Hard Sci-fi?
Daniel
fi and soft sci fi. Hard Sci-fi is that which is as consistent with
known science as possible - examples would be Timemaster by Robert
Forward, The Killing Star by Charles Pellegrino, or Contact by Carl
Sagan. While all involve some phenomenal technology, neither the
negative matter drive, the relativistic bomb, nor wormhole bridge are
explicitly forbidden by science. On the other hand you have soft sci-
fi, which encompasses everything from cyberpunk to anime to space
opera. Here the science takes a back seat or is thrown out the window
in favor of the story.
But are these definitions too rigid? Consider when complaints are
raised against books being hard sci-fi they focus on physics
violations - the ship has artificial gravity, shields, and goes FTL.
But there are more types of science then just physics. Science Fiction
is a genre defined by taking an idea, putting it in a fictional
setting and then applying science to determine what the effects of
this idea would be and what it would require. This broad definition is
what allows books like "10,000 leagues under the sea" to be considered
sci-fi though they lack the typical space ships. So what about books
that are examining ideas not relevant to physical sciences, but
instead behavioral, economic, or political.
Consider "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein. It has FTL and
artificial gravity, which would under most conventions define it as
soft sci-fi. But Starship Troopers is not written about the marvels of
space travel. Starship Troopers is about military life and life in a
limited franchise republic. The ramifications of restricting the right
to vote to those who have served will have nothing to do with physics.
But it will affect economics, political science, and human behavior,
which is what the book explores. Or "Blindsight" by Peter Watts which
features vampires and teleportation but uses evolution, biology, and
game theory to discuss consciousness. On television we have the new
Battlestar Galactic which examines the response a society would have
in a near extinction scenario. The morality of throwing enemy
personnel out the airlock cannot be calculated, yet it still examines
the idea of it and its logical repercussions on everyone else in
accordance with behavioral science.
So should a book, movie, comic, etc that violates physics but does so
to examine an unrelated idea still fall under hard sci-fi so long as
it rigidly adheres to the scientific principles relevant to the idea
being examined?
I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
Charles...@gmail.com
> Consider "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein. It has FTL and
> artificial gravity, which would under most conventions define it as
> soft sci-fi. But Starship Troopers is not written about the marvels of
> space travel. Starship Troopers is about military life and life in a
> limited franchise republic. The ramifications of restricting the right
> to vote to those who have served will have nothing to do with physics.
> But it will affect economics, political science, and human behavior,
> which is what the book explores. Or "Blindsight" by Peter Watts which
> features vampires and teleportation but uses evolution, biology, and
> game theory to discuss consciousness. On television we have the new
> Battlestar Galactic which examines the response a society would have
> in a near extinction scenario. The morality of throwing enemy
> personnel out the airlock cannot be calculated, yet it still examines
> the idea of it and its logical repercussions on everyone else in
> accordance with behavioral science.
>
> So should a book, movie, comic, etc that violates physics but does so
> to examine an unrelated idea still fall under hard sci-fi so long as
> it rigidly adheres to the scientific principles relevant to the idea
> being examined?
Do those books or TV shows NEED to violate physics to examine those
topics? My take on the subject is that they violate physics to tell
the story that they want to tell while exploring those topics. For
example _Starship troopers_ COULD have been told substantively the
same without FTL and especially without artificial gravity. Certainly
the stories could be substantively different for the other examples,
but the topics can be explored just fine without violating physics.
I think if you NEED to violate physics to explore some topic, then you
might have to examine if the topic is as "hard" as you think it is.
Hard SF is about adhering to a strict set of rules (the rules of the
universe) while telling a story. "Soft" SF is about telling a story
while using the trappings of SF to do so, and discarding anything that
gets in the way of telling that story.
Your characters need to have a kung-fu battle on a space ship in orbit
over Jupiter? Well you'll need artificial gravity for that (though I
think the description of a space-fu battle (kung-fu re-engineered for
use in micro-gravity) would be much cooler, but much harder to write).
You'll also need to ignore or explain away how your ship is hanging
out in all that radiation around Jupiter without killing the crew.
Don't want to spend a couple thousand words explaining how the
radiation shielding works without violating physics? Well, just ignore
physics and say it just works.
Traditionally the "Hardness" or "Softness" of SF is a representation
of how well the story sticks to physics, but that's only because
that's the kind of science traditionally used in SF. If you are
writing about biotechnology in your story then the "hardness" or
"softness" of that story would also depend on how well you stick to
biological science when you do it. Vampires could be explained in a
biotechnical story-space without violating what I think biotechnology
could do. But even biology at the most basic level is governed by
chemistry, which is governed by physics, which is governed by quantum
physics, and then whatever we name the stuff beyond QP.
JimboCat
> fi and soft sci fi.
>
Are you making a viagra joke, here?
> this idea would be and what it would require. This broad definition is
> what allows books like "10,000 leagues under the sea" to be considered
> sci-fi though they lack the typical space ships.
That book would be exactly half-hard, I'd say.
> So what about books
> that are examining ideas not relevant to physical sciences, but
> instead behavioral, economic, or political.
So now your asking whether the "soft" sciences can be "hard"?
> I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
I think you need to so some basic research and, uh, "firm" up your
questions a bit...
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
The Homeopathic Science Institute (where the Science is always diluted
to one part in a billion or less) -eric boesch
Luke Campbell
> Your characters need to have a kung-fu battle on a space ship in orbit
> over Jupiter? Well you'll need artificial gravity for that (though I
> think the description of a space-fu battle (kung-fu re-engineered for
> use in micro-gravity) would be much cooler, but much harder to write).
Eh, spin gravity is a perfectly "hard" form of artificial gravity.
There's no need to abandon a-grav in a hard scenario - just include
habitats modules spinning on tethers or on-board centrifuges or some
such. In fact, the lack of such devices could be seen to be less
likely, given the adverse effects of weightlessness on the human body.
Extra points for incorporating the Coriolis force during the kung-fu
fight, especially as a clever tactic at the end to dispatch the bad
guy.
> You'll also need to ignore or explain away how your ship is hanging
> out in all that radiation around Jupiter without killing the crew.
> Don't want to spend a couple thousand words explaining how the
> radiation shielding works without violating physics? Well, just ignore
> physics and say it just works.
A throwaway line like "magnetic shielding" or "artificial
magnetosphere" could work, possibly with details popping up like
radiation belts around the spacecraft that are best avoided when going
EVA, and a tragic scene where the disposable character has to go out
unprotected to save the rest of the crew, and gets terminal radiation
poisoning from Jupiter's radiation belts.
Luke
Charles...@gmail.com
> On Apr 17, 9:05 am, CharlesRCap...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Your characters need to have a kung-fu battle on a space ship in orbit
> > over Jupiter? Well you'll need artificial gravity for that (though I
> > think the description of a space-fu battle (kung-fu re-engineered for
> > use in micro-gravity) would be much cooler, but much harder to write).
>
> Eh, spin gravity is a perfectly "hard" form of artificial gravity.
> There's no need to abandon a-grav in a hard scenario - just include
> habitats modules spinning on tethers or on-board centrifuges or some
> such. In fact, the lack of such devices could be seen to be less
> likely, given the adverse effects of weightlessness on the human body.
I was making some unvoiced assumptions about the size of the ship. I
was thinking a ship that was pretty small and if it had a spinning hab
module going fast enough to provide 1g would be spinning too fast to
have a "normal" kung-fu battle due to excessive Coriolis. Go less than
1g and you can't have a "normal" kung-fu battle because leaps and
spinning kicks start to look more like the stuff they do in those Hong
Kong flicks. Granted, I didn't mention those assumptions, so I accept
your points.
> Extra points for incorporating the Coriolis force during the kung-fu
> fight, especially as a clever tactic at the end to dispatch the bad
> guy.
Well, I would assume that this "space-fu" would incorporate various g
levels from micro-gravity to maybe lunar gravity in its training. So
spin habs would be taken in to account. (Part of why it would be tough
to write but probably be pretty cool to read.)
> > You'll also need to ignore or explain away how your ship is hanging
> > out in all that radiation around Jupiter without killing the crew.
> > Don't want to spend a couple thousand words explaining how the
> > radiation shielding works without violating physics? Well, just ignore
> > physics and say it just works.
>
> A throwaway line like "magnetic shielding" or "artificial
> magnetosphere" could work, possibly with details popping up like
> radiation belts around the spacecraft that are best avoided when going
> EVA, and a tragic scene where the disposable character has to go out
> unprotected to save the rest of the crew, and gets terminal radiation
> poisoning from Jupiter's radiation belts.
Sure, but that becomes much less plausible if you need tethered spin
habs and thus any radiation shielding capable of dealing with
Jupiter's radiation belts would require more extensive explanation. In
any case if we are talking about "hard" SF you need to be careful
about those throw away lines. If the reader doesn’t agree with its
plausibility you have a tough time maintaining that "hard" SF
classification.
Charles...@gmail.com
>
> > Your characters need to have a kung-fu battle on a space ship in orbit
> > over Jupiter? Well you'll need artificial gravity for that (though I
> > think the description of a space-fu battle (kung-fu re-engineered for
> > use in micro-gravity) would be much cooler, but much harder to write).
>
> Eh, spin gravity is a perfectly "hard" form of artificial gravity.
> There's no need to abandon a-grav in a hard scenario - just include
> habitats modules spinning on tethers or on-board centrifuges or some
> such. In fact, the lack of such devices could be seen to be less
> likely, given the adverse effects of weightlessness on the human body.
I was making some unvoiced assumptions about the size of the ship. I
was thinking a ship that was pretty small and if it had a spinning hab
module going fast enough to provide 1g would be spinning too fast to
have a "normal" kung-fu battle due to excessive Coriolis. Go less than
1g and you can't have a "normal" kung-fu battle because leaps and
spinning kicks start to look more like the stuff they do in those Hong
Kong flicks. Granted, I didn't mention those assumptions, so I accept
your points.
> Extra points for incorporating the Coriolis force during the kung-fu
> fight, especially as a clever tactic at the end to dispatch the bad
> guy.
Well, I would assume that this "space-fu" would incorporate various g
levels from micro-gravity to maybe lunar gravity in its training. So
spin habs would be taken in to account. (Part of why it would be tough
to write but probably be pretty cool to read.)
> > You'll also need to ignore or explain away how your ship is hanging
> > out in all that radiation around Jupiter without killing the crew.
> > Don't want to spend a couple thousand words explaining how the
> > radiation shielding works without violating physics? Well, just ignore
> > physics and say it just works.
>
> A throwaway line like "magnetic shielding" or "artificial
> magnetosphere" could work, possibly with details popping up like
> radiation belts around the spacecraft that are best avoided when going
> EVA, and a tragic scene where the disposable character has to go out
> unprotected to save the rest of the crew, and gets terminal radiation
> poisoning from Jupiter's radiation belts.
Sure, but that becomes much less plausible if you need tethered spin
Luke Campbell
My favorite design involves the spin habitat "pressure cans" on
tethers with superconducting cables forming two concentric loops -
once just to the outside of the habitat path and one just inside of
the path. Current flows along the two cables in the same direction,
the magnetic fields largely cancel in the region between the two
loops, and add outside that region. This leaves a relatively mag-
field free region for the habitats to orbit while deflecting charged
particles. In fact, this system is most effective with tethered spin
habs, there isn't much protection near the axis.
The limits on the effectiveness of this system are your ability to
cool the superconductors to below their transition temperature, the
critical magnetic field of the superconductors, and the attractive
force between the two loops due to the parallel currents. By spinning
the outer loop at high speeds, you can put the entire assembly under
tension, eliminating the need for compressive struts between the two
loops to keep them from collapsing into each other. Numerical
simulations I've done indicate you could protect the habitats from
protons with up to around a GeV in energy with moderate forces between
the loops (details are on another computer in another location, I can
post these later if anyone is interested).
This is far from the only design for electromagnetic shielding, just a
relatively simple radiation shield based off of magsail propulsion
concepts. I understand there are significantly more elaborate
proposals for electromagnetic radiation shielding in space.
> In any case if we are talking about "hard" SF you need to be careful
> about those throw away lines. If the reader doesn’t agree with its
> plausibility you have a tough time maintaining that "hard" SF
> classification.
That's what appendices are for :-)
In any event, you can't be expected to describe all the details of
every technology that we don't have today. I would be quite happy
with hard scifi where a military spacecraft used UV lasers as
offensive weapons without a detailed explanation of how the UV beams
were generated or discussions of the tactics of beams vs missiles
(unless, of course, the latter was vital to the story). To my way of
thinking, electromagnetic shielding is similar. Charged particles can
be deflected by magnetic fields, magnetic fields can be generated by
electric currents and possibly manipulated by injecting and trapping
plasma into the field region resulting in an artificial magnetosphere
similar to that of earth. This is all known physics, and that's
sufficient for plausibility, no need to go into engineering details in
a work of fiction. Heck, if people can swallow fusion reactors
despite all the known problems (with no mention of how they operate),
electromagnetic or plasma shields should be fine with a brief
justification. Especially if the consequences are well though out
(the aforementioned radiation belts around the spacecraft, regions of
high magnetic field around the shielding loops where you need to be
careful with ferrous objects, possibly others). Just don't have your
electromagnetic shields protecting against neutrons or gammas or other
uncharged particles!
Luke
Ben Crowell
> Consider "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein. It has FTL and
> artificial gravity, which would under most conventions define it as
> soft sci-fi. But Starship Troopers is not written about the marvels of
> space travel.
Peter Knutsen
> Do those books or TV shows NEED to violate physics to examine those
Now, that is a very, very good question. Ideally one that the people who
produce such shows should be forced to answer, at gunpoint (bad sci-fi
movies, and bad sci-fi televsion shows, do a lot of damage to the image
of written science fiction).
> topics? My take on the subject is that they violate physics to tell
> the story that they want to tell while exploring those topics. For
> example _Starship troopers_ COULD have been told substantively the
> same without FTL and especially without artificial gravity. Certainly
> the stories could be substantively different for the other examples,
> but the topics can be explored just fine without violating physics.
>
> I think if you NEED to violate physics to explore some topic, then you
> might have to examine if the topic is as "hard" as you think it is.
I disagree with your "need analysis". In very many cases, FTL *is*
needed, because the character needs to get from somewhere to somewhere else.
It is *only* the artificial gravity (of the non-rotiational kind) which
is a true sign of the author being lazy (and/or rampantly
science-iliterate).
> Hard SF is about adhering to a strict set of rules (the rules of the
More generally, good speculative fiction *by* *definition* adheres to a
set of rules that the reader can *know*. The subgenre of good science
fiction, as opposed to other good speculative fiction, differs only in
that the rules are not made up by the author (and subsequently relayed
to the reader via the text, in a more or less subtle fashion), but
instead exist before he even starts writing the story.
> universe) while telling a story. "Soft" SF is about telling a story
> while using the trappings of SF to do so, and discarding anything that
> gets in the way of telling that story.
[...]
I don't acknowledge the existence of "soft science fiction".
There is hard science fiction, which adheres by science as it was known
at the time the story was written
And then there's non-hard science fiction (which is never soft) which
violates science some of the time (or all of the time) but where the
author *knows* it - *every* time - when he's being a bad boy.
Soft science fiction is lame propaganda, a term coined by writers who
desperately want to go "But I wrote science fiction too!". Hey dude! No
you do *not*!
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Wayne Throop
: I disagree with your "need analysis". In very many cases, FTL *is*
: needed, because the character needs to get from somewhere to somewhere else.
: It is *only* the artificial gravity (of the non-rotiational kind)
: which is a true sign of the author being lazy (and/or rampantly
: science-iliterate).
I do have to wonder why most everybody's spaceships have a gravitational
acceleration perpendicular to the direction of travel. That always
seems so ... odd, so ... asymmetrical to me.
But ANYhoo, the only sense in which characters "need" to get places
FTL is the same one in which they "need" to be glued down to a flat
non-rotating deck. In each case, there may be some plot-directed or
intended-visual-image-related reason for wanting fast transit, or a
surface-ship-like configuration, but neither seems a better excuse for
implausibility or counterfactuality.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Ben Crowell
> More generally, good speculative fiction *by* *definition* adheres to a
> set of rules that the reader can *know*. The subgenre of good science
> fiction, as opposed to other good speculative fiction, differs only in
> that the rules are not made up by the author (and subsequently relayed
> to the reader via the text, in a more or less subtle fashion), but
> instead exist before he even starts writing the story.
>
> I don't acknowledge the existence of "soft science fiction".
>
> There is hard science fiction, which adheres by science as it was known
> at the time the story was written
>
> And then there's non-hard science fiction (which is never soft) which
> violates science some of the time (or all of the time) but where the
> author *knows* it - *every* time - when he's being a bad boy.
>
> Soft science fiction is lame propaganda, a term coined by writers who
> desperately want to go "But I wrote science fiction too!". Hey dude! No
> you do *not*!
Hmm...so would you say that half of Robert Heinlein's fiction (the part
without FTL) is science fiction, and the other half is speculative
fiction that isn't science fiction? One thing that seems a little
awkward to me about this is that "speculative fiction that isn't science
fiction" is an awfully awkward term. I guess you could make up an
acronym, like SFTISF. Or you could call something like Star Wars a
"fantasy," and I think that's perfectly valid, but very few people
would understand what you meant. Some people use the term "scifi,"
pronounced "skiffy," to refer to this sort of thing, but that's not
a universally understood definition. AFAIK, "hard SF" and "soft SF" are
the only terms in current use that people actually understand.
I also don't really believe in a perfectly sharp boundary between
hard and soft SF. Ignorance about science causes some of the fuzziness,
but even if you assume that the people using the terms are well versed
in science, there's still some fuzziness that remains. For instance,
a lot of Larry Niven's fiction includes "psi" stuff. Back in the 60's
and 70's, when he was first building the Known Space universe, there
was actually a reasonable amount of careful scientific research done
by competent scientists that seemed to show that ESP, telekinesis, etc.
existed. Of course even back then there were a lot of doubts about that
evidence. There were no plausible physical mechanisms by which it could
work, it was hard to reproduce, and the statistical quality of the data
was often poor. But, hey, the people doing the research were mostly
psychologists, and psychology just isn't a hard science -- by their
standards, it wasn't at all unusual for experiments to be hard to
reproduce, to be impossible to connect to underlying physical phenomena,
and to be statistically messy. In the last 30-40 years, it's become
a lot more clear that the original science was completely wrong (as
I'm sure most physicists, chemists, and biologists expected all along).
I think in the year 1970 it would have been reasonable to put Larry
Niven's psi stuff nearer to the hard SF side of the fuzzy boundary,
whereas now it would be clearly on the soft SF side, although perhaps
grandfathered in because it was more consistent with known science
at the time when it was written.
When it comes to FTL, I think there's also a lot of fuzziness involved.
FTL is not entirely forbidden by relativity. However, there are certain
flavors of FTL that smell more clearly bogus to a physicist than others.
The FTL in Sagan's "Contact" smells relatively non-bogus to me, whereas
the FTL in Star Wars smells completely bogus. One of my bogosity
criteria is that the structure of relativity dictates that any mechanism
for FTL should also be a mechanism for time travel. Another is that,
because of the way general relativity is put together, any mechanism for
FTL should require control over godlike amounts of mass and energy.
"Contact" passes both of these tests, and Star Wars passes neither.
But it's not at all difficult to find other SFnal treatments of FTL
that interpolate between these extremes. For instance, Heinlein's
Time Enough For Love sort of passes the FTL==time travel test, although
time travel is depicted as newer and more experimental.
I do agree that an awful lot of soft SF is written by people
who are ignorant of science, don't realize the extent of their own
ignorance, don't care, and simply want to translate Horatio Hornblower
into the interstellar milieu, appropriating SFnal tropes in an
ignorant and careless way.
Damien Valentine
<crowel...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote:
> But, hey, the people doing the research were mostly
> psychologists, and psychology just isn't a hard science -- by their
> standards, it wasn't at all unusual for experiments to be hard to
> reproduce, to be impossible to connect to underlying physical phenomena,
> and to be statistically messy.
Maybe this should branch off into another topic, but: do stories based
entirely on the non-"hard" sciences (such as psychology, or sociology,
or history, or biology, or ecology) count as sci-fi? If so, that
raises the rather absurd notion (at least to me) that "Watership Down"
and the works of Jane Austen are in the same genre as "Tau Zero" and
"I, Robot".
Joseph Nebus
>There is hard science fiction, which adheres by science as it was known
>at the time the story was written
>And then there's non-hard science fiction (which is never soft) which
>violates science some of the time (or all of the time) but where the
>author *knows* it - *every* time - when he's being a bad boy.
>Soft science fiction is lame propaganda, a term coined by writers who
>desperately want to go "But I wrote science fiction too!". Hey dude! No
>you do *not*!
I can only imagine how happy you'll be the day the first piece
of 'hard science fiction' is someday published.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If ever.
Ben Crowell
Huh? Watership Down has talking rabbits, so it's inconsistent with
what we know about science. Jane Austen isn't speculative fiction.
Luna
<e98ee070-edce-4eb3...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Damien Valentine <vale...@gmail.com> wrote:
Now I'm completely confused. History isn't a science to start with, and
plenty of genuine science fiction stories deal with the other stuff you
mentioned. Just looking at my own shelf, _The Space Merchants_ is
mostly about psychology and sociology, Philip K. Dick deals with . . .
mmm, all of the above mentioned soft sciences. Heinlein too. In fact, I
think all the futuristic gadgets and spaceships and whatnot in
Heinlein's stories are mainly there just as tools to put the characters
in situations where Heinlein can tell a story about psychology,
sociology, and biology.
Damien Valentine
> Huh? Watership Down has talking rabbits, so it's inconsistent with
> what we know about science.
So are lightsabers and time machines. "Watership" would be "soft" sci-
fi (if not downright "cuddly"), based around the biology of British
rabbits and other local organisms, with their common sapience as the
fictional element. (Even the rabbit culture and language Adams
proposes could be tied in with, say, anthropology or linguistics.)
> Jane Austen isn't speculative fiction.
Nobody said anything about "speculative", whatever that means. We
were talking about "science"...and if you've ever had the misfortune
of listening to sophomore English majors talk for an hour about Jane
Austen (as I have), you'll know that her links to the social sciences
are...sadly...endless.
Luna:
> History isn't a science to start with...
My apologies. I ought to have said "anthropology", "archaeology", or
some other "-ology" that everyone would be comfortable with.
> ...and plenty of genuine science fiction stories deal with the other stuff you
> mentioned.
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? What counts as a "genuine"
science fiction story? What criteria are we going to use to let
Heinlein in -- who's using physics and astronomy "just as tools to put
the characters in...a story about psychology, sociology, and biology"
-- and the kick the guys who write ER episodes out -- who're using
medicine "just as tools to..." etc.? Because so far we've just got
"science fiction is fiction that has some kind of science in it,
somewhere, for some reason".
Leonard Erickson
<crow...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote:
>When it comes to FTL, I think there's also a lot of fuzziness involved.
>FTL is not entirely forbidden by relativity. However, there are certain
>flavors of FTL that smell more clearly bogus to a physicist than others.
>The FTL in Sagan's "Contact" smells relatively non-bogus to me, whereas
>the FTL in Star Wars smells completely bogus. One of my bogosity
>criteria is that the structure of relativity dictates that any mechanism
>for FTL should also be a mechanism for time travel. Another is that,
>because of the way general relativity is put together, any mechanism for
>FTL should require control over godlike amounts of mass and energy.
>"Contact" passes both of these tests, and Star Wars passes neither.
Read the late Dr. Robert Forward's "Timemaster". for FTL that does
include time travel and *doesn't* require godlike amounts of mass or
energy.
It merely requires the existemce of matter with negative mass. Which
is not forbidden by theory. :-)
He even dealt with causality problems.
Ben Crowell
read the whole novel. What's the dodge that allows it to be done without
large amounts of mass and energy? Basically any strong curvature of
spacetime requires that the stress-energy tensor be big.
As far as the negative mass, my impression is that various
FTL/time-travel/closed-timelike-loop solutions have a tendency
to require *both* the large amounts of mass and energy (for the
reasons above, which are well understood) and the negative mass (for
reasons that are less well understood, especially by me but probably
by experts to a lesser extent).
Luke Campbell
<crowel...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote:
> Leonard Erickson wrote:
> > Read the late Dr. Robert Forward's "Timemaster". for FTL that does
> > include time travel and *doesn't* require godlike amounts of mass or
> > energy.
>
> > It merely requires the existemce of matter with negative mass. Which
> > is not forbidden by theory. :-)
>
> > He even dealt with causality problems.
>
> Now you've got my curiosity piqued, but probably not enough to get me to
> read the whole novel.
It wasn't one of Forward's best. The book did explore some
interesting issues of causality and determinism - it's not a complete
waste - but I found the characters flat and the plot rather
unengaging. It was not on the level of Dragon's Egg or Rocheworld.
> What's the dodge that allows it to be done without
> large amounts of mass and energy?
Unobtanium. In particular, bizarre aliens made out of negative-mass-
energy matter.
> Basically any strong curvature of
> spacetime requires that the stress-energy tensor be big.
It has been a while since I read it, but I recall the magnitude of the
negative-energy stuff being used to stabilize the wormholes was well
below that which would allow those kind of wormholes to be
stabilized. They were fairly standard Visser wormholes, which require
fairly extreme "strings" of negative-energy-mass stuff.
Other science glitches I caught - the reactionless drive method would
have been dynamically unstable, and shining light on negative-energy-
mass would not reduce its temperature.
Luke
Leonard Erickson
<crow...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com> wrote:
Paired negative & positive masses give you a "free" constant boost
drive.
I forget what they did to use it to create stable wormholes.
You got the time travel by moving one and at near C speeds and
bringing it back.
John Schilling
<vale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ben:
>> Huh? Watership Down has talking rabbits, so it's inconsistent with
>> what we know about science.
>So are lightsabers and time machines. "Watership" would be "soft" sci-
>fi (if not downright "cuddly"), based around the biology of British
>rabbits and other local organisms, with their common sapience as the
>fictional element. (Even the rabbit culture and language Adams
>proposes could be tied in with, say, anthropology or linguistics.)
There would be an interesting ambiguity if someone wrote a story with
a highly rigorous examination of the anthropology and linguistics of
talking rabbits - would it be "soft" SF on account of anthropology and
linguistics being "soft" science, or "hard" SF on account of the rigor
and attention to scientific detail?
Interesting but mostly moot, on account of SF writers seem to almost
never actually do that, instead saving their quota of scientific rigor
for astronomy, physics, and engineering.
>> Jane Austen isn't speculative fiction.
>Nobody said anything about "speculative", whatever that means.
Uh, this is rasfs, the "sf" part being "speculative fiction", so it's
kind of important to know what that means.
What that means, is fiction about stuff that isn't known to exist
or to have ever existed. Including stuff that we absolutely know
doesn't exist, like e.g. Vampires, Dragons, and Little Green Men
from Mars, as well as stuff where we don't know yet, e.g. Artificial
Intelligence, 23rd-century Starships, and Little Green Men from Alpha
Centauri.
>We were talking about "science"...and if you've ever had the misfortune
>of listening to sophomore English majors talk for an hour about Jane
>Austen (as I have), you'll know that her links to the social sciences
>are...sadly...endless.
Yes, but not fictional or speculative social sciences. Single young
men in posession of a fortune and in want of a wife, and all the rest,
are known to have existed in Regency England. Specific names, places,
and plot details are fictional. The social sciences linking all these
things together, are quite real.
There does nontheless seem to be a disproportionate appeal of Austen
to SF fans, because that culture is so long gone and beyond forgotten
to most of us as to be quite alien, and SF dealing with the sociology
of (literal) aliens is a favored tradition in the genre. Though you
typically need at least a little bit of fictional astronomy, physics,
and engineering to arrange a meeting with the fictional aliens.
For science fiction based on speculative *human* social science, you'd
need something like Margaret Attwood's "The Handmaiden's Tale". Large,
culturally and technically sophisticated human populations with a gross
shortage of fertile women are not known to have ever existed and maybe
never will, so the sociology of such a culture is necessarily speculative
and the story based on said sociology is science fiction.
Even if the culture's astronomy, physics, and engineering are identical
to our own, with nary a robot, death ray, or spaceship in sight.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Sc...@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Remus Shepherd
> Ben:
> > Huh? Watership Down has talking rabbits, so it's inconsistent with
> > what we know about science.
> So are lightsabers and time machines. "Watership" would be "soft" sci-
> fi (if not downright "cuddly"), based around the biology of British
> rabbits and other local organisms, with their common sapience as the
> fictional element. (Even the rabbit culture and language Adams
> proposes could be tied in with, say, anthropology or linguistics.)
There's a point where the science is so 'soft' that you just have
to call it fantasy. In addition to talking rabbits, Watership Down has
a ghostly black rabbit of death and a more-or-less active sun god. It's
a fairy tale, and falls squarely in the fantasy genre.
> Well, that's the problem, isn't it? What counts as a "genuine"
> science fiction story? What criteria are we going to use to let
> Heinlein in -- who's using physics and astronomy "just as tools to put
> the characters in...a story about psychology, sociology, and biology"
> -- and the kick the guys who write ER episodes out -- who're using
> medicine "just as tools to..." etc.? Because so far we've just got
> "science fiction is fiction that has some kind of science in it,
> somewhere, for some reason".
For what it's worth, I've been using the following definitions:
Fantasy assumes that the reader will suspend disbelief when presented
with common tropes. ("Okay, it's an elf with a magic sword.")
Soft science fiction uses established sci-fi tropes to create
suspension of disbelief in the reader. ("So he looks like an elf because
of genetic manipulation. Okay, I'll buy that.") Where the tropes do not
exist, 'soft' science fiction makes no attempt to explain them. ("And
the sword has computer-aided swinging action? Um, all right.")
Hard science fiction works hard to suspend disbelief in the reader,
working from scientific principles that we know are true today.
("The pointy ears are chimeric cartilage, altered in utero by that sect of
star-trek worshipping wackjobs that he grew up in. And the sword uses
liquid gallium-filled chambers, controlled by magnetic actuators that
enhance balance and increase the power of any swing. Cool!")
To summarize: Hard science fiction earns every ounce of disbelief it
gets. Fantasy relies on the readers to be willing participants in the
suspension of disbelief. And soft science fiction falls in between, relying
on the fact that previous sci-fi stories have recognizable components that
readers will latch onto if given the chance.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
Comic: http://indepos.comicgenesis.com/
Wayne Throop
: For what it's worth, I've been using the following definitions:
:
: Fantasy assumes that the reader will suspend disbelief when presented
: with common tropes. ("Okay, it's an elf with a magic sword.")
:
: Soft science fiction uses established sci-fi tropes to create
: suspension of disbelief in the reader. ("So he looks like an elf because
: of genetic manipulation. Okay, I'll buy that.") Where the tropes do not
: exist, 'soft' science fiction makes no attempt to explain them. ("And
: the sword has computer-aided swinging action? Um, all right.")
:
: Hard science fiction works hard to suspend disbelief in the reader,
: working from scientific principles that we know are true today.
: ("The pointy ears are chimeric cartilage, altered in utero by that sect of
: star-trek worshipping wackjobs that he grew up in. And the sword uses
: liquid gallium-filled chambers, controlled by magnetic actuators that
: enhance balance and increase the power of any swing. Cool!")
:
: To summarize: Hard science fiction earns every ounce of disbelief it
: gets. Fantasy relies on the readers to be willing participants in the
: suspension of disbelief. And soft science fiction falls in between, relying
: on the fact that previous sci-fi stories have recognizable components that
: readers will latch onto if given the chance.
That's an interesting model, but it doesn't seem to cover some very
important areas. Such as Brian Sanderson's "Mistborn" setting, where he's
not relying on common tropes, or things like the 30s superscience epics,
or even, say, Vinge's Zones of Thought, or even Asimov's positronic
brains, where the sometimes-fairly-extensive explanations that are
given aren't based on "scientific principles we know are true today".
Or cases like Niven's Magic Goes Away, or Swann's Broken Crescent, or
Cook's Wizard's Bane, where lots of explanation goes into supporting
relatively traditional tropes.
Basically it seems to be a simple linear spectrum drawn through a much more
complex and oddly connected "space" of tropes/techniques/expectations/whatnot.
In some ways, for some purposes, a two-dimentional surface may be a better
approximation, where "hardness" refers to how much thought (though not
necessarily exposition) goes into keeping things recognizably consistent,
and oh, call it "rational", and "fantasy/SF" refers to choice of tropes.
Hence, Sanderson and/or Swann's works mentioned above could be
termed "hard fantasy".
Phillip Thorne
>In general, science fiction comes in two broad categories - hard Sci-
>fi and soft sci fi. Hard Sci-fi is that which is as consistent with
>But are these definitions too rigid? [...]
>I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
This is a perennial question on the :rasf groups, and occasionally
someone voices a new insight.
Here's my take, Part One: there are real and significant differences
between stories in the speculative fiction realm but the labels
"science fiction" and "fantasy" don't describe them very well, because
they exist for marketing purposes. Intermediate and qualified terms
like "hard SF," "scifi," and "science fantasy" don't work much better.
And Part Two: the differences lie not *what* the story contains
(rayguns, telepathy, dragons, talking weapons, exotic locales), but in
*how* they're used and *why* the author included them.
Some ways this may manifest:
1. Is the author exploring how a particular development (usually
technological, but maybe in a "soft" science) alters current society?
Cloning, automated medicine, contact with aliens, the discovery that
ghosts are real and measurable, replacing wives with robots, our
imminent demise beneath an asteroid, etc.
2. Is it *somebody else's* society that operates very differently from
our own, because of some specific development, and these differences
are entertaining? The people reside in microgravity, have three
sexes, telepathically bond with flying reptiles, are robots wondering
if they evolved from organics, etc.
3. It's an "engineering challenge," which is like a mystery in that
the reader can figure out the solution, given evidence provided by the
author and a knowledge of the applicable sci/tech subject. "I'm
experiencing extreme tidal forces; I'd better crouch at the center of
the ship."
4. A "sensawunda" story, which can include anything real (travelogue),
imaginary, or hypothetical, simply for the jaw-dropping majesty of it
all; "science fiction sensawunda" would focus on the clouds of Saturn,
sky-filling armadas, or telecom systems built of delicately balanced
micro black holes.
5. It's an adventure story, in which swapping-out the props
(swords/six-shooters/phasers, orcs/redskins/Klingons, magic
country/wild west/alien planet) has no effect whatsoever on the plot
or the nature of the characters.
Now, since nothing longer than a one-idea short story is monolithic,
there may be a mix of components and styles. If it contains too much
of a style you don't care for, you're likely to discard the whole
thing as a bad investment of time.
In both SF (hard or otherwise) and fantasy, there's an element of
worldbuilding -- the author transports the reader to a
new/different/unfamiliar place, and has to *invent* that place. A
foreign country or a historical era may be unfamiliar, but it's not
invented. Conversely, the tropes of Extruded Fantasy Product are so
familiar that no invention is required.
--
** Phillip Thorne ** peth...@comcast.net **************
* RPI CompSci 1998 *
** underbase.livejournal.com ***************************
Remus Shepherd
> : To summarize: Hard science fiction earns every ounce of disbelief it
> : gets. Fantasy relies on the readers to be willing participants in the
> : suspension of disbelief. And soft science fiction falls in between, relying
> : on the fact that previous sci-fi stories have recognizable components that
> : readers will latch onto if given the chance.
> That's an interesting model, but it doesn't seem to cover some very
> important areas. Such as Brian Sanderson's "Mistborn" setting, where he's
> not relying on common tropes, or things like the 30s superscience epics,
> or even, say, Vinge's Zones of Thought, or even Asimov's positronic
> brains, where the sometimes-fairly-extensive explanations that are
> given aren't based on "scientific principles we know are true today".
> Or cases like Niven's Magic Goes Away, or Swann's Broken Crescent, or
> Cook's Wizard's Bane, where lots of explanation goes into supporting
> relatively traditional tropes.
You left out L. Sprague de Camp's Compleat Enchanter series, where magic
is explained with well-defined rules and logical outcomes. In my opinion it
doesn't matter. It's still magic, still 'soft', no matter how detailed and
baroque the description, if it is based on principals that are provably
absent in our universe.
(Note, however, that Asimov was writing based on the science known in
his day. What was 'hard' back then became 'soft' only after science
advanced ahead of it. Note also that they were inventing the tropes back
then -- what was 'hard' became 'soft' when everyone accepted it as standard
procedure in many stories.)
You'll probably be happy to hear that Sheila Williams agrees with you. :)
In an editorial she wrote after becoming editor of Asimov's, Ms. Williams
opined (if I recall her position correctly) that any story where the author
took such lengths to describe a logical, well-defined universe qualified
as science fiction. Worlds with fuzzier rules were fantasy. The method
of storytelling was the important distinction, for her. I disagreed,
as her definition paints a lot of blatantly fantasy works as sci-fi --
like Compleat Enchanter, Magic Goes Away, and Perdido Street Station -- while
a lot of obviously science fiction stories end up being binned as fantasy
-- like Vinge's Zone stories.
The Williams method of sorting stories does have advantages. For one,
the definitions of hard and soft sci-fi do not drift over time. And it can
be argued that it's better for classifying readers by what they want --
readers who want overloaded descriptions of complex rules might be equally
happy with Robert Forward or L. Sprague de Camp, and people who like stories
with fuzzier physics might enjoy both Star Wars and Watership Down. That's
handy for editors and publishers who need to categorize stories. Of course,
it also leads them to do stupid things like put 'Sci-Fi Essential Book' on
the cover of things like Steven Brust's _Dzur_. (Love the series, Steven,
but sci-fi it is *not*.)
The Williams rules do not work for me. When I read, I want the author to
convince me their premise works. If they don't try then I can accept the
story on its dramatic merits as fantasy. If they try and succeed then I can
admire the skillful worldbuilding. But if they try and they fail, I throw
the book at the wall. It's hard to measure the skill by which a story is
told if you have no expectations by which to begin. I expect science fiction
authors to make some effort to convince me their world could be real. I
do not expect that of fantasy, and I usually find it tedious when they do.
(I disliked _Perdido Street Station_, frex. Spare me another fifty pages of
bullshit about how that impossible thing works, please.)
So that's how I classify the genres. Everyone is free to disagree with
me. :)
> In some ways, for some purposes, a two-dimentional surface may be a better
> approximation, where "hardness" refers to how much thought (though not
> necessarily exposition) goes into keeping things recognizably consistent,
> and oh, call it "rational", and "fantasy/SF" refers to choice of tropes.
> Hence, Sanderson and/or Swann's works mentioned above could be
> termed "hard fantasy".
Sure, let's equate 'rational' and 'hard'. So there's 'rational fantasy',
'rational science fiction', 'soft fantasy' and 'soft science fiction'.
Now, what's the difference between 'rational fantasy' and 'rational science
fiction' in this scheme? Or between either of the 'soft' genres? How would
you classify Perdido Street Station, or Star Wars, knowing that every
publisher on the planet considers them both sci-fi?
My classification system sometimes mixes up hard and soft. The Williams
classification system tends to mix up science and fantasy. I prefer mine.
Wayne Throop
: You left out L. Sprague de Camp's Compleat Enchanter series, where magic
: is explained with well-defined rules and logical outcomes. In my opinion it
: doesn't matter. It's still magic, still 'soft', no matter how detailed and
: baroque the description, if it is based on principals that are provably
: absent in our universe.
Yes, but what you *said* was, the tropes are left unexplained. Further,
even if you take it to mean "tropes obviously not intended to be taken
the least bit seriously", calling that "fantasy" is far too coarse,
since it includes lensmen, skylark, zones of thought, positronic brains,
warshawski sails, and lots of other things, which are certainly not
reasonably "fantasy" in any normal sense. Nor, really, intended to be
"soft" in any normal sense connected with how much elaboration and
consistency hygene is done on the setting.
Which is why I'd both divorce the hard/soft axis from the
fantasy/sciencefiction axis, as well as from any plausibility issues.
Which represent consistency/elaboration, tropes, and realscience(tm)
respectively. Because it seems a more useful way to think about it.
( I realize I said "two axes" before. Our *three*, *three* axes...
amongst our many axes... wait, I'll come in again. )
: You'll probably be happy to hear that Sheila Williams agrees with you.
: :) In an editorial she wrote after becoming editor of Asimov's, Ms.
: Williams opined (if I recall her position correctly) that any story
: where the author took such lengths to describe a logical, well-defined
: universe qualified as science fiction.
Hm. That's not quite what I meant. But still, yes, one possible
way of looking at it, even if I find it less useful.
: Sure, let's equate 'rational' and 'hard'. So there's 'rational
: fantasy', 'rational science fiction', 'soft fantasy' and 'soft science
: fiction'. Now, what's the difference between 'rational fantasy' and
: 'rational science fiction' in this scheme?
The tropes. Within science fiction, there's also a plausibility spectrum.
Well... there's also one in fantasy, having to do with how realistically
people act given the asserted background, and similar issues.
: How would you classify Perdido Street Station, or Star Wars, knowing
: that every publisher on the planet considers them both sci-fi?
I bounced on PSS, sorry. Star Wars has mixed science fiction and fantasy
tropes, without much plausibility to either of them, and without much
elaboration/consistency (though of course, consistency can always be
retconned by adding an elaborate enough justification after the fact).
: My classification system sometimes mixes up hard and soft. The
: Williams classification system tends to mix up science and fantasy. I
: prefer mine.
Good point. That's why I prefer not to mix up those two axes.
Nor mix them with plausibility.
Long roads the Sword of Fury makes
Hard walls it builds around the soft
The fighter who Townsaver takes
Can bid farewell to home and croft.
--- Saberhagen, Song of Swords
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:12088...@sheol.org:
>: Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
>: You left out L. Sprague de Camp's Compleat Enchanter series,
>: where magic
>: is explained with well-defined rules and logical outcomes. In
>: my opinion it doesn't matter. It's still magic, still 'soft',
>: no matter how detailed and baroque the description, if it is
>: based on principals that are provably absent in our universe.
>
> Yes, but what you *said* was, the tropes are left unexplained.
> Further, even if you take it to mean "tropes obviously not
> intended to be taken the least bit seriously", calling that
> "fantasy" is far too coarse, since it includes lensmen, skylark,
> zones of thought, positronic brains, warshawski sails, and lots
> of other things, which are certainly not reasonably "fantasy" in
> any normal sense.
They certainly aren't science fiction in any normal sense, either.
Perhaps that's why we have a term for "science fantasy." To cover
stuff that's clearly fantasy, but has a futuristic, techno theme to
it.
--
Terry Austin
"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Damien Valentine
> Uh, this is rasfs, the "sf" part being "speculative fiction", so it's
> kind of important to know what that means.
I certainly agree. But at that point, nobody had defined the term in
this thread, or explained its relationship to the term "science
fiction". Since this whole post is about definitions, I thought it
was worth exploring.
> Yes, but not fictional or speculative social sciences. Single young
> men in posession of a fortune and in want of a wife, and all the rest,
> are known to have existed in Regency England. Specific names, places,
> and plot details are fictional. The social sciences linking all these
> things together, are quite real.
What are you saying here? That the elements of a science fiction
story must be based in non-existent academic fields? Or only that the
elements themselves must be fictional, and can be based in known
science? The "fictional social sciences" reference suggests the
former, but the rest of the paragraph sounds like the latter.
Eivind Kjorstad
> Hard science fiction works hard to suspend disbelief in the reader,
> working from scientific principles that we know are true today.
> ("The pointy ears are chimeric cartilage, altered in utero by that sect of
> star-trek worshipping wackjobs that he grew up in. And the sword uses
> liquid gallium-filled chambers, controlled by magnetic actuators that
> enhance balance and increase the power of any swing. Cool!")
Trying to explain things which are probably impossible frequently hurts
suspension of disbelief though, because since we know no actually
PLAUSIBLE explanation, whatever the author comes up with is likely to be
implausible. The sword explanation, for example, from above, sounds like
nonsense, besides being a rube-goldberg contraption of the first order.
I don't like the requirement for explanations. Why would a story that is
completely plausible in every way (i.e. as far as we currently know,
this could actually happen in 50 years) not qualify as hard sci-fi, just
because it does not do anything to -explain- the progress made ?
For example, I see no physical reason elf-ears are impossible. If I read
a story set in the future where these where somewhat common, and this
wasn't explained in any way, besides mentioning that they where a
popular modification in some sub-cultures. Why does it matter that the
method ain't explained ? There are any number of plausible ways such a
mod could be performed.
Eivind
Damien Valentine
> There's a point where the science is so 'soft' that you just have
> to call it fantasy. In addition to talking rabbits, Watership Down has
> a ghostly black rabbit of death and a more-or-less active sun god. It's
> a fairy tale, and falls squarely in the fantasy genre.
So what distinguishes science fiction from fantasy (or "fairy tale" if
you like) is the presence of gods? Or magic? What do you consider a
"god"? What do you consider "magic"?
> [snip comments on magic swords]
> To summarize: Hard science fiction earns every ounce of disbelief it
> gets. Fantasy relies on the readers to be willing participants in the
> suspension of disbelief. And soft science fiction falls in between, relying
> on the fact that previous sci-fi stories have recognizable components that
> readers will latch onto if given the chance.
Forgive me, but it seems the distinction between "liquid gallium-
filled chambers controlled by magnetic actuators", "computer-aided
swinging action", and "magic"...is just a question of how much
exposition you want to stick in. They're all mechanisms for the
suspension of disbelief: some just have more syllables than others.
Remus Shepherd
> On Apr 22, 7:27?am, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
> > ? ?There's a point where the science is so 'soft' that you just have
> > to call it fantasy. ?In addition to talking rabbits, Watership Down has
> > a ghostly black rabbit of death and a more-or-less active sun god. ?It's
> > a fairy tale, and falls squarely in the fantasy genre.
> So what distinguishes science fiction from fantasy (or "fairy tale" if
> you like) is the presence of gods? Or magic? What do you consider a
> "god"? What do you consider "magic"?
Both I would call 'inexplicable forces'. Possibly even 'ineffable'.
> Forgive me, but it seems the distinction between "liquid gallium-
> filled chambers controlled by magnetic actuators", "computer-aided
> swinging action", and "magic"...is just a question of how much
> exposition you want to stick in. They're all mechanisms for the
> suspension of disbelief: some just have more syllables than others.
Yep. And to me that's the difference between hard and soft science
fiction: The care and plausability the author gives to the suspension of
disbelief in his world.
The difference between science fiction and fantasy is in the choice of
tropes used to tell the story. If the plausability hinges on something
inexplicable, no matter how well described, that's magic and the story
is fantasy.
And let me reiterate that everything I've expressed in this thread is
my opinion. These are definitions that work for me.
Michael Ash
> On Apr 22, 7:27?am, Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> to call it fantasy. ?In addition to talking rabbits, Watership Down has
>> a ghostly black rabbit of death and a more-or-less active sun god. ?It's
>> a fairy tale, and falls squarely in the fantasy genre.
>
> So what distinguishes science fiction from fantasy (or "fairy tale" if
> you like) is the presence of gods? Or magic? What do you consider a
> "god"? What do you consider "magic"?
SF is a modification or extrapolation of the present day (or of the known
universe, at least) by means of technology. Fantasy is arbitrary,
non-technological changes.
If your magic comes from nanotechnology, it's SF. If your magic comes from
a pervasive field that gets "used up", it's fantasy. If your gods are gods
because they have extremely high technology, SF, if they're just there,
fantasy.
Of course the line isn't always clear-cut. That's life.
--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
Ben Crowell
> The difference between science fiction and fantasy is in the choice of
> tropes used to tell the story. If the plausability hinges on something
> inexplicable, no matter how well described, that's magic and the story
> is fantasy.
IMO, the inclusion of tropes in the definition works well when you're
trying to assign things to marketing categories, but less well
when you're trying to have a literary discussion.
Suppose Captain Kirk stands on the bridge of the Enterprise, and the
Klingon bird of prey scores a hit, causing the ship to shake. Someone
who's scientifically illiterate will immediately decide that these are
SF tropes; that's why this story has to be *marketed* as SF. But to
someone who's scientifically knowledgeable, it's clear that the
analysis is more complicated. Why is Kirk standing upright on the
bridge? Why is artificial gravity being provided by magitech? Why are
the weapons only as powerful as cannons, rather than having an energy
scale more appropriate to the relativistic scale at which the
technology operates? IMO, the reason is that these aren't really
SFnal tropes at all, they're tropes from a Horatio Hornblower novel.
Another problem with using tropes in the definitions is that insisting
on traditional tropes helps to make the field sterile and boring. The
reason a novel like Doctorow's Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom feels
fresh is that it doesn't have ray-guns and spaceships.
il...@rcn.com
> the story that they want to tell while exploring those topics. For
> example _Starship troopers_ COULD have been told substantively the
> same without FTL and especially without artificial gravity.
Without artificial gravity, sure, but without FTL the story would be
impossible. Human interstellar expansion *under one government* (and
that government's reaction to threats) is major part of the book, and
you can not have that without FTL.
Dan Goodman
According to the late F.M. Busby, you can:
* Rissa Kerguelen and Bran Tregare
o Hulzein
+ The Rebel Dynasty, Volume I (1987) [O/1,2]
+ The Rebel Dynasty, Volume II (1988) [O/3,4]
+ 1 Star Rebel (1984)
+ 2 Rebel's Quest (1985)
+ 3 The Alien Debt (1984)
+ 4 Rebels' Seed (1986)
o Rissa Kerguelen
+ Rissa Kerguelen (omnibus) (1977) [O/1,2]
+ 1 Rissa Kerguelen (1976)
# Variant Title: Rissa and Tregare (1984)
# Variant Title: Young Rissa (1984)
+ 2 The Long View (1976)
+ 3 Zelde M'Tana (1980)
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
Wayne Throop
: + 1 Rissa Kerguelen (1976)
: # Variant Title: Rissa and Tregare (1984)
: # Variant Title: Young Rissa (1984)
Does that mean "Rissa Kerguelen", "Rissa and Tregare" and "Young Rissa"
are all supposed to be the same book? I don't think that's the case.
Dan Goodman
> : "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com>
> : + 1 Rissa Kerguelen (1976)
> : # Variant Title: Rissa and Tregare (1984)
> : # Variant Title: Young Rissa (1984)
>
> Does that mean "Rissa Kerguelen", "Rissa and Tregare" and "Young
> Rissa" are all supposed to be the same book? I don't think that's
> the case.
I'm not sure if the Internet Speculative Fiction Data Base
(http://isfdb.org) made a mistake, or is stating this in a confusing
manner.
Tue Sorensen
> In general, science fiction comes in two broad categories - hard Sci-
> fi and soft sci fi. Hard Sci-fi is that which is as consistent with
> Forward, The Killing Star by Charles Pellegrino, or Contact by Carl
> Sagan. While all involve some phenomenal technology, neither the
> negative matter drive, the relativistic bomb, nor wormhole bridge are
> explicitly forbidden by science. On the other hand you have soft sci-
> fi, which encompasses everything from cyberpunk to anime to space
> opera. Here the science takes a back seat or is thrown out the window
> in favor of the story.
>
> But are these definitions too rigid? Consider when complaints are
> raised against books being hard sci-fi they focus on physics
> violations - the ship has artificial gravity, shields, and goes FTL.
> But there are more types of science then just physics. Science Fiction
> is a genre defined by taking an idea, putting it in a fictional
> setting and then applying science to determine what the effects of
> this idea would be and what it would require. This broad definition is
> what allows books like "10,000 leagues under the sea" to be considered
> sci-fi though they lack the typical space ships. So what about books
> that are examining ideas not relevant to physical sciences, but
> instead behavioral, economic, or political.
>
> Consider "Starship Troopers" by Robert Heinlein. It has FTL and
> artificial gravity, which would under most conventions define it as
> soft sci-fi. But Starship Troopers is not written about the marvels of
> space travel. Starship Troopers is about military life and life in a
> limited franchise republic. The ramifications of restricting the right
> to vote to those who have served will have nothing to do with physics.
> But it will affect economics, political science, and human behavior,
> which is what the book explores. Or "Blindsight" by Peter Watts which
> features vampires and teleportation but uses evolution, biology, and
> game theory to discuss consciousness. On television we have the new
> Battlestar Galactic which examines the response a society would have
> in a near extinction scenario. The morality of throwing enemy
> personnel out the airlock cannot be calculated, yet it still examines
> the idea of it and its logical repercussions on everyone else in
> accordance with behavioral science.
>
> So should a book, movie, comic, etc that violates physics but does so
> to examine an unrelated idea still fall under hard sci-fi so long as
> it rigidly adheres to the scientific principles relevant to the idea
> being examined?
>
> I would appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
My thoughts:
The idea that hard sci-fi should focus on known science is a common
misconception. At Finncon 2007 hard SF writer Joe Haldeman said:
"Hard SF is not about *accurate* science, but about the characters’
*attitude* to [what the book presents as] science."
Leading SF critic John Clute concurred and added: "To insist that SF
should only feature known science is like saying that we shouldn’t
write SF at all."
Some of the people here should give these lines a long, hard chew-
over.
Ultimately, the question of what hard sci-fi is, is as difficult to
answer as the question of exactly what science is. And as you know the
philosophers still aren't entirely in agreement about that. I think it
becomes easier to relate to such questions if you stop talking about
science and start talking about a scientific attitude. Once such an
attitude is established, and supernatural silliness has been left
behind, the universe is your oyster. Everything in the universe, and
all aspects of its sentient inhabitants and their societies, become
part of the realm of science; part of the scientific world view. The
realm of sci-fi encompasses everything that is in any way - whether
explicitly or symbolically - relevant to the development and self-
understanding of secular humanity.
Hard sci-fi may be a bit more specifically scientific; a bit tighter
about the scientific elements (whether they comprise known science or
educated speculations about future or alien science), but in the end
hard sci-fi is simply one subgenre of science fiction which happens to
emphasize (usually) the known laws of physics. Most sci-fi fans,
including myself, tend to idolize hard sci-fi, but I'm finding myself
becoming more openminded. Stories of the future which focus on social
engineering (a la Heinlein) or grand visions of galactic colonization
(a la space opera) are just as much sci-fi as the "hard" stuff. They
discuss things that are relevant to human beings who understand the
universe by way of a scientific attitude. And that, gentlemen, is the
proverbial rub. The heart of science fiction is not science itself,
but the exploration of the possible destinies of science-minded human
beings.
And lastly I want to emphasize that there is no law that states that,
in space opera or other "softer" subgenres, science takes or should
take a backseat to the story. The writer can put as much or as little
science into the story as he or she cares to. It's the individual
writer's choice. Provided of course the writer isn't bound by rigid
definitions, believing in "one right way to do it" (which is often
wrong), as unfortunately I think that many do. But that's ignorance.
Or lack of imagination, which is practically the same thing.
- Tue Sorensen
Ben Crowell
> The idea that hard sci-fi should focus on known science is a common
> misconception. At Finncon 2007 hard SF writer Joe Haldeman said:
>
> "Hard SF is not about *accurate* science, but about the characters’
> *attitude* to [what the book presents as] science."
>
> Leading SF critic John Clute concurred and added: "To insist that SF
> should only feature known science is like saying that we shouldn’t
> write SF at all."
Just because you can find two quotes to support a certain point of
view, that doesn't mean that an opposing point of view represents
a "misconception."
Actually, I think the term "known science" may be an indication of
a common misconception about the nature of science, which is that
new scientific theories replace old ones wholesale. A story that
violates Newton's laws, within their realm of applicability, is
simply scientifically incorrect.
> Ultimately, the question of what hard sci-fi is, is as difficult to
> answer as the question of exactly what science is. And as you know the
> philosophers still aren't entirely in agreement about that. I think it
> becomes easier to relate to such questions if you stop talking about
> science and start talking about a scientific attitude. Once such an
> attitude is established, and supernatural silliness has been left
> behind, the universe is your oyster. Everything in the universe, and
> all aspects of its sentient inhabitants and their societies, become
> part of the realm of science; part of the scientific world view. The
> realm of sci-fi encompasses everything that is in any way - whether
> explicitly or symbolically - relevant to the development and self-
> understanding of secular humanity.
The definition you're proposing leads to absurd results. By your
criteria, The Hobbit could be called hard SF because Bilbo experiments
to see what the ring does, while Heinlein's Red Planet could not,
because the Martian characters show a lack of interest in science
and technology.
> Hard sci-fi may be a bit more specifically scientific; a bit tighter
> about the scientific elements (whether they comprise known science or
> educated speculations about future or alien science), but in the end
> hard sci-fi is simply one subgenre of science fiction which happens to
> emphasize (usually) the known laws of physics. Most sci-fi fans,
> including myself, tend to idolize hard sci-fi, but I'm finding myself
> becoming more openminded. Stories of the future which focus on social
> engineering (a la Heinlein) or grand visions of galactic colonization
> (a la space opera) are just as much sci-fi as the "hard" stuff. They
> discuss things that are relevant to human beings who understand the
> universe by way of a scientific attitude. And that, gentlemen, is the
> proverbial rub. The heart of science fiction is not science itself,
> but the exploration of the possible destinies of science-minded human
> beings.
>
> And lastly I want to emphasize that there is no law that states that,
> in space opera or other "softer" subgenres, science takes or should
> take a backseat to the story. The writer can put as much or as little
> science into the story as he or she cares to. It's the individual
> writer's choice. Provided of course the writer isn't bound by rigid
> definitions, believing in "one right way to do it" (which is often
> wrong), as unfortunately I think that many do. But that's ignorance.
> Or lack of imagination, which is practically the same thing.
You don't need to apply the label "hard SF" inappropriately in order
to argue that soft SF can be good SF.
Tue Sorensen
wrote:
> Tue Sorensen wrote:
> > The idea that hard sci-fi should focus on known science is a common
> > misconception. At Finncon 2007 hard SF writer Joe Haldeman said:
>
> > "Hard SF is not about *accurate* science, but about the characters’
> > *attitude* to [what the book presents as] science."
>
> > Leading SF critic John Clute concurred and added: "To insist that SF
> > should only feature known science is like saying that we shouldn’t
> > write SF at all."
>
> Just because you can find two quotes
Witnessed them first-hand, actually.
> to support a certain point of
> view, that doesn't mean that an opposing point of view represents
> a "misconception."
No, not necessarily. But in this case I believe it does.
> Actually, I think the term "known science" may be an indication of
> a common misconception about the nature of science, which is that
> new scientific theories replace old ones wholesale. A story that
> violates Newton's laws, within their realm of applicability, is
> simply scientifically incorrect.
Imagined science is part and parcel of writing fiction about science,
i.e. science fiction. SF is fiction about the myriad conceivable and
inconceivable possibilities of science. If the book's attitude is
properly scientific, then it can be defined as hard SF, whether or not
it features currently known science (a great example being Haldeman's
"Mindbridge"). But of course I agree that it shouldn't *violate*
currently known science unless it can find a really convincing way of
doing it.
> > Ultimately, the question of what hard sci-fi is, is as difficult to
> > answer as the question of exactly what science is. And as you know the
> > philosophers still aren't entirely in agreement about that. I think it
> > becomes easier to relate to such questions if you stop talking about
> > science and start talking about a scientific attitude. Once such an
> > attitude is established, and supernatural silliness has been left
> > behind, the universe is your oyster. Everything in the universe, and
> > all aspects of its sentient inhabitants and their societies, become
> > part of the realm of science; part of the scientific world view. The
> > realm of sci-fi encompasses everything that is in any way - whether
> > explicitly or symbolically - relevant to the development and self-
> > understanding of secular humanity.
>
> The definition you're proposing leads to absurd results. By your
> criteria, The Hobbit could be called hard SF because Bilbo experiments
> to see what the ring does, while Heinlein's Red Planet could not,
> because the Martian characters show a lack of interest in science
> and technology.
*Actually*, by my definition no form of fantasy can be called SF, as
fantasy worlds almost always have magic and/or gods, and hence are not
based on a scientific world view. It's the basic world view that
determines whether something is science fiction or not.
> > And lastly I want to emphasize that there is no law that states that,
> > in space opera or other "softer" subgenres, science takes or should
> > take a backseat to the story. The writer can put as much or as little
> > science into the story as he or she cares to. It's the individual
> > writer's choice. Provided of course the writer isn't bound by rigid
> > definitions, believing in "one right way to do it" (which is often
> > wrong), as unfortunately I think that many do. But that's ignorance.
> > Or lack of imagination, which is practically the same thing.
>
> You don't need to apply the label "hard SF" inappropriately in order
> to argue that soft SF can be good SF.
Not was I was doing. I said that there isn't *necessarily* anything
intrinsically "soft" about the types of story usually referred to as
soft SF. Space opera *could*, if it were written that way, be hard SF.
- Tue Sorensen
Niels
I disagree here, it should be "Imagined _technology_ is part and parcel of
writing fiction about science". The science, ie the methods, is always the
same, and that's why the technology is so fascinating. We have the methods
of science here, right now, and look what they can bring us!
>> > Ultimately, the question of what hard sci-fi is, is as difficult to
>> > answer as the question of exactly what science is. And as you know the
>> > philosophers still aren't entirely in agreement about that. I think it
>> > becomes easier to relate to such questions if you stop talking about
>> > science and start talking about a scientific attitude. Once such an
>> > attitude is established, and supernatural silliness has been left
>> > behind, the universe is your oyster. Everything in the universe, and
>> > all aspects of its sentient inhabitants and their societies, become
>> > part of the realm of science; part of the scientific world view. The
>> > realm of sci-fi encompasses everything that is in any way - whether
>> > explicitly or symbolically - relevant to the development and self-
>> > understanding of secular humanity.
>>
>> The definition you're proposing leads to absurd results. By your
>> criteria, The Hobbit could be called hard SF because Bilbo experiments
>> to see what the ring does, while Heinlein's Red Planet could not,
>> because the Martian characters show a lack of interest in science
>> and technology.
>
> *Actually*, by my definition no form of fantasy can be called SF, as
> fantasy worlds almost always have magic and/or gods, and hence are not
> based on a scientific world view. It's the basic world view that
> determines whether something is science fiction or not.
>
If an alien race can build huge spaceships with incomprehensible technology,
they might as well be doing magic. We (the readers) need to understand
their technology on some level, it needs some kind of connection to our
current level of understanding. The writer must make the alien technology
plausible to the reader to some degree.
Current popular science fiction (Star Wars and that sort of thing) has weird
spaceships and other crazy technology, but it's still much more plausible
as the result of proper scientific development rather than magic. Most of
it...
>> > And lastly I want to emphasize that there is no law that states that,
>> > in space opera or other "softer" subgenres, science takes or should
>> > take a backseat to the story. The writer can put as much or as little
>> > science into the story as he or she cares to. It's the individual
>> > writer's choice. Provided of course the writer isn't bound by rigid
>> > definitions, believing in "one right way to do it" (which is often
>> > wrong), as unfortunately I think that many do. But that's ignorance.
>> > Or lack of imagination, which is practically the same thing.
>>
>> You don't need to apply the label "hard SF" inappropriately in order
>> to argue that soft SF can be good SF.
>
> Not was I was doing. I said that there isn't *necessarily* anything
> intrinsically "soft" about the types of story usually referred to as
> soft SF. Space opera *could*, if it were written that way, be hard SF.
>
Can you give any examples of that? And I agree that it looks like you're
trying to widen the category of Hard SF to encompass everything you like.
If we must have these categories (and I don't think we do), we need
criteria other than our personal tastes. If you think that what we usually
call soft aint necessarily so, and likewise hard, then you need to be more
specific, I think.
//Niels
Niels
[snip rest]
Philosophers never agree about anything. They never really do anything or
advance humanity. They just sit around and invent problems and
incomprehensible terminologies. All the while scientists are busy doing
actual research and development.
//Niels
Ben Crowell
>>> Actually, I think the term "known science" may be an indication of
>>> a common misconception about the nature of science, which is that
>>> new scientific theories replace old ones wholesale. A story that
>>> violates Newton's laws, within their realm of applicability, is
>>> simply scientifically incorrect.
>> Imagined science is part and parcel of writing fiction about science,
>> i.e. science fiction. SF is fiction about the myriad conceivable and
>> inconceivable possibilities of science. If the book's attitude is
>> properly scientific, then it can be defined as hard SF, whether or not
>> it features currently known science (a great example being Haldeman's
>> "Mindbridge"). But of course I agree that it shouldn't *violate*
>> currently known science unless it can find a really convincing way of
>> doing it.
>>
>
> I disagree here, it should be "Imagined _technology_ is part and parcel of
> writing fiction about science". The science, ie the methods, is always the
> same, and that's why the technology is so fascinating. We have the methods
> of science here, right now, and look what they can bring us!
I think there are at least four categories to distinguish:
1. imagined technology
example: the FTL in Contact
2. imagined progress in scientific knowledge:
example: bacteria are discovered on Mars
3. imagined scientific theories
example: a working theory of quantum gravity
4. scientific mistakes
example: the FTL in Star Wars
What distinguishes category 4 from the others is that it violates the
correspondence principle, which states that a new scientific theory has
to be consistent with older ones, within the realm of applicability of
the older ones, because otherwise the new theory would be contradicted
by the experiments that the older ones were based on.
Ben Crowell
>> answer as the question of exactly what science is. And as you know the
>> philosophers still aren't entirely in agreement about that.
>
> advance humanity. They just sit around and invent problems and
> incomprehensible terminologies. All the while scientists are busy doing
> actual research and development.
One can muddy essentially any debate by throwing in a statement that
the question is "as difficult to answer as the question of exactly
what _____ is. And as you know the philosophers still aren't entirely in
agreement about that." That's because you'll never find any topic on
which philosophers will all agree. I'm sure you could round up any two
random philosophers and get them to disagree about whether there's
a clear distinction between a Phillips screw and a flat-head screw.
After all, I can clearly imagine the possibility of screws that
interpolate between the two types. On the other hand, maybe there's
a Platonic ideal of the Phillips, and a Platonic ideal of the flat-head.
That doesn't mean that I can't tell which is which when I'm browsing in
the hardware store.
Niels
What's the difference between the two FTL technologies you mention?
It's often impossible to determine whether a certain technology is possible
or plausible, because we most ofter don't get any details at all.
Technobabble doesn't count in my book! As I remember it, in Contact they
use a wormhole and only send information through -- right? That doesn't
directly contradict our current knowledge as far as I know, but the devil's
in the details, which we don't get.
//Niels
Ben Crowell
>> example: the FTL in Contact
>>
>> 2. imagined progress in scientific knowledge:
>> example: bacteria are discovered on Mars
>>
>> 3. imagined scientific theories
>> example: a working theory of quantum gravity
>>
>> 4. scientific mistakes
>> example: the FTL in Star Wars
>>
>> What distinguishes category 4 from the others is that it violates the
>> correspondence principle, which states that a new scientific theory has
>> to be consistent with older ones, within the realm of applicability of
>> the older ones, because otherwise the new theory would be contradicted
>> by the experiments that the older ones were based on.
>
> What's the difference between the two FTL technologies you mention?
The FTL in Star Wars violates relativity in blatant and obvious ways,
like getting the energy scales wrong. Heck, even the STL in Star Wars
violates classical mechanics, and violates it within the realm of
applicability of classical mechanics. E.g., we have spaceships
traveling across solar systems in a matter of hours, which means they're
going at speeds of at least ~10^7 m/s. This is small enough compared to
c that relativistic effects are small, and we're within the domain of
applicability of classical mechanics (with an error of <~1%). Classical
mechanics says that at this speed, a spaceship with a mass of 10^7 kg
has an energy of about 10^21 J, which is about the same as the total
megatonnage of the world's nuclear arsenal. That means that every
decent-sized spaceship in the movie is an awesome weapon of mass
destruction, if you simply crash it into a planet. You don't
need a Death Star. The reason the energy scales are totally wrong is
that George Lucas planned the battle scenes of the movie by watching
old WWII footage.
> It's often impossible to determine whether a certain technology is
possible
> or plausible, because we most ofter don't get any details at all.
> Technobabble doesn't count in my book!
I guess it depends on what you mean by "possible." My definition of
hard SF would be that it has to be possible in the sense that it
doesn't violate those laws of physics that have already been thoroughly
verified within their realm of applicability. The FTL in Contact is
"possible" in this sense. Of course just because a certain technology
doesn't violate the laws of physics, that doesn't mean that it's
practical, plausible, likely, ...
Niels
>>> 1. imagined technology
>>> example: the FTL in Contact
>>>
>>> 2. imagined progress in scientific knowledge:
>>> example: bacteria are discovered on Mars
>>>
>>> 3. imagined scientific theories
>>> example: a working theory of quantum gravity
>>>
>>> 4. scientific mistakes
>>> example: the FTL in Star Wars
>>>
>>> What distinguishes category 4 from the others is that it violates the
>>> correspondence principle, which states that a new scientific theory has
>>> to be consistent with older ones, within the realm of applicability of
>>> the older ones, because otherwise the new theory would be contradicted
>>> by the experiments that the older ones were based on.
>>
>> What's the difference between the two FTL technologies you mention?
>
> The FTL in Star Wars violates relativity in blatant and obvious ways,
> like getting the energy scales wrong.
We don't know that relativity applies for FTL speeds.
> Heck, even the STL in Star Wars
> violates classical mechanics, and violates it within the realm of
> applicability of classical mechanics. E.g., we have spaceships
> traveling across solar systems in a matter of hours, which means they're
> going at speeds of at least ~10^7 m/s. This is small enough compared to
> c that relativistic effects are small, and we're within the domain of
> applicability of classical mechanics (with an error of <~1%).
The same goes for Star Trek, but there's never been a story about
accumulated time differences. That's an obvious idea for a plot if the
writers are serious about SF.
> Classical
> mechanics says that at this speed, a spaceship with a mass of 10^7 kg
> has an energy of about 10^21 J, which is about the same as the total
> megatonnage of the world's nuclear arsenal. That means that every
> decent-sized spaceship in the movie is an awesome weapon of mass
> destruction, if you simply crash it into a planet. You don't
> need a Death Star. The reason the energy scales are totally wrong is
> that George Lucas planned the battle scenes of the movie by watching
> old WWII footage.
>
And that he wasn't trying to get things right.
> > It's often impossible to determine whether a certain technology is
> possible
> > or plausible, because we most ofter don't get any details at all.
> > Technobabble doesn't count in my book!
>
> I guess it depends on what you mean by "possible." My definition of
> hard SF would be that it has to be possible in the sense that it
> doesn't violate those laws of physics that have already been thoroughly
> verified within their realm of applicability.
Yes, that's just about what I meant.
> The FTL in Contact is
> "possible" in this sense. Of course just because a certain technology
> doesn't violate the laws of physics, that doesn't mean that it's
> practical, plausible, likely, ...
No, but it's not immediately offensive to out intellects.
//Niels
James Nicoll
I wonder how much of SW's oddities can be explained away by
supposing that that galaxy and the stellar systems in it are more
compact than the Milky Way? That is, the galaxy is more like this:
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0811.html
I think we have to assume most of the stars with inhabited
planets are actually red dwarfs as well.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Wayne Throop
: I guess it depends on what you mean by "possible." My definition of
: hard SF would be that it has to be possible in the sense that it
: doesn't violate those laws of physics that have already been thoroughly
: verified within their realm of applicability. The FTL in Contact is
: "possible" in this sense.
Hm. Don't think so. The widget used to create a wormhole endpoint
(or at least... that's' what I remember it doing) is nowhere near
massive or energetic enough. It seems squarely within the realm
of applicability of newtonian/maxwellian physics, but it went and
produced a wormhole anyways. Unless it really *was* a fake.
In which case it really wasn't FTL at all, and all it had to do
was mess with the memories of people falling through it, etc.
Or maybe I'm conflating the movie version. Sigh.
Niels
> : Ben Crowell <crow...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com>
> : I guess it depends on what you mean by "possible." My definition of
> : hard SF would be that it has to be possible in the sense that it
> : doesn't violate those laws of physics that have already been thoroughly
> : verified within their realm of applicability. The FTL in Contact is
> : "possible" in this sense.
>
> Hm. Don't think so. The widget used to create a wormhole endpoint
> (or at least... that's' what I remember it doing) is nowhere near
> massive or energetic enough. It seems squarely within the realm
> of applicability of newtonian/maxwellian physics, but it went and
> produced a wormhole anyways. Unless it really *was* a fake.
We don't know how the machine is supposed to work, and neither do the people
who build it. So they, correctly, conclude that it wont work.
> In which case it really wasn't FTL at all, and all it had to do
> was mess with the memories of people falling through it, etc.
>
> Or maybe I'm conflating the movie version. Sigh.
>
> Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
The movie was so expensive that they could only afford a one person worm
hole. The book was far cheaper, and so they could send an entire team
trough.
//Niels
Logan Kearsley
> : Ben Crowell <crowel...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com>
> : I guess it depends on what you mean by "possible." My definition of
> : hard SF would be that it has to be possible in the sense that it
> : doesn't violate those laws of physics that have already been thoroughly
> : verified within their realm of applicability. The FTL in Contact is
> : "possible" in this sense.
>
> Hm. Don't think so. The widget used to create a wormhole endpoint
> (or at least... that's' what I remember it doing) is nowhere near
> massive or energetic enough. It seems squarely within the realm
> of applicability of newtonian/maxwellian physics, but it went and
> produced a wormhole anyways.
IIRC, the device wasn't supposed to create a wormhole. It was supposed
to produce a beacon so that the aliens would know where and when to
open a wormhole they produced elsewhere with much bigger machinery,
and to hold the mouth in place once opened. Thus, the machine was one-
time-use because the aliens were only willing to open one wormhole,
thus making the team's stories unverifiable.
-l.
Erik Max Francis
Well, Sagan claimed to have talked with Kip Thorne to try to get an FTL
system that was consistent with known physics.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Erik Max Francis
> On Saturday 03 May 2008 20:51, Wayne Throop wrote:
>
>> : Ben Crowell <crow...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com>
>> : I guess it depends on what you mean by "possible." My definition of
>> : hard SF would be that it has to be possible in the sense that it
>> : doesn't violate those laws of physics that have already been thoroughly
>> : verified within their realm of applicability. The FTL in Contact is
>> : "possible" in this sense.
>>
>> Hm. Don't think so. The widget used to create a wormhole endpoint
>> (or at least... that's' what I remember it doing) is nowhere near
>> massive or energetic enough. It seems squarely within the realm
>> of applicability of newtonian/maxwellian physics, but it went and
>> produced a wormhole anyways. Unless it really *was* a fake.
>
> We don't know how the machine is supposed to work, and neither do the people
> who build it. So they, correctly, conclude that it wont work.
Not sure what you're getting at here. It's been a while since I read
the book, but as I recall the suggestion that the Machine didn't work
was part of a political coverup. There was really no question that the
trip actually took place.
The screenplay of the movie is really completely different, and chose to
emphasize the trip (or not) as a personal journey and emphasize the
notion that the trip may not have taken place by people with purely
political motives. The rationale given for how the trip could have been
faked wouldn't work, and at the end of the movie there is a strong
indication that Ellie is at least partially vindicated (by the digital
recorder).
Tue Sorensen
> On Saturday 03 May 2008 02:12, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> > Imagined science is part and parcel of writing fiction about science,
> > i.e. science fiction. SF is fiction about the myriad conceivable and
> > inconceivable possibilities of science. If the book's attitude is
> > properly scientific, then it can be defined as hard SF, whether or not
> > it features currently known science (a great example being Haldeman's
> > "Mindbridge"). But of course I agree that it shouldn't *violate*
> > currently known science unless it can find a really convincing way of
> > doing it.
>
> I disagree here, it should be "Imagined _technology_ is part and parcel of
> writing fiction about science". The science, ie the methods, is always the
> same, and that's why the technology is so fascinating. We have the methods
> of science here, right now, and look what they can bring us!
Yes, but "science" is also normally used to signify what we know about
our physical universe. It's both the method (empirical inquiry) *and*
the applied knowledge/understanding/description of nature itself,
hereunder technology. And the method is also the attitude. Put very
simply.
> >> > Ultimately, the question of what hard sci-fi is, is as difficult to
> >> > answer as the question of exactly what science is. And as you know the
> >> > philosophers still aren't entirely in agreement about that. I think it
> >> > becomes easier to relate to such questions if you stop talking about
> >> > science and start talking about a scientific attitude. Once such an
> >> > attitude is established, and supernatural silliness has been left
> >> > behind, the universe is your oyster. Everything in the universe, and
> >> > all aspects of its sentient inhabitants and their societies, become
> >> > part of the realm of science; part of the scientific world view. The
> >> > realm of sci-fi encompasses everything that is in any way - whether
> >> > explicitly or symbolically - relevant to the development and self-
> >> > understanding of secular humanity.
>
> >> The definition you're proposing leads to absurd results. By your
> >> criteria, The Hobbit could be called hard SF because Bilbo experiments
> >> to see what the ring does, while Heinlein's Red Planet could not,
> >> because the Martian characters show a lack of interest in science
> >> and technology.
>
> > *Actually*, by my definition no form of fantasy can be called SF, as
> > fantasy worlds almost always have magic and/or gods, and hence are not
> > based on a scientific world view. It's the basic world view that
> > determines whether something is science fiction or not.
>
> If an alien race can build huge spaceships with incomprehensible technology,
> they might as well be doing magic.
I think Clarke's law is confusing you. Just because advanced science
seems indistinguishable from magic doesn't mean that it's the same. If
something works according to physical laws - even if these are only
imagined by a sci-fi writer -, it is scientific. Magic is something
supernatural: something removed from a realm of causality.
Imagined science and technology may or may not be impossible. By its
very nature we can't know which. And yes, it is the author's task to
make it plausibly scientific. But the crucial thing then becomes the
reader's susceptibility to the author's imaginings. Not every reader
will find the same descriptions equally plausible. It depends on both
the reader's knowledge, imagination and philosophical bent. Different
readers will appreciate and accept or reject different ideas. Until
everybody achieves equal levels of scientific understanding and
agreement about the deep nature of science, there can never be a
consensus about which sorts of science and technology are particularly
plausible.
> We (the readers) need to understand
> their technology on some level, it needs some kind of connection to our
> current level of understanding. The writer must make the alien technology
> plausible to the reader to some degree.
Yes, that's the conventional argument for describing something as hard
SF. And that's fine. But to focus almost entirely on known science is
almost to write realism in the guise of science fiction. In this way
hard SF becomes the least imaginative subgenre of science fiction.
But, ultimately, it's really just a matter of personal taste. A hard
SF book can be good or bad, it can feature science or social
engineering, and have a wide range of possible messages, which may or
may not at all depend on its scientific content. Personally, while
certainly appreciating hard SF, I tend to be more attracted to the
more imaginative, grander stuff, like space opera. Galactic empires,
yay!! And this kind of stuff is not going to happen for a very, *very*
long time, but it's not impossible nor inconceivable that something
along those lines can happen. You just have to look *very* far into
the future. And a lot of people just aren't comfortable with that,
preferring instead the more familiar, more seemingly realistic stuff.
> Current popular science fiction (Star Wars and that sort of thing) has weird
> spaceships and other crazy technology, but it's still much more plausible
> as the result of proper scientific development rather than magic. Most of
> it...
Yes - and hence it can be pretty good science fiction!
> >> > And lastly I want to emphasize that there is no law that states that,
> >> > in space opera or other "softer" subgenres, science takes or should
> >> > take a backseat to the story. The writer can put as much or as little
> >> > science into the story as he or she cares to. It's the individual
> >> > writer's choice. Provided of course the writer isn't bound by rigid
> >> > definitions, believing in "one right way to do it" (which is often
> >> > wrong), as unfortunately I think that many do. But that's ignorance.
> >> > Or lack of imagination, which is practically the same thing.
>
> >> You don't need to apply the label "hard SF" inappropriately in order
> >> to argue that soft SF can be good SF.
>
> > Not was I was doing. I said that there isn't *necessarily* anything
> > intrinsically "soft" about the types of story usually referred to as
> > soft SF. Space opera *could*, if it were written that way, be hard SF.
>
> Can you give any examples of that? And I agree that it looks like you're
> trying to widen the category of Hard SF to encompass everything you like.
> If we must have these categories (and I don't think we do), we need
> criteria other than our personal tastes. If you think that what we usually
> call soft aint necessarily so, and likewise hard, then you need to be more
> specific, I think.
Heck, every idea about this sort of thing starts as someone's personal
opinion. My point is that I think it's stupid and too conventional to
say that "space opera" must necessarily be "soft" SF. I also believe
in a broader definition of "hard" SF, where it's not necessarily about
rigorous, scientific details, but about the general attitude and world
view of the story's setting. But of course, according to my idea that
every story with an underlying scientific attitude is hard SF, an
enormous amount of all SF would be hard. Star Trek included. Star Trek
features a lot of imagined physical phenomena ("anomalies" - a new one
every week!), but they virtually always save the day by being
rigorously rational, and having confidence in their scientific
knowledge. Star Trek actually presents an amazingly scientific world
view, most of the time, with imagined stuff added because *that's what
sci-fi does*. (Of course, this is not to say that Star Trek isn't
often marred by really bad stories, but that's a different
discussion.)
So that's my view: a scientific *attitude* is even more important that
featuring specifically scientific (technological, mathematical,
whatever) content. So for me the entire hard and soft categories are
extremely fuzzy. I guess I would describe sci-fi with a poor
scientific attitude and/or poor scientific content as "soft". This
would include time-travel and other silliness, which is blatantly
disregarding basic scientific tenets and hence often ought to be
described as fantasy.
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
wrote:
I made the remark because scientists, when required to explain exactly
what science is, tend to defer to philosophers (like Popper, or Kuhn).
Minus the philosophers the problem is the same: scientists disagree on
exactly what science is. My entire point here is that if "hard" SF
supposedly means "particularly scientific science fiction", then the
definition of hard SF must depend on the deeper nature of science
itself. I think I'm being impeccably logical here. And I'm then
arguing that science is not just equations and technology; it's a very
particular rational world view or attitude. A scientific setting; a
world that works by way of a scientific world view, is just as much,
and as good, a requirement for good(/hard) science fiction as
specified technical or mathematical details.
Yes, this departs from the traditional view of what "hard" SF is, but
that's because I have a broader view of what science is. To me,
science is the ultimate and ideal method for everything - all forms of
understanding and eventually, when we have totally reverse-engineered
nature and also understand our own nature fully, all forms of conduct.
Hence, a genre that bases itself on a scientific world view is the
only truly relevant genre; the only truly rational genre, and in the
end the only truly realistic genre.
Rather than "hard" and "soft", perhaps SF should be divided into
"science fact" and "science speculation". That's a much more precise
division, and it usually means the same things and is harder to
misinterpret.
- Tue
Luke Campbell
> Hm. Don't think so. The widget used to create a wormhole endpoint
> (or at least... that's' what I remember it doing) is nowhere near
> massive or energetic enough. It seems squarely within the realm
> of applicability of newtonian/maxwellian physics, but it went and
> produced a wormhole anyways.
There are various ways of giving a number to a wormhole that
classically reduces to the concept of mass. The one which is
conserved, however, is found by measuring the curvature of spacetime
far from the wormhole produced by the wormhole (called the ADM mass).
There are wormhole geometries which can have an arbitrarily small ADM
mass - wormhole geometries that can have any spatial extent, even
Although they tend to collapse into either circular hoops or polyhedra
whose sides are regular polygons. Thus, there is nothing in known
science that forbids a wormhole from forming in a region of space with
an arbitrarily small mass contained therein.
Reference - M. Visser, Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking,
AIP Press, 1996
Luke
Wayne Throop
:: energetic enough. It seems squarely within the realm of
:: applicability of newtonian/maxwellian physics, but it went and
:: produced a wormhole anyways.
: Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com>
: Well, Sagan claimed to have talked with Kip Thorne to try to get an
: FTL system that was consistent with known physics.
Hm. Nevertheless, still totally dependent on ultradense handwavium.
And the particular handwavium seems to indicate that you don't need
anywhere *near* as much energy as one would expect. What's indicated
isn't anywhere near enough to get relativistic effects; it's still
square in the middle of newton-and-maxwell-land. One can suppose that
there's some subtle loophole. After all, we've got superconductivity,
superfluidity, and einstein-bose condensates, and those are macroscopic,
yet exhibit quantum effects. So, one could argue that once we know about
quantum gravity, we can get some sort of free ride. But it still doesn't
seem good enough to be called "hard", in terms of theories holding true
in their currently known realm of applicability.
Wayne Throop
: Magic is something
: supernatural: something removed from a realm of causality.
That doesn't seem to be a very good characterization of "magic" to me.
I mean, Harry potter waves his wand here, an effect happens there.
Cause and effect. Reliable as clockwork, pretty much, once he's trained
to do it properly.
Niels
> On 3 Maj, 18:21, Ben Crowell <crowel...@lightSPAMandISmatterEVIL.com>
> wrote:
>> >> Ultimately, the question of what hard sci-fi is, is as difficult to
>> >> answer as the question of exactly what science is. And as you know the
>> >> philosophers still aren't entirely in agreement about that.
>>
>> > Philosophers never agree about anything. They never really do anything
>> > or advance humanity. They just sit around and invent problems and
>> > incomprehensible terminologies. All the while scientists are busy doing
>> > actual research and development.
>>
>> One can muddy essentially any debate by throwing in a statement that
>> the question is "as difficult to answer as the question of exactly
>> what _____ is. And as you know the philosophers still aren't entirely in
>> agreement about that." That's because you'll never find any topic on
>> which philosophers will all agree. I'm sure you could round up any two
>> random philosophers and get them to disagree about whether there's
>> a clear distinction between a Phillips screw and a flat-head screw.
>> After all, I can clearly imagine the possibility of screws that
>> interpolate between the two types. On the other hand, maybe there's
>> a Platonic ideal of the Phillips, and a Platonic ideal of the flat-head.
>> That doesn't mean that I can't tell which is which when I'm browsing in
>> the hardware store.
>
> I made the remark because scientists, when required to explain exactly
> what science is, tend to defer to philosophers (like Popper, or Kuhn).
That's because it's a philosophical question.
> Minus the philosophers the problem is the same: scientists disagree on
> exactly what science is.
But all the while they're busy doing it. I think you'll find that scientists
who tries to discuss what science is, are mostly elderly scientists who are
interested in the history and philosophy of science, ie. they're not doing
it in their capacity of scientists.
Scientific progress doesn't stop for philosophical conundrums!
> My entire point here is that if "hard" SF
> supposedly means "particularly scientific science fiction", then the
> definition of hard SF must depend on the deeper nature of science
> itself. I think I'm being impeccably logical here. And I'm then
> arguing that science is not just equations and technology; it's a very
> particular rational world view or attitude. A scientific setting; a
> world that works by way of a scientific world view, is just as much,
> and as good, a requirement for good(/hard) science fiction as
> specified technical or mathematical details.
>
You're not arguing it, you're asserting it.
> Yes, this departs from the traditional view of what "hard" SF is, but
> that's because I have a broader view of what science is. To me,
> science is the ultimate and ideal method for everything - all forms of
> understanding and eventually, when we have totally reverse-engineered
> nature and also understand our own nature fully, all forms of conduct.
> Hence, a genre that bases itself on a scientific world view is the
> only truly relevant genre; the only truly rational genre, and in the
> end the only truly realistic genre.
>
I agree with your last sentence. But it's dangerous to redefine science as
you do it, for obvious reasons.
> Rather than "hard" and "soft", perhaps SF should be divided into
> "science fact" and "science speculation". That's a much more precise
> division, and it usually means the same things and is harder to
> misinterpret.
It's not precise, because we'd be arguing about what's speculative and
what's not. Almost anything can be considered speculative.
//Niels
Niels
> On 3 Maj, 08:53, Niels <n...@example.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday 03 May 2008 02:12, Tue Sorensen wrote:
>> > Imagined science is part and parcel of writing fiction about science,
>> > i.e. science fiction. SF is fiction about the myriad conceivable and
>> > inconceivable possibilities of science. If the book's attitude is
>> > properly scientific, then it can be defined as hard SF, whether or not
>> > it features currently known science (a great example being Haldeman's
>> > "Mindbridge"). But of course I agree that it shouldn't *violate*
>> > currently known science unless it can find a really convincing way of
>> > doing it.
>>
>> I disagree here, it should be "Imagined _technology_ is part and parcel
>> of writing fiction about science". The science, ie the methods, is always
>> the same, and that's why the technology is so fascinating. We have the
>> methods of science here, right now, and look what they can bring us!
>
> Yes, but "science" is also normally used to signify what we know about
> our physical universe. It's both the method (empirical inquiry) *and*
> the applied knowledge/understanding/description of nature itself,
> hereunder technology. And the method is also the attitude. Put very
> simply.
>
There's some truth to that. However, I still think my rephrasing is more
precise. Collecting all the things you mention under the umbrella
of "science" is bad rather than good, in my book.
If they're indistinguishable, they're the same. You can try to come up with
a counterexample.
> If
> something works according to physical laws - even if these are only
> imagined by a sci-fi writer -, it is scientific.
And what's a "physical law" in this context?
> Magic is something supernatural: something removed from a realm of
> causality.
What is and isn't considered supernatural depends on one's level of
understanding, which is exactly what Clarke is talking about! Causality
(that cause precedes effect) is irrelevant.
> Imagined science and technology may or may not be impossible. By its
> very nature we can't know which. And yes, it is the author's task to
> make it plausibly scientific. But the crucial thing then becomes the
> reader's susceptibility to the author's imaginings. Not every reader
> will find the same descriptions equally plausible. It depends on both
> the reader's knowledge, imagination and philosophical bent. Different
> readers will appreciate and accept or reject different ideas. Until
> everybody achieves equal levels of scientific understanding and
> agreement about the deep nature of science, there can never be a
> consensus about which sorts of science and technology are particularly
> plausible.
>
I agree, apart from the "deep nature of science" thingy.
>> We (the readers) need to understand
>> their technology on some level, it needs some kind of connection to our
>> current level of understanding. The writer must make the alien technology
>> plausible to the reader to some degree.
>
> Yes, that's the conventional argument for describing something as hard
> SF. And that's fine. But to focus almost entirely on known science is
> almost to write realism in the guise of science fiction. In this way
> hard SF becomes the least imaginative subgenre of science fiction.
Making technology plausible isn't quite the same as focusing on known
science. And the imagination in hard SF often lies in the applications of
technology and consequences for society, rather than the technology itself.
> But, ultimately, it's really just a matter of personal taste. A hard
> SF book can be good or bad, it can feature science or social
> engineering, and have a wide range of possible messages, which may or
> may not at all depend on its scientific content. Personally, while
> certainly appreciating hard SF, I tend to be more attracted to the
> more imaginative, grander stuff, like space opera. Galactic empires,
> yay!! And this kind of stuff is not going to happen for a very, *very*
> long time, but it's not impossible nor inconceivable that something
> along those lines can happen. You just have to look *very* far into
> the future. And a lot of people just aren't comfortable with that,
> preferring instead the more familiar, more seemingly realistic stuff.
>
I agree that personal taste is the important thing. But we're talking about
global definitions, which are not, or shouldn't be, subject to personal
taste.
Galactic empires are probably contingent on breaking the light barrier,
which is something we don't know how to do. At all. We can hope that
further research will bring us a solution, but there's absolute no
guarantee.
>> Current popular science fiction (Star Wars and that sort of thing) has
>> weird spaceships and other crazy technology, but it's still much more
>> plausible as the result of proper scientific development rather than
>> magic. Most of it...
>
> Yes - and hence it can be pretty good science fiction!
>
Note the cleverly hidden words "weird" and "crazy" ;-)
>> >> > And lastly I want to emphasize that there is no law that states
>> >> > that, in space opera or other "softer" subgenres, science takes or
>> >> > should take a backseat to the story. The writer can put as much or
>> >> > as little science into the story as he or she cares to. It's the
>> >> > individual writer's choice. Provided of course the writer isn't
>> >> > bound by rigid definitions, believing in "one right way to do it"
>> >> > (which is often wrong), as unfortunately I think that many do. But
>> >> > that's ignorance. Or lack of imagination, which is practically the
>> >> > same thing.
>>
>> >> You don't need to apply the label "hard SF" inappropriately in order
>> >> to argue that soft SF can be good SF.
>>
>> > Not was I was doing. I said that there isn't *necessarily* anything
>> > intrinsically "soft" about the types of story usually referred to as
>> > soft SF. Space opera *could*, if it were written that way, be hard SF.
>>
>> Can you give any examples of that? And I agree that it looks like you're
>> trying to widen the category of Hard SF to encompass everything you like.
>> If we must have these categories (and I don't think we do), we need
>> criteria other than our personal tastes. If you think that what we
>> usually call soft aint necessarily so, and likewise hard, then you need
>> to be more specific, I think.
>
> Heck, every idea about this sort of thing starts as someone's personal
> opinion. My point is that I think it's stupid and too conventional to
> say that "space opera" must necessarily be "soft" SF.
Agreed. Examples? And are you using your own definitions for "SF", "hard"
and "soft" here?
> I also believe
> in a broader definition of "hard" SF, where it's not necessarily about
> rigorous, scientific details, but about the general attitude and world
> view of the story's setting. But of course, according to my idea that
> every story with an underlying scientific attitude is hard SF, an
> enormous amount of all SF would be hard.
And an enormous amount of non-SF stories would suddenly become SF. Quoting
Sherlock Holmes:
"From a drop of water," said the writer, "a logician could
infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without
having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is
a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are
shown a single link of it. Like all other arts, the Science
of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only be acquired
by long and patient study nor is life long enough to allow
any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it.
Before turning to those moral and mental aspects of the
matter which present the greatest difficulties, let the
enquirer begin by mastering more elementary problems.
Let him, on meeting a fellow-mortal, learn at a glance to
distinguish the history of the man, and the trade or
profession to which he belongs. Puerile as such an exercise
may seem, it sharpens the faculties of observation, and
teaches one where to look and what to look for. By a man's
finger nails, by his coat-sleeve, by his boot, by his trouser
knees, by the callosities of his forefinger and thumb, by his
expression, by his shirt cuffs -- by each of these things a
man's calling is plainly revealed. That all united should
fail to enlighten the competent enquirer in any case is
almost inconceivable."
That's what I call invoking a scientific world view!
> Star Trek included. Star Trek
> features a lot of imagined physical phenomena ("anomalies" - a new one
> every week!), but they virtually always save the day by being
> rigorously rational, and having confidence in their scientific
> knowledge.
And sometimes by gambling and being unrealistically lucky.
> Star Trek actually presents an amazingly scientific world
> view, most of the time, with imagined stuff added because *that's what
> sci-fi does*. (Of course, this is not to say that Star Trek isn't
> often marred by really bad stories, but that's a different
> discussion.)
>
> So that's my view: a scientific *attitude* is even more important that
> featuring specifically scientific (technological, mathematical,
> whatever) content.
So you're looking for rational characters more than sexy technology? I can
relate to that, and would suggest Sherlock Holmes.
> So for me the entire hard and soft categories are
> extremely fuzzy. I guess I would describe sci-fi with a poor
> scientific attitude and/or poor scientific content as "soft". This
> would include time-travel and other silliness, which is blatantly
> disregarding basic scientific tenets and hence often ought to be
> described as fantasy.
Which tenets exactly? And it looks to me like you're giving FTL the benefit
of the doubt while dismissing the same for time travel -- why?
//Niels
Luke Campbell
> Hm. Nevertheless, still totally dependent on ultradense handwavium.
> And the particular handwavium seems to indicate that you don't need
> anywhere *near* as much energy as one would expect. What's indicated
> isn't anywhere near enough to get relativistic effects; it's still
> square in the middle of newton-and-maxwell-land. One can suppose that
> there's some subtle loophole. After all, we've got superconductivity,
> superfluidity, and einstein-bose condensates, and those are macroscopic,
> yet exhibit quantum effects. So, one could argue that once we know about
> quantum gravity, we can get some sort of free ride. But it still doesn't
> seem good enough to be called "hard", in terms of theories holding true
> in their currently known realm of applicability.
While the things the humans assembled to make the gizmo might have had
normal density for atomic/molecular condensed matter, there's no
reason it couldn't have concentrated some of the energy to extreme
values in a very small spot - that's what modern particle accelerators
do, after all. Once you create a very small wormhole, it may be
possible (at least within the confines of what is possible with our
current knowledge) to expand the wormhole to arbitrary sizes without
using any additional extreme density inputs (see my other post about
wormholes in this thread).
Luke
Tue Sorensen
If by "philosophical question" you mean something that people don't
agree on, then yes. As you stated above, philosophy is just so much
chatter on things some people don't agree on. They're trying to figure
out some of the as yet unresolved questions in various fields, incl.
science. But when science becomes more well-defined, philosophy will
have played itself out once and for all.
> > Minus the philosophers the problem is the same: scientists disagree on
> > exactly what science is.
>
> But all the while they're busy doing it. I think you'll find that scientists
> who tries to discuss what science is, are mostly elderly scientists who are
> interested in the history and philosophy of science, ie. they're not doing
> it in their capacity of scientists.
If so, the young ones, apparently, are mostly too ignorant to have an
informed opinion on the matter... But sure, a lot of science can be
performed without necessarily having a clear idea of the fundamental
nature of science.
> Scientific progress doesn't stop for philosophical conundrums!
Once in a while it may have to!
> > My entire point here is that if "hard" SF
> > supposedly means "particularly scientific science fiction", then the
> > definition of hard SF must depend on the deeper nature of science
> > itself. I think I'm being impeccably logical here. And I'm then
> > arguing that science is not just equations and technology; it's a very
> > particular rational world view or attitude. A scientific setting; a
> > world that works by way of a scientific world view, is just as much,
> > and as good, a requirement for good(/hard) science fiction as
> > specified technical or mathematical details.
>
> You're not arguing it, you're asserting it.
I started by asserting the truth, and then, when people foolishly
objected, I was forced to start arguing for it. :-)
> > Yes, this departs from the traditional view of what "hard" SF is, but
> > that's because I have a broader view of what science is. To me,
> > science is the ultimate and ideal method for everything - all forms of
> > understanding and eventually, when we have totally reverse-engineered
> > nature and also understand our own nature fully, all forms of conduct.
> > Hence, a genre that bases itself on a scientific world view is the
> > only truly relevant genre; the only truly rational genre, and in the
> > end the only truly realistic genre.
>
> I agree with your last sentence. But it's dangerous to redefine science as
> you do it, for obvious reasons.
As Harlan Ellison will tell you, dangerous visions are the only ones
worth having! :-)
> > Rather than "hard" and "soft", perhaps SF should be divided into
> > "science fact" and "science speculation". That's a much more precise
> > division, and it usually means the same things and is harder to
> > misinterpret.
>
> It's not precise, because we'd be arguing about what's speculative and
> what's not. Almost anything can be considered speculative.
I wouldn't think so. I think it's quite plain whether one is dealing
with facts or not. And, sciencewise, if it's not facts, it's
speculation.
Anyway, this thread has helped me reformulate my erstwhile view on
"hard" SF. Where I used to hold the usual view that "hard" SF is
admirably heavy on known science and (more or less therefore) near the
pinnacle of the entire genre of SF, I now believe as I have explained
in my posts here, that the best and most worthy SF is that which
proceeds from a properly scientific *attitude*, regardless of how
factual or speculative the described science is, and that what is
usually called "hard" SF is by no means necessarily a superior
subgenre. If "hard" SF is supposed to describe the best SF (which is
how it's often being used, with people considering "hard" SF to be the
most scientific SF, allowing connoisseurs to scoff at that despicable
"soft" SF), then "hard" SF ought to be that which displays the most
rigorously scientific *attitude* to the events and details of the
given work.
The problem being that people don't understand, or agree about, what a
properly scientific attitude is... which makes it all the more
important for good science fiction to educate the public about this
very matter.
In the end, of course, everything depends on how well the individual
work is written, and what the author wants to say with it. Messages of
relevance to humanity's overall development are more important in SF
than scientific content. The cardinal tenet of SF is that it takes
place within a scientific understanding of the universe. And in order
to be SF, a work must declare itself as such, expressly and
deliberately taking its point of origin in a scientific world view,
which is usually accomplished simply by calling itself "science
fiction".
- Tue
Wayne Throop
: Once you create a very small wormhole, it may be
: possible (at least within the confines of what is possible with our
: current knowledge) to expand the wormhole to arbitrary sizes without
: using any additional extreme density inputs
Right. You just use ultradense handwavium instead of energy. And despite
the wormhole being of macroscopic size after it expands, it doesn't act
as if it's a hugely massive object, because of the shield of ultradense
negative handwaving it's encased in.
Tue Sorensen
> On Sunday 04 May 2008 04:14, Tue Sorensen wrote:
>
> > On 3 Maj, 08:53, Niels <n...@example.com> wrote:
> >> On Saturday 03 May 2008 02:12, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> >> > Imagined science is part and parcel of writing fiction about science,
> >> > i.e. science fiction. SF is fiction about the myriad conceivable and
> >> > inconceivable possibilities of science. If the book's attitude is
> >> > properly scientific, then it can be defined as hard SF, whether or not
> >> > it features currently known science (a great example being Haldeman's
> >> > "Mindbridge"). But of course I agree that it shouldn't *violate*
> >> > currently known science unless it can find a really convincing way of
> >> > doing it.
>
> >> I disagree here, it should be "Imagined _technology_ is part and parcel
> >> of writing fiction about science". The science, ie the methods, is always
> >> the same, and that's why the technology is so fascinating. We have the
> >> methods of science here, right now, and look what they can bring us!
>
> > Yes, but "science" is also normally used to signify what we know about
> > our physical universe. It's both the method (empirical inquiry) *and*
> > the applied knowledge/understanding/description of nature itself,
> > hereunder technology. And the method is also the attitude. Put very
> > simply.
>
> There's some truth to that. However, I still think my rephrasing is more
> precise. Collecting all the things you mention under the umbrella
> of "science" is bad rather than good, in my book.
I'm afraid that's going to be *your* problem...
> >> If an alien race can build huge spaceships with incomprehensible
> >> technology, they might as well be doing magic.
>
> > I think Clarke's law is confusing you. Just because advanced science
> > seems indistinguishable from magic doesn't mean that it's the same.
>
> If they're indistinguishable, they're the same.
This is just as patently wrong as it can possibly be. If you can't
visually tell the difference between salt and sugar, then they're the
same?! You can't distinguish an oxygen molecule from a nitrogen
molecule in the air in front of you right now, so they must be the
same, right? Puh-lease! Stop that silliness. It's embarrassing.
> You can try to come up with a counterexample.
Fine. Anything to eliminate that pseudo-metaphysical bent you keep
struggling with. Please heed the wisdom of the dictum that appearances
can be deceiving. Let's confront a cave-man with a TV remote control.
Not knowing about infrared signals, he will believe the remote control
functions by magic. It's unexplainable to him. We, however, understand
that its workings are based on a scientifically sound mechanism. The
cave-man lives in a magical reality due to ignorance. We, on the other
hand, live in a reality governed by the laws of science. His perceived
reality and ours are not "the same", as you vainly attempt to argue.
If they were objectively equally true, all contradicting perceptions
would be equally true, and that's not science but relativistic
mysticism: a subjective "reality" generated by consciousness and
formed by random, irregular solipsism. That's the consequence of what
you espouse, and demonstrates the flaw in your reasoning: you're
confusing your ontologies, not keeping straight what's objective and
what's subjective. The objective fact is that we may one day educate
the cave-man to understand how ignorant he once was; how flawed his
subjective perception was. How things seem depends on the lack or
presence of scientific knowledge in the individual doing the looking.
You can bet that Clarke did not make the point that advanced
technology *is* magic. He made the point that, if you are ignorant of
how it works, it will *seem* like magic to you, subjectively.
Objectively, it will still be advanced technology, based on
scientifically sound mechanisms. *Seems* is not *is*.
One caveat to that, though: When the limits of our knowledge are
reached (provided such a situation ever occurs which it may not), and
we can't penetrate objective reality any further, *then* I believe it
is reasonable to *define* that which seems as that which is. Otherwise
the term "reality" becomes meaningless and unusable. Proven factual
phenomena must be defined as real, until such time as such phenomena
may (or may not) be refuted and rendered counterfactual. This
perspective is also useful in showing, as above, that when people
believe that something *is* the way it *seems*, then it merely
demonstrates the limits of their knowledge, and exposes to the more
knowledgeable guy what they've neglected to take into account.
> > If
> > something works according to physical laws - even if these are only
> > imagined by a sci-fi writer -, it is scientific.
>
> And what's a "physical law" in this context?
In SF, anything that is presented as such, whether real or imagined.
> > Magic is something supernatural: something removed from a realm of
> > causality.
>
> What is and isn't considered supernatural depends on one's level of
> understanding, which is exactly what Clarke is talking about!
Yes, subjective understanding, as I said above! You're not making up
your mind about whether you take the level of understanding into
account.
> Causality (that cause precedes effect) is irrelevant.
If magic is defined as definitely not being science, then causality is
totally relevant. And no, causality does not imply that cause
*precedes* effect (that's speaking from a temporal bias); it is about
the general, overall relationships between "causes" and "effects", put
in citation marks to emphasize their fuzzy nature. The entire universe
is one large and simultaneous cause and effect, and the term
"causality" encompasses that.
If not causality, which term would you use to describe the basic
phenomenon that presumably allows the entire universe to work
unflinchingly by scientifically describable natural laws?
"Determinism"?
> >> We (the readers) need to understand
> >> their technology on some level, it needs some kind of connection to our
> >> current level of understanding. The writer must make the alien technology
> >> plausible to the reader to some degree.
>
> > Yes, that's the conventional argument for describing something as hard
> > SF. And that's fine. But to focus almost entirely on known science is
> > almost to write realism in the guise of science fiction. In this way
> > hard SF becomes the least imaginative subgenre of science fiction.
>
> Making technology plausible isn't quite the same as focusing on known
> science. And the imagination in hard SF often lies in the applications of
> technology and consequences for society, rather than the technology itself.
Absolutely. That was my point.
> > But, ultimately, it's really just a matter of personal taste. A hard
> > SF book can be good or bad, it can feature science or social
> > engineering, and have a wide range of possible messages, which may or
> > may not at all depend on its scientific content. Personally, while
> > certainly appreciating hard SF, I tend to be more attracted to the
> > more imaginative, grander stuff, like space opera. Galactic empires,
> > yay!! And this kind of stuff is not going to happen for a very, *very*
> > long time, but it's not impossible nor inconceivable that something
> > along those lines can happen. You just have to look *very* far into
> > the future. And a lot of people just aren't comfortable with that,
> > preferring instead the more familiar, more seemingly realistic stuff.
>
> I agree that personal taste is the important thing. But we're talking about
> global definitions, which are not, or shouldn't be, subject to personal
> taste.
Genre definitions have always been fluid, and are becoming more so now
because genres are increasingly being mixed. I agree that better genre
definitions are both possible and desirable, but they are extremely
difficult to get most people to agree on. Hence we are condemned to
muddle through with the broad and insufficient definitions we’ve got
now. Unless we can argue well and loudly enough to gain support for
our view, and affect the development of overall genre discourse.
> Galactic empires are probably contingent on breaking the light barrier,
> which is something we don't know how to do. At all. We can hope that
> further research will bring us a solution, but there's absolute no
> guarantee.
True. Although I do believe there are STL solutions to galactic
colonization. But they will be... slow.
> >> Current popular science fiction (Star Wars and that sort of thing) has
> >> weird spaceships and other crazy technology, but it's still much more
> >> plausible as the result of proper scientific development rather than
> >> magic. Most of it...
>
> > Yes - and hence it can be pretty good science fiction!
>
> Note the cleverly hidden words "weird" and "crazy" ;-)
Indeed... :-)
Aren’t we all? :-) No, actually, when I put the terms in citation
marks, it means I’m using them in the way others are using them. It
refers to the prevailing general usage, specifically separate from how
I myself might choose to define the terms. It’s an academic
convention. We must, of course, always keep in mind that, ideally,
personal definitions must be explained before anybody else can be
expected to understand their meaning. The fact, however, is that most
people (incl. you and me), most of the time, use their own
definitions; their own personal understandings, and it tends to
require long discussions to clear up what their personal definitions
are, and how well or poorly they jibe with those of the other
debaters. That’s the nature of discussion, and exactly what goes on in
every newsgroup. Somebody posts something that others find ludicrous,
and then discussion ensues to find out what the hell they mean anyway.
If we want to achieve increased mutual understanding in an internet
forum environment, discussion is the only option. Unfortunately, some
people tend to respond to outrageous assertions with their own
contrary ditto, without explaining anything that might help the
debaters to understand one another’s standpoint. That sucks. But can
have considerable comic relief value. Sadly, most people choose fun
over involved inquiry, not having reached the enlightened insight
that, just as truth is beauty, seriousness is fun.
No argument there. In my book, literature with a scientific attitude
is by far the best literature. And most of the best literature is, one
way or the other, science fiction. The cardinal virtue of much great
art is to realize the definitive importance of science and a
scientific outlook.
> > Star Trek included. Star Trek
> > features a lot of imagined physical phenomena ("anomalies" - a new one
> > every week!), but they virtually always save the day by being
> > rigorously rational, and having confidence in their scientific
> > knowledge.
>
> And sometimes by gambling and being unrealistically lucky.
Yes. They have to generate excitement, and so they install artificial
excitement generators. I believe in one episode they even tried to
sell one.
> > Star Trek actually presents an amazingly scientific world
> > view, most of the time, with imagined stuff added because *that's what
> > sci-fi does*. (Of course, this is not to say that Star Trek isn't
> > often marred by really bad stories, but that's a different
> > discussion.)
>
> > So that's my view: a scientific *attitude* is even more important that
> > featuring specifically scientific (technological, mathematical,
> > whatever) content.
>
> So you're looking for rational characters more than sexy technology?
Well, sexy technology is rarely described in much scientific detail.
Some probably think it wouldn’t be so sexy then... Personally, I’m not
knocking sexy technology, not one bit. If it exists in a setting that
is based on a good scientific attitude, then I embrace it
wholeheartedly.
> I can relate to that, and would suggest Sherlock Holmes.
Sure. He is not unknown to me. My favorite may be Captain Picard,
though. :-) “I will be the judge of what is reasonable!!”
> > So for me the entire hard and soft categories are
> > extremely fuzzy. I guess I would describe sci-fi with a poor
> > scientific attitude and/or poor scientific content as "soft". This
> > would include time-travel and other silliness, which is blatantly
> > disregarding basic scientific tenets and hence often ought to be
> > described as fantasy.
>
> Which tenets exactly?
Oh... all of them?! You have to look pretty damn hard to find
anything, even in theory, that even begins to allow any form of
practical time-travel. And even if wormhole theory almost (but not
quite) allows time-travel, where is the math that describes the
repurcussions of interfering with the timestream; where are the
equations that resolve the paradoxes? And don’t get me started on the
many-world theory, which I consider to be extremely bad science. I am
confident that that kind of mad mess would be far too inelegant for
nature to allow. Time-travel has always been a highly speculative
dream, resting on extremely shaky scientific ground. To my thinking,
time is not a medium one can travel in, other than the way we
constantly find ourselves “progressing” steadily “through” it. I
believe the notion of time-travel (especially travelling backward in
time) is a man-made fantasy which, through the idea of time as a
dimension with dependable and conceivably traversable temporal
coordinates, is supported by the current scientific paradigm, but will
be thoroughly inapplicable when a post-Einsteinian paradigm takes over
(see below). My take: Things happen once and that’s it. Of course we
should keep looking into the alleged scientific possibilities for time-
travel, just to make sure, but I just happen to be pretty sure that,
ultimately, there aren’t any.
> And it looks to me like you're giving FTL the benefit
> of the doubt while dismissing the same for time travel -- why?
Anyone who hopes for humanity to colonize the universe must keep the
hope of FTL travel alive. Of course I don’t see how it’s going to be
possible, but I think future science will develop far beyond our
current imagination. My own theoretical understanding of the laws of
science leads me to speculate that the notion of the 4D space-time
geometry may be wrong, thus disconnecting space and time from mutual
interdependence. After all, general relativity is incompatible with
the standard model, so there must be something wrong somewhere. I
choose to believe that one of the problems lie in the way Einstein
treated the spatial dimensions as mathematically similar to the
temporal dimension (if the construct we call “time” even *is* a
dimension, which I’m not so sure of. It may look good on paper, but
does it hold up in the real world? We don’t know for sure yet). I
think this ties everything into a knot that prevents the theory from
developing further until that knot is untied. Of course, that’s only
one aspect of my take on it. There may be flaws in special relativity
as well, but I still hold Einstein’s theories to be the most brilliant
scientific theories so far. I just think there is, or will be, such a
thing as post-Einsteinian physics, and although I don’t see how FTL
travel will be possible even in that realm, I certainly will not
reject the possibility. The FTL dream is too beautiful and too useful
to abandon.
- Tue
Alie...@gmail.com
> Niels wrote:
> > On Saturday 03 May 2008 20:51, Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> >> : I guess it depends on what you mean by "possible." My definition of
> >> : hard SF would be that it has to be possible in the sense that it
> >> : doesn't violate those laws of physics that have already been thoroughly
> >> : verified within their realm of applicability. The FTL in Contact is
> >> : "possible" in this sense.
>
> >> Hm. Don't think so. The widget used to create a wormhole endpoint
> >> (or at least... that's' what I remember it doing) is nowhere near
> >> massive or energetic enough. It seems squarely within the realm
> >> of applicability of newtonian/maxwellian physics, but it went and
> >> produced a wormhole anyways. Unless it really *was* a fake.
I don't recall any ultradense handwavium in the book, just nested
hollow filigreed spherical shells (not rings) of exotic semiconductor
alloys spinning orthogonally (I remember wondering about how the
bearings for the inner shells penetrated the outer one[s]). Now if
high-temp superconductors exhibiting weird quantum effects (per
Wayne's later post) is Newtonian/Maxwellian, then fine. But I also
vaguely recall that such enhanced quantum effects were the point of
having to use such exotic materials.
And no, I can't remember if it was supposed to actually generate an
endpoint or just a beacon, though if it were an endpoint there should
have been a more explicit description of how it was supposed to hook
into the Wormhole Network.
Worse, I can't find the copy I know damn well I own.
> > We don't know how the machine is supposed to work, and neither do the people
> > who build it. So they, correctly, conclude that it wont work.
>
> Not sure what you're getting at here. It's been a while since I read
> the book, but as I recall the suggestion that the Machine didn't work
> was part of a political coverup. There was really no question that the
> trip actually took place.
Or that it would work before it was built- it was certain enough
that international disputes were basically put aside for the duration
of the project, yes?
Didn't the "coverup" jazz come afterward?
> The screenplay of the movie is really completely different, and chose to
> emphasize the trip (or not) as a personal journey and emphasize the
> notion that the trip may not have taken place by people with purely
> political motives. The rationale given for how the trip could have been
> faked wouldn't work, and at the end of the movie there is a strong
> indication that Ellie is at least partially vindicated (by the digital
> recorder).
Yes, and that jarred strongly with the sensawunda I remembered from
after reading the book.
Mark L. Fergerson
Luke Campbell
> : Luke Campbell <lwc...@gmail.com>
> : Once you create a very small wormhole, it may be
> : possible (at least within the confines of what is possible with our
> : current knowledge) to expand the wormhole to arbitrary sizes without
> : using any additional extreme density inputs
>
> Right. You just use ultradense handwavium instead of energy.
Well, technically, ultradense = high energy density.
> And despite
> the wormhole being of macroscopic size after it expands, it doesn't act
> as if it's a hugely massive object, because of the shield of ultradense
> negative handwaving it's encased in.
It is more complicated than that. Once space-time gets warped enough
to form a wormhole, the conserved mass of the wormhole does not have
an obvious relation to the sum of the masses (positive and negative)
of the stuff that comprises it. A case in point is the Visser
wormhole (or more generally, any of a class of so called thin-shell
wormholes) which is comprised entirely of negative energy density
stuff, yet has a conserved mass of zero. These wormhole solutions may
not be physically possible, but they are a valid solution of
Einstein's field equations of general relativity and serve to
illustrate some of the properties a real wormhole might have. You can
think of it as the energy of the stuff that comprises it plus the
"energy of the gravitational field" which surrounds it, which has the
advantage of at least being less wrong than many other intuitive ways
of thinking, even if not really exact.
As for the particular wormholes used in Contact, it has been a long
time since I read the novel - before, in fact, I took courses on
general relativity in college and well before I had the chance to read
any technical literature on wormholes - so I do not recall whether the
wormholes described therein were reasonable under modern
understanding. I am quite sure they were accurate within the science
of the day - Sagan was advised of the properties of wormholes by one
of the top relativists of our time, who worked out some of the basic
properties they must have specifically at Sagan's request - you can't
get more cutting edge than that!
Luke
Remus Shepherd
> Star Trek included. Star Trek
> features a lot of imagined physical phenomena ("anomalies" - a new one
> every week!), but they virtually always save the day by being
> rigorously rational, and having confidence in their scientific
> knowledge. Star Trek actually presents an amazingly scientific world
> view, most of the time,
I'm curious how you define 'scientific worldview', because I wouldn't
have said that Star Trek represents one. I'm not even sure you can say
that Star Trek has a logical worldview, because the illogical humans
always win and usually by sheer luck.
> So that's my view: a scientific *attitude* is even more important that
> featuring specifically scientific (technological, mathematical,
> whatever) content. So for me the entire hard and soft categories are
> extremely fuzzy. I guess I would describe sci-fi with a poor
> scientific attitude and/or poor scientific content as "soft". This
> would include time-travel and other silliness, which is blatantly
> disregarding basic scientific tenets and hence often ought to be
> described as fantasy.
See, this is the kind of definition with which I cannot agree. It
categorizes _The Compleat Enchanter_ and _Perdido Street Station_ as
hard sci-fi, because the characters in those stories deduce and follow
strict logical rules about how their magic works. I don't care if you
have a story-consistent reason for allowing a character to fly whenever
he's in danger -- that's *not* science fiction.
The attitudes of the characters are not what separates 'hard' and
'soft' sci-fi stories, to me. It's the attitude of the author that
matters. Authors either say, "Accept this and I will tell you a story",
or "Here's what could happen and I'll tell you how and why." Those
are the defining differences, IMHO.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/remus_shepherd/
Comic: http://indepos.comicgenesis.com/
Remus Shepherd
> On Sunday 04 May 2008 04:42, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> > I made the remark because scientists, when required to explain exactly
> > what science is, tend to defer to philosophers (like Popper, or Kuhn).
> That's because it's a philosophical question.
> > Minus the philosophers the problem is the same: scientists disagree on
> > exactly what science is.
> But all the while they're busy doing it. I think you'll find that scientists
> who tries to discuss what science is, are mostly elderly scientists who are
> interested in the history and philosophy of science, ie. they're not doing
> it in their capacity of scientists.
Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists
as ornithology is to birds. -- Richard Feynman.
;)
Niels
Most "what is..." and "why is..." questions are philosophical questions, as
opposed to hardcore science's "how much". There's no distinct line in the
sand, but talking about science instead of doing it is certainly on the
wrong side of said line.
> They're trying to figure
> out some of the as yet unresolved questions in various fields, incl.
> science. But when science becomes more well-defined, philosophy will
> have played itself out once and for all.
>
>> > Minus the philosophers the problem is the same: scientists disagree on
>> > exactly what science is.
>>
>> But all the while they're busy doing it. I think you'll find that
>> scientists who tries to discuss what science is, are mostly elderly
>> scientists who are interested in the history and philosophy of science,
>> ie. they're not doing it in their capacity of scientists.
>
> If so, the young ones, apparently, are mostly too ignorant to have an
> informed opinion on the matter... But sure, a lot of science can be
> performed without necessarily having a clear idea of the fundamental
> nature of science.
>
Let's say you're studying some subject X, and that you're good at it and
producing good, usefull practical results. I can then easily invent any
number of bogus "philosophical" questions, and then claim that you're
ignorant and don't have a clear idea of the fundamental nature of X. But
you were doing great before I came along, and my questions don't change the
usefullness of your work. My silly questions are superfluous and should be
dismissed. Science is doing just fine without philosophy of science.
>> Scientific progress doesn't stop for philosophical conundrums!
>
> Once in a while it may have to!
>
Hardly.
>> > My entire point here is that if "hard" SF
>> > supposedly means "particularly scientific science fiction", then the
>> > definition of hard SF must depend on the deeper nature of science
>> > itself. I think I'm being impeccably logical here. And I'm then
>> > arguing that science is not just equations and technology; it's a very
>> > particular rational world view or attitude. A scientific setting; a
>> > world that works by way of a scientific world view, is just as much,
>> > and as good, a requirement for good(/hard) science fiction as
>> > specified technical or mathematical details.
>>
>> You're not arguing it, you're asserting it.
>
> I started by asserting the truth, and then, when people foolishly
> objected, I was forced to start arguing for it. :-)
>
oh I'm sorry, but this is Abuse.
>> > Yes, this departs from the traditional view of what "hard" SF is, but
>> > that's because I have a broader view of what science is. To me,
>> > science is the ultimate and ideal method for everything - all forms of
>> > understanding and eventually, when we have totally reverse-engineered
>> > nature and also understand our own nature fully, all forms of conduct.
>> > Hence, a genre that bases itself on a scientific world view is the
>> > only truly relevant genre; the only truly rational genre, and in the
>> > end the only truly realistic genre.
>>
>> I agree with your last sentence. But it's dangerous to redefine science
>> as you do it, for obvious reasons.
>
> As Harlan Ellison will tell you, dangerous visions are the only ones
> worth having! :-)
>
>> > Rather than "hard" and "soft", perhaps SF should be divided into
>> > "science fact" and "science speculation". That's a much more precise
>> > division, and it usually means the same things and is harder to
>> > misinterpret.
>>
>> It's not precise, because we'd be arguing about what's speculative and
>> what's not. Almost anything can be considered speculative.
>
> I wouldn't think so. I think it's quite plain whether one is dealing
> with facts or not.
You can't be serious!
"Science fiction" is often used as a marketing label, but I agree with most
of what you're saying here. A problem I often have is that when the writer
gets a (scientific) detail wrong, it can easily ruin the entire experience
for me.
//Niels
Niels
Sure, but "how and why" only goes so far. No writer has ever explained a FLT
drive so well that the reader could build a working model. At some level of
technical explanation the writer runs out of words and we just have to
accept that this darned thing works. I don't think a story stops being
fantasy and starts being SF just because we replace incantations with
technobabble and dragon's blood with negative ultramatter.
//Niels
Tue Sorensen
> Tue Sorensen <sorenson...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Star Trek included. Star Trek
> > features a lot of imagined physical phenomena ("anomalies" - a new one
> > every week!), but they virtually always save the day by being
> > rigorously rational, and having confidence in their scientific
> > knowledge. Star Trek actually presents an amazingly scientific world
> > view, most of the time,
>
> I'm curious how you define 'scientific worldview', because I wouldn't
> have said that Star Trek represents one. I'm not even sure you can say
> that Star Trek has a logical worldview, because the illogical humans
> always win and usually by sheer luck.
What do you mean, illogical humans? The vast majority of the dialog is
mind-blowingly rational! And in a way that includes human ideals and
values, rather than just being "pure logic" (which isn't truly
applicable to human beings, anyway). But let me point out that I am
talking about the new Trek shows, not TOS. TOS had its virtues, but
its scientific attitudes as well as human ideals were much messier and
undefined than they became with TNG.
A scientific world view is one which understands everything
scientifically. And a proper scientific attitude is one that
understands that all the things we can't explain now (such as
consciousness) will eventually be explained by science. Hence, a good
SF story based on a scientific world view will accept that
*everything*, incl. all human emotions and such, function by
scientific laws. Even ethics, morals and social organization can to a
great degree be shaped according to the scientific knowledge of human
nature.
> > So that's my view: a scientific *attitude* is even more important that
> > featuring specifically scientific (technological, mathematical,
> > whatever) content. So for me the entire hard and soft categories are
> > extremely fuzzy. I guess I would describe sci-fi with a poor
> > scientific attitude and/or poor scientific content as "soft". This
> > would include time-travel and other silliness, which is blatantly
> > disregarding basic scientific tenets and hence often ought to be
> > described as fantasy.
>
> See, this is the kind of definition with which I cannot agree. It
> categorizes _The Compleat Enchanter_ and _Perdido Street Station_ as
> hard sci-fi, because the characters in those stories deduce and follow
> strict logical rules about how their magic works. I don't care if you
> have a story-consistent reason for allowing a character to fly whenever
> he's in danger -- that's *not* science fiction.
If it's magic, then it's not science, and not science fiction. If
magic works by strict logical rules, that simply means it's a good
fantasy story; a story where things make some degree of sense (which
it often doesn't in fantasy). But of course that doesn't make it
science fiction, since a world of magic is not based on a scientific
world view.
> The attitudes of the characters are not what separates 'hard' and
> 'soft' sci-fi stories, to me. It's the attitude of the author that
> matters. Authors either say, "Accept this and I will tell you a story",
> or "Here's what could happen and I'll tell you how and why." Those
> are the defining differences, IMHO.
Absolutely. It's the attitude of the author. The established world
view of the overall premise, as determined by the author. The Haldeman
quote I started with does say the characters, but in this I'm pretty
sure case he means the characters' attitude as endorsed by, and being
representational of, the author's. Of course many characters have
different attitudes from the author's, but he must be talking about
the main characters/protagonists, who represent the ontological thrust
of the story; the characters whose views are ultimately the author's
because their conduct drives the author's message with his work; i.e.
the story's good guys.
- Tue
Niels
Who said anything about visually? I obviously meant "distinguishable after
rigorous tests".
> You can't distinguish an oxygen molecule from a nitrogen
> molecule in the air in front of you right now, so they must be the
> same, right? Puh-lease! Stop that silliness. It's embarrassing.
>
>> You can try to come up with a counterexample.
>
> Fine. Anything to eliminate that pseudo-metaphysical bent you keep
> struggling with.
Stop that, please.
And that's exactly what your caveman did: invoking magic at the limits of
his knowledge.
> Otherwise
> the term "reality" becomes meaningless and unusable. Proven factual
> phenomena must be defined as real, until such time as such phenomena
> may (or may not) be refuted and rendered counterfactual. This
> perspective is also useful in showing, as above, that when people
> believe that something *is* the way it *seems*, then it merely
> demonstrates the limits of their knowledge, and exposes to the more
> knowledgeable guy what they've neglected to take into account.
>
Please note that this isn't rec.arts.sf.philosophy.
>> > If
>> > something works according to physical laws - even if these are only
>> > imagined by a sci-fi writer -, it is scientific.
>>
>> And what's a "physical law" in this context?
>
> In SF, anything that is presented as such, whether real or imagined.
>
What if it obviously incorrect?
>> > Magic is something supernatural: something removed from a realm of
>> > causality.
>>
>> What is and isn't considered supernatural depends on one's level of
>> understanding, which is exactly what Clarke is talking about!
>
> Yes, subjective understanding, as I said above! You're not making up
> your mind about whether you take the level of understanding into
> account.
>
Yes I am: I don't.
>> Causality (that cause precedes effect) is irrelevant.
>
> If magic is defined as definitely not being science, then causality is
> totally relevant. And no, causality does not imply that cause
> *precedes* effect (that's speaking from a temporal bias); it is about
> the general, overall relationships between "causes" and "effects", put
> in citation marks to emphasize their fuzzy nature. The entire universe
> is one large and simultaneous cause and effect, and the term
> "causality" encompasses that.
>
> If not causality, which term would you use to describe the basic
> phenomenon that presumably allows the entire universe to work
> unflinchingly by scientifically describable natural laws?
> "Determinism"?
>
That's philosophy, so I'll use the term "boink". Show me how I can build a
spaceship out of philosophy and I'll show some interest.
Actually I'm not that keen on strict categories. Any such system will
eventually encompass too much or too little to be usefull.
So should I laugh or cry?
So is Sherlock Holmes SF in your book?
>> > Star Trek included. Star Trek
>> > features a lot of imagined physical phenomena ("anomalies" - a new one
>> > every week!), but they virtually always save the day by being
>> > rigorously rational, and having confidence in their scientific
>> > knowledge.
>>
>> And sometimes by gambling and being unrealistically lucky.
>
> Yes. They have to generate excitement, and so they install artificial
> excitement generators. I believe in one episode they even tried to
> sell one.
>
Yes, the Voyager crew sold theirs in a very early episode.
>> > Star Trek actually presents an amazingly scientific world
>> > view, most of the time, with imagined stuff added because *that's what
>> > sci-fi does*. (Of course, this is not to say that Star Trek isn't
>> > often marred by really bad stories, but that's a different
>> > discussion.)
>>
>> > So that's my view: a scientific *attitude* is even more important that
>> > featuring specifically scientific (technological, mathematical,
>> > whatever) content.
>>
>> So you're looking for rational characters more than sexy technology?
>
> Well, sexy technology is rarely described in much scientific detail.
> Some probably think it wouldn’t be so sexy then... Personally, I’m not
> knocking sexy technology, not one bit. If it exists in a setting that
> is based on a good scientific attitude, then I embrace it
> wholeheartedly.
>
I'm sure we can find some Japanese websites that "embraces sexy technology".
>> I can relate to that, and would suggest Sherlock Holmes.
>
> Sure. He is not unknown to me. My favorite may be Captain Picard,
> though. :-) “I will be the judge of what is reasonable!!”
>
>> > So for me the entire hard and soft categories are
>> > extremely fuzzy. I guess I would describe sci-fi with a poor
>> > scientific attitude and/or poor scientific content as "soft". This
>> > would include time-travel and other silliness, which is blatantly
>> > disregarding basic scientific tenets and hence often ought to be
>> > described as fantasy.
>>
>> Which tenets exactly?
>
> Oh... all of them?! You have to look pretty damn hard to find
> anything, even in theory, that even begins to allow any form of
> practical time-travel.
That's not what you said -- can you tell us what basic tenets are
_violated_?
> And even if wormhole theory almost (but not
> quite) allows time-travel, where is the math that describes the
> repurcussions of interfering with the timestream; where are the
> equations that resolve the paradoxes?
They're called the Einstein Field Equations. All good comes from the
Einstein Field Equations! All hail the Einstein Field Equations, our
beloved ruler!
> And don’t get me started on the
> many-world theory, which I consider to be extremely bad science.
Don't worry, it's just philosophy.
We've discussed this many times before, and I won't draw innocents into that
blood bath. I just briefly state that you're entitled to your opinions, of
course, but that the above is armchair philosophy, not science.
//Niels
Tue Sorensen
Hogwash! To have a scientific world view is to have a scientific life
style, regardless of whether you're engaged in specific experimental
investigation. Theoretical science, whether directly useful or wildly
speculative, is precisely as important as applied science - the main
thing is to have both going on at the same time. There isn't either
without the other.
> > They're trying to figure
> > out some of the as yet unresolved questions in various fields, incl.
> > science. But when science becomes more well-defined, philosophy will
> > have played itself out once and for all.
>
> >> > Minus the philosophers the problem is the same: scientists disagree on
> >> > exactly what science is.
>
> >> But all the while they're busy doing it. I think you'll find that
> >> scientists who tries to discuss what science is, are mostly elderly
> >> scientists who are interested in the history and philosophy of science,
> >> ie. they're not doing it in their capacity of scientists.
>
> > If so, the young ones, apparently, are mostly too ignorant to have an
> > informed opinion on the matter... But sure, a lot of science can be
> > performed without necessarily having a clear idea of the fundamental
> > nature of science.
>
> Let's say you're studying some subject X, and that you're good at it and
> producing good, usefull practical results. I can then easily invent any
> number of bogus "philosophical" questions, and then claim that you're
> ignorant and don't have a clear idea of the fundamental nature of X. But
> you were doing great before I came along, and my questions don't change the
> usefullness of your work. My silly questions are superfluous and should be
> dismissed. Science is doing just fine without philosophy of science.
I'm sorry but I don't think that's a scientific attitude. Sure, if the
questions are *bogus*, but they may not be. Philosophy of science
concerns itself, among other things, with the nature of the scientific
method, and that's rather important. The reason it's possible for
scientists to do science is that there prevails a certain paradigm as
to what the scientific method is, and the vast majority of practising
scientists accept this paradigm. Hence they largely agree on what
comprises good science. But paradigms, like everything else in the
universe, change. Personally, I believe that it's part and parcel of a
scientific attitude to accept that everything changes all the time
(except possibly certain physical laws and constants), even if some
things only do so very or even imperceptibly slowly. Anybody who does
not accept and even embrace such a principle of constant change cannot
be said to have understood the scientific world view in full.
And another thing. A scientific world view must encompass everything.
Unless you *know* them to be without merit, you can't just dismiss
pertinent claims and perspectives that annoy you for some reason.
That's like picking an opinion and stubbornly sticking with it without
ever trying to increase your level of enlightenment so that your
considered judgment can constantly evolve.
> >> > My entire point here is that if "hard" SF
> >> > supposedly means "particularly scientific science fiction", then the
> >> > definition of hard SF must depend on the deeper nature of science
> >> > itself. I think I'm being impeccably logical here. And I'm then
> >> > arguing that science is not just equations and technology; it's a very
> >> > particular rational world view or attitude. A scientific setting; a
> >> > world that works by way of a scientific world view, is just as much,
> >> > and as good, a requirement for good(/hard) science fiction as
> >> > specified technical or mathematical details.
>
> >> You're not arguing it, you're asserting it.
>
> > I started by asserting the truth, and then, when people foolishly
> > objected, I was forced to start arguing for it. :-)
>
> oh I'm sorry, but this is Abuse.
No it isn't!
> >> > Rather than "hard" and "soft", perhaps SF should be divided into
> >> > "science fact" and "science speculation". That's a much more precise
> >> > division, and it usually means the same things and is harder to
> >> > misinterpret.
>
> >> It's not precise, because we'd be arguing about what's speculative and
> >> what's not. Almost anything can be considered speculative.
>
> > I wouldn't think so. I think it's quite plain whether one is dealing
> > with facts or not.
>
> You can't be serious!
I'm always serious.
Bad research is inexcusable indeed. But research has to stop at some
point. Many would say that Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy
contains a good deal too much research and detail.
- Tue
Niels
[snip]
>> >> > I made the remark because scientists, when required to explain
>> >> > exactly what science is, tend to defer to philosophers (like Popper,
>> >> > or Kuhn).
>>
>> >> That's because it's a philosophical question.
>>
>> > If by "philosophical question" you mean something that people don't
>> > agree on, then yes. As you stated above, philosophy is just so much
>> > chatter on things some people don't agree on.
>>
>> Most "what is..." and "why is..." questions are philosophical questions,
>> as opposed to hardcore science's "how much". There's no distinct line in
>> the sand, but talking about science instead of doing it is certainly on
>> the wrong side of said line.
>
> Hogwash! To have a scientific world view is to have a scientific life
> style, regardless of whether you're engaged in specific experimental
> investigation. Theoretical science, whether directly useful or wildly
> speculative, is precisely as important as applied science - the main
> thing is to have both going on at the same time. There isn't either
> without the other.
>
Philosophy of science isn't theoretical science.
>> Let's say you're studying some subject X, and that you're good at it and
>> producing good, usefull practical results. I can then easily invent any
>> number of bogus "philosophical" questions, and then claim that you're
>> ignorant and don't have a clear idea of the fundamental nature of X. But
>> you were doing great before I came along, and my questions don't change
>> the usefullness of your work. My silly questions are superfluous and
>> should be dismissed. Science is doing just fine without philosophy of
>> science.
>
> I'm sorry but I don't think that's a scientific attitude. Sure, if the
> questions are *bogus*, but they may not be. Philosophy of science
> concerns itself, among other things, with the nature of the scientific
> method, and that's rather important.
If my science (X) has build a spaceship that works, how are your inquires
into the nature of the scientific method going to affect that fact? They
aren't. Could you give an example of this "important" of which you speak?
> The reason it's possible for
> scientists to do science is that there prevails a certain paradigm as
> to what the scientific method is, and the vast majority of practising
> scientists accept this paradigm. Hence they largely agree on what
> comprises good science. But paradigms, like everything else in the
> universe, change.
If by paradigm you mean "the results fit the observations, let's continue
this line of investigation", then yes. What change would you suggest?
> Personally, I believe that it's part and parcel of a
> scientific attitude to accept that everything changes all the time
> (except possibly certain physical laws and constants), even if some
> things only do so very or even imperceptibly slowly. Anybody who does
> not accept and even embrace such a principle of constant change cannot
> be said to have understood the scientific world view in full.
>
Why not? "Everything changes" is philosophy, not science. Find me a 12th
century monk who chants "Everything changes" and I'll show you a guy who
can't build a spaceship!
> And another thing. A scientific world view must encompass everything.
> Unless you *know* them to be without merit, you can't just dismiss
> pertinent claims and perspectives that annoy you for some reason.
"Without merit" means "doesn't affect this particular situation", right?
> That's like picking an opinion and stubbornly sticking with it without
> ever trying to increase your level of enlightenment so that your
> considered judgment can constantly evolve.
I'll remember you said that.
>> > I started by asserting the truth, and then, when people foolishly
>> > objected, I was forced to start arguing for it. :-)
>>
>> oh I'm sorry, but this is Abuse.
>
> No it isn't!
>
Can be.
> Bad research is inexcusable indeed. But research has to stop at some
> point. Many would say that Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy
> contains a good deal too much research and detail.
>
I'll readily admit that I haven't read it yet, but it sounds good.
//Niels
Tue Sorensen
Doesn’t make any difference. You are still not taking into account the
difference between subjectivity and objectivity. In subjective
contexts there can be no science, and no scientific declarations like
the one you’re attempting to make. Listen: There must be rules to
govern what we call the limits of knowledge (hereunder the limits of
testing). We cannot declare two indistinguishable phenomena to be the
same until we have brought all of our scientific means to bear on it.
Hence, some imbecile who cannot distinguish two things from each other
cannot be allowed the privilege of having it objectively accepted by
all of us that his two things are the same. This much is obvious,
right? Hence, you can only declare indistinguishable phenomena to be
the same after all of humanity’s total scientific means have failed to
distinguish between them. *Then* the *objective* (not subjective)
limits of knowledge have been reached, and then science, or a
scientific attitude, has permission to declare that the two - to the
best of scientific knowledge, which may be revised later - are the
same. Not in any other situation. That’s science. Some guy’s
superstition is just some guy’s superstition. If you believe that the
cave-man’s limited perception has any kind of scientific authority
whatsoever, then *you* are superstitious.
> > You can't distinguish an oxygen molecule from a nitrogen
> > molecule in the air in front of you right now, so they must be the
> > same, right? Puh-lease! Stop that silliness. It's embarrassing.
>
> >> You can try to come up with a counterexample.
>
> > Fine. Anything to eliminate that pseudo-metaphysical bent you keep
> > struggling with.
>
> Stop that, please.
As soon as you do…
But that was purely subjective experience. As long as there is anyone
anywhere who can perform a better test, the objective limits of
knowledge, which are the only ones science can concern itself with,
have not been reached.
> > Otherwise
> > the term "reality" becomes meaningless and unusable. Proven factual
> > phenomena must be defined as real, until such time as such phenomena
> > may (or may not) be refuted and rendered counterfactual. This
> > perspective is also useful in showing, as above, that when people
> > believe that something *is* the way it *seems*, then it merely
> > demonstrates the limits of their knowledge, and exposes to the more
> > knowledgeable guy what they've neglected to take into account.
>
> Please note that this isn't rec.arts.sf.philosophy.
Ah, but this is one of those times when alleged science needs to take
a good listen to some science philosophy.
> >> > If
> >> > something works according to physical laws - even if these are only
> >> > imagined by a sci-fi writer -, it is scientific.
>
> >> And what's a "physical law" in this context?
>
> > In SF, anything that is presented as such, whether real or imagined.
>
> What if it obviously incorrect?
Then it is bad SF, SF parody/comedy, or, in more extreme cases, not SF
at all. I know you think that a lot of alleged SF isn’t SF at all, but
I don’t agree with the strictness of your criteria. I don’t think a
good SF story necessarily needs to get every detail right. It *is*
possible to get bogged down in detail. In some cases other messages
are more important in the story than particular scientific content.
But of course the overall research should be done, and the pertinent
details should be correct, if they can be.
> >> > Magic is something supernatural: something removed from a realm of
> >> > causality.
>
> >> What is and isn't considered supernatural depends on one's level of
> >> understanding, which is exactly what Clarke is talking about!
>
> > Yes, subjective understanding, as I said above! You're not making up
> > your mind about whether you take the level of understanding into
> > account.
>
> Yes I am: I don't.
Your brevity makes your position unclear here (“You are a *poor*
philosopher, Dr. Emerson!”). If you don’t take the (subjective or
objective) level of understanding into account, then you cannot talk
about scientific/objective limits of knowledge, whereas if what you
don’t take into account is the subjective understanding (which however
your argument was based on), then you *can* take objective limits of
knowledge into account. Pick one. And it’d better be the second one.
> > If not causality, which term would you use to describe the basic
> > phenomenon that presumably allows the entire universe to work
> > unflinchingly by scientifically describable natural laws?
> > "Determinism"?
>
> That's philosophy, so I'll use the term "boink". Show me how I can build a
> spaceship out of philosophy and I'll show some interest.
Må jeg høfligst anmode Dem om at tage denne sag alvorligt!
You are apparently quite happy with superficial knowledge and
questionable notions of causality. That shall be your undoing.
> > Genre definitions have always been fluid, and are becoming more so now
> > because genres are increasingly being mixed. I agree that better genre
> > definitions are both possible and desirable, but they are extremely
> > difficult to get most people to agree on. Hence we are condemned to
> > muddle through with the broad and insufficient definitions we’ve got
> > now. Unless we can argue well and loudly enough to gain support for
> > our view, and affect the development of overall genre discourse.
>
> Actually I'm not that keen on strict categories. Any such system will
> eventually encompass too much or too little to be usefull.
Possibly. But until we get to that eventuality, such categories can be
*quite* useful.
> >> And are you using your own definitions for "SF", "hard" and "soft" here?
>
> > Aren’t we all? :-) No, actually, when I put the terms in citation
> > marks, it means I’m using them in the way others are using them. It
> > refers to the prevailing general usage, specifically separate from how
> > I myself might choose to define the terms. It’s an academic
> > convention. We must, of course, always keep in mind that, ideally,
> > personal definitions must be explained before anybody else can be
> > expected to understand their meaning. The fact, however, is that most
> > people (incl. you and me), most of the time, use their own
> > definitions; their own personal understandings, and it tends to
> > require long discussions to clear up what their personal definitions
> > are, and how well or poorly they jibe with those of the other
> > debaters. That’s the nature of discussion, and exactly what goes on in
> > every newsgroup. Somebody posts something that others find ludicrous,
> > and then discussion ensues to find out what the hell they mean anyway.
> > If we want to achieve increased mutual understanding in an internet
> > forum environment, discussion is the only option. Unfortunately, some
> > people tend to respond to outrageous assertions with their own
> > contrary ditto, without explaining anything that might help the
> > debaters to understand one another’s standpoint. That sucks. But can
> > have considerable comic relief value. Sadly, most people choose fun
> > over involved inquiry, not having reached the enlightened insight
> > that, just as truth is beauty, seriousness is fun.
>
> So should I laugh or cry?
Try discussing… if you have the wherewithal to stay interested.
To a great extent, yeah. But it does have some credibility problems –
and the problem with lack of credibility is that it shows that the
author is not taking the scientific attitude entirely seriously. So
hard SF it ain’t. If Holmes were really going to extract all that info
out of the way a man looks, for instance, he would have to take the
man into a laboratory and perform various experiments on him and his
clothes in order to accurately determine all those details. That he
can do it at a mere glance, while applying impossibly encyclopedic
knowledge, is not believable. But it’s fun. It kind of makes him a
superhero. There is a TV show called “Psych” with a guy who was
trained to do this kind of thing.
> >> > Star Trek included. Star Trek
> >> > features a lot of imagined physical phenomena ("anomalies" - a new one
> >> > every week!), but they virtually always save the day by being
> >> > rigorously rational, and having confidence in their scientific
> >> > knowledge.
>
> >> And sometimes by gambling and being unrealistically lucky.
>
> > Yes. They have to generate excitement, and so they install artificial
> > excitement generators. I believe in one episode they even tried to
> > sell one.
>
> Yes, the Voyager crew sold theirs in a very early episode.
No, it was in the 6th season, actually. The episode “Alice”, I do
believe.
(Yeah, yeah, I get your pun. But I’m not sure I think the early
episodes are particularly better than the later ones. But none of them
are very exciting, I agree.)
Can you tell us which ones aren’t? ;-)
> > And even if wormhole theory almost (but not
> > quite) allows time-travel, where is the math that describes the
> > repurcussions of interfering with the timestream; where are the
> > equations that resolve the paradoxes?
>
> They're called the Einstein Field Equations. All good comes from the
> Einstein Field Equations! All hail the Einstein Field Equations, our
> beloved ruler!
But they don’t make human time-travel practically possible in any way,
shape or form.
> > And don’t get me started on the
> > many-world theory, which I consider to be extremely bad science.
>
> Don't worry, it's just philosophy.
And bad philosophy at that.
Ahem. Knee-jerk reaction comin’ atcha: Everybody is entitled to their
opinion, but the idea that every opinion is of equal objective
validity is the ultimate fallacy. Therefore uninformed opinions should
be challenged.
> but that the above is armchair philosophy, not science.
You can patronize my “philosophical” science criticism all you want;
that’s not going to keep it from eventually having a real impact.
Zrrrrrbt!
- Tue
Wayne Throop
: I don't care if you
: have a story-consistent reason for allowing a character to fly whenever
: he's in danger -- that's *not* science fiction.
No anti-gravity belts? Aw, man, we never get to do anything fun.
: The attitudes of the characters are not what separates 'hard' and
: 'soft' sci-fi stories, to me. It's the attitude of the author that
: matters. Authors either say, "Accept this and I will tell you a
: story", or "Here's what could happen and I'll tell you how and why."
: Those are the defining differences, IMHO.
I tend to agree. But only to a limited extent, because the boundary
between the two cases is inherently blurry. "Accept this could happen"
and "this *really* could happen" have a huge overlap where "the "really"
is arguable, for one thing. Plus, the problem that what *really* is
going to happen is that our notions of what really could happen are
going to change, so some element of "accept this" is inevitable, except
for extreme near-future SF bordering on technothriller.
Or so it seems to me.
Tue Sorensen
> >> Let's say you're studying some subject X, and that you're good at it and
> >> producing good, usefull practical results. I can then easily invent any
> >> number of bogus "philosophical" questions, and then claim that you're
> >> ignorant and don't have a clear idea of the fundamental nature of X. But
> >> you were doing great before I came along, and my questions don't change
> >> the usefullness of your work. My silly questions are superfluous and
> >> should be dismissed. Science is doing just fine without philosophy of
> >> science.
>
> > I'm sorry but I don't think that's a scientific attitude. Sure, if the
> > questions are *bogus*, but they may not be. Philosophy of science
> > concerns itself, among other things, with the nature of the scientific
> > method, and that's rather important.
>
> If my science (X) has build a spaceship that works, how are your inquires
> into the nature of the scientific method going to affect that fact? They
> aren't. Could you give an example of this "important" of which you speak?
Okay, I see there's yet another crucial aspect of science that
completely eludes you. And it's *still* the subjectivity/objectivity
problem. If you, as an individual, build a spaceship that works, you
can claim that you have done the same as a man who builds a row-boat
that works. You have used your own personal ingenuity. THAT'S NOT
SCIENCE. Science is a world view that a community of interacting
scientists have agreed on. Something can only be called science when
it has been accepted as such by the scientific community. Science is a
*cultural phenomenon* that represents rational agreement about natural
inquiry and the method and results of such inquiry. A scientist
removed from his scientific community is strictly speaking no longer a
scientist. Science is an institution that goes definitively beyond the
subjective person. It's a collective activity. If no one is around to
acknowledge that what you do is science, then it's not. You can choose
to call it that, just as you can choose to call it Fred. But the
cultural phenomenon of science is a team-effort and can never be
anything but.
What you call science (anything technological or mechanical that
works) can vary from a row-boat to a spaceship, but you forget that in
order to make that technological leap, an entire civilization that
manufactures mass-produced electronics and many other thing is
required. Hence, there comes a level when individual ingenuity must be
replaced by the technological fruits of a larger culture, and it is
*only* under those circumstances that advanced technology becomes
possible. Only by having many people involved in researching checks
and balances can anything be said to approach objective truth; one
true reality that all scientists can agree about and which can become
the common world view that further scientific activity is based on.
This can never be the case for some isolated ship-builder's subjective
ideas about how things work. He can never know if he *really* knows
how things work, of if he just lives in a solipsistic world of his own
mental invention.
What this comes down to is that I have just exposed a horribly
embarrassing fact about you, which in retrospect makes all kinds of
sense: When you use the word "science", what you actually mean is
"mechanics".
> > The reason it's possible for
> > scientists to do science is that there prevails a certain paradigm as
> > to what the scientific method is, and the vast majority of practising
> > scientists accept this paradigm. Hence they largely agree on what
> > comprises good science. But paradigms, like everything else in the
> > universe, change.
>
> If by paradigm you mean "the results fit the observations, let's continue
> this line of investigation", then yes. What change would you suggest?
Scientific practice is not a simple as you make it out to be.
Observations and test results must still take place according to
accepted rules and methods in order to be accepted by a scientific
peer community. Science is what scientists accept as science, and this
changes more or less subtly over time. I'm amazed that you are not
long since convinced of the obvious truth of this.
I will eventually write about what I will suggest. Read it when it
gets published. I'll get you a free copy.
> > Personally, I believe that it's part and parcel of a
> > scientific attitude to accept that everything changes all the time
> > (except possibly certain physical laws and constants), even if some
> > things only do so very or even imperceptibly slowly. Anybody who does
> > not accept and even embrace such a principle of constant change cannot
> > be said to have understood the scientific world view in full.
>
> Why not? "Everything changes" is philosophy, not science. Find me a 12th
> century monk who chants "Everything changes" and I'll show you a guy who
> can't build a spaceship!
If you understand the universe as science describes it, you must
accept that everything is in a state of continuous change! Any
contrary notion is obviously absurd! Understanding change will help
you to a better understanding of a great many experimental situations
and scientific principles. Science describes a universe in motion.
Reject constant motion, and you reject science itself. Sure, some
experiments can work without taking constant change into account, but
those are tiny, limited and frozen pictures of some limited situation.
If you desire greater understanding, and you should, then change must
become part of the equation. It is aggressive ignorance to deny this.
> > And another thing. A scientific world view must encompass everything.
> > Unless you *know* them to be without merit, you can't just dismiss
> > pertinent claims and perspectives that annoy you for some reason.
>
> "Without merit" means "doesn't affect this particular situation", right?
Ultimately, there is only one situation: the universe. You can of
course choose to disregard parts of it for some particular purpose,
but the proper scientific attitude is holistic.
> > That's like picking an opinion and stubbornly sticking with it without
> > ever trying to increase your level of enlightenment so that your
> > considered judgment can constantly evolve.
>
> I'll remember you said that.
Please do.
- Tue
Niels
[snip]
To *him* they're the same, exactly as Clarke says. To current humanity
they're not. To current humanity other things are deemed /the same/, even
if they're not to some hyper-intelligent shade of blue. Is that what you
were trying to say?
>> > Otherwise
>> > the term "reality" becomes meaningless and unusable. Proven factual
>> > phenomena must be defined as real, until such time as such phenomena
>> > may (or may not) be refuted and rendered counterfactual. This
>> > perspective is also useful in showing, as above, that when people
>> > believe that something *is* the way it *seems*, then it merely
>> > demonstrates the limits of their knowledge, and exposes to the more
>> > knowledgeable guy what they've neglected to take into account.
>>
>> Please note that this isn't rec.arts.sf.philosophy.
>
> Ah, but this is one of those times when alleged science needs to take
> a good listen to some science philosophy.
>
Then do so in rec.arts.sf.philosophy.
>> >> > If
>> >> > something works according to physical laws - even if these are only
>> >> > imagined by a sci-fi writer -, it is scientific.
>>
>> >> And what's a "physical law" in this context?
>>
>> > In SF, anything that is presented as such, whether real or imagined.
>>
>> What if it obviously incorrect?
>
> Then it is bad SF, SF parody/comedy, or, in more extreme cases, not SF
> at all.
OK, we probably agree there.
How about current Battlestar Galactica? There's _one_ scientist, who's mad,
never does any science and quite possibly kills people left and right.
There are spaceships, but it's all sort of steam punk-ish tech. Evil
machines are, or are not, trying to kill everybody. Everything is wrapped
in religion, mysticism and really loathsome characters. What say you?
> I know you think that a lot of alleged SF isn’t SF at all, but
> I don’t agree with the strictness of your criteria.
I don't really have a criteria, I just think there should be science in
science fiction. Real, hands on science, not symbolic,
everything-is-science-when-you-think-about-it science.
>> >> > Magic is something supernatural: something removed from a realm of
>> >> > causality.
>>
>> >> What is and isn't considered supernatural depends on one's level of
>> >> understanding, which is exactly what Clarke is talking about!
>>
>> > Yes, subjective understanding, as I said above! You're not making up
>> > your mind about whether you take the level of understanding into
>> > account.
>>
>> Yes I am: I don't.
>
> Your brevity makes your position unclear here.
I though I was perfectly clear: I don't take the level of understanding into
consideration. I don't accept your concept of subjective understanding.
> (“You are a *poor* philosopher, Dr. Emerson!”).
I should hope so!
> If you don’t take the (subjective or
> objective) level of understanding into account, then you cannot talk
> about scientific/objective limits of knowledge, whereas if what you
> don’t take into account is the subjective understanding (which however
> your argument was based on), then you *can* take objective limits of
> knowledge into account. Pick one. And it’d better be the second one.
>
It's neither. Or both. I'll get back to you on that one. Don't wait up.
>> > If not causality, which term would you use to describe the basic
>> > phenomenon that presumably allows the entire universe to work
>> > unflinchingly by scientifically describable natural laws?
>> > "Determinism"?
>>
>> That's philosophy, so I'll use the term "boink". Show me how I can build
>> a spaceship out of philosophy and I'll show some interest.
>
> Må jeg høfligst anmode Dem om at tage denne sag alvorligt!
>
> You are apparently quite happy with superficial knowledge and
> questionable notions of causality. That shall be your undoing.
>
Oh no! My lack of philosophical insight is going to disintegrate my
otherwise wonderful spaceship! I'll have to crash land on some desolate
planetoid while I ponder the universe and thereby reassemble my suddenly
non-functioning technology! Oh, the humanity!
>> > No argument there. In my book, literature with a scientific attitude
>> > is by far the best literature. And most of the best literature is, one
>> > way or the other, science fiction. The cardinal virtue of much great
>> > art is to realize the definitive importance of science and a
>> > scientific outlook.
>>
>> So is Sherlock Holmes SF in your book?
>
> To a great extent, yeah. But it does have some credibility problems –
> and the problem with lack of credibility is that it shows that the
> author is not taking the scientific attitude entirely seriously. So
> hard SF it ain’t.
Agreed. But as long as it's entertaining, we can overlook such details and
still enjoy ourselves.
> If Holmes were really going to extract all that info
> out of the way a man looks, for instance, he would have to take the
> man into a laboratory and perform various experiments on him and his
> clothes in order to accurately determine all those details. That he
> can do it at a mere glance, while applying impossibly encyclopedic
> knowledge, is not believable. But it’s fun. It kind of makes him a
> superhero. There is a TV show called “Psych” with a guy who was
> trained to do this kind of thing.
>
>> >> > Star Trek included. Star Trek
>> >> > features a lot of imagined physical phenomena ("anomalies" - a new
>> >> > one every week!), but they virtually always save the day by being
>> >> > rigorously rational, and having confidence in their scientific
>> >> > knowledge.
>>
>> >> And sometimes by gambling and being unrealistically lucky.
>>
>> > Yes. They have to generate excitement, and so they install artificial
>> > excitement generators. I believe in one episode they even tried to
>> > sell one.
>>
>> Yes, the Voyager crew sold theirs in a very early episode.
>
> No, it was in the 6th season, actually. The episode “Alice”, I do
> believe.
>
> (Yeah, yeah, I get your pun. But I’m not sure I think the early
> episodes are particularly better than the later ones. But none of them
> are very exciting, I agree.)
>
I meant episode 1.
Ohm's law. Your turn.
>> > And even if wormhole theory almost (but not
>> > quite) allows time-travel, where is the math that describes the
>> > repurcussions of interfering with the timestream; where are the
>> > equations that resolve the paradoxes?
>>
>> They're called the Einstein Field Equations. All good comes from the
>> Einstein Field Equations! All hail the Einstein Field Equations, our
>> beloved ruler!
>
> But they don’t make human time-travel practically possible in any way,
> shape or form.
>
They allow for worm holes. You asked for the equations, I named them.
We both know what happens when I do that...
>> but that the above is armchair philosophy, not science.
>
> You can patronize my “philosophical” science criticism all you want;
> that’s not going to keep it from eventually having a real impact.
> Zrrrrrbt!
I'm not patronizing it, I'm just observing that it isn't science.
//Niels
Niels
Oh, I thought you had convinced me that the concept of science includes all
technology. My mistake, I'll go back to thinking that science is the method
by which we examine the world.
> Science is a world view that a community of interacting
> scientists have agreed on. Something can only be called science when
> it has been accepted as such by the scientific community. Science is a
> *cultural phenomenon* that represents rational agreement about natural
> inquiry and the method and results of such inquiry. A scientist
> removed from his scientific community is strictly speaking no longer a
> scientist. Science is an institution that goes definitively beyond the
> subjective person. It's a collective activity. If no one is around to
> acknowledge that what you do is science, then it's not. You can choose
> to call it that, just as you can choose to call it Fred. But the
> cultural phenomenon of science is a team-effort and can never be
> anything but.
>
If I'm all alone I can't use critical thinking to examine my world, achieve
technological progress and change my environment?
> What you call science (anything technological or mechanical that
> works) can vary from a row-boat to a spaceship, but you forget that in
> order to make that technological leap, an entire civilization that
> manufactures mass-produced electronics and many other thing is
> required. Hence, there comes a level when individual ingenuity must be
> replaced by the technological fruits of a larger culture, and it is
> *only* under those circumstances that advanced technology becomes
> possible. Only by having many people involved in researching checks
> and balances can anything be said to approach objective truth;
Objective truth? Aren't we talking about science? You know, best guesses and
such? Are you sure you're not a philosopher?
> one
> true reality that all scientists can agree about and which can become
> the common world view that further scientific activity is based on.
We allready have a true reality, science is about describing it.
> This can never be the case for some isolated ship-builder's subjective
> ideas about how things work. He can never know if he *really* knows
> how things work, of if he just lives in a solipsistic world of his own
> mental invention.
Science isn't looking for "how things *really* work". That's religion.
> What this comes down to is that I have just exposed a horribly
> embarrassing fact about you, which in retrospect makes all kinds of
> sense: When you use the word "science", what you actually mean is
> "mechanics".
>
Just the opposite in fact. But in what we currently call science fiction,
technology is often all we have, and so that's what we're talking about.
You know that I've often said that such and such wasn't really SF because
it's all tech and no science, to which you've replied that the tech is
supposed to symbolize science.
[snip]
>> > Personally, I believe that it's part and parcel of a
>> > scientific attitude to accept that everything changes all the time
>> > (except possibly certain physical laws and constants), even if some
>> > things only do so very or even imperceptibly slowly. Anybody who does
>> > not accept and even embrace such a principle of constant change cannot
>> > be said to have understood the scientific world view in full.
>>
>> Why not? "Everything changes" is philosophy, not science. Find me a 12th
>> century monk who chants "Everything changes" and I'll show you a guy who
>> can't build a spaceship!
>
> If you understand the universe as science describes it, you must
> accept that everything is in a state of continuous change! Any
> contrary notion is obviously absurd! Understanding change will help
> you to a better understanding of a great many experimental situations
> and scientific principles. Science describes a universe in motion.
> Reject constant motion, and you reject science itself. Sure, some
> experiments can work without taking constant change into account, but
> those are tiny, limited and frozen pictures of some limited situation.
> If you desire greater understanding, and you should, then change must
> become part of the equation. It is aggressive ignorance to deny this.
>
Or you could say that the universe consists of things that are blue and
things that aren't blue. That's obviously true, but that alone doesn't make
it a usefull notion. If you think that viewing the universe as being in a
state of continuous change helps scientific progress, please show us
explicitly how -- or withdraw your claim.
Your problems with limited situations shows that you don't get how science
works. Limited situations are what we strive for! We love being able to
isolate some part of a complex system!
At the end of the day, science is empirical and quantitative. At its most
extreme it isn't about understanding the universe, it's about calculating
it. Whether you like that fact or not doesn't matter.
[snip rest]
//Niels
Tue Sorensen
That's what I said, while generously but apparently vainly helping you
to understand the difference between subjective experience and
objective science.
> >> >> And what's a "physical law" in this context?
>
> >> > In SF, anything that is presented as such, whether real or imagined.
>
> >> What if it obviously incorrect?
>
> > Then it is bad SF, SF parody/comedy, or, in more extreme cases, not SF
> > at all.
>
> OK, we probably agree there.
>
> How about current Battlestar Galactica? There's _one_ scientist, who's mad,
> never does any science and quite possibly kills people left and right.
> There are spaceships, but it's all sort of steam punk-ish tech. Evil
> machines are, or are not, trying to kill everybody. Everything is wrapped
> in religion, mysticism and really loathsome characters. What say you?
The religion in Battlestar Galactica is presented specifically *as*
religion. There is no evidence of supernatural happenings. The
religion is based in legends about Earth, and these myths are part of
the plot, and it will probably be revealed just how they came into
being. The overall premise is a perfectly sound scientific world view.
Yes, there's only one scientist which is too little. No, I don't think
the technology looks steam-punk-ish. Evil machines is a sci-fi trope,
and can be an okay plot element. The characters, to a great extent,
behaves exceptionally realistically, and some of them are therefore
also realistically loathsome, while some are pretty sympathetic, or at
least likeable (Roslin, Adama, Thrace, several others). Some of the
loathsome characters are extremely interesting (Baltar, Zarek, Admiral
Cain). Like Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica takes place in a spaceship
environment where a certain futuristic level of technology is taken
for granted but rarely specified to any degree. I don't particularly
mind that. I think BG is fine sci-fi. One of the most entertaining
American sci-fi shows yet, as a matter of fact (though admittedly the
track record of U.S. sci-fi TV shows is not great). The production
values are excellent, which I think is quite important (the "sexy"
look). It's not perfect, but the vast majority of what I would
criticize about it relates to the lack of realistic development of the
social organization and some of the ethical details surrounding the
fact that all humanity (as far as they know) now consists of only
50,000 people. The writers are not really taking the consequences of
what this would mean. But I find it to be an extremely entertaining
show; the best sci-fi show currently on TV, with the possible
exception of Doctor Who.
> > I know you think that a lot of alleged SF isn’t SF at all, but
> > I don’t agree with the strictness of your criteria.
>
> I don't really have a criteria, I just think there should be science in
> science fiction. Real, hands on science, not symbolic,
> everything-is-science-when-you-think-about-it science.
You're talking about technology. The applied science of engineers:
Mechanics.
> >> >> > Magic is something supernatural: something removed from a realm of
> >> >> > causality.
>
> >> >> What is and isn't considered supernatural depends on one's level of
> >> >> understanding, which is exactly what Clarke is talking about!
>
> >> > Yes, subjective understanding, as I said above! You're not making up
> >> > your mind about whether you take the level of understanding into
> >> > account.
>
> >> Yes I am: I don't.
>
> > Your brevity makes your position unclear here.
>
> I though I was perfectly clear: I don't take the level of understanding into
> consideration. I don't accept your concept of subjective understanding.
Then you are a *poor* scientist, Dr. Venkman!
> > (“You are a *poor* philosopher, Dr. Emerson!”).
>
> I should hope so!
And I know so...
> > If you don’t take the (subjective or
> > objective) level of understanding into account, then you cannot talk
> > about scientific/objective limits of knowledge, whereas if what you
> > don’t take into account is the subjective understanding (which however
> > your argument was based on), then you *can* take objective limits of
> > knowledge into account. Pick one. And it’d better be the second one.
>
> It's neither. Or both. I'll get back to you on that one.
You already picked the wrong one...
> Don't wait up.
You don't have to tell me twice.
[emphatic snip]
> >> So is Sherlock Holmes SF in your book?
>
> > To a great extent, yeah. But it does have some credibility problems –
> > and the problem with lack of credibility is that it shows that the
> > author is not taking the scientific attitude entirely seriously. So
> > hard SF it ain’t.
>
> Agreed. But as long as it's entertaining, we can overlook such details and
> still enjoy ourselves.
As with Battlestar Galactica...
> >> >> > So for me the entire hard and soft categories are
> >> >> > extremely fuzzy. I guess I would describe sci-fi with a poor
> >> >> > scientific attitude and/or poor scientific content as "soft". This
> >> >> > would include time-travel and other silliness, which is blatantly
> >> >> > disregarding basic scientific tenets and hence often ought to be
> >> >> > described as fantasy.
>
> >> >> Which tenets exactly?
>
> >> > Oh... all of them?! You have to look pretty damn hard to find
> >> > anything, even in theory, that even begins to allow any form of
> >> > practical time-travel.
>
> >> That's not what you said -- can you tell us what basic tenets are
> >> _violated_?
>
> > Can you tell us which ones aren’t? ;-)
>
> Ohm's law. Your turn.
Since there is no science of time-travel you cannot know which laws
are not violated by it.
> >> > And even if wormhole theory almost (but not
> >> > quite) allows time-travel, where is the math that describes the
> >> > repurcussions of interfering with the timestream; where are the
> >> > equations that resolve the paradoxes?
>
> >> They're called the Einstein Field Equations. All good comes from the
> >> Einstein Field Equations! All hail the Einstein Field Equations, our
> >> beloved ruler!
>
> > But they don’t make human time-travel practically possible in any way,
> > shape or form.
>
> They allow for worm holes. You asked for the equations, I named them.
Not wormholes that humans or spaceships can travel safely through.
> > Ahem. Knee-jerk reaction comin’ atcha: Everybody is entitled to their
> > opinion, but the idea that every opinion is of equal objective
> > validity is the ultimate fallacy. Therefore uninformed opinions should
> > be challenged.
>
> We both know what happens when I do that...
We're currently neck-deep in what happens...
> >> but that the above is armchair philosophy, not science.
>
> > You can patronize my “philosophical” science criticism all you want;
> > that’s not going to keep it from eventually having a real impact.
> > Zrrrrrbt!
>
> I'm not patronizing it, I'm just observing that it isn't science.
You *are* patronizing it, and I have always been lucidly aware that
it's not *your idea* of science. Because as you have admitted several
times now, you don't particularly have one. You just like gadgets.
- Tue
Niels
Science is the subjectification of objective reality.
My personal feelings about BG is that it's sleep-inducingly boring,
hopelessly pretentious and terminally unimaginative. That's what I feel
when I see an episode. Nothing _ever_ happens, you just get people who
stand around and cry / fight / whisper / stare / pray or whatever. I simply
don't get what's so great about this.
You're right, it's not steam punk-ish. But everything is dirty, old and
malfunctioning, machinery as well as people. There's no joy to be found,
everything is war and dirt and death.
In the very first episode, Adama realized that the cylon couldn't get to
them if they didn't network their computers. And that only the good old
fighters from the museum stood a chance. That, to me, was a clear
reactionary anti-tech notion, and thereby a mark of non SF.
>> > I know you think that a lot of alleged SF isn’t SF at all, but
>> > I don’t agree with the strictness of your criteria.
>>
>> I don't really have a criteria, I just think there should be science in
>> science fiction. Real, hands on science, not symbolic,
>> everything-is-science-when-you-think-about-it science.
>
> You're talking about technology. The applied science of engineers:
> Mechanics.
>
No, I'm talking about science. You're the one who says that there only has
to be a spaceship for something to be SF.
[merciful snip]
>> >> So is Sherlock Holmes SF in your book?
>>
>> > To a great extent, yeah. But it does have some credibility problems –
>> > and the problem with lack of credibility is that it shows that the
>> > author is not taking the scientific attitude entirely seriously. So
>> > hard SF it ain’t.
>>
>> Agreed. But as long as it's entertaining, we can overlook such details
>> and still enjoy ourselves.
>
> As with Battlestar Galactica...
>
To me, BG isn't terribly entertaining.
>> >> >> > So for me the entire hard and soft categories are
>> >> >> > extremely fuzzy. I guess I would describe sci-fi with a poor
>> >> >> > scientific attitude and/or poor scientific content as "soft".
>> >> >> > This would include time-travel and other silliness, which is
>> >> >> > blatantly disregarding basic scientific tenets and hence often
>> >> >> > ought to be described as fantasy.
>>
>> >> >> Which tenets exactly?
>>
>> >> > Oh... all of them?! You have to look pretty damn hard to find
>> >> > anything, even in theory, that even begins to allow any form of
>> >> > practical time-travel.
>>
>> >> That's not what you said -- can you tell us what basic tenets are
>> >> _violated_?
>>
>> > Can you tell us which ones aren’t? ;-)
>>
>> Ohm's law. Your turn.
>
> Since there is no science of time-travel you cannot know which laws
> are not violated by it.
>
Ohm's law is invariant to time, thus reversible. But you're not holding up
your end: you claimed that the very idea of time travel blatantly
disregards basic scientific tenets. Which tenets?
>> >> > And even if wormhole theory almost (but not
>> >> > quite) allows time-travel, where is the math that describes the
>> >> > repurcussions of interfering with the timestream; where are the
>> >> > equations that resolve the paradoxes?
>>
>> >> They're called the Einstein Field Equations. All good comes from the
>> >> Einstein Field Equations! All hail the Einstein Field Equations, our
>> >> beloved ruler!
>>
>> > But they don’t make human time-travel practically possible in any way,
>> > shape or form.
>>
>> They allow for worm holes. You asked for the equations, I named them.
>
> Not wormholes that humans or spaceships can travel safely through.
>
That's not what you asked for.
>> > Ahem. Knee-jerk reaction comin’ atcha: Everybody is entitled to their
>> > opinion, but the idea that every opinion is of equal objective
>> > validity is the ultimate fallacy. Therefore uninformed opinions should
>> > be challenged.
>>
>> We both know what happens when I do that...
>
> We're currently neck-deep in what happens...
>
The question is: what happens next?
>> >> but that the above is armchair philosophy, not science.
>>
>> > You can patronize my “philosophical” science criticism all you want;
>> > that’s not going to keep it from eventually having a real impact.
>> > Zrrrrrbt!
>>
>> I'm not patronizing it, I'm just observing that it isn't science.
>
> You *are* patronizing it, and I have always been lucidly aware that
> it's not *your idea* of science. Because as you have admitted several
> times now, you don't particularly have one.
Briefly put, science is the method by which we examine the world. There are
many details and practical issues, but that's about it.
> You just like gadgets.
What was that about you always being serious?
//Niels
Tue Sorensen
Only when there IS science. From the subjective viewpoint of some
stone age guy carving a hollow tree canoe, there is only religious
superstition.
> My mistake, I'll go back to thinking that science is the method
> by which we examine the world.
Emphasis on "we" - now write that a hundred times in letters five feet
high and don't forget it. Science requires the concept of objectivity,
which requires agreement between a plurality of people as to how we
perceive the world.
> > Science is a world view that a community of interacting
> > scientists have agreed on. Something can only be called science when
> > it has been accepted as such by the scientific community. Science is a
> > *cultural phenomenon* that represents rational agreement about natural
> > inquiry and the method and results of such inquiry. A scientist
> > removed from his scientific community is strictly speaking no longer a
> > scientist. Science is an institution that goes definitively beyond the
> > subjective person. It's a collective activity. If no one is around to
> > acknowledge that what you do is science, then it's not. You can choose
> > to call it that, just as you can choose to call it Fred. But the
> > cultural phenomenon of science is a team-effort and can never be
> > anything but.
>
> If I'm all alone I can't use critical thinking to examine my world, achieve
> technological progress and change my environment?
Effectively, no. And even to the tiny extent that you can, it won't be
science, but only personal ingenuity. Where will you learn critical
thinking when language (and hence thinking) is a phenomenon that can
only proceed from a collective social environment? And even if you can
think, where will you have learnt to think critically? Everything you
can do is contingent on someone else having done something first, to
provide you with the intellectual and technological tools. Modern
human beings evolved more than 100,000 years ago, and did not manage
to invent agriculture until maybe 15,000 years ago. For 85,000 years
they progressed infinitely slowly, just developing slightly better
stone tools once every few thousand years. Technological progress?
Literally at the rate of continental drift! Virtually no progress in
one person's lifetime. Anything more than that requires a vital
culture around you.
> > What you call science (anything technological or mechanical that
> > works) can vary from a row-boat to a spaceship, but you forget that in
> > order to make that technological leap, an entire civilization that
> > manufactures mass-produced electronics and many other thing is
> > required. Hence, there comes a level when individual ingenuity must be
> > replaced by the technological fruits of a larger culture, and it is
> > *only* under those circumstances that advanced technology becomes
> > possible. Only by having many people involved in researching checks
> > and balances can anything be said to approach objective truth;
>
> Objective truth? Aren't we talking about science? You know, best guesses and
> such? Are you sure you're not a philosopher?
Scientific fact = truth. And I did say "approach". Yes, they're best
guesses and may some day be revised. But it's the closest thing we
have to truth, and the ONLY thing we can reasonably call truth. Just
as we must define the scientific description of nature as (the closest
thing we can determine to be) reality.
> > one
> > true reality that all scientists can agree about and which can become
> > the common world view that further scientific activity is based on.
>
> We allready have a true reality, science is about describing it.
That's what I'm saying. But one isolated person does not a scientist
make, and cannot make science, because he has no way of knowing what
is objective and what is just his personal experience.
> > This can never be the case for some isolated ship-builder's subjective
> > ideas about how things work. He can never know if he *really* knows
> > how things work, of if he just lives in a solipsistic world of his own
> > mental invention.
>
> Science isn't looking for "how things *really* work". That's religion.
Whoops, already misplaced the "true reality" you mentioned above? And
can we please keep religion out of this?
> > What this comes down to is that I have just exposed a horribly
> > embarrassing fact about you, which in retrospect makes all kinds of
> > sense: When you use the word "science", what you actually mean is
> > "mechanics".
>
> Just the opposite in fact.
I am compelled to ask the question that a TV host asked a famous film
director when he claimed his latest film was starring the late Marilyn
Monroe: How??!?!
> But in what we currently call science fiction,
> technology is often all we have, and so that's what we're talking about.
We're talking about what science is and what you mean by it, and,
according to what you have said in this thread, you mean "mechanics".
Otherwise we'd have to determine what you actually do mean by
"science", and that would probably get... philosophical!
> You know that I've often said that such and such wasn't really SF because
> it's all tech and no science, to which you've replied that the tech is
> supposed to symbolize science.
Well, there *is* that, and I stand by that... but you usually complain
that there's no proper tech, either. And if we mean very different
things by "science", it's hard to see just how much we agree or not.
> >> > Personally, I believe that it's part and parcel of a
> >> > scientific attitude to accept that everything changes all the time
> >> > (except possibly certain physical laws and constants), even if some
> >> > things only do so very or even imperceptibly slowly. Anybody who does
> >> > not accept and even embrace such a principle of constant change cannot
> >> > be said to have understood the scientific world view in full.
>
> >> Why not? "Everything changes" is philosophy, not science. Find me a 12th
> >> century monk who chants "Everything changes" and I'll show you a guy who
> >> can't build a spaceship!
>
> > If you understand the universe as science describes it, you must
> > accept that everything is in a state of continuous change! Any
> > contrary notion is obviously absurd! Understanding change will help
> > you to a better understanding of a great many experimental situations
> > and scientific principles. Science describes a universe in motion.
> > Reject constant motion, and you reject science itself. Sure, some
> > experiments can work without taking constant change into account, but
> > those are tiny, limited and frozen pictures of some limited situation.
> > If you desire greater understanding, and you should, then change must
> > become part of the equation. It is aggressive ignorance to deny this.
>
> Or you could say that the universe consists of things that are blue and
> things that aren't blue. That's obviously true, but that alone doesn't make
> it a usefull notion. If you think that viewing the universe as being in a
> state of continuous change helps scientific progress, please show us
> explicitly how -- or withdraw your claim.
Progress itself is change!!! Change is a fundamental property of the
universe and is useful to keep in mind in any and all eventualities.
Any situation that does not change is exceptional for not doing so.
And even when you describe an unchanging situation, you need to engage
in motion to do it.
> Your problems with limited situations shows that you don't get how science
> works. Limited situations are what we strive for! We love being able to
> isolate some part of a complex system!
You, my friend, are helplessly and blissfully ignorantly caught in the
early, primitive stages of science, where researchers work with
isolated systems. In the real world there are no isolated systems, and
the progress of science is increasingly reflecting that. In order to
get going at all, science has to start by describing limited parts of
complex systems, but doing so is the cradle of science and one doesn't
stay in the cradle! You are just not mature enough to leave it yet.
> At the end of the day, science is empirical and quantitative. At its most
> extreme it isn't about understanding the universe, it's about calculating
> it. Whether you like that fact or not doesn't matter.
Does too. Science is about every aspect of nature, including human
emotions and experiences. The idea that science is only about
extracting raw data is nothing but a philosophical standpoint which
has not yet understood the dynamic nature of the universe and
everything in it. Philosophy, according to Daniel Robinson, is about
three problems: The problem of knowledge (what we can know), the
problem of conduct (how we should behave) and the problem of
governance (how we should structure society). All of these problems
will be taken over and resolved by science in due time.
- Tue
Remus Shepherd
> : Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
> : I don't care if you
> : have a story-consistent reason for allowing a character to fly whenever
> : he's in danger -- that's *not* science fiction.
> No anti-gravity belts? Aw, man, we never get to do anything fun.
I was referring to a conceit in _Perdido Street Station_. The main
character built a device that could harness 'crisis energy' and basically
work miracles, but only if the operator was in mortal danger.
...I can't tell you how frustrated I am that this was recommended to
me as a science fiction novel.
> : The attitudes of the characters are not what separates 'hard' and
> : 'soft' sci-fi stories, to me. It's the attitude of the author that
> : matters. Authors either say, "Accept this and I will tell you a
> : story", or "Here's what could happen and I'll tell you how and why."
> : Those are the defining differences, IMHO.
> I tend to agree. But only to a limited extent, because the boundary
> between the two cases is inherently blurry. "Accept this could happen"
> and "this *really* could happen" have a huge overlap where "the "really"
> is arguable, for one thing.
So arguable that I originally put 'really could happen' in that post,
then deleted it because I didn't want to make such a strong statement. :)
> Plus, the problem that what *really* is
> going to happen is that our notions of what really could happen are
> going to change, so some element of "accept this" is inevitable, except
> for extreme near-future SF bordering on technothriller.
Yeah, the definitions change. And many of the people arguing are from
different generations, with different folklore and different exposure to
sci-fi tropes. This does not encourage me that the debate will ever end...
Niels
No, science requires that calculations fit measurements. One person can do
that.
We're not talking about the same thing. To use another example, I'm saying
that paper is refined wood pulp, and you're saying that paper is the result
of infinite human labor and is necessary for poets to save humanity. We're
not communicating at all. I'm trying to make a simple, straight forward
distinction as to science, you're trying to explain the universe.
>> > What you call science (anything technological or mechanical that
>> > works) can vary from a row-boat to a spaceship, but you forget that in
>> > order to make that technological leap, an entire civilization that
>> > manufactures mass-produced electronics and many other thing is
>> > required. Hence, there comes a level when individual ingenuity must be
>> > replaced by the technological fruits of a larger culture, and it is
>> > *only* under those circumstances that advanced technology becomes
>> > possible. Only by having many people involved in researching checks
>> > and balances can anything be said to approach objective truth;
>>
>> Objective truth? Aren't we talking about science? You know, best guesses
>> and such? Are you sure you're not a philosopher?
>
> Scientific fact = truth. And I did say "approach". Yes, they're best
> guesses and may some day be revised. But it's the closest thing we
> have to truth, and the ONLY thing we can reasonably call truth.
Let's just not use that word, huh?
> Just
> as we must define the scientific description of nature as (the closest
> thing we can determine to be) reality.
>
But we mustn't! There's the landscape and there's the map, they aren't the
same.
>> > one
>> > true reality that all scientists can agree about and which can become
>> > the common world view that further scientific activity is based on.
>>
>> We allready have a true reality, science is about describing it.
>
> That's what I'm saying. But one isolated person does not a scientist
> make, and cannot make science, because he has no way of knowing what
> is objective and what is just his personal experience.
>
That doesn't matter, reproducible and foreseeable results and falsifiable
hypothesis do.
>> > This can never be the case for some isolated ship-builder's subjective
>> > ideas about how things work. He can never know if he *really* knows
>> > how things work, of if he just lives in a solipsistic world of his own
>> > mental invention.
>>
>> Science isn't looking for "how things *really* work". That's religion.
>
> Whoops, already misplaced the "true reality" you mentioned above? And
> can we please keep religion out of this?
Please do.
>
>> > What this comes down to is that I have just exposed a horribly
>> > embarrassing fact about you, which in retrospect makes all kinds of
>> > sense: When you use the word "science", what you actually mean is
>> > "mechanics".
>>
>> Just the opposite in fact.
>
> I am compelled to ask the question that a TV host asked a famous film
> director when he claimed his latest film was starring the late Marilyn
> Monroe: How??!?!
>
>> But in what we currently call science fiction,
>> technology is often all we have, and so that's what we're talking about.
>
> We're talking about what science is and what you mean by it, and,
> according to what you have said in this thread, you mean "mechanics".
> Otherwise we'd have to determine what you actually do mean by
> "science", and that would probably get... philosophical!
>
>> You know that I've often said that such and such wasn't really SF because
>> it's all tech and no science, to which you've replied that the tech is
>> supposed to symbolize science.
>
> Well, there *is* that, and I stand by that... but you usually complain
> that there's no proper tech, either. And if we mean very different
> things by "science", it's hard to see just how much we agree or not.
>
The latter, mostly. Agreed?
Show me _how_ it's usefull!
> Any situation that does not change is exceptional for not doing so.
> And even when you describe an unchanging situation, you need to engage
> in motion to do it.
>
>> Your problems with limited situations shows that you don't get how
>> science works. Limited situations are what we strive for! We love being
>> able to isolate some part of a complex system!
>
> You, my friend, are helplessly and blissfully ignorantly caught in the
> early, primitive stages of science,
No, you are. The reason scientific progress exploded after Newton and those
guys was exactly because they gave up looking for the one big truth and
started looking at small cases.
> where researchers work with
> isolated systems. In the real world there are no isolated systems, and
> the progress of science is increasingly reflecting that. In order to
> get going at all, science has to start by describing limited parts of
> complex systems, but doing so is the cradle of science and one doesn't
> stay in the cradle! You are just not mature enough to leave it yet.
>
Your choice of words leaves little doubt as to who's mature.
>> At the end of the day, science is empirical and quantitative. At its most
>> extreme it isn't about understanding the universe, it's about calculating
>> it. Whether you like that fact or not doesn't matter.
>
> Does too. Science is about every aspect of nature, including human
> emotions and experiences. The idea that science is only about
> extracting raw data is nothing but a philosophical standpoint which
> has not yet understood the dynamic nature of the universe and
> everything in it.
It is a _practical_ standpoint, one that produces useful results. Some that
philosophy doesn't even claim to be able to. Science _works_.
> Philosophy, according to Daniel Robinson, is about
> three problems: The problem of knowledge (what we can know), the
> problem of conduct (how we should behave) and the problem of
> governance (how we should structure society). All of these problems
> will be taken over and resolved by science in due time.
Until then, then.
//Niels
Wayne Throop
: Yeah, the definitions change. And many of the people arguing are from
: different generations, with different folklore and different exposure to
: sci-fi tropes. This does not encourage me that the debate will ever end...
No, I don't mean that the readers expectation changes over time.
I mean that IRL, there are new theories, so if the writer doesn't
incorporate progress, which is fundamentally speculative, then the
a story set futurwards of here isn't realistic. It's a catch 22,
and thus a notion of "hard SF" that incorporates "what could happen"
has a built-in dynamic tension, almost a self-contradiction.
Tue Sorensen
> Science is the subjectification of objective reality.
That depends.
And yet I happen to know that you have seen every single episode...
you've no one to blame but yourself. Oh, and come to think of it,
me. :-)
> You're right, it's not steam punk-ish. But everything is dirty, old and
> malfunctioning, machinery as well as people.
You mean like in the original Star Wars trilogy? Now *that* was a cool
look... Whattaya mean the people are old? They are not! It's a
perfectly youthful show.
> There's no joy to be found,
> everything is war and dirt and death.
You may have missed your true calling: writing depressed war poetry.
> In the very first episode, Adama realized that the cylon couldn't get to
> them if they didn't network their computers. And that only the good old
> fighters from the museum stood a chance. That, to me, was a clear
> reactionary anti-tech notion, and thereby a mark of non SF.
It was a homage to the old show! Get over it!
> >> > I know you think that a lot of alleged SF isn’t SF at all, but
> >> > I don’t agree with the strictness of your criteria.
>
> >> I don't really have a criteria, I just think there should be science in
> >> science fiction. Real, hands on science, not symbolic,
> >> everything-is-science-when-you-think-about-it science.
>
> > You're talking about technology. The applied science of engineers:
> > Mechanics.
>
> No, I'm talking about science.
Well, you think you are, anyway...
> You're the one who says that there only has
> to be a spaceship for something to be SF.
Spaceships are good. I could eat them up. Yummy. But first and
foremost there has to be a scientific attitude.
> >> >> So is Sherlock Holmes SF in your book?
>
> >> > To a great extent, yeah. But it does have some credibility problems –
> >> > and the problem with lack of credibility is that it shows that the
> >> > author is not taking the scientific attitude entirely seriously. So
> >> > hard SF it ain’t.
>
> >> Agreed. But as long as it's entertaining, we can overlook such details
> >> and still enjoy ourselves.
>
> > As with Battlestar Galactica...
>
> To me, BG isn't terribly entertaining.
Guess it doesn't have to be for you to watch it...
> >> >> >> > So for me the entire hard and soft categories are
> >> >> >> > extremely fuzzy. I guess I would describe sci-fi with a poor
> >> >> >> > scientific attitude and/or poor scientific content as "soft".
> >> >> >> > This would include time-travel and other silliness, which is
> >> >> >> > blatantly disregarding basic scientific tenets and hence often
> >> >> >> > ought to be described as fantasy.
>
> >> >> >> Which tenets exactly?
>
> >> >> > Oh... all of them?! You have to look pretty damn hard to find
> >> >> > anything, even in theory, that even begins to allow any form of
> >> >> > practical time-travel.
>
> >> >> That's not what you said -- can you tell us what basic tenets are
> >> >> _violated_?
>
> >> > Can you tell us which ones aren’t? ;-)
>
> >> Ohm's law. Your turn.
>
> > Since there is no science of time-travel you cannot know which laws
> > are not violated by it.
>
> Ohm's law is invariant to time, thus reversible. But you're not holding up
> your end: you claimed that the very idea of time travel blatantly
> disregards basic scientific tenets. Which tenets?
Since there is no science of time-travel, it is an irrelevant
question. How can the non-science of time-travel be related to
existing scientific laws? You're trying to trap me into exposing my
partial ignorance of specific science, but my name is Alan Greenspan
and I don't work that way! (Now *there's* an obscure comics reference
if ever there was one!) My knowledge of nitty-gritty science is
admittedly relatively limited - I mostly work with large abstract
questions -, and what detailed knowledge I do have tends to be
passive, so I can't volunteer it. But I can analyze it into next week
if you present it to me for scrutiny! But I still don't see how actual
science has any real relevance to the non-science of time-travel.
> >> >> > And even if wormhole theory almost (but not
> >> >> > quite) allows time-travel, where is the math that describes the
> >> >> > repurcussions of interfering with the timestream; where are the
> >> >> > equations that resolve the paradoxes?
>
> >> >> They're called the Einstein Field Equations. All good comes from the
> >> >> Einstein Field Equations! All hail the Einstein Field Equations, our
> >> >> beloved ruler!
>
> >> > But they don’t make human time-travel practically possible in any way,
> >> > shape or form.
>
> >> They allow for worm holes. You asked for the equations, I named them.
>
> > Not wormholes that humans or spaceships can travel safely through.
>
> That's not what you asked for.
Actually, if you read back, it specifically was.
> >> > Ahem. Knee-jerk reaction comin’ atcha: Everybody is entitled to their
> >> > opinion, but the idea that every opinion is of equal objective
> >> > validity is the ultimate fallacy. Therefore uninformed opinions should
> >> > be challenged.
>
> >> We both know what happens when I do that...
>
> > We're currently neck-deep in what happens...
>
> The question is: what happens next?
A pause and a re-match. And then I win.
> >> > You can patronize my “philosophical” science criticism all you want;
> >> > that’s not going to keep it from eventually having a real impact.
> >> > Zrrrrrbt!
>
> >> I'm not patronizing it, I'm just observing that it isn't science.
>
> > You *are* patronizing it, and I have always been lucidly aware that
> > it's not *your idea* of science. Because as you have admitted several
> > times now, you don't particularly have one.
>
> Briefly put, science is the method by which we examine the world. There are
> many details and practical issues, but that's about it.
I'll agree with you about that much - but to me an important corollary
is that the world has taught us to be scientific. Ultimately, the
principles of science come to us from external reality. We just
haven't understood them entirely yet.
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
A very splendid observation to keep in mind! :-)
- Tue
Tue Sorensen
On 5 Maj, 23:04, Niels <n...@example.com> wrote:
> On Monday 05 May 2008 22:36, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> > On 5 Maj, 21:10, Niels <n...@example.com> wrote:
> >> My mistake, I'll go back to thinking that science is the method
> >> by which we examine the world.
>
> > Emphasis on "we" - now write that a hundred times in letters five feet
> > high and don't forget it. Science requires the concept of objectivity,
> > which requires agreement between a plurality of people as to how we
> > perceive the world.
>
> No, science requires that calculations fit measurements. One person can do
> that.
And you don't find the argument that no science can exist in a
cultural vacuum at all pertinent? One person isolated from language
and culture cannot invent calculation, nor conceive of the notion of
measurement. If there's only one person, there can be no science. Am I
shouting at a wall here? I really find it incredible that you can find
it in yourself to cavalierly ignore so much necessary cultural
luggage. If there's only one person performing what he thinks is
science, how can he ever ascertain that everything he's doing doesn't
take place within the realm of solipsism? You are stubbornly and
deliberately ignoring obvious and pertinent logic and making me
explain all the same things over and over again. "Science" only has
meaning once objective criteria have been established, and they cannot
be established until a second researcher (and a third, and a fourth)
has confirmed the findings of the first. This is completely basic
stuff! If you do not accept this argument, then you are NOT talking
about what we call science in any way, shape or form.
I've known that for some time now...
> > Scientific fact = truth. And I did say "approach". Yes, they're best
> > guesses and may some day be revised. But it's the closest thing we
> > have to truth, and the ONLY thing we can reasonably call truth.
>
> Let's just not use that word, huh?
Poets do, so science one day must, too.
> > Just
> > as we must define the scientific description of nature as (the closest
> > thing we can determine to be) reality.
>
> But we mustn't! There's the landscape and there's the map, they aren't the
> same.
When I say "what science describes", I simply mean that if we have
determined with immense certainty that our measurements are reliable,
then we can also depend on them. Until such time as they may
mysteriously change.
> >> > one
> >> > true reality that all scientists can agree about and which can become
> >> > the common world view that further scientific activity is based on.
>
> >> We allready have a true reality, science is about describing it.
>
> > That's what I'm saying. But one isolated person does not a scientist
> > make, and cannot make science, because he has no way of knowing what
> > is objective and what is just his personal experience.
>
> That doesn't matter, reproducible and foreseeable results and falsifiable
> hypothesis do.
But those criteria are the result of millennia of cultural
development, involving thousands of people debating the subject! I
truly do not understand how you can in any way possibly deny that
science is impossible in a setting of a single person. You know about
the real world's scientific community! Peer review! You only trust
science because you know it has been checked and rechecked by many
qualified scientists! Who the hell exists to define something as
science in a closed system of a single person? How could this person
possibly determine what science is, or which measurements are more
successful or botched than others, when there's no one else around to
agree with him about it? This is really the most preposterous view you
have subjected me to yet. And it's not just a question of me
"including everything"; I'm only describing the obvious, superficial
and agreed-by-all-except-YOU nature of science here. One person does
not do science! Science is a cultural institution and can only be
performed within the realm of such. It's an agreed-upon way of
understanding the world. Any one person deciding for himself how to
understand the world, without others to confirm his tests and
inquiries, is being religious. And apparently that's what you are
drawn to, since you repeatedly insist than one, single allegedly
rational individual can do science.
> >> > This can never be the case for some isolated ship-builder's subjective
> >> > ideas about how things work. He can never know if he *really* knows
> >> > how things work, of if he just lives in a solipsistic world of his own
> >> > mental invention.
>
> >> Science isn't looking for "how things *really* work". That's religion.
>
> > Whoops, already misplaced the "true reality" you mentioned above? And
> > can we please keep religion out of this?
>
> Please do.
You're making it very difficult.
> >> You know that I've often said that such and such wasn't really SF because
> >> it's all tech and no science, to which you've replied that the tech is
> >> supposed to symbolize science.
>
> > Well, there *is* that, and I stand by that... but you usually complain
> > that there's no proper tech, either. And if we mean very different
> > things by "science", it's hard to see just how much we agree or not.
>
> The latter, mostly. Agreed?
Vehemently.
> > Progress itself is change!!! Change is a fundamental property of the
> > universe and is useful to keep in mind in any and all eventualities.
>
> Show me _how_ it's usefull!
It's useful in understanding how everything works! If you do not
understand that everything is in a state of change, then science
hasn't done a very good job on you.
> > Any situation that does not change is exceptional for not doing so.
> > And even when you describe an unchanging situation, you need to engage
> > in motion to do it.
>
> >> Your problems with limited situations shows that you don't get how
> >> science works. Limited situations are what we strive for! We love being
> >> able to isolate some part of a complex system!
>
> > You, my friend, are helplessly and blissfully ignorantly caught in the
> > early, primitive stages of science,
>
> No, you are.
No, you are. You don't understand how science progresses, and changes
in that process.
> The reason scientific progress exploded after Newton and those
> guys was exactly because they gave up looking for the one big truth and
> started looking at small cases.
Wrong. You're the one looking at small cases. They were on to the
right thing, but didn't have enough scientific understanding and
useful models to take those ideas very far. So they did what they had
to do, and now we're beginning to need the big picture again, to
dispose of the many flaws in the current scientific paradigm. Why else
do you think scientists talk so much about GUTs and TOEs? Anatomical
interest? I think not!
> >> At the end of the day, science is empirical and quantitative. At its most
> >> extreme it isn't about understanding the universe, it's about calculating
> >> it. Whether you like that fact or not doesn't matter.
>
> > Does too. Science is about every aspect of nature, including human
> > emotions and experiences. The idea that science is only about
> > extracting raw data is nothing but a philosophical standpoint which
> > has not yet understood the dynamic nature of the universe and
> > everything in it.
>
> It is a _practical_ standpoint
Based on philosophical assumptions.
>, one that produces useful results. Some that
> philosophy doesn't even claim to be able to. Science _works_.
Mechanics works. Science is a complex set of ideas and practices
existing in a cultural context.
> > Philosophy, according to Daniel Robinson, is about
> > three problems: The problem of knowledge (what we can know), the
> > problem of conduct (how we should behave) and the problem of
> > governance (how we should structure society). All of these problems
> > will be taken over and resolved by science in due time.
>
> Until then, then.
You betcha.
- Tue
Erik Max Francis
> What do you mean, illogical humans? The vast majority of the dialog is
> mind-blowingly rational! And in a way that includes human ideals and
> values, rather than just being "pure logic" (which isn't truly
> applicable to human beings, anyway). But let me point out that I am
> talking about the new Trek shows, not TOS. TOS had its virtues, but
> its scientific attitudes as well as human ideals were much messier and
> undefined than they became with TNG.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. The original series had
its faults, but mostly steered away from technobabble, and was often
written by actual science fiction writers. The later series had
laughable science, laughable consistency, laughable common sense, and
laughable politics.
If "science" means technobabble and "rational" means further ridiculous
nonsense to make a plot point -- and, hey, throw in deus ex machina
every few episodes for good measure -- then yeah, the later Star Trek
series were paragons of rationality and good science fiction.
Don't get me wrong, the later series had their moments, and some were
better than others (Deep Space Nine had its problems, but at least there
were story arcs, though they started getting out of hand), but ... I
really don't know what to say after a comment like that.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot live in a cradle
forever. -- Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky, 1857-1935
Erik Max Francis
> On 5 Maj, 20:44, Niels <n...@example.com> wrote:
>> How about current Battlestar Galactica? There's _one_ scientist, who's mad,
>> never does any science and quite possibly kills people left and right.
>> There are spaceships, but it's all sort of steam punk-ish tech. Evil
>> machines are, or are not, trying to kill everybody. Everything is wrapped
>> in religion, mysticism and really loathsome characters. What say you?
>
> The religion in Battlestar Galactica is presented specifically *as*
> religion. There is no evidence of supernatural happenings. The
> religion is based in legends about Earth, and these myths are part of
> the plot, and it will probably be revealed just how they came into
> being. The overall premise is a perfectly sound scientific world view.
Bluh, what? Maybe if you'd only watched a few scattered episodes, or
the first two seasons, could you have made this argument (giving a lot
of benefit of the doubt to Baltar's taking advice from his imagination
that turns out to always be right and claims to be an angel from God).
Moving into the fourth season now, that seems to me a pretty silly
claim: It's introduced _explicitly_ as religion in the series, and the
creators are on record as stating that they went out of their way to try
to integrate spiritual elements into their work (as I saw in some
interviews; I'd have to dig it up if someone thinks this isn't true,
even though we hear about it ever other episode).
We haven't seen the end, but we're seeing ridiculous implausibilities,
crazy events that aren't explainable rationally, and religion mentioned
practically every episode. The characters who aren't even particularly
religious have even commented about how they can't deny something weird
is going on! If you need examples, I'll give them, but I wouldn't think
that anyone actually watching the series would need them.
That isn't in and of itself a horrible thing, necessarily, but it's not
exactly subtle, and I suspect it's all going to end up being used as
deus ex machina ultimately (deus ex deus, really, I guess).
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Can I walk with you / 'Till the day that the world stops turning
-- India Arie
JimboCat
>On 5 Maj, 16:34, Niels <n...@example.com> wrote:
>> Most "what is..." and "why is..." questions are philosophical questions, as
>> opposed to hardcore science's "how much". There's no distinct line in the
>> sand, but talking about science instead of doing it is certainly on the
>> wrong side of said line.
>
>Hogwash! To have a scientific world view is to have a scientific life
>style, regardless of whether you're engaged in specific experimental
>investigation. Theoretical science, whether directly useful or wildly
>speculative, is precisely as important as applied science - the main
>thing is to have both going on at the same time. There isn't either
>without the other.
Of course: "neither can live while the other survives" is the exact
quote...
Oops! Sorry! Wrong prophecy! When you said "Hogwash" I thought you
wrote "Hogwarts".
nevermind
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"I've been having some trouble with /my/ lifestyle..." - Douglas Adams
Tue Sorensen
I have watched every episode religiously, as it were. The supernatural
elements introduced so far are still nothing that might not turn out
to have a scientific explanation (that's what I'm hoping for, of
course, since nothing else would make sense). Also, when chronicling
an alien culture it's quite natural that this culture will have some
religious aspect to it. Remember the B5 episode where the Commander
introduces various Earth religions to alien delegations, starting with
a representative of atheism? Not that I believe atheism is a religion
(I don't), but it demonstrates the point: that alien cultures will
realistically have their own religions, and this should sometimes be
included in science fiction stories about such alien cultures.
- Tue
Alie...@gmail.com
> On May 6, 11:39 am, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> > Tue Sorensen wrote:
> > > On 5 Maj, 20:44, Niels <n...@example.com> wrote:
> > >> How about current Battlestar Galactica? There's _one_ scientist, who's mad,
> > >> never does any science and quite possibly kills people left and right.
> > >> There are spaceships, but it's all sort of steam punk-ish tech. Evil
> > >> machines are, or are not, trying to kill everybody. Everything is wrapped
> > >> in religion, mysticism and really loathsome characters. What say you?
I'd say you're watching a different series.
> > > The religion in Battlestar Galactica is presented specifically *as*
> > > religion. There is no evidence of supernatural happenings. The
> > > religion is based in legends about Earth, and these myths are part of
> > > the plot, and it will probably be revealed just how they came into
> > > being. The overall premise is a perfectly sound scientific world view.
Gah. Legends of Earth are a part of the religion but not its basis
any more than the Lost Tribe Of Israel is the basis of Judaism.
Ahem.
> > Bluh, what? Maybe if you'd only watched a few scattered episodes, or
> > the first two seasons, could you have made this argument (giving a lot
> > of benefit of the doubt to Baltar's taking advice from his imagination
> > that turns out to always be right and claims to be an angel from God).
> > Moving into the fourth season now, that seems to me a pretty silly
> > claim: It's introduced _explicitly_ as religion in the series, and the
> > creators are on record as stating that they went out of their way to try
> > to integrate spiritual elements into their work (as I saw in some
> > interviews; I'd have to dig it up if someone thinks this isn't true,
> > even though we hear about it ever other episode).
>
> > We haven't seen the end, but we're seeing ridiculous implausibilities,
> > crazy events that aren't explainable rationally, and religion mentioned
> > practically every episode. The characters who aren't even particularly
> > religious have even commented about how they can't deny something weird
> > is going on! If you need examples, I'll give them, but I wouldn't think
> > that anyone actually watching the series would need them.
>
> I have watched every episode religiously, as it were. The supernatural
> elements introduced so far are still nothing that might not turn out
> to have a scientific explanation (that's what I'm hoping for, of
> course, since nothing else would make sense).
I can think of something that "makes sense" but certainly isn't what
I'm hoping for; _everybody_ turns out to be a Cylon. The Cylon "God"
has been running a real-world simulation of what would happen if it
decided to recontact humanity. IOW everything since the meeting in the
space station has been SimBatGal.
All the "religious" experiences are due to Cylon implantery/God
poking the sim along.
Of course everyone who "died" is in storage waiting to be
"resurrected" for the finale, where God makes His final assessment.
Mark L. Fergerson
Michael Ash
> On May 6, 11:39?am, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>> Tue Sorensen wrote:
>> > On 5 Maj, 20:44, Niels <n...@example.com> wrote:
>> >> How about current Battlestar Galactica? There's _one_ scientist, who's mad,
>> >> never does any science and quite possibly kills people left and right.
>> >> There are spaceships, but it's all sort of steam punk-ish tech. Evil
>> >> machines are, or are not, trying to kill everybody. Everything is wrapped
>> >> in religion, mysticism and really loathsome characters. What say you?
>>
>> > The religion in Battlestar Galactica is presented specifically *as*
>> > religion. There is no evidence of supernatural happenings. The
>> > religion is based in legends about Earth, and these myths are part of
>> > the plot, and it will probably be revealed just how they came into
>> > being. The overall premise is a perfectly sound scientific world view.
>>
>> the first two seasons, could you have made this argument (giving a lot
>> of benefit of the doubt to Baltar's taking advice from his imagination
>> that turns out to always be right and claims to be an angel from God).
>> Moving into the fourth season now, that seems to me a pretty silly
>> creators are on record as stating that they went out of their way to try
>> to integrate spiritual elements into their work (as I saw in some
>> interviews; I'd have to dig it up if someone thinks this isn't true,
>> even though we hear about it ever other episode).
>>
>> We haven't seen the end, but we're seeing ridiculous implausibilities,
>> crazy events that aren't explainable rationally, and religion mentioned
>> religious have even commented about how they can't deny something weird
>> that anyone actually watching the series would need them.
>
> I have watched every episode religiously, as it were. The supernatural
> elements introduced so far are still nothing that might not turn out
> to have a scientific explanation (that's what I'm hoping for, of
> course, since nothing else would make sense). Also, when chronicling
> an alien culture it's quite natural that this culture will have some
> religious aspect to it. Remember the B5 episode where the Commander
> introduces various Earth religions to alien delegations, starting with
> a representative of atheism? Not that I believe atheism is a religion
> (I don't), but it demonstrates the point: that alien cultures will
> realistically have their own religions, and this should sometimes be
> included in science fiction stories about such alien cultures.
For that matter, reality is significantly biased against science and for
religion if you look at it this way. The vast majority of the characters
are religious, and a lot of them place their religion far above objective
science. Mysterious and unexplained things happen with alarming frequency,
and a lot of mostly rational people start talking about supernatural
explanations.
I don't think that mysterious happenings and widespread belief in religion
should be marks against a work of science fiction. Quite the contrary:
they're marks of realism and believability. The cold, sterile Star Trek
future where everyone is an athiest and nothing ever occurs which cannot
be explained in four ten-minute segments is, I think, just as unrealistic
as their treatment of various physical laws.
(For the specific example of BSG, a lot depends on how these mysteries are
ultimately resolved. If it ends up being "god(s) did it", well, there you
go. If they're left unexplained then I don't think they indicate any
statement of the reality of supernatural forces in that universe.)
--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software
Erik Max Francis
> I can think of something that "makes sense" but certainly isn't what
> I'm hoping for; _everybody_ turns out to be a Cylon.
They're awfully close to it as it is, with the season 3 finale reveal.
I mean, come on.
More than that, the now-hyped final reveal has to be someone amazing.
Which narrows it down to two or three characters left (that are
important but which you wouldn't expect but which aren't obvious).
Which makes it even more ridiculous.
I think they're in what might be a standard quandary for storylines that
include extended mindfucks (especially ones which aren't fully plotted
out from the beginning, though I don't know if that applies here): They
want to make things surprising and always keep you guessing, which means
that after a while they've made things completely implausible, the
antagonists amazingly ineffective and so ultimately not what they really
appeared to be and destined to fail in their (apparent) original goal
from the beginning -- which is what was the point of the series, really
-- and obvious who the final reveal is, and not much less obvious what
the final resolution must be (they find Earth along with some Cylons,
learn to get along, end of story).
I thought the first two seasons (outside of the season 2 finale arc)
were very well done and worth watching. Starting with season 3 I've
been less than impressed. From the season 3 finale I've been kind of
rolling my eyes. It's only a part of a season left, and it's earned
enough credits to keep me watching, but I'm not holding out much hope
that it will all come together.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Stretch a bow to the very full, / And you will wish you had stopped
in time. -- Laotse, ca. 6th C. BC
Erik Max Francis
> On May 6, 11:39 am, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>> We haven't seen the end, but we're seeing ridiculous implausibilities,
>> crazy events that aren't explainable rationally, and religion mentioned
>> practically every episode. The characters who aren't even particularly
>> religious have even commented about how they can't deny something weird
>> is going on! If you need examples, I'll give them, but I wouldn't think
>> that anyone actually watching the series would need them.
>
> I have watched every episode religiously, as it were. The supernatural
> elements introduced so far are still nothing that might not turn out
> to have a scientific explanation (that's what I'm hoping for, of
> course, since nothing else would make sense).
Umm, really? The only scientific explanations I can think of for
everything are the literary equivalents of "It was all a dream" or
"Everyone was in on it from the beginning; sorry, viewers."
I mean, do you really need a list of the implausibilities stacked upon
implausibilities? The whole _point_ of the series at this point is that
this is God's plan and everyone is destined to play their part.
Characters are routinely remarking about how implausible the things
they're seeing are and how there _must_ be something supernatural going
on by this point.
Mind you, that isn't in and of itself a horrible thing, I suppose (my
complaint would be that it seems to be a cheap literary device at this
point, not that religion is being invoked), but it's a bit hard to
square with your apparent thesis.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Erik Max Francis
> (For the specific example of BSG, a lot depends on how these mysteries are
> ultimately resolved. If it ends up being "god(s) did it", well, there you
> go. If they're left unexplained then I don't think they indicate any
> statement of the reality of supernatural forces in that universe.)
Well, if everything's left unexplained then it's a pretty strong
implication that _something_ supernatural is still going on, given all
the ongoing commentary -- not from a logical perspective, but from a
literary one. If you stack up a bunch of wild things that everybody
thinks is explained by religion but then fail to explain it rationally,
well, the reader's only going to include one thing, and it ain't his fault.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Robert Martinu
> I don't think that mysterious happenings and widespread belief in religion
> should be marks against a work of science fiction. Quite the contrary:
> they're marks of realism and believability. The cold, sterile Star Trek
> future where everyone is an athiest and nothing ever occurs which cannot
> be explained in four ten-minute segments is, I think, just as unrealistic
> as their treatment of various physical laws.
Especially as quite a lot of Star Treks explainations are on the level
of the ancient view of the world. They only replace the concept of gods
with de facto or actual omnipotent beings, but their ways of interaction
and reaction are quite similar to those of the greek heroes.
Robert
il...@rcn.com
> > intrinsically "soft" about the types of story usually referred to as
> > soft SF. Space opera *could*, if it were written that way, be hard SF.
>
> Can you give any examples of that?
Reynold's "Revelation Space" series, or at least those parts of it
which do not involve Inhibitors.
Niels
Then you know wrong. And I can assure you that I've been pressing Fast
Forward a lot lately!
> you've no one to blame but yourself. Oh, and come to think of it,
> me. :-)
>
Blame for what exactly?
>> You're right, it's not steam punk-ish. But everything is dirty, old and
>> malfunctioning, machinery as well as people.
>
> You mean like in the original Star Wars trilogy? Now *that* was a cool
> look... Whattaya mean the people are old? They are not! It's a
> perfectly youthful show.
>
There are certainly a lot of youthful women around Balthar.
>> There's no joy to be found,
>> everything is war and dirt and death.
>
> You may have missed your true calling: writing depressed war poetry.
>
>> In the very first episode, Adama realized that the cylon couldn't get to
>> them if they didn't network their computers. And that only the good old
>> fighters from the museum stood a chance. That, to me, was a clear
>> reactionary anti-tech notion, and thereby a mark of non SF.
>
> It was a homage to the old show! Get over it!
>
No way, it's a central point early on.
>> >> > I know you think that a lot of alleged SF isn’t SF at all, but
>> >> > I don’t agree with the strictness of your criteria.
>>
>> >> I don't really have a criteria, I just think there should be science
>> >> in science fiction. Real, hands on science, not symbolic,
>> >> everything-is-science-when-you-think-about-it science.
>>
>> > You're talking about technology. The applied science of engineers:
>> > Mechanics.
>>
>> No, I'm talking about science.
>
> Well, you think you are, anyway...
>
Automatic gainsaying.
>> You're the one who says that there only has
>> to be a spaceship for something to be SF.
>
> Spaceships are good. I could eat them up. Yummy. But first and
> foremost there has to be a scientific attitude.
>
So putting a murder mystery in a spaceship isn't necessarily science
fiction?
So you withdraw your claim then? (that would be a first!)
> How can the non-science of time-travel be related to
> existing scientific laws? You're trying to trap me into exposing my
> partial ignorance of specific science, but my name is Alan Greenspan
> and I don't work that way! (Now *there's* an obscure comics reference
> if ever there was one!) My knowledge of nitty-gritty science is
> admittedly relatively limited - I mostly work with large abstract
> questions -, and what detailed knowledge I do have tends to be
> passive, so I can't volunteer it. But I can analyze it into next week
> if you present it to me for scrutiny! But I still don't see how actual
> science has any real relevance to the non-science of time-travel.
>
Your knowledge of science and the history of scienc is absolutely
limited. "Large abstract questions" is your way of saying "philosophy",
even if you wont admit it. Your analytical skills are hampered by your
dogma.
>> >> >> > And even if wormhole theory almost (but not
>> >> >> > quite) allows time-travel, where is the math that describes the
>> >> >> > repurcussions of interfering with the timestream; where are the
>> >> >> > equations that resolve the paradoxes?
>>
>> >> >> They're called the Einstein Field Equations. All good comes from
>> >> >> the Einstein Field Equations! All hail the Einstein Field
>> >> >> Equations, our beloved ruler!
>>
>> >> > But they don’t make human time-travel practically possible in any
>> >> > way, shape or form.
>>
>> >> They allow for worm holes. You asked for the equations, I named them.
>>
>> > Not wormholes that humans or spaceships can travel safely through.
>>
>> That's not what you asked for.
>
> Actually, if you read back, it specifically was.
>
Actually, no. You requested two things:
1) where is the math that describes the repurcussions of interfering with
the timestream
2) where are the equations that resolve the paradoxes?
None of these are about making "human time-travel practically possible".
>> >> > Ahem. Knee-jerk reaction comin’ atcha: Everybody is entitled to
>> >> > their opinion, but the idea that every opinion is of equal objective
>> >> > validity is the ultimate fallacy. Therefore uninformed opinions
>> >> > should be challenged.
>>
>> >> We both know what happens when I do that...
>>
>> > We're currently neck-deep in what happens...
>>
>> The question is: what happens next?
>
> A pause and a re-match. And then I win.
>
Win? This isn't a game!
>> >> > You can patronize my “philosophical” science criticism all you want;
>> >> > that’s not going to keep it from eventually having a real impact.
>> >> > Zrrrrrbt!
>>
>> >> I'm not patronizing it, I'm just observing that it isn't science.
>>
>> > You *are* patronizing it, and I have always been lucidly aware that
>> > it's not *your idea* of science. Because as you have admitted several
>> > times now, you don't particularly have one.
>>
>> Briefly put, science is the method by which we examine the world. There
>> are many details and practical issues, but that's about it.
>
> I'll agree with you about that much - but to me an important corollary
> is that the world has taught us to be scientific. Ultimately, the
> principles of science come to us from external reality. We just
> haven't understood them entirely yet.
>
> - Tue
//Niels