OK, once and for all time…
In Star Trek, does the transporter kill the subject and create an exact facsimile at the destination? Or is the subject actually physically transported by having his atoms disassembled and then the same atoms reassembled at the destination?
I’m not a fan as such, so I don’t know but my intuition tells me that an exact facsimile wouldn’t have the same personality as the original.
We just had this debate a couple of months ago:
No, they’re physically phased into a different dimension and a force (?)beam moves them to the destination where they re-integrate into our plane again.
Remember the episode where Barkley grabbed hold of the crewmen trapped in the transference beam? Couldn’t do that if he was disassembled.
And talk about the person’s pattern is just a way of tracking individuals. 
If you really mean specifically Star Trek, I think the canon answer is that you aren’t destroyed but merely transformed, relocated, and reassembled. But how the transporters work depend heavily on the needs of the plot. We’ve seen evidence that you are conscious through the process, like when characters have been trapped in the middle of the process, like Barclay and Scotty. On the other hand, sometimes the transporter seems to recreate the characters, like when it reassembled Picard from a back up, split Riker and Kirk in two, combined Tuvok and Neelix, or turned crew into children. Also, components such as weapons, diseases, phaser fire, momentum, and even the position of the person have been modified mid transport.
Given that they have replicators it would seem pretty easy to duplicate lifeforms but for plot reasons they have said that this is impossible, that replicators only reassemble molecular states, and the transporters are the only technology which can deal with energy and quantum states for high fidelity issues of keeping something alive, and therefore it is just storing a pattern and moving it, rather than destroying and recreating it.
If you mean a more general philosophical sense, see Ship of Theseus.
I will go out on a limb here and predict that this will NOT be the “once and for all time” version of this debate. The question is, is each of these the same debate just continued or are they different debates with their own identities? Does the fact that this is a new thread make this a new debate or is identity conserved …? 
If it’s canon that the subject is not destroyed and recreated, and that the individual or object at the destination is not a facsimile but the actual individual or object, then I’ll accept that as the answer to my question. How it works isn’t important, since that depends on the needs of the plot. I just wanted to know, ‘Is it live? Or is it Memorex?’
Why Star Trek transporter technology would never work in the real world or even in the Star Trek world:
Let’s start off by thinking about the food replicator. The technology is similar to transporter technology. In the food replicator, matter in the form of atoms and molecules are rearranged using a pattern in order to produce an item of food. For example, if you say “ribeye steak,” the replicator will look in its memory banks for the pattern for “ribeye steak.” Then it will take the necessary atoms and molecules to form a ribeye steak. It will take carbon, oxygen, hydrogen atoms, etc. all the building blocks of that steak and then put them together in the right order to make a steak. It may even just convert energy into the constituent subatomic particles first, then make the atoms, then make the molecules, then produce the steak.
But here’s the key thing. That steak never came from a cow. It didn’t exist before you ordered it. It’s taking the basic building blocks of matter and manipulating them to make something you want. It’s similar to taking Legos and using a pattern to build a house. The house was just a jumble of Legos until you built them into a house. My point is that the replicator uses energy to create things that didn’t originally exist.
Let’s put that aside for now.
Let’s say you’re unconscious and I want to bring you next door to my neighbor’s house. You’re hard to transport, so I cut you into two pieces right through your midsection. Do you think you’d survive the process? Do you think I could put you back together and you’d be alive when you got to the neighbor’s house? What if I cut you into 4 pieces? What if I separated you into 1,000 pieces? Or 100 quadrillion?
So, the transporter, supposedly breaks you down into your constituent subatomic particles, then converts them into energy and then beams them somewhere else. Why, if you cannot be separated into 2 pieces and survive do you think you’d be able to survive being separated into trillions upon trillions of pieces?
Let’s go back to the Lego’s example. Let’s say you have a Lego house. Then you take that house apart and put the Legos into their individual pieces. Do you have a house? No, you have a pile of building blocks.Then you use a pattern and make the house over again. Difference is, houses aren’t alive. Neither are building blocks. Neither are individual atoms and subatomic particles and energy.
What if I took all the carbon atoms out of your body, along with all the other atoms and piled them on a table, would that pile be alive? No. What if I took those atoms and then turned them into pure energy, would that energy be alive? And if so, would it have your personality?
Here’s the sober reality of Star Trek transporter technology: A machine scans you and makes a pattern from all the atoms and particles in your body. Then it separates all the particles, in effect KILLING YOU, turns those particles into energy that is then beamed somewhere else. Then, using the pattern created earlier, the basic building blocks of matter (which are not alive) are then reformed into a replica of you which was never alive before the atoms were put together (just like the ribeye in the first example).
Simple version: You—You broken into building blocks: killing you—Building blocks used to make copy of you from your pattern.
The reality is that you die and a copy is made. There isnothing magic to keep you alive when you are separated into trillions of pieces.
Here is the other horror: This means that in the Star Trek universe, anyone who has ever used a transporter is dead and a copy of them is running around thinking they are the original person (or the last copy that went through a transporter.) Apparently, the transporters are so good at scanning that it knows the properties of all the particles so that the copy has the memories of the original. So, there is no way to tell them that the process is killing them. Why? Because the people who would know are dead!
Example: Let’s say James Kirk is born, then grows up to become Captain. Then he steps into a transporter. His body is turned into building blocks thus killing him and then a copy of him comes out the other transporter pad. The copy has all the properties/memories he had and doesn’t realize he’s not the original. The original can’t say anything because he died when he was torn apart. Then, the copy goes through a transporter and he gets killed when he is torn apart and a copy is made again, and so on and so on. Depending on how many times someone went through a transporter they could behundreds of generations away from the dead original.
Sorry, but you just can’t get around the fact that when you are turned into space dust and energy, you will be dead.
Oh c’mon, that’s just silly Shawn.
The premise is that the same exact atoms and energy flows (and the presumption is that any one carbon atom is the exactly the same as any other) swirling around and bound up to each other in the same exact patterns relative to each other are created on the other side.
The debate, the never ending debate, is whether identity is preserved if the exact dyamic pattern experiences continuity.
Age old as seen in the Ship of Theseus debate.
Modernized by the physics conceit that each of our most basic particles is flickering in and out of existence all the time. Perhaps there is a Planck-second that everything blinks out within and is recreated after. Would that imply that we die and are reborn everytime?
FTW 
It’s canon that most people think that the subject is not destroyed, but others believe that the subject is killed and “reincarnated” and avoid using transporters. In at least one episode or movie, McCoy shows this distrust. Obviously his reluctance doesn’t last, because of course, he’s transported down to the planet many times to say “It’s dead, Jim.”
You’re entitled to your opinion, but simply stating that it’s so isn’t very convincing. If you’re interested in the subject, read the other thread. It gets pretty metaphysical. The answer depends on what you consider identity, as well as the makeup of consciousness.
Intelligent and well-informed people can disagree on the subject.
As for whether there is any basis in reality, it’s not important. Suspension of disbelief, and all that. On I Dream Of Jeannie or Bewitched, people could be moved from one place to another by crossing the arms and nodding, or by twitching the nose. It’s called ‘magic’ or ‘witchcraft’, and that’s enough. In Star Trek it’s called technology. This leaves it open for nitpicking, but it’s still just a device used in a fictional piece of entertainment.
I just wanted to be sure that, in the context of the show, the actual individual or object was transported; and not that they were facsimiles like in Rogue Moon. It’s what I’ve always assumed; but I appreciate the canon answers.
The best answer is “both.” I believe it is fair to say that while the person’s atoms are disassembled that person ceases to exist (temporarily dead) until they are reassembled. There was at least one ST episode where a person’s atoms had been disassembled and stored in the pattern buffer for years on an abandoned ship before discovered and reassembled. During the time the person’s atoms were in the pattern buffer, to the world that person no longer existed (dead) and would have remained that way if nobody ever discovered him in the pattern buffer.
This leads us to an interesting dilemma. What happens to the soul during the process? Currently, we have no physical proof that a soul exists. But what if?
That’s how it all falls out. Some people believe one thing, others believe differently. There isn’t an actual transporter for us to experiment with, so no scientific answer is possible. It comes down to your opinions about the philosophical nature of identity.
Anyone who says, with entire dogmatism, “It has to be this way, and cannot be any other way” is full of beans. Any sensible Star Trek fan – or amateur philosopher – can argue either way on this issue.
(FWIW, Arthur C. Clarke held that teleportation is just another mode of transportation.)
Didn’t we just do this?
one of the reasons why this keeps coming up is, even with an actual teleporter to experiment with, no scientific answer is possible.
The transporters save the production company the expensive shots of the ship landing and taking off.
That’s what they do.
Oh, crap, it’s a duplicator, not a transporter!
:eek:
There’s a debate about this in James Blish’s novel Spock Must Die: McCoy contends that the first time they put someone through the transporter, they’re committing murder, since the original is destroyed. Scotty counters by saying that the person rematerialized is identical to the original. McCoy wonders if they are the same, or do they just think they’re the same? Scotty replies “A difference that makes no difference is no difference!” Somewhat oddly, this becomes known as “McCoy’s Paradox,” and it drives the rest of the story.
One of the deeper moral lessons of Star Trek is: while you should always listen carefully to Dr. McCoy, you should always do what Mr. Spock advises.
(This doesn’t apply to Jim Kirk: he does whatever he wants, and it’s always right!)