On Monday 05 May 2008 04:57, Tue Sorensen wrote:
> 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 not it features currently known science (a
great
>> >> > example being Haldeman's "Mindbridge"). But of course I agree that
>> >> > it shouldn't *violate* currently known science unless it can find
a
>> >> > really convincing way of doing it.
>>
>> >> I disagree here, it should be "Imagined _technology_ is part and
>> >> parcel of writing fiction about science". The science, ie the
methods,
>> >> is always the same, and that's why the technology is so fascinating.
>> >> We have the methods of science here, right now, and look what they
can
>> >> bring us!
>>
>> > Yes, but "science" is also normally used to signify what we know
about
>> > our physical universe. It's both the method (empirical inquiry) *and*
>> > the applied knowledge/understanding/description of nature itself,
>> > hereunder technology. And the method is also the attitude. Put very
>> > simply.
>>
>> There's some truth to that. However, I still think my rephrasing is
more
>> precise. Collecting all the things you mention under the umbrella
>> of "science" is bad rather than good, in my book.
>
> I'm afraid that's going to be *your* problem...
>
>> >> If an alien race can build huge spaceships with incomprehensible
>> >> technology, they might as well be doing magic.
>>
>> > I think Clarke's law is confusing you. Just because advanced science
>> > seems indistinguishable from magic doesn't mean that it's the same.
>>
>> If they're indistinguishable, they're the same.
>
> This is just as patently wrong as it can possibly be. If you can't
> visually tell the difference between salt and sugar, then they're the
> same?!
Who said anything about visually? I obviously meant "distinguishable after
rigorous tests".
> You can't distinguish an oxygen molecule from a nitrogen
> molecule in the air in front of you right now, so they must be the
> same, right? Puh-lease! Stop that silliness. It's embarrassing.
>
>> You can try to come up with a counterexample.
>
> Fine. Anything to eliminate that pseudo-metaphysical bent you keep
> struggling with.
Stop that, please.
> 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.
And that's exactly what your caveman did: invoking magic at the limits of
his knowledge.
> Otherwise
> the term "reality" becomes meaningless and unusable. Proven factual
> phenomena must be defined as real, until such time as such phenomena
> may (or may not) be refuted and rendered counterfactual. This
> perspective is also useful in showing, as above, that when people
> believe that something *is* the way it *seems*, then it merely
> demonstrates the limits of their knowledge, and exposes to the more
> knowledgeable guy what they've neglected to take into account.
>
Please note that this isn't rec.arts.sf.philosophy.
>> > If
>> > something works according to physical laws - even if these are only
>> > imagined by a sci-fi writer -, it is scientific.
>>
>> And what's a "physical law" in this context?
>
> In SF, anything that is presented as such, whether real or imagined.
>
What if it obviously incorrect?
>> > Magic is something supernatural: something removed from a realm of
>> > causality.
>>
>> What is and isn't considered supernatural depends on one's level of
>> understanding, which is exactly what Clarke is talking about!
>
> Yes, subjective understanding, as I said above! You're not making up
> your mind about whether you take the level of understanding into
> account.
>
Yes I am: I don't.
>> Causality (that cause precedes effect) is irrelevant.
>
> If magic is defined as definitely not being science, then causality is
> totally relevant. And no, causality does not imply that cause
> *precedes* effect (that's speaking from a temporal bias); it is about
> the general, overall relationships between "causes" and "effects", put
> in citation marks to emphasize their fuzzy nature. The entire universe
> is one large and simultaneous cause and effect, and the term
> "causality" encompasses that.
>
> If not causality, which term would you use to describe the basic
> phenomenon that presumably allows the entire universe to work
> unflinchingly by scientifically describable natural laws?
> "Determinism"?
>
That's philosophy, so I'll use the term "boink". Show me how I can build a
spaceship out of philosophy and I'll show some interest.
>> >> We (the readers) need to understand
>> >> their technology on some level, it needs some kind of connection to
>> >> our current level of understanding. The writer must make the alien
>> >> technology plausible to the reader to some degree.
>>
>> > Yes, that's the conventional argument for describing something as
hard
>> > SF. And that's fine. But to focus almost entirely on known science is
>> > almost to write realism in the guise of science fiction. In this way
>> > hard SF becomes the least imaginative subgenre of science fiction.
>>
>> Making technology plausible isn't quite the same as focusing on known
>> science. And the imagination in hard SF often lies in the applications
of
>> technology and consequences for society, rather than the technology
>> itself.
>
> Absolutely. That was my point.
>
>> > But, ultimately, it's really just a matter of personal taste. A hard
>> > SF book can be good or bad, it can feature science or social
>> > engineering, and have a wide range of possible messages, which may or
>> > may not at all depend on its scientific content. Personally, while
>> > certainly appreciating hard SF, I tend to be more attracted to the
>> > more imaginative, grander stuff, like space opera. Galactic empires,
>> > yay!! And this kind of stuff is not going to happen for a very,
*very*
>> > long time, but it's not impossible nor inconceivable that something
>> > along those lines can happen. You just have to look *very* far into
>> > the future. And a lot of people just aren't comfortable with that,
>> > preferring instead the more familiar, more seemingly realistic stuff.
>>
>> I agree that personal taste is the important thing. But we're talking
>> about global definitions, which are not, or shouldn't be, subject to
>> personal taste.
>
> Genre definitions have always been fluid, and are becoming more so now
> because genres are increasingly being mixed. I agree that better genre
> definitions are both possible and desirable, but they are extremely
> difficult to get most people to agree on. Hence we are condemned to
> muddle through with the broad and insufficient definitions we’ve got
> now. Unless we can argue well and loudly enough to gain support for
> our view, and affect the development of overall genre discourse.
>
Actually I'm not that keen on strict categories. Any such system will
eventually encompass too much or too little to be usefull.
>> 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're trying to widen the category of Hard SF to encompass
everything
>> >> you like. If we must have these categories (and I don't think we
do),
>> >> we need criteria other than our personal tastes. If you think that
>> >> what we usually call soft aint necessarily so, and likewise hard,
then
>> >> you need to be more specific, I think.
>>
>> > Heck, every idea about this sort of thing starts as someone's
personal
>> > opinion. My point is that I think it's stupid and too conventional to
>> > say that "space opera" must necessarily be "soft" SF.
>>
>> Agreed. Examples?
>
>> And are you using your own definitions for "SF", "hard" and "soft"
here?
>
> Aren’t we all? :-) No, actually, when I put the terms in citation
> marks, it means I’m using them in the way others are using them. It
> refers to the prevailing general usage, specifically separate from how
> I myself might choose to define the terms. It’s an academic
> convention. We must, of course, always keep in mind that, ideally,
> personal definitions must be explained before anybody else can be
> expected to understand their meaning. The fact, however, is that most
> people (incl. you and me), most of the time, use their own
> definitions; their own personal understandings, and it tends to
> require long discussions to clear up what their personal definitions
> are, and how well or poorly they jibe with those of the other
> debaters. That’s the nature of discussion, and exactly what goes on in
> every newsgroup. Somebody posts something that others find ludicrous,
> and then discussion ensues to find out what the hell they mean anyway.
> If we want to achieve increased mutual understanding in an internet
> forum environment, discussion is the only option. Unfortunately, some
> people tend to respond to outrageous assertions with their own
> contrary ditto, without explaining anything that might help the
> debaters to understand one another’s standpoint. That sucks. But can
> have considerable comic relief value. Sadly, most people choose fun
> over involved inquiry, not having reached the enlightened insight
> that, just as truth is beauty, seriousness is fun.
>
So should I laugh or cry?
>> > 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.
>
So is Sherlock Holmes SF in your book?
>> > Star Trek included. Star Trek
>> > features a lot of imagined physical phenomena ("anomalies" - a new
one
>> > every week!), but they virtually always save the day by being
>> > rigorously rational, and having confidence in their scientific
>> > knowledge.
>>
>> And sometimes by gambling and being unrealistically lucky.
>
> Yes. They have to generate excitement, and so they install artificial
> excitement generators. I believe in one episode they even tried to
> sell one.
>
Yes, the Voyager crew sold theirs in a very early episode.
>> > Star Trek actually presents an amazingly scientific world
>> > view, most of the time, with imagined stuff added because *that's
what
>> > sci-fi does*. (Of course, this is not to say that Star Trek isn't
>> > often marred by really bad stories, but that's a different
>> > discussion.)
>>
>> > So that's my view: a scientific *attitude* is even more important
that
>> > featuring specifically scientific (technological, mathematical,
>> > whatever) content.
>>
>> So you're looking for rational characters more than sexy technology?
>
> Well, sexy technology is rarely described in much scientific detail.
> Some probably think it wouldn’t be so sexy then... Personally, I’m
not
> knocking sexy technology, not one bit. If it exists in a setting that
> is based on a good scientific attitude, then I embrace it
> wholeheartedly.
>
I'm sure we can find some Japanese websites that "embraces sexy
technology".
>> I can relate to that, and would suggest Sherlock Holmes.
>
> Sure. He is not unknown to me. My favorite may be Captain Picard,
> though. :-) “I will be the judge of what is reasonable!!”
>
>> > So for me the entire hard and soft categories are
>> > extremely fuzzy. I guess I would describe sci-fi with a poor
>> > scientific attitude and/or poor scientific content as "soft". This
>> > would include time-travel and other silliness, which is blatantly
>> > disregarding basic scientific tenets and hence often ought to be
>> > described as fantasy.
>>
>> Which tenets exactly?
>
> Oh... all of them?! You have to look pretty damn hard to find
> anything, even in theory, that even begins to allow any form of
> practical time-travel.
That's not what you said -- can you tell us what basic tenets are
_violated_?
> And even if wormhole theory almost (but not
> quite) allows time-travel, where is the math that describes the
> repurcussions of interfering with the timestream; where are the
> equations that resolve the paradoxes?
They're called the Einstein Field Equations. All good comes from the
Einstein Field Equations! All hail the Einstein Field Equations, our
beloved ruler!
> And don’t get me started on the
> many-world theory, which I consider to be extremely bad science.
Don't worry, it's just philosophy.
> I am
> confident that that kind of mad mess would be far too inelegant for
> nature to allow. Time-travel has always been a highly speculative
> dream, resting on extremely shaky scientific ground. To my thinking,
> time is not a medium one can travel in, other than the way we
> constantly find ourselves “progressing” steadily “through” it. I
> believe the notion of time-travel (especially travelling backward in
> time) is a man-made fantasy which, through the idea of time as a
> dimension with dependable and conceivably traversable temporal
> coordinates, is supported by the current scientific paradigm, but will
> be thoroughly inapplicable when a post-Einsteinian paradigm takes over
> (see below). My take: Things happen once and that’s it. Of course we
> should keep looking into the alleged scientific possibilities for time-
> travel, just to make sure, but I just happen to be pretty sure that,
> ultimately, there aren’t any.
>
>> And it looks to me like you're giving FTL the benefit
>> of the doubt while dismissing the same for time travel -- why?
>
> Anyone who hopes for humanity to colonize the universe must keep the
> hope of FTL travel alive. Of course I don’t see how it’s going to be
> possible, but I think future science will develop far beyond our
> current imagination. My own theoretical understanding of the laws of
> science leads me to speculate that the notion of the 4D space-time
> geometry may be wrong, thus disconnecting space and time from mutual
> interdependence. After all, general relativity is incompatible with
> the standard model, so there must be something wrong somewhere. I
> choose to believe that one of the problems lie in the way Einstein
> treated the spatial dimensions as mathematically similar to the
> temporal dimension (if the construct we call “time” even *is* a
> dimension, which I’m not so sure of. It may look good on paper, but
> does it hold up in the real world? We don’t know for sure yet). I
> think this ties everything into a knot that prevents the theory from
> developing further until that knot is untied. Of course, that’s only
> one aspect of my take on it. There may be flaws in special relativity
> as well, but I still hold Einstein’s theories to be the most brilliant
> scientific theories so far. I just think there is, or will be, such a
> thing as post-Einsteinian physics, and although I don’t see how FTL
> travel will be possible even in that realm, I certainly will not
> reject the possibility. The FTL dream is too beautiful and too useful
> to abandon.
>
We've discussed this many times before, and I won't draw innocents into
that
blood bath. I just briefly state that you're entitled to your opinions, of
course, but that the above is armchair philosophy, not science.
//Niels
|
