4 ms·

> And it's hard sci-fi because they were AIs made of protons, not actual fairies Does mentioning your faeries are made out of atoms stop them being fantasy? >

by Freaky 7y ago

> And it's hard sci-fi because they were AIs made of protons, not actual fairies Does mentioning your faeries are made out of atoms stop them being fantasy? > That's how it goes with sci-fi, innit. You can come up with anything you like as long as it's obvious that it's just advanced technology, not magic. Sure, I mean, even Star Wars is still considered within the genre despite it all being completely made-up - but the point of hard sci-fi is you're not just making it up and rubbing science-words on your endless stream of arbitrary plot contrivances.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
My opinion on this might be controversial but I think there's very little difference between even "hard" sci-fi and all-out fantasy (but, with spaceships). There is very little space left to write a story that is interesting and compelling if one wishes to respect the bounds of what is scientifically plausible. Then again, if one starts to stretch the definition of "scientifically plausible" there's all sorts of things that are classic sci-fi tropes like Einsten-Rosen bridges and Alcubierre drives, etc. So it's just my opinion. But, I note that the best Sci-Fi stories I've read always took lots of liberties with the laws of nature. I'll even come up with a few examples if I really think about it.
- dorgo 7y ago
  >There is very little space left to write a story that is interesting and compelling if one wishes to respect the bounds of what is scientifically plausible. Are we living in the same world? Quantum mechanics, relativistic effects, mathematics ( game theory anyone? ) are blowing my mind. The world is more phantastic than anything one could imagine and we know that we don't know everything. The constraint to stay in this world is the least limiting for an interesting and compelling story.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    But those are not science fiction. If you tell a story that is within the limits of what we know to be possible with the knowledge that we have right now, you will end up with a very boring story. If you start speculating about what _might_ be possible- you'll end up with time travel through black holes, like in Interstellar, which makes for a nice story, but not a very realistic one. There is a trade-off between speculation and realism, that leaves a very, very narrow space for an interesting story. Part of it is due to the fact that most of modern science has been mined mercilessly for "hard" sci-fi subjects, that have now become tropes that can't form the basis for an interesting new story anymore. For example, try to write a story where the entire premise is that someone manages to construct an Alcubierre drive. You'd get ...Star Trek: First Contact. Nice movie, hey. But nothing new, there.
    - Freaky 7y ago
      Er, no, on all counts. > But those are not science fiction. Stories based on physics and maths are not science fiction? Are you feeling OK? > If you tell a story that is within the limits of what we know to be possible with the knowledge that we have right now, you will end up with a very boring story. Um. Most stories in general stay within reasonable limits of what we know to be possible - are most stories very boring? You basically seem to be arguing that all stories that aren't fantasy are boring, which is clearly untrue. > Interstellar, which makes for a nice story Interstellar is tediously boring rubbish :P > For example, try to write a story where the entire premise is that someone manages to construct an Alcubierre drive. You'd get ...Star Trek: First Contact. What... no? The phase-space of all possible Alcubierre-drive fiction is not "Vulcans come to visit", any more so than the phase-space of all possible stargate fiction is "Ra gets quite angry".

by Freaky 7y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

My opinion on this might be controversial but I think there's very little difference between even "hard" sci-fi and all-out fantasy (but, with spaceships). There is very little space left to write a story that is interesting and compelling if one wishes to respect the bounds of what is scientifically plausible. Then again, if one starts to stretch the definition of "scientifically plausible" there's all sorts of things that are classic sci-fi tropes like Einsten-Rosen bridges and Alcubierre drives, etc. So it's just my opinion. But, I note that the best Sci-Fi stories I've read always took lots of liberties with the laws of nature. I'll even come up with a few examples if I really think about it.

dorgo 7y ago
>There is very little space left to write a story that is interesting and compelling if one wishes to respect the bounds of what is scientifically plausible. Are we living in the same world? Quantum mechanics, relativistic effects, mathematics ( game theory anyone? ) are blowing my mind. The world is more phantastic than anything one could imagine and we know that we don't know everything. The constraint to stay in this world is the least limiting for an interesting and compelling story.
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  But those are not science fiction. If you tell a story that is within the limits of what we know to be possible with the knowledge that we have right now, you will end up with a very boring story. If you start speculating about what _might_ be possible- you'll end up with time travel through black holes, like in Interstellar, which makes for a nice story, but not a very realistic one. There is a trade-off between speculation and realism, that leaves a very, very narrow space for an interesting story. Part of it is due to the fact that most of modern science has been mined mercilessly for "hard" sci-fi subjects, that have now become tropes that can't form the basis for an interesting new story anymore. For example, try to write a story where the entire premise is that someone manages to construct an Alcubierre drive. You'd get ...Star Trek: First Contact. Nice movie, hey. But nothing new, there.
  - Freaky 7y ago
    Er, no, on all counts. > But those are not science fiction. Stories based on physics and maths are not science fiction? Are you feeling OK? > If you tell a story that is within the limits of what we know to be possible with the knowledge that we have right now, you will end up with a very boring story. Um. Most stories in general stay within reasonable limits of what we know to be possible - are most stories very boring? You basically seem to be arguing that all stories that aren't fantasy are boring, which is clearly untrue. > Interstellar, which makes for a nice story Interstellar is tediously boring rubbish :P > For example, try to write a story where the entire premise is that someone manages to construct an Alcubierre drive. You'd get ...Star Trek: First Contact. What... no? The phase-space of all possible Alcubierre-drive fiction is not "Vulcans come to visit", any more so than the phase-space of all possible stargate fiction is "Ra gets quite angry".