Teletransporter Paradox

1. Introduction

The Teletransporter Paradox is a philosophical thought experiment that uses a futuristic teleportation device to probe questions about personal identity, survival, and what it is for a person to persist over time. The central issue is whether a person who steps into such a device—having their body destroyed while an exact physical and psychological duplicate is created elsewhere—has genuinely survived, or has instead died and been replaced.

This paradox is widely associated with Derek Parfit’s work in analytic philosophy. It has become a standard case for testing and contrasting theories that tie identity to:

• Bodily continuity (the persistence of the same living organism)
• Psychological continuity (the persistence of memory, character, and intentions)
• Non‑reductionist views (which posit a further fact about the self, such as a soul or simple ego)

The scenario also introduces branching possibilities, in which multiple replicas are created. These variants emphasize tensions between:

• The intuitive pull that teletransportation “feels like” survival or travel
• The logical constraint that numerical identity cannot branch
• The possibility that what prudentially and ethically matters may diverge from strict identity

In contemporary debates, the Teletransporter Paradox functions as an intuition pump: it elicits and challenges common assumptions about the self, rational decision‑making about future experiences, and the basis of moral responsibility. It is also used as a conceptual bridge to real or anticipated technologies, including brain uploading, advanced AI, and cloning, without presupposing that such technologies are practically feasible.

Throughout this entry, the paradox is presented in an impartial way, outlining competing interpretations and their arguments rather than endorsing any single resolution.

2. Origin and Attribution

The canonical formulation of the Teletransporter Paradox is widely attributed to Derek Parfit, particularly in Part Three of his book:

"

“We can imagine a device, the Teletransporter, which destroys your brain and body, while it creates a perfect replica of you on Mars…”

— Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons (1984)

While elements of the idea appear earlier in science fiction and philosophical writing, Parfit’s version is distinctive in the precision with which it is employed to investigate personal identity and rational concern.

Earlier Influences and Precursors

Although not using the exact “teletransporter” framing, earlier works explored related themes:

These earlier discussions did not typically present a fully worked duplication case with explicit branching, nor did they systematically derive metaphysical and ethical conclusions from it in the way Parfit does.

Distinctive Features of Parfit’s Formulation

Commentators often note that Parfit’s version is characterized by:

• A step‑by‑step operational description (scanning, destruction, and reconstruction)
• The explicit introduction of malfunction and duplication cases
• Direct use of the case to challenge non‑reductionist and all‑or‑nothing accounts of identity

Subsequent philosophers—such as Sydney Shoemaker, Eric Olson, Harold Noonan, and David Lewis—have adopted, modified, or criticized Parfit’s setup, but they generally refer back to Reasons and Persons as the central point of origin for the Teletransporter Paradox in contemporary analytic metaphysics.

3. Historical Context

Parfit’s Teletransporter Paradox emerged in a specific intellectual and cultural context in the late 20th century, marked by ongoing debates about personal identity and by the increasing influence of science‑fictional technologies on philosophical imagination.

Philosophical Background

Prior to Parfit, the dominant frameworks for personal identity included:

In the 1960s–1970s, analytic philosophers were already contesting these views through brain‑transplant cases, amnesia scenarios, and discussions of split‑brain patients. Parfit’s teletransporter enters into this ongoing conversation, intensifying the challenge by introducing branching and high‑technology replication.

Scientific and Cultural Influences

The period also saw:

• Widespread science fiction depictions of teleportation, cloning, and cybernetic enhancement
• Growing interest in artificial intelligence, information theory, and computation as models for cognition
• Advances in neuroscience and split‑brain research, raising doubts about a single indivisible self

Teletransportation cases resonated with these developments by pairing information‑transfer metaphors with questions about whether persons might be understood as patterns rather than as simple substances.

Place within Late 20th‑Century Analytic Metaphysics

Parfit’s work is often situated alongside:

• Four‑dimensionalist approaches to persistence in metaphysics
• Debates about reductionism concerning persons, mental states, and moral facts
• Growing attention to how metaphysical questions intersect with ethics and rational choice

The Teletransporter Paradox thus reflects both a long historical trajectory of identity puzzles and a more specific moment when analytic philosophy turned toward systematic, scientifically informed, and often revisionary accounts of selfhood and survival.

4. The Teletransporter Scenario

The standard teletransporter scenario involves a device that appears to provide instantaneous travel between distant locations. Parfit’s description supplies a sequence of operations that many later discussions adopt or adapt.

Basic Operation

1. Scanning and Recording: The machine on Earth records complete information about the traveler’s body and brain, down to extremely fine physical or informational detail.
2. Destruction: The original body is then destroyed—often described as being “disintegrated” or “vaporized.”
3. Transmission: The recorded information is transmitted, typically at high speed, to a receiving station elsewhere (e.g., on Mars).
4. Reconstruction: The receiving machine uses local matter to assemble a new body that is molecule‑for‑molecule structured like the original, including a brain configured to encode the same memories, character traits, and intentions.

From the perspective of external observers, the person appears to have vanished from one location and reappeared in another.

The Subjective Perspective

The reconstructed individual:

• Wakes up on Mars with apparent continuity of consciousness
• Remembers entering the booth on Earth
• Anticipates future events in line with the original person’s plans
• Feels and behaves as if they have simply traveled

Many formulations emphasize that nothing in the experiential life of the replica indicates a break; subjectively, it seems like successful transport.

Philosophical Features of the Setup

Key idealizing assumptions typically include:

• Perfect duplication of all relevant physical and psychological details
• No intermediate conscious experience during transmission
• No surviving remains of the original organism (in the standard case)

These features make the teletransporter scenario a controlled environment for testing which conditions philosophers regard as necessary and sufficient for a person’s survival, without interference from confounding bodily or memory defects. Variations of this basic setup introduce malfunctions, duplication, delays, and partial preservation to probe specific theoretical commitments.

5. The Argument Stated

Philosophers use the teletransporter scenario to construct a structured argument about personal identity and survival. While formulations differ, many trace back to a sequence of claims inspired by Parfit’s Reasons and Persons.

Core Line of Reasoning

In simplified form, the argument proceeds along these lines:

1. The person who emerges from the teletransporter is qualitatively identical and psychologically continuous with the person who entered: they share memories, character, and apparent continuous experience.
2. The original body has been destroyed, so there is no unbroken bodily continuity or persisting living organism connecting the pre‑ and post‑teletransportation stages.
3. Traditional theories often require either:
   • Bodily continuity, or
   • A unique, non‑branching psychological continuity relation for numerical identity over time.
4. In branching cases, where duplication occurs, more than one later individual stands in the same kind of psychological continuity relation to the original.
5. Since numerical identity is one‑to‑one, it cannot be shared by multiple successors; identity cannot branch.
6. Therefore, psychological continuity alone cannot straightforwardly be identical with personal identity in all cases, especially where branching is possible.
7. Nevertheless, what seems to matter for survival, rational anticipation, and moral concern appears to be precisely the preserved psychological continuity observable in the teletransportation case.
8. Consequently, the relation that matters for survival may diverge from strict numerical identity, suggesting that personal identity may not be the “deep” fact we often assume it is.

Status of the Argument

Different theorists accept or reject different steps. Some accept that teletransportation preserves survival but deny that identity fails; others accept the failure of identity but argue that survival does not occur. Still others take the argument to motivate a reconceptualization of what survival and identity amount to. The remaining sections examine these alternative responses and the assumptions on which they rest.

6. Logical Structure and Assumptions

The Teletransporter Paradox relies on a specific logical structure and several background assumptions. These shape how the scenario pressures different theories of personal identity.

Identity as a One‑to‑One Relation

The argument presupposes the standard logical properties of numerical identity:

• It is reflexive (everything is identical to itself),
• Symmetric, and
• Transitive.

Most crucially, it is one‑to‑one: one thing cannot be numerically identical to two distinct later things. This underlies the claim that identity cannot “branch.”

Information and Duplication Assumptions

The scenario assumes:

• A coherent notion of complete physical and psychological information about a person.
• That this information can, at least in principle, be instantiated in multiple locations, producing qualitatively identical individuals.
• That the resulting individuals are numerically distinct objects, despite being qualitatively indistinguishable.

These assumptions allow philosophers to construct duplication and branching cases while holding psychological continuity fixed.

Separation of Identity and Survival

The argument further depends on the conceptual distinction between:

• Numerical identity over time (being the very same person), and
• Survival‑related relations (such as psychological continuity and connectedness).

Parfit and many others assume that this distinction is coherent and that theories may come to treat these as non‑coextensive relations.

Idealization and Thought‑Experiment Methodology

The teletransporter is highly idealized. Common methodological assumptions include:

• Ignoring physical impossibilities or technical limitations as irrelevant to the conceptual issue.
• Treating intuitions about cases—“is this survival?”—as data that theories should explain or systematize.
• Allowing graded or conflicting intuitions to motivate revisions to traditional, all‑or‑nothing conceptions of identity.

Critics sometimes question these assumptions, arguing that they build in controversial metaphysical or epistemic commitments. Nonetheless, the logical structure outlined here frames most subsequent debate.

7. Psychological vs Bodily Continuity

The Teletransporter Paradox directly contrasts psychological continuity with bodily continuity as candidate bases for personal identity and survival.

Bodily Continuity

On bodily or biological views, a person persists just if:

• The same living human organism continues to exist,
• There is appropriate spatiotemporal continuity of the body and its life processes.

From this perspective, standard teletransportation, which destroys the original body, fails to preserve the person. The Mars individual is a numerically distinct organism, regardless of its psychological similarity.

Psychological Continuity

Psychological continuity theories, influenced by Locke, instead stress:

• Memory connections: later experiences can be appropriately caused by and recall earlier ones.
• Character and intention continuity: stable patterns of preferences, values, and plans.
• Overlapping chains of strong psychological connections across time.

On such views, if the Mars replica stands in sufficiently strong psychological continuity with the Earth original, it may count as the same person, even if bodily continuity is broken.

Comparative Overview

Hybrid and Intermediate Views

Some theorists propose mixed accounts, treating both bodily and psychological continuity as relevant, perhaps in different contexts (e.g., legal vs prudential). Others maintain that psychological continuity must be non‑branching to constitute identity, thereby modifying pure psychological views to address duplication worries highlighted by the teletransporter case.

The teletransporter thus serves as a controlled setting for asking which form of continuity, if any, is fundamental.

8. Branching, Duplication, and Non‑Branching Constraints

Branching and duplication versions of the teletransporter case are central to its philosophical force. They test whether identity can be preserved when more than one later individual equally continues from a single earlier person.

Duplication and Branching Scenarios

In duplication variants, the machine:

• Produces two or more replicas instead of one, or
• Fails to destroy the original while still creating a replica, resulting in coexisting individuals with identical memories and character up to the point of duplication.

Here, each successor is psychologically continuous with the original in the same way.

Non‑Branching Condition

Many theories introduce a non‑branching condition:

• Identity holds only if there is a unique suitable continuer.
• If branching occurs—multiple equally good continuers—identity fails.

Some psychological continuity theorists accept this, saying that in standard, non‑branching teletransportation, the traveler survives; but in duplication cases, there is no fact of the matter which, if any, is identical to the original.

Pressures on Different Views

Branching cases are designed to highlight that identity cannot be literally shared between multiple successors. They raise questions about whether:

• Identity is the relation that matters, or
• We should instead focus on degrees of psychological relatedness and allow that what matters may “branch” even if identity cannot.

The non‑branching constraint thus becomes a key pivot point between more conservative and more revisionary accounts of persons.

9. Key Variations of the Teletransporter Case

Philosophers have developed numerous variations on the basic teletransporter setup to test specific theoretical commitments. These variants typically tweak timing, number of replicas, or which parts of the original are preserved.

Common Variants

Temporal and Experiential Tweaks

Some versions adjust:

• The duration of unconsciousness between entry and exit.
• Whether the traveler is told in advance about possible duplication.
• Whether replicas are created simultaneously or sequentially.

These modifications test whether intuitive judgments about survival track:

• Continuity of consciousness,
• Causal history, or
• Merely informational identity.

Contextual and Practical Variants

Other scenarios situate teletransportation in practical contexts:

• Routine commercial travel vs emergency evacuation
• Punishment avoidance vs medical therapy
• Voluntary vs non‑consensual use

While ethical implications are developed elsewhere in the entry, these contextual changes already influence how many people report their identity‑related intuitions—for example, whether they would be willing to use the machine or regard doing so as a kind of suicide.

Collectively, these variants help disentangle which features (destruction, duplication, timing, physical continuity) different theories and intuitions treat as decisive.

10. Reductionist Interpretations

Reductionist interpretations, often associated with Parfit, treat facts about persons and their persistence as entirely constituted by more basic physical and psychological facts, without a further metaphysical ingredient such as a soul or simple ego.

Core Reductionist Claims

Reductionists typically maintain:

• There is no further fact about personal identity beyond physical and psychological relations.
• Persons are not ontologically fundamental entities; they are constructs or higher‑level patterns in the underlying reality.
• The relation that matters for survival is some form of psychological continuity and connectedness, which can in principle branch.

On this view, in the teletransporter case, all the basic facts—about brain states, memories, character, and causal continuity—fully determine everything there is to know about whether the person “survives,” even if identity talk becomes indeterminate.

Treatment of Teletransportation

Reductionists tend to say:

• In standard single‑copy teletransportation, the resulting person stands in the same psychological continuity to the original that ordinary survival does, so what matters is preserved.
• In duplication cases, both successors bear the relevant psychological relation; there is no deep fact about which one is “really” the original.
• Identity is therefore a convenient but sometimes misleading concept, not always tracking what matters for rational anticipation and moral concern.

Motivations and Implications

Motivations include:

• A desire for ontological parsimony: avoiding additional substances or selves.
• Compatibility with a naturalistic worldview, where persons supervene on physical states.
• An explanation for why intuitive judgments about survival can be pulled apart from strict identity in branching cases.

Critics argue that reductionism struggles with first‑person phenomenology and responsibility; supporters contend that the Teletransporter Paradox illustrates precisely why traditional identity talk should be thinned out or revised.

11. Animalist and Biological Objections

Animalism is the view that human persons are fundamentally human animals, and that our persistence conditions are those of biological organisms rather than of psychological patterns. Teletransportation provides a prominent testing ground for this approach.

Core Animalist Commitments

Animalists generally hold that:

• We are living, biological organisms of a certain kind.
• Our continued existence requires biological continuity—roughly, the same life processes continuing in the same organism.
• Psychological characteristics (memories, personality) are contingent features of the animal and not constitutive of its identity.

Application to Teletransportation

From an animalist standpoint:

• The teletransporter destroys the original organism, so the animal—and therefore the person—dies.
• The individual who appears on Mars is a numerically distinct organism, newly created, even if psychologically indistinguishable from the original.
• In duplication cases, multiple new animals exist; none is identical to the original animal.

Thus, what may appear to some to be survival is, on this view, merely the creation of a highly similar successor.

Biological Objections to Psychological Theories

Animalists use teletransportation to press objections against psychological continuity theories:

1. Too Liberal: If psychological continuity alone suffices, then non‑biological entities (e.g., detailed computer simulations) might count as the same person, which some find implausible.
2. Branching Problem: Psychological views face difficulty explaining why only one, both, or neither duplicate is the original, whereas biological continuity trivially fails in all such cases.
3. Ordinary Cases: In everyday, non‑teletransportation life, animalists argue that it is clear we track ourselves as animals, not as abstract psychological sequences.

Proponents such as Eric Olson use these points to argue that teletransportation clarifies the gap between what makes for identity (biological continuity) and what makes for similarity or replacement (psychological duplication).

12. First‑Person Perspective and the Self

Beyond third‑person descriptions of continuity, many philosophers focus on the first‑person perspective—how things are “for me”—in evaluating teletransportation. This raises questions about whether there is a self that cannot branch or be duplicated.

Subjective Concern and Anticipation

A central issue is: what should the person about to step into the teletransporter anticipate?

• If there will be a subject on Mars with your memories and character, can you rationally expect to have that subject’s experiences?
• Or is teletransportation like death, with someone else merely believing they are you?

Some argue that Parfit’s focus on external relations underplays the phenomenological unity that seems central to being a subject of experience.

Simple Self and Non‑Reductionist Views

Non‑reductionists sometimes posit a simple, indivisible self—a Cartesian ego or soul—that underlies the first‑person perspective. On such views:

• The self either travels with one successor, or
• Fails to travel at all, leaving only impersonators.

Duplication scenarios are then taken to show that the self cannot be understood as branching; its unity is taken as a basic metaphysical fact.

Phenomenological and Nagelian Concerns

Thomas Nagel and related thinkers raise worries that:

• The first‑person perspective introduces a “what it is like for me” that is not captured by structural descriptions of psychological continuity.
• It may be incoherent to say “I both survive as A and survive as B” if there cannot be a single subject who is simultaneously both.

From this angle, teletransportation might expose limits in third‑person, reductionist accounts of selfhood, suggesting that there is a further fact about who the subject is that cannot be reduced to continuity relations alone.

13. Ethical and Prudential Implications

The Teletransporter Paradox has been used to explore how theories of identity affect ethics and prudential reasoning—that is, what is rational or reasonable to care about regarding one’s own future.

Rational Choice and Survival

Key prudential questions include:

• Is it rational to step into the machine, knowing that your body will be destroyed and a replica created?
• How should one evaluate the risk of malfunction or duplication?

On some interpretations, if psychological continuity is what matters, using the teletransporter may be as reasonable as taking a safe airplane flight. On others, destruction of the original body is tantamount to death, making participation irrational regardless of the replica’s existence.

Responsibility, Promises, and Desert

Teletransportation also raises issues about:

• Moral responsibility: Is the replica genuinely responsible for actions of the pre‑teletransportation person?
• Promises and obligations: Does the post‑teletransportation individual remain bound by agreements made pre‑transport?
• Desert and punishment: May a replica be justly punished for crimes committed by the original?

Reductionist approaches often suggest grounding these practices in psychological relatedness rather than strict identity, whereas more traditional views insist that moral practices presuppose a robust notion of the same person.

Value of Survival and Death

The paradox invites reflection on:

• Whether teletransportation, if safe and routine, should be seen as ordinary travel, a kind of reproduction, or a form of death.
• How personal identity theories influence assessments of the badness of death, continuity of projects, and long‑term planning.

Philosophers use these questions to connect metaphysical positions about persons with practical judgments about what we owe to ourselves and others over time.

14. Standard Objections and Replies

The Teletransporter Paradox has generated a range of standard objections, as well as responses from different theoretical camps. These exchanges clarify the pressures the paradox places on accounts of identity.

Major Objections

Representative Replies

• Reductionist Reply: Accept that identity may fail or be indeterminate in duplication cases, but maintain that psychological continuity and connectedness—which can branch—are what prudentially and ethically matter.
• Closest‑Continuer Reply: Introduce a rule that only the closest psychological continuer counts as the same person; in exact duplication, identity may be undefined, explaining our mixed intuitions.
• Animalist Reply: Deny that teletransportation involves survival at all; treat the paradox as showing the limits of psychological criteria rather than of biological ones.
• Conservative Self Reply: Appeal to a simple self or soul that either travels or not; duplication either cannot occur or at most one successor receives the self.
• Pragmatic / Norm‑Revision Reply: Maintain that while identity may be messy, our moral and legal practices can be revised to track degrees of psychological relatedness, thus preserving much of what we care about.

These objections and responses frame ongoing disputes about whether teletransportation reveals a problem for identity theories, or instead clarifies the need to distinguish identity from other practically significant relations.

15. Alternative Metaphysical Frameworks

Beyond straightforward psychological and biological views, several alternative metaphysical frameworks reinterpret the Teletransporter Paradox in distinctive ways.

Four‑Dimensionalism and Stage Theory

On four‑dimensionalist views, objects persist by having different temporal parts at different times. Stage theorists go further, treating a “person at a time” as a temporal stage, related to other stages by counterpart‑like relations rather than strict identity.

Applied to teletransportation:

• The pre‑ and post‑teletransportation individuals may be distinct stages within a broader pattern.
• Questions like “Is it the same person?” are rephrased as questions about whether there is an appropriate counterpart relation.
• Branching is naturally accommodated: multiple later stages can be related to the earlier one without violating the logic of identity.

Closest Continuer Theories

Closest continuer frameworks hold that:

• When multiple candidates exist, the most continuous one (in terms of psychological and/or bodily features) is the true continuer.
• Identity may fail when there is no uniquely closest candidate.

In teletransportation cases, this can yield:

• Survival in a single, non‑duplicating transport.
• No identity in exact duplication scenarios, reflecting the absence of a unique closest continuer.

Modal and Counterpart Approaches

Building on David Lewis’s counterpart theory, some philosophers suggest:

• Treating cross‑time identity analogously to cross‑world identity: as a relation of similarity rather than strict identity.
• Recasting teletransportation questions in terms of which later individuals serve as appropriate counterparts of the earlier person for different practical or explanatory purposes.

Essential Self or Soul Theories

Other frameworks posit an essential, non‑material self that underlies personal identity. Here, teletransportation may be interpreted as:

• A case where the self either does not accompany any replica (yielding no survival), or
• A situation where metaphysical constraints prevent genuine branching of the self.

These frameworks show that the Teletransporter Paradox can be handled in ways that reconfigure, rather than directly accept or reject, the traditional identity relation.

16. Applications to AI, Uploading, and Cloning

Although teletransportation is hypothetical, its structure closely parallels proposed technologies involving artificial intelligence, mind uploading, and cloning, making it a widely used conceptual tool in these debates.

Mind Uploading and Emulation

In discussions of whole‑brain emulation or mind uploading:

• A brain’s informational structure is scanned and implemented on a digital substrate.
• The original biological brain may be destroyed, preserved, or left intact.

These scenarios raise questions analogous to teletransportation:

• Is the emulated mind the same person as the biological original?
• Does survival depend on destruction of the original, or can non‑destructive uploading still count as survival?
• Are multiple simultaneous uploads comparable to teletransportation duplication cases?

Artificial Intelligence Agents

Advanced AI agents that copy and spawn sub‑agents raise identity puzzles similar to branching teletransporters:

• An AI might replicate itself across servers, each copy continuing its goals and memories.
• Philosophers and AI ethicists use teletransporter‑style reasoning to ask whether these copies constitute one agent or many, and how to assign responsibility and reward among them.

Cloning and Biological Copies

Cloning produces genetic duplicates without replicating memories or psychological histories. However, combining cloning with hypothetical memory transfer or rapid learning protocols leads to cases structurally similar to teletransportation:

• A clone equipped with the original’s memories and character might present the same identity questions as a teletransported replica.
• These scenarios test whether genetic, bodily, or informational continuity is treated as most significant.

Policy and Ethical Discourse

Teletransporter‑like thought experiments inform debates about:

• The ethics of uploading one’s mind as a means of life extension.
• The status of backup copies of digital minds or AI systems.
• Legal and moral frameworks for entities whose persistence conditions allow branching.

By abstracting away from current technical limitations, philosophers use the Teletransporter Paradox to anticipate conceptual and normative challenges that emerging technologies may bring.

17. Ongoing Debates and Open Questions

The Teletransporter Paradox continues to be a focal point for unresolved issues in metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and ethics. Several debates remain active.

Identity vs What Matters

One persistent question is whether:

• Numerical identity is the primary relation of interest, or
• A distinct relation, such as psychological continuity, is what matters for survival, prudence, and morality.

Some argue that the paradox shows identity is not fundamental; others insist that intuitions about survival cannot be coherently articulated without a robust notion of “the same person.”

Determinacy and Vagueness

Another issue concerns whether teletransportation cases reveal:

• Sharp facts about identity (one answer is correct, even if we do not know it), or
• Indeterminacy or vagueness in personal identity, especially in borderline or branching scenarios.

The possibility of indeterminate identity remains controversial, particularly given classical logic’s constraints.

First‑Person Phenomenology

Debate continues over whether reductionist accounts:

• Can adequately explain subjective continuity and the unity of consciousness, or
• Omit an important “further fact” about who the subject is.

Phenomenological and analytic approaches diverge on whether first‑person data support or undermine Parfitian lessons from teletransportation.

Practical and Legal Implications

Philosophers and legal theorists still explore:

• How to handle responsibility, rights, and ownership in cases involving teletransportation‑like technologies.
• Whether law and policy should track bodily continuity, psychological continuity, or some hybrid.

Many questions remain open, particularly as real‑world technologies—digital identities, AI, and neurotechnology—approach aspects of the teletransporter framework.

18. Legacy and Historical Significance

The Teletransporter Paradox has become a standard tool in contemporary analytic philosophy, shaping discussions of personal identity, survival, and the metaphysics of persons.

Influence on Philosophical Debates

Its legacy includes:

• Cementing Parfit’s reductionism as a central position to engage with, whether in support or critique.
• Providing a shared set of cases and variations that structure debates between psychological continuity theorists, animalists, and non‑reductionists.
• Encouraging more nuanced distinctions between identity, survival, and what matters for ethics and rational choice.

Subsequent textbooks, anthologies, and introductory courses routinely present teletransportation cases as a primary way of entering the topic of personal identity.

Cross‑Disciplinary Impact

Beyond metaphysics, the paradox has influenced:

• Ethics and bioethics, especially in discussions of advance directives, life extension, and the value of survival.
• Philosophy of law, by challenging assumptions about the continuity required for responsibility and punishment.
• Philosophy of technology and AI, where teletransporter‑like thought experiments guide conceptualization of uploading, digital duplication, and AI replication.
• Science fiction studies, as philosophers and literary scholars analyze teleportation narratives using Parfitian frameworks.

Enduring Role

Historically, the Teletransporter Paradox stands alongside brain‑transplant and split‑brain cases as one of the most influential thought experiments about the self. Its enduring role stems from its capacity to:

• Synthesize long‑standing questions about identity with modern, information‑theoretic imagery.
• Serve as a flexible platform for testing new metaphysical, ethical, and technological ideas.

As debates about AI, digital minds, and human enhancement develop, the Teletransporter Paradox remains a central reference point for thinking about what it is, and might be, to be the same person over time.