Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 23:05:28 -0500
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Who said: SF is fantasy with nuts and bolts painted on?
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

At 09:19 PM 4/1/05 EST, MarkLFischer at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 4/1/2005 4:50:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>omni at omniphile.com writes:
>
>>I do see a difference between a laser in the
>>30's ("heat/death  rays") and a fairy godmother's magic wand in the 30's.
>
>This is a problem with giving Science fiction too much credit for
>prediction.  The heat/death rays of the 30s were not lasers.  They  were
>generally-linear energy weapons that sometimes behaved in ways that are
similar to modern
>lasers, but that's where the resemblance ends.

You have plans for the 30's type energy weapons to prove this?

"Generally-linear energy weapon" is a fair description of a laser in
weapons form if you ask me.  It's not the only thing that could fit that
description (masers would too, as might plasma projectors (both of which
we've also built BTW), and perhaps other things) but it does fit it.

>If the method of their generation was discussed at all, it was usually
>dissimilar to laser principles, and was often scientific hogwash.

If they could have described LASER physics in detail, lasers would have
been invented in the 30s.  That's hardly a valid fault when it comes to
prediction.  Prediction of an event and the occurrence of that event are
two distinct things.  They predicted energy weapons that work remarkably
like laser weapons do and there's no getting around that.  They may well
have predicted additional energy weapons that are yet to be built, but
that's not a fault either...they were just even farther ahead on those than
on lasers. ;-)  Failure to predict everything isn't a fault either, though
it would certainly be a really useful capability to be able to do that!

>>The magic wand violates known physical laws and so will never  happen.
>
>A magic wand violates known physical laws, and is therefore  unlikely.  Our
>understanding of nature is good, but by no means  comprehensive.  New
>understanding may bring new ability.

We are always learning new things, but for the last 100 years or so, very
little if anything of what we are learning about physics is setting aside
what we already knew.  It's been refining it and adding to it, but not
disproving what was already known.  Newtonian physics still works fine for
all but relativistic speeds.  Even if "dark energy" turns out to be a
repulsive force similar to gravity but acting in the opposite direction at
large enough distances, things here on Earth are still going to fall at the
rate we predict with today's formulas.  The concept of black holes didn't
eliminate Kepler's laws for planetary motion.  We aren't suddenly going to
find that conservation of energy has exceptions in everyday life, or that
matter/energy can be destroyed in the sort of conditions we experience here
on Earth.  Any exceptions are going to require some *very* unusual
conditions (like Big Bang densities, or very flat space or like the quantum
condensates occurring only at temperatures very near absolute zero, or
something else that doesn't exist here where we've been studying these
things for a long time without a hint of these exceptions showing up.  You
aren't going to ever see someone waving a magic wand and changing a person
into a frog.  The mass difference alone would require handling prodigious
amounts of energy, and you aren't going to do that and avoid serious
effects on the general vicinity (not to mention the frog).  Certainly more
than a twinkle of fairy dust and a bit of a light show.

For any reasonable definition of "impossible", such things qualify for that
label.

>Technology generally uses both physical and nonphysical instrumentality,

What's an example of a nonphysical instrumentality in technology?

>and magic usually only a nonphysical one.

Not from what I've read.  Most of that has magic based on physical
principles of some sort.  There's always "mana" or some sort of power in
the world that the user is tapping into and directing...even if it's
generated in the user himself.  There's generally some sort of physical law
involved, it just isn't the physical law of *our* universe.  SF generally
obeys the physical laws of our universe.  It may extend them into areas as
yet not fully explored, or find a loophole to fall through, but it doesn't
blatantly break known physical laws in general.  At least, not those known
at the time it was written.  If it does, it's pretty poor SF and is in the
same boat as Fantasy that isn't internally consistent in how the magic
works.  I'd prefer not to base definitions on poor examples.

>The Space Elevator
>envisioned by Arthur Clarke is ALMOST reality, but materials  science
hasn't provided
>us with anything strong enough to build the thing,  and might not.

Actually, there are indications that materials strong enough might exist,
but we haven't perfected the technology to make them in forms useful for
this purpose.  There's a concept called an "equivalent cable length" which
allows comparing various materials strength for the purposes of a space
elevator, or "beanstalk" (according to articles I read years ago).  You
need an equivalent cable length of about 3000 km to be able to build such a
thing.  This is a cylindrical cable made of the stuff that is 3000 km long
and could support its own weight without breaking.  For a beanstalk you
wouldn't use a cylindrical cable of course, you'd make it thicker where it
needs to be strongest, and thinner elsewhere to cut the weight, but if you
can come up with something that is cylindrical, 3000 km long and
self-supporting in tension, you have something strong enough for a
beanstalk.  Kevlar has an equivalent cable length of about half what's
needed.  Silicon whiskers grown as single crystals may have tensile
strength equivalent to 3200 km, which would do it unless other properties
don't work out.  The problem is that we are only growing these things a few
millimeters long so far.  Seems more like a technology problem than a
science one though, at least for now.  Beanstalks are still possible, even
if we can't start construction tomorrow.

If you ask me, the materials problem isn't the biggest one for such a
structure...

>Until we
>have it in hand, or know exactly how it can be  made, it's fantasy.

I strongly disagree.  We know many things are possible that we can't
describe how to make in detail or haven't already made.  A self-replicating
nano robot for instance.  That we haven't built one yet, or even drawn up
detailed plans for one doesn't make it fantasy.  It makes it unproven,
undeveloped, non-existent at the current time, but not fantasy.  Such a
thing violates no known laws, and is very similar to things which do exist,
so I'd say they are very possible.  Since they would be very useful for
some purposes, they will probably be built at some point.  Since they could
be seriously dangerous if they got loose, I hope that 'at some point' isn't
any time soon!  If it was physically impossible to build, THEN it would be
fantasy.  A rubber band capable of shooting a basketball to the moon from
Madison Square Garden is fantasy.

>>Extrapolating that to the future, I'd say that unless something  violates
>>natural laws, it's possible and if it's also desireable, it will  probably
>>happen at some point.
>
>I'll accept that the day that we know all the laws and everything about
them.

You you live in hope that you can someday fly by throwing yourself and the
ground and missing?  That perhaps there's some exception to Newton's laws,
even as adjusted by Einstein that we just haven't tripped over yet?  Seems
really unlikely to me...fantastic even.

>>I see a very distinct difference there...you really don't?
>
>Time out.  You're edging close to Ad Hominem.  I can do that,  too.  Let's
>not.

There was no attack on you there.  It was a simple question.  I'm trying to
understand why you apparently can't see what I'm seeing pretty clearly.  I
see distinct differences, and all you seem to be seeing is sameness, and
I'm trying to make sure that that's really the situation.  If it is, maybe
we can figure out why it is.  If you really are seeing the differences, but
just choosing to ignore them, that's different.

>>Things that rely on science that is currently unknown  ("subspace",
>>"hyperspace", "wormholes", etc.) but which does not actually  violate any
>>known laws are far less likely to happen, but aren't ruled  out the way
>>magic is.
>
>It's all imaginary.

So is reality according to some philosophies.  I choose to ignore them as
they aren't very productive of anything very useful.

>What physical laws forbid magic, again?

Thermodynamics would rule out a lot of it, just for an example.  Where does
the energy to make it work come from?  Since work is being done, and since
nothing can be 100% efficient, there's going to be waste energy, most
likely in the form of heat...what prevents the wizard and his local
environment from flashing into vapor?

BTW, the same problem makes some of the movie visions of nanobots
remodeling living organisms before your eyes fantasy too.  It's very likely
that you could transform a living being without killing it using properly
advanced nanobots, but you'd have to do so slowly.  The waste heat from
trying to do it too fast would cook the subject.  So, growing you a new
hand?  Plausible.  Doing it in 10 seconds flat?  Fantasy.

>>One pole is "SF" the other is "Fantasy"
>
>Why is it important to have this pigeonholed like that?  Just enjoy it  and
>don't sweat the labels.

I explained that already.  Sometimes I want to read something that's more
like one type than the other.  When that happens, being able to tell one
from the other is useful.  Blurring the labels doesn't help anything, it
just makes it harder to find what I want when I want it, same as with any
classification scheme.

>>You can understand why the Kif have the social setup they have once  you
>>understand their biology, but you can't really identify with them.  Not if
>>you are human anyway.  Humans consider children valuable, Kif do not.
>
>On the contrary, I can get inside their heads quite handily, as you have to
>do even with villains.

You can really emotionally identify with a creature that would wipe out a
dozen children with as much care as the average person would dust the
furniture?  I.e. feel the same way?  Really?  If so, that's very scary...

Or can you just see the logic of the behavior in context?  I.e.
intellectualize it?  I can do that too.  Same way I can see the genetic
benefits to a male lion killing off his predecessor's cubs when he takes
over a pride.  I understand it, I can predict it, I can see how it helps
his reproductive success rate, etc. and therefore might be behavior that's
been selected for over time, but I will never *feel* whatever it is that
makes him do that, and I could never do that myself if I married a woman
who already had kids.  It just isn't in my nature like it is in the lion's.
 Same goes for the Kif.  And some humans I've met and/or heard about too.

-- Mike B.
--
None of you exist, my Sysop types all this in.