Creationism in Science Fiction
Alex Markov
proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
intelligently designed?
David Cowie
Possibly not quite what you're looking for, but IIRC in THE SILMARILLION
the world is made by a thinly-disguised Christian God.
--
David Cowie http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidcowie/
Containment Failure + 57525:52
Alex Markov
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:11:33 -0700, Alex Markov wrote:
> > What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
> > proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
> > intelligently designed?
>
> Possibly not quite what you're looking for, but IIRC in THE SILMARILLION
> the world is made by a thinly-disguised Christian God.
Science fiction, not fantasy.
I meant works where existence of creator - intelligent designer is
proven by scientific method. For example, the message encoded in Pi in
Carl Sagan's Contact would be pretty strong clue.
William F. Adams
Jack Chalker's Well World series is the most obvious example which
comes to mind.
Arguably James Blish's ``After Such Knowledge'' trilogy would be an
earlier example.
William
Will in New Haven
I think those would be, by definition, fantasy.
--
Will in New Haven
Dorothy J Heydt
I can't think of any.
There's the scene in _The Magician's Nephew_, heavily derivative
of Milton, where Aslan creates the Narnian universe out of
nothing, by singing. But that's fantasy, not SF, if you want to
make the distinction, and here I think we do.
The trouble is that science fiction is supposed to be based on,
well, science: and ID isn't science.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Joel Polowin
The "Babel fish disproves the existence of God" argument is,
of course, a load of dingo's kidneys. But though the Babel
fish is obviously a designed organism, there's no evidence
presented that it was designed by God rather than having been
created by some non-supernatural race, long ago.
Greg Goss
One of Sawyer's novels had God designing the background rules for the
universe and doing some protecting, but not at the "create every beast
of the field" level. http://sfwriter.com/excg.htm
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
James Nicoll
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <d892b919-b277-4a4a...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>Alex Markov <ale...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>>proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>>intelligently designed?
>
>I can't think of any.
>
>There's the scene in _The Magician's Nephew_, heavily derivative
>of Milton, where Aslan creates the Narnian universe out of
>nothing, by singing. But that's fantasy, not SF, if you want to
>make the distinction, and here I think we do.
>
>The trouble is that science fiction is supposed to be based on,
>well, science: and ID isn't science.
Not in the real world but I can imagine [1] a fictional world where
it turned out something like ID was right.
Actually, there's a recent novel where the universe turns out to be
created but it's a bit of a spoiler for the book.
1: Because if I'd ever run the Tenchi Muyo RPG, it would have turned out
the galaxy is filled with human and humanoids at the same level of tech
at the same time because the Dimensionals make it work out that way.
--
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)
Kurt Busiek
"The Nine Billion Names of God," Clarke?
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
David Cowie
> I meant works where existence of creator - intelligent designer is
> proven by scientific method. For example, the message encoded in Pi in
> Carl Sagan's Contact would be pretty strong clue.
We used to have, ah, very lively discussions about Pi in general and
CONTACT in particular in this group. But Gene Ward Smith isn't posting
here any longer, so it's probably safe to mention it :)
--
David Cowie http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidcowie/
Containment Failure + 57527:50
David DeLaney
Jay Lake, _Mainspring_, _Escapement_, and the new _Pinion_.
Olaf Stapledon, _Star Maker_.
The Lensman series has life being intelligently designed-and-nudged, but the
universe not so much.
I don't think any of these are the specific really narrow religious version
of Creationism you seem to be hinting you're looking for. That's got one really
big bestseller expounding it, but it's an anthology...
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
Implied Spaces by Walter Jon Williams (though it is not THE Theory of
Creation that is proven, rather just AN intelligent design of our
universe, with some undesigned implied spaces thrown in).
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
Chris
Um, that story by Niven with something about "Chocolate Manhole
Covers" in the title? Although that was aliens and not a creator God,
I guess.
Chris
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Several short stories by Ted Chiang take place in a divinely-created
world, though it's not OUR world.
Arguably, some of Philip K. Dick's work, such as _Eye in the Sky_,
might qualify.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Quadibloc
> On Jun 7, 4:28 pm, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:11:33 -0700, Alex Markov wrote:
> > > What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
> > > proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
> > > intelligently designed?
>
> > Possibly not quite what you're looking for, but IIRC in THE SILMARILLION
> > the world is made by a thinly-disguised Christian God.
>
> Science fiction, not fantasy.
A possible example, but not what you are looking for, might be the
Cthulhu Mythos...
in which the Universe was created by Azathoth,
life on Earth came into being because of Ubbo-Sathla,
and humans were crafted from chimpanzees to be servants of the Elder
Things.
Lovecraft's stories are usually thought of as horror fantasy, but he
did try to orient the Mythos towards science fiction rather than
conventional fantasy.
John Savard
Puppet_Sock
That is probably a separate category: One particular world, or
some few worlds, have been set up by an intelligence, and
then let run. The folks on the create world either never knew,
or have forgotten, how they got there.
Lots of that in the _Stargate_ TV series. Transplanted culture
has forgotten that they were transplanted. React with various
levels of happy/angry when confronted with facts.
Larry Niven's _Destiny's Road_ was a planet where people
had forgotten they had come there on a space ship.
Robert Sawyer's _Far Seer_ is about a group of dinosaur
evolved folks who have forgotten they were transplanted.
Or maybe they didn't know they were. Now they are just
getting to the level of technology where they are understanding
fossils and such, building telescopes (hence the name of
the book), building sailing vessels for a round-the-world
cruise, and so on. And they find a rather abrupt appearance
of fossils in the geologic column, with most forms very much
as they are now. And their priests all interpret this as evidence
of the creator, where it's actually from the date they got
dropped on the planet.
Socks
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jun 7, 8:41 am, Alex Markov <alex...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 4:28 pm, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:11:33 -0700, Alex Markov wrote:
>> > > What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>> > > proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>> > > intelligently designed?
>>
>> > Possibly not quite what you're looking for, but IIRC in THE SILMARILLION
>> > the world is made by a thinly-disguised Christian God.
>>
>> Science fiction, not fantasy.
>
>A possible example, but not what you are looking for, might be the
>Cthulhu Mythos...
>
>in which the Universe was created by Azathoth,
But then Azathoth is very far short of being an intelligent designer.
It didn't design the Universe, it just pooped the universe.
Puppet_Sock
Lots of local creation stories. Aliens transplanted life and
the transplantees have forgotten, etc.
As to actual creation: Robert Sawyer's _Calculating God_
has such a notion at its base, though exactly what the
nature of the creator is, that remains highly vague. But in
essence "it's turtles all the way down."
Socks
David Johnston
<ale...@hushmail.com> wrote:
Strata. God created the flat world duplicate of Earth as his
signature on his creation, something blatantly absurd obviously
deliberately designed.
David Cowie
In the sequel to THE FOREVER WAR by Joe Haldeman (FOREVER PEACE, or
FOREVER FREE), it turns out to be no coincidence that humans and their
Tauran enemies are at the same tech level when they run into each other,
but I don't remember if the rest of the universe had the same treatment.
--
David Cowie http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidcowie/
Containment Failure + 57529:32
Puppet_Sock
There have been two notions in the thread: local creation, as
in a small part of the universe was designed and the locals
are not sure or have forgotten.
The other notion is of more general creation. Creation of the
universe at large rather than just some meddling on a few
planets or even one or two galaxies.
There has been lots of idea play. For example, living in an
artificial world and not knowing, along the lines of _The Matrix_
is a fairly long standing staple of SF. There was a Heinlein
short story where a paranoid guy thought he was the reason
the entire world existed because one day it was dark and
rainy out his front window, but dry and sunny out the back.
And he was right, and his noticing was causing the powers
that were to shut down the world and re-boot.
Which suggests to me the idea of layers. There might be a
layer of creation, as in The Matrix. But that local layer may
be surrounded by some wider mystery.
In the Heinlein book _Job: A Comedy of Justice_ the beings
Loki and Lucifer have some sort of thing going on with Yaweh,
and the hero of the book is caught in the middle. He was being
bounced from one created world to another with maddening
frequency and irregularity. But at the end of the book, the three
supernatural beings were called in on the carpet by a more
powerful entity. Though it's not really clear who that other
entity is. Though it is presented as not surprising that a mortal
human wouldn't quite understand the relationships. It was
kind of amusing for Yaweh and Loki to get hauled in after
recess and told to smarten up.
Socks
Michael Grosberg
> In article <d892b919-b277-4a4a-
> The trouble is that science fiction is supposed to be based on,
> well, science: and ID isn't science.
Yeah, well, there's more evidence against FTL than there is against
ID, and that didn't stop anyone from writing about FTL.
Michael Grosberg
Ian Watson, _The Jonah Kit_.
Major spoilers ahead.
In TJK, there is hard scientific evidence that God created the
universe - but not *our* universe. The same evidence show that the
creation of our universe was just some sort of unintended side effect
of the real creation. I don't know if it counts or not, since that
probably means God did not design humans and animals and such.
Wayne Throop
: Jack Chalker's Well World series is the most obvious example which
: comes to mind.
:
: Arguably James Blish's ``After Such Knowledge'' trilogy would be an
: earlier example.
Huh. Exactly the two examples that sprang to my mind.
Specifically, "A Case of Conscience"; I'll have to look up the
others in the ASK sort-of-a-trilogy.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Dimensional Traveler
I remember thinking it was funny to have Lucifer complaining to this
next level up Power about Yaweh dropping all these traumatized souls on
him to deal with and how much trouble it was when they were catatonic
with fear about ending up in "Hell".
--
Murphy was an optimist.
Mike Van Pelt
Alex Markov <ale...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>intelligently designed?
"Avatar", by Poul Anderson. (No relation whatsoever to a certain
3D CGI blockbuster movie.) Not designed by God, or gods, but
by very advanced aliens from a previous Big Bang who had a hand
in this universe developing as it did, and have been doing a bit
of meddling in its development since.
Along those lines, how could anyone leave out "2001: A Space Oddessy"?
It's not clear how much the mysterious monolith makers had their hands
in, but they explicity had a lot to do with the development of humans.
That's not "created ex nihilo in its present form 6000 years ago",
of course. I don't know of any science fiction with that premise.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
Christian Weisgerber
> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
> intelligently designed?
Philip Josￜ Farmer's World of Tiers series has the protagonists
travel between various pocket universes and it eventually turns out
that Earth is also located in one, with everything beyond <some
astronomical distance> being a projection.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Dorothy J Heydt
David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:11:33 -0700, Alex Markov wrote:
>
>> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>> intelligently designed?
>
>the world is made by a thinly-disguised Christian God.
And, like Aslan, he creates the world by music.
But again, that's fantasy, not SF.
Dorothy J Heydt
Yes, my son, who is a Lovecraft fan (which I am not) gets very
insistent about how the Cthulhy mythos is SF, with ultrapowerful
aliens et cetera.
Dorothy J Heydt
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT), Alex Markov
><ale...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>>proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>>intelligently designed?
>
>Several short stories by Ted Chiang take place in a divinely-created
>world, though it's not OUR world.
>
>Arguably, some of Philip K. Dick's work, such as _Eye in the Sky_,
>might qualify.
Except that those weren't worlds, those were shared delirious
states.
Dorothy J Heydt
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>Alex Markov <ale...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>>proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>>intelligently designed?
>
>One of Sawyer's novels had God designing the background rules for the
>universe and doing some protecting, but not at the "create every beast
>of the field" level. http://sfwriter.com/excg.htm
Well, yeah. If you want to talk about God creating things, try
matter, energy, and the laws of physics. Some of which are very
neat. Think where we would be if two hydrogen and one oxygen
didn't add up to one water, a *polar* solvent whose solid state
is less dense than its liquid state.
Robert Carnegie
> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
> intelligently designed?
As remarked, we may want to be clear whether "Theory of Creation"
means that the forms of living things can't evolve, or merely didn't
evolve; that is, that they were created - or introduced - instead of
evolving in their present setting.
Not necessarily the best, but two that I know of are Philip Jose
Farmer's "World of Tiers", a series of small artificial universes
ruled by fairly unpleasant people - one of which worlds mistakenly
believes itself to be natural - and _The Wrecks of Time_ also called
_The Rituals of Infinity_, by Michael Moorcock, in which parallel-
universe Earths are secretly studied by a scientist who discovers that
a /new/ Earth is being created.
And I suppose that any world-is-actually-a-spaceship story counts,
such as "For The World Is Hollow And I Have Touched The Sky", but in
particular I'd mention James Follett's "Earthsearch" series, which has
"Angels", Paradise, forbidden fruit, a "Noah's Ark" episode, and, in
part three, a vast /underground/ (illuminated) controlled habitat
ruled by a man known as G.O.D. - his job title, that is.
And I think in _Accelerando_ it's claimed that somewhere in this
universe, somebody is experimentally looking for flaws in the
incomprehensibly huge computer simulation that this universe may be.
For that matter, Stephen Baxter's Xeelee discover that our universe,
if not artificially created, is being artificially altered. So do
Frederik Pohl's Heechee.
And in stories like _Protector_ it's just /us/ who are introduced to
Earth from elsewhere, or artificially evolved up from monkeys, or
whatever.
Howard Brazee
>What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>intelligently designed?
Limiting it to just people, there are a fair amount. (The creator is
usually aliens, but sometimes time travel loops).
Creating the Universe - A.E. van Vogt had at least one character go
back in time to create the universe.
Robert Sawyer has a novel where a creature who created/modified our
universe for its young.
And there are stories with real Gods, whether they are creators or
not, that's not usually shown.
The trouble with "everything" above there is that would include the
creator as well. So something like time travel paradox is necessary
to self-create.
Brust has a novel about the fight between God and the Angels. (To
Reign In Hell).
Certainly that other guy's religion can be considered SF.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT), Alex Markov
> <ale...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>> intelligently designed?
>
> Limiting it to just people, there are a fair amount. (The creator is
> usually aliens, but sometimes time travel loops).
>
> Creating the Universe - A.E. van Vogt had at least one character go
> back in time to create the universe.
And another who re-created the universe because the current one had
issues (The Silkie).
>
> Robert Sawyer has a novel where a creature who created/modified our
> universe for its young.
>
> And there are stories with real Gods, whether they are creators or
> not, that's not usually shown.
>
> The trouble with "everything" above there is that would include the
> creator as well. So something like time travel paradox is necessary
> to self-create.
>
> Brust has a novel about the fight between God and the Angels. (To
> Reign In Hell).
>
> Certainly that other guy's religion can be considered SF.
>
I just realized that, depending on which explanation for the events in
the novel is viewed as correct, my own Grand Central Arena could fit here.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Mike Van Pelt
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <874iki...@mid.individual.net>,
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>One of Sawyer's novels had God designing the background rules for the
>>universe and doing some protecting, but not at the "create every beast
>>of the field" level. http://sfwriter.com/excg.htm
>
>Well, yeah. If you want to talk about God creating things, try
>matter, energy, and the laws of physics. Some of which are very
>neat.
And some of which are very ... bizarre.
The big one I just don't get is the whole "leptons have quantized
charges and are fundamental particles; baryons are composed of
quarks, which are an entirely different sort of particle, and
have charges of exactly, precisely +/- 1/3 or 2/3 of the lepton
charge, and can only appear in combinations that just happen to
add up to exact multiples of the lepton charge" thing.
Uh... yeah.
One of two things: Either the Standard Model is completely
wacked from the beginning (which would not greatly surprise me)
or this is some subtle statement about the Trinity programmed
into the universe at the smallest level.
Robert Bannister
> On Jun 7, 1:17 pm, Chris <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 10:11 am, Alex Markov <alex...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>>> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>>> intelligently designed?
>> Um, that story by Niven with something about "Chocolate Manhole
>> Covers" in the title? Although that was aliens and not a creator God,
>> I guess.
>
> That is probably a separate category: One particular world, or
> some few worlds, have been set up by an intelligence, and
> then let run. The folks on the create world either never knew,
> or have forgotten, how they got there.
I suppose that is one plausible explanation for humanity. Perhaps we
were some kind of virus stuck on the outside of an alien spaceship -
something nasty anyway that needed ditching.
--
Rob Bannister
Moriarty
> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
> intelligently designed?
In Brin's Uplift universe, Life is intelligently designed. Everything
else is not.
Does Asimov's _The Last Question_ count? The universe we're in may
not be ID'd but the next one is.
-Moriarty
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
>In article <vdaq065hm0unu7o6h...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT), Alex Markov
>><ale...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>>>proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>>>intelligently designed?
>>
>>Several short stories by Ted Chiang take place in a divinely-created
>>world, though it's not OUR world.
>>
>>Arguably, some of Philip K. Dick's work, such as _Eye in the Sky_,
>>might qualify.
>
>Except that those weren't worlds, those were shared delirious
>states.
That's one way of looking at it.
Tim McDaniel
Mike Van Pelt <m...@web1.calweb.com> wrote:
>The big one I just don't get is the whole "leptons have quantized
>charges and are fundamental particles; baryons are composed of
>quarks, which are an entirely different sort of particle, and
>have charges of exactly, precisely +/- 1/3 or 2/3 of the lepton
>charge, and can only appear in combinations that just happen to
>add up to exact multiples of the lepton charge" thing.
If Wikipedia be believed, you can s/baryon/hadron/:
hadrons = baryons (3 quarks)
+ mesons (1 quark + 1 antiquark)
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Howard Brazee
<puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>There has been lots of idea play. For example, living in an
>artificial world and not knowing, along the lines of _The Matrix_
>is a fairly long standing staple of SF. There was a Heinlein
>short story where a paranoid guy thought he was the reason
>the entire world existed because one day it was dark and
>rainy out his front window, but dry and sunny out the back.
>And he was right, and his noticing was causing the powers
>that were to shut down the world and re-boot.
There are some books where the Universe is in a computer. One of
which is a computer copy of our universe with some far future virus.
Farmer had a little multi-universe that appeared to be a copy of a
bigger universe.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:65189a86-f361-4a2e...@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.c
om:
> On Jun 7, 10:41 am, Alex Markov <alex...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 4:28 pm, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:11:33 -0700, Alex Markov wrote:
>> > > What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of
>> > > Creation is proven correct and life, universe and
>> > > everything turn to be intelligently designed?
>>
>> > Possibly not quite what you're looking for, but IIRC in THE
>> > SILMARILLIO
> N
>> > the world is made by a thinly-disguised Christian God.
>>
>> Science fiction, not fantasy.
>>
>> I meant works where existence of creator - intelligent designer
>> is proven by scientific method. For example, the message
>> encoded in Pi in Carl Sagan's Contact would be pretty strong
>> clue.
>
> I think those would be, by definition, fantasy.
>
Contact is fantasy? Really? I'm pretty strict in my purist
distinctions between science fiction and scienct fantasy, but damn!
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. - David
Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:uqbq06h0p4je4o47s...@4ax.com:
Actually, what passes for "intelligent design" "theory" would make
more sense if it were labeled "insane design."
Maybe Lovecraft was on to something.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:L3nEM...@kithrup.com:
> In article
> <d892b919-b277-4a4a...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.co
> m>, Alex Markov <ale...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation
>>is proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>>intelligently designed?
>
> I can't think of any.
>
> There's the scene in _The Magician's Nephew_, heavily derivative
> of Milton, where Aslan creates the Narnian universe out of
> nothing, by singing. But that's fantasy, not SF, if you want to
> make the distinction, and here I think we do.
>
> The trouble is that science fiction is supposed to be based on,
> well, science: and ID isn't science.
>
I recall seeing more than one short story over the years in which the
scientist-progagonists are are the creators/designers, usually
involving laboratory black holes which become independent universes,
and I'm pretty sure at least of them involved deliberate design
decisions.
Carl Dershem
4a4a-a866-d...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of
Creation is
> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
> intelligently designed?
>
That would be fantasy, not SF. SF calls for science, fantasy
for magic.
cd
David Johnston
<blu...@ivillage.com> wrote:
>On Jun 8, 12:11 am, Alex Markov <alex...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>> intelligently designed?
>
>In Brin's Uplift universe, Life is intelligently designed.
No, they only "design" promising lifeforms into sapient species. The
rest of life is left pretty much alone.
David DeLaney
>Alex Markov <ale...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>>proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>>intelligently designed?
>
>world, though it's not OUR world.
>
>Arguably, some of Philip K. Dick's work, such as _Eye in the Sky_,
>might qualify.
Daniel Keyes Moran's Great Wheel of Existence setting (I have to mention him,
it's in my contract) is effectively UNintelligently designed; the entire
thing is a side-effect of having had the Envoy get Chained. [At some future
point the Envoy will get set free, after which all the timelines start
decaying ... but apparently there's Somewhere Else to escape to after the end.
He hasn't given us more than scraps of any of this yet...]
Dave "and his blog is in hasn't-updated-in-8-months mode again" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Dorothy J Heydt
Oh, there was a lovely story long ago, let me check ISFDB:
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?45810
"Big Ancestor" by F. L. Wallace. There are planets all over this
part of the galaxy populated by humans. Actual humans, not just
humanoids. The inhabitants of any given planet can interbreed
with those of nearby planets, and it's clear that they are all
descended from one species that seeded them on these planets ever
so long ago.
They finally find the planet of origin, and decipher (I forget
how) some records left behind by the long-dead inhabitants.
Basically, the human ancestor was some kind of vermin that had
gotten aboard the exploratory ships and mutated, become smarter
and more damaging and, what's more, the ships' crews were
allergic to it.
It ended something like "We don't anticipate it will ever get
into space by itself -- it's too stupid. If you encounter it on
any of the planets we visited, please forgive us."
Dorothy J Heydt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
>news:65189a86-f361-4a2e...@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.c
>om:
>
>> On Jun 7, 10:41 am, Alex Markov <alex...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 7, 4:28 pm, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:11:33 -0700, Alex Markov wrote:
>>> > > What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of
>>> > > Creation is proven correct and life, universe and
>>> > > everything turn to be intelligently designed?
>>>
>>> > Possibly not quite what you're looking for, but IIRC in THE
>>> > SILMARILLIO
>> N
>>> > the world is made by a thinly-disguised Christian God.
>>>
>>> Science fiction, not fantasy.
>>>
>>> I meant works where existence of creator - intelligent designer
>>> is proven by scientific method. For example, the message
>>> encoded in Pi in Carl Sagan's Contact would be pretty strong
>>> clue.
>>
>> I think those would be, by definition, fantasy.
>>
>Contact is fantasy? Really? I'm pretty strict in my purist
>distinctions between science fiction and scienct fantasy, but damn!
Well, it's borderline, isn't it. There's lots and lots of
scientific and techie stuff, and then at the end there's that
zinger that God (or someone so like him that we can't tell the
difference) encoded that circle in the printout of pi. That in
itself is enough to make many people scream "FANTASY!!!" at the
top of their lungs, while reaching for whatever the disbeliever's
equivalent of garlic, holy water, and a crucifix would be.
Dennis McKiernan put up an essay long ago about how not only to F
and SF sit in discrete boxes, they are not merely a spectrum from
one end to the other, but it's a complex three-dimensional system
with many peaks and valleys.
Here's the URL, which unfortunately one has to scroll down about
halfway to find his essay.
It's an interesting read. In terms of his classification, I
would put _Contact_ as being fairly high up the mountain, until
you look down and realize you're further down than you thought.
Mind you, I do believe in God and it wouldn't shock me if I
learned that he *had* concealed a circle in the depths of pi.
But somehow it doesn't seem like the sort of thing he'd do.
Dorothy J Heydt
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <874iki...@mid.individual.net>,
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>One of Sawyer's novels had God designing the background rules for the
>>>universe and doing some protecting, but not at the "create every beast
>>>of the field" level. http://sfwriter.com/excg.htm
>>
>>Well, yeah. If you want to talk about God creating things, try
>>matter, energy, and the laws of physics. Some of which are very
>>neat.
>
>And some of which are very ... bizarre.
>
>The big one I just don't get is the whole "leptons have quantized
>charges and are fundamental particles; baryons are composed of
>quarks, which are an entirely different sort of particle, and
>have charges of exactly, precisely +/- 1/3 or 2/3 of the lepton
>charge, and can only appear in combinations that just happen to
>add up to exact multiples of the lepton charge" thing.
>
>Uh... yeah.
>
>One of two things: Either the Standard Model is completely
>wacked from the beginning (which would not greatly surprise me)
>or this is some subtle statement about the Trinity programmed
>into the universe at the smallest level.
Well, from where I stand it's not *impossible.* Just exceedingly
unlikely.
Dorothy J Heydt
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT), Alex Markov
><ale...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>>What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>>proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>>intelligently designed?
>
>Limiting it to just people, there are a fair amount. (The creator is
>usually aliens, but sometimes time travel loops).
>
>Creating the Universe - A.E. van Vogt had at least one character go
>back in time to create the universe.
>
>Robert Sawyer has a novel where a creature who created/modified our
>universe for its young.
>
>And there are stories with real Gods, whether they are creators or
>not, that's not usually shown.
>
>The trouble with "everything" above there is that would include the
>creator as well. So something like time travel paradox is necessary
>to self-create.
>
>Brust has a novel about the fight between God and the Angels. (To
>Reign In Hell).
>
>Certainly that other guy's religion can be considered SF.
Most people tend to consider the other guy's religion, if
sufficiently different from their own, as fantasy. (At best.)
Dorothy J Heydt
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 21:39:32 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <vdaq065hm0unu7o6h...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT), Alex Markov
>>><ale...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>>>>proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>>>>intelligently designed?
>>>
>>>Several short stories by Ted Chiang take place in a divinely-created
>>>world, though it's not OUR world.
>>>
>>>Arguably, some of Philip K. Dick's work, such as _Eye in the Sky_,
>>>might qualify.
>>
>>Except that those weren't worlds, those were shared delirious
>>states.
>
>That's one way of looking at it.
How the heck else?
Dorothy J Heydt
>Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 07:11:33 -0700 (PDT), Alex Markov
>><ale...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>>>proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>>>intelligently designed?
>>
>>Limiting it to just people, there are a fair amount. (The creator is
>>usually aliens, but sometimes time travel loops).
>>
>>Creating the Universe - A.E. van Vogt had at least one character go
>>back in time to create the universe.
>>
>>Robert Sawyer has a novel where a creature who created/modified our
>>universe for its young.
>>
>>And there are stories with real Gods, whether they are creators or
>>not, that's not usually shown.
>>
>>The trouble with "everything" above there is that would include the
>>creator as well. So something like time travel paradox is necessary
>>to self-create.
>>
>>Brust has a novel about the fight between God and the Angels. (To
>>Reign In Hell).
>>
>>Certainly that other guy's religion can be considered SF.
>
>Most people tend to consider the other guy's religion, if
>sufficiently different from their own, as fantasy. (At best.)
On the other hand, I once argued (fairly successfully, I think)
that Dante's _Commedia_ is science fiction, since all the
*physical* stuff is based on science as it was known at the time.
Of course, some of it has been disproven since, after the fashion
of the canals of Mars or the swamps of Venus, e.g.,
It is not true that the entire southern hemisphere of the Earth
is water, except for Mount Purgatory, at the antipode of
Jerusalem.
It is not true that the distance from the Straits of Gibraltar to
the Ganges is halfway around the earth.
And, of course, the earth is not the center of the physical
universe with all the stars and planets revolving around it, and
Heaven on the outside.
But those were the accepted scientific theories at the time.
Shawn Wilson
> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
> intelligently designed?
Implied in 'Her Majesty's Wizard' and the rest of the series, as God,
the Devil and angels are all overtly real.
Niven's Inferno has a genuine hell and accoutrements, so Creation is
possible.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Mind you, I do believe in God and it wouldn't shock me if I
>learned that he *had* concealed a circle in the depths of pi.
>But somehow it doesn't seem like the sort of thing he'd do.
It wouldn't. Except lots of people believe he did similar things
with fossils.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>>In Brin's Uplift universe, Life is intelligently designed.
>
>No, they only "design" promising lifeforms into sapient species. The
>rest of life is left pretty much alone.
Left along by Brin. There are some weird things that the uplifting
species don't understand, although they believe themselves to have
been uplifted.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:L3o91...@kithrup.com:
> In article <Xns9D90B796347...@69.16.186.50>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Will in New Haven <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in
>>news:65189a86-f361-4a2e...@j4g2000yqh.googlegroups
>>.c om:
Now that I think about it, I don't think I've ever read the book,
and the movie didn't have any of that stuff in it.
>
> Dennis McKiernan put up an essay long ago about how not only to
> F and SF sit in discrete boxes, they are not merely a spectrum
> from one end to the other, but it's a complex three-dimensional
> system with many peaks and valleys.
I would submit that not only that, but it's a *different* three-
dimensional system for each reader. Who would know better than the
denizens here how difficult it is to get any two people to agree on
any aspect of the definitions, but we all certainly "know it when
we see it."
>
> Here's the URL, which unfortunately one has to scroll down about
> halfway to find his essay.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.composition/browse_thr
> ead/thread/ba8a3eafa1711604/28f253b3ccecc5fa?q=The+difference+bet
> ween+SF+%26+Fantasy&rnum=1&pli=1
>
> It's an interesting read. In terms of his classification, I
> would put _Contact_ as being fairly high up the mountain, until
> you look down and realize you're further down than you thought.
>
> Mind you, I do believe in God and it wouldn't shock me if I
> learned that he *had* concealed a circle in the depths of pi.
> But somehow it doesn't seem like the sort of thing he'd do.
>
Objective proof would be inconsistent with any mainstream
understanding (flawed as it must be) of the nature of God.
Dorothy J Heydt
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 01:20:07 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>Mind you, I do believe in God and it wouldn't shock me if I
>>learned that he *had* concealed a circle in the depths of pi.
>>But somehow it doesn't seem like the sort of thing he'd do.
>
>It wouldn't. Except lots of people believe he did similar things
>with fossils.
Which I don't believe.
Dorothy J Heydt
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>news:L3o91...@kithrup.com:
>
>> F and SF sit in discrete boxes, they are not merely a spectrum
>> from one end to the other, but it's a complex three-dimensional
>> system with many peaks and valleys.
>
>I would submit that not only that, but it's a *different* three-
>dimensional system for each reader. Who would know better than the
>denizens here how difficult it is to get any two people to agree on
>any aspect of the definitions, but we all certainly "know it when
>we see it."
Well, that's likely. Consider the arguments this group keeps
seeing about a *one*-dimensional difference, the (hypothetical)
line to be drawn between F and SF. Everyone draws it in a
different place.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> In article <Xns9D90CBE1B35...@69.16.186.50>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>>news:L3o91...@kithrup.com:
>>
>>> Dennis McKiernan put up an essay long ago about how not only
>>> to F and SF sit in discrete boxes, they are not merely a
>>> spectrum from one end to the other, but it's a complex
>>> three-dimensional system with many peaks and valleys.
>>
>>I would submit that not only that, but it's a *different* three-
>>dimensional system for each reader. Who would know better than
>>the denizens here how difficult it is to get any two people to
>>agree on any aspect of the definitions, but we all certainly
>>"know it when we see it."
>
> Well, that's likely. Consider the arguments this group keeps
> seeing about a *one*-dimensional difference, the (hypothetical)
> line to be drawn between F and SF. Everyone draws it in a
> different place.
>
Indeed. Opinions, assholes, all stink, etc.
Wayne Throop
: Mind you, I do believe in God and it wouldn't shock me if I learned
: that he *had* concealed a circle in the depths of pi. But somehow it
: doesn't seem like the sort of thing he'd do.
Would it shock you if He had hidden a drake-encoded circle in the
depths of the number one? That would be the same amount of shocking,
mathematically, naict.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
noRm d. plumBeR
>On Jun 7, 5:23 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> In article <d892b919-b277-4a4a-
>
>> The trouble is that science fiction is supposed to be based on,
>> well, science: and ID isn't science.
>
>Yeah, well, there's more evidence against FTL than there is against
>ID, and that didn't stop anyone from writing about FTL.
Good point.
I don't think FTL has ever been politically incorrect though.
The fact that cosmology, ontology, and metaphysics exist as separate
studies is a pure-dee clue that mankind doesn't know what to do with
the clues we have.
Hell's bells, if you imagine that the universe was Created by a God
with a snarky sense of humor, there's no reason it couldn't have been
created in such a way that the designed-in evidence would point
undeniably to the mechanical evolution of all life from inanimate
matter. I can just imagine some fat greasy-haired deity watching
humanity developing sects that war constantly because they're stupid
enough to do so, giggling insanely and hoping moment by moment that
some more intelligent creature will eventually imagine itself into
being so He will have someone to explain to Him what the fuck it all
means.
Personally I lean toward a vague theory of spontaneous generation and
defy anyone who thinks that silly to explain what went "bang" and
where it came from.
--
"Vengeance is mine" saith Montezuma
David DeLaney
>Personally I lean toward a vague theory of spontaneous generation and
>defy anyone who thinks that silly to explain what went "bang" and
>where it came from.
Oh, that's easy - the nothing went "bang". There wasn't any 'where' to be
from before it did so, so it had to come from math.
Dave "Asimov's four-leaf clover, for example" DeLaney
noRm d. plumBeR
Semantics is such a bitch, in one sentence we have 'objective' and
'mainstream' and 'God', and each of those words has myriad meanings,
how can men even begin to talk with one another about anything worth
discussing?
Views such as George Berkeley's "immaterialism" are probably not
mainstream and cannot by their very nature be considered "objective",
and a true epistemologist would probably spend the bulk of his life in
a drunken stupor.
noRm d. plumBeR
>On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:31:05 -0700 (PDT), Puppet_Sock
><puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>There has been lots of idea play. For example, living in an
>>artificial world and not knowing, along the lines of _The Matrix_
>>is a fairly long standing staple of SF. There was a Heinlein
>>short story where a paranoid guy thought he was the reason
>>the entire world existed because one day it was dark and
>>rainy out his front window, but dry and sunny out the back.
>>And he was right, and his noticing was causing the powers
>>that were to shut down the world and re-boot.
>
>There are some books where the Universe is in a computer. One of
>which is a computer copy of our universe with some far future virus.
One thing to keep in mind about computers is that we didn't imagine
them up entirely from whole cloth, we developed them to be analogs for
the mind, so in that sense they are a collective model of the way
things are believed to work. The internal clock of a computer drives
a series of events forward, each of which is the execution of a single
instruction, which causes a transformation of internal state and in
general is irreversible; the analogy between the operation of a
digital computer on that level and a corresponding model of time and
event-occurrence that gives rise to a changing material universe is
something worth a bit of pondering from a sci-fi perspective.
noRm d. plumBeR
>noRm d. plumBeR <se...@money.com> wrote:
>>Personally I lean toward a vague theory of spontaneous generation and
>>defy anyone who thinks that silly to explain what went "bang" and
>>where it came from.
>
>Oh, that's easy - the nothing went "bang". There wasn't any 'where' to be
>from before it did so, so it had to come from math.
>
>Dave "Asimov's four-leaf clover, for example" DeLaney
And the god Math came from where?
Stephen Harker
He's the son of Mathonwy.
--
Stephen Harker s.ha...@adfa.edu.au
PEMS http://sjharker.customer.netspace.net.au/
UNSW@ADFA
Quadibloc
> Yes, my son, who is a Lovecraft fan (which I am not) gets very
> insistent about how the Cthulhy mythos is SF, with ultrapowerful
> aliens et cetera.
The Cthulhu Mythos... evolved. It started out as fantasy, but
Lovecraft, being an anti-supernaturalist, moved it towards SF during
his career. At the Mountains of Madness and The Shadow out of Time are
fairly definitely SF. One could claim, say, The Shadow Over Innsmouth
as SF, but there is nothing much within it that suggests shifting it
out of the horror fantasy genre its style suggests.
Most of the other authors who have taken up the Cthulhu Mythos,
however, use it to produce relatively standard horror fantasy.
John Savard
noRm d. plumBeR
>"noRm d. plumBeR" <se...@money.com> writes:
>
>> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>
>>>noRm d. plumBeR <se...@money.com> wrote:
>>>>Personally I lean toward a vague theory of spontaneous generation and
>>>>defy anyone who thinks that silly to explain what went "bang" and
>>>>where it came from.
>>>
>>>Oh, that's easy - the nothing went "bang". There wasn't any 'where' to be
>>>from before it did so, so it had to come from math.
>>>
>>>Dave "Asimov's four-leaf clover, for example" DeLaney
>>
>> And the god Math came from where?
>
>He's the son of Mathonwy.
Is that near LaramieWY?
(Virgin footholders seem to be a recurring theme.)
Paul Ciszek
In article <20cq061jqleui2914...@4ax.com>,
>
>>What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>>proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>>intelligently designed?
>
>signature on his creation, something blatantly absurd obviously
>deliberately designed.
Just to fill in, _Strata_ was an eary work of Terry Pratchet, very
definately SF despite any resemblance the Flat Earth might have to
Discworld.
--
Please reply to: | "The anti-regulation business ethos is based on
pciszek at panix dot com | the charmingly naive notion that people will not
Autoreply is disabled | do unspeakable things for money." -Dana Carpender
Jonathan Schattke
> Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 11:31:05 -0700 (PDT), Puppet_Sock
>> <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There has been lots of idea play. For example, living in an
>>> artificial world and not knowing, along the lines of _The Matrix_
>>> is a fairly long standing staple of SF. There was a Heinlein
>>> short story where a paranoid guy thought he was the reason
>>> the entire world existed because one day it was dark and
>>> rainy out his front window, but dry and sunny out the back.
>>> And he was right, and his noticing was causing the powers
>>> that were to shut down the world and re-boot.
>>
>> There are some books where the Universe is in a computer. One of
>> which is a computer copy of our universe with some far future virus.
>
> One thing to keep in mind about computers is that we didn't imagine
> them up entirely from whole cloth, we developed them to be analogs for
> the mind, so in that sense they are a collective model of the way
> things are believed to work.
DEFINITELY NOT "Analogs for the mind" - they were analogs for logic. A
completely different thing. "Analogs for mind" have been attempted,
though much later.
> The internal clock of a computer drives
> a series of events forward, each of which is the execution of a single
> instruction, which causes a transformation of internal state and in
> general is irreversible; the analogy between the operation of a
> digital computer on that level and a corresponding model of time and
> event-occurrence that gives rise to a changing material universe is
> something worth a bit of pondering from a sci-fi perspective.
Oh, no - everything in a computer is completely reversible. And
reproducible from an exact start state and event list. That is why
computers are so useful.
JFW Richards
wrote:
> On Jun 7, 5:23 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> > In article <d892b919-b277-4a4a-
> > The trouble is that science fiction is supposed to be based on,
> > well, science: and ID isn't science.
>
> Yeah, well, there's more evidence against FTL than there is against
> ID, and that didn't stop anyone from writing about FTL.
On the other hand nobody has ever tried to get schools to teach FTL.
Regards
JFWR
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
True, though some teach string theory, which IIRC is very nearly (at
least in practical terms) as untestable as the existence of God. (I may
not RC)
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Robert Carnegie
> In article <Xns9D90B7963472Dtaustingm...@69.16.186.50>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Contact is fantasy? Really? I'm pretty strict in my purist
> >distinctions between science fiction and scienct fantasy, but damn!
>
> Well, it's borderline, isn't it. There's lots and lots of
> scientific and techie stuff, and then at the end there's that
> zinger that God (or someone so like him that we can't tell the
> difference) encoded that circle in the printout of pi. That in
> itself is enough to make many people scream "FANTASY!!!" at the
> top of their lungs, while reaching for whatever the disbeliever's
> equivalent of garlic, holy water, and a crucifix would be.
>
> learned that he *had* concealed a circle in the depths of pi.
> But somehow it doesn't seem like the sort of thing he'd do.
I'm a mathematician (used to be) and I'm shocked that Carl Sagan did
it, let alone God. Pi isn't /like/ that.
pi is 4 times the "transcendental" number that is the destination of
the series,
1
1 - 1/3
1 - 1/3 + 1/5
1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7
1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9
1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11
and so on
(very much eventually).
That number being around 0.7854.
Can God change the outcome of that process? Can he make nmbers add up
different? (I mean, loaves, fishes, yeah, but even so.) And, /would/
he?
Having said that, the Old Testament pi = 3 apparently.
I think that's also "true" in Bob Shaw's _The Ragged Astronauts_,
which is really annoying if you are mathematically informed but trying
to take the book seriously.
As far as I can see, if the world that we live in is "true", whether
created or naturally existing, pi simply has to be pi.
Even in non-Euclidean geometry (which /is/ real), pi is usually
around, if only as an upper or lower limit on some geometric
phenomenon instead of an exact figure.
So, anyway, gods, definition of... I think that if I believe that a
god exists but I don't worship him/her/it/other, then I am an atheist?
William F. Adams
No, not if one follows the directions, or pays attention --- it's a
difference between inside and outside diameter. Here:
http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm
William
Joseph Nebus
>On Jun 8, 2:20=A0am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> In article <Xns9D90B7963472Dtaustingm...@69.16.186.50>,
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy =A0<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Contact is fantasy? Really? I'm pretty strict in my purist
>> >distinctions between science fiction and scienct fantasy, but damn!
>>
>> Well, it's borderline, isn't it. =A0There's lots and lots of
>> scientific and techie stuff, and then at the end there's that
>> zinger that God (or someone so like him that we can't tell the
>> difference) encoded that circle in the printout of pi.
[ ... ]
>I'm a mathematician (used to be) and I'm shocked that Carl Sagan did
>it, let alone God. Pi isn't /like/ that.
>pi is 4 times the "transcendental" number that is the destination of
>the series,
[ ... ]
>Can God change the outcome of that process? Can he make nmbers add up
>different? (I mean, loaves, fishes, yeah, but even so.) And, /would/
>he?
You've missed the context, possibly by not having read the
novel. The trivia about a coded message in pi comes about from the
protagonist asking the aliens what fills them with wonder, and this
qualifies. And it's easy to see why.
Could the message --- a coding in ones and zeroes which matches
a pixellated representation of a circle --- appear in pi by mere chance?
Well, if the digits of pi are normal, then yes, *every* 'message' is in
there *somewhere*, and while nobody's proved pi is normal that's the way
I'd bet, so let's accept it. But the chance that it would be in the
finite segment of pi which any entity could calculate is tiny. And
Sagan has it compounded by an equivalent message being found in *every*
base pi is checked in, which takes the chance that this is random down
to zero.
Could the message be designed in? No, it can't; as you note,
pi doesn't work like that. If pi could *only* be found by measuring
some property of space maybe one could imagine a God-like entity doing
that for some reason, but there are so many ways to derive pi which
appear to be universe-independent [1] that it can't be designed in.
[1] I can't imagine any way that, for example, the infinite sum
commonly used for pi/4 depends on the properties of this universe. It
may be I am insufficiently imaginative, but I'd only buy that claim for
an engaging enough story.
Could the message be an illusion, that every time some process
comes around to producing the digits of pi the God-like entity sneaks in
this little bit of nonsense? Not if it turns up in every computation of
pi by whatever method; that's equivalent to being able to predict the
result of an arbitrary procedure, whether from dropping needles on ruled
paper or measuring a pendulum's swing or studying Fresnel lenses or
finding arctangents or whatever one may in future imagine, in order to
know to be there to slip in the message however *that's* supposed to be
done. If you're subject to deductive logic for what it says pi is,
you're subject to what it says about the halting problem.
So: the message can't be there by accident. It can't be there
by design. It can't be there by a hoax. And yet it's there. That's a
wondrous mystery (in the classic sense of mystery). I'm fairly sure
Sagan put it there because he hoped to design something which would be
a proper and irresolvable science fiction mystery.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chukamok
news:d892b919-b277-4a4a...@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
> intelligently designed?
What about "Mainspring" by Jay Lake? It has a clockwork universe filled
with giant gears, cogs, rails (for planetary orbits), etc.
Dorothy J Heydt
Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>On Jun 8, 2:20 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> In article <Xns9D90B7963472Dtaustingm...@69.16.186.50>,
>>
>> learned that he *had* concealed a circle in the depths of pi.
>> But somehow it doesn't seem like the sort of thing he'd do.
>
>I'm a mathematician (used to be) and I'm shocked that Carl Sagan did
>it, let alone God. Pi isn't /like/ that.
Well, consider. God didn't (so far as we know -- wasn't the
circle hidden deep down in many many digits further into pi than
we've ever gone? -- put the circle in pi. Sagan did, and I
agree, it's not like him.
For an analogy, consider Clarke's "The Star." Its punchline is,
as you'll recall, "Why, oh why, did God make the star on which
this wonderful civilization depended go nova so that its light
could shine over Bethlehem?" But God didn't. (Again, so far as
we know.) Clarke did. "The Star" was a good story, as far as
that goes. But isn't it a little bit cheesy to blame God for
something you portrayed him as doing in your fiction?
>
[lotsa math snipped]
>
>Having said that, the Old Testament pi = 3 apparently.
Well, it's what my husband the engineer calls the engineer's pi.
Close enough to pi for a rough approximation we'll do the fine
calculations later.
As to pi = three in the OT, it's in 1 Kings IIRC. Solomon is
building the Temple and he sends to Tyre for bronzesmiths to
gussy it up. One of the bronzeworks is a big vat, ten cubits
across, and having thirty deelydads on its rim, a foot apart.
But gosh, that wasn't measured with a micrometer or even a tape
measure. A cubit is the distance from the tip of your middle
finger to your elbow, and how long that is depends on who's doing
the measuring. It's an approximation.
Which is fine, as long as some dumbdumb doesn't try to turn
"approximately three" into "exactly three" and run it through the
legislature. N.B. the Straight Dope informs us that the Indiana
legislature tried to put in a truncated version of pi -- 3.2 or
*4* or 3.23, your choice. The bill was shot down, but it seems it
was a near thing.
"Just as people today have a hard time accepting the idea that
the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe, Goodwin
and Record apparently couldn't handle the fact that pi was not a
rational number. 'Since the rule in present use [presumably pi
equals 3.14159...] fails to work ..., it should be discarded as
wholly wanting and misleading in the practical applications,' the
bill declared."
>I think that's also "true" in Bob Shaw's _The Ragged Astronauts_,
>which is really annoying if you are mathematically informed but trying
>to take the book seriously.
Haven't read that. And I can't promise that if I had read it the
annoying math glitches wouldn't go whoosh straight over my head.
>
>As far as I can see, if the world that we live in is "true", whether
>created or naturally existing, pi simply has to be pi.
Yes. And AFAIK most religious people are willing to accept that.
My personal attitude is "Gee, pi is an irrational number. Messy
... but that's what life is like, isn't it?"
But --- note --- neither Sagan nor Clarke were religious men.
If they had been, maybe they would've known better.
>So, anyway, gods, definition of... I think that if I believe that a
>god exists but I don't worship him/her/it/other, then I am an atheist?
No, that makes you ... Um, the Greek word is _asebeis_, and I
know exactly what that means but I can't come up with the English
(just woke up, after a broken sleep and a day full of power
outages). Let me go check ...
"Impious" is how they translate it. "Non-observant" would
probably do too.
You could even be a Theist, which (so far as I can figure out
from the context in which it is used in _Surprised by Joy_) means
somebody who believes God exists and created the universe, but also
that he doesn't give a damn what we do.
David Johnston
It is possible to imagine experimental results which would have
precluded string theory being right. Those results simply didn't turn
out that way. The same is not true for God.
Dorothy J Heydt
Never heard of that one, but it sounds like fun.
There was a story in Astounding long ago called "Star Tracks."
http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?55979
The first few men get into Earth orbit and, without the blurring
effect of the atmosphere, can see that the stars are all moving
on little tracks; so are the planets. ~"Only the Earth is real --
the Earth, and maybe the Moon. Everything else was set up as a
testing environment for us, like a maze to run rats in. And now
that we've solved this one, we're waiting for them to set up a
new one."~
Moving right along, I present you with yesterday's "Two Lumps":
That's the "latest page" URL; after today it'll be
http://www.twolumps.net/d/20100604.html
JFW Richards
> On Jun 8, 2:20 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>
> I think that's also "true" in Bob Shaw's _The Ragged Astronauts_,
> which is really annoying if you are mathematically informed but trying
> to take the book seriously.
>
put it in because he got bored with people asking him to justify the
orbital mechanics of a binary planet system with a shared atmosphere.
I don't think he really wanted people to take the book seriously at
that level.
Regards
JFWR
lal_truckee
> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
> intelligently designed?
Unless I missed it, no one has mentioned the short story where-in humans
continue to improve their computer, repeatedly asking about god or
something well into the heat death of the universe where everything
fades out until the computer in frustration says "Let there be Light!"
Fit's the query to a T.
I didn't mention it because I don't remember the story's name, so it's a
YASID.
Quadibloc
> It can't be there by design.
But it has to be there by design, if it's there at all. Hence, since
that is absurd, Sagan's premise is absurd, precisely in the way
outlined by the post to which you replied.
John Savard
Andrew Plotkin
Asimov's "The Last Question".
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
Dorothy J Heydt
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>As to pi = three in the OT, it's in 1 Kings IIRC. Solomon is
>building the Temple and he sends to Tyre for bronzesmiths to
>gussy it up. One of the bronzeworks is a big vat, ten cubits
>across, and having thirty deelydads on its rim, a foot apart.
Dammit, a CUBIT apart. That was the whole point. Bad neurons,
no biscuit.
(But it probably means I do need to go get breakfast.)
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
[snip]
>Well, it's borderline, isn't it. There's lots and lots of
>scientific and techie stuff, and then at the end there's that
>zinger that God (or someone so like him that we can't tell the
>difference) encoded that circle in the printout of pi. That in
>itself is enough to make many people scream "FANTASY!!!" at the
>top of their lungs, while reaching for whatever the disbeliever's
>equivalent of garlic, holy water, and a crucifix would be.
Ah, yes, the idea that everything has its distinct box. Right
about now, I should start screaming "FANTASY!"
There have been some very good stories that blur the
distinctions.
>Dennis McKiernan put up an essay long ago about how not only to F
>and SF sit in discrete boxes, they are not merely a spectrum from
>one end to the other, but it's a complex three-dimensional system
>with many peaks and valleys.
n-dimensional, n-dimensional. Yum.
>Here's the URL, which unfortunately one has to scroll down about
>halfway to find his essay.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.composition/browse_thread/thread/ba8a3eafa1711604/28f253b3ccecc5fa?q=The+difference+between+SF+%26+Fantasy&rnum=1&pli=1
>
>It's an interesting read. In terms of his classification, I
>would put _Contact_ as being fairly high up the mountain, until
>you look down and realize you're further down than you thought.
That was a great link! For those who want an executive summary,
this might do it:
http://www.airshipentertainment.com/growfcomic.php?date=20070617
>Mind you, I do believe in God and it wouldn't shock me if I
>learned that he *had* concealed a circle in the depths of pi.
>But somehow it doesn't seem like the sort of thing he'd do.
God does not have anything special for us geeks?
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
[snip]
>Well, that's likely. Consider the arguments this group keeps
>seeing about a *one*-dimensional difference, the (hypothetical)
>line to be drawn between F and SF. Everyone draws it in a
>different place.
Determining the One True Division
=================================
1) Draw an F and SF line. Or, if you prefer, draw an SF and F line.
(Only a truly naive person would suppose that the two are same.)
2) Count how many fen (plural of fan, also means a marsh) go
apoplectic.
3) Draw a slightly different line.
4) Check the apoplecticity count for the new line.
5) Pick the line that had the higher count.
6) Proclaim your result as Holy Writ (backed by Science or that came
to you in a Magical dream).
7) With any luck, some of the Apoplectic will die of their outrage.
8) Rinse, lather, repeat steps 1 to 7 as desired.
9) Advanced: Get some other people to follow steps 1 to 8. Be
careful to coordinate your actions so that you are NOT drawing
identical lines.
Eventually, it will get quieter. If you get jailed for murder,
you will be in a quiet cell (unless you make the mistake of getting
Internet access).
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
<grosberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 7, 5:11 pm, Alex Markov <alex...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>> intelligently designed?
>
>Ian Watson, _The Jonah Kit_.
>Major spoilers ahead.
>
>
>
>In TJK, there is hard scientific evidence that God created the
>universe - but not *our* universe. The same evidence show that the
>creation of our universe was just some sort of unintended side effect
>of the real creation. I don't know if it counts or not, since that
>probably means God did not design humans and animals and such.
Chalker wrote a series where Earth et al was created by God, but
an unavoidable reaction was that another was also created. Angels
ruled over it.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I just realized that, depending on which explanation for the events in
>the novel is viewed as correct, my own Grand Central Arena could fit here.
Hey! No Mary Sue in our thread!
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Mary Sue is anywhere she WANTS to be. But she hasn't shown up in Grand
Central Arena yet, except as a very sidewise reference.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:292s06pmmccp2oecs...@4ax.com:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Mind you, I do believe in God and it wouldn't shock me if I
>>> learned that he *had* concealed a circle in the depths of pi.
>>> But somehow it doesn't seem like the sort of thing he'd do.
>>>
>>Objective proof would be inconsistent with any mainstream
>>understanding (flawed as it must be) of the nature of God.
>
> Semantics is such a bitch, in one sentence we have 'objective'
> and 'mainstream' and 'God', and each of those words has myriad
> meanings, how can men even begin to talk with one another about
> anything worth discussing?
How, indeed, especially when (at least) one of them is a retarded
troll who will literally reverse himself on every point if you
agree with him, solely for the purpose of trolling.
>
> Views such as George Berkeley's "immaterialism" are probably not
> mainstream and cannot by their very nature be considered
> "objective", and a true epistemologist would probably spend the
> bulk of his life in a drunken stupor.
>
So, you disagree with me, and agree with me, at the same time? Son,
you've got a lot to learn about trolling. I'm the only one who can
troll himself and make it funny.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:494ad9f9-0c54-4a7e...@j12g2000pri.googlegroups.
com:
Absurdity is inevitable when one tries to apply the rules of science
to religion.
It's equally absurd to believe there is any point to trying to do so.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:L3pBF...@kithrup.com:
> In article
> <2d22d82c-7119-420b...@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.co
> m>, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>On Jun 8, 2:20 am, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>>> In article <Xns9D90B7963472Dtaustingm...@69.16.186.50>,
>>>
>>> Mind you, I do believe in God and it wouldn't shock me if I
>>> learned that he *had* concealed a circle in the depths of pi.
>>> But somehow it doesn't seem like the sort of thing he'd do.
>>
>>I'm a mathematician (used to be) and I'm shocked that Carl Sagan
>>did it, let alone God. Pi isn't /like/ that.
>
> Well, consider. God didn't (so far as we know -- wasn't the
> circle hidden deep down in many many digits further into pi than
> we've ever gone? -- put the circle in pi. Sagan did, and I
> agree, it's not like him.
>
> For an analogy, consider Clarke's "The Star." Its punchline is,
> as you'll recall, "Why, oh why, did God make the star on which
> this wonderful civilization depended go nova so that its light
> could shine over Bethlehem?" But God didn't. (Again, so far as
> we know.) Clarke did. "The Star" was a good story, as far as
> that goes. But isn't it a little bit cheesy to blame God for
> something you portrayed him as doing in your fiction?
Er, isn't that the point of fiction? I mean, I think you're
confusing the author "blaming" God for something, and the
characters in the story blaming God for something.
lal_truckee
> Here, lal_truckee<lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 6/7/10 7:11 AM, Alex Markov wrote:
>>> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
>>> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
>>> intelligently designed?
>>
>> Unless I missed it, no one has mentioned the short story where-in humans
>> continue to improve their computer, repeatedly asking about god or
>> something well into the heat death of the universe where everything
>> fades out until the computer in frustration says "Let there be Light!"
>> Fit's the query to a T.
>>
>> I didn't mention it because I don't remember the story's name, so it's a
>> YASID.
>
> Asimov's "The Last Question".
Did every active SF 1950ish author take a stab at the theme? Seems like
there's numerous related stories. Including the one that ends with
"there is now!" when the humans ask once too often if there's a god.
Which is a YASID for me. Dam - the noggin is slow today.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Fredric Brown, "Answer."
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Will in New Haven
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 10:00:03 -0700, lal_truckee
>
>
>
>
>
> <lal_truc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On 6/8/10 8:58 AM, Andrew Plotkin wrote:
> >>> On 6/7/10 7:11 AM, Alex Markov wrote:
> >>>> What are the best example of SF worlds, where Theory of Creation is
> >>>> proven correct and life, universe and everything turn to be
> >>>> intelligently designed?
>
> >>> Unless I missed it, no one has mentioned the short story where-in humans
> >>> continue to improve their computer, repeatedly asking about god or
> >>> something well into the heat death of the universe where everything
> >>> fades out until the computer in frustration says "Let there be Light!"
> >>> Fit's the query to a T.
>
> >>> I didn't mention it because I don't remember the story's name, so it's a
> >>> YASID.
>
> >> Asimov's "The Last Question".
>
> >Did every active SF 1950ish author take a stab at the theme? Seems like
> >there's numerous related stories. Including the one that ends with
> >"there is now!" when the humans ask once too often if there's a god.
> >Which is a YASID for me. Dam - the noggin is slow today.
>
> Fredric Brown, "Answer."
The noggin is slow but the Lawrence is faster.
--
Will in New Haven
Dorothy J Heydt
Dorothy J Heydt
Good gosh, man. Isn't pi all on its irrational own, enough for
endless geekery? If not, add e and i.
Dorothy J Heydt
It's by Fredric Brown ... quick check to see if I can find it.
Yup, it's "Answer," one of the short-shorts for which Brown was
renowned, and I found it in my old copy of _Angels and
Spaceships_. Which, having pulled it out of the bookcase, I
shall reread today. Lots of good stories there, many of them
reflectiong Brown's day job as a linotypist.
Dorothy J Heydt
Faster than my noggin, too -- I had to go look it up.