On 4 Maj, 09:32, Niels <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sunday 04 May 2008 04:14, Tue Sorensen wrote:
>
> > On 3 Maj, 08:53, Niels <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Saturday 03 May 2008 02:12, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> >> > Imagined science is part and parcel of writing fiction about
science,=
> >> > i.e. science fiction. SF is fiction about the myriad conceivable
and
> >> > inconceivable possibilities of science. If the book's attitude is
> >> > properly scientific, then it can be defined as hard SF, whether or
no=
t
> >> > it features currently known science (a great example being
Haldeman's=
> >> > "Mindbridge"). But of course I agree that it shouldn't *violate*
> >> > currently known science unless it can find a really convincing way
of=
> >> > doing it.
>
> >> I disagree here, it should be "Imagined _technology_ is part and
parcel=
> >> of writing fiction about science". The science, ie the methods, is
alwa=
ys
> >> the same, and that's why the technology is so fascinating. We have
the
> >> methods of science here, right now, and look what they can bring us!
>
> > Yes, but "science" is also normally used to signify what we know about
> > our physical universe. It's both the method (empirical inquiry) *and*
> > the applied knowledge/understanding/description of nature itself,
> > hereunder technology. And the method is also the attitude. Put very
> > simply.
>
> There's some truth to that. However, I still think my rephrasing is more
> precise. Collecting all the things you mention under the umbrella
> of "science" is bad rather than good, in my book.
I'm afraid that's going to be *your* problem...
> >> If an alien race can build huge spaceships with incomprehensible
> >> technology, they might as well be doing magic.
>
> > I think Clarke's law is confusing you. Just because advanced science
> > seems indistinguishable from magic doesn't mean that it's the same.
>
> If they're indistinguishable, they're the same.
This is just as patently wrong as it can possibly be. If you can't
visually tell the difference between salt and sugar, then they're the
same?! You can't distinguish an oxygen molecule from a nitrogen
molecule in the air in front of you right now, so they must be the
same, right? Puh-lease! Stop that silliness. It's embarrassing.
> You can try to come up with a counterexample.
Fine. Anything to eliminate that pseudo-metaphysical bent you keep
struggling with. Please heed the wisdom of the dictum that appearances
can be deceiving. Let's confront a cave-man with a TV remote control.
Not knowing about infrared signals, he will believe the remote control
functions by magic. It's unexplainable to him. We, however, understand
that its workings are based on a scientifically sound mechanism. The
cave-man lives in a magical reality due to ignorance. We, on the other
hand, live in a reality governed by the laws of science. His perceived
reality and ours are not "the same", as you vainly attempt to argue.
If they were objectively equally true, all contradicting perceptions
would be equally true, and that's not science but relativistic
mysticism: a subjective "reality" generated by consciousness and
formed by random, irregular solipsism. That's the consequence of what
you espouse, and demonstrates the flaw in your reasoning: you're
confusing your ontologies, not keeping straight what's objective and
what's subjective. The objective fact is that we may one day educate
the cave-man to understand how ignorant he once was; how flawed his
subjective perception was. How things seem depends on the lack or
presence of scientific knowledge in the individual doing the looking.
You can bet that Clarke did not make the point that advanced
technology *is* magic. He made the point that, if you are ignorant of
how it works, it will *seem* like magic to you, subjectively.
Objectively, it will still be advanced technology, based on
scientifically sound mechanisms. *Seems* is not *is*.
One caveat to that, though: When the limits of our knowledge are
reached (provided such a situation ever occurs which it may not), and
we can't penetrate objective reality any further, *then* I believe it
is reasonable to *define* that which seems as that which is. Otherwise
the term "reality" becomes meaningless and unusable. Proven factual
phenomena must be defined as real, until such time as such phenomena
may (or may not) be refuted and rendered counterfactual. This
perspective is also useful in showing, as above, that when people
believe that something *is* the way it *seems*, then it merely
demonstrates the limits of their knowledge, and exposes to the more
knowledgeable guy what they've neglected to take into account.
> > If
> > something works according to physical laws - even if these are only
> > imagined by a sci-fi writer -, it is scientific.
>
> And what's a "physical law" in this context?
In SF, anything that is presented as such, whether real or imagined.
> > Magic is something supernatural: something removed from a realm of
> > causality.
>
> What is and isn't considered supernatural depends on one's level of
> understanding, which is exactly what Clarke is talking about!
Yes, subjective understanding, as I said above! You're not making up
your mind about whether you take the level of understanding into
account.
> Causality (that cause precedes effect) is irrelevant.
If magic is defined as definitely not being science, then causality is
totally relevant. And no, causality does not imply that cause
*precedes* effect (that's speaking from a temporal bias); it is about
the general, overall relationships between "causes" and "effects", put
in citation marks to emphasize their fuzzy nature. The entire universe
is one large and simultaneous cause and effect, and the term
"causality" encompasses that.
If not causality, which term would you use to describe the basic
phenomenon that presumably allows the entire universe to work
unflinchingly by scientifically describable natural laws?
"Determinism"?
> >> We (the readers) need to understand
> >> their technology on some level, it needs some kind of connection to
our=
> >> current level of understanding. The writer must make the alien
technolo=
gy
> >> plausible to the reader to some degree.
>
> > Yes, that's the conventional argument for describing something as hard
> > SF. And that's fine. But to focus almost entirely on known science is
> > almost to write realism in the guise of science fiction. In this way
> > hard SF becomes the least imaginative subgenre of science fiction.
>
> Making technology plausible isn't quite the same as focusing on known
> science. And the imagination in hard SF often lies in the applications
of
> technology and consequences for society, rather than the technology
itself=
..
Absolutely. That was my point.
> > But, ultimately, it's really just a matter of personal taste. A hard
> > SF book can be good or bad, it can feature science or social
> > engineering, and have a wide range of possible messages, which may or
> > may not at all depend on its scientific content. Personally, while
> > certainly appreciating hard SF, I tend to be more attracted to the
> > more imaginative, grander stuff, like space opera. Galactic empires,
> > yay!! And this kind of stuff is not going to happen for a very, *very*
> > long time, but it's not impossible nor inconceivable that something
> > along those lines can happen. You just have to look *very* far into
> > the future. And a lot of people just aren't comfortable with that,
> > preferring instead the more familiar, more seemingly realistic stuff.
>
> I agree that personal taste is the important thing. But we're talking
abou=
t
> global definitions, which are not, or shouldn't be, subject to personal
> taste.
Genre definitions have always been fluid, and are becoming more so now
because genres are increasingly being mixed. I agree that better genre
definitions are both possible and desirable, but they are extremely
difficult to get most people to agree on. Hence we are condemned to
muddle through with the broad and insufficient definitions we=92ve got
now. Unless we can argue well and loudly enough to gain support for
our view, and affect the development of overall genre discourse.
> Galactic empires are probably contingent on breaking the light barrier,
> which is something we don't know how to do. At all. We can hope that
> further research will bring us a solution, but there's absolute no
> guarantee.
True. Although I do believe there are STL solutions to galactic
colonization. But they will be... slow.
> >> Current popular science fiction (Star Wars and that sort of thing)
has
> >> weird spaceships and other crazy technology, but it's still much more
> >> plausible as the result of proper scientific development rather than
> >> magic. Most of it...
>
> > Yes - and hence it can be pretty good science fiction!
>
> Note the cleverly hidden words "weird" and "crazy" ;-)
Indeed... :-)
> >> >> > And lastly I want to emphasize that there is no law that states
> >> >> > that, in space opera or other "softer" subgenres, science takes
or=
> >> >> > should take a backseat to the story. The writer can put as much
or=
> >> >> > as little science into the story as he or she cares to. It's the
> >> >> > individual writer's choice. Provided of course the writer isn't
> >> >> > bound by rigid definitions, believing in "one right way to do
it"
> >> >> > (which is often wrong), as unfortunately I think that many do.
But=
> >> >> > that's ignorance. Or lack of imagination, which is practically
the=
> >> >> > same thing.
>
> >> >> You don't need to apply the label "hard SF" inappropriately in
order=
> >> >> to argue that soft SF can be good SF.
>
> >> > Not was I was doing. I said that there isn't *necessarily* anything
> >> > intrinsically "soft" about the types of story usually referred to
as
> >> > soft SF. Space opera *could*, if it were written that way, be hard
SF=
..
>
> >> Can you give any examples of that? And I agree that it looks like
you'r=
e
> >> trying to widen the category of Hard SF to encompass everything you
lik=
e.
> >> If we must have these categories (and I don't think we do), we need
> >> criteria other than our personal tastes. If you think that what we
> >> usually call soft aint necessarily so, and likewise hard, then you
need=
> >> to be more specific, I think.
>
> > Heck, every idea about this sort of thing starts as someone's personal
> > opinion. My point is that I think it's stupid and too conventional to
> > say that "space opera" must necessarily be "soft" SF.
>
> Agreed. Examples?
> And are you using your own definitions for "SF", "hard" and "soft" here?
Aren=92t we all? :-) No, actually, when I put the terms in citation
marks, it means I=92m using them in the way others are using them. It
refers to the prevailing general usage, specifically separate from how
I myself might choose to define the terms. It=92s an academic
convention. We must, of course, always keep in mind that, ideally,
personal definitions must be explained before anybody else can be
expected to understand their meaning. The fact, however, is that most
people (incl. you and me), most of the time, use their own
definitions; their own personal understandings, and it tends to
require long discussions to clear up what their personal definitions
are, and how well or poorly they jibe with those of the other
debaters. That=92s the nature of discussion, and exactly what goes on in
every newsgroup. Somebody posts something that others find ludicrous,
and then discussion ensues to find out what the hell they mean anyway.
If we want to achieve increased mutual understanding in an internet
forum environment, discussion is the only option. Unfortunately, some
people tend to respond to outrageous assertions with their own
contrary ditto, without explaining anything that might help the
debaters to understand one another=92s standpoint. That sucks. But can
have considerable comic relief value. Sadly, most people choose fun
over involved inquiry, not having reached the enlightened insight
that, just as truth is beauty, seriousness is fun.
> > I also believe
> > in a broader definition of "hard" SF, where it's not necessarily about
> > rigorous, scientific details, but about the general attitude and world
> > view of the story's setting. But of course, according to my idea that
> > every story with an underlying scientific attitude is hard SF, an
> > enormous amount of all SF would be hard.
>
> And an enormous amount of non-SF stories would suddenly become SF.
Quoting=
> Sherlock Holmes:
>
> "From a drop of water," said the writer, "a logician could
> infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without
> having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is
> a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are
> shown a single link of it. Like all other arts, the Science
> of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only be acquired
> by long and patient study nor is life long enough to allow
> any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it.
> Before turning to those moral and mental aspects of the
> matter which present the greatest difficulties, let the
> enquirer begin by mastering more elementary problems.
> Let him, on meeting a fellow-mortal, learn at a glance to
> distinguish the history of the man, and the trade or
> profession to which he belongs. Puerile as such an exercise
> may seem, it sharpens the faculties of observation, and
> teaches one where to look and what to look for. By a man's
> finger nails, by his coat-sleeve, by his boot, by his trouser
> knees, by the callosities of his forefinger and thumb, by his
> expression, by his shirt cuffs -- by each of these things a
> man's calling is plainly revealed. That all united should
> fail to enlighten the competent enquirer in any case is
> almost inconceivable."
>
> That's what I call invoking a scientific world view!
No argument there. In my book, literature with a scientific attitude
is by far the best literature. And most of the best literature is, one
way or the other, science fiction. The cardinal virtue of much great
art is to realize the definitive importance of science and a
scientific outlook.
> > Star Trek included. Star Trek
> > features a lot of imagined physical phenomena ("anomalies" - a new one
> > every week!), but they virtually always save the day by being
> > rigorously rational, and having confidence in their scientific
> > knowledge.
>
> And sometimes by gambling and being unrealistically lucky.
Yes. They have to generate excitement, and so they install artificial
excitement generators. I believe in one episode they even tried to
sell one.
> > Star Trek actually presents an amazingly scientific world
> > view, most of the time, with imagined stuff added because *that's what
> > sci-fi does*. (Of course, this is not to say that Star Trek isn't
> > often marred by really bad stories, but that's a different
> > discussion.)
>
> > So that's my view: a scientific *attitude* is even more important that
> > featuring specifically scientific (technological, mathematical,
> > whatever) content.
>
> So you're looking for rational characters more than sexy technology?
Well, sexy technology is rarely described in much scientific detail.
Some probably think it wouldn=92t be so sexy then... Personally, I=92m not
knocking sexy technology, not one bit. If it exists in a setting that
is based on a good scientific attitude, then I embrace it
wholeheartedly.
> I can relate to that, and would suggest Sherlock Holmes.
Sure. He is not unknown to me. My favorite may be Captain Picard,
though. :-) =93I will be the judge of what is reasonable!!=94
> > So for me the entire hard and soft categories are
> > extremely fuzzy. I guess I would describe sci-fi with a poor
> > scientific attitude and/or poor scientific content as "soft". This
> > would include time-travel and other silliness, which is blatantly
> > disregarding basic scientific tenets and hence often ought to be
> > described as fantasy.
>
> Which tenets exactly?
Oh... all of them?! You have to look pretty damn hard to find
anything, even in theory, that even begins to allow any form of
practical time-travel. And even if wormhole theory almost (but not
quite) allows time-travel, where is the math that describes the
repurcussions of interfering with the timestream; where are the
equations that resolve the paradoxes? And don=92t get me started on the
many-world theory, which I consider to be extremely bad science. I am
confident that that kind of mad mess would be far too inelegant for
nature to allow. Time-travel has always been a highly speculative
dream, resting on extremely shaky scientific ground. To my thinking,
time is not a medium one can travel in, other than the way we
constantly find ourselves =93progressing=94 steadily =93through=94 it. I
believe the notion of time-travel (especially travelling backward in
time) is a man-made fantasy which, through the idea of time as a
dimension with dependable and conceivably traversable temporal
coordinates, is supported by the current scientific paradigm, but will
be thoroughly inapplicable when a post-Einsteinian paradigm takes over
(see below). My take: Things happen once and that=92s it. Of course we
should keep looking into the alleged scientific possibilities for time-
travel, just to make sure, but I just happen to be pretty sure that,
ultimately, there aren=92t any.
> And it looks to me like you're giving FTL the benefit
> of the doubt while dismissing the same for time travel -- why?
Anyone who hopes for humanity to colonize the universe must keep the
hope of FTL travel alive. Of course I don=92t see how it=92s going to be
possible, but I think future science will develop far beyond our
current imagination. My own theoretical understanding of the laws of
science leads me to speculate that the notion of the 4D space-time
geometry may be wrong, thus disconnecting space and time from mutual
interdependence. After all, general relativity is incompatible with
the standard model, so there must be something wrong somewhere. I
choose to believe that one of the problems lie in the way Einstein
treated the spatial dimensions as mathematically similar to the
temporal dimension (if the construct we call =93time=94 even *is* a
dimension, which I=92m not so sure of. It may look good on paper, but
does it hold up in the real world? We don=92t know for sure yet). I
think this ties everything into a knot that prevents the theory from
developing further until that knot is untied. Of course, that=92s only
one aspect of my take on it. There may be flaws in special relativity
as well, but I still hold Einstein=92s theories to be the most brilliant
scientific theories so far. I just think there is, or will be, such a
thing as post-Einsteinian physics, and although I don=92t see how FTL
travel will be possible even in that realm, I certainly will not
reject the possibility. The FTL dream is too beautiful and too useful
to abandon.
- Tue
|
