Sci Fi... Childish?
Les & Claire
>
> > Science fiction is childish. Either put it in children's programmes
> > or put it on Radio 2, but not mainstream Radio 4 please.
<snip>>
....... Childish? Ray Bradbury, Brian Aldiss... oh you poor, sad little
man. To have such lack of wonder, such a dearth of imagination. To stand in
abject pompous judgement of your fellows who dare to look the universe in
the eye alone. Without the "childish" crutch of a god kept alive from the
middle ages to comfort little lost simpletons who cower and quake at the
unknown. It's the thing that make us human. The ability to ask, "What if?"
Without that we are nothing and destined to sit out our history on this
sordid little planet. It's those of us who dare to look, long for escape and
strive for the future that will inherit the high frontier. As every exodus
of explorers has proved before, it's a process of selection. The quick, the
bright, the dreamers... these are the people to reap the wealth of each new
land. The cosmos is ours... I'm afraid we wouldn't want you with us. Your
place is on Earth with the ashes of our birth. Yours is an end, yours is to
walk the once fertile lands of humanities youth with none but the sick and
scared. The slow witted and the religious for company. You will see your
brethren leave, and wonder... "What if......"
Les
--
"Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh!"
"That's 10 times I've explained binary to you. I won't tell you a 3rd time!"
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
llcc> [...] It's those of us who dare to look, long for escape and
llcc> strive for the future that will inherit the high frontier. As every exodus
llcc> of explorers has proved before, [...]
Which is all very well, but not very relevent to SF. Stories about
space exploration are now historical novels or contemporary
what-if's. (consider The Right Stuff or the Apollo 13 movie).
Similarly all the SF about computers and networks which was so
pervasive in the 80s. Reading it now is like reading 1940s stories
about travel to the moon.
That is the prob;lem with this kind of SF which extrapolates emerging
technology. It may look exciting and visionary when published but it
has a short shelf life. It survives only if it uses the extrapolation
to examine a more long lasting issue.
For example, compare Clarke's `Other Side of the Sky' stories, which
are very down to earth extrapolations about space flight, and now are
mostly just curiosities, with 2001 which still has something to say.
--
Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
Les & Claire
"Richard Caley" <MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:877k5tz...@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
> In article <bgl17m$ooitv$1...@ID-119725.news.uni-berlin.de>, Les Les >
<<snip>>
> Which is all very well, but not very relevent to SF. Stories about
> space exploration are now historical novels or contemporary
> what-if's. (consider The Right Stuff or the Apollo 13 movie).
>snip>>
Neither of these are science fiction, both are drama / documentaries......
> Similarly all the SF about computers and networks which was so
> pervasive in the 80s. Reading it now is like reading 1940s stories
> about travel to the moon.
>
> That is the prob;lem with this kind of SF which extrapolates emerging
> technology. It may look exciting and visionary when published but it
> has a short shelf life. It survives only if it uses the extrapolation
> to examine a more long lasting issue.
you are very short sighted, how about mans use of technology to adapt
himself to the environment between the stars, feeding on hard radiation. Or
our species facing the heat death of the universe. Mankind so far in the
future Earth has gone from memory to myth and then forgotten completely....
use your mind! The eons ahead are a myriad of possibility. Science fiction
encompasses our possible pasts as well as futures. The path we actually take
(and have taken) will be and is different from any fiction. Look at
Heinleins multiverse idea in "The Number of the Beast" (not a novel idea by
him, granted.. much used by writers and physicists) A beautiful concept...
as each decision is made, the universe splits. Did the electron go through
the slit or not? Did Kennedy survive or not? Each and every event causing
the respective futures to hack a new path.....
look, SF is not meant to predict. Not meant to describe our future.
It tries to take what makes us human and place us in situation, or to make
us imagine ourselves in settings that can not be reached in other genres.
The phrase used by A.C.Clark at the end of the first section of 2001. "He
wasn't sure what to do next, but he would think of something" That
beautiful link used in the film of the first bone tool spinning in the air
as metaphor for the direct path from that moment to the birth of space
travel..... and the Star Child, looking down on his home planet used the
same phrase. "He wasn't sure what to do next, but he would think of
something" it moves me in ways i have never felt in any other medium.
SF can range far beyond the limited emotional responses constructed by
main stream authors. We know HAL doesn't and won't exist. But when he asks
Chandra if he will dream when he is de activated, i am moved. When in
Bradbury's beautiful "The Martian Chronicals" the Earthmens "halucinatory"
spaceship remains I am moved.... When Hilda, in "The Ship who Sang" races
between stars instead of wheeling about in a wheelchair i am moved.....
you are missing the point here... you think too small... remember.. it's
"What if....?" not "This will be....."
Les...
exasperated at the state of human imagination, the lack of awe in our
universe.... the closed minds of critics and simpletons who never learned
to think and feel at the same time.....
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> Which is all very well, but not very relevent to SF. Stories about
>> space exploration are now historical novels or contemporary
>> what-if's. (consider The Right Stuff or the Apollo 13 movie).
llcc> Neither of these are science fiction, both are drama / documentaries......
That's what I said. You can't do (realistic) space travel as SF
anymore, any more than you can do rail travel as SF. You could use
space or rail travel as part of the background to a SF story, but to
make the story be _about_ that you would be stepping into the realm of
either contemporary thriller, historical novel or fantasy.
I'd better retrench a little: of course, a suitably skilled and
imaginative SF writer can do _anything_, consider ``a Transatlantic
Tunnel Hurrah!'', but I was talking only about the simple, literal
story about space travel you seemd to be talking about.
>> That is the prob;lem with this kind of SF which extrapolates emerging
>> technology. It may look exciting and visionary when published but it
>> has a short shelf life. It survives only if it uses the extrapolation
>> to examine a more long lasting issue.
llcc> you are very short sighted,
Er, no I was saying that you were being short sighted identifying SF
with space travel.
Mike Humberston
>you are very short sighted, how about mans use of technology to adapt
>himself to the environment between the stars, feeding on hard radiation. Or
>our species facing the heat death of the universe.
Sorry to be so literal but you are just fantasising. "feeding on hard
radiation" and "our species facing the heat death of the universe" are both
meaningless mumbo-jumbo. In fact the later indicates that you don't have any
understanding of the concept of heat death.
--
Mike Humberston
The atmosphere within the BBC is something halfway between a
girls' school and a lunatic asylum. - George Orwell
Les & Claire
radiation" and "our species facing the heat death of the universe" are both
meaningless mumbo-jumbo. In fact the later indicates that you don't have
any
understanding of the concept of heat death.>>
snip
Mike,
I would have thought that beings that feed in this way would look upon
their fate of coping with the heat death of their universe with some
trepidation. It would make an interesting idea for there to be our far
distant descendants living as beings of pure energy facing the dark "zero
gradient" universe that really does face us. Out of the three possible
outcomes; The big crunch, Hoyles steady state and continuous expansion , it
unfortunately looks like we're heading for the latter. Seeing as the
expansion actually seems to be accelerating and there seems to be to little
mass to slow it down.
We as a species now are facing just such an end to our universe. I don't
understand how you arrive at the conclusion that I have no idea of the
concept of the end result of expansion and the entropic slide to the "bottom
of the slope". No more energy gradients, no more reactions possible and
matter increasingly spread out.
But, of course, you are right. I am just fantasising. Taking an idea (one
possible end to the universe) putting some characters in there to experience
it ( our photon munching descendants) and then imagining what would happen,
how they would feel etc. Isn't that the point? The whole idea behind the
genre.... Take a single (possible / real / ) idea and write about it. "What
if?... Wonder Curiosity Longing... Fantasy!
Les
"Mike Humberston" <obli...@philomel.net> wrote in message
news:4uutivoai1j2kseap...@4ax.com...
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
llcc> It would make an interesting idea for there to be our far
llcc> distant descendants living as beings of pure energy
We _are_ beings of pure energy. E=MC2 remember.
Well, actually I think it's better to think of us as beings of pure
information, the energy is just a substriate.
llcc> Out of the three possible outcomes; The big crunch, Hoyles
llcc> steady state and continuous expansion , it unfortunately looks
llcc> like we're heading for the latter.
Have you read A Clash of Cymbals by Blish? (AKA `the triumph of time',
one of the truely great re-titeings in publishing history, I don't think).
llcc> We as a species now are facing just such an end to our universe. I don't
llcc> understand how you arrive at the conclusion that I have no idea of the
llcc> concept of the end result of expansion and the entropic slide to the "bottom
llcc> of the slope". No more energy gradients, no more reactions possible and
llcc> matter increasingly spread out.
Quantum effects would seem to make absolute maximum entropy
impossible.
llcc> But, of course, you are right. I am just fantasising. Taking an idea (one
llcc> possible end to the universe) putting some characters in there to experience
llcc> it ( our photon munching descendants) and then imagining what would happen,
llcc> how they would feel etc. Isn't that the point? The whole idea behind the
llcc> genre.... Take a single (possible / real / ) idea and write about it. "What
llcc> if?... Wonder Curiosity Longing... Fantasy!
No, fantasy is fantasy, SF is SF. SF is about asking big questions by
constructing possible scenarios in our universe, especially where they
invpolve science and technology. Fantasy does the same by hand
crafting a universe aroud the problem.
There is interesting stuff done in fooling around with the borderland
of course, especially in fooling the reader or the characters. I got
quite a way into The Book of the New Sun before twigging it was
absolutely solid hard SF, and set directly in our future on earth too.
And, of course, almost all SF takes some liberties with reality (as
does all fiction, that is what makes it _fiction_:-)). Faster than
light travel etc. are accepted cheats to make plots work, something
like the convention that the hero of a police procedural never seems
to do paperwork, unless that helps the plot, and Oliver Twist ends up
picking the pocket of his own grandfather.
Les & Claire
> impossible.
....... I was thinking of this as I shopped in town today..... a depressing
end. The big crunch appeals. Perhaps with a cyclic expansion / contraction
rhythm. As in some of the east's belief systems.... but Hoyles steady
state... I remember seeing the amount of matter needed to be created in
atoms per kilometre metre cubed. It was a tiny amount... would have to
look it up to get the exact figure but it turned a theory that seemed at
first look to be pretty far fetched into something more worthy of
consideration. And after reading of Hawkins radiation and virtual particles
just popping into (and out of) existence "because they can" it made it seem
even more possible. A quantum event for the origin of the universe (big
bang) and a gentle "foam" of particle appearing to fill in the gaps as it
expands leading to a stable but expanding universe.
<<<<<No, fantasy is fantasy, SF is SF. SF is about asking big questions by>
<constructing possible scenarios in our universe, especially where they>
<involve science and technology. Fantasy does the same by hand
<crafting a universe around the problem. >
It's what I was trying to say Richard, but not clearly enough obviously.
Science fiction depends on the original idea, event, invention, trend or
whatever. And then running with it. Fantasy just builds a universe to suit
the plot. But this doesn't limit us to our own universe or our set of
physical laws. Who wrote the stories about Fritz van Noone the engineer
trying to build a bridge on a planet where the direction of gravity varied
so much that transport was by sledge... you just waited till the way you
wanted to go was down. Where 1+1 equalled 2.14274 so even pre fabricated
parts didn't fit. OK, it was tongue in cheek but there are others..
Heinlein's "Number of the Beast" relied on an invention enabling travel
"sideways" into parallel universes.
<And, of course, almost all SF takes some liberties with reality (as
<does all fiction, that is what makes it _fiction_:-)). Faster than
light travel etc. are accepted cheats to make plots work, something
like the convention that the hero of a police procedural never seems
to do paperwork, unless that helps the plot, and Oliver Twist ends up>
picking the pocket of his own grandfather.>
Sci Fi conventions.... a favourite of Space Opera.. FTL, the Heisenberg
compensators in Star Trek. Matter transport. But you know, the Sci Fi I
enjoy the most uses none of these. Brian Aldiss "Non Stop",
erm..A.C.Clarke's "The Songs of Distant Earth" (have you heard Mike
Oldfields music of the book? It's excellent, well worth downloading) all
base their stories around the understanding physics we have now. Some with
fictional discoveries in the future.
Bugger, this has made me think of many books I'd like to re-read but we're
moving house at the moment and everything is in store....
Les
"Richard Caley" <MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:871xw0r...@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
> In article <bgoapi$qg0c0$1...@ID-119725.news.uni-berlin.de>, Les Les
Clairespamspoiler Claire (llcc) writes:
>
> llcc> It would make an interesting idea for there to be our far
> llcc> distant descendants living as beings of pure energy
>
> We _are_ beings of pure energy. E=MC2 remember.
>
> Well, actually I think it's better to think of us as beings of pure
> information, the energy is just a substriate.
>
> llcc> Out of the three possible outcomes; The big crunch, Hoyles
> llcc> steady state and continuous expansion , it unfortunately looks
> llcc> like we're heading for the latter.
>
> Have you read A Clash of Cymbals by Blish? (AKA `the triumph of time',
> one of the truely great re-titeings in publishing history, I don't think).
>
> llcc> We as a species now are facing just such an end to our universe. I
don't
> llcc> understand how you arrive at the conclusion that I have no idea of
the
> llcc> concept of the end result of expansion and the entropic slide to the
"bottom
> llcc> of the slope". No more energy gradients, no more reactions possible
and
> llcc> matter increasingly spread out.
>
>
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
llcc> It's what I was trying to say Richard, but not clearly enough obviously.
llcc> Science fiction depends on the original idea, event, invention, trend or
llcc> whatever. And then running with it.
That is generally a way to get very bad science fiction. There needs
to be something more than just `Hey, imagine we had mobile phones
which could transmit smells'.
llcc> Heinlein's "Number of the Beast" relied on an invention enabling travel
llcc> "sideways" into parallel universes.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, don't bring Heinlein into
it. Especially not his senile flatulent stage. Yeuch:-)
Calum Benson
"Les & Claire" <les.claire...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:bgoguh$r5br8$1...@ID-119725.news.uni-berlin.de...
> erm..A.C.Clarke's "The Songs of Distant Earth" (have you heard Mike
> Oldfields music of the book? It's excellent, well worth downloading)
Downloading?! Go and buy it-- let's face it, he's not going to make much off
his last couple of albums :)
(If you're very lucky you'll get one of the limited edition TSODE CDs with
the interactive puzzle thing on it, although it only works on a Mac...)
Cheeri,
Calum.
--
Calum Benson, Made in Scotland from Girders
(Reverse email address to reply)
George Cox
>
> In article <bgl17m$ooitv$1...@ID-119725.news.uni-berlin.de>, Les Les Clairespamspoiler Claire (llcc) writes:
>
> llcc> [...] It's those of us who dare to look, long for escape and
> llcc> strive for the future that will inherit the high frontier. As every exodus
> llcc> of explorers has proved before, [...]
>
> Which is all very well, but not very relevent to SF. Stories about
> space exploration are now historical novels or contemporary
> what-if's. (consider The Right Stuff or the Apollo 13 movie).
>
> Similarly all the SF about computers and networks which was so
> pervasive in the 80s. Reading it now is like reading 1940s stories
> about travel to the moon.
>
> That is the prob;lem with this kind of SF which extrapolates emerging
> technology.
Zackly! It is the writers of SF who can only extrapolate emerging
technology who have "such a dearth of imagination" to quote Les from
another thread.
> It may look exciting and visionary when published but it
> has a short shelf life.
And, as often as it is exciting and visionary, it is silly, anorakish
and clumsy.
> It survives only if it uses the extrapolation
> to examine a more long lasting issue.
>
> For example, compare Clarke's `Other Side of the Sky' stories, which
> are very down to earth extrapolations about space flight, and now are
> mostly just curiosities, with 2001 which still has something to say.
>
> --
> Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
> |<
--
G.C.
Note ANTI, SPAM and invalid to be removed if you're e-mailing me.
George Cox
>
> .... SF is about asking big questions by
> constructing possible scenarios in our universe,
Oh! if only it were! SF tends not to ask "big questions". For that you
must turn to other and better authors than those who write SF novels.
George Cox
>
> ... the heat death of their universe ....
> We as a species now are facing just such an end to our universe. ...
The heat death of the universe is a long way off. I mean a _very_ long
way off. So _we_ as a species are not _now_ facing it. By the time it
comes, if it comes, other forces will have transformed the "we" of now
into an altogether different species, or destroyed it completely.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
gc> Zackly! It is the writers of SF who can only extrapolate emerging
gc> technology who have "such a dearth of imagination" to quote Les from
gc> another thread.
Surely, if that is your criterion, `mainstream' authors have even les
imagination, since they don't even extrapolate. The Mill On The Floss,
a mill! How unimaginative s that!
>> It may look exciting and visionary when published but it
>> has a short shelf life.
gc> And, as often as it is exciting and visionary, it is silly, anorakish
gc> and clumsy.
That is back to Sturgeon's law.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> .... SF is about asking big questions by
>> constructing possible scenarios in our universe,
gc> Oh! if only it were! SF tends not to ask "big questions".
If it isn't askin big questions it isn't SF.
gc> For that you must turn to other and better authors than those who
gc> write SF novels.
Since I mentioned it in the last post, and since it could be very
tenuously R4 related, what big questions did George Elliot ask in The
Mill On The Floss? Lots of important and, if you are of the mindset,
interesting small and medium sized ones, relations to family and
society, the strains caused by changes in society on those
relationships, tension between duty and aspirations, and of course
women's position in society of the time and how it crosses up all the
other things.
None of those are Big questions. The only big question which regularly
turns up in `literary' fiction is that of the posible existabnc of
god, and usually that has to be addressed from a rather restricted
point of view to fit it into the genre. A priest having a crisis of
faith, for instance, can tell you something of humanity and of
religion, but is a poor window onto the universe.
Santiago Zawojski
news:3F307BBD...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid:
> Richard Caley wrote:
>>
>> .... SF is about asking big questions by
>> constructing possible scenarios in our universe,
>
> Oh! if only it were! SF tends not to ask "big questions". For that you
> must turn to other and better authors than those who write SF novels.
>
You sound as if you don't read SF, yet you say things like:
'SF tends not to ask "big questions".'
How do you know, if you don't read it? Or do you read it and hate it?
Perhaps you've just been given bad advice.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
sz> Perhaps you've just been given bad advice.
I suspect more likely a difference in yardstick fo rthe size of
questions. To mainstream literature `War and Peace' is a big question,
in SF it might be thrown in as colourful background in the same way a
laser gun might.:-)
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
j> Anything which examines 'the human condition', no matter how
j> superficially, is asking Big Questions.
Only if you have an over inflated estimation of the fundamental
importance of human beings. I like human beings, some of my best
friends are human beings, not to mention relatives:-).
However, if the whole planet evaporated taking us all with it, the big
qustions would still remain big questions, though there might not be
anyone to ask them. The questions of the human condition would be for
the alien equivalent of anoraks, if any.
`What is the realtionship between sex, love and affection' is an
important, but narrow question.
`What is the relationship between individual conscience and social
control' is a medium sized question.
`What does it mean to be an individual' is a big question.
`What does it mean to be' is a bloody huge question.
`What does it mean to mean' is a mean question to ask anyone.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
j> To mainstream literature (and even to trash) which colour of
j> eye-shadow someone uses can be as BIG a question as whether GM of
j> humans is a good or bad thing.
Only if the questioner has a very small perspective.
Perhaps you need to distinguish big from important and both from
significant.
Les & Claire
conditions or random event?.... Sum over histories... does it answer "action
at a distance". That beautiful single electron or photon through a slit
experiment... interference with what.... and does this offer an escape into
another universe or back in time? Relativistic and quantum theories..
can 16 dimensional string theory unify all? Hubbles red shift accelerating
... why? And many others with more to come no doubt.......
Unimportant questions?.. Religion... what's it all about? Shall I marry Mr
x or Miss y? Shall one country war with another? Blue or black jeans?
Vegetarian or vegan? Shall I support the ecology movement? and many other
species based localised niggles.......
If humans spent more time looking for answers to the really important
questions and less time with their heads up their arses the world would be a
better place.
Les
"Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh!"
"That's 10 times I've explained binary to you. I won't tell you a 3rd time!"
"Richard Caley" <MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87vftal...@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
Sam Nelson
"Les & Claire" <les.claire...@virgin.net> writes:
> Important questions.. are we alone in the universe.
As Carl Sagan put it, either answer to that question, once discovered to be
the correct answer, is mind-bending.
> If humans spent more time looking for answers to the really important
> questions and less time with their heads up their arses
Should we have gone to war with Iraq? Was it legal to do so?
--
SAm.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
llcc> Important questions..
Note that I did not say anything about important questions (unless I
made a slip in some post), though JAF is reponding rather as if I had.
What I said defined SF and, to some extent, fantasy was _big_
questions.
``What does it mean to be a person?'' may or may not be important or
significant to a reader, but it is clearly _big_.
``What eyeshadow should I wear?'' may or may not be important to the
character or sigificant to the reader, but is clearly a small
question.
Sometimes small questions are very significant to someone. What makes
them small is their locality and specificity.
Sometimes big questions can be insignificant. ``Is there a god''
really doesn't hold any significance for me unless made more
specific.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
sn> Should we have gone to war with Iraq? Was it legal to do so?
The first is a very small, very important question. The second is a
minute and trivial question magnified and given significance by
context.
Actually, my favourite small question of the moment is ``What should
we deduce from the fact that our PM is so steeped in lies as a way of
life that his first reaction when asked to sing in public is to lie to
his wife to get her to do it for him?''. There is something jewel like
in the simple perfection of that small image.
Les & Claire
>
> Sometimes big questions can be insignificant. ``Is there a god''
> really doesn't hold any significance for me unless made more specific.
Does god exist? Does Tigger exist? These insignificant questions are
directly equivalent as both characters are fictional construct of humans...
perhaps the physical evidence leans towards Tigger though ;o)
Les
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
j> Well, who the hell else do you know who writes books?
j> FFS.
Why do you imagine writing books is a large feature of existance?
Perhaps it is just an idiosyncratic behaviour of one species on one
planet near an unremarkable star.
As I said in another message, I think you are missinterpreting what I
said. I didn't say that the questions which SF can deal with are more
important or more significant than those dealt with by other forms of
literature, I simply said they were _bigger_.
It would be perfectly consistant for someone to decide that such
questions, though large, are unimportant and uninteresting. As the
traditional saying goes, it is what you do with it.
The amount of borrowing of SF tools and techniques by authors not
normally considered SF or fantasy writers would seem to indicate that
the questions are being found to be interesting.
My favourite example is Lessing who slipped into SF quite slowly,
realised where she was and said `right then, in that case...' rolled
up her sleeves and had a good shot at writing some SF novels. The
first couple are quite strange to read because they are,
unsuprisingly, extrememly very well written, but somehow clumsy,
being the first attemts at something new. Like a ballerina on ice
skates for the first time.
`The Making Of The Representitive For Planet 8' OTOH is just
_wonderful_.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> Perhaps you need to distinguish big from important and both from
>> significant.
j> Oh, FFS.
Didn't they tell you the importance of words on that literature
course?
Or how to swear properly?
Sam Nelson
Richard Caley <MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> writes:
> In article <bgr2jh$ptj$5...@dulnain.stir.ac.uk>, Sam Nelson (sn) writes:
> sn> Should we have gone to war with Iraq? Was it legal to do so?
>
> The first is a very small, very important question. The second is a
> minute and trivial question magnified and given significance by
> context.
In terms of the universe and the nature of the existence thereof, though,
they're both totally trivial questions that approximate to `does it matter
if I pick my nose or not?'.
--
SAm.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
j> Well, it's important to someone, which makes it no less valid as the
j> subject of a piece of literary work than any other topic.
I already said that. You are now writing in my genre:-).
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
llcc> Does god exist? Does Tigger exist? These insignificant questions are
llcc> directly equivalent as both characters are fictional construct
llcc> of humans...
You are begging the question.
Also you are assuming that because something is a fictional construct
that means it can not exist.
Your mind is not twisted enough, read more Dick:-).
Les & Claire
physical laws than ours and different starting conditions... then all
fiction must exist. We could visit Oz, Garden of Eden or even Ambridge! I
think I was baiting the christians really....
Les
--
Top Posting© Since 1997
"Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh!"
"That's 10 times I've explained binary to you. I won't tell you a 3rd time!"
"Richard Caley" <MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87k79qi...@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> ``What eyeshadow should I wear?'' may or may not be important to the
>> character or sigificant to the reader, but is clearly a small
>> question.
j> You cannot make that assertion. You can only say it is not 'big' to
j> *you*.
Big is a relative description but not a purely subjective one.
I can only say if it is important to me, or significant to me, because
those are subjective.
However, I can say it is a smaller question than, for instance, does
there exist an objective reality, because some answers to that
question would imply that they qustion of eyeshadow was meaningless
because there is no such thing as eyeshadow or eyes.
Or I can point out that the question of eyeshadow would be rendered
somewhat irreleant if the sun went nova before you got to the mirror
to put it on, but questions about the nature of reality would remain.
Indeed it might be worth a quick experiment to see if enough people
wishing deserately enough could change reality in the remaining few
minutes:-).
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> . I didn't say that the questions which SF can deal with are more
>> important or more significant than those dealt with by other forms of
>> literature, I simply said they were _bigger_.
j> But that's not true.
Since you have convinced me you don't know the diffence between a big
question and an important one, I don't think your opinion on the
matter carries much weight.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
j> You don't think that something which affects the lifes of about three
j> billion people is 'big'?
You are still confusing big with important.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> The first is a very small, very important question. The second is a
>> minute and trivial question magnified and given significance by
>> context.
sn> In terms of the universe and the nature of the existence thereof, though,
sn> they're both totally trivial questions that approximate to `does it matter
sn> if I pick my nose or not?'.
Triviality is in the eye of the beholder. It's perfectly reasonable if
someone thinks the legality of the Iraqi war is more important than
the existance or not of the higgs boson or the nature of
consciousness.
Sam Nelson
No it isn't. Is this the right room for an argument?
--
SAm.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
llcc> ....... ok, given an infinite number of universes.
You can't have more than one universe. The clue is in the name:-).
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
j> Well, it's important to someone, which makes it no less valid as the
j> subject of a piece of literary work than any other topic.
>> I already said that. You are now writing in my genre:-).
j> So what are we arguing for?
Because you keep thinking I mean `important' when what I mean is
`fundamental and pervasive'.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
sn> No it isn't. Is this the right room for an argument?
Only big ones. Important ones are next door in the archers newsgroup.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> Or I can point out that the question of eyeshadow
j> [etc]
j> But using it as a metaphor, one could write entire tracts about the
j> universe, covering REALLY BIG questions.
Perhaps, but if you did you'd be writing fantasy, alegory, romance,
pick your term. Ie you would have structured your universe of
discourse to symbolically talk about things which are hard to discuss
in direct realist terms.
The characteristic of SF is that it can address the big questions
relatively directly. You might use eyeshadow as a metaphor to address
man's relationship to a hypothetical god, Graeme Green might use the
psychology of a man in a religious crisis to get a handle on a tiny
aspect of the idea of god. PKD might just have god turn up at
someone's door and ask if they have a bowl of firmament she could
borrow because it'sa real bugger trying to finish off all the little
corners neatly.
What is amazing, and what makes me read SF dispite the amount of bad
stuff out there, is that against all sane expectation, PKD (or one of
a few others) might well do the above and make it work.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
j> So what are we arguing for?
>> Because you keep thinking I mean `important' when what I mean is
>> `fundamental and pervasive'.
j> And?
Because it is too hot to work.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
j> You don't think that something which affects the lifes of about three
j> billion people is 'big'?
>> You are still confusing big with important.
j> The very nature of mankind is kinda big and important, IMO.
It may be important to you, but how can it be big if a trivial
difference in the way things are could make it purely hypothetical and
a laughably small cosmic event could turn it into a question only of
interest to the most obsessive of alien specialists, if any?
``... because there's bugger all down hear on Earth.''
Les & Claire
be so sure our big bang is the only one?
Les
--
Top Posting© Since 1997
"Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh!"
"That's 10 times I've explained binary to you. I won't tell you a 3rd time!"
"Richard Caley" <MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87llu6h...@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
George Cox
>
> Important questions.. are we alone in the universe. If so why? Special
> conditions or random event?.... Sum over histories... does it answer "action
> at a distance". That beautiful single electron or photon through a slit
> experiment... interference with what.... and does this offer an escape into
> another universe or back in time? Relativistic and quantum theories..
> can 16 dimensional string theory unify all? Hubbles red shift accelerating
> ... why? And many others with more to come no doubt.......
If you want to know the answers to these questions (in so far as they
have answers) then read science--not science fiction.
--
G.C.
Note ANTI, SPAM and invalid to be removed if you're e-mailing me.
George Cox
>
> In article <mps1jvcdeui09h314...@4ax.com>, jafnilspam (j) writes:
>
> j> Anything which examines 'the human condition', no matter how
> j> superficially, is asking Big Questions.
>
> Only if you have an over inflated estimation of the fundamental
> importance of human beings. I like human beings, some of my best
> friends are human beings, not to mention relatives:-).
>
> However, if the whole planet evaporated taking us all with it, the big
> qustions would still remain big questions, though there might not be
> anyone to ask them. The questions of the human condition would be for
> the alien equivalent of anoraks, if any.
>
> `What is the realtionship between sex, love and affection' is an
> important, but narrow question.
>
> `What is the relationship between individual conscience and social
> control' is a medium sized question.
>
> `What does it mean to be an individual' is a big question.
Up to this point, literary fiction _does_ deal with these questions.
>
> `What does it mean to be' is a bloody huge question.
>
> `What does it mean to mean' is a mean question to ask anyone.
These are questions of philosophy that science fiction deals with no
better than does literary fiction--but at least the literary fiction is
a pleasure to read.
>
> --
> Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
> |<
George Cox
>
> George Cox <george_...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote in
> news:3F307BBD...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid:
>
> > Richard Caley wrote:
> >>
> >> .... SF is about asking big questions by
> >> constructing possible scenarios in our universe,
> >
> > Oh! if only it were! SF tends not to ask "big questions". For that you
> > must turn to other and better authors than those who write SF novels.
> >
>
> You sound as if you don't read SF, yet you say things like:
>
> 'SF tends not to ask "big questions".'
>
> How do you know, if you don't read it? Or do you read it and hate it?
I have read it and I dislike it.
I'm reminded a bit of the television critic's dilemma. If he claims
that television is vomit-making garbage (which it is) he will be told to
use the off switch. If he switches off the television he will be told
that, since he switched it off, he cannot judge it.
> Perhaps you've just been given bad advice.
George Cox
>
> In article <urs1jvoaec7u7b42o...@4ax.com>, jafnilspam (j) writes:
>
> j> To mainstream literature (and even to trash) which colour of
> j> eye-shadow someone uses can be as BIG a question as whether GM of
> j> humans is a good or bad thing.
>
> Only if the questioner has a very small perspective.
One can imagine a novel in which the colour of someone's eye-shadow is
central to the story. One can imagine such a story being told be a
writer of railway station bookshop novels[*] and by a writer of literary
fiction. The latter would make a better job of it.
[*] Not wishing to suggest that it is only science fiction that is
worthless: we have crime, horror, romance,..., to sneer at as well.
>
> Perhaps you need to distinguish big from important and both from
> significant.
>
> --
> Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
> |<
Les & Claire
> If you want to know the answers to these questions (in so far as they
> have answers) then read science--not science fiction.
Hmmm.. I think I had wandered off topic onto important/unimportant
questions... I agree with you though.
Les
"Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh!"
"That's 10 times I've explained binary to you. I won't tell you a 3rd time!"
"George Cox" <george_...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:3F31444E...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid...
> Les & Claire wrote:
> >
> > Important questions.. are we alone in the universe. If so why? Special
> > conditions or random event?.... Sum over histories... does it answer
"action
> > at a distance". That beautiful single electron or photon through a slit
> > experiment... interference with what.... and does this offer an escape
into
> > another universe or back in time? Relativistic and quantum theories..
> > can 16 dimensional string theory unify all? Hubbles red shift
accelerating
> > ... why? And many others with more to come no doubt.......
>
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> `What does it mean to be an individual' is a big question.
gc> Up to this point, literary fiction _does_ deal with these
gc> questions.
`literary' fiction is a tautology. Fiction is a subset ofliterature.
If ypou know of a good treatment of the question of what
isindividuality in `mainstream' fiction which doesn't draw on Sf tools
I'd be interested in a pointer.
>> `What does it mean to be' is a bloody huge question.
>> `What does it mean to mean' is a mean question to ask anyone.
gc> These are questions of philosophy
All questions are questions of philosphy. Philosophy is just
everything left over after the less ambitious feilds of study have
claimed the easy questions.:-)
gc> that science fiction deals with no better than does literary
gc> fiction--but at least the literary fiction is a pleasure to read.
You need to read more SF.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
llcc> .... what do you mean "You can't have more than one universe."
UNI verse.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> 'SF tends not to ask "big questions".'
>> How do you know, if you don't read it? Or do you read it and hate it?
gc> I have read it and I dislike it.
Clearly you haven't read much to make the above assertion.
It's legitimate to say you don't think it delas with big questions in
an interesting way, but to say big questions aren't dealt with at all
is clearly silly.
Take a lightweight, but fun, bit of SF which most will be vaguely
familiar with just because it was on TV, Red Dwarf. Clearly the
backbone around which the humour is hung is made of two questions,
`what is a person?' and `why live?'. It makes no pretense of providing
important answers to those questions, it is after all a sitcom not a
philosophy book, but those questions are to the series what `how do
families work?' is to soap opera.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> Perhaps, but if you did you'd be writing fantasy, alegory, romance,
>> pick your term.
j> No, not if I was writing, say a biography, or a SF novel, or an
j> uncategorisable stream of consciousness, etverymuchcetera.
If you wrote a SF novel or stream of consciousness whatzit in which
everythign revlved around a metaphor for wustions of existance, you
would, surely, be writing a SF novel (or whatever) which was an
alegory. If you tried it with biography you would either just be
noteing the, presumably accidental, existace of an alegory in real
life, or you would have left biography behind the moment you made
something up to make the metaphor work.
I might be an argument that if you tried to structure an SF novel
around a mataphor, making that the central point of the work, you
wouldn't be doing SF any more, but something else with a superficial
gloss of SF. Have to think about that.
Santiago Zawojski
> One can imagine a novel in which the colour of someone's eye-shadow is
> central to the story. One can imagine such a story being told be a
> writer of railway station bookshop novels[*] and by a writer of
> literary fiction. The latter would make a better job of it.
>
> [*] Not wishing to suggest that it is only science fiction that is
> worthless: we have crime, horror, romance,..., to sneer at as well.
Well, so long as it isn't just SF that you're sneering at that's ok. BTW,
how much SF does your railway station bookshop stock? Mine doesn't have
that much.
Les & Claire
--
Top Posting© Since 1997
So your excluding completely that perhaps our own big bang was and
will be the only one? Could you not envisage a "foam" of universes appearing
and expanding. Then some contracting and disappearing in their own big
crunches? Seeing as the fourth dimension is just like the other three but we
can't point there. (Read "Flatland" by Mr A Square) and that cosmologists
use 16 dimensions just to explain string theory, if you step back a bit a
multi dimensional foam of universes seems viable. Just because a single
species gave their own universe a singular noun doesn't preclude the
possibility of there being other universes inhabited by less dismissive
beings!
Les
"Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh!"
"That's 10 times I've explained binary to you. I won't tell you a 3rd time!"
"Richard Caley" <MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87znimd...@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
Les & Claire
aliens that only talked in metaphor?
Les
--
Top Posting© Since 1997
"Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh!"
"That's 10 times I've explained binary to you. I won't tell you a 3rd time!"
"Richard Caley" <MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87u18ud...@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
llcc> So your excluding completely that perhaps our own big bang was and
llcc> will be the only one? Could you not envisage a "foam" of universes appearing
llcc> and expanding.
No. I can envision a foam of space-times being created, but they would by
definition all be part of one universe.
It's a terminalogical issue, not a cosmological one.
And I _did_ smiley it.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
llcc> Hmmmm... didn't the original crew of the Enterprise come across a bunch of
llcc> aliens that only talked in metaphor?
The next generation came across a species with a language which
consisted only of references to events in traditional
narratives. `whosit and thingie at whereveritwas'. One of the few neat
ideas in the whole thing.
Wolf had a character from an uber-1984 society where only phrases from
an officially approved text could be used, and has him tell a rather
subversive story. A counter to Orwell's thesis that control of
language can be used to control thought.
In both cases the writers cheated a bit and ended up translating for
the reader.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
jf> I did have some figures from "The Bookseller" for profit per metre/hour
jf> of shelving for various genres. Quoting from memory, gardening and
jf> cookery was at the top at around 0.035p;
That's people buying Jamie Olvier books to take home and burn and
Charlie Dimmock books because they are too old to feel comfortable
buying girlie magazines.
Les & Claire
of the big bang. All time, direction and energy / matter come from what was
perhaps a quantum event at the start. It is a mistake to think that the big
bang happened in empty space because space is what has been created by the
big bang. What we call our universe is contained (and constrained) by the
expanding fireball. Direction and time have no meaning before the event.
Les
--
Top Posting© Since 1997
"Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh!"
"That's 10 times I've explained binary to you. I won't tell you a 3rd time!"
"James Follett" <ja...@marage.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ptpagQAzOjM$Ew...@marage.demon.co.uk...
> X-No-Archive: yes
> In article <87znild...@pele.r.caley.org.uk>, Richard Caley
> <MY_FIRST_NAME@MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> writes
> >In article <bgt3dc$ruuv3$1...@ID-119725.news.uni-berlin.de>, Les Les
> >Clairespamspoiler Claire (llcc) writes:
> >
> >llcc> So your excluding completely that perhaps our own big bang was and
> >llcc> will be the only one? Could you not envisage a "foam" of universes
> >appearing
> >llcc> and expanding.
> >
> >No. I can envision a foam of space-times being created, but they would by
> >definition all be part of one universe.
> >
> >It's a terminalogical issue, not a cosmological one.
>
> Quite so. The concept of several "universes" is an oxymoron. If they
> exist (even my usage of present tense "exist" is suspect because it
> imposes a time concept) or have existed, or will exist (again, wobbly
> concepts), then they are all part of one universe.
>
> My editor (for one of few UK publishing houses that really likes SF) has
> thrown a nasty concept at me: a mass-less and therefore gravity-less
> universe. If such a concept is to be tackled, then, quite frankly, I'd
> rather watch someone else do it. I'm having enough trouble with this
> one. I've given up pondering whether or not infinity can encompass an
> infinite number of infinities. It's a sure route to madness.
> --
> James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)
> http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk and http://www.marjacq.com
Steve Brooks
> Les Les Clairespamspoiler Claire (llcc) writes:
>
>
obviously.
> llcc> Science fiction depends on the original idea, event, invention,
trend or
> llcc> whatever. And then running with it.
>
> That is generally a way to get very bad science fiction. There needs
> to be something more than just `Hey, imagine we had mobile phones
> which could transmit smells'.
It depends how much it is stretched out. SF's default form is - it seems to
me - the short story. Harlan Ellison for example is a master of the
gripping 2-10 page piece.
--
SB
Steve Brooks
> Richard Caley wrote:
<snip>
>> It may look exciting and visionary when published but it
>> has a short shelf life.
>
> And, as often as it is exciting and visionary, it is silly, anorakish
> and clumsy.
How mush SF have you actually read then?
--
SB
Steve Brooks
> Hmmmm... didn't the original crew of the Enterprise come across a
> bunch of aliens that only talked in metaphor?
<Anorak mode>
No - that was TNG.
</Anorak mode>
--
SB
Steve Brooks
<snip>
> No it isn't. Is this the right room for an argument?
No. This is abuse.
--
SB
Steve Brooks
<snip>
> [*] Not wishing to suggest that it is only science fiction that is
> worthless: we have crime, horror, romance,..., to sneer at as well.
That explains a lot.
--
SB
Jo Lonergan
Pass the anorak. Ta.
It was "Darmok", widely regarded as one of the best ever episodes.
--
Jo
Steve Brooks
<snip>
> I did have some figures from "The Bookseller" for profit per
> metre/hour
> of shelving for various genres. Quoting from memory, gardening and
> cookery was at the top at around 0.035p; sci-fi came a long way down
> at around 0.018p per metre/hour.
I'd love to know what the rate for 'literature' was. Not that I think that
says anything about quality.
--
SB
Robert Carnegie
<MY_FIRST_NAME@MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> writes
(Robert C. interjects privately [ROT13.com] - lbhe pbagevohgvba vf
irel zhpu gur cbbere sbe ynpx bs fcryy-purpxvat. V gnxr vg "jhfgvba"
vf sbe "dhrfgvba". Lbh frrz gbb yhpvq gb or zreryl qehax?...)
That'd approach an allegory - a true allegory, AIUI, being a sort of
/roman a clef/ of actors standing in for philosophical concepts
such as Love and Ambition, and accordingly not being fully drawn
personalities.
I consider it still counts as science fiction even if the SF content is
only skin-deep, "only" the action of the story, as opposed to any
philosophical point that you "learn" by the end. I tend to get the
name wrong, but a story that doesn't carry a science-fiction lesson
but has science-fiction labels pasted on is called something like
"Bat Durston" or "Bat Dunstan", taken straight from an
advertisement by a publisher promising /not/ to publish that sort of
thing, and being the supposed protagonist of a cowboy adventure
novel re-sprayed as science fiction.
It will be immediately clear that I do consider science fiction
worthwhile, although currently I feel my mortality and find most
science fiction to be cold comfort - not that current affairs are such
as to make one feel well, either.
On the other hand, some philosophical questions only become
meaningful in SF. I may have the title a bit wrong but I think I'm
thinking of _The Worlds of Null-A_ by A. E. Van Vogt, whose
protagonist turns out to have an arrangement where his
brainwaves are copied by radio at the time of his death into a new
clone body - the philosophical question being, is he the same
person? And if he is, then what happens if such a copy is made
and then the previous version of the hero /doesn't/ die?
And I've forgotten the title of Frederik Pohl's book that follows in his
"Heechee" series after _Gateway_ and _Beyond the Blue Event
Horizon_, but there the underlying question is whether a real-time
electronic computer simulation of the human brain is an adequate
or even superior alternative to our corporeal existence, whether a
computerised person can and should be regarded as the same
person both in law and by their friends, and what should be the
status of a personal simulation which has a lesser connection, or
none at all, to an original human life - a major actor, by the end, is
a simulation of Albert Einstein constructed from every available
record of his life, which does /not/ include examination of his
brain, but everything he ever wrote, and what other people wrote
about him - and now he's employed as a rich man's electronic
secretary. Fortunately, he has licence and spare processing time
to keep up with science as well, like Jeeves reading Spinoza.
Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@excite.com at large
--
"Christopher Benjamin: Stirling. On Broadway he played Dogberry in
'Much Ado'. His Bottom has been seen in Regent's Park."
- Cast note in theatre programme for _The Clandestine Marriage_
Robert Carnegie
George Cox <george_...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid>
writes
>Richard Caley wrote:
>>
>> In article <urs1jvoaec7u7b42o...@4ax.com>, jafnilspam
>(j) writes:
>>
>> j> To mainstream literature (and even to trash) which colour of
>> j> eye-shadow someone uses can be as BIG a question as whether
>GM of
>> j> humans is a good or bad thing.
>>
>> Only if the questioner has a very small perspective.
>
>One can imagine a novel in which the colour of someone's eye-shadow
>is
>central to the story. One can imagine such a story being told be a
>writer of railway station bookshop novels[*] and by a writer of literary
>fiction. The latter would make a better job of it.
/That's/ very doubtful. I presume you don't consider high-selling
"chick lit" to be literary - Bridget Jones and all that - but the
example looks like something that chick lit could pull off
successfully. If the eye-shadow wearer is male, there are non-
literary gay authors who'd have a go. I think Nick Hornby would
struggle, unless his memory of the New Romantic movement
(Adam Ant etc.) bears up. Your proper literary author of the
present day, however, couldn't resist the opportunity the topic
gives to disappear up their own colophon. _The Ground Up
Beetles Beneath Her Eyes_...
Robert Carnegie
George Cox <george_...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid>
writes
>Santiago Zawojski wrote:
>>
>> George Cox <george_...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid> wrote in
>> news:3F307BBD...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid:
>>
>> > Richard Caley wrote:
>> >>
>> >> .... SF is about asking big questions by
>> >> constructing possible scenarios in our universe,
>> >
>> > Oh! if only it were! SF tends not to ask "big questions". For that you
>> > must turn to other and better authors than those who write SF novels.
>> >
>>
>> You sound as if you don't read SF, yet you say things like:
>>
>> 'SF tends not to ask "big questions".'
>>
>> How do you know, if you don't read it? Or do you read it and hate it?
>
>I have read it and I dislike it.
>
>I'm reminded a bit of the television critic's dilemma. If he claims
>that television is vomit-making garbage (which it is) he will be told to
>use the off switch. If he switches off the television he will be told
>that, since he switched it off, he cannot judge it.
I take it you aren't persuaded by Clive James. And that you don't
ever use a television set, except for movies, home videos, and
digital radio - or, alternatively, that you're being dishonest.
Robert Carnegie
George Cox <george_...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid>
writes
>Richard Caley wrote:
>>
>> In article <bgl17m$ooitv$1...@ID-119725.news.uni-berlin.de>, Les Les
>Clairespamspoiler Claire (llcc) writes:
>>
>> llcc> [...] It's those of us who dare to look, long for escape and
>> llcc> strive for the future that will inherit the high frontier. As every
>exodus
>> llcc> of explorers has proved before, [...]
>>
>> Which is all very well, but not very relevent to SF. Stories about
>> space exploration are now historical novels or contemporary
>> what-if's. (consider The Right Stuff or the Apollo 13 movie).
>>
>> Similarly all the SF about computers and networks which was so
>> pervasive in the 80s. Reading it now is like reading 1940s stories
>> about travel to the moon.
>>
>> That is the prob;lem with this kind of SF which extrapolates emerging
>> technology.
>
>Zackly! It is the writers of SF who can only extrapolate emerging
>technology who have "such a dearth of imagination" to quote Les from
>another thread.
>> It may look exciting and visionary when published but it
>> has a short shelf life.
I disagree. Writing fiction that extrapolates emerging science and
technology is a completely reasonable endeavour: if science
fiction teaches us how to conduct our lives in a different future
world (which I think it does, along with teaching us lessons about
human nature by having human and non-human characters live
out their lives in their imaginary settings), the world that's twenty
minutes away is the world that we need to hear about first. A short
shelf life /is/ part of the deal, but why should that be considered a
demerit - it isn't with caviar or souffle.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
rc> lbhe pbagevohgvba vf irel zhpu gur cbbere sbe ynpx bs
rc> fcryy-purpxvat. V gnxr vg "jhfgvba" vf sbe "dhrfgvba". Lbh frrz
rc> gbb yhpvq gb or zreryl qehax?...
Znlor V'z na nyvra yvsrsbez jvgu n enqvpnyyl qvssrerag sbez bs
yathntr.
Npghnyyl V qb guvf juvyr jbexvat, cebbsernqvat vf fbzrguvat fb
nffbpvngrq jvgu jbex gung vg erzbirf gur erynkngvba. V'ir orra cbfgvat
ybat rabhtu gung nalbar jub svaqf vg veevgngvat unf cerfhznoyl
xvyysvyrq zr.
rc> I consider it still counts as science fiction even if the SF content is
rc> only skin-deep, "only" the action of the story, as opposed to any
rc> philosophical point that you "learn" by the end.
But that makes it hard to say why The Hunt for Red October isn't SF,
and I think it clearly isn't
rc> [...]A. E. Van Vogt, [...]
IIRC Van Vogt became an icon for quality SF in France(?), somethign
which the English speaking world found bemusing. It seems some of his
books had been translated by someone _really_ good so the French ended
up with the ideas from VV, but not his painful writing style.
Perhaps someone should try translating Heinlein into English.
rc> And I've forgotten the title of Frederik Pohl's book that follows in his
rc> "Heechee" series after _Gateway_ and _Beyond the Blue Event
rc> Horizon_,
Heechee rendezvous?
west.ender
"Duh....Ah Stood in a Cowpat"
</redneck>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.505 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 30/07/2003
George Cox
Yes, it's "completely reasonable", but it isn't great literature!
> fiction teaches us how to conduct our lives in a different future
> world (which I think it does, along with teaching us lessons about
> human nature by having human and non-human characters live
> out their lives in their imaginary settings), the world that's twenty
> minutes away is the world that we need to hear about first. A short
> shelf life /is/ part of the deal, but why should that be considered a
> demerit - it isn't with caviar or souffle.
>
> Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@excite.com at large
> --
> "Christopher Benjamin: Stirling. On Broadway he played Dogberry in
> 'Much Ado'. His Bottom has been seen in Regent's Park."
> - Cast note in theatre programme for _The Clandestine Marriage_
George Cox
>
> ...
> >
> >I'm reminded a bit of the television critic's dilemma. If he claims
> >that television is vomit-making garbage (which it is) he will be told to
> >use the off switch. If he switches off the television he will be told
> >that, since he switched it off, he cannot judge it.
>
> I take it you aren't persuaded by Clive James. And that you don't
> ever use a television set, except for movies, home videos, and
> digital radio - or, alternatively, that you're being dishonest.
I don't own a television set. And you'll have to explain the Clive
James ("Falling Towards England" is that the one?) reference.
>
> Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@excite.com at large
> --
> "Christopher Benjamin: Stirling. On Broadway he played Dogberry in
> 'Much Ado'. His Bottom has been seen in Regent's Park."
> - Cast note in theatre programme for _The Clandestine Marriage_
Mike Humberston
>In article <bgr1rc$rqs7k$1...@ID-119725.news.uni-berlin.de>, Les Les Clairespamspoiler Claire (llcc) writes:
>
>llcc> Important questions..
>
>Note that I did not say anything about important questions (unless I
>made a slip in some post), though JAF is reponding rather as if I had.
>
>What I said defined SF and, to some extent, fantasy was _big_
>questions.
Despite having read through this thread I just don't get this "Big Question"
stuff. To me there are just questions. Some people think that some questions
are important, others think that others are important. The impression that I
get from this thread is that what you think are BIG questions are the ones which
interest you.
>``What does it mean to be a person?'' may or may not be important or
>significant to a reader, but it is clearly _big_.
It doesn't seem to be BIG to me. It just seems pointless because it can never
be answered.
>``What eyeshadow should I wear?'' may or may not be important to the
>character or sigificant to the reader, but is clearly a small
>question.
Why?
>Sometimes small questions are very significant to someone. What makes
>them small is their locality and specificity.
That's subjective.
--
Mike Humberston
The atmosphere within the BBC is something halfway between a
girls' school and a lunatic asylum. - George Orwell
Mike Humberston
>In article <bgt3dc$ruuv3$1...@ID-119725.news.uni-berlin.de>, Les Les Clairespamspoiler Claire (llcc) writes:
>
>llcc> So your excluding completely that perhaps our own big bang was and
>llcc> will be the only one? Could you not envisage a "foam" of universes appearing
>llcc> and expanding.
>
>No. I can envision a foam of space-times being created, but they would by
>definition all be part of one universe.
>
>It's a terminalogical issue, not a cosmological one.
No it's not. The universe is not just a terminological concept but a scientific
one. It is the totality of space and time of which we are a part. We are not a
part of any other universe that might exist.
The foam stuff is just a rather twee and rather misleading analogy for the
theoretical concept of multiple universes, a possibility which is suggested by
some of the theoretical models which have been created to account for
anisotropic nature of our universe.
Mike Humberston
>My editor (for one of few UK publishing houses that really likes SF) has
>thrown a nasty concept at me: a mass-less and therefore gravity-less
>universe. If such a concept is to be tackled, then, quite frankly, I'd
>rather watch someone else do it.
A mass-less universe is probably an impossibility but in any case, by
definition, there wouldn't be anything to write about, except perhaps how big
and how old it is.
>I'm having enough trouble with this
>one. I've given up pondering whether or not infinity can encompass an
>infinite number of infinities.
Of course it can. That's the nature of infinity
Have you heard about the hotel with an infinite number of rooms? A traveller
arrives and asks whether they are full? "Yes, sir" says the receptionist. "Can
you point me in the direction of another hotel?" says the traveller. "No need
for that, sir" says the receptionist, "I'll just ask all the residents to move
into the room given by their own room number plus one. When they've done that
you can have Room 1".
Mike Humberston
>I disagree. Writing fiction that extrapolates emerging science and
>> technology is a completely reasonable endeavour: if science
>
>..., but it isn't great literature!
There is no logic in that statement.
Mike Humberston
>The latter would have been an interesting read in the 1950s to 70s,
>but would now probably not be because we can _see_ the effects. That
>is what I meant by such things, even if good, having a shelf life.
It could still be an interesting read. The effects of widespread mobile phone
ownership are so intricately mixed in with the effects of other technologies
that they are very difficult to tease out. Your hypothetical novel might still
raise interesting questions.
Mike Humberston
>In article <bgr1rc$rqs7k$1...@ID-119725.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "Les & Claire" <les.claire...@virgin.net> writes:
>> Important questions.. are we alone in the universe.
>
>As Carl Sagan put it, either answer to that question, once discovered to be
>the correct answer, is mind-bending.
I think that Carl Sagan was going a bit over the top on that one. We will
probably never be completely certain about the answer but if we were to find out
that we are the only form of intelligent life in the universe them nearly all of
us would carry on our day-to-day living exactly as before. No minds would be
bent.
Gid Holyoake
generously decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> James Follett <ja...@marage.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >I'm having enough trouble with this
> >one. I've given up pondering whether or not infinity can encompass an
> >infinite number of infinities.
>
> Of course it can. That's the nature of infinity
It also allows for the fact that, if you have an infinitely long piece of
string and cut it in half, you now have *two* infinitely long pieces of
string..
If you then go on to cut a mile of string from one of the infinitely long
pieces of string, and then you cut a mile of string from the other, you
end up with two miles of string, two infinitely long pieces of string,
and the start of a *very* lucrative string selling business..
Gid
Philip Wren
"Gid Holyoake" <ab...@brynamman.org.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.199e2aa21...@nntp.netcomuk.co.uk...
> If you then go on to cut a mile of string from one of the infinitely long
> pieces of string, and then you cut a mile of string from the other, you
> end up with two miles of string, two infinitely long pieces of string,
> and the start of a *very* lucrative string selling business..
Not sure you'd make a profit. Presumably the end from which you cut the
finite lengths of string is in your backyard "factory" and the rest of the
string is for the most part "somewhere else". Customer comes in and says
he wants a hundred yards. You begin pulling on your end of the string. Now
the string won't come just like that 'cos your pull can't travel along its
length faster than a certain speed (something less than the speed of light).
In any finite time, your pull won't reach more than a finite distance and
beyond that the string won't be disturbed. In effect, most of the string is
behaving like an immovable object. So you get your hundred yards only by
stretching a finite portion of the string at the near end. This of course
costs you a lot of energy. Maybe your string is quite slack at the near end
so you don't have have to do any stretching for your first few miles or so.
But the near end is then essentially the same as a long finite string and it
has all the same problems as any long finite string - you have to store it,
pay rent on the storage, pay security guards to keep criminally-intentioned
string fetishists out, keep mice and arsonists at bay. And don't begin to
think about the insurace.
I know this comes across as a "glass half empty" view but then I've often
wondered how the manager of the hotel with an infinity of rooms gets the
message to all his guests that they've got to move up one. And how do they
all get down to breakfast? What happens if the lift breaks down? And the
plumbing doesn't bear thinking about.
Phil Wren
Philip Wren
"JAF" <jafni...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:kmc9jvg43grfhmm7d...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 9 Aug 2003 09:28:22 +0100, "Philip Wren"
> <phili...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >I've often
> >wondered how the manager of the hotel with an infinity of rooms gets the
> >message to all his guests that they've got to move up one.
>
>
Ah, I see you bought the hotel's glossy brochure. Did you read the small
print where it says the hotel will not be responsible for what happens when
a previous guest has consumed the whole content of the mini-bar and can't be
roused. Even the small print doesn't say how the mini-bars get restocked.
Or how the laundrey gets done. I wouldn't go there if I were you.
Phil Wren
Philip Wren
> The contents of the mini-bars are infinite, and there is always (and
> forever) a fresh stock of linen.
>
> Of course, although you can check out any time you like, you can never
> leave.
> Unless I've confused it with something else.
No, I'm sure you've got the right place. It's just that you're reading the
sexed-up version of the brochure. Calls to mind the Alistair Campbell
version of John 14:2 (not that I'm claiming he wrote any such thing).
Phil Wren
Robert Carnegie
George Cox <george_...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid>
writes
>Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>
>> ...
>> >
>> >I'm reminded a bit of the television critic's dilemma. If he claims
>> >that television is vomit-making garbage (which it is) he will be told to
>> >use the off switch. If he switches off the television he will be told
>> >that, since he switched it off, he cannot judge it.
>>
>> I take it you aren't persuaded by Clive James. And that you don't
>> ever use a television set, except for movies, home videos, and
>> digital radio - or, alternatively, that you're being dishonest.
>
>
>I don't own a television set. And you'll have to explain the Clive
>James ("Falling Towards England" is that the one?) reference.
He reviewed British television for _The Observer_ from
1972-1982, with highlights published in Picador as _Visions
Before Midnight_, _The Crystal Bucket_, and _Glued to the Box_.
He argues credibly that it was and, by extrapolation, is worthwhile.
He says: "In a given year of viewing I am regaled with as much
dramatic fiction as Aristotle faced up to in a lifetime; more great
music than the most passionate nineteenth-century music lover
would have heard if he had lived to be a hundred; more facts and
figures than I care, or dare, to think of."
And, "At one point I was asked to contemplate setting up as a
television critic in New York. The first image that flashed into my
head was of Christ cleansing the temple. The second was of
Hercules cleaning the Augean stables with his bare hands, water
rights to the river Alpheus being unavailable... British television
provides enough worthwhile programming, week in and week out,
to convince even the most demanding viewer that he is not
necessarily committing mental suicide by tuning in regularly.
Those demanding viewers who say otherwise are usually doing
more demanding than viewing. In America the sceptical critic
would have nothing left to say after running through his repertoire
of mockery, which would be all used up in about six months... He
would either have to quit or else become a cynic - and a cynic is
not the same thing as a sceptic. A sceptic finds _Dallas_ absurd.
A cynic thinks the public doesn't.
"In Britain the sceptical critic can go on being sceptical because
when he is offered mutton dressed as lamb he can always point
to real lamb. If a big bad classic drama series has been taken at
the estimation of its producers and is being ridiculously
overpraised, he can compare it with the finely judged play* that
went comparatively unnoticed last week. If the famous playwright
has forgotten how to write, the critic can draw on the example
provided by a new comedy series in which the sketches have
been composed with real observation and invention..."
In a piece in the middle volume, misdirectingly dated 1st April,
1979, and probably others, he's been to America: "As always,
American television was a salutary reminder of what we are not
missing. In the evening there are sometimes a few passable
shows, but too much of what happens at night is like what
happens during the day, and almost everything that happens
during the day is like the end of the world." He goes on to be
deeply grateful for the British remake of _Blankety Blank_.
"Compared with an American quiz show host, Terry Wogan is
Doctor Johnson."
I'm pinching his words, rather a lot of them, because I can't
express his points nearly so well myself.
*Okay, with television plays we may have more of a problem now,
give or take BBC Four. We do have mini-series.
And you can get quite a lot of most of the good things, plays
included, on the radio. Which is what we're /supposed/ to be here
to discuss.
Les & Claire
If you have an infinite amount of menus in your "Infinity Hotel" then the
dishes on the menu are smaller infinities than the all encompassing menu.
For instance, there are an infinite amount of menus with Steak Tartare on
them. The Steak Tartare infinity, whilst still being infinite, is smaller
than the menu infinity.
Les
--
Top Posting© Since 1997
"Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh!"
"That's 10 times I've explained binary to you. I won't tell you a 3rd time!"
"Philip Wren" <phili...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:x_7Za.376$fZ3.3...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
Robert Carnegie
JAF <jafni...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>of rooms gets the message to all his guests that they've got to
>>move up one.
>
To make it official, the manager probably wants to give customer 1
a note with the manager's signature, explaining the situation.
Customer 1 hands the note to customer 2, who gives it to
customer 3, ...
Customers might of course be less inconvenienced (in a sense)
if the guest in room 1 were moved to room 10, whose occupant
goes to room 100, whose occupant goes to room 1000, ... (And
because of the risk of being inconvenienced in this way, those
rooms should be cheaper.)
However, room 1,000,000 may be next to room 1,000,001 but a
damn' long way away from room 10,000,000. OTOH they may
both well be an awfully long way away from the dining room.
(Not to mention spoiling the surprise in the next part of the story;
na vasvavgr ahzore bs arj thrfgf gheaf hc, naq rira gurl pna or
nppbzzbqngrq, ol zbivat rkvfgvat thrfgf sebz ebbzf
bar / gjb / guerr / sbhe / svir / ... gb ebbzf gjb / sbhe / fvk / rvtug /
gra / ... naq qverpgvat gur arj thrfgf gb ebbzf bar / guerr / svir / frira /
avar ... V'z abg fher V'q jnag gb jevgr na rkcynangbel abgr sbe rnpu
bs gurz, bs sbe gung znggre qb nyy bs gur purpxvat-va.)
Although... It was probably in a rare SF outburst from Radio 4 that I
heard the story, which I haven't read, by J. G. Ballard (perhaps it
was a JGB outburst), where a spaceship in Earth's space fleet (on
some mission that gradually ceases to be relevant) discovers a
small space station next to a concealing nebula, which is rather
like a hotel or an airport departure lounge, then finds the station is
actually connected to another, apparently hidden by the nebula,
but equipped exactly the same...and to another and another and
another, and the Universe apparently consists /mostly/ of
components of this space station.
In that case, I think the amenities were provided at convenient
locations throughout the network, or perhaps some necessary
amenities were /not/ provided... is it clear that the crew of the
spaceship had got lost? For that matter, one suspects that,
instead, it's a portrait of developing madness. Whether it's a
/realistic/ portrait of that is usually questionable.
IIRC, _Star Trek The Next Generation_ did something similar, in
passing; the Enterrpise NCC-1701D encountered its sister ship
USS Yakamoto, but it turned out to be (1) deserted and (2) a
simulation (I forget why, but probably Q... if you've seen the show,
you'll know about Q) and (3) to have a door leading off its bridge
(which of course was pretty much identical to the standing set for
the Enterprise bridge) and onto... the other side of the bridge.
IIRC, Worf thought this was a duplication and his sense of
normality was strongly offended by it, but I think we were shown
that the west door (so to speak) merely led straight to the east
door.
All this wasn't even the point of the episode, and I forget what was.
But I find disarrangements of three-dimensional space a very
powerful and memorable image.
Then, of course, there's Doctor Who's TARDIS.
George Cox
>
> In article <3F33E4F6...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid>,
> George Cox <george_...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid>
> writes
> >Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >I'm reminded a bit of the television critic's dilemma. If he claims
> >> >that television is vomit-making garbage (which it is) he will be told to
> >> >use the off switch. If he switches off the television he will be told
> >> >that, since he switched it off, he cannot judge it.
> >>
> >> I take it you aren't persuaded by Clive James. And that you don't
> >> ever use a television set, except for movies, home videos, and
> >> digital radio - or, alternatively, that you're being dishonest.
> >
> >
> >I don't own a television set. And you'll have to explain the Clive
> >James ("Falling Towards England" is that the one?) reference.
>
> He reviewed British television for _The Observer_ from
>
> I'm pinching his words, rather a lot of them, because I can't
> express his points nearly so well myself.
Thanks for doing so.
>
> *Okay, with television plays we may have more of a problem now,
> give or take BBC Four. We do have mini-series.
>
> And you can get quite a lot of most of the good things, plays
> included, on the radio. Which is what we're /supposed/ to be here
> to discuss.
Zackly :-)
>
> Robert Carnegie at home, rja.ca...@excite.com at large
> --
> "Christopher Benjamin: Stirling. On Broadway he played Dogberry in
> 'Much Ado'. His Bottom has been seen in Regent's Park."
> - Cast note in theatre programme for _The Clandestine Marriage_
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
mh> Despite having read through this thread I just don't get this "Big Question"
mh> stuff. To me there are just questions. Some people think that some questions
mh> are important, others think that others are important. The impression that I
mh> get from this thread is that what you think are BIG questions are the ones which
mh> interest you.
No. Importance is, as you say, contextual.
>> ``What does it mean to be a person?'' may or may not be important or
>> significant to a reader, but it is clearly _big_.
mh> It doesn't seem to be BIG to me. It just seems pointless because it can never
mh> be answered.
I can only presume you are assuming it can not be answered because it
is too big. Unless you have some specific proof of it's
undecidability. If the latter, perhaps you should write a SF story to
illustrate it.
>> Sometimes small questions are very significant to someone. What makes
>> them small is their locality and specificity.
mh> That's subjective.
No, for instance `What eyeshadow shall I wear?' is clearly specific to
a single being with eyelids.
`How should an ideal society be organised' is clearly much more widely
applicable. I don't see how the difference between the two can be said
to be subjective, the specificity of the first is explicitly given in
the question.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> The latter would have been an interesting read in the 1950s to 70s,
>> but would now probably not be because we can _see_ the effects. That
>> is what I meant by such things, even if good, having a shelf life.
mh> It could still be an interesting read. The effects of widespread mobile phone
mh> ownership are so intricately mixed in with the effects of other technologies
mh> that they are very difficult to tease out. Your hypothetical novel might still
mh> raise interesting questions.
Maybe, but as I said, it would be most likely to be still interesting
if the technology was tied to interesting qustions which were ot
time-limited.
Tangentially, I mentioned Larry Niven's stuff about instant transport
in a posting last week, and over the weekend heard on the news that
there are people using Niven's concept, and even name, of
flash-crowds. Of course, they don't work as well without the instant
transport.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> It's a terminalogical issue, not a cosmological one.
mh> No it's not. The universe is not just a terminological concept but a scientific
mh> one.
But we were not discussing the concept, just the word. That some
scientists are extremely bad at chooding terminology is hardly
controvertial.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
mh> I think that Carl Sagan was going a bit over the top on that one. We will
mh> probably never be completely certain about the answer but if we were to find out
mh> that we are the only form of intelligent life in the universe them nearly all of
mh> us would carry on our day-to-day living exactly as before.
That may be true, but it is just a rather pesimistic assumption about
the ability of the average human being to understand the issue.
Not one I agree with, it would be confirmation of one of the
fundamental assumptions of most religions. The fact that such an
asumption is so common indicates that it is at some level important to
people.
Compare that with equally or more fundamental undecided
questions, such as for instance the existance or not of the higgs
boson. It is, I think, clear that the question of other intelligences
(or other life, I forget which Sagan was actually talking about) would
have far more resonance with the general public.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> I disagree. Writing fiction that extrapolates emerging science and
>>> technology is a completely reasonable endeavour: if science
>> ..., but it isn't great literature!
mh> There is no logic in that statement.
Nothing described at that level is great literature. Consider:
``Writing fiction which investigates the strains inside families''
``Writing fiction about the social problems associated with poverty''
``Writing fiction where contemporary life is paralleled with ancient myth''
``Writing fiction which investigates how memory can be triggered by cakes''
All can be described as ``a completely reasonable endeavour'', and in
all cases one could repsond ``but it isn't great literature''. Such
choice of theme is basicly irrelevant to whether something would be
considered great, except in purely momentary fashon terms.
Philip Wren
"Les & Claire" <les.claire...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:bh565m$tjal6$1...@ID-119725.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Further to the "size" of different infinities, I've seen it explained
thus:
>
> If you have an infinite amount of menus in your "Infinity Hotel" then
the
> dishes on the menu are smaller infinities than the all encompassing menu.
> For instance, there are an infinite amount of menus with Steak Tartare on
> them. The Steak Tartare infinity, whilst still being infinite, is smaller
> than the menu infinity.
>
Not only are you way off-topic (aren't we all?) and an irritating
top-poster, you (and whoever explained infinity-sizing to you) are wrong.
Clearly each Steak Tartare menu is a menu so the set of ST menus is a subset
of the set of menus. So far this does not conflict with your statement.
But ...
take any menu. If it has ST on it do nothing. If it doesn't have ST on
it, create a new menu having ST as the first item and all subsequent items
identical to the original menu. This is clearly a ST menu. So, for every
menu there is a corresponding ST menu. Put another way, there are at least
as many ST menus as there are menus. To say that the infinity of the menus
is greater than the infinity of the ST menus is clearly wrong.
Phil Wren
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
llcc> For instance, there are an infinite amount of menus with Steak Tartare on
llcc> them. The Steak Tartare infinity, whilst still being infinite, is smaller
llcc> than the menu infinity.
This is false. It is parallel to the question of whether there are
more integers than even integers. The answer is no. There are exactly
as many even integers as integers.
What you may be misrememberring is that if there are an infinite
number of _dishes_ the set of all menus you can make from the those
dishes is larger than the set of dishes.
Proof left as an excercise to the interested diner.
Ronan Flood
> Tangentially, I mentioned Larry Niven's stuff about instant transport
> in a posting last week, and over the weekend heard on the news that
> there are people using Niven's concept, and even name, of
> flash-crowds. Of course, they don't work as well without the instant
> transport.
Ah it was Niven, cheers: I thought I'd read about this sort of thing
somewhere before.
--
Ronan Flood <R.F...@noc.ulcc.ac.uk>
working for but not speaking for
Network Services, University of London Computer Centre
(which means: don't bother ULCC if I've said something you don't like)
Les & Claire
>
it was an OU programme. Take it up with them....
Les
--
Top Posting© Since 1997
"Oh Bother!" said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh!"
"That's 10 times I've explained binary to you. I won't tell you a 3rd time!"
"Philip Wren" <phili...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1QJZa.19212$R6.18...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Robert Carnegie
George Cox <george_...@SPAMbtinternet.com.invalid>
writes
>Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> you can get quite a lot of most of the good things, plays
>> included, on the radio. Which is what we're /supposed/ to be here
>> to discuss.
>
>Zackly :-)
But be fair, that doesn't mean that good things aren't done on
television.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
> you (and whoever explained infinity-sizing to you) are wrong.
llcc> it was an OU programme. Take it up with them....
The OU programme about the Hilbert Hotel is one of the better ones
I've ever seen, indeed maybe the best piece of Maths on TV I can
remember.
It did not make the mistake you did.
Robert Carnegie
<MY_FIRST_NAME@MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> writes
>In article <ql68jvs1ofskkl75t...@4ax.com>, Mike
>Humberston (mh) writes:
>
>mh> I think that Carl Sagan was going a bit over the top on that
>mh> answer but if we were to find out that we are the only form of
>mh> intelligent life in the universe them nearly all of us would
>mh> carry on our day-to-day living exactly as before.
>That may be true, but it is just a rather pesimistic assumption about
>the ability of the average human being to understand the issue.
>
>Not one I agree with, it would be confirmation of one of the
>fundamental assumptions of most religions. The fact that such an
>asumption is so common indicates that it is at some level important to
>people.
>
>Compare that with equally or more fundamental undecided
>questions, such as for instance the existance or not of the higgs
>boson. It is, I think, clear that the question of other intelligences
>(or other life, I forget which Sagan was actually talking about) would
>have far more resonance with the general public.
If the answer /is/ that there's no one out there but us here, then
yes, people who haven't thought about it much won't be obliged to
think about it more. OTOH, since traditional religions are
somewhat tethered to the geographical locations where the high
points of their history occurred, if humans start settling other star-
systems (I do consider it doubtful that this really ever will happen,
due to several severe obstacles that science fiction writers are
obliged to dispose of verbally or to ignore along the way, although
the stories are still - the better ones, at least - interesting,
informative, thought-provoking, and entertaining) I also doubt that
God-bothering religions from Earth will take root, much. If the Holy
Land is outside pilgrimage range - whereas, today, you can take a
package holiday there in hours -
If we find that there are other people out there, religious
authorities will have to decide whether they're angels, demons,
dumb beasts or living beings with souls like our own. No doubt
there will be differences of opinion on the question even within
traditions. I've read, although I don't know with what authority, that
European theologians had to adjudicate on the equivalent issue
when expeditions encountered humanoid bipeds in America and
Australia that didn't speak Latin. Conversely, the man in the street
in Africa may have found it difficult reasonably to settle the
question of whether gorillas and orang-utan are people - they're
certainly worthy of respect for their dexterity and ability to rip arms
off humans - and in the present day, chimpanzees, too, are
argued by some advocates to be at least as intelligent as a small
child and therefore deserving of at least the human rights
accorded to children.
And what shakes popular confidence in religion like authorities
disagreeing on apparently important questions?
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
rc> I also doubt that God-bothering religions from Earth will take
rc> root, much. If the Holy Land is outside pilgrimage range -
rc> whereas, today, you can take a package holiday there in hours -
Given the proportion of Americans who don't have passports, and the
amazing level of survival of christianity there I don't think
effective distance is a problem. In any case, people will just make up
new religions, so it doesn't really matter.
rc> And what shakes popular confidence in religion like authorities
rc> disagreeing on apparently important questions?
religious authoraties constantly dissagree on important
questions. That is why there are so many churches.