The sins of science fiction

Think about it; if you can make them, they'll be an amazing scientific tool for sociological and anthropological research. Dozens or hundreds will be run to do that. Yet at the same time, they are close enough to real there's a moral issue with simply turning them off when you're done.

But they'll also be recursive, as each simulation will eventually develop the ability to create its own simulations to do the same things. That recursive part is the kicker, because it means if it's possible there's an effectively infinite number of them running or going to run. Without being able to prove otherwise re: the nature of our reality, if such a simulation is possible, then we're probably in one of the simulations rather than the original reality. Though there's no real way to tell.

That seems like a pretty big assumption.

and the 'simulation' wouldn't 'simulate', the hardware would simulate a simulation in a simulation, in a simulation, in a simulation.

If the simulation is possible and you're using it for research, particularly sociology/anthropology research, then you need it to be accurate.

Don't be a pendant.

I'm not. The hardware in the real world would have to be upgraded exponentially.

You need it to be accurate to a point. Why go to all the trouble simulating every glarbian flooball (this is physically impossible, as even an amateur glarbulist will tell you) when you can abstract it away by inventing quarks and electrons for your simulation? Sure, it'll put hard limits on how powerful their computers can get, but we don't need infinite granularity just to simulate human beings.

That's assuming that you need the simulation to run in real-time (which you would for holodecks, but not for other brain in a jar type things).

When you think about it like that though, it's no different than the concept of a multiverse in the vein of the many worlds theory (i.e. there was an original world which branched out into infinite parallel universes as possibilities expanded).

Say, wasn't that the theme of The Matrix? That was a computer simulation that you lived in, thinking it was reality.

The Matrix sequels would have been much more interesting if they'd gone in for some recursive simulation.

Funnily enough, Doug Walker in one of his videos mentioned how he thought that was what the big twist of Revolutions was going to be, like there was a Matrix inside the Matrix.

^ Matrixception?

Come to think of it, I seem to recall reading a short story that used that idea. It was told—as it turned out—from the perspective of people in a simulated universe, who had just themselves simulated a universe. They performed an action that revealed the nature of their simulated universe to those within, only to have the same revelation given to themselves, in the same manner.

Not to delve into philosophy, but any simulation that can perfectly replicate reality isn't quite a simulation anymore. A simulation is an imitation, or more specifically, an abstract representation in the sense of Plato's Theory of Forms. It is by definition imperfect.

So if the simulation theory is ever proven true in the future, it's not so much that humanity has managed to make life-like facsimiles of our universe and civilization, but more that humanity has somehow achieved a level of technology that allows them to create actual universes. Matter is just information, after all.

Of course, the moral implications of this become even stickier once you realize that you're not just creating imperfect dolls but actual honest-to-god life...

The moral issues can, I think, arise well before you reach the point of simulating a universe: all that's really called for is full, sapient, sentient AI, even if that AI is the only thing running on the computer, or exists in a very rudimentary, one-room "world".

If I may include a brief tangent, I'm reminded of this rather lovely simulation. (For the sake of clarity, I'll note that it's nowhere near the point being discussed, I imagine!)

Talkin' 'bout AI, I've got some more thoughts concerning The Singularity. First of all, many of those stories aren't all that Hard on the Sci-Fi Hardness sliding scale, you know. For fuck's sake, Hard SF is when you don't make up science. Sure, a super-smart computer will probably discover some new laws of physics, but how comes Star Trek's Intertial Compensator suddenly becomes Hard SF merely if you take note a computer did it?

Another issue is treating Moore's Law as, well, a law of nature. It's an observation, one that can be reasonably derived from some other facts, but it's Ohm's Law level at best (Ohm's Law works acceptably well for metallic conductors within a passable range of parameters).

Nanotechnology: it's now magic with a new coat of paint.

Again, if I want magic, I'll read Harry Potter. I'm tired of "nanties" being able to do anything.

Computers and Hollywood Hacking: just as bad.

Hollywood Hacking pisses me off too, but get enough nanites together in one place and the range of possibilities available to you might as well be magic...

As Sf Debris pointed out, at some point the tech becomes a question of why would you need to?

If a work is set in the far, far future, meh...again it's nanites as plot spackle and starts to get into science as magic territory.

One of the reasons that that the Star Trek "holodeck" stories became unpopular is that they became a formula:

• an excuse to get out the period costumes

• holodeck goes teh crazy...

• safeties are off!

• drama!

If anything can happen the danger is that nothing is interesting. "Oh boy, the hero's friend transforms into ____ and the love interest is now dressed in _____."

And yet some extremely good TNG stories used the holodeck for things like engineering testing and accident reconstruction, which are logical outgrowths of the technology. Hell, Stargate SG-1's attempt to use a holodeck-like technology as a training tool.

The problem with holodeck stories wasn't in the holodeck, it was in the formula you described.

Are we talking about nanomachines, son?

And this sin takes the cake:

A plot device, macguffin, character (i.e. Data of StarTrekTheNextGeneration ) is made, producted and is No Plans, No Prototype, No Backup by...one...person...

Yeah...

This is part of the myth around inventors like Edison. There have been cases where one person "discovered" or "invented" something...but for a real big project it takes a team.

The more complex a project, the more people it can take (and the longer it can take). Really, that's a much more interesting story than the "lone inventor" nonsense.

edited 11th May '14 10:18:46 AM by TairaMai

He should've gone pro.

I don't believe that the science has to be possible in science fiction, only more plausible than it would be in straight up fantasy. I like my science fiction to be pretty unrealistic in terms of the new tech introduced, personally. Or if it is realistic to have little in the way of explanation. If I want huge amounts of focus on scientific explanations, I'm not going to read a fictional story. When I read SF, I want to see stories that wouldn't be possible to tell with current technology and how characters deal with it. It doesn't matter if it could one day be a reality or not. The only functional difference between SF and fantasy is that the unrealistic element isn't outright treated as something supernatural in story. Labels like "hard", "soft" or "science fantasy" are useless when actually writing. If you think that nanotechnology that makes you Superman is going to make your plot more interesting, then go for it. If interspecies breeding results in an interesting character or plot point, then who cares if it's possible in real life? And I'm not even going to talk about the merits of having certain things be cool for the sake of being cool if it doesn't negatively affect your own setting. A good story shouldn't rely on how good or bad your science is. If something being unrealistic is all it takes for you to give up on a piece of fiction, then maybe the story wasn't really that good in the first place, and making it more realistic isn't really going to improve it. The pulp/adventure fiction authors know/knew that, the more "literary" New Wave Science Ficton authors know/knew that, and the people they influenced know/knew that. Not that limiting your story to only realistic science is bad, but if you're going to spend too much time on the scientific aspects on it to the poin that it's the only thing that most people talk about, then I'm not going to expect something interesting in either a "good, meaningful literature" sense or a "fun, light read" sense.

You still need to follow some rules in order to keep people's suspensions of disbelief intact, or if you're breaking them, make it known somewhere in story. The general tone should be consistent as well. That's not to say you can't mix unrealistic things with more realistic things, or that genre shifts are always off limits, but if something very unrealistic shows up out of nowhere in a more grounded story without much buildup it can be jarring and it has the risk of coming off as a Deus ex Machina.

As for the whole science fiction vs. science fantasy thing, Star Wars is more or less fantasy in space, but something like the Terminator is also fairly unrealistic, but I wouldn't call it anything but science fiction. Science fiction is just fiction that uses "science" to drive its story. It has no obligation to be accurate or realistic. Whether that is good or bad is up to the viewer to decide. As for Science Is Bad, there are probably authors that think that way, but others probably just think that it can make interesting adversaries for the characters. Most Science Is Bad stories I've seen focus on the people using the science rather than the science itself anyway, or sometimes they have a "humanity is not ready for this" message which can often be heavy-handed, but isn't anti-scientific. I dunno, sometimes it seems that a lot of the people criticizing SF (who are usually people who took an engineering class who suddenly feel obligated to point out every scientific error an author makes. History buffs can be just as obnoxious.) for being unscientific are treating science as something sacred that no one can play with in fiction, which doesn't really make sense. It's like the more militant kinds of skeptics that get offended by the X Files because Scully was usually wrong. I studied biotechnology and have a lot I could be complaining about, but I know the value of artistic license.

tl;dr: The only "sin" in science fiction is bad writing, and that can apply to anything.

edited 5th Jun '14 2:40:39 PM by supergod

The thing is, most credible, i.e. not pulp shit, science-fiction at least TRIES to be somewhat scientifically accurate. They have to acknowledge science somewhat and explain the principles that make it work, otherwise you might as well just say "magic". So, don't just say that two species can mate, because everyone knows that you can't, and if you did, the hybrid would be sterile anyways, so once they die, the species goes completely extinct.

When I read science fiction, I look for interesting ideas, a captivating plot, well-developed characters, and—more than anything—mood. Scientific inaccuracy is, at most, a venial sin.