Search This Blog

Saturday, 26 September 2015

Logicular Replication A Moral Quandary

Logicular Replication
A Moral Quandary

By
Alexander Gordon Jahans

If you could find someone and replicate them to fulfill whatever needs or wants you had and they consented, would you do it?

That is the question that vexes me. In my head it's said by the Doctor, as if to Davros. Because I genuinely don't know what my answer would be.

I want to say yes. This seems like the key to solve untold fantasies and ills and I almost think I can justify it morally.

Except it seems too tempting. It seems like a trap. Strike me down will all your anger. Luke, let the anger flow through you. I don't want to jump off a slippery slope and right now it's getting a little hard to keep my footing.

The case for:

What is Logicular Replication?

Well basically it's what happens if you turn teleportation into replication. And I'm not talking Star Trek.

Star Trek style teleportation is impossible because Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that the act of measuring changes what you're measuring. That all things at the subatomic scale exist as a wave of probability that collapse into a particular state when measured. 

The absurdity of this notion is what Schrodinger mocked when he said that under the laws of quantum mechanics if you put a cat in a sealed container with some poison gas that would be released on the detection of a particular subatomic particle until you opened the box the cat would be both alive and dead. 

One of the counters to Schrodinger's Cat is the idea that all states of all wave forms exist somewhere, taking the measurement doesn't collapse the wave form, rather it dictates or indicates what reality we live in. This fundamental idea is one of the foundations for my multiverse. This is bedrock quantum physics.

There is however a way around Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle called Quantum Entanglement and it is a provably observable phenomenon. Basically Quantum Entanglement twins subatomic particles together, thus when you take one measurement from a particle, you can take the other measurement from the twinned particle and this data can then be used to replicate the first subatomic particle esewhere in a process known as Quantum Teleportation. Quantum Teleportation on the subatomic scale a readily observable reality thanks to modern science. There may yet be certain structural and physical factors preventing this from being scaled up and indeed there are entire schools of science dedicated to explaining why the science of Quantum Mechanics can or can't be incorporated with wider macroscopic physics.

You see the potential though, certainly other scientists have, what if you could Star Trek teleport people using Quantum Teleportation? 

Well on the one hand you would die and a clone of you would be created but on the other hand it's just grandad's spade taken to the nth degree. Instead of replacing the head and shaft, or individual cells, every few years, you replace them in a single instant. Is it still the same spade or did it stop being the same spade? 

Because we are grandad's spade. We are all slowly dying and being replaced with exact copies, it just happens so slowly and at such a small scale that we don't notice. Thus there is a very compelling case for the idea that Star Trek style teleportation is perfectly fine. The problems only occur when the original isn't destroyed in the scanning process. Which brings us neatly to Logicular Replication.

Logicular Replication is a fantasy. It is impossible within our world. Probably. 

Logicular Replication uses the magic science of my multiverse to take a quantum teleportation style scan of a subject without destroying them. This data is then saved and used to mass produce the quantum teleportation data clones. And this is where it gets interesting.

Under the ethics of Quantum Teleportation the data clones are literally the same as the subject. Just grandad's spade to the nth degree.

So imagine you're a Farsh-nuke or a Bam-Kursh or a Logicio and you want to find a person and mass produce them for lust, profit or humanitarian reasons. You're a charismatic intelligent person and you can search the entire multiverse for a near infinite amount of time until you find the one person who will fit your plans and consent to them?

Well Grandad's spade to the nth degree is literally the same person as that needle in a haystack who consented.

Physically this factory of data clones is literally, in terms of quantum teleportation, the same as the one that consented. Morally there's hypothetically nothing wrong because they consented and you can of course set up support networks to protect the rights of the data clones should they wish to use them. Pragmatically it might make a lot of sense to say replicate the best worker in a particular area.

The case against:

Can something really consent if it is made to consent? If you logularly replicate someone who consents you are artificially creating life forms that are preprogrammed to consent. Albeit by the choices someone quantum teleportation might regard as their own selves. 

You see this idea is dangerously seductive because there is all this evidence and reasoning to say that it's totally cool but it is still ultimately inherently exploitative so perhaps a better question to ask is:

Is exploitation okay if enthusiastic consent is practised?

Let's go back to the Star Trek example if Kirk beams down to a planet then beams back, is the data clone of Kirk that arrives back on the Enterprise able to consent to the 9am meeting with his officers that earlier Kirk consented to.

Heck lets go back to the grandad's spade analogy. Our bone cells are completely replaced every ten years and they take the longest to replace so can you be expected to consent to something you consented ten or more years ago? After all you are a different spade, a different data clone, a different you.  

At what point does existential replacement mean that consent is no longer consent?

If Kirk promises to meet up for a date with someone and his data clone steps off the transporter pad and gives enthusiastic consent is that rape? 

Heck if you were to logicularly replicate Kirk and drop the data clones about various places designed to attract his amorous advances are those Kirk's able to consent despite initiating the action? After all they're only following biological preprogramming that they didn't dictate or have a say in. 

I honestly don't know the answers so thank fuck that most of this stuff is currently impossible.