Yes, Frist is right and Maher is wrong. I know, I had to watch it twice!

Bad Astonomer, Phil Plait discusses the video here, and there’s more about Maher and his crazy beliefs here.

If you don’t watch Dollhouse, the above explanation probably makes little or no sense to you, but the discussion we had on the radio quickly went beyond the episode’s plot and became a discussion about the nature of identity w/r/t the SF concept of teleportation. (If you’re curious, this discussion takes place in the last 1/2 hour of the two-hour episode.) Here’s the 50 cent tour…

Suppose someone invents a teleportation device (like the transporter from Star Trek). Bob steps into little teleportation booth in New York, there’s a flash of light as the precise position and orientation of every cell, molecule, atom and quark in Bob’s body is scanned and that information is “beamed” at the speed of light to a similar booth in Paris, where a machine, using some local material, reassembles an exact replica — down to the subatomic structure — of Bob. This perfect replica of Bob (who literally is Bob is every measurable respect) then steps out of the booth and from Bob’s subjective experience, he stepped into a booth in New York and stepped out an instant later in Paris.

Great! The problem is: what happens to the “Bob” that stepped into the machine in New York? His atomic structure was scanned so his body could be replicated in Paris, but all of the material that made up the Bob that stepped into the machine in New York is still there, standing in the booth, wondering what he’s going to eat for dinner in Paris. He is still there, that is, unless the teleportation process kills him.

In science fiction movies and TV shows, at the moment of teleportation, the starship captain dematerializes in one place and rematerializes in a new place, as though her atoms were being physically moved from one spot to another. But from chemistry we know that a carbon atom is a carbon atom is a carbon atom — the physical constituent matter that makes us up isn’t anything special — it’s the arrangement of that matter that makes us live, breathe and think as conscious beings. So to build a working teleportation machine, all you really need to do is scan the precise positions of each particle of material and reassemble those bits in the right order in the destination spot using whatever materials are present at the new location (assuming all the right constituent elements are present in sufficient quantities).

So that means that at the moment of “dematerialization,” what’s really happening is that the starship captain’s atoms are being destroyed — she’s being killed by the teleporter — and a new identical version of her is appearing on the planet’s surface. From the perspective of the now planetside captain, everything is hunky dory — one second she was on the transporter pad and the next second she was standing on the planet’s surface. But what about the perspective of the woman who stepped onto the transporter pad and was annihilated? Did she show up on the planet’s surface? Are there two separate consciousnesses or just one? Can she choose to not have her original body destroyed, thereby yielding two distinct people? Should she?

This is only scratching the surface of the implications of such a technology. There’s a bit of a comments thread going on at the PSFR post. For the record, despite not believing in anything like a “soul” and being aware of the fact that my consciousness is merely the result of the collection of physical stuff that is me, I am deeply troubled by this thought experiment and I, for one, would never choose to step into such a teleportation device, not knowing whether “I” would be the copy that stepped out of the booth in Paris or the original that gets destroyed in New York. The commenters at the PSFR blog so far agree with me, but on the show on Sunday Steve and Emily did not. They were just fine with the simultaneous annihilation and creation of themselves in the teleporters.

What do you think? Would you let yourself be “transported” in such a fashion?

For other takes on this problem see…

• The Ship of Theseus paradox
• Four Reasons Why “You” Don’t Exist
• The Emperor’s New Mind by Roger Penrose
• The Prestige

With thanks again for writing, with admiration, and with every good wish–Daniel Mark Fogel, President, The University of Vermont

The good professor replies…

Dear President Fogel

Richard Dawkins

I think President Fogel should now invite professor Dawkins to give the commencement address instead. Who’s with me?

First, there is an actual fight that is being waged, though it’s not against Christmas, per se, but against attempts by certain religious folks in this country to blur the line that separates church and state. The establishment clause (not to be confused with the Santa Claus) in the US Constitution has traditionally been interpreted to mean that public institutions (like public schools, government offices, post offices, police stations, etc.) cannot favor one particular religion over others. Still, occasionally a local public school or fire house somewhere will put up a Christmas tree or a nativity scene, thereby celebrating a Christian holiday, and non-Christian members of that community will (rightly) point out that, legally, public institutions ought not show that sort of religious preference. So up goes a menorah or an atheist plaque and that gets some Christians bent out of shape. Never mind that they could put their tree or nativity scene two blocks down the road at the local church and avoid a Constitutional crisis, some Christians feel entitled to force their special day down everyone’s throats in spheres both private and public.

There’s a second, more subtle dynamic going on too, however, that adds to the war-on-Christmas meme. It’s the decision on the part of many people (and organizations) to opt for “happy holidays” when wishing good cheer to others in December, rather than choosing to reference a specific holiday (like “merry Christmas”), and thereby presuming the well-wishee’s religious affiliation. This has nothing at all to do with the separation of church and state or some edict from on high demoting the status of Christmas in America. Rather, it stems from people not being assholes, generally. I could, for instance, go around telling everyone I saw on the street or in the supermarket or at the bank “have a nice day off from work, even though we all know there is no God!” but that would be wildly presumptuous of me. If I knew it was a presumptuous thing to do and chose to do it anyway, I would be kind of an asshole. Most people aren’t assholes, hence, we hear a lot of “happy holidays” out there. Stores in particular like this phrase because they have no reason to offend their non-Christian customers.

For the record, I actually think this line of reasoning is flawed, however well-meaning it is. The United States has a secular government (despite what the fundies say) and it celebrates “Christmas” on December 25th as a national holiday. We all get it off from work, regardless of our religion. The banks and post offices are closed. In this respect, saying “merry Christmas” is no different from wishing someone a happy Thanksgiving. As an atheist, I am utterly unoffended when someone says “merry Christmas” to me, and I suspect the same is true for most non-Christians. I would likewise be unoffended if someone wished me a happy Hanukkah or Kwanza or Festivus (for the rest of us) or whatever. I just don’t think an actual problem exists of people getting offended by holiday cheer… except for those who are offended by the phrase “happy holidays,” and those people are just crazy and should be mocked.

So this “war on Christmas” that Bill O’Reilly and his cohorts rail against stems from an idiotic conflation of these two distinct phenomena — public buildings belonging to everyone, not just the Christians, and a majority of people and businesses not being assholes. The two things are separate and not part of some larger conspiracy to demote the value of “Christmas” in our culture. To think otherwise is to be a numb-skull.

It’s interesting that I have never actually met a person who thinks there is a concerted “war on Christmas.” I think those people are only on TV.

And with that, I leave you with this video collage that I put together a few years ago, featuring Charles Dead or Alive performing The Nutcracker Suite.

Merry Christmas.

Charles Dead or Alive, The Nutcracker Suite from Bill Simmon on Vimeo.

Heh.

See also this Adam Sandler-esque atheist holiday song.