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

Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

linch.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#111

Post by tgv »

lmm wrote: post #50
tgv wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a case of trees and forest. Scifi doesn't require "a universe with internally self-consistent scientific laws." Or, if you want to hold on to that interpretation, there is no scifi. Not even the ones that uphold our current knowledge of physics, since that is known to be incomplete. Scifi --to me, but to many others as well-- is a thought experiment in prose. Like any work of fiction, it needs to have…

> Scifi --to me, but to many others as well-- is a thought experiment in prose. Like any work of fiction, it needs to have some consistency, but certainly not total. We can "suspend our disbelief." Then what, for you, is the distinction between Sci-fi and Fantasy? I think if you draw that line where most people draw it and think through what Chiang is actually doing, he's on the other side of it.

Trying to get it concise isn't easy. There is a cultural, shared definition. Fantasy simply isn't everything that involves fantasy. It has some specific ingredients. It seems to me that the fantastic element in Fantasy is the setting/environment/world where the characters operate, but that setting is not the important part. The story is about the characters, who usually behave realistic (given their options). It also tends to have a historical nature, although not accurate.

In sci-fi, there's often an (hypothetical) future setting/environment/world involved, but that doesn't really define the difference. The important part in sci-fi is how the events evolve in and how the characters react to and interact with that world, and how that particular definition of that world determines the outcome. The fantasy part is the main ingredient. It's a thought-experiment.

Chiang sets up a world, and his interest is in how that world affects "us" (the characters). It's not about the "arch" of the characters, but it's about the effect the world has on them.

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#112

Post by breuleux »

LinchZhang wrote: post #30
ayaros wrote: post #21

I've been an ardent compatibilist for a long time, but I had no idea there was even a term for it. I'm grateful to now have additional context on my own belief system - context I didn't even know existed! It's weird because when I try to explain it to people they often don't seem to get it. It's like everyone gets locked into these false dichotomies... they become unable to look past them! I loved Arrival but never r…

OMG I'm so glad this review might have an impact! Please do check out Story of Your Life and then read the other stories! Without giving too many spoilers away, the short story's plot is simultaneously extremely similar to and extremely different from the movie. YMMV on which one you prefer, fans are divided. In my experience people who read the short story first prefer the story, and people who watch the movie first…

As someone who believes knowledge of one's own future is plainly impossible even under determinism (similar reasoning as the halting problem), I actually found myself kind of annoyed by Story of Your Life. It's a good story based on a nonsensical premise, but it's an essential premise, which to me undermines the whole thing. That being said, I'm a curmudgeon who dislikes essentially every single time travel story that has ever been written, for basically the same reason.

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#113

Post by breuleux »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #17
lmm wrote: post #15

> Many of his readers, even in their otherwise rave reviews, miss this. Multiple reviewers complain about how the science in his stories are “unrealistic” (e.g. strong Sapir-Whorf is “discredited”). They expected hard science fiction; Chiang was doing something different. Chiang created different universes with internally self-consistent scientific laws, using science fiction and alternative science as a vehicle for…

It's not impossible from a scientific perspective for a planet to be terraformed and seeded with intelligent life by some overly advanced spices (you can say "god-like"). Or to create a simulation with intelligent life in it and to save some resources by starting 6000 years ago from a complex seed state rather than simulating 16 billion years of physics to see the intelligent life emerge or not. That would be rather…

> It's not impossible from a scientific perspective ... to create a simulation with intelligent life in it and to save some resources by starting 6000 years ago from a complex seed state rather than simulating 16 billion years of physics to see the intelligent life emerge or not.

I'm fairly certain simulating 16 billion years of physics (or 6000) in a shorter timeframe than 16 billion years (or 6000) is, in fact, scientifically impossible. Mathematically impossible, even, because it leads to absurd consequences such as the simulator being able to simulate itself faster than itself.

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#114

Post by kridsdale1 »

ayaros wrote: post #21

I've been an ardent compatibilist for a long time, but I had no idea there was even a term for it. I'm grateful to now have additional context on my own belief system - context I didn't even know existed! It's weird because when I try to explain it to people they often don't seem to get it. It's like everyone gets locked into these false dichotomies... they become unable to look past them! I loved Arrival but never r…

You are one of today’s lucky 10,000.

You’re going to have a great time reading those 2 anthologies.

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#116

Post by gowld »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #92
graemep wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Showing that flat earth beliefs or YEC are false is hardly a devastating critique of religion per se. His own explanation of Hell is The Absence of God seems to suggest otherwise too. "He also said that the novelette examines the role of faith in religion, and suggests that if God undeniably existed, then faith would no longer be applicable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Is_the_Absence_of_God#Bac...

> "if God undeniably existed, then faith would no longer be applicable." I kind of see both sides of that. On the "agree" side, I saw a quote somewhere that said, "that's why it's called 'faith' instead of 'reading comprehension'." If it were that cut and dried, then it would just be a matter of objectively evaluating the evidence, without even any "probably". On the "disagree" side, the point of faith isn't really t…

Nicene Christian faith is "You have, I need, You gave".

"he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified"

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#117

Post by gowld »

jebarker wrote: post #85
root_axis wrote: post #14

Interesting observation. Spoilers -> He does the same thing in Tower of Babel, where the topology of the universe is structured in such a manner that the tower can physically reach "heaven", which ends up being a surprise to the reader and the characters at the same time. Masterful stuff. I want to nitpick two things. On compatibalism, the first definition presented is the correct one, the framing that "you have to m…

Something that helped me grok Compatibilism (I think…) is that there’s actually two layered ideas. The first layer is practical: there is a sense of freedom that is based on your actions and apparent choices being determined by your internal state and not just the state of the outside world. Similarly, that allows for a practical definition of responsibility. The second layer is metaphysical: because of the first lay…

Compatibilism is the belief we are only characters in a story, but at least we can enjoy the show. Put another way, we should pretend to have free will, because if we are pre-determined, we don't have a choice anyway.

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#118

Post by ayaros »

kridsdale1 wrote: post #114
ayaros wrote: post #21

I've been an ardent compatibilist for a long time, but I had no idea there was even a term for it. I'm grateful to now have additional context on my own belief system - context I didn't even know existed! It's weird because when I try to explain it to people they often don't seem to get it. It's like everyone gets locked into these false dichotomies... they become unable to look past them! I loved Arrival but never r…

You are one of today’s lucky 10,000. You’re going to have a great time reading those 2 anthologies.

I've already read much of qntm's work!

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#119

Post by nyeah »

pkd wrote: post #110
nyeah wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, Sriku. Um, is your dissertation available anywhere? I'm an electronic music amateur. Mostly a four-on-the-floor guy but interested in breaking out of that a bit. I'm reasonably mathy. Folks please be gentle with the downvotes. I tried an email but can't seem to make it work!

If you look at his LinkedIn he lists his thesis title, and googling that will bring you to it, hosted on his site.

Found it, thanks!

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#120

Post by pegasus »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #92
graemep wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Showing that flat earth beliefs or YEC are false is hardly a devastating critique of religion per se. His own explanation of Hell is The Absence of God seems to suggest otherwise too. "He also said that the novelette examines the role of faith in religion, and suggests that if God undeniably existed, then faith would no longer be applicable." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Is_the_Absence_of_God#Bac...

> "if God undeniably existed, then faith would no longer be applicable." I kind of see both sides of that. On the "agree" side, I saw a quote somewhere that said, "that's why it's called 'faith' instead of 'reading comprehension'." If it were that cut and dried, then it would just be a matter of objectively evaluating the evidence, without even any "probably". On the "disagree" side, the point of faith isn't really t…

The dichotomy you describe only works with a rudimentary notion of faith, which might be better referred to as belief or superstition. It goes along with the image of God as a being, when God is better understood as Being itself. A deeper understanding of faith implies trust, a trust which one might not be conscious of but necessarily underlies and sustains any genuine love. The "you" of God cannot be put in opposition to "me", since God is our true nature, the real "me".

To get a better understanding of these things, I recommend checking out "The Experience of God" by D.B. Hart or the works of C.S. Lewis.

Post reply on HN