🚀 go-pugleaf

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BEA61F.43952F40
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>   But you get your molecules scrambled all the time!  Thermal motion
>knocks them around and back and forth.  Molecules get broken down and
>replaced, so that after a decade a lot (probably most) of your atoms
>are not even the same, but have been replaced by different (though
>identical) atoms from your diet.  Does that make you not you?

True, but the graceful interplay of matter and energy in the physical =
and quantum physical worlds always seems to insure that thermal motion =
acts in specific, predictable ways, certainly never interfering with the =
life of the whole.  My fear is that the ramifications of transport =
technology might include some unpredictable phenomena when it comes to =
controlled "molecular scrambling," possibly interfering with the life of =
the whole.

You make the point that our molecules are scrambled all the time.  The =
molecules making up any matter are scrambled by thermal changes for =
anything above absolute zero.  However, this never seems to cause =
problems (in objects "living" or non) because particles follow fixed =
rules and are acted upon by universally poetico-mathematical forces.  =
We're talking about purposely scrambling molecules, first using =
something that doesn't occur in the natural interplay of matter and =
energy:  observation.  The fact that in the quantum world there is no =
such thing as a closed system when observation or any one- or two-way =
communication occurs between the macro and the micro.  In other words =
(and this is all very speculative on my part), I fear that though =
natural thermal changes occurring in molecules is hunky-dory, induced =
thermal changes as sequelae of observationally altering a system might =
preclude the normal operation of that system. . .

. . .How far into the "micro" does "life" extend, which leads me to my =
next concern.  One of the requirements for life (at least as we know =
it), to reach any measure of evolutionary complexity is the ability to =
carry on biochemical "life" processes in conjunction with the physical =
laws without compromising the "life" of the whole.  If an amoeba cannot =
metabolize food (a process in which, at the molecular level, some parts =
of itself are broken down and others built up;  catabolism and =
anabolism), without disrupting the normal processes which must =
continually occur to preserve the life of the organism, it will die.  =
Transporting a human can be looked upon as an extension of the normal =
biochemical processes that the human body must continually perform, =
without disrupting the life of the whole, to survive.  It is yet another =
biochemical process we wish to carry out without harming the life of the =
organism.  However, might it harm the organism?  That which is the spark =
of life (which is at best ineffable), might be lost at some point--who =
knows?  (Any thoughts on this?  My reading on pioneering efforts to =
understand that which has been described throughout history as the spark =
of life is very limited.  Associated topics are:  when does the first =
synapse fire?, how does the biological criteria for the definition of =
life apply to the interplay of intraorganism biochemical processes and =
molecular biochemical processes (macro to micro)?, How far into the =
"micro" does "life" extend?, etc.)  Anyway, you had made the point that =
your molecules get broken down and replaced so that after a decade a lot =
(probably most) of your atoms are not even the same, but have been =
replaced by different (though identical) atoms from your diet.  Does =
that make you not you?  Well, my answer to that would be:  of course =
not.  The crux of the matter is that throughout these changes, "that =
which is ineffable" (the spark of life, if you will), is maintained =
throughout all of the biochemical processes in a decade of life (and =
indeed beyond).  (Oh my, I'm talking like a documentary now. . .that's =
not good.)  The question is:  throughout Star-Trek-style transport, is =
"that which is ineffable" (the spark of life, if you will) maintained =
throughout the process?  Will the synapses begin where they left off?  =
Will h/2pi prove more consequential than one might think?

I enjoy this topic of conversation.  I hope I'm not exasperating you. . =
.I freely admit that there are concepts in the set of this topic's =
considerations that I am not completely familiar with.  However, I'm =
finding this rather stimulating.  Your thoughts?

- Danny Boy

P.S.  I'm rather hoping you have evidence to quell my fears of molecular =
transport.  As a trekkie, I'd hate to think transporter  technology is =
not physically viable. . .



------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BEA61F.43952F40
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>&gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; But you get your molecules scrambled all the =
time!&nbsp;=20
Thermal motion<BR>&gt;knocks them around and back and forth.&nbsp; =
Molecules get=20
broken down and<BR>&gt;replaced, so that after a decade a lot (probably =
most) of=20
your atoms<BR>&gt;are not even the same, but have been replaced by =
different=20
(though<BR>&gt;identical) atoms from your diet.&nbsp; Does that make you =
not=20
you?</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">True, but the graceful =
interplay of=20
matter and energy in the physical and quantum physical worlds always =
seems to=20
insure that thermal motion acts in specific, predictable ways, certainly =
never=20
interfering with the life of the whole.&nbsp; My fear is that the =
ramifications=20
of transport technology might include some unpredictable phenomena when =
it comes=20
to <EM><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">controlled</EM> =
&quot;molecular=20
scrambling,&quot; possibly interfering with the life of the=20
whole.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"><FONT=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"><FONT=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">You make the point that <EM>our =
molecules are=20
scrambled all the time</EM>.&nbsp; The molecules making up any matter =
are=20
scrambled by thermal changes for anything above absolute zero.&nbsp; =
However,=20
this never seems to cause problems (in objects &quot;living&quot; or =
non)=20
because particles follow fixed rules and are acted upon by universally=20
poetico-mathematical forces.&nbsp; We're talking about purposely =
scrambling=20
molecules, first using something that <EM>doesn't</EM> occur in the =
natural=20
interplay of matter and energy:&nbsp; <EM><FONT=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">observation</EM>.&nbsp; The fact =
that in the=20
quantum world there is no such thing as a closed system when observation =
or any=20
one- or two-way communication occurs between the macro and the =
micro.&nbsp; In=20
other words (and this is all <EM><FONT=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">very</EM> speculative on my part), I =
fear that=20
though <EM>natural</EM> thermal changes occurring in molecules is =
hunky-dory,=20
<EM>induced</EM> thermal changes as sequelae of observationally altering =
a=20
system might preclude the normal operation of that system. .=20
.</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"><FONT=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: =
#ffffff"><FONT=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: =
#ffffff"></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"><FONT=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: =
#ffffff"><FONT=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">. . .How far into the =
&quot;micro&quot; does=20
&quot;life&quot; extend, which leads me to my next concern.&nbsp; One of =
the=20
requirements for life (at least as we know it), to reach any measure of=20
evolutionary complexity is the ability to carry on biochemical =
&quot;life&quot;=20
processes in conjunction with the physical laws without compromising the =

&quot;life&quot; of the whole.&nbsp; If an amoeba cannot metabolize food =
(a=20
process in which, at the molecular level, some parts of itself are =
broken down=20
and others built up;&nbsp; catabolism and anabolism), without disrupting =
the=20
normal processes which must continually occur to preserve the life of =
the=20
organism, it will die.&nbsp; Transporting a human can be looked upon as =
an=20
extension of the normal biochemical processes that the human body must=20
continually perform, without disrupting the life of the whole, to =
survive.&nbsp;=20
It is yet another biochemical process we wish to carry out without =
harming the=20
life of the organism.&nbsp; However, <EM>might</EM> it harm the =
organism?&nbsp;=20
That which is the spark of life (which is at best ineffable), might be =
lost at=20
some point--who knows?&nbsp; (Any thoughts on this?&nbsp; My reading on=20
pioneering efforts to understand that which has been described =
throughout=20
history as the spark of life is very limited.&nbsp; Associated topics =
are:&nbsp;=20
when does the first synapse fire?, how does the biological criteria for =
the=20
definition of life apply to the interplay of intraorganism biochemical =
processes=20
and molecular biochemical processes (macro to micro)?, How far into the=20
&quot;micro&quot; does &quot;life&quot; extend?, etc.)&nbsp; Anyway, you =
had=20
made the point that <EM>your molecules get broken down and replaced so =
that=20
after a decade a lot (probably most) of your atoms are not even the =
same, but=20
have been replaced by different (though identical) atoms from your =
diet.&nbsp;=20
Does that make you not you?</EM>&nbsp; Well, my answer to that would =
be:&nbsp;=20
of course not.&nbsp; The crux of the matter is that throughout these =
changes,=20
&quot;that which is ineffable&quot; (the spark of life, if you will), is =

maintained throughout all of the biochemical processes in a decade of =
life (and=20
indeed beyond).&nbsp; (Oh my, I'm talking like a documentary now. . =
.that's not=20
good.)&nbsp; The question is:&nbsp; throughout Star-Trek-style =
transport,=20
<EM><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">is</EM> &quot;that which =
is=20
ineffable&quot; (the spark of life, if you will) maintained throughout =
the=20
process?&nbsp; Will the synapses begin where they left off?&nbsp; Will =
h/2pi=20
prove more consequential than one might=20
think?</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"><FONT=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: =
#ffffff"><FONT=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"><FONT=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: =
#ffffff"></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">I enjoy this topic of=20
conversation.&nbsp; I hope I'm not exasperating you. . .I freely admit =
that=20
there are concepts in the set of this topic's considerations that I am =
not=20
completely familiar with.&nbsp; However, I'm finding this rather=20
stimulating.&nbsp; Your thoughts?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">- Danny Boy</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">P.S.&nbsp; I'm rather =
hoping you=20
have evidence to quell my fears of molecular transport.&nbsp; As a =
trekkie, I'd=20
hate to think transporter&nbsp; technology is not physically viable. .=20
.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: =
#ffffff"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BEA61F.43952F40--