek guys give some reason, it doesn't necessarily
>contradict known rules of the universe, per se. The warp drive, for
>example, as I understand it, uses some form of wormholing or something,
>which while not proven is theoretically possible. But we have a fairly
>clear conception of what elements and compounds consist of and how they
>interact and so on, and thus far, nothing has fallen outside the basic laws
>of chemistry in that regard, at least to my knowledge. Usually the star
>trek guys wouldn't go so obviously against conventions like that, from my
>experience. Maybe they just don't have a scifi-ey enough explanation
>thought up, but that seems unlikely, given the depth of fanaticism that most
>trekkies have.
Agreed. Suspension of disbelief depends heavily on not violating [commonly]
known laws of nature. Faster-than-light travel is against all known laws of
nature but the writers and the fans have invented warp drive and inertial
dampeners and things like that, special technologies or special exceptions to
the laws of nature that let the characters in the TV show/movies break the laws
of nature.
For any given instance of violation, as long as it's acknowledged that yes,
we're breaking a law of nature, and that there is this nifty technology that
lets us do it, and there's a good reason to have this in the show, then
generally the writers can get away with the violation.
>> 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.
>
>Err... I thought (in old TV's, maybe it's changed, I dunno) the electron gun
>fired at three separate colorized spots on the screen for every pixel,
>accentuating more red and less green and less blue or whatever the mix might
>happen to be. Oh well, I don't really know exactly how they work, so I'm
>probably wrong.
I suppose a CRT could do with one or three electron guns as long as the
electronics were designed for it. You get a higher frame rate in a CRT using
three guns however, one for each primary color.
>It sounds like a creative theory, nonetheless.
>
>> 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 fourth dimension being ... time?
I always figured that time was the zeroth dimension. It's easier to discard any
of the three spatial dimensions than to discard the dimension of time, and it's
more difficult to have a meaningful discussion without assuming its existence.
Consider that when scientists talk about hypercubes and hyperspheres, these
objects are talked about as existing in the fourth dimension. If time is the
fourth dimension, then that would imply that all objects we're familiar with are
four-dimensional. Of course they are, since they exist in three spatial
dimensions plus time. But "four-dimensional" usually refers to existence in four
spatial dimensions. Notice also that when someone talks about a hypersphere,
they usually assumed to have an existence in time, making it technically a
five-dimensional object although it's talked about as having /four/ dimensions.
So this context, it makes more sense to call time the zeroth dimension. Most
people don't even count time as a "dimension" normally, so the "fourth
dimension" gets described as hyperspace. Star Trek calls the fourth dimension
subspace, which is the opposite. Perhaps hyperspace is "above" and subspace is
"below" in the fourth dimension. It doesn't matter too much, but the point is
it's better to think of time as being dimension 0 since it's so fundamental and
can be ignored most of the time as a dimension, rather than dimension 4.
>> 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.
>
>I don't know if time travel is practically possible, but I suppose it's a
>valid explanation to say that we can't manipulate time, and therefore can't
>replicate anything that exists at different positions along the 4th
>dimension(time).
Well, manipulating time gets into issue like free will and predestination and so
forth, and Trek has messed with time travel who knows how many times, but at
least in the Trek universe, you can change events at will as long as you have
the technology to time travel. The Trek universe also assumes that characters
who travel back in time are immune to any changes in the time stream that would
theoretically terminate their existence. The Grandfather paradox can't happen in
the Trek universe because even if you killed your own grandfather, you would
continue to exist after the deed was done. You would never be able to return to
your former life, however, and your father or mother would have ceased to exist
(except in your memories). There's also technology called temporal shielding (I
think) that gives them immunity to changes in the timeline while still existing
in the present.
>> >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?
>>
>> 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:
>
>I honestly don't understand why. Personally, I would have no problem if
>there was a clone of me around, for like spare parts n stuff. If the
>religious people are right, the clone wouldn't have a soul, so it would more
>or less be a vegetable anyways, so why not, ya know? 😉
I dunno about that. There's no question of whether maternal twins both have
souls. I don't know that it would make any difference when one being was split
into two, whether inside the womb or outside. I doubt that a new organ like a
heart or a liver grown from stem cells would have a soul. I would think that a
soul or "personhood" would reside in a body with a living brain since a living
brain is the one thing all persons have in common, and brain death is cause
enough to issue a death certificate. Of course, there is still the question how
much of a new brain can a scientist grow in a lab from scratch before it counts
as a person? If/when a disembodied brain grown from scratch spontaneously
becomes conscious, does it count a person then? How would we even know? Can even
a small clump of living neurons separated from the mass have a form of
consciousness unto themselves?
>BUT, if the religious folks are WRONG, and people can exist independantly of
>the will of the god they happen to believe in, then cloning would be
>"problematic" to say the least, for any of a variety of highly inflammatory
>reasons.
Indeed
>> 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?
>
>That's one of the major problems, the creation of a sub-species for lack of
>better phrasing.
I suppose the best approach from a legal standpoint would be to consider a clone
to be a child of the original. If a person was cloned against their will,
ostensibly they would have the same rights as a woman who was impregnated
against her will. Moreover, the cloned individual is mentally and
psychologically a clean slate. You would need some kind of neurological
programming technology to implant knowledge and memories and so on. Assuming the
clone did not have mental disorders caused by damage to the brain in the cloning
process, he or she would have the mind of an infant no matter how far along the
body matured in the lab before it was released.
>> 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.
>
>That was such a stupid episode. 😉
Yeah, I thought the reasoning for Shinzon's existence coming from Picard in Star
Trek: Nemesis was much more plausible, relatively speaking -- you would think
that a transporter beam that got "split" during materialization would recreate
two half-formed, non-viable identical organisms at both destinations. Two dead
half-Rikers instead of two living fully-formed ones. But hey, what do I know.
>> 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'.
>
>I guess I must have missed the "evil riker" episode, in the episode I saw,
>"bad riker/thomas" became used to living alone and not following orders,
>etc, and then they came back and found him like 10 years later or something,
>and he was just out of touch, not necessarily "evil" or anything. Was there
>another "double of riker" episode that I missed or just don't remember?
I did some research. The first appearance of "Thomas Riker" was in the TNG
episode "Second Chances". In the DS9 episode "Defiant", Thomas Riker had left
Starfleet and joined the Maquis. He was eventually captured and put in a
Cardassian labor camp.
>> 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.
>
>Good enough for me to go "*knowing smile* hehehe those keerazy trekkies!"
>😉
Heh.
--
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