First of all this was a great movie. Question. If Angier is the one under the electricity wouldn't he also be the one that fell in the tank to die. I mean I'm confused how he disappeared and ended up at the top if the theater behind the audience. When he was practicing the clone was the one in the different spot.
shareThere is no "clone". The word "clone" is never used in the movie. The Tesla Machine is a duplicator. What it does is branch one individual into two (separate but identical) individuals. One Angier stays inside the machine, and one Angier is teleported to a different place. Both Angiers after the duplication are equally (a continuation of) the original Angier. (However, they are independent of eachother; they are not sharing one consciousness; Angier's consciousness was branched into two separate consciousnesses too.)
In other words, what the machine does with Angier (or anything that's placed inside), is teleport and not-teleport him at the same time.
See also my posts in this thread: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482571/board/thread/245763414.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
Thank yu
shareLOL, I see what you did there. You're welcome.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
"There is no "clone"."
Yes, there is, either one or two (depending on whether the original is destroyed or not).
"The word "clone" is never used in the movie."
So?
"The Tesla Machine is a duplicator."
Yes, a duplicate is the same thing as a clone.
"What it does is branch one individual into two (separate but identical) individuals."
A separate individual who is identical to another individual is a clone by definition.
"One Angier stays inside the machine, and one Angier is teleported to a different place. Both Angiers after the duplication are equally (a continuation of) the original Angier. (However, they are independent of eachother; they are not sharing one consciousness; Angier's consciousness was branched into two separate consciousnesses too.)"
So? Only one of them is older than a second, a second after the device does its thing, which makes him the new clone (or in the case of the original being destroyed, there are two new, very young clones).
"In other words, what the machine does with Angier (or anything that's placed inside), is teleport and not-teleport him at the same time."
No. It either makes a clone and does nothing to the original or it destroys the original and makes two clones. There are no other options.
Btw..a clone and a duplicate are the same thing.
He is a clone. The Angier who appears elsewhere is the clone....because it appears out of nowhere.
The original drowns. The clone is identical and becomes the new Angier
No.
No.
And no.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
It creates a duplicate in another location.
The original (cat, hat, man) doesn't move.
Best unknown feature at IMDB.com
http://www.imdb.com/features/video/browse/
No, the machine duplicates by teleporting and not-teleporting at the same time. I already wrote that in my reply to the OP. Nowhere in the movie is there any mention (nor insinuation) of "creation of a (non-original) duplicate".
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
How is a duplicate different from a clone? They are separate entities with separate consciousnesses. It simply clones him at a different point in space. Cloning does not imply destruction of the original, teleporting does.
shareCloning implies there is an original and a copy. In the movie it is never stated that any Angier is "less original" than another. The machine duplicates Angier, and both Angiers are equally original: "they are all your hat, Mr. Angier".
shareBut there is an original and a copy. The copy comes into existence, and has not existed before that. One has existed before the other, hence the original. They are all exact copies of one another, but they can not literally be the same thing, as in literally made up of the same matter.
The only way for that to be possible (what I think you are saying, that they are literally the same matter) is if the original was teleported in the literal sense of the word, that is his matter was deconstructed and moved to a different point in space then reconstructed, or his matter was destroyed, turned into energy, then used to reconstruct himself out of different matter but have that matter assume all of the same quantum states as the original. The different matter can not possibly assume all the same exact quantum states at the original as long as the original still exits, quantum mechanics forbids it. So they are fundamentally different in that sense, aka a clone.
I know, it's just scifi. But in the context of our reality, if it was real, it would simply be instantaneous cloning.
How is a duplicate different from a clone?What mcp-69798 said. I also already explained it in the link that I included in my reply to the OP. The words "duplicate" and "clone" are not synonyms.
They are separate entities with separate consciousnesses.Yes, they indeed are. I already wrote that, multiple times. Such as in my reply to the OP. And in the thread that I linked to, in my reply to the OP.
It simply clones him at a different point in space.No. Tesla was trying to build a teleporter, not a cloning machine. You're bringing preconceived notions to your viewing of the movie that actually don't apply here.
Cloning does not imply destruction of the original, teleporting does.Huh, what?!
A clone is synonymous with a duplicate, but when talking about a living organism clone is more accurate however. Explain the difference if you think this to be untrue.
Doesn't matter what Tesla was trying to build, he built a cloning machine.
And yes, teleporting means destruction of the original, otherwise it is simply not teleporting. To teleport is to move something across time and space instantaneously. If nothing is moved then nothing is teleported. What the machine does is simply to use it's energy to recreate an exact clone (duplicate, replica, whatever) of whatever is in the machine at a different point in space. The original is not moved, hence no teleportation has occurred.
A clone is synonymous with a duplicate, but when talking about a living organism clone is more accurate however. Explain the difference if you think this to be untrue.- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482571/board/nest/245763414?d=245782342#245782342
Doesn't matter what Tesla was trying to build, he built a cloning machine.Of course it matters. Unless you want to force the false idea that Tesla somehow, by sheer coincidence, built a cloning machine even though that's not what Angier requested from him.
And yes, teleporting means destruction of the original, otherwise it is simply not teleporting. To teleport is to move something across time and space instantaneously. If nothing is moved then nothing is teleported."Nothing is moved" does not apply here. You're merely stubbornly holding on to popular conceptions of how a teleporter would work. But those popular conceptions don't preclude that a sci-fi writer could invent and apply a new (fictitious) idea, based on something totally different that you simply don't grasp.
What the machine does is simply to use it's energy to recreate an exact clone (duplicate, replica, whatever) of whatever is in the machine at a different point in space. The original is not moved, hence no teleportation has occurred.Nonsense, there's nothing in the movie to support that claim. You don't know how the machine in the movie works.
If you'd bother to look up the definition of words instead of just inventing some random definition yourself, you'd know clones and duplicates are synonyms. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clone
Movies don't kill people. People kill people
If you'd bother to look up the definition of words instead of just inventing some random definition yourself, you'd know clones and duplicates are synonyms. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cloneIf you'd bothered to put in some effort and turn your brain on, then you would have understood the issue and what I meant by "presupposes a hierarchy", and then you wouldn't have made a fool out of yourself by blindly quoting some online source without realizing what it actually says.
If you'd know how to use a dictionary, you'd see that yes, "duplicate" is listed as a synonym for "clone". But wait I'll copy and paste the relevant part:
Related to clone
Synonyms
copy, copycat, duplicate, imitate, reduplicate, render, replicate, reproduce
If you'd know how to use a dictionary, you'd see that yes, "duplicate" is listed as a synonym for "clone". But wait I'll copy and paste the relevant part:Those are verbs, not nouns. Nice try though. Try again (at learning how to use a dictionary).
Related to clone
Synonyms
copy, copycat, duplicate, imitate, reduplicate, render, replicate, reproduce
And I know, it's quite incredible, but words can have multiple meanings, sometimes even wildly varied so. And "duplicate" is listed as a synonym for one of the meanings of "clone", not all. Isn't language amazing?And your point is?
So, yes, Algier's doubles can definitely be called clones. Whether you get your knickers in a twist or not.And you still don't (can't? won't?) understand why I am on the fence for avoiding the term clone when speaking about this movie. You're only interested in bashing my post. Because you have nothing else to contribute.
duplicates by teleporting and not-teleporting
Like I said, the original doesn't move.The non-teleported hat doesn't move. Bravo. That's what non-teleported means. Nobody in the movie ever said "the original didn't move".
The copy is created at a different location.The teleported hat moved from inside the machine to someplace outside the machine. It wasn't "created".
the copy is just that, an identical copy.Both copies, which is to say the teleported one and the non-teleported one, are identical copies of eachother. Just like how two copies of "Moby Dick" sitting on the shelf at a bookstore can be identical copies of eachother: neither of the two is more original or less original than the other.
"They are all your hat, Mr. Angier."I have no idea why you are quoting that quote. Tesla says that line because Angier asked for his original hat. Tesla's answer effectively means that every one of those hats is Angier's original hat.
The teleported hat moved from inside the machine to someplace outside the machine. It wasn't "created".
kanglar_tdk
The only thing that "moved" was the information and energy needed to assemble an identical hat in a different location. Two things can not be literally made up of the same matter, that is obviously impossible. I know it's scifi, but still not even in scifi can two things be literally the same thing. That just makes no logical sense.
That just makes no logical sense.It doesn't need to make "logical" sense in our real world. It's been achieved by science and technology that follows logical rules that you are not aware of because it is so advanced that we have nothing like it (yet) in our real-life world (and possibly we never will). If it made logical sense, then Tesla in the movie wouldn't be an extraordinary "wizard", he'd be just an engineer who's slightly ahead of his peers, and you would be able to build/develop the same machine with the tools and technology of today - but that's not what the screenwriters were aiming at. The screenwriters were obviously presenting their Tesla as an extraordinary person whose genius is above that of any mortal being, even by today's standards.
I have no idea why you are quoting that
Bravo
I'm a little confused myself. Tesla's line is regularly cited as evidence that there isn't an "original" and a "copy" and that they are both equally Angier. How does that line support the opposite conclusion?I have no idea why you are quoting thatBecause you seem confused. I thought it would help you understand.
[chuckle] You've chosen exactly the wrong person to relieve your confusion.
In the movie, there's no such evidence. The idea comes from real life experience where every possible analogy(*) - using a fax machine to create a copy, cloning a living being from DNA, reassembling teleported body after sending its info in Star Trek - deals with having an original and recreating a copy somewhere else. People just can't accept that the familiar pattern they're used to isn't applicable in this case.
(*) the counter-example of cell mitosis is usually conveniently forgotten.
__________________________________
Oh my god! They killed Angier!
YOU BASTARDS!!!
they are both equally Angier.
Can you point to one scene
You mean a second scene?I'm confused. I must have missed the first scene you mentioned.
"I'm confused"
>Tesla's Machine does not work like a photocopier machine.
Haha, you wrote in the other post yourself
>You don't know how the machine in the movie works.
Nobody does. I.e. it might as well be a photocopier. Stop pretending as if you're channeling the Nolan's or something.
Movies don't kill people. People kill people
>Tesla's Machine does not work like a photocopier machine.According to your logic, Tesla's Machine might as well be a milkshake mixer.
Haha, you wrote in the other post yourself
>You don't know how the machine in the movie works.
Nobody does. I.e. it might as well be a photocopier. Stop pretending as if you're channeling the Nolan's or something.
Tesla's Machine is not a photocopier because when Angier asked "Which hat is mine?", he didn't answer "This one is your original hat; the others are copies/clones." Instead, Tesla answered: "They are all your hat, Mr. Angier."
So is that user not also pretending as if he's "channeling the Nolan's [sic] or something"?
So far, the view that I'm holding is the only one that is supported by evidence in the movie
He might as well be lying, or meaning it poetically or whatever.What a nonsense argument. There's no reason to assume that Tesla didn't literally mean what he said. Next you'll be saying that the Bordens were duplicates created by Tesla too; who cares whatever Borden wrote in his notebook, right?
There's no explanation or hint in the movie that points at teleportation or copying whatsoever.No hint at teleportation whatsoever?
We just don't know how the machine functions, except what the result is: you put one in and two get out. Now, this clearly triggers your imagination, but any other person will look at that as copying.The idea that it's "copying" is a preconceived notion, a presupposition, fueled by improper (use of) terminology such as "clone". The idea that it's "duplication (you put one in and two get out)" is not. Hence why it's important to avoid clone and use duplicate. When you hear hoofbeats, don't assume zebras (but think "some type of horses").
No, he's trying to explain to you that even though you think you know how the machine works, you don't. There are other possibilities.No, he wasn't. He was arguing in favour of one particular explanation of how the Tesla Machine works and trying to convince others of that one explanation (look up his other messages that he posted on this board around the same time). An explanation that doesn't work and that is refuted by evidence in the movie. (But you haven't seen his other posts, you just arrived late to the party, so you don't know what you're talking about.)
"So far, the view that I'm holding is the only one that is supported by evidence in the movie"What's funny? What other theories are there that are not refuted by evidence in the movie? (Just for the sake of clarity: I didn't say that I'm the only one who holds a view that's supported by the movie.)
Hahaha, that's funny! Honestly.
However, as I recall, nowhere in the movie is there any mention (possibly there is an insinuation that I missed) of "teleporting and not-teleporting at the same time." The illusion was of a teleporting person, obviously - but Tesla didn't explicitly clarify that it is a teleporting machine that he created - it was left ambiguous.
I think that the book did clarify that it was a teleporter that was supposed to simply teleport the original from one place to another (like in Star Trek), but it also left a clone that couldn't talk, think, or speak... I don't remember exactly (it's irrelevant to the film anyway).
"If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!"
a) The task that Angier posed to him was teleporting (even though Angier himself did not know it is called so :D), so it is reasonable to assume that it's the venue Tesla pursued.
b) The fact that neither Tesla nor Alley even tried to check for a teleported cat after seeing a non-teleported one suggests that they perceived non-teleporting as a failure and not as a side effect until Angier drew their attention to the opposite (and so it was the same in the book). Therefore, it is a teleporting machine that they expected it to be.
__________________________________
Oh my god! They killed Angier!
YOU BASTARDS!!!
no one in this thread has mentioned that in the final scene Angier said "never knowing if i would be the one in the tank, or the one getting the applause"
surely this leans towards the "all equally genine / no clone " theory?
The opposite, surely? It suggests that each time he uses the machine, it's 50/50 whether he experiences drowning. Unless he was only referring to trying it for the first time, but I took it to mean each time he performed the trick.
shareNo, it only suggests that he doesn't know what happens when he steps into the machine. He experienced both staying in there (during the first run) and teleporting (every other time), and he doesn't have a criteria to discern which one is "real" and which is not. He feels the same either way.
__________________________________
Oh my god! They killed Angier!
YOU BASTARDS!!!
Very interesting. By the way, you all know that Borden's double was also a duplicate, right? After all, he gave Angier Tesla's name. He had already used something from Tesla to make a copy of himself!
shareNo, Borden's double was not a duplicate. The Bordens were twins. The Bordens had never met Tesla before. Their whole "Tesla is the key to my trick" was just a ruse to get the supposedly American "Robert Angier" off their backs and trick him into going back to America. They expected that Angier would stay there, ashamed of humiliation, once he had blown all his money on the trip and found out that Tesla had never met Borden. However, what the twin brothers didn't know and hadn't counted on, is that:
- Angier isn't American, so America isn't his homeland; he is actually English and he had only adopted a fake American identity (in order to "not embarass my family with my theatrical endeavors").
- Angier is a filthy rich English lord, who had plenty of money to travel to America, stay abroad for a few years, and commission Tesla for an assignment.
- Tesla is actually able to build an extraordinary machine for Angier.
Hence why the Bordens were surprised and completely stumped by Angier's new trick, which they wouldn't have been if they had already known of Tesla's machine.
The Bordens even reveal their ruse to Angier, at the end of their notebook:
Today, Olivia proves her love for me to you, Angier. Yes, Angier, she gave you this notebook at my request. And yes, "Tesla" is merely the key to my dairy, not to my trick. Did you really think I'd part with my secret so easily after so much? Goodbye, Angier. May you find solace for your thwarted ambition back in your American home.
yurenchu after reading all your answers, it is painfully obvious you fail to comprehend not only basic concepts of science, but those of the english language as well.
You seem keen on babbling about a machine that "teleports and doesn't teleport" at the same time. Do you know what teleporting and not teleporting simultaneously means? Copying. But in this case, not in the traditional meaning.
Even though it's just sci fi and details on how Tesla's machine works aren't revealed, it is very easy to guess. What Tesla was aiming for doesn't matter. What matters is what he actually built.
The man(or object) who goes in the machine stays exactly where he stands. He doesn't move an inch. The machine creates an exact "duplicate", made from different atoms, but the newly created man has the exact atomic array of the man in the machine. Imagine that. A person who is identical to you down to the atomic level. He'd have the same personality as you, the same memories, the same brain biochemistry. In other words, he'd be you. The lines become blurred at this point, so i understand if it's not so easy to wrap your head around it.
"Teleporting" is essentially what happens in Star Trek, when a ship "beams" someone up from a planet or such. The atomic structure of a person is "scanned", so to speak, matter turns to energy, then the transporter converts the energy back to the exact same atomic structure it "scanned" earlier, but in a different place, ex. on the ship. Is it still the same person? In every way and aspect yes, but if the "soul" is unique is a religious matter, different for everyone. That's why i said the lines become blurred.
Tesla's machine simply converts energy into matter, unlike a teleporter, the subject remains intact. Where it finds so much energy to convert into matter (how much?think of Einstein's equation) is indeed a mystery.
I hope you understand now.
Oh, look, a brand new user! Welcome to the IMDb. Did you especially register for an account, just to reply to my post?
yurenchu after reading all your answers, it is painfully obvious you fail to comprehend not only basic concepts of science, but those of the english language as well.What "basic concepts of science" are you babbling about? The "science" in this movie is not real, it's fantasy; it was invented for this story.
You seem keen on babbling about a machine that "teleports and doesn't teleport" at the same time. Do you know what teleporting and not teleporting simultaneously means? Copying. But in this case, not in the traditional meaning.No, it means duplication. Please, learn better English.
Even though it's just sci fi and details on how Tesla's machine works aren't revealed, it is very easy to guess. What Tesla was aiming for doesn't matter. What matters is what he actually built.When hearing hoofbeats, don't guess "zebras", but guess "some type of horses".
The man(or object) who goes in the machine stays exactly where he stands. He doesn't move an inch. The machine creates an exact "duplicate", made from different atoms, but the newly created man has the exact atomic array of the man in the machine.Those are presumptions, based on nothing in the movie.
Imagine that.Did that in 2007, when I started frequenting this board. Been there, done that. Old news. I know the implications.
A person who is identical to you down to the atomic level. He'd have the same personality as you, the same memories, the same brain biochemistry. In other words, he'd be you. The lines become blurred at this point, so i understand if it's not so easy to wrap your head around it.Yup, I already figured this stuff out since 2007, when I saw the movie in the theater. I know exactly what you mean. You're not telling me anything new.
"Teleporting" is essentially what happens in Star Trek, when a ship "beams" someone up from a planet or such. The atomic structure of a person is "scanned", so to speak, matter turns to energy, then the transporter converts the energy back to the exact same atomic structure it "scanned" earlier, but in a different place, ex. on the ship. Is it still the same person? In every way and aspect yes, but if the "soul" is unique is a religious matter, different for everyone. That's why i said the lines become blurred.Ah, a Star Trek fanboy. That's where your preconceived notions come from. Well, this is not Star Trek, this is The Prestige board. What Tesla aimed to build *does* play a key role in the story.
Tesla's machine simply converts energy into matter, unlike a teleporter, the subject remains intact. Where it finds so much energy to convert into matter (how much?think of Einstein's equation) is indeed a mystery.You just made all that stuff up. The movie doesn't explain which principles of physics the working of the Tesla Machine is based on. The screenwriters weren't scientists or physicists, the Machine may very well be functioning on fictional physics phenomena. You're merely grasping onto the few advanced (real) physics principles that you heard of during your last science class; because you don't know where else to look.
I hope you understand now.::Yawn::
Oh, look, a brand new user! Welcome to the IMDb. Did you especially register for an account, just to reply to my post?
What "basic concepts of science" are you babbling about? The "science" in this movie is not real, it's fantasy; it was invented for this story.
By the way, "English" is written with a capital E.
No, it means duplication. Please, learn better English.
When hearing hoofbeats, don't guess "zebras", but guess "some type of horses".
Yup, I already figured this stuff out since 2007, when I saw the movie in the theater. I know exactly what you mean. You're not telling me anything new.
The discussion here is not about that. The discussion is about people who maintain that the non-teleported Angier must be the original, and the teleported Angier must be a "clone", "copy", "impostor" or whatever term IMDb posters have been using to describe him; and then they derive nonsensical conclusions based on that. Such as: "the original Angier drowned, only a clone survived" (no, the Angier who survived is equally original), or "Angier's line about it took courage doesn't make any sense" (wrong, it does make sense, but people are just making the wrong assumptions based on preconceived notions, and that's why they fail to wrap their head around Angier's statement).
Ah, a Star Trek fanboy. That's where your preconceived notions come from.
You just made all that stuff up.
Would you consider teleporting *without* non-teleporting copying as well, and if not, why?
What makes you think that you know they're different atoms?
Yes, boy, i did, because your ignorance was driving me crazy.Hear, hear...
My reference to Star Trek was the only one that came quickly to mind.Like I said: preconceived notions, because you don't know where else to look.
If you need to call me a fanboy to make yourself feel better, do call me a lotr/GoT fanboy, i'll gladly accept the title.It seems to me that you are rather the one who was only 6-8 years old in 2007. Not because you're a LotR/GoT fan, but because you seem concerned about labels ("titles") such as "LotR/GoT fan".
[...]
Lastly, i doubt you understood all that back in '07, seeing as how you must've been 6-8 years old at the time.
The only way to make an object identical to another on the atomic level is by analyzing the first object's atomic structure and then converting energy to matter, materializing that very same array of atoms.No, that's just the only way that you can think of. You're defending a particular theory because you can't imagine any other way how the outcome could be achieved.
Quantum numbers. Four numbers(principal, azimuthal, magnetic, spin) that describe an electron in an atom. Two different atoms can never be described by the same combination of numbers. Therefore no 2 atoms in the universe are the "same".LOL, you just made this stuff up, based on a poor understanding of Pauli Exclusion Principle and Hund's Rules. Those apply not to atoms, but to electrons in an atom. No two electrons within an atom can have the same quantum state (or in other words, can be described by the same set of quantum numbers). But that doesn't mean that two electrons from two separate atoms cannot have the same quantum state.
And speaking of ignorance: blah blah
Like I said: preconceived notions, because you don't know where else to look.
Not because you're a LotR/GoT fan, but because you seem concerned about labels ("titles") such as "LotR/GoT fan".
No, that's just the only way that you can think of. You're defending a particular theory because you can't imagine any other way how the outcome could be achieved.
Do you know what teleporting and not teleporting simultaneously means? Copying. But in this case, not in the traditional meaning.Would you consider teleporting *without* non-teleporting copying as well, and if not, why?
The machine creates an exact "duplicate", made from different atoms, but the newly created man has the exact atomic array of the man in the machine.What makes you think that you know they're different atoms?