I think you've answered your own question here, and the issue is one of wanting (or trying) to control something that's not completely within our control: Audience Perception. And the control I speak of is and isn't something we have power over depending on how you engage the idea. See below. Depends. You can't tell me the whole story, having me buy into a thoroughly Fantasy landscape, giving me every reason to believe this is all magic predicated on happenstances as old as time and as primordial as God.... and then later tell me it's all nanobots. No. Not me. Maybe someone else will think that's a cool twist, but for me that's like reaching for my junk but I didn't give you permission. It's manipulative. I don't dig being manipulated. But.... You can still sell me lavish Fantasy accessories that wind up being Science Fiction if you give me at least some opening, some port of entry, weaved into the story. Anne McCaffrey gave me this port in her Pern novels by never asking me to hand-wave away anything more outlandish than telepathy between humans and their dragons. Marion Zimmer Bradley gave me Darkover (which I LOVE), drenched in Fantasy props, but clearly Science Fiction in that I knew from the start that what appeared to be Fantasy elements where in fact the result of exotic technologies. That's me. I can only answer for me. Someone else will (and probably already has, I tend not to read threads) give a completely different opinion, but again, that opinion is one predicated on engagement of the story, which is a very personal thing.
Sure, put the entire thing into a Holodeck program. I would consider it cheating because you're simply wrapping a fantasy story up in the technology of an advanced civilization, but if you go the simulation route, you can do pretty much anything. Over the long-term future of the universe, it's likely that the majority of intelligent beings will live out their lives inside whats called an "ancestor simulation." We could be inside of one right now.
To each their own, of course, but I will put down any book that goes in either the direction of The Matrix or a multiverse. Not that the ideas weren't original in the past, but they've both, IMHO, become rather "flavor of the month."
It’s amusing, because towards the bottom of the first page of posts, I had a minor argument with someone over this.
I know, I saw it and wanted to express my opinion without fanning the flames, so I held off, but then it came up again... Again, to each their own, just sharing my feelings on it.
It's not a to each their own thing. Either the simulation theory has credibility or it doesn't. This isn't cheesecake vs mousse.
It’s not about credibility, we’re not taking science here. We’ve talking science fiction, as in writing. Simulation might be a real thing in reality (or simulated reality), but it’s really oversaturated and poorly portrayed / used in not real reality (also known as fiction).
No, this really is a to each their own type situation. The "credibility" issue just breaks down to "can it be physically done?' Which I can answer: yes. Computers can simulate whatever you want them to and from within the simulation, it'd be impossible to tell. The "to each their own" part is more a question of whether or not that's an inevitable outcome of intelligence. That's a matter of philosophy, beyond science's scope.
I thought the likelihood of us being in a simulationwas part of the theory. So the credibility part should encompasses that aspect as well.
Sorry I thought we were talking about validity here. There's a difference between good and bad science fiction and science fiction and non science fiction, obviously.
Not really because the probability has a singularity in it. If even one simulation is possible, then an infinite number of simulations is also possible. Not only that, each one of those simulations could have simulations inside of them. This gives you a potentially infinite number of simulations and one "real" universe. So the odds of you being in the "real" universe are one over infinity, which is a singularity. Even though the odds are very very very very good that our universe is a simulation, there is no way to know, and it's actually not even consequential, and it's still possible that we're in the master universe (1/infinity is not zero.)
So if the theory is credible (the way you describe it is is) you can use it in a novel and call that novel science fiction. That's my only point. I'm talking not about whether or not we're actually in a simulation.
I don’t see why not. All I’m saying is that it’s an easy way to provide science to magic. It would be difficult to pull off though and most people would probably just consider it lazy writing. You could also wrap your entire story up in a dream and get the same effect. It’s a “I can’t think of anything realistic so fuck it,” sort of solution unless you can integrate it into the plot nicely.
In that case, how likely is faster than light travel, cryostasis, and telekinesis? Because to my knowledge, at least highly unlikely. Yet those are all staple themes of sci-fi. Which leads me to this conclusion: science-fiction is essentially fantasy. There are only two differences between them. The story taking place in the future versus the past, even if the timeline is made up. As well as phenomena being the result of technology versus magic, even if both are unrealistic. My supposition is that the aforementioned aspects of sci-fi became part of the genre before they were disproven. Now they are undivorceable, so ironically, science-fiction as a genre, is outdated, and new one needs to be made up to fulfill its original purpose .
2, 14, and 8.6 cubic light years, respectively. Not sure what that equates to in wizards, Rowling would no doubt have a fantastical unit handy. "The quidditch stadium was at least 100 quatloos high" or whatever.
For the record, I'm not a fan of current genre assignments. For sure, the quickest way to peg down a commonly accepted genre of a story is to determine it's setting. You've got a disproportionately large number of fantasy novels that take place in some medieval "inspired" setting and you've got a disproportionately large number of sci fi novels that take place in space. I think these differences are largely superficial but they certainly encompass a lot of mainstream fantasy and sci fi.
A good argument can be made that SF is a subset of Fantasy. It’s hard to come up with a definition of fantasy broad enough to cover that entire genre without also encompassing SF, especially if you don’t throw in negatives designed solely to carve out SF.
I suppose this is governed by the way envisage the future! We envisage that the future battles will be fought in space..etc. I think that fantasy is mainly set in medieval times is largely down to the fact that it is more believable/relatable that magic was prolific in the past for example. I certainly find it easier to believe that magic existed "ONCE UPON A TIME!" Perhaps this is why I struggle with fantasy stories set in the present!
I only just realised that either autocorrect, or some misguided mod has added "turn" to the thread title. I specifically did not want to use that word, because firstly, it's a reference to Polandball. Secondly, "turn" is not quite what I had in mind when I posted the thread, but I suppose it is the closed and plainest. Converge? Conjoin? Anchor? Intertwine? Fuse? Coexist? Uhh...
If you want the asthetic of sci fi without explaining anything, then it's science fantasy. If you want legitimate in-depth science, and then go "but magic is also a thing", then it's still science fantasy, just with some weird tonal dissonance.
I believe this is a misunderstanding of the genre. While fantasy was once set primarily in medieval times or some analog thereof, I don't believe that's true anymore. It still makes up a good chunk of the genre, but I don't think it is the majority these days.
How do you know that the 'master universe' can support simulations of that complexity? You are simply assuming that that is the case in your calculations. And simulation is by definition a less efficient use of matter/energy, so it's not clear that the majority of observers would exist within simulations even if they are possible.
No, a replication is. Approximate simulations can do things like normalization, which makes them way more effective. Its way more computationally effective to do a perturbation than integral calculus.
