Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

A story by Isaac Asimov (WARNING: Depressing as hell)

Page 2 of 6 [ 87 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 Jan 2009, 10:32 pm

Quote:
Umm... the universe is considered to have finite mass and finite energy


Considered by whom? Who has seen this space-time boundary of which you speak? And if there is a space-time boundary, would it be like seeing a robin's egg from the inside? And who's to say there is nothing beyond the inside of this egg?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Jan 2009, 10:34 pm

slowmutant wrote:
I quite disagree. I found it to be very thought-provoking, from both a scientific and theological perspective.

Well, obviously you can disagree, but the science seems clear on this matter, and theology seems almost inapplicable. I mean, the part that actually references any theological idea is just trashy, and the parts before that don't mesh well with a theological system *that* well.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Jan 2009, 10:37 pm

Orwell wrote:
Entropy is obvious, yes, but that doesn't make it any less depressing when you think about its long-term implications. The end was not as good as it could have been. Too much of a literal deus ex machina for my taste. But the rest of the story?

Oh yes, and welcome back claire333.

Well.... the world is going to end no matter what you assume, and frankly, why is that a bad thing anyway? I mean, the end of the world should be blatantly obvious. The rest of the story just goes around that, and the computer aspects of the story are also very lame. Like, the computer should have really said "no, humanity is screwed" I think.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 Jan 2009, 10:38 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
I quite disagree. I found it to be very thought-provoking, from both a scientific and theological perspective.

Well, obviously you can disagree, but the science seems clear on this matter, and theology seems almost inapplicable. I mean, the part that actually references any theological idea is just trashy, and the parts before that don't mesh well with a theological system *that* well.


I disagree. What do you mean by "trashy?"



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Jan 2009, 10:42 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Considered by whom? Who has seen this space-time boundary of which you speak? And if there is a space-time boundary, would it be like seeing a robin's egg from the inside? And who's to say there is nothing beyond the inside of this egg?

I believe physicists consider it to be finite. I mean, I don't know how they would talk about the universe in the same way if they believed that it was infinite, as they believe that there was a single explosion that sent matter a finite distance away, and that no point in space and time can carry an infinite amount of matter. Thus, finity.

I am not going to get into speculative metaphysics too much, because I would find it too speculative. I am just going to say that from what we know, the assumption of an infinite universe seems false.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 Jan 2009, 10:45 pm

All things are impermanent-- why is this depressing for a bunch of Aspies who prefer the cold hard truth? What happened to your penchant for bluntness? Your dislike of sentimentalism?

Everything that has a beginning has an end, but this is no reason to descend into a nihilistic funk.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Jan 2009, 10:45 pm

slowmutant wrote:
I disagree. What do you mean by "trashy?"

Well, Orwell got at it somewhat, "Too much of a literal deus ex machina for my taste." as it is basically just *thrown* onto the end of the story, and just because the statement has a random theological implication. It's just... well... trashy.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

21 Jan 2009, 10:46 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
Considered by whom? Who has seen this space-time boundary of which you speak? And if there is a space-time boundary, would it be like seeing a robin's egg from the inside? And who's to say there is nothing beyond the inside of this egg?

I believe physicists consider it to be finite. I mean, I don't know how they would talk about the universe in the same way if they believed that it was infinite, as they believe that there was a single explosion that sent matter a finite distance away, and that no point in space and time can carry an infinite amount of matter. Thus, finity.

I am not going to get into speculative metaphysics too much, because I would find it too speculative. I am just going to say that from what we know, the assumption of an infinite universe seems false.

We had a discussion about the finitude of the universe in the science forum quite some time ago. As I recall, I have heard it floated as an open question whether the universe is infinite or not. In my support of how this may be possible, I found the following webpage:
following webpage


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Jan 2009, 10:47 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Everything that has a beginning has an end, but this is no reason to descend into a nihilistic funk.

What is a good reason to descend into a nihilistic funk then?



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 Jan 2009, 10:52 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
I disagree. What do you mean by "trashy?"

Well, Orwell got at it somewhat, "Too much of a literal deus ex machina for my taste." as it is basically just *thrown* onto the end of the story, and just because the statement has a random theological implication. It's just... well... trashy.


I liked the ending. I could kind of see it coming. I thought it was a good twist. Did you pick up on its suggestion of cyclical time? That sense of things happening that have happened before and will happen again? God is computer and computer is God. "Cosmic AC" is both creator and created.
Ageless technology enduring through the cycles of creation and destruction.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 Jan 2009, 10:54 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
Everything that has a beginning has an end, but this is no reason to descend into a nihilistic funk.

What is a good reason to descend into a nihilistic funk then?


Is there one? A valid one, I mean.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

21 Jan 2009, 10:55 pm

slowmutant wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
I disagree. What do you mean by "trashy?"

Well, Orwell got at it somewhat, "Too much of a literal deus ex machina for my taste." as it is basically just *thrown* onto the end of the story, and just because the statement has a random theological implication. It's just... well... trashy.


I liked the ending. I could kind of see it coming. I thought it was a good twist. Did you pick up on its suggestion of cyclical time? That sense of things happening that have happened before and will happen again? God is computer and computer is God. "Cosmic AC" is both creator and created.
Ageless technology enduring through the cycles of creation and destruction.

No, the ending was pretty much just completely tasteless. It would have been more appropriate for the computer to die as well, or to use the last remaining energy in the universe to attempt to find the answer and fail in doing so. The twist at the end kind of kills the story.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

21 Jan 2009, 10:59 pm

twoshots wrote:
We had a discussion about the finitude of the universe in the science forum quite some time ago. As I recall, I have heard it floated as an open question whether the universe is infinite or not. In my support of how this may be possible, I found the following webpage:
following webpage

hmm, I think the issue is more like, space may be infinite but all the content, such as matter and energy that we label as Universe may be finite.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

21 Jan 2009, 11:04 pm

...



Last edited by claire-333 on 24 Jan 2009, 2:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

21 Jan 2009, 11:06 pm

Orwell wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
I disagree. What do you mean by "trashy?"

Well, Orwell got at it somewhat, "Too much of a literal deus ex machina for my taste." as it is basically just *thrown* onto the end of the story, and just because the statement has a random theological implication. It's just... well... trashy.


I liked the ending. I could kind of see it coming. I thought it was a good twist. Did you pick up on its suggestion of cyclical time? That sense of things happening that have happened before and will happen again? God is computer and computer is God. "Cosmic AC" is both creator and created.
Ageless technology enduring through the cycles of creation and destruction.

No, the ending was pretty much just completely tasteless. It would have been more appropriate for the computer to die as well, or to use the last remaining energy in the universe to attempt to find the answer and fail in doing so. The twist at the end kind of kills the story.


Fair enough.

Maybe the Cosmic AC should have suffered a catastrophic systems crash as the result of trying to answer a question with no possible answer. The Cosmic AC destroys itself in an attempt to create a boulder bigger than it can lift. :wink:



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

21 Jan 2009, 11:07 pm

twoshots wrote:
We had a discussion about the finitude of the universe in the science forum quite some time ago. As I recall, I have heard it floated as an open question whether the universe is infinite or not. In my support of how this may be possible, I found the following webpage:
following webpage

Interesting. In any case, it seems an odd speculation, as for there to be an infinite universe, then we would have to suppose matter that we have never had contact with and never could have contact with, which is a hard to justify assumption. Even the gravity issue leads to some problems, as let's just say that we have this situation:

A----------------------------B

Where both A and B are infinite masses. If you are a micrometer closer to A than to B, then you would be pulled towards the center of A with an infinite level of force according to classical gravitational theory. Thus... this seems problematic if we have a distribution of mass, I mean, I don't know how to model this, but it still seems problematic. I guess, I cannot think about a problem with infinite masses well enough to feel comfortable with my math, because there is an issue of not being able to even conceive of point-masses, but yeah.... I would really not trust such a notion.