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

91–100 of 152 posts

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#91

Post by veidr »

graemep wrote: post #72
dragonwriter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Religion can explain anything but predicts very little (except for sociological phenomena which it predicts rather well). No, it doesn't. I mean, it does the horoscope thing where it makes predictions vague enough that people can retrospectively fit whatever actually happens into them easily, but that's not actually predicting very well.

Horoscopes are not a religious belief. The majority of atheists globally believe in astrology (because of the large number of atheists in China, IIRC).

CITATION NEEDED — except not really, that's utter bollocks that doesn't warrant a counter.

But, you triggered me lol:

1.) The Chinese meaning of "atheist" may not mean what you think it means: a.) it means not following a major established religion, and b.) they have an Orwellian surveillance-state dictatorship government which very much opposes major established religions

2.) For many people, including in China, astrology is just something like buying a lottery ticket, or asking the Magic 8-Ball for advice — fun, but not something actually believed in[1].

3.) It's much more likely that 3% of atheists "believe in" astrology[2] — and the idea that a majority would is insane on its face

So yeah, nah.

[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2025/05/21/3-in-10-amer...

[2]: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/04/11/42552/

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#92

Post by AnimalMuppet »

graemep wrote: post #71
simpaticoder wrote: post #2

Ted Chiang does love to explore the counter-factual with empathy and openness where he somehow manages to take himself out of the story in the admirable Virginia Wolfe sense. The OP misses the biting critique hidden in these tales. For example Omphalos, Hell Is the Absence of God, and Tower of Babylon, can all be read as a devastating critique of religion. They all clearly articulate what the world would be like if c…

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 the existence of God. Yes, that's the starting point. But much further than that, the point is that we need God's forgiveness - a forgiveness that is completely unreasonable. Faith is "you have, I need, please give" (contrast with love, which is "I have, you need, I give"). The difference between those two postures is why it is faith, rather than love, that is the fundamental bottom line in dealing with God. Knowledge - even certainty - that God exists doesn't remove the need for a faith that goes beyond mere knowledge.

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#93

Post by nyeah »

sriku wrote: post #46

"story of your life" isn't quite about sapir-whorf but more about the lagrangian view of the world (as opposed to the Hamiltonian). That is difficult to convey in a movie and so the sapir-whorf part got emphasized there. Also Exhalation is a beautiful story that captures the fact that all life and intelligence lives in the space between low entropy and high entropy. So it's not different thermodynamics. But overall I…

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!

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#94

Post by kmonsen »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #63
kmonsen wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree science doesn’t give good answers for good and evil, for me religion gives even worse answers. For example the Bible is clearly in favor of slavery as an institution. Other religions like Buddhism are for me better. The scary part is that there may not be a good or evil, and the answers we have are just made up stuff.

Slavery made a lot of economic sense prior to the industrial revolution. If you consider "good and evil" as a set of norms that help society to thrive (as in outcompete other societies for resources) then it's not surprising that slavery went from good to bad as the technology progressed. That's the only remotely rational view of it that I'm aware of. "Remotely" because without some kind of religion it doesn't follow…

I do think it’s possible that God and evil are a set of norms that help society (or actually their leaders) thrive, but are presented as universal values.

I think there is a huge distinction to what it’s good for the average person in society vs what is good for the rulers, and it is unclear which one of those you mean.

Most religions are here to support the rulers.

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#95

Post by dragonwriter »

graemep wrote: post #72
dragonwriter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Religion can explain anything but predicts very little (except for sociological phenomena which it predicts rather well). No, it doesn't. I mean, it does the horoscope thing where it makes predictions vague enough that people can retrospectively fit whatever actually happens into them easily, but that's not actually predicting very well.

Horoscopes are not a religious belief. The majority of atheists globally believe in astrology (because of the large number of atheists in China, IIRC).

> Horoscopes are not a religious belief.

Saying that religious predictions use the same style of vagueness that allows people to retrospectively reconstruct them to match facts as horoscopes is not a claim that horoscopes are a religious belief.

> The majority of atheists globally believe in astrology

Even assuming this is true, what relevance does it have to the discussion?

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#96

Post by JumpCrisscross »

tgv wrote: post #49
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…

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 doesn't require "a universe with internally self-consistent scientific laws."

Hell, our own understanding of the universe is barely self consistent.

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#97

Post by [deleted] »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #25
dragonwriter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Religion can explain anything but predicts very little (except for sociological phenomena which it predicts rather well). No, it doesn't. I mean, it does the horoscope thing where it makes predictions vague enough that people can retrospectively fit whatever actually happens into them easily, but that's not actually predicting very well.

Religions are to a big extent codified traditions and many traditions emerged and persisted because they benefited their bearers in one way or another. That's fundamentally different from horoscopes.

[deleted]

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#98

Post by graemep »

dragonwriter wrote: post #95
graemep wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horoscopes are not a religious belief. The majority of atheists globally believe in astrology (because of the large number of atheists in China, IIRC).

> Horoscopes are not a religious belief. Saying that religious predictions use the same style of vagueness that allows people to retrospectively reconstruct them to match facts as horoscopes is not a claim that horoscopes are a religious belief. > The majority of atheists globally believe in astrology Even assuming this is true, what relevance does it have to the discussion?

> Saying that religious predictions

What religious predictions? Religions do not generally make many predictions.

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#99

Post by graemep »

veidr wrote: post #91
graemep wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horoscopes are not a religious belief. The majority of atheists globally believe in astrology (because of the large number of atheists in China, IIRC).

CITATION NEEDED — except not really, that's utter bollocks that doesn't warrant a counter. But, you triggered me lol: 1.) The Chinese meaning of "atheist" may not mean what you think it means: a.) it means not following a major established religion, and b.) they have an Orwellian surveillance-state dictatorship government which very much opposes major established religions 2.) For many people, including in China, ast…

You quote American numbers as a counter to a claim about global beliefs? You even cite the powresearch link to to make a claim about China!

Even in the US the group most likely to believe in astrology as the "nothing in particular" - non religious but not strongly identifying as atheist or agnostic.

Most Chinese people say they are "convinced atheists"[1] so I find your first claim unconvincing. Yes, they live in a dictatorship, but the dictatorship's promotion of atheism is what makes them atheist - they are brainwashed (in a casual, not formal, sense) into it.

Even when asked more specific questions about belief they are atheists. Its not just fear of government because they will admit to superstitious practices the state also disapproves of in the same surveys[2].

Claiming Chinese atheists are not really atheists is a no true Scotsman argument. They say they are atheists, their beliefs about religious things are atheist.

> and the idea that a majority would is insane on its face

It might to fit what you think atheists should believe, but the evidence points to it being true.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150430232945/http://www.wingia...

[2]https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/09/05/chinese-c...

Re: Ted Chiang: The Secret Third Thing

#100

Post by graemep »

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…

I agree, but I think that if God undeniably existed it would make faith (in the second sense) more difficult - or at least change how people felt it.
Post reply on HN