What is this book? I've had a tough week and I tried skimmiing over the last several pages of this thread but didn't notice the book mentioned, so I guess I missed something. I know that if I just read it all carefully I'll find it, but I'm tired. Could someone just fill me in?
It's Ted Chiang again - the story 'Exhalation' mentioned above is outlined here:
I suspect the original reference is a long way upthread ... but at least it makes a change from you-know-who.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
I do not know if it adds anything to the discussion but personally I have , it seems always, to find the idea of God being outside of time in a way that all time is visible to God as absurd. I am inclined to think it is a mistaken speculation. Of course I am not one who knows for sure about such things.Aquinas constructs an extensive thought experiment in support of the idea. I do not find it aesthetically attractive.
Fair warning, I am an atheist, so I am not speaking of a god being outside time, but regarding the general concept, have you read Ted Chiang's short story, "Story of Your Life" ? The 2016 movie Arrival was based on this work. Chiang's writing is so poignant and thoughtful, and yet, his works definitely qualify as hard science fiction. His thoughts on this are fascinating, and I thought the movie captured his position really well. To me, still in the realm of fiction, but fascinating to contemplate.
His short stories, in a book titled after the story, "exhalation" were on the 2019 NYT 10 Best books list.
I suspect that mentalgymnast is not really trying to make any sophisticated epistemological point here (i.e. a point about the nature and validity of knowledge).
A metaphor proposes that one thing can be freshly understood from a comparison with another thing, a comparison that transcends categorization. Thus, metaphorical language blurs distinctions between things to find insightful similarities.
People who strictly categorize things, insisting on hard boundaries, will resist metaphorical comparisons. From a literalist point of view, figurative speech makes no sense, it is absurd.
I think that, truth be told, there are a few literalists inhabiting these parts. Your response upthread to a couple of my posts and the agreement among one or two others seems to point that direction. Not that literalists don’t have their place...but they don’t mix in well with a world of ambiguity and nuance.
The editors of The Times Book Review choose the best fiction and nonfiction titles this year.
....Many of the nine deeply beautiful stories in this collection explore the material consequences of time travel. Reading them feels like sitting at dinner with a friend who explains scientific theory to you without an ounce of condescension. Each thoughtful, elegantly crafted story poses a philosophical question; Chiang curates all nine into a conversation that comes full circle, after having traversed remarkable terrain.
Thanks for the quick reply about the Ted Chiang story! I guess I really need to read it, because I am working on exactly this kind of question, but for actual cells. I'm pretty much exactly trying to learn how to do for real biological processes what we could do if they involved only ideal gases and hard walls. I want to know why ATP is important. Why is it the wonder-molecule? What's so great about it?
I edited that post, though, to include a bunch more stuff—including catastrophe theory! So I make this plug now in case anyone wants to go back now and look.
Enthusiasm for Chiang's writing is justified. I had not read any science fiction for many years, nor did I expect to renew my old pleasure in that kind of writing. But Chiang is simply very good indeed.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Enthusiasm for Chiang's writing is justified. I had not read any science fiction for many years, nor did I expect to renew my old pleasure in that kind of writing. But Chiang is simply very good indeed.
And, dare I say it, he rivals Asimov's hard science stories. Although there is absolutely nothing better than Asimov's hysterically funny update of 'the goose that laid the golden egg.' that short story is golden. Seriously.
Enthusiasm for Chiang's writing is justified. I had not read any science fiction for many years, nor did I expect to renew my old pleasure in that kind of writing. But Chiang is simply very good indeed.
And, dare I say it, he rivals Asimov's hard science stories.
That's it ... I can't take it anymore: just snagged the Kindle version.
And, dare I say it, he rivals Asimov's hard science stories.
That's it ... I can't take it anymore: just snagged the Kindle version.
Given the recommendations, maybe I should look at this. The trouble with some Science Fiction is that it's too nuanced for me. I might read it, as long as it doesn't have too much ambiguity and nuance.
It’s kind of cool, that in the third story I believe he gives a nod to Liu Chin (of ‘The Three-Body Problem’ fame) when he describes one AI program, and I’m staying deliberately vague, as a sophonce. The 3BP sophon “is a fictional proton-sized supercomputer from The Three-Body Problem that is sent by an alien civilization to halt scientific progress on Earth.”
Hard science fiction, philosophy, existentialism ... fun reads.
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.