Star Trek technology is achievable

Final Rebuttals Con remarked that the round one burden requires real world transporters to be an exact match of the Star Trek version. He cited the round one statement which states that the “function of the technology could be duplicated in the real world, including it's practical application.” I understand that my opponent will persist on this position to the end, so I appeal to the voter to review the burden in context. You see, the burden also states the technology is reasonably achievable. It should go without saying, that the technology must function within reason in order to be reasonable. Hence, it would not be my burden to provide a mechanism for an inherently fictional processes. On the topic of burden, I wish to conclude the following: I had the burden of proving that transportation is practically possible. I had the burden of overcoming certain intrinsic mechanical obstacles. To satisfy my burden I provided the following: Two varied theories by respected Researchers on possible transportation mechanisms. The theory of Quantum Entanglement and the Higgs field manipulation theory are both good candidates for the technology. I overcame the problem of identity by showing the separation between the physical ability to teleport and the philosophical moral implications of it's practice. Indeed, the problem of identity does not relate the ability to teleport, but merely to the ability of the transported object to be considered metaphysically “self”. Anatomy, physiology, biology, memory, character and sense of self are retained. We are concerned with quantum mechanics, not deep, meaningful discussions on ethics. I overcame the problem of recording by demonstrating that a computer converts information to bits, which are stored as text. The data occupies mere kilobytes. My opponent argued that the amount of information is still to great, but that ignored my Quantum Processor argument which clearly explains that Quantum PCs are able to read/write 250 qubits per second, which is “more than every atom in the universe.” Obviously the problem is overcome, since we are dealing only with the atoms in the human body. Any appeal to the “monumental amount of information” simply seeks to exaggerate the data and undermine Computer technology. My opponent also objected that I did not argue how the human body could be scanned. Conveniently, he objected to this at the end of round four, hoping I would be trapped in my final round with a dropped argument. First off, the argument is not dropped if it was never brought up. If my opponent does not object to an atomic scanner, then it is assumed that there is no conflict. Fortunately, the rules do not bar me from addressing the objection, since it was brought up in round four. I would like to share a final source, which my opponent can attempt to refute in his final round. I would like to make a note about the poor conduct of final round objections. If we debate again in the future, please allow more room for rebuttals.Consider the article by the American Physical Society which presented the data for an atomic scan of a crystalline surface structure. [1] The Source originated in 1990. The source is quoted as stating:”High-resolution scanning tunneling microscopy data on the reconstructed Au(111) surface are presented that give a comprehensive picture of the atomic structure, the long-range ordering, and the interaction between reconstruction and surface defects in the reconstructed surface. “ We've been able to scan at atomic levels for over two decades. I overcame the problem of disintegration. My opponent remarks that my argument of RF wave propagation is insufficient. He obviously lost track of how the technology functions. Quantum entanglement deals with twin pairs of atomic structures. The physical mass does not travel around the corner. The photon packets do. The physical mass is manipulated at the distant end. It would appear that my opponent believes that the atoms are just “launched” at their target without riding on a medium. That is why I appealed to radio theory, because information is heterodyned (mixed) on a radio frequency wave before it is transmitted. Radio's don't receive soundwaves. They receive RF waves. The sound needs to me “mixed” with the RF, in order for a Radio to receive it.Naturally, teleportation would require the same. No antenna could pick up a “matter signal”. The physical properties must be “mixed” onto a carrier wave and then demodulated. That's what quantum entanglement is. Particle “As” information is sent via photon packets to Particle “B”, which now takes on the exact properties of particle A. That's how I can transport around corners. That's also how you can send a radio message from New York to Italy.Con stated: “What the what??? I fail to see how my argument from identity is an appeal to emotion. I have no idea where this came from.”Rebuttal: The problem of identity does not prohibit the function of a transporter. It raises ethical problems, such as:” Is the original human dead and is the transported Human different somehow?” That is not an objection to mechanics. That's an appeal to ethics, which is an emotional appeal. It does not pertain to quantum entanglement theory.Let's assume I take 20 atoms out of my brain, and I replace them with 20 other, equal atoms. They are arranged the same way, occupy the same space and provide the same function. Did I become a different person? If not, why would a transported person suffer from the problem of identity? Does this premise only govern Macro constructs? If so, then the premise suffers from infinite regression. My opponent seeks to overcome an issue of technology through the method of philosophy. Fail. Conclusion My opponent is arguing:” Because it hasn't been invented and therefore never will.” The irony is that he accuses me of blind optimism, while he persists in blind pessimism. Dear voters, teleportation is a reality. The technology is not a theory, it's in stages of practical application. My opponent cannot argue against it. The evidence speaks for itself. At best, my opponent could hope to argue it's limitations, but he chose instead to argue against the whole premise of teleportation. He insisted that the problem of identity is pervasive, while real scientific study produced real teleportation. Identity was not a problem when the Germans teleported a photon packet over 143 kilometers. Identity was not a problem when the same team teleported Rubidium across 5 meters of free space on a spin weave photon packet. It would be the equivalent of calling the earth flat while standing in front of a NASA image of the planet. We are not dealing with paradox, like a "married bachelor" or a "Sqaure Circle." We are dealing with observable, practical science. As a final note, here is a list of dropped arguments: Quantum tunneling (Dropped in round 4) Problem of identity relates to metaphysics, not temporal mechanics (Never addressed) Matter does not need to be converted to energy (Never addressed) Massive research efforts to further practical applications (Never addressed) Krauss' argument for the Higgs field problem. (Dropped in round 4) The Law of thermodynamics dictating the equal proportion of transported mass. (Never addressed) I thank the voter for their patience. I strongly urge a vote for Pro. I have established my burden on practical evidence and field expert testimony. I have addressed every objection and labored to see my burden satisfied. My opponent has failed to provide sufficient reason to disprove teleportation. Additionally, his collection of dropped arguments and concessions make for an easy vote: Vote Pro. http://prb.aps.org...; [1]