Star Trek technology is achievable

920 views so far! Wow! I hope that means we'll get a good voter turn out. Sorry about the length, but I've had to do quite a bit of editing in each round just to get my posts within the character limit.Pro accuses me making a straw man argument because of how I explained his burden, saying, "The round one premise dictates the burden, not my opponent’s objections." But my explanation is consistent with the round one premise. The transporter must have the same function as Star Trek transporters as well as their practical application. I merely explained what the practical application and function were. I haven't made any strawman argument.Let's have another look at how Pro deals with my objections.I. Disentegration and assembly problemSpeaking of strawmen, Pro quotes me as saying "It doesn't seem possible" for transporters to navigate down hallways. Then he proceeds to explain how high frequency RF waves can travel around obstacles. But the context of my statement was about physical particles, like atoms and molecules, being caused to move around obstacles without being mixed up with the air and without being attenuated.In answer to my objection about the energy that would be released of all of our mass was converted to energy, Pro said I "excluded the possibility that solid matter teleportation is possible." Isn't that interesting? He gets around the energy problem by proposing matter teleportation, but earlier he attempted to get around the problems with matter teleportation by explaining out high frequency RF waves can bounce around. Which is it? If it's RF, then he hasn't solved the matter/energy problem. If it's matter, then he hasn't solved the obstacle problem.I made a math error in my last post. I said heating 43 kg of water to 1e+27°F would require 4.6e+12 megatons of TNT, but the correct answer is 2.37e+13 megatons of TNT. My bad.Pro's response to this prohibitive amount of energy is basically that just because we haven't invented the technology yet doesn't mean we never will. This is a woefully inadequate response because the burden is on him to show that it's achievable, not just express optimism about it. I explained already why it's unachievable. It would require 744 times more energy than was released by the most poweful nuclear bomb ever detonated. And this energy must be applied to an average sized man without destroying the transporter itself because if you destroy the transporter in the process, you won't be able to send him on his way or put him back together.Pro hasn't even made an attempt in this debate to explain how it might be possible to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, so he has clearly not carried his burden of proof.II. Recording problemPro points out that one can store 811 amino acids using 5.4 kbs of storage. That's 6.66 bytes per amino acid. With that ratio, we could store 1e+27 atoms with 6.66e+27 bytes--again, a prohibitive amount. But it isn't just the number of atoms that is prohibitive. It's also all the information about the atoms, including its atomic number, isotope, location, and chemical bonds. Location alone would use up a prohibitive amount of bytes just because of the significant digits that would be required to precisely locate each tiny atom and disinguish them from every other atom.And storage isn't the only issue. There's also the processing power and physical hardware necessary to deal with that much information.There is the futher problem of actually collecting all that information from the physical body, which Pro hasn't even addressed. I gave an argument for why that is unachievable which Pro completely ignored.III. Problem of identityAgain, Pro reserves his weakest responses for the strongest argument against his view. After quoting me as explicitly saying "I am assuming materialism," and that "that is not sufficient to preserve personal identity," he then goes on to say that my view "assumes a soul by presuming that personhood is based on anything more than materialism." But I assume no such thing. I don't know if this is a blatant strawman or if Pro is really having that much trouble understanding my words, but I don't know how to make them more clear.I am not saying that personhood is based on anything more than materialism. What I am saying is that personhood cannot be preserved when you cause a person to cease to exist in one place and come into existence in another place. That will result only in creating a replica. I already explained why that would result in only creating a replica, and Pro has ignored that argument. That argument is air-tight and absolutely proves that teleportation is impossible. It is logically impossible, which is the most formiddable kind of impossibility there is. Pro expresses a lot of optimism in this debate that one day science will overcome these problems, but that's like saying science will one day achieve the technology to create square circles and married bachelors.Pro says, "His appeal to emotion was an attempt to morally 'block' teleportation." 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.ConclusionPro began this round by accusing me of making a strawman argument which was a false charge. It is ironic that in the same post, he would falsely attribute so many things to me that I didn't say or even imply. Besides the ones I've already mentioned, he also said, "Con argued that the Higgs field is impossible." And he said, "Con stated: Naturally, Science does not work in this fashion. A theory is pursued until it becomes proven impossible." I found these attributions weird since they don't come from anything I actually said.Pro really hasn't made any good arguments for why we should think teleportation is achievable. He offers nothing more than blind optimism. Basically, his argument is that since science is making progress that therefore anything is achievable. By that reasoning, we should be able to create square circles, married bachelors, and perpetual motion machines. We should be able to go back in time and kill our grandfathers. No, I submit that more argument is needed, but since we are coming to the last round, I don't think we shall see it.