Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Surprising Side of Carl Sagan

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 31 posts

Re: A Surprising Side of Carl Sagan

#21

Post by divs1210 »

ramraj07 wrote: post #19

Interesting that it’s an article about Carl Sagans SciFi side and it doesn’t mention that he’s the one who suggested the aliens in 2001 be just a big monolith without form. Also arguably a better sci-fi film (and more cerebral?) than Contact. I love Contact myself but it was clearly not exceptional. I’d rate it comparably to 2010, 2001’s sequel. For me it’s banalaity arises from its following of the one sci-fi trope…

Rating Martian and Gattaca above Contact?

We clearly have very different tastes.

Re: A Surprising Side of Carl Sagan

#22

Post by uxcolumbo »

ramraj07 wrote: post #19

Interesting that it’s an article about Carl Sagans SciFi side and it doesn’t mention that he’s the one who suggested the aliens in 2001 be just a big monolith without form. Also arguably a better sci-fi film (and more cerebral?) than Contact. I love Contact myself but it was clearly not exceptional. I’d rate it comparably to 2010, 2001’s sequel. For me it’s banalaity arises from its following of the one sci-fi trope…

What’s wrong with the movie Moon?

What’s wrong with trying to transcend known Physics, there are so many things we don’t know, so speculating / imagining what is still unknown is part of sci-fi (as long as it’s not fantasy like the space mushroom network in Star Trek Discovery - which is not Star Trek anymore anyway)

And talking about logical consistency… Martian is good, but it had parts in it that were questionable, so I don’t understand why you’re not applying your same standards you used for Moon to the Martian.

Re: A Surprising Side of Carl Sagan

#23

Post by saagarjha »

eslaught wrote: post #7
GeorgeKangas wrote: post #3

That part of the book ( Contact ) really bugged me. The definition of pi is what determines the digits of pi, FULL STOP. There's no room whatsoever, for any sort of agent to 'leave a message' in those digits. I would think even a full-on theist would be embarrassed to suggest otherwise.

I haven't read the book, but... Aren't the digits of pi randomly distributed? So then, you can encode literally any message you want by picking an offset into them. Could even design a "compression" algorithm where a message is designated by its offset, though I'm guessing it won't be very efficient in practice.

It’s suspected but not proven that pi is normal.

Re: A Surprising Side of Carl Sagan

#24

Post by t6jvcereio »

bobthechef wrote: post #16
the__alchemist wrote: post #2

I loved that part at the end of the book! It's the sort of thing that makes me love sci-fi: A "What-the-hell-if?" question to ponder and toy with. And to spark the reglious part of our brains; even (especially?) in non-religious people. In his books, Sagan encourages people to feel as in awe of the natural world as some do with religion. With that in mind, it fits. And, as little mysticism can be fun in a world with…

> in awe of the natural world as some do with religion I have a real problem with the distinction between "religious people" and "non-religious people" because it presumes a distinction that I don't think exists. Everyone takes something to be the highest good. Most philosophers (for most of human history, anyway) and what you call religious people typically take God to be the highest good, the supreme summum bonum.…

> I have a real problem with the distinction between "religious people" and "non-religious people" because it presumes a distinction that I don't think exists

The distinction between people who believe that someone is watching and judging and people who don't does exist (ask them, they'll tell you which camp they fall in to).

Re: A Surprising Side of Carl Sagan

#25

Post by ramraj07 »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #22
ramraj07 wrote: post #19

Interesting that it’s an article about Carl Sagans SciFi side and it doesn’t mention that he’s the one who suggested the aliens in 2001 be just a big monolith without form. Also arguably a better sci-fi film (and more cerebral?) than Contact. I love Contact myself but it was clearly not exceptional. I’d rate it comparably to 2010, 2001’s sequel. For me it’s banalaity arises from its following of the one sci-fi trope…

What’s wrong with the movie Moon? What’s wrong with trying to transcend known Physics, there are so many things we don’t know, so speculating / imagining what is still unknown is part of sci-fi (as long as it’s not fantasy like the space mushroom network in Star Trek Discovery - which is not Star Trek anymore anyway) And talking about logical consistency… Martian is good, but it had parts in it that were questionable…

Nothing fundamentally wrong with a fantastical element, but the issue then is that the story essentially splits into 3, among the politics and human stories, the actual science parts, and the fantastical parts. Often the science parts take third place and I also think it’s a cop out story wise. I still love me some Expanse and Firefly and Star Wars.

Re: A Surprising Side of Carl Sagan

#26

Post by timbit42 »

peter303 wrote: post #5

The VLA is still there in New Mexico and impressive. As of 4/22 they have not reopened the visitors center. But you can see the miles long rows of them from the road. And if you lucky you may see all of them change pointing in unison to another part of the sky.

Are they controlled by software written in Forth?

Re: A Surprising Side of Carl Sagan

#27

Post by uxcolumbo »

ramraj07 wrote: post #25
uxcolumbo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s wrong with the movie Moon? What’s wrong with trying to transcend known Physics, there are so many things we don’t know, so speculating / imagining what is still unknown is part of sci-fi (as long as it’s not fantasy like the space mushroom network in Star Trek Discovery - which is not Star Trek anymore anyway) And talking about logical consistency… Martian is good, but it had parts in it that were questionable…

Nothing fundamentally wrong with a fantastical element, but the issue then is that the story essentially splits into 3, among the politics and human stories, the actual science parts, and the fantastical parts. Often the science parts take third place and I also think it’s a cop out story wise. I still love me some Expanse and Firefly and Star Wars.

Yes, Expanse is great.

Btw, I was talking about this sci-fi:

Moon

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/

Not sure we're talking about the same movie.

Re: A Surprising Side of Carl Sagan

#28

Post by jecel »

kevinventullo wrote: post #11
jecel wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has been a very long time since I read the book, but if I remember correctly the first message was actually found in base 11 (a picture of a circle). Back then it hadn't been decided yet if the distribution of the digits of pi are such that all finite numbers can be found in it or not. Some years ago I read about some proof that they can. That means that "Carl Sagan was right!" in whatever encoding you like can be…

Back then it hadn't been decided yet if the distribution of the digits of pi are such that all finite numbers can be found in it or not. Some years ago I read about some proof that they can. I would be curious to hear more. As far as I know that is still a conjecture.

I was not able to find the reference and I didn't read it carefully back then so might have misunderstood what was being proved.

Re: A Surprising Side of Carl Sagan

#29

Post by mistermann »

t6jvcereio wrote: post #24
bobthechef wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in awe of the natural world as some do with religion I have a real problem with the distinction between "religious people" and "non-religious people" because it presumes a distinction that I don't think exists. Everyone takes something to be the highest good. Most philosophers (for most of human history, anyway) and what you call religious people typically take God to be the highest good, the supreme summum bonum.…

> I have a real problem with the distinction between "religious people" and "non-religious people" because it presumes a distinction that I don't think exists The distinction between people who believe that someone is watching and judging and people who don't does exist (ask them, they'll tell you which camp they fall in to).

I suspect he is referring to what is underneath powering the surface level appearances and processes that we interact with? Here the distinctions are quite different imho.

Re: A Surprising Side of Carl Sagan

#30

Post by ramraj07 »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #27
ramraj07 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing fundamentally wrong with a fantastical element, but the issue then is that the story essentially splits into 3, among the politics and human stories, the actual science parts, and the fantastical parts. Often the science parts take third place and I also think it’s a cop out story wise. I still love me some Expanse and Firefly and Star Wars.

Yes, Expanse is great. Btw, I was talking about this sci-fi: Moon https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/ Not sure we're talking about the same movie.

I did mention the Same Moon as well. It’s a dumb idea that makes no sense. It’s only less dumber than battlestar galactica though lol.
Post reply on HN