Howling:So Rory is dead then: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (Robot: Automated text replacement (-[Ff]orum archives header +archive)) |
||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ | {{archive|The Howling archives}}<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes: ~~~~ --> | ||
= Back to the Question = | |||
Is Rory dead or not? | |||
With only a couple of hours left to go, I think Rory is, for the time being, dead. Afterwards there would be two possibilities (to me at least) | |||
1. He will, through some miraculous Doctor-saves-the-day fashion, will become human again and perhaps be faced with the decision whether or not to continue travelling with the Doctor. In which case he will continue on if Amy refuses to settle down (which is more likely the case because she continues as a companion), or they may probably break off their engagement. | |||
OR | |||
2. He will die, sacrificing himself maybe. If he were to choose/prefer not to travel with the Doctor, then Amy would probably have to stay behind as well, as they intend on getting married. But they can't get married and be left on Earth because she continues on as a companion in the next series. And when he sees that they both want different things, then he sees it no other way but to just hurl himself into some danger just so that Amy can live. | |||
melodramatic, I know. [[User:DoctorHer|DoctorHer]] 15:52, June 26, 2010 (UTC) | |||
Now that Rory is a combination of Rory and Auton Rory, should we consider TBB Rory and Auton Rory the original Rory or say we now have 3 different Rory's or the new TBB Rory and the Auton Rory be considered one...That's the problem with humans that don't stay dead....[[Special:Contributions/203.168.176.42|203.168.176.42]] 22:07, June 28, 2010 (UTC) | |||
= The Thread that Died in a Stupid, Stupid Flame War = | |||
Abandon all point in speaking, ye who edit here. | |||
= The Real Discussion = | |||
So I take it then now that the Rory we see is a Auton then Rory is dead. I mean when this crack thing is fixed then he will still be dead, so the big bang will probably be other than the odd flashback or other possible doppelganger Rory's last appearance. I mean the only way he can come back is if series five is kinda erased but I dont think Moff will undo the last series. Winehousefan, 20:50, June 18, 2010, [UTC | So I take it then now that the Rory we see is a Auton then Rory is dead. I mean when this crack thing is fixed then he will still be dead, so the big bang will probably be other than the odd flashback or other possible doppelganger Rory's last appearance. I mean the only way he can come back is if series five is kinda erased but I dont think Moff will undo the last series. Winehousefan, 20:50, June 18, 2010, [UTC | ||
| Line 61: | Line 85: | ||
Well time travel is a miracle to start with. It can't be explained (see all the previous attempts here) by rational means and therefore is a miracle. You accept it in every episode I assume. You're using miracles to explain why a miracle is not needed. Rory exists becase they remember him? Didn't the Doctor explain why Amy forgot Rory but not the clerics? If the places that time travelers have been to still exist then why would The aliance be worried? Their places still exists; Skaro is still there so the Daleks should be loving the destruction of all of the non-time travel species. This isn't the removal of all existance that the cracks were supposed to threaten. I'm assuming that when Moffat says that everything is destroyed that's _exacly_ what he means. It's all 'currently' gone. What we will see now are places of imagination and of memory. Meta-fictional worlds. Places where ideas can take on their own life just as was described in The Time of Angels. Discussing miracles of this form is exactly as valid as discussing ones involving time travel. AA Adding psudo-science explanations can be fun (see all of my earlier explanations of paradox and why the Byzantium is still cracshed) but so can discussions about the nature of _story_ and fiction and imagination. Moffat loves the minds and beliefs of children. I hope that the anweer will lie there. Jack Chilli | Well time travel is a miracle to start with. It can't be explained (see all the previous attempts here) by rational means and therefore is a miracle. You accept it in every episode I assume. You're using miracles to explain why a miracle is not needed. Rory exists becase they remember him? Didn't the Doctor explain why Amy forgot Rory but not the clerics? If the places that time travelers have been to still exist then why would The aliance be worried? Their places still exists; Skaro is still there so the Daleks should be loving the destruction of all of the non-time travel species. This isn't the removal of all existance that the cracks were supposed to threaten. I'm assuming that when Moffat says that everything is destroyed that's _exacly_ what he means. It's all 'currently' gone. What we will see now are places of imagination and of memory. Meta-fictional worlds. Places where ideas can take on their own life just as was described in The Time of Angels. Discussing miracles of this form is exactly as valid as discussing ones involving time travel. AA Adding psudo-science explanations can be fun (see all of my earlier explanations of paradox and why the Byzantium is still cracshed) but so can discussions about the nature of _story_ and fiction and imagination. Moffat loves the minds and beliefs of children. I hope that the anweer will lie there. Jack Chilli | ||
= The Part Where It All Becomes Retarded = | |||
Time travel is a miracle?!? You just rejected the existence of the entire Sci-fi genre. Theory and miracle are two different things...theory is rational. The thing is, I don't quite understand what it is that you are trying to reject...if it's what I said earlier...then I don't recognize it from what you wrote. The places do not exist, they are wiped from existence...and that has nothing to do with what I said...I think you may be a bit confused. In explaining why Auton Rory has the memory of Rory's death, I am simply putting forward the chronology of when things happen, and you seem to not be able to grasp any of it at all. Let me phrase it this way, in the perspective of the Alliance: | Time travel is a miracle?!? You just rejected the existence of the entire Sci-fi genre. Theory and miracle are two different things...theory is rational. The thing is, I don't quite understand what it is that you are trying to reject...if it's what I said earlier...then I don't recognize it from what you wrote. The places do not exist, they are wiped from existence...and that has nothing to do with what I said...I think you may be a bit confused. In explaining why Auton Rory has the memory of Rory's death, I am simply putting forward the chronology of when things happen, and you seem to not be able to grasp any of it at all. Let me phrase it this way, in the perspective of the Alliance: | ||
| Line 196: | Line 222: | ||
By the way. Do you really not see the ‘problem’ with Amy’s note? I find it hard to believe that anybody with knowledge of time travel or time travel fiction would not recognise it immediately. I would expect it to be thoroughly covered in “Time Travel and Other Mathematical Bewilderments.” I would look for it in your copy. Jack Chilli. | By the way. Do you really not see the ‘problem’ with Amy’s note? I find it hard to believe that anybody with knowledge of time travel or time travel fiction would not recognise it immediately. I would expect it to be thoroughly covered in “Time Travel and Other Mathematical Bewilderments.” I would look for it in your copy. Jack Chilli. | ||
Okay, I say something, and you don't understand, so I explained and you still don't understand, and I asked what you're confused about and that's attacking you? I am a bit worried now, because I am not even certain if you know what you are talking about. | Okay, I say something, and you don't understand, so I explained and you still don't understand, and I asked what you're confused about and that's attacking you? I am a bit worried now, because I am not even certain if you know what you are talking about. | ||
| Line 307: | Line 332: | ||
For point 23. I is _totally acceptable_ to use literary and plot devices to create tension. I have already said that it is the story that is paramount. I enjoy this moments just as much as anybody else. I cannot see where I might have given the impression otherwise. I am not here because I do not enjoy Doctor Who; quite the contrary. So much so I have watch some on iplayer as demonstrated by this image before the end titles of TPO. Here you can clearly see the Earth remaining after all has vanished in the Universe. Oh; sorry it’s not there after all. If faded away somehow! I apologise for the sarcasm there; not a reasonable thing to do in a discussion but to suggest that I made the Earth fading and vanish up without checking is not nice. | For point 23. I is _totally acceptable_ to use literary and plot devices to create tension. I have already said that it is the story that is paramount. I enjoy this moments just as much as anybody else. I cannot see where I might have given the impression otherwise. I am not here because I do not enjoy Doctor Who; quite the contrary. So much so I have watch some on iplayer as demonstrated by this image before the end titles of TPO. Here you can clearly see the Earth remaining after all has vanished in the Universe. Oh; sorry it’s not there after all. If faded away somehow! I apologise for the sarcasm there; not a reasonable thing to do in a discussion but to suggest that I made the Earth fading and vanish up without checking is not nice. | ||
[[ | [[file:Spot_the_earth.jpg]] | ||
I don’t think that you will find a literary tradition about paradoxes, time loops, and time travel extending back to 1600’s. I would be most interested in reading this work and the earliest work I have is from the 1890’s. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted this “As for Amy's note, I don't quite see your point because the idea is simple; the Doctor asked Amy to write the note in the end of the episode. There's nothing wrong with it, and nothing interesting to discuss, it just happened.” Wouldn’t it have been simpler to describe the nature of the temporal problem instead of just dismissing it as ‘not a problem.’ And ‘it just happened’. | I don’t think that you will find a literary tradition about paradoxes, time loops, and time travel extending back to 1600’s. I would be most interested in reading this work and the earliest work I have is from the 1890’s. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted this “As for Amy's note, I don't quite see your point because the idea is simple; the Doctor asked Amy to write the note in the end of the episode. There's nothing wrong with it, and nothing interesting to discuss, it just happened.” Wouldn’t it have been simpler to describe the nature of the temporal problem instead of just dismissing it as ‘not a problem.’ And ‘it just happened’. | ||
| Line 374: | Line 399: | ||
25. "For point 23. I is _totally acceptable_ to use literary and plot devices to create tension. I have already said that it is the story that is paramount. I enjoy this moments just as much as anybody else. I cannot see where I might have given the impression otherwise. I am not here because I do not enjoy Doctor Who; quite the contrary. So much so I have watch some on iplayer as demonstrated by this image before the end titles of TPO. Here you can clearly see the Earth remaining after all has vanished in the Universe. Oh; sorry it’s not there after all. If faded away somehow! I apologise for the sarcasm there; not a reasonable thing to do in a discussion but to suggest that I made the Earth fading and vanish up without checking is not nice. | 25. "For point 23. I is _totally acceptable_ to use literary and plot devices to create tension. I have already said that it is the story that is paramount. I enjoy this moments just as much as anybody else. I cannot see where I might have given the impression otherwise. I am not here because I do not enjoy Doctor Who; quite the contrary. So much so I have watch some on iplayer as demonstrated by this image before the end titles of TPO. Here you can clearly see the Earth remaining after all has vanished in the Universe. Oh; sorry it’s not there after all. If faded away somehow! I apologise for the sarcasm there; not a reasonable thing to do in a discussion but to suggest that I made the Earth fading and vanish up without checking is not nice. | ||
[[ | [[file:Spot_the_earth.jpg]]" That was a fade blank in the end, screenplays end in a blank, the earth is isolated before the fade blank and not gone with the stars and the "To Be Continued" comes up immediately on the blank screen...and read this <<[[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hdO-IDHI3Qz_mVSmUTU-Ub59JLvA]]>>("River Song has been blown up in the Tardis, which has been blown up and destroyed every sun in the universe."), are you going to say you are entitled to your interpretation and what Moffat said is irrelevant to you too? Is the Rolling Credit a part of the Universe now...You said specifically that the Universe collapsed at one instance; I said it collapsed in a gradual progressive manner...In the end, when all the stars have vanished, the Earth remains, which contradicts what you proposed...All elements of the Universe must be gone in the same instance according to your vision...If you think the delay is a figurative display, then how about this, I will bet you anything, absolutely anything, that the Big Bang will show in some way that at least an isolated element in the Universe does not collapse at the same time as the rest of the Universe...Unless the Big Bang is just a 55 mins blank screen, the Universe cannot collapse all in 1 instance... | ||
I just don't get how you could not get the idea that the erasing takes place in an order in the perspective of the character...it is shown on screen..it's a part of the story and is crucial in the plot...If you think all elements in the show that doesn't fit in with your description as a unique figurative rendition then you are certainly seeing things in a very strange light...and it's quite pointless for you to go on a discussion forum.... | I just don't get how you could not get the idea that the erasing takes place in an order in the perspective of the character...it is shown on screen..it's a part of the story and is crucial in the plot...If you think all elements in the show that doesn't fit in with your description as a unique figurative rendition then you are certainly seeing things in a very strange light...and it's quite pointless for you to go on a discussion forum.... | ||
| Line 425: | Line 450: | ||
I hope it can be read as understood that I like science fantasy a lot, given how much time I spend here at Tardis. Moreover I hope this flamewar is going away, and if it's not going away, here's a humble recommendation: You guys have personal Talk pages. I'm nobody, just a newbie here, but I bet nobody wants to see this flame war. [[User:Agonaga|Agonaga]] 16:06, June 25, 2010 (UTC) | I hope it can be read as understood that I like science fantasy a lot, given how much time I spend here at Tardis. Moreover I hope this flamewar is going away, and if it's not going away, here's a humble recommendation: You guys have personal Talk pages. I'm nobody, just a newbie here, but I bet nobody wants to see this flame war. [[User:Agonaga|Agonaga]] 16:06, June 25, 2010 (UTC) | ||
Jack, I can see why you have chosen not to answer with the numbering now...can you really tell the difference between your last response and the response before that when my questions are clearly different and new questions were raised? Can you please just answer them in the numbering or even answer them beneath my questions if you hate typing...because you've answered nothing in the last two responses and your arguments are based on ideas that have been rejected in earlier discussion...Since you raised more questions in your last response, I would assume that you want me to response....: | |||
1. I clearly told you many times that the problem has nothing to do with you using the word 'fantasy', but it's the fact that you are imposing your idea that it's a fantasy on us and force us to interpret it as a fantasy and abandon logic when we were discussing a logical way for things to have happened. You should note that you did not say "it may" or other suggestive terms, but whether you said specifically, "Doctor Who is fantasy; not science fiction. Don't try to explain things rationally; accept that there will be a miracle and all things will work out in the end." Your logic even go so far to say if we don't accept this personal opinion that you impose on us, we would be imposing our opinion on you and we are all having problems with the word "fantasy" by rejecting your subjective, ambiguous, and contradicting definitions. | |||
2. The debate about the genre got going simply because your logic is full of flaws and more and more flaws came up as you responded. I am merely pointing out the flaws. I have always tried to term my response as "why is it not a sci-fi" instead of "it is a sci-fi". How is that discriminating fantasy? | |||
3. How does Lord of the Rings fit in with the descriptions I said? I said specifically in my last few responses that if the work itself points out that "a different set of laws of physics" is in place and we can't contradict it with current knowledge, and in my responses earlier, the work uses science as a theme/plot device, then I would consider it sci-fi...I have yet to find that in Lord of the Rings...again, please kindly point it out to me... | |||
4. I haven't read Thomas Covenant, so I don't know...but do point out where it's mentioned that the Universe employs "a different set of laws of physics" and the story uses science as the theme/plot device... | |||
5. I have always consider Lord of the Rings fantasy due to the reason given in 3 and I have consistently find Lord of the Rings in the Fantasy section. Your argument is weak in that you yourself has said (albeit inconsistently) that Star Trek, Star Wars, and Doctor Who are Fantasy, but you understand that they would not normally be stacked on the fantasy shelf, can you please explain your stance? | |||
6. Is the Matrix in its own "Flawed Sci-fi" stack in your DVD store? As you mention "flawed sci-fi" is "flawed sci-fi", it mustn't belong to neither group unless it's a subsection of one/both. | |||
7. You mentioned science fiction containing an element that you believe is impossible or inconsistent with modern science does not make it a fantasy, it only makes it "flawed science fiction", which you seem to suggest to be a category of its own. You also mentioned that you realize "science fiction" may not be realizable, and unfeasible technology does not undermine a science fiction's placement as a "science fiction". In addition, you suggested how "plausible" is the technology described is also a personal judgement, are you suggesting a highly personal subjective nature to genres despite that we invented genres to specifically group and describe works? | |||
8. If so, what is the function of genre? Is genre not something that we can use to communicate and able to find a book in a library, a film in a DVD store, discussions/papers on a database? More specifically, in the case you suggested: you said you would label Star Trek, Star Wars and Doctor Who as fantasy and find them in bookstore or DVD Store in either a "sci-fi/fantasy section" or you would be smart enough to know where to find them (which in my country, is always in the sci-fi section); if a Fantasy book is listed in the sci-fi section, then what is the point of its genre? | |||
9. Perpetual motion system theories deal with same problem as ontological paradoxes, they are all theories of how effects and causes can be interrelated; it's just a simple matter of finding a variable that we can substitute with a formula involving the variable time -- they're essentially the same equation. Amy's note is a perpetual motion machine in the sense that we know a part of the equation involves t; the only difference is just that it's an abstract information instead of an object. I don't know which field you study, but you must have tried, at some point, plugging a formula involving time to an equation -- like simple displacement vs velocity. Please tell me what is the problem? | |||
10. "How do perpetual motion machines produce the effect?" They are theoretical, theories range from zero-friction material-system in vacuum to tapping in unproven energy sources and properties of theoretically proposed particles. New theories of them keep popping up all the time... | |||
11. "I am starting to this that when you saw nothing wrong with it that you really did not see what _it_ was at all." Exactly, I asked you twice to tell me what the problem was, as the "it" you are referring to is the problem, so your statement is actually tautological...If you believe there is a problem with cause and effect being interrelated, then it's either you have a problem with the statement you said, as it is essentially, "I am starting to [think] that when you saw [no problem] that you really did not see what [the problem] was at all", which support the fact that 'I cannot see the problem' with 'I cannot see the problem'. If your "_it_" is not the problem then what is "_it_"? Or in your point of view, is the relationship of the events not the problem, then I probably missed something? Please kindly clarify for me. | |||
12. "I have already said that that in fantasy that places ‘outside’ time and space (including such timeless places as ‘before’ the Big Bang) are allowed and story can happen there. Doctor Who even has ‘beings’ that exist in these places already as you must already be aware of." That sounds actually very scientific, I have yet to come across a fantasy story that states that it takes place "'before' the Big Bang", but I've only read very few fantasy works I guess. How is such thing fantasy though? Hawking would definitely agree that given if there were a place before the Big Bang then it would be timeless as you stated. | |||
13. Regarding the "'outside' of time and space" you refer to, which "time" and "space" do you mean? If you mean it in a literal sense as in all forms of 'time' and all forms of 'space', then where have you found such work...I can't even imagine something not involving 'time and space' except vacuum...I am very interested in reading these books. How do you communicate it in language? Please suggests these interesting readings, lot of physicists would be very interested in these visions too. | |||
14. I do not aware of Doctor Who having 'beings' existing outside of time and space, I am aware that Doctor who has beings living in alternate time and space who label themselves as living outside of time and space in the sense that they are in hypertime and hyperspace (theoretically supported to exist, but suggested to be impossible to perceive and yet to have ways of modeling) or alternate-time and alternate-space, which is also theoretically possible. People are conducting academic investigations/discussions in these fields, can you please kindly provide your calculations/evidence of rejecting such possibities to them so they can stop wasting time? You will enlighten mankind if you could. | |||
15. "If you can’t make a more plausible case for human minds being used as processing devices than human bodies being used a batteries then that is a limitation you have." | |||
Actually, now that I read your statement, assuming you mean the mind and bodies operating as actual parts of a machine and the machine is involved in the translation/conversion which is not what we are doing right now by operating machinery, it sounds more and more peculiar, because it is scientifically possible to use the human body as a direct energy source to operate machines; it's just extremely inefficient; according to Stefan-Boltzman Law, our bodies, as matters, must radiates some form of energy...but collecting the radiated energy for conversion is impractical in the sense that it is slow to gather sufficient practical amount...breaking down the human body slowly is another possible way to generate energy, and this method has been applied since the beginning of life on earth, it's just inhumane to experiment and expand in this field of study despite that we can, because nature has done it...even by burning human fat, we can use it to generate thermal energy...on the other hand, do we have any clue on how to use the human brain as an agent? Can we implant information into the brain and get processed output? | |||
16. "You didn’t really need to repeat a picture of blackness. The Earth faded away slowly. The music stopped. There was a pause where there was nothing left. Silence had fallen (literally and metaphorically). After this there were the end titles. This doesn’t match your description of the Earth still being there did it? I merely pointed out that what I said was immediately apparent to anybody that looked; not imagined in, you poorly dismissive term and tiresome, ‘my country’. Next time you might like to check before suggesting that I did not look. Did the other episodes fade out in this way?" | |||
First of all, please remember you now acknowledge that Earth was alone in the Universe. So while the rest of the Universe is erased, Earth hasn't been erased yet at that frame, can you please explain how does this fit in with your model of the whole timeline being removed in one instance? | |||
17. And yes, most episodes fade blank or cut blank in the end except for dramatic effects, and this doesn't apply only to Doctor Who. If you read any TV script or screenplay at all, then you will realize that the last line is always FADE BLANK or CUT BLANK or CUT TO BLANK, except for dramatic effects, this is actually a part of the format. In the interview I included in my last response, Moffat specifically said that the end of Pandorica Opens is that "River Song has been blown up in the Tardis, which has been blown up and destroyed every sun in the universe." He specifically avoided saying that all of time is erased when this is said to be the result of the explosion. How is it possible to interpret it into your scenario? | |||
18. "I never suggested that the Alliance plan is flawless; quite the contrary. This is not the first time you have totally misunderstood a simple position. The plan is ‘rubbish’. How does that sound like flawless?" | |||
No one said anything about you suggesting the Alliance's plan as flawless and I am quite glad you acknowledge that it is not flawless, but in order for your expectation of the result to hold true -- i.e. all the elements that are not essential to the Alliance's plan should not be present, there must be an assumption that the Alliance Plan must be perfect. For some odd reason, you are suggesting that if it is not a fantasy, then the Alliance would miraculously make perfect judgements. My question is essentially "why can't Rory be there" and "why would Rory being there make it illogical and making Doctor Who a fantasy?" | |||
19. "There is no logical reason that you can provide as to why a simulation (or real copy) of Roy’s memories are present except for the ‘logic’ of ‘it just happened by accident’." | |||
The trap has a point, it is a hope that what fascinates Amy may lure in the Doctor, and the Alliance's intention was to set a trap, not to create an Auton Rory. Auton Rory is a by-product of the trap. First of all, you need to understand that "accident" and "by-products" are two radically different things, i.e., would you say that you breathe out carbon dioxide by accident all the time? | |||
20. Let's clarify, the idea is that it's "memories of Rory" as in "memories about Rory" rather than in the sense of "Rory's memories". I have said many times that the Alliance raided Amy's house and uses whatever memories and special fondness that Amy has as a trap and Auton Rory is a by-product of it...How is being the by-product of a process not a logical reason? Is breathing out carbon dioxide illogical? | |||
21. Again you still haven't answered what leads to the assumption that the Nestene is selective in the plan, or even have ability to select elements over another? Do we know if the Nestene learned everything about Amy and Rory and knew that what aspects of Amy's memory would make a successful plan? The episode has never suggested that...I only saw a raided room, and the Alliance created whatever they can based on the things they saw and I would like to think that Amy was also present based on Auton Rory's knowledge of the adventures. Moreover, it would be an assumption to suggest that Nestene would even understand the memories about Rory, let alone assuming perfect planning. | |||
22. Under your assumption that 'if there is no purpose of Rory being there, then the work is a fantasy and illogical', how can you reach this conclusion without assuming that the Alliance fully understands all consequences of a possible action? Wouldn't this assumption that is required to deny the logic contradicts the established information? | |||
23. How does the quality of the Alliance plan undermine Doctor Who's status as a 'sci-fi'? After answering 16-20, is there a part that suggests the Alliance's plan is flawed to the extent that they are completely irrational without assuming an omniscient/omnipotent Alliance/Nestene? | |||
24. "I define good fiction in the way I want to. I am fully capable of making up my own mind. Aren’t you?" | |||
Again, the problem is not how you make up your mind, but instead, why are you imposing your definition on the society? You said specifically that "In all likelihood it is a requirement of an element of ‘story’; the relationship between Rory and Amy needs to be resolved is a satisfactory way to create good fiction." "Requirement" is not subjective; "need" is not subjective; you are not stating your opinion; you are stating a rule -- while your last response acknowledge that that this definition of "good fiction" is you own opinion, but yet you are stating in the response before that that it's not subjective and it's a "requirement". How can you ask me "if I were able to make up my mind" if you premise is that "you made it up for me" and it is not subjective? | |||
25. "If you are unable to extrapolate science and technology is a reasonable way then so be it. Even Moore could do it. I can do so quite easily and so can many science fiction authors. Do not impose imaginary limitations on my capabilities. It would not suggest that you have limitations without ample evidence." | |||
If the "you" in the last phrase is you, then the questions I asked above are what lead to my assumptions, as the extrapolations you believe in are unreasonable and implausible...and those that are more probable are rejected by you (like the mind/body example and hyperspace example you proposed), and moreover, you have yet to provide any practicality to your definition of "science fiction" -- how does having a subjective definition of a genre that is different to everyone helps in a way that can offset the benefits of having an objective one, which allow us to search and index works and communicate? | |||
26. "“Now that you read what Science is, do you find your own words ridiculous...” No; nor would a range of scientific philosophers if you would care to read their work." | |||
You are right, but were you not talking about modern science? Science usually refers to Modern Science that employs the Scientific Method, which rejects what contradicts, and that's it...Scientific method is 1 single method...If you are talking about epistemology, then I can see your point, but you have always seem to be revolving on the the topic of modern science and the scientific method before you throw in the the comment about "scientific philosophers". You make references to the scientific method throughout, if you are not viewing the topic in a modern science viewpoint, then why would the scientific method be relevant? | |||
27. Moreover, by expanding the definition of Science to outside the realm of modern science, then how do you differentiate fantasy from science? Is alchemy science? What about all of Newton's works? I am afraid if you expand science beyond modern science, you are not making the definition stricter and putting more things into fantasy, but rather, quite the opposite, you would need to incorporate much more works into "science fiction" than what the society would...How does this support your claim of Star Trek/Star War/Doctor Who being fantasy? | |||
28. Does your "science" involves "proofs/proven facts", if so, then what knowledge can you use to determine a genre of a work? Are you using primitive empirical knowledge or alternative science systems? We have not proven anything and has only been rejecting ideas since Classical Era in mainstream science, I am very interested to know how is it possible to operate your definition. | |||
29. "Of course, this is not the only definition; feel free to use any other including ones that have ‘psychic links’ that cross ‘timelines’ and use ‘psychic residue’ as valid scientific theory despite there being no grounding in current accepted scientific knowledge and not even an applicable method of falsifyability. Pray tell me how you can falsify these ‘scientific’ theories. Don’t expect me to accept your definition. I have taken the time to look into the ideas behind what science is; perhaps you should too. If you look into the debate about what science is (and is not) then that would be a fine outcome to our discussion." | |||
Your assumption that we should reject what we cannot falsify at any current moment would throw human knowledge back a lot, from our existence to references you have made like "the Big Bang", gravity, forces, and basically all of mainstream science will be rejected...we never had proofs for pretty much anything, these are all assumptions supported by an initial assumption, we are only believing them because we can't reject them...I am very interested in knowing how to define Science Fiction with a way of knowing that's different from Modern Science and scientific method. | |||
30. "If you need any help with why a legal definition of what is a scientific theory was devised in the US and not required here then Google scholar doesn’t seem to be all that it’s cracked up to be. Surely the idea has been in the news numerous times over the last decade! I read about the debate even here even with my very limited reading list. If you need a clue then think about your constitution! (A lovely read by the way; such craftsmanship to the language and so well thought out for the time.)" | |||
I did search Google Scholar, and still can't find a legal definition of "the Scientific Method" as you have initially stated, please find it for me. | |||
31. I just did a brief search on several Constitutions of different countries, and I can't find any idea remotely related to this, can you please find me the US Law that defines "the Scientific Method"? | |||
32. May I please request again that you clarify why is such law required in US but not in the UK as you have stated? I asked last time, but you just ignored me...must be the cultural difference, it's not obvious in my culture as you have suggested. | |||
33. How is the legal definition you just gave me relevant when you think the scientific method is not a valid way of knowing? | |||
34. "If you think that all it takes for a theory to be scientific is that you can prove it wrong (the term you may be reaching for is ‘to falsify’) then may I politely suggest that you expand you reading list to include some further works on the history, nature and philosophy of science." | |||
I do not think that proving that the theory is wrong would make it scientific, quite the contrary, what is rejected is not scientific in modern science's perspective. This has always been what science was working toward since the dawn of philosophy before it reaches the stage of Modern Science. If you are choosing an unconventional method of Science, then can you please tell us what it is so we wouldn't be confused you to be talking about Modern Science as we all would easily assumed? In addition, can you also avoid using terms like "the scientific method" if you disagree with the scientific method, it is confusing if you are referring to other methods of knowing that's different from the Scientific Method Modern Science uses. I just found out we were never on the same page as you were not referencing Modern Science, but rather, an alternative belief or some form of Pre-Classical Era philosophy...and how is it justified to use a method of knowing that is not Modern Science to define the Science aspect of "science fiction" when most of these books rely on knowledge of modern science? | |||
35. "Popper is not the only author/debater/philosopher on this subject and reducing his work to a statement along the lines of ‘all things are scientifically possible until they are proven wrong’ does him a great disservice. There is a lot more to understanding science than you seem to know. Your nephew, and his teacher, may like to invest a little time in this study before teaching ‘science’. I would not teach history without at least learning the basics about the history of history; that would be ironically stupid." | |||
I think you are referring to my former physics professor...and you may have it mixed up...you originally said "I would have assumed that one element of a scientific college graduation would cover the history, theory and philosophy of science. Have I assumed wrongly?", depending on your definition of "basics", I'm sure my prof would at least know some very brief trivia on history of Physics, but definitely only extremely few people would graduate with a degree that covers both the theory and history aspects as formal academic studies, and fewer graduate grad school with such. Regarding on your comment about your criticism to Modern Science: the very unfortunate thing is across US, UK, and most areas of the world, Modern Science is the mainstream Science, many other areas of studies also use systems that can only reject contradicting ideas due to the system's philosophical origin in logic. You will need to revolutionize pretty much the entire world if you find this method insufficient...and this method has pretty much been our best method of knowing things for a long time...do enlighten us mankind with your better way of knowing...all of us humans are very eager to learn...[[Special:Contributions/203.168.176.42|203.168.176.42]] 16:21, June 25, 2010 (UTC) | |||
For goodness’s sake will you stop repeating the blatant lie that I am attempting to impose anything to do with how you file books (though you only seem to mention DVD's) on society or you in particular. I have not asked you to accept my definition of any genre and I most certainly have not asked anybody else to accept it. What mechanism do I have to achieve this some form of ‘psychic hypnotism’? | |||
Good lord! Now you think that I don’t like or understand ‘Modern Science’ and somehow I reject it! Is there no end to you ability to mischaracterise an argument or person! Please do not invent such patent nonsense. How on Earth do you come to the conclusion that I was not talking about Modern Science (as you capitalise it)? All I said was “If you think that all it takes for a theory to be scientific is that you can prove it wrong (the term you may be reaching for is ‘to falsify’) then may I politely suggest that you expand you reading list to include some further works on the history, nature and philosophy of science.” What part of the modern scientific method does this contradict! | |||
In what way do my comments criticise Modern Science! I am a stalwart. I criticise your inaccurate description of it when simply I pointed out that modern science is more that falsifying. From this you make up a random diatribe assuming that I am talking about some ‘other’ science. What ‘unconventional science’ do you think I believe in? Where are your examples of my unconventional science? Am I a ‘science denier’ now because I do not accept your argument that ‘psychic residue’ is scientific and the TARDIS is scientifically possible ‘in theory’? ‘Beings’ existing before the Big bang is fantasy gibberish of the highest order and yet it ‘sounds actually very scientific’. Do you think physicists are going to learn anything about science from Doctor who books! Mercy me! Such nonsensical reasoning is the realm of creationists and the insidious ‘scientific’ theory of ‘intelligent design’. Perhaps in this area you will finally realise why a definition of what constitutes science had to be made in your country and thank the lord it was [irony intended]. You go too far sir in your corruption of science. You render it a useless process permitting anything you can imagine hinged on the sole criteria of falsifyability. And yet you go _further_; deferring falsification indefinitely to allow your flights of fancy to be possible, to be ‘science’. You throw away the only scientific tool you have mentioned to accommodate the most ridiculous of propositions. Sir, that is NOT modern science. | |||
I have not expanded the definition of science you gave to allow it to encompass nonsensical pseudoscientific ideas as you foolishly suggest; I have _tightened_ it . I looked only at one point; the nature of a ‘scientific theory’. MORE than simple falsification is required for a theory to be scientific. That is why this ridiculous ‘theory’ is NOT a scientific one despite being relatively easy to falsify: “There is an alien called BOB living in a white spaceship in a cavern behind my house. He will wait there until you go and visit him and give you a bar of gold.” You can falsify it (on a trivial level) by quickly going to have a look. The theory is not scientific until it is falsified; it is just not scientific at all. Any yet, even if you kept your only tool you would accept it as valid science? There are other criteria that are required to make a theory scientific. So, what would these other criteria be used for a theory to be regarded as a scientific one? Some areas to consider include: What level of contrary evidence is required for a theory to be falsified (taking into account error)? To what extent are Auxiliary Hypotheses allowed to extend the theory? To what extent must a theory have predictive power? How general or specific must the theory be to be considered scientific? Consider the commonly accepted theory of evolution. Most biologists will consider it to be a scientific theory but to what extent can it be falsified? What predictive power does it have? Is the theory too board or ill defined? Can it be described as a theory or a set of theories? If it is a set then how closely are they connected; if one is falsifies is the whole rendered false. And so on. Do I really have to resort the oft repeated ‘pink unicorn’ type discussion from sci.skeptic and multiple other forums? | |||
Do I now have to describe the mechanisms and/or methodology of modern scientific exploration of the theory? I will not waste my time; they are not difficult. | |||
Now as you _really_ think that I do not know what the commonly accepted interpretation of ‘modern scientific method’ is then we have insufficient grounds to continue. I will not throw essential parts of it away to suit my needs; I respect my colleagues too much. Your ‘science’ is a ridiculous nonsense; a child’s toy version of ‘science’. You rejection of all checks and definitions on what is ‘scientific’; even the simple tenet of falsification, has produced a deformed, unrecognisable, bastardisation of some of the finest work of human minds; broken to allow the fantasy of Star Wars and Star Trek and Doctor Who to be possible, to be ‘scientific’. Shame. Shame! Science is not fiction and your description does not stand. | |||
With due respect sir, this discussion is done. | |||
[Excessive hyperbole ends] | |||
Jack Chilli | |||
First of all, since you asked questions in your last response, I do not see how you intend to end the discussion. I asked you to kindly answer with the numbering so we could get somewhere and you could address the points but you have failed to do so and selectively answered only a few of the questions in a very distorted view...so please, do answer at some point, in a rational way. I will continue the numbering system, if there're anything I've raised that you haven't answered, then please tell me. | |||
36. I have explicitly said in my last response (No 34) that I DISAGREE with the statement "If you think that all it takes for a theory to be scientific is that you can prove it wrong (the term you may be reaching for is ‘to falsify’) then may I politely suggest that you expand you reading list to include some further works on the history, nature and philosophy of science." | |||
I have always been taking the stance that what is rejected or what contradicts is not scientific, but somehow, you discussion is based on the assumption that I agree with "all it takes for a theory to be scientific is that you can prove it wrong" when I have explicitly said that I disagreed in 34. Who are you discussing with? Why does throwing out arguments against a point I rejected undermine my argument? You've failed to link what you said to my argument at all; you are arguing something, but it's not something we raised in the discussion. | |||
37. You've chosen to based the defensive arguments on the assumption I pointed out in 36, how does arguing something that was not bought up by me and I disagreed with supports any of your statement? (I will raise up the point of supports, since all your statements are actually supported, please bear with me and keep on reading) Moreover, you have failed to produce a simple description of how your 'science' work or what it is as I asked last time, but instead, you have chosen to attack a point you raised and I said was invalid. How does your argument work? | |||
1 (b). "For goodness’s sake will you stop repeating the blatant lie that I am attempting to impose anything to do with how you file books (though you only seem to mention DVD's) on society or you in particular. I have not asked you to accept my definition of any genre and I most certainly have not asked anybody else to accept it. What mechanism do I have to achieve this some form of ‘psychic hypnotism’?" | |||
This is the third time I asked you clarify "Doctor Who is fantasy; not science fiction. Don't try to explain things rationally; accept that there will be a miracle and all things will work out in the end." Who does the statement address to? Who are you asking to accept? Were you requesting yourself to accept that there will be a miracle? | |||
38. "Good lord! Now you think that I don’t like or understand ‘Modern Science’ and somehow I reject it! Is there no end to you ability to mischaracterise an argument or person! Please do not invent such patent nonsense. How on Earth do you come to the conclusion that I was not talking about Modern Science (as you capitalise it)? All I said was “If you think that all it takes for a theory to be scientific is that you can prove it wrong (the term you may be reaching for is ‘to falsify’) then may I politely suggest that you expand you reading list to include some further works on the history, nature and philosophy of science.” What part of the modern scientific method does this contradict!" | |||
Since you have failed to provide any description of your 'science', I will repeat again, which is repetitive, that modern science is about using the scientific method to investigate. The Scientific Method is about rejecting ideas that contradict, and only about that. The whole body of knowledge that we have right now is based on that and we usually call knowledge that we didn't derived using this method beliefs. As you stated that you believe "a different form of science" that is not only about rejecting knowledge that contradicts, this is not the scientific method that modern science is based on; since you suggested that this form of 'science' has its root in the history/nature/philosophy of Science, I was led to believe that you were referring to some form of 'alternative science' (Belief/Religion) that happened during the path of the development of Science such as Alchemy, Witchcraft or other things that we have abandoned in modern science due to the fact that they do not base only rejecting contradictions. Was I misled in someway? | |||
39. "In what way do my comments criticise Modern Science! I am a stalwart. I criticise your inaccurate description of it when simply I pointed out that modern science is more that falsifying. From this you make up a random diatribe assuming that I am talking about some ‘other’ science. What ‘unconventional science’ do you think I believe in? Where are your examples of my unconventional science? Am I a ‘science denier’ now because I do not accept your argument that ‘psychic residue’ is scientific and the TARDIS is scientifically possible ‘in theory’? ‘Beings’ existing before the Big bang is fantasy gibberish of the highest order and yet it ‘sounds actually very scientific’. Do you think physicists are going to learn anything about science from Doctor who books!" | |||
Other than what I said in 38, your idea that we can reject what doesn't contradict but what we merely think is unreasonable suggests a religion rather than science. Please correct that you think I misunderstood you for, because your argument is about thinking that subjectivity makes science...I'll use 'science' to stand for your belief: | |||
-Your 'science' suggests that we can reject what we think is unreasonable. | |||
-At least some of these 'unreasonable ideas/things' are subject to personal opinions. | |||
-At least some of these 'unreasonable ideas/things' are ideas/things that, at current stage, we have no way of denying based on the knowledge we know. | |||
-Denying what is uncertain, which is a concept that holds no objectivity, is 'scientific' in your system of belief. | |||
Can you give me an example of something that you are absolutely certain about as an example of a piece of knowledge in your science? | |||
All knowledge is based on assumptions that we have found no ways of contradicting yet, so how does your example work? | |||
40. "Mercy me! Such nonsensical reasoning is the realm of creationists and the insidious ‘scientific’ theory of ‘intelligent design’" | |||
How does a system based only on rejecting contradictions ties in with systems based on the acceptances of ideas? I fail to see any relation, please point it out to me. | |||
41. "Perhaps in this area you will finally realise why a definition of what constitutes science had to be made in your country and thank the lord it was [irony intended]." | |||
You have still failed to provide me with a legal US definition of "the Scientific Method" and I've asked many times already. I did try to search for it, and I can't find anything that leads to a legal definition of the term. | |||
42. "You go too far sir in your corruption of science. You render it a useless process permitting anything you can imagine hinged on the sole criteria of falsifyability. And yet you go _further_; deferring falsification indefinitely to allow your flights of fancy to be possible, to be ‘science’. You throw away the only scientific tool you have mentioned to accommodate the most ridiculous of propositions. Sir, that is NOT modern science." | |||
You have still yet to provide how you could accumulate knowledge in your system of belief. Again, like your fantasy statement, you are essentially saying "No, X is NOT Y" without providing any support at all. | |||
Moreover, what falsifications were you referring to when you said I deferred "falsification indefinitely", I have yet to find you providing any falsification in the entire discussion. I have yet to learn of any possible ways to deny certain knowledge, so when you "tell" me that that specific knowledge is wrong I have to miraculously suddenly learn and state the counter-arguments about my own idea and reject it and accept yours? Is there any rationality to your statement? | |||
43. "I have not expanded the definition of science you gave to allow it to encompass nonsensical pseudoscientific ideas as you foolishly suggest; I have _tightened_ it . I looked only at one point; the nature of a ‘scientific theory’. MORE than simple falsification is required for a theory to be scientific. That is why this ridiculous ‘theory’ is NOT a scientific one despite being relatively easy to falsify: “There is an alien called BOB living in a white spaceship in a cavern behind my house. He will wait there until you go and visit him and give you a bar of gold.” You can falsify it (on a trivial level) by quickly going to have a look. The theory is not scientific until it is falsified; it is just not scientific at all." | |||
Do you realize your problem, if it was not scientific even before you falsified it, you stopped at a hypothesis and never investigated...you are essentially stating that your hypothesis must be the conclusion because it is otherwise ridiculous...the whole point of modern science is to avoid the subjectivity you proposed...do you readily reject anything you deem ridiculous? Is this your science... | |||
Since you did mention experiments at some point, how do you experiment if you conclude that you hypothesis is correct without the need to investigate? | |||
44. "Any yet, even if you kept your only tool you would accept it as valid science? There are other criteria that are required to make a theory scientific. So, what would these other criteria be used for a theory to be regarded as a scientific one? Some areas to consider include: What level of contrary evidence is required for a theory to be falsified (taking into account error)? To what extent are Auxiliary Hypotheses allowed to extend the theory? To what extent must a theory have predictive power? How general or specific must the theory be to be considered scientific? Consider the commonly accepted theory of evolution. Most biologists will consider it to be a scientific theory but to what extent can it be falsified?" | |||
I afraid you are arguing against your own argument...all these statements are, on different levels, ways of ensuring the falsification is valid and to make sure you do not reject things that are not falsified. They are supporting my argument, so your point being? | |||
Moreover, theory of evolution is a great example, it is here because we can't falsified it yet...so how does that work with your argument? This supports my argument rather than yours...did you forget what you were arguing? | |||
45. "What predictive power does it have?" | |||
Again, predictive power is an indication of whether the theory contradicts with real world data... | |||
46. "Is the theory too board or ill defined? Can it be described as a theory or a set of theories?" | |||
These are irrelevant, as these deal with wordings and labeling of the theories, they do not undermine or enhance a theory...unless you can point it out to us mankind somehow | |||
47. "If it is a set then how closely are they connected; if one is falsifies is the whole rendered false. And so on. Do I really have to resort the oft repeated ‘pink unicorn’ type discussion from sci.skeptic and multiple other forums?" | |||
Again, you are talking about the limit of falsification, the extent to which we should reject, you are supporting my theory...you have yet to propose anything that suggests a knowledge not achieved through rejecting contradictions....and you just listed a list of questions that suggest otherwise.... | |||
48. "Do I now have to describe the mechanisms and/or methodology of modern scientific exploration of the theory? I will not waste my time; they are not difficult." | |||
I wasted a lot of my time repetitively explaining the principle of modern science to you, and all you have said is your belief is not difficult, but when asked to explain it, you said you will not waste your time... | |||
49. "Now as you _really_ think that I do not know what the commonly accepted interpretation of ‘modern scientific method’ is then we have insufficient grounds to continue. I will not throw essential parts of it away to suit my needs; I respect my colleagues too much. Your ‘science’ is a ridiculous nonsense; a child’s toy version of ‘science’. You rejection of all checks and definitions on what is ‘scientific’; even the simple tenet of falsification, has produced a deformed, unrecognisable, bastardisation of some of the finest work of human minds; broken to allow the fantasy of Star Wars and Star Trek and Doctor Who to be possible, to be ‘scientific’." | |||
I would not like to think that, but you misquoted references and used a system that is foreign to Science throughout, I merely pointed out the Science system that we recognize and that's saying you are ignorant? | |||
Unfortunately, all scientific works that we recognize are based on the modern science I proposed...what make Einstein's theories not ridiculous, it deals with extremely abstract concepts and there were completely no supports when they were formed...I am sure that many people thought they were ridiculous and outrageous...and Science would have to reject them at that point without investigations according to what you said... | |||
If you think all scientific we recognize are unrecognisable, bastardisation of your belief, then you are just being extremely offensive to our society and how much works we have put in to develop this scientific system and body of knowledge. And yes, you should go back to your colleagues if you show such discrimination against human knowledge. | |||
50. "Shame. Shame! Science is not fiction and your description does not stand." You were the one that proposed the fiction is not Science Ficition because it's not 'Science' enough (with 'Science' referring to your belief that is not the mainstream Science in place), and now you are saying "science is not fiction", so are suggesting that Science Fiction cannot exist? There is a trilemma: "Science Fiction A is not Science enough"; "Science is not Fiction"; and "there are Science Fictions" cannot be true at the same time, please justify your arguments. | |||
Please answer my 50 questions with the numbering or even type them beneath my questions as I have requested last time. I do not want to see the next generation of children going around thinking it's alright to propose unsupported hypothesis as the conclusion just because it seems ridiculous otherwise. This is against everything that we have worked so hard for... | |||
Oh and do address the Rory issues that I stated in my last response which you have completely ignored in your last response, as that is the whole point of the discussion...How do you breathe out carbon dioxide by accident and how does it undermine the rationality of your existence? [[Special:Contributions/222.166.181.104|222.166.181.104]] 06:43, June 26, 2010 (UTC) | |||
I've come back to play. Although, I really have to support the idea of moving it to someone's talk page, because this is so tenuously related to Rory being dead that it's a bit silly. | |||
Firstly, to finish my earlier comment that for some reason got chopped off (probably because I fail at copying and pasting from the plain text file that I had written it in...) : | |||
13. Timelines. Now this is something meaty I could write tens of thousands of words on (and indeed am doing so in my doctorate, although from a philosphical rather than a scientific point of view). I shan't, unless people are interested. But basically, problems start occurring (even within physics) when you posit a primordial objective time, as opposed to time as 'lived' in the duration of spatio-temporal objects. ('lived' being used here to also cover the unconscious existence of objects through time, as well as self-conscious human experience). Furthermore, spatialising time - allowing it's measurement, section and placing object 'in' rather than 'through', and positing it as a succession of infinitesimal moments (the tick of the universe, as it were) - is only useful for some problems. It creates so many more problems than it answers. | |||
I just have some random points, which for sake of clarity, I shall number with roman numerals. | |||
I) Regarding things (even beings) existing out of space and or time. Firstly, the kind of Cartesian Dualism that is compatible with commonsense and what most people would implicitly believe (regardless of whether it is right or not, and I make no stipulations to this. I'm a phenomenologist myself, I bypass these questions somewhat) would place human consciousness outside of space. Human faculties of reason and personal identity and unextended. There are of course faculties of the mind which are extended, various sensory perceptions and so on, but people are fain to say 'its all in your head' in earnest. | |||
II) Similarly, existing before the Big Bang. Are you familiar with the 'Bang and Crunch' theory? If not, basically it hypothesizes that the universe is in an 'eternal' cycle of big bangs from singularities, expansions, big crunches, contractions back into singularities at which point the cycle begins again. And since physics pretty much goes out the window at a singularity (as I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong...), when the whole universe is a singularity, the next universe could have radically different physics. To exist before the big bang could just mean "to exist before the 'most recent' big bang". | |||
III) The unique big bang theory is generally preferred among laymen due to human's dogmatic belief that everything must have a cause, and beginning. These actually are NOT compatible. For the universe to have a cause one has to have something prior to the universe, and there becomes an infinite regress. You can either have the un-moved mover (the un-caused cause) and a definite beginning, or everything causally linked properly or eternity. | |||
You can look at Amy's note in the same way (and the videotape in Blink) - eternal loops with no beginning that have always been in place. | |||
IV) When one accepts Popper's definition of the scientific method, it is fairly meaningless to talk about a scientific theory. In fact, using the words strictly, you cannot. Scientific hypothesis, and scientific model are fine - but a theory needs proof and the scientific method is incapable of that kind of ontological claim, the best someone can hope for is an indefinitely prolonged period of vindication. Popper himself says a scientific hypothesis cannot be verified. On the other hand though, Popper's scientific method has been proven (by Miller, using some very complex modal logic that I don't claim to be able to understand) to be flawed in that this process of falsification does not necessarily result in 'more true' theories (I'm a postmodernist too. I can admit various levels of truth) as the process goes on. | |||
When taking a scientific theory like that of an Alien called Bob living in the garden, out of the context of a method, you don't just have a statement. The method has not been tested and vindicated (i.e. not proven false). Yes the scientific method may have more to it than falsifiability - such as tests capable of being replicated by another investigator and so on - but falsifiability is _necessary_ for a theory to be scientific. Necessity and sufficiency are not the same thing. If your theory about an Alien called Bob living in the garden was based on repeat trials where you went in the garden and found a creature calling itself bob that was silicon based instead of carbon based, for example, and has some kind of other facts that lead to believe its claim to come from another planet, it _would_ be scientific. If your theory had that latter condition held true, but also stated that you were the only person that could see, touch, here or smell him, it would not be scientific despite however much empirical testing you had done because it was not falsifiable. | |||
V) The definition I assume Jack Chili is referring to comes from the case law when a plaintiff took a school to court for teaching intelligent design in science classes as an alternative to evolution. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District | Here's] wikipedia's page on the case. [[User:Faeryty|Faeryty]] 11:05, June 26, 2010 (UTC) | |||
Since Jack will not answer the questions -- not that he can now that the whole finale is based on a secondary timeline, the Earth which has never been completely gone at any point in the finale, and Rory's memories being the by-product of Amy's exposure to the crack...I love Moffat...Moffat's awesome...though I half-hate the episode... | |||
Anyhow, thank you very much Faeryty for finding the court case, but Jack, there is still no legal definition to "the Scientific Method" quoted in the case.... | |||
I am quite interested in your (II) though, because the end of Universe scenarios....the Big Crunch is certainly one of the prominent theories...but the idea that fascinates me more is the theory regarding what happens to time during the Big Crunch if it does happen...Time is affected by gravity and at some point in Big Crunch, gravity will amount to an extent that we don't know if it will lead to negative time. Hawking's early theories assumed that 'the Big Crunch' will result in a reversal of time...essentially leading to not just a reverse of the Big Bang in terms of the movement of astronomical bodies but time and thus everything...creating an eternal loop...I heard that Hawking's newer theories now say otherwise...but there really aren't any data to support either theoretical concepts...anyhow...it was just interesting to imagine "existing outside of space/time" that Jack referred to was meant to mean something that doesn't and cannot incorporate time and space into the equation of its existence...I am quite interested in hearing your thoughts though... | |||
I actually agree with IV in the sense that Science is not true, it's just doing what we could to make what we believe more reliable...I was just disgusted with a certain someone's idea that if something is unreasonable in his personal viewpoint (which just so happened to be really limited in scoop) that we can readily reject anything without supports and also his attitude of ignoring observations and the things put forward by just saying "it's absurd" without even the slightest idea of what something is... | |||
Maybe we should move this thread somewhere else...not only is it a good way to constantly remind everyone what an ________ Jack is...but also the discussion is interesting and Doctor-who related but not so much "Rory is dead'-related....Since I think the original topic needs to be revived as there are now 3 Rories.....[[Special:Contributions/203.168.176.42|203.168.176.42]] 13:57, June 27, 2010 (UTC) | |||
:203, I hope you think you're awesome, because SOMEBODY needs to be foolish enough to forget that you're the one anonymously starting shit and being a tedious wag. You've gone on for probably tens of thousands of words, and anybody who's read a single one of those words, gave you far more than you're worth. How about balls-up and reg, or smeg off? Naw, how about smeg off. [[User:Agonaga|Agonaga]] 14:34, June 27, 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:55, 6 May 2012
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.
Back to the Question
Is Rory dead or not?
With only a couple of hours left to go, I think Rory is, for the time being, dead. Afterwards there would be two possibilities (to me at least)
1. He will, through some miraculous Doctor-saves-the-day fashion, will become human again and perhaps be faced with the decision whether or not to continue travelling with the Doctor. In which case he will continue on if Amy refuses to settle down (which is more likely the case because she continues as a companion), or they may probably break off their engagement.
OR
2. He will die, sacrificing himself maybe. If he were to choose/prefer not to travel with the Doctor, then Amy would probably have to stay behind as well, as they intend on getting married. But they can't get married and be left on Earth because she continues on as a companion in the next series. And when he sees that they both want different things, then he sees it no other way but to just hurl himself into some danger just so that Amy can live.
melodramatic, I know. DoctorHer 15:52, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Now that Rory is a combination of Rory and Auton Rory, should we consider TBB Rory and Auton Rory the original Rory or say we now have 3 different Rory's or the new TBB Rory and the Auton Rory be considered one...That's the problem with humans that don't stay dead....203.168.176.42 22:07, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
The Thread that Died in a Stupid, Stupid Flame War
Abandon all point in speaking, ye who edit here.
The Real Discussion
So I take it then now that the Rory we see is a Auton then Rory is dead. I mean when this crack thing is fixed then he will still be dead, so the big bang will probably be other than the odd flashback or other possible doppelganger Rory's last appearance. I mean the only way he can come back is if series five is kinda erased but I dont think Moff will undo the last series. Winehousefan, 20:50, June 18, 2010, [UTC
Well, the Doctor said something about people coming back from the crack if they could be remembered, and now that Amy remembers him because of meeting him and the ring, he might still be in the crack, but be remembered by Amy because of the helpful Auton lookalike. Or something magical and non-sensical could happen and that could mean that he comes back to the universe, back through the crack, and back to life for Series 6. --Halftimelord 21:01, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
Rory remembers when he died. This memory could not have been taken from the house as implied in the episode. Deliberate plot element (a genuine miracle and Rory's reall conciousness has transferred a la Dust (Greg Egan)) or poor scripting? I wouldn't trust Amy's 'memories' at all; they could be false; planted by the Doctor when she was seven. The level of reality of the events we have seen may be variable. Jack Chilli 08:47, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't help but notice a similarity between Auton-Rory and Bracewell from Victory of the Daleks. Perhaps Rory will similarly "become human" during The Big Bang? 115.69.5.221 13:47, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
Rory Is dead, otherwise Amy would leave next season to marry him, and I believe Amy has already been confirmed to be returning next season. I believe he will just stay a memory - R 15:05, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
But how did the memory of his death get there? This happened after he left the big house so should not be a construction of the Nestine. His real memories are there and so the plastic Rory is the real Rory after all. He may not survive the Big Bang however. Jack Chilli 14:12, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
I reckon that, in order to save Amy, Auton Rory will hurl himself into a crack, so that he never existed, and therefore could not have shot her, therefore saving her life 17:02, June 20, 2010
- Remember what The Doctor said in Blink [which Moffat wrote] - "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually - from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff." Ie, removing the cause won't necessarily change the effect. 115.69.5.221 16:37, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
Yes of course that could be how this whole mess gets sorted out as without Amy dead maybe someone can save the doc. Winehousefan, June 20, 2010, [UTC]
- Or, the Nestene might have the original copy as they did with Mickey. Scary Daleks hovering next to a crack, reaching in to pull something out just moments after the Doctor found his shrapnel? Agonaga 16:10, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Another possibility worth considering, at least in this week between the two episodes, is that Rory was an Auton from the start. It's still possible, at least until The Big Bang airs and tells us the truth, that Rory in The Eleventh Hour was an Auton, that he had grown up in Leadworth with his body subtly manipulated by the Consciousness. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:19, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, nice. Hadn't thought of that, but wow. That photo of Amy and Rubber Roman Rory got there somehow... and Amy's prepared to destroy any universe that doesn't have him in it. And (filed under 'it fits') the Doctor's "oh so what" attitude about Rory dying, and Rory being alive (and the visual of him pushing Rubber Rory like a weeble-wobble doll) would fit. Agonaga 16:54, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Another possibility worth considering, at least in this week between the two episodes, is that Rory was an Auton from the start. It's still possible, at least until The Big Bang airs and tells us the truth, that Rory in The Eleventh Hour was an Auton, that he had grown up in Leadworth with his body subtly manipulated by the Consciousness. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 16:19, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
- My impression of that photo was this it's from Amy's normal pre-Doctor time, and is just some sort of fancy-dress party they went to. This also explains why Amy is in her police officer kissogram outfit. 115.69.5.221 16:44, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm striking out today, because you're right. She liked to make him play dress-up. Agonaga 16:54, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Exceeeeeept... if he'd sent Rory up there to kiss the girl, then Rory and Amy's lips would be two parts of time and space that should never touch, being pressed together. Not even kidding here, I don't think #11 was so distracted that he'd forget the biggest mystery in the universe standing right in front of him with puppy dog eyes. Human or Auton, that kiss would be a paradox. Agonaga 16:38, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think physical contact is important so don't see a significance in the kiss. Memory, the lack of it, love, the loss, regain and re-loss. These are thematic so are probably more important. Amy remembers and the world falls to bits. Jack Chilli 18:06, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, the paradox in her mind being enough, then? Makes enough sense, although the contact of Rose touching Rose (or her clothes) was a big deal in Father's Day. Just trying to fit-in 'two parts of space and time that should never have touched,' but clearly Big Bang is a better place to expect that. Agonaga 18:21, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
- Speaking of The Big Bang, in The Lodger, I think it's Craig that mentions 'a big bang' coming from upstairs. Perhaps it's just a co-incidence, but the fact he used those words really stuck out to me. And I can't believe that Moffat would have included this episode without it playing a larger part in the overall series arc, especially with leaving so many questions unanswered regarding the 'upstairs TARDIS'. 115.69.5.221 06:02, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
- Ahh, the paradox in her mind being enough, then? Makes enough sense, although the contact of Rose touching Rose (or her clothes) was a big deal in Father's Day. Just trying to fit-in 'two parts of space and time that should never have touched,' but clearly Big Bang is a better place to expect that. Agonaga 18:21, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think physical contact is important so don't see a significance in the kiss. Memory, the lack of it, love, the loss, regain and re-loss. These are thematic so are probably more important. Amy remembers and the world falls to bits. Jack Chilli 18:06, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
I've been wracking my brain trying to discover how The Rory Story for episode 12. There are problems no matter what. The reveal that Roman Rory is an Auton means that the Nestene would have to not only have Rory but, according to the Doctor in Rose, have him alive. Three possible explainations for this.
- 1. Rory wasn't erased from time by the crack but was in fact saved by the Silurians and delivered to the Nestene. This would mean he wasn't killed either because the Nestene Conciousness would need him alive to make an Auton from him. The biggest problem here is that Amy forgot him which would mean that either this isn't a valid explaination or that Amy is an Evil Alliance of Evil construct and playing along. I say construct instead of Auton because if she was an Auton previously she would have melted during time travel due to severing communication from the Nestene controlling her. She would have to be some sort of android like Bracewell.
- 2. Rory was always a construct of The Evil Alliance of Evil. Again, Rory could not have been an Auton the whole time unless there was a Nestene on board the Tardis in which case The Alliance would have known about River. The biggest problem here is that if Rory was a construct from the beginning, then why not use another construct instead of an Auton? They would have to have a valid construct to maintain the Auton anyway.
- 3. The Doctor was wrong about the Nestene needing a live body. In other words, we've all taken some retcon. The biggest problem here is that it would be a big cop-out.Psykechan 07:43, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's quite clear that the Nestene doesn't require a living body. It created all the Romans from a picture book. In Rose, the Doctor said that Mickey still being alive 'was always a possibility'. My impression is that it kept Mickey alive so that if the Doctor incapacitated Auton-Mickey, it could make another one. 115.69.5.221 07:55, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
Taking 'the trap' at face value it does not seem as if Rory was part of that plan. A Rory lookey-likey was there because the Nestine used pictures and Rory was from a photograph and it dod not understand the difference between this real person and the Roman book. Luck break. The tranfer of Rorys's memories seems to be a _genuine_ miracle alowed by the fact there was somewhre for his memories to go (Thanks Nestine). Why whould he be in the plan at all? His presence would only lead to trouble and suspicion from the Doctor so I assume he was a mistake. He's not needed at all for the plan to work; any fake Roman would do. Of course now that he is there (was there as the Universe is gone) there may be a glimmer of hope. Jack Chilli.
On the subject of rory always being an auton, this would make alot of sense because, apart from his nurse uniform we mostly see him wearing the same things in every episode, even when he was prepared for rio, this could explain the id controversy aswel the nestene coudl have just made a mistake
Remember it's not just the Nestine. The Daleks can manufacture the artificial personalities memories from people that are not real (Bracewell) and that acounts for the personalities. The nestine just needs to animate the bodies it's made from pictures in the books and that can't be that hard for it I'm not convinced about he need for Rory though. His memories were the real ones and I can't see where they got them from. Genuine miracle? Jack Chilli
Hello people, has it ever occurred to anyone that the psychic link mentioned may come directly from future Amy and not just her room? The Doctor did promised to bring Amy back to 25/6/2010 after all the adventures and the alliance raided Amy's house sometime between 25/6/2010-26/6/2010...Amy could have returned after all the adventures (and got kidnapped by the aliens or even killed as well?) and have the Alliance establish the psychic link at that point...thus Auton Rory remembering the part about Rory's death...as for the complicated time paradox stuff...Let's break it down:
1. The Alliance as a whole has time traveling technology
2. The Alliance planned pretty much everything before The Eleventh Hour in their timeline
3. Cracks can change history
4. Time travellers are unaffected by changes in history if these changes do not tie significantly into their personal timelines
Doesn't it all make sense now? The Alliance could create an Auton Rory because Rory wasn't erased in the original timeline on 26/6/2010 and that's the timeline the Alliance traveled to when they raided Amy's house and established the psychic link. (If the Alliance traveled to the timeline that's post-crack-devastated-the-entire-universe, there wouldn't be an Amy's house as everything were erased.) In this timeline, Amy likely returned on 25/6/2010, and the Alliance used her memory to create a trap for the Doctor. As the cracks change the timeline, Amy's memory is changed and thus the psychic link retconned with her memory in the new timeline, thus Rory, which is created from Amy's memory, has his memory retconned to the point of his own death. Auton Rory, who is now living in another time, is existing, thus the photo that the Nestene used as a reference exist because it's tied to Auton Rory's existence despite Rory never existed in the first place. For a cleaner theory, let's just say that the Nestene took the photo and time traveled and decided to put it back out of politeness....203.168.176.42 08:53, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Except that all reality has been destroyed (and of course always _was_ destroyed so there can be no past or future 'timelines'; no alternate universes to take things from to do things with. Nothing real remains. Doctor Who is fantasy; not science fiction. Don't try to explain things rationally; accept that there will be a miracle and all things will work out in the end. Jack.
Hello, time travelers...immune to changes in timeline...the idea's been here since Flesh and Stone....It's simple...it doesn't need miracles...Auton Rory exists due to the exact same reason that Amy remembers those bishops/whatever they are and Doctor remembering Amy and the wedding ring being in the Tardis...The Tardis has/had not been devoured by cracks so it exist despite the original timeline is modified...the Alliance created Rory despite the new timeline is Roryless because they don't belong to the new timeline...You can use miracle to explain everything...but that sort of ruin the point of watching anything on TV...and pretty much everything else...and certainly make going on the forum kind of pointless222.166.181.15 10:34, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Well time travel is a miracle to start with. It can't be explained (see all the previous attempts here) by rational means and therefore is a miracle. You accept it in every episode I assume. You're using miracles to explain why a miracle is not needed. Rory exists becase they remember him? Didn't the Doctor explain why Amy forgot Rory but not the clerics? If the places that time travelers have been to still exist then why would The aliance be worried? Their places still exists; Skaro is still there so the Daleks should be loving the destruction of all of the non-time travel species. This isn't the removal of all existance that the cracks were supposed to threaten. I'm assuming that when Moffat says that everything is destroyed that's _exacly_ what he means. It's all 'currently' gone. What we will see now are places of imagination and of memory. Meta-fictional worlds. Places where ideas can take on their own life just as was described in The Time of Angels. Discussing miracles of this form is exactly as valid as discussing ones involving time travel. AA Adding psudo-science explanations can be fun (see all of my earlier explanations of paradox and why the Byzantium is still cracshed) but so can discussions about the nature of _story_ and fiction and imagination. Moffat loves the minds and beliefs of children. I hope that the anweer will lie there. Jack Chilli
The Part Where It All Becomes Retarded
Time travel is a miracle?!? You just rejected the existence of the entire Sci-fi genre. Theory and miracle are two different things...theory is rational. The thing is, I don't quite understand what it is that you are trying to reject...if it's what I said earlier...then I don't recognize it from what you wrote. The places do not exist, they are wiped from existence...and that has nothing to do with what I said...I think you may be a bit confused. In explaining why Auton Rory has the memory of Rory's death, I am simply putting forward the chronology of when things happen, and you seem to not be able to grasp any of it at all. Let me phrase it this way, in the perspective of the Alliance:
1. The cracks are beginning to appear, stuffs are getting erased
2. Certain time traveling (time-aware) aliens notice this, and starts planning to prevent it after finding out that the Doctor is involved
3. Amy returns from the adventures with the doctor (or not, doesn't really matter)
4. the Alliance uses Amy memory after her return (sometime around 26/6/2010) to create a trap to lure the doctor, Auton Rory is created at this point
5. Auton Rory is placed in 102 AD
6. More and more cracks show up at different points in time, and real Rory gets erased
7. Amy's memory is changed, retconing the psychic link
Thus Auton Rory exists because Auton Rory is not on the timeline that is wiped, and because the psychic link is linked to Amy, who is now synched with the current timeline, his memory retconned to that of Amy's.
What you're thinking is a bit weird...you are thinking that everything is absolute, I guess I'll have to label that hyper-rational...There's really no point in watching the show if you think like that...because you should be watching a blank screen seeing you think that everything is destroyed without any relation to the relative chronological placements of the events. If there is no significance to the chronology of the event then there would be no Alliance, no Doctor, no anything, because you propose that everything is absolute without regard to chronology, so everything before the first episode of Doctor Who even air has already been wiped from existence...222.166.181.90 11:52, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Wow "Not able to grasp any of it at all?". Seriously? I really think you should take a look at some earlier discussions before you decide on my capability to understand.
Firstly. If all 'sci-fi' is about time travel then I must have been reading a lot mislabelled books over the years.
Secondy. Time travel is not possible. It is a fantasy. We discuss it as though it is possible in the 'whoniverse' and try to rationalise the evenrty that we see despite the clear fact that a lot of stuff is just made up as you go along. It has no long term logic and is often many contradictions. This is why is is a fantasy world not a 'sci fi' one. The science used is not really anywhere near the science of the real world as 'science fiction'. So the time travel works miraculously to us; it is not logical or consistant and, despite some good efforts to rationilase it, it is not always rational. Simplest example of the top of my head: where does the message on Amy's note in the window come from? It's an infamous San Dimas loop(cf. technicolour time machine). Irrational because information comes from 'nowhere'. If you can accept this impossible event then what's you problem with another one?
Thirdy. I addressed transfer of conciousness and memory (by necceccity) earlier: see Greg Egan short story Dust or the novel Permutation City as examples of how this can 'rationally' be explained by scientific ideas that are just a likely as time-travel. Here you will also find mechanisms for constructing real worlds from virtual or potential ones. You should have a read to see if I have managed to grasp it all correctly.
Fourthly: When there is no time there is no chronolgy. How do these real places exist when there is no time and ,of course, never was? You may have your chronology back when the Universe is returned if you like.
Fithly: You've got a 'psychic link' that passes through time and space to a memory of a person that's somehow embedded in Amy's mind. Shes's got a copy of Rory's thoughs in her head? Not miraculous? It's irrational nonsense: fantasy.
Lastly. If you read my earlier posts I explain quite thoroughly that the reality we have seen will be restored along with the chronology and events depicted. I even rationise how and event could have happened such as the CyberKing and now apparntly hasn't. The whole of WHo history is in flux but of course it will 'come back'. Don't confuse the world we live in with the fantasy world of Doctor Who; the programme isn't going to vanish from my memory and every episode retains is 'validity'.
Oh, as and aside, please explain why Rory has any of his real (or fake) memories of the future at all. What's the point of giving him memories that conflict with his current state of existance? How does that fit in with the plan? Jack Chilli 15:04, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
- As a writer myself, all I can say is that Moff has done a fantastic job, but he may have written himself into a corner with respect to a few details, like Rubber Roman Rory remembering things he ought not. I have a slight worry that 9/10 of the times we've all said "ooh that's gotta be something, because of X" ... we're going to be left in the lurch over those things because Moff only has 45 minutes to resolve this story. But then again, he's done a great job so far, he might knock all these paradoxes and questions out of the park, and he's pretty certainly going to entertain us. Agonaga 15:14, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
- You're most likely right but filling in the potential gaps in the plot is fun. Jack Chilli 15:19, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
- Fun and irresistible! Btw, -- pretty offtopic -- I rewatched some eps to look for Earth-minus-stars. The opening backdrop to TEH not only lacks stars, but the earth looks really ... cartoony! Obviously the sun is there somewhere (cuz they talk about seeing it through the Atraxi force field) but the low-quality-FX and stark black backdrop seem obvious there. Episodes which DO feature noticable stars in the sky include VotD, VatD, TToA, and CB. Based on that, I'm guessing that the only time we'll see a lack of stars, is on Earth during Amy/Amelia's lifetime. Agonaga 15:26, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Jack Chilli, I want to answer you, but can you help me sort out what exactly you're saying first:
1. So basically, you ARE proposing that any book about time traveling cannot be sci-fi because time traveling is magical? I thought you were joking...
2. Science fiction has to be about existing technology and applications of scientific theories. In your country, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc, are all labeled fantasy. But please elaborate on the Amy's note you were talking about...I don't know which episode you are talking about...
Well, the thing is, time traveling is not magic, it is something that physicist are trying to solve and we have theories that are readily available to account for it, but we just can't do it as we currently neither have the technology capable of traveling faster than light, nor have the transportation necessary to carry out experiments in theoretical extreme gravitation locations like wormholes, but time being a value affected by other factors is a part of modern physics. If you have to define time-travel as fantasy magical things then a lot of grad students studying physics just became Harry Potter. Unfortunately, if time-travel is fantasy, then I assume teleportation and other non-existing technology wouldn't magically become scientific...so in your home country, Star Wars, Star Trek and the likes are actually labeled as fantasy. I am afraid that your reading list must be very short and extremely dull.
3. Now you really need to sort out what you are trying to say for me. So basically, are you saying Permutation City is sci-fi or fantasy?
I have not read the book, but you are saying that the technology is just as likely as time travel, and like time travel it can 'rationally' be explained by scientific ideas...but it's 'rational' in quotes. If you're trying to tell me it's sci-fi and that is a possible theory of Auton Rory retaining Rory's memory, then you're just contradicting yourself...if you're not, then how is it relevant to what I was saying?
4+6. I hope you understand what's happening, I'm not sure if I can but let me try to phrase it in an even more simple way, think of yourself typing on a keyboard, a program glitch deleted the last word you typed, there is no undo function, so you typed the word back in. Now imagine there is a primary timeline where Doctor Who takes place, and this is the timeline where the events are placed in chronological order. You have to take out the events on a spot every 5 minutes. Let's label the events one to five, now you make a copy of event 4, and you place the copy of event four on the same spot as event 2, and now you take out the original event 4. Copy of event 4 exists on the same spot as event 2, now you continue taking out events, and event 2 and copy of event 4 are taken out last. In the end, all the events are gone, but in round 2 to 5, copy of event 4 exists on the spot of event 2. It's just that simple, in the personal timelines of the individuals, the cracks don't happen all at once, they erase events at different points. The TV characters live on the timeline, they're not observers, there is a chronology, because not all events are erased yet until the final moment. In your last point, you mentioned mixing up the TV show with reality, I'm really sorry to say this, but I afraid it is probably the exact reason you're confused...you mixed up the role of an observer outside of the timeline and the individuals on it who live chronologically until erased. Your ideas are contradicting in that you deny an original chronological order upon the erasing of events yet to have it restored, and it's more contradicting to propose in a world of absolute any possible resolution, as you deny secondary timelines, and all events are erased, and all chronological orders never existed, which means there can't be any causes and so no effects...
5. This is the part I don't recognize...we don't know if Auton Rory has all of Rory's memory, everyone has only been proposing that he is the Rory in Amy's memory, but the question is which point on Amy's timeline. I hope this helps, I didn't realize you were lost all along.222.166.181.251 17:09, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
My country is England. You are coming across as mildly insulting with the ‘very dull’ reading list. You make a very poor argument here as you have no knowledge of my reading list. Perhaps you think that I feel that fantasy is in some way inferior to ‘sci fi’ and therefore is not enjoyable? If this is so then you may be mistaken. Many people, including myself, read from a range of material and watch a range of material and get pleasure from it? It is most odd that you would think that I only read from a small list. Would you like to give some evidence of this limitation or perhaps retract the comment? Please don’t post a list of all the things you have read; really.
To your points then:
1 No. There are a massive number of definitions of what materials fall under the category ‘science fiction’. I’ll go with Campbell: "To be science fiction, not fantasy, an honest effort at prophetic extrapolation from the known must be made”. Or Heinlein "Realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method. To make this definition cover all science fiction (instead of 'almost all') it is necessary only to strike out the word 'future'.” If a time travel story fits this then science fiction is a good enough term for me. I would most certainly judge Doctor Who as fantasy and quite an outrageous one at that. Star Wars is most certainly fantasy (Lucas chose fantasy archetypes on purpose to enhance the fantasy elements) as are most episodes of Star Trek. For a story that contains time travel (on a macroscopic scale) try some of the Xeelee cycle; I’ll put this in the ‘sci-fi’ category for you. Interestingly enough the time machine is in Stonehenge. You can choose whatever definition you would like but you might want to use the term ‘science fiction’ or SF instead of ‘sci-fi’ unless you want to subcategorize into ‘serious’ and ‘hack’.
2. Can you give me the links that show that these time travel theories. Can you show my how they any way related to the ‘mechanisms’ shown in Doctor Who? The time travel mechanisms are _fantasy_. Just look at all of the pseudoscientific explanations give through this wika. Don’t you think some of them were written by grad students? They are not even consistent within the Dr Who canon never mind scientific! Again, don’t make the assumption that fantasy is in anyway inferior to other forms of fiction.
Amy’s note is in The Lodger. Where does the information content of message originate? You’ll find some discussion of around here somewhere. And again with the ‘reading list’. A poor standard of discussion.
3. I will class Permutation city as science fiction as it is based on the concepts of quantum mechanics and in particular quantum suicide. It is also based around the ideas of reality, computability and consciousness. It is of course _fiction_ and there are most certainly some extrapolations of current technology and ideas about the nature of computation and consciousness. There are consistently maintained through the work in ways that are clearly linked to current ideas of physics. Check out the Greg Egan website if you are at all curious. I merely gave it as an example of a plausible mechanism for transfer of consciousness. There may well be others.
4+6 What exactly is the machine that is doing this copy and pasting? What is the substrate that these events are on? Are they bits stored in computer memory? What is it analogous to in the Dr Who universe? In you analogy the machine seems to exist outside of the universe. What is doing the copy and pasting? Who is this typist that is in control? Are the bits moving themselves? It can’t be the characters because they exist on the same level of reality as the events that are being moved about by your process so they are just bits too. Are you suggesting a mechanism outside of space and time that does this process? Such a mechanism and substrate is already discussed (by myself and falcion) in the reason why the Byzantim remains crashed after the Angel is gone. Your movement of events requires another level of reality (the operator of the machine). How does the operator do this if the machine is crashed (should have made a backup)? You can suppose the extra level of reality quite easily and I refer you to thoughts on a holographic universe where such processes may be allowable.
At this point you again you attempt to characterize me as ‘confused’. I understood the timeline idea you gave the _first time_; such ideas have been used very regularly to explain events in the Dr Who universe. However for these there was a requirement that there was ‘time’ still in existence to work with.
You then go on about me ‘denying’ secondary timelines? What?
To use your own computer analogy. The computer has crashed and all of the ‘events’ are lost. They operator (unaffected by this as they are outside of the events) can still reboot and type them back in from memory (or restore from a recent backup whatever that is in your analogy). What if they forget a few? What about the CyberKing?
5. ‘Rory’ clearly has memories about the original Roys’s past. You may suppose them fake if you like but the question remains why are they there? What is the _point_ of them?
Oh and ‘lost all along’. As we say in Blighty: ‘poor form old bean, poor form’. Jack Chilli 19:01, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, you need to read, and not talk about irrelevant things, if you don't understand something, please ask...because you're talking about something completely different:
5. First of all, the memory is not fake; the whole thing was to explain why Auton Rory remembers what Amy remembered of Rory. What you are saying is actually the complete opposite of the thing I am proposing. I am suggesting it is real, and it is memory from Amy on 26/6/2010 before Rory was erased. As for the point of it, it's stated in the episode -- it's a trap, and it's because it's real that the memory's not selected or modified, all those memories that could potentially hinder the Alliance's plan are there because they're by-products. Which part of this don't you understand?
4+6. This is a model, the point is not the operator, but whether the chronological order of the events and the erasing of events. I am very glad you asked about secondary timelines, because you do seem very confused. You keep on suggesting something that is not my idea at all and credit it as mine. I want to see how much you understand, please answer the following:
a.) In the perspective of a character in the show, the erasing of events doesn't happen all at once, true? b.) The Pandorica has been mentioned in the Eleventh Hour, which is before Rory's erased, true? c.) Amy & Rory's wedding ring still exists; Doctor still remembers Rory; there was at least a short moment after Rory's death that Amy remembers him; Amy's memory of Rory is still retained somewhere in her mind as she remembers him...these are true, right?
You are viewing everything over-simplistically in suggesting that everything's completely gone in 1 instance because this is not what the show is showing. We are not watching a blank screen, we are not facing a computer crash, that is from your perspective after the destruction of time. I think you misunderstood me when I mentioned the TV show would be just blank screen the first time: throughout the whole series, the screen didn't turn blank all of a sudden because not all events are being taken away...phrasing it more simply, not all of time is gone yet. We still haven't seen everything being erased in the end of the Pandorica Opens, it still hasn't happened in the perspective of the characters. You can't force a future event seen in your perspective onto the show's universe, it's just stupid. The erasing of events is shown in the show to progress gradually; if it weren't, then rather than seeing cracks showing up, the entire universe must be erased the same time the first crack showed up. There is an order or a secondary timeline on which the crack happens to the timeline of events.
3. I haven't read the book but are you saying that the technology in the book is as likely as time travel, since time travel is fantasy and magical, so you would classify Permutation City as sci-fi?
2. J. Richard Gott's "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe: The Physical Possibilities of Travel Through Time", W.H. Freeman's "Time Travel and Other Mathematical Bewilderments", etc...go knock yourself out on Google scholar or your local library...there're plenty of theories on time travel.
As for Amy's note, I don't quite see your point because the idea is simple; the Doctor asked Amy to write the note in the end of the episode. There's nothing wrong with it, and nothing interesting to discuss, it just happened.
How does "look[ing] at all of the pseudo[-]scientific explanations give[n] through this wik[i]" tie in with the show? You are very confused: this is a wiki on Doctor Who, this is not Doctor Who. Can you please tell me your point?
1. There's your problem. You do not decide the genre of something. It's just stupid to come up with your personal genre for every work. A genre is a category, the genre is descriptive of the works and not the other way around. Your "England" is very different from the one I know of...I have a hard time finding Star Wars, Star Trek and Doctor Who in the Fantasy section when shopping for DVDs. The thing is, a genre is not for you to judge, by doing that, it loses the point of categorizing. The point of categorizing is to provide a label for a group of works; it's a way to communicate; you're thinking the other way around. Genres come after writing, you will never find the genre "sci-fi" before the first sci-fi work, it's the works that define the genre and the genre that define works. The categories are meant to provide a way to communicate, if you think everyone judges each piece of work personally as to which genre it is, the system falls apart. That's like saying Einstein's theories don't agree with Quantum Theory, so I will classify it as "fiction"; and Romeo and Juliet contains suicide scenes so it's "horror"; Amy is too sexy and the doctor was in a towel so Doctor Who is a porn, we'll put it in "adult". It must be very hard to shop for books and DVDs in your world. Moreover, you just said that time travel cannot be sci-fi and now suddenly you can put something with time travel "in sci-fi" for me? You are just not making sense
Onto your comments, the reading list is meant to mean your sci-fi reading list. I don't see how you can not get that.203.168.176.42 05:00, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
If the nestene created book characters and Rory, maybe there is an auton Amy running around somewhere? Lu-igi board
There may be ; wonder what she was wearing? Let's hope the fake plastic Romans gaive fake plastic Amy some respect. "Romans!"
Anyway, on to .42:
Firstly: Your Ad Hominem attacks are tiresome. I asked you to try to stop them but you have not. This could be because you are intentionally rude or that you do not know what such attacks are and why they are not required. I will make you aware that such mischaracterisation of a person has no place in a discussion and I will ask you to stop this last time. If you are unable to have a discussion without these then we have nothing to talk about. I do not have time to discuss things with people that have to use these techniques to “win an argument” in the same way as I do not have time for arguments that involve ‘fisticuffs’.
You asked for a definition of science fiction and I gave you one from an acclaimed author and one from an acclaimed author and editor. You asked me for a definition and I gave you two and allowed you to define ‘sci-fi’ in your own terms. If your definition is ‘where to find the DVD’s’ then that’s fine. I was assuming that you’d reach for the category system used in libraries or some definition used by noted critics but you are free to have it your way. I fully understand where to find DVD’s and books in shops and libraries; I tend to find them in the area designated as ‘science fiction and fantasy’ but not always. The people that stack shelves or organise libraries may have different definitions than me but that is no problem for a reasonably capable person to deal with. I do not think that everybody has the same definitions of genres as me, why should I when genres blur so easily. Do you think that I must accept your definition? Why would you want me to do so? I’m happy with mine and your happy with yours so why is there a problem? If you don’t want Doctor Who to be a fantasy then that’s fine but please don’t expect me to change my mind on the matter. Amongst my limited reading list are works of science fiction, speculative fiction and fantasy. If don’t feel that one genre is better than another; only the quality of works themselves count. Some Doctor who is fine comedy, some good horror, there are even some examples of science fiction. The body as a whole though is fantasy.
As for Permutation City. The technology in the book is presented in a way that matches my clear definition of science fiction and so I categorise it as such as I have already clearly stated. If you feel I have miscategorised it then feel free to read it and explain where I have gone wrong. I have already given you a time travel novel that I accept as science fiction, as before you can read it and tell me why I am wrong if you like. Clearly I am willing to accept some ‘time travel’ work in the category but certainly not Doctor Who.
The ‘technology’ and events in Doctor Who are not even self consistent to such an extent that you can tell me with any certainty where Doctor was born (if indeed he was born). Moving onto the time-travel aspects of the work do any of these theories you have kindly provided on time travel explain Doctor Who? If you can match them up to give a reasonably stable explanation I will most certainly move Doctor Who from my fantasy category to my science fiction category. Of course, even a cursory glance at the works demonstrates that they don’t. Assuming that you have read them could you give me some descriptions of how they match up in your opinion? Doctor who is full of senseless babble wrapped up in ‘scientific sounding’ words. Don’t take that to mean that it is ‘bad’. It’s not based on these purported explanations of time travel at all hence it has no grounding in any scientific theory and is, as I have already said, fantasy. We haven’t even touched on the science of ‘psychic link’! Do you have some references for the ‘science’ of this too?
For your suggestions of what should be classed as science and where would I file Einstein’s work; I will go for the legal definition that the US courts have kindly provided and so I think I can judge what is scientific or not. This allows me to decide on issues such as this quite easily and it has served well for many years. I am of the belief that ‘porn’ also has a formal legal definition although that may just be obscenity. Other categories are for me to decide after reading the work. I may take guidance from people I respect or look in areas where I assume interesting work will be but just because somebody puts a book on a shelf doesn’t mean that it is where I would put it or how I would label it. If somebody told you a book was ‘good’ and put it in the recommended section would you assume that it was a good read before you have read it. I am capable of making my own decisions and justifying them.
I do not credit you with the invention of ‘secondary timelines’. However I do credit you with the concept of a ‘timeline denier’. I wonder if I am the first person to deny the existence of a fictional literary device. What exactly are they? Which physical interpretation of them are you using to describe them? On the other hand I think that ‘timeline denier’ could be a great terms for the ‘cracks’. They deny the existence of timelines. I will leave this for you to move forwards with as it was your phrase.
Back to Rory then. Can you explain to me why the trap required Rory’s memories? In what way would it not work without them? Why has so much effort gone into placing them there? There were plenty of Autons available to kill Amy if that’s the goal (indeed without Rory she would have been upgraded). Confusing the Doctor? Why is this needed; he is obsessed with a puzzle box already. If anything Rory’s presence would make him suspicious of the miraculous scenario; the unreality of his situation. Would the Doctor have fled if Rory was not there; I would think not. Rory’s presence was not required in any way so why go to all of that trouble. To say something like ‘it was part of the trap’ is not a satisfactory answer. Why was he part of the trap? Is it a simple flaw in the writing (in which case any explanation is redundant)? Is there meant to be an explanation? In all likelihood it is a requirement of an element of ‘story’; the relationship between Rory and Amy needs to be resolved is a satisfactory way to create good fiction. If fantastical means are required to give this element of ‘closure’ or completeness (a genuine ‘miracle’ as the doctor suggests) then so be it. The story is paramount.
In answer to your question about what I have suggested: I am indeed suggesting that the whole universe was erased the ‘moment’ the first crack appeared. As it stands ‘now’ nothing we have ever seen on Doctor who (including the events portrayed this season and all previous seasons) exists. The ‘in universe’ experiences of all of the characters never happened. It has all gone. At the end of TPO you were indeed watching a blank screen. Moffat will put it all back in a way that is not explicable with science (or any reasonable extrapolation of it) but I am watching fantasy I am perfectly happy with that. There may be major discrepancies between what we see and the explanation given for them; this is common in fantastical works especially television. It is literally impossible to portray anything disappearing from all time in this medium and so dramatic effects like ‘fading away’ are used to portray this loss. There is no reasonable explanation for this ‘effect’; it is a dramatic technique. We are describing fiction not reality. Do you think that I can really erase something from all past and future existence? Of course not. A ‘scientific’ description of what would ‘happen’ if this were possible would be interesting to speculate on in general terms. Remember Amy can remember the clerics ‘because she is a time traveller’ and she forgets Rory ‘because he is part of your past’. Is that science? No; it is inexplicable fantasy; a literary plot device to create drama and tension.
Ideas of rewriting continuity have been used in works of fantasy before to great effect (and sometimes truly appallingly). It is quite common in comics for example although good examples are rare. On the other hand I could be wrong on how everything is intended to be working. This is of no consequence; this is the howling, a chaotic place of speculation. The purpose of the speculation is to enjoy the process of creating it. Nearly all of the time you speculation will not be answered satisfactorily but the process of speculation remains interesting.
By the way. Do you really not see the ‘problem’ with Amy’s note? I find it hard to believe that anybody with knowledge of time travel or time travel fiction would not recognise it immediately. I would expect it to be thoroughly covered in “Time Travel and Other Mathematical Bewilderments.” I would look for it in your copy. Jack Chilli.
Okay, I say something, and you don't understand, so I explained and you still don't understand, and I asked what you're confused about and that's attacking you? I am a bit worried now, because I am not even certain if you know what you are talking about.
1. So after all these discussions, you suddenly tell me to stop imposing my view of the genre on you. The problem is you were the one who said Doctor Who is fantasy not science fiction and tried to impose your view on me and probably most of the society...Do you find it a bit odd that you can the conclusion that people are imposing their view on you when you are the one who said something in an attempt to change others' views?
2. Whether or not someone is acclaimed is highly subjective, but it would be kind of odd to have an author define a genre -- that is like allowing a food manufacturer to choose however and whichever to label the nutritional content of the food. I was just polite in not pointing that out in hope that you would understand how pointless it was to label something differently and use it to communicate with the rest of the society. Afterall, language is meant to communicate...for me at least.
3. Accepting time travel as science fiction contradicts your earlier statements that request physics theories on time traveling.
4. How does knowing where the Doctor is born tie in with what genre the TV Show is - do enlighten me...is knowing where the characters are born an element of sci-fi?
5. Just because something is not explained, that does not mean it's illogical, if you read books that explain every single detail in the book then please do suggest these interesting readings to me. It must be fascinating and infinitely long.
6. Your suggestion is outrageous, what are you suggesting is for the technology to be feasible, not just reasonable. Are the technologies in Permutation City feasible; can you build those machines? The ideas that are proposed don't contradict science but we fully understand that our technology is not capable of it, and regardless how something is supported by theoretical works, when our technology has advance to the level that is capable of building science fiction machines, there is always the possibility that the theory will not be supported. They are theories and not practical conclusions supported by experiments. Can you be certain that the scenario in Permutation City can be achieved?
7. Similarly, I have no idea how the TARDIS works, and I am quite confident that neither does Steven Moffat, but I know that time travel theoretically exists, so I cannot say Doctor Who is wrong. There is no evidence to reject it. Keeping things ambiguous does not make it wrong, no work describes every single thing and action in complete detail, and I have never seen people used the term "Science Fiction" as a manual for building a machine or an academic scientific discussion. Sci-fi works can get disproved too, even academic papers can get disproved. For all I know, it uses a certain contemporary scientific principle/theory for plot development and doesn't contradict with it, it's good enough for me and most people on Earth.
8. Please correct my points in 7, as I have time picking up from where you left off...the definition you used is subjective and the stance you have taken is quite inconsistence throughout your responses...so e.g. how "honest", how "solidly" is "solidly", what determines if the knowledge is "adequate"? (do the writers have to have a Ph.D.? I am sure Hawking can readily rejects the 'knowledge' of many scholars)
9. On a side note, you do realize that right after you said no one should impose their definition of genre on another after all those arguing to impose your definition on me, you jumped right back in and continued imposing your definition onto other people, right?
10. Psychic link does not contradict known science either. The show is proposing something...many animals are hive-minded. The Economy has an invisible hand propelled by human behaviour.
11. I didn't know English need US Laws...interesting, you learn something new everyday. Anyhow, what did the 'US courts' provided as the genre of physics theories that are inconsistent? I find it fascinating as my country has no such legal definitions for any genre actually, I do need your help in learning the US definitions then. You probably don't want to travel to many places in the World either...as many places would leave you quite confused as there are no legal definitions for any of these works.
12. I suggest you re-read what I wrote last time about the timeline, because none of the things you argued against in your response were in it...were you responding to someone else on that part? You suddenly credit me with a concept called "timeline denier" that I have no idea about, and then you go on to explain what "timeline deniers" are and goes on to say your theory that "they deny the existence of timelines", when all along I am arguing that there is a secondary timeline that keeps the cracks from happening all at once in the perspective of the characters. Are you arguing for me or against me?
13. Please do not "leave this for [me] to move forwards with" as it was NOT my phrase; denying the existence of the timeline is your phrase and it is only consistent with what you are proposing (the timeline and all events completely vanishing in one instance). I propose the opposite, the events DO NOT all vanish in one instance in the character's personal timeline. I have always argued against absolute...
14. Onto Rory. I told you...there is no point, it's a by-product. You can't ask someone to explain the point of something that is a by-product.
15. How do you know the trap requires Rory's memories? Who suggested that? For all I know, the Nestene took things and ideas associated with or fascinated Amy and made the Autons and other possible things that would lead the Doctor to the Pandorica. Has it ever been suggested that the Nestene "has [gone through] so much effort into placing them there"? Has it ever been suggested the Nestene selected the elements of the bait or capable selecting the elements of the bait? I have no idea where you ideas come from, please point them out for me.
16. The only thing suggested in the show that I could tell was that the plan was to take elements that fascinates Amy and make baits that would lure Amy/Doctor (or Amy, thus Doctor) to the trap. If the Alliance know exactly how the plan will work and that the Doctor would be obsessed with the puzzle box, then the questions would be valid...but I don't see how you get the idea that the Alliance is omniscient, please clarify.
17. First of all, I have very rarely encounter any "flawless writings", and I don't think portraying the Alliance with a plan that is realistic in their perspective is a flaw. I find writings that work perfectly toward one goal quite odd, as that would sort of defeat the purpose of a climax.
18. Wow...unfortunately, (well, first of all, I can't agree with you on the idea that a good fiction must have everything resolved, as I like many fictions that intentionally leave rooms for imagination, and very few works resolve everything), Doctor Who and any other fiction doesn't have to be good...your world is just ideal and theoretical...(and I would feel quite betrayed as a fan if everything is resolved and closed regardless of possibility)
19. At the end of TPO, I didn't see a blank screen...I saw a Earth...you area must be picking up a different version. In my version, the universe isn't erased yet.
20. If you reasonably extrapolate from it...it's not science...Science is derived, extrapolating technology is meaningless...how do you draw the line between what's reasonable and what's not?
21. Onto your perspective of Amy remembering the clerics or whatever they are...Can you apply the same logic to things you classify as sci-fi without subjectivity?
22. On a side note, is the Matrix a sci-fi or fantasy?
23. What is wrong with using literary plot device to create drama and tension? That's the whole point!
24. How is there a problem in Amy's note, science fiction from the last century have extensively cover the topic of a cause of an event being involved or being a by-product of the event. This is not something new. I'm sure theories on perpetual systems have dated to at least the 1600s. I just can't find the thread you mentioned, and I am just quite shocked that anyone would still be interested in discussing it, as similar ideas have been used for endless times.
222.166.181.34 14:01, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
Much as I really don't want to get involved in this argument, I find myself compelled to do so. This is going to end badly. Nevertheless, using the most recent numbering:
1. Doctor Who is on the fringes of Science Fiction and Fantasy. There is infact a genre called [Fantasy]. Is that not a good enough compromise for everyone. You both have valid points, especially with the rise of the Moff and his comments about Doctor Who being fairytale-ish when done well, a theme he has been weaving through this season.
3. I think in this case Jack is saying tha time travel in itself can be either Science Fiction or Fantasy - depending on the mechanism involved.
7. I have never seen people used the term "Science Fiction" as a manual for building a machine or an academic scientific discussion. There are plenty of cases of this, and the dialogue is two way. Warp theory as defined in Star Trek predates the Alcubierre Drive as formulated in theoretical physics by about 20 or 30 years, but provided a lot of the inspiration if not the finer technical detail. Also Cyborgs and stuff. Consider that fiction writers have to have very active imaginations, and so can see links between things that engineers and theoreticians may well just not.
We could think about the tardis in two different ways: as technology, or as an organism. I like the latter idea better, and view timetravel as enabled by a tardis akin to travelling distances on land whilst riding a horse. But that's just personal preference.
8. Is a philosophical quagmaire. If I actually wanetd to get into it, it would involve words like internalist assumption of knowledge, proof of an ontologically independant noumenal world and so on.
13. Timelines. Now this is something meaty I could write tens of thousands of words on (and indeed am doing so in my doctorate, although from a philosphical rather than a scientific point of view). I shan't, unless people are interested. But basically, problems start occurring (even within physics) when you posit a primordial objective time, as opposed to time as 'lived' in the duration of spatio-temporal objects. ('lived' being used here to also cover the
24. Amy's note. The biggest problem with it is that she never actually wrote it, she got distracted by a wedding ring instead. The 'paradox' (not a true paradox, just an eternal loop) formed by its utility in Earth's progressive timeline prior to its being written in the Doctor and Amy's rather more wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey timeline can be put down to just that - wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey...stuff. It takes quite a lot to put yourself into a non-objective non-linear time frame of mind, but as far as my understanding of the temporal mechanics implied by Einstein's General Relativity go (which admittedly is not that far), it doesn't break them. This is just another, less interesting case of the DVD easter egg in Blink.
Time is fun. But where's everyone's willing suspension of disbelief?! Faeryty 14:54, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
How is possible for me to impose my opinion on you? Can you not accept that I view Doctor Who as fantasy with no realistic grounding in science? Is there something wrong with the word “fantasy”? I am in no way asking you to stop imposing your views on me. You cannot impose your views in just the same way as I cannot impose my views. I have not asked you to change your mind; just to open it to the certain fact that other people can have different opinions than yours. This is a just a forum. View Doctor Who as whatever you think it is but try to understand that I believe it is fantasy. When I talk I describe it is fantasy; there is no way that this is an imposition on you to accept it as such. I would be redundant to use ‘in my opinion fantasy’ instead of ‘fantasy’ in my sentences as clearly my words are my opinions.
I do not accept time travel as science fiction; I accept certain time travel novels as science fiction. You have been given the clear criteria that I use; this is rather more sophisticated than shelf location and examples of time travel works that are acceptable as science fiction to me. If you do not like the definitions I have given then there are more to choose from a range of people that you may or may not judge as acceptable. We have differing standards it seems. If you were to read the work then perhaps you may be able to see why I place them in a different category of fiction to Doctor Who.
The origin of the Doctor is linked the fantasy nature of the source. The internal consistency and continuity that you believe is there is so weak that the nature of the central characters ‘birth’ is in question. The first point in his continuity is not even clearly defined. Perfectly OK by me for a fantasy work. Not a good start for science fiction.
If something is not explained then we may explain it in any way we see fit. You may be happy with your explanation and I am with mine. I do not believe that yours is in any way more scientific than mine and I know mine is purest fantasy.
The machines in Permutation city are plausible extrapolations of current computing machines. They do not require anything more than increased processing power. Every detail of their function is not describes but all of the description is consistent. You are attempting to reduce to the absurd here and the attempt is ill formed as it is not based on my explanation of what makes science fiction science fiction to me. I assume that you understand that I do not think that Permutation city will come true and the technology will actually be developed.
Sci-fi works can be disproved? They are works of ‘fiction’ so be definition are not true! The technology in them is not real either. It is a ‘plausible extrapolation’. Don’t go thinking I believe it is real or even possible. It is _plausible_.
In my limited reading I’ve read a few SF, fantasy and books by Doctors. Some are good and some are rubbish. They tend to be more plausible than others and fall into my science fiction genre more often than not; doesn’t make them good reads though as they may well be poorly plotter of characterisation is weak.
If you have no idea how the TARDIS works then assume it works by magic as it most defiantly does not work by science. Science does not work by assuming that all things are possible and accepting everything until it is proven wrong. This is not the scientific method at all. Do you accept elves and magic rings as science fiction? What scientific law rules them out? Can’t Sauron be battling them in an alternate timeline in a parallel universe where the laws of physics are very different than ours? Where’s that science that says that this is not possible? It’s not there because such suggestions are not scientific suggestions in the first place. I would have assumed that one element of a scientific college graduation would cover the history, theory and philosophy of science. Have I assumed wrongly? For science fiction I go with plausible extrapolations of science. I’ll put the other stuff in the fantasy cupboard. The TARDIS is a magical story telling device with properties that have been made up based on the needs of story. It really isn’t a scientific device in any way shape or from unless its chameleon circuits making in to a handy retort stand. I could do with one.
Emergent properties and behaviour are not the same as ‘psychic links’. ‘Psychic links’ are not real and have no grounding in modern scientific theory. They are plot devices in fantasy novels. This is of course an opinion. You may find some well regarded professors that can show me how this ‘psychic link’ works and I will listen politely while they change my mind.
If you did not know that there was an important legal definition of what is a scientific theory and what is not then I suggest that you look into it. It’s quite important; you may see why a legal definition was produced in the US while it was not required in the UK. Again you ridiculously mischaracterise me! I have chosen to use a definition of what is and what is not science! I can work without it quite easily. You will find that many scientists, in particular those concerned with the scientific process and the philosophical aspects of science are interested in exactly what is and what is not ‘science’. I am not bound by it; it is not forced on me. I use it because it is an agreeable and succinct definition of what is and what is not a scientific theory. I’m just surprised that you didn’t know it existed when you gave you explanation of why I might categorise the work of scientists as fiction.
You said I denied the existence of secondary timelines. I’m a “timeline denier”! Don’t worry I’m not insulted at all by this. I might even change my user name to it. It has a lovely ring to it for a villain; both menacing and science.
It’s a by-product. I can ask you to explain and I did. So what does ‘You can't ask someone to explain the point of something that is a by-product’ mean. I’m asking as that’s what the whole discussion is about. Why is Rory (or a simulation of him) there. If this is the best explanation you have then that’s OK by me. I like my miracle explanation just fine.
I don’t think that trap requires Rory’s memories! Quite the opposite! That’s the point I made at the start. There is no need for them at all. They are redundant; pointless; not required in the least; more of a hindrance than a boon, not wanted etc. They are there for purposes of plot and their existence is a ‘genuine miracle’. I could give a plausible explanation (read PC) but it is in no way needed. I want the miracle not to be explicable. Miracles need no explanation; they have no explanation; they are miracles.
I fell that the Aliance plan is, well, rubbish. I can take it at face value though. Daleks and cybermen and all of the other baddies have been shown to be pretty stupid al lot of the time. If this wasn’t the case then the poor Doc would not have lasted long. If I met him I would shoot him and burn him and shoot the burnt bits and so on until I ran out of bad things to do. I’m not even a super intelligent being. They can’t do this in the series though because it destroys the story. So, I can accept the alliance and their terrible plan but not that Rory is a necessary part of it.
I never said good fiction needs to have everything resolved. Where was that? Are you attacking a straw man now? I only expect the ‘story’ to be resolved to my satisfaction. If it isn’t they I would not class it as good fiction at all.
The test of reasonableness is mine, and yours to make. Your criteria are not reasonable to me and mine are not reasonable to you. I do not care that this is the case because I understand that people have different criteria as explained earlier. I have given you my criteria for what is an what is not science fiction; what more do you want?
For point 21 I can apply logic to science fiction. I do not apply it to fantasy.
The matrix works very well as science fiction up to the point where humans are ‘batteries’. This is a terrible idea and conflicts with very basic scientific knowledge of thermodynamics. I would put is as flawed science fiction as it only really has one really obviously dodgy point. Ideally they could have come up with a more plausible reason for the human captives. A simple suggestion could have been using the processing power of the brains as their computing engines; this could possibly be made into a more ‘scientific’ idea. Do not think this means that I think that you can actually use human brains in this way; it just means that I thing a good writer could make a plausible scientific plot around it. It was highly enjoyable though; unlike the fairly shoddy sequels.
For point 23. I is _totally acceptable_ to use literary and plot devices to create tension. I have already said that it is the story that is paramount. I enjoy this moments just as much as anybody else. I cannot see where I might have given the impression otherwise. I am not here because I do not enjoy Doctor Who; quite the contrary. So much so I have watch some on iplayer as demonstrated by this image before the end titles of TPO. Here you can clearly see the Earth remaining after all has vanished in the Universe. Oh; sorry it’s not there after all. If faded away somehow! I apologise for the sarcasm there; not a reasonable thing to do in a discussion but to suggest that I made the Earth fading and vanish up without checking is not nice.
I don’t think that you will find a literary tradition about paradoxes, time loops, and time travel extending back to 1600’s. I would be most interested in reading this work and the earliest work I have is from the 1890’s. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted this “As for Amy's note, I don't quite see your point because the idea is simple; the Doctor asked Amy to write the note in the end of the episode. There's nothing wrong with it, and nothing interesting to discuss, it just happened.” Wouldn’t it have been simpler to describe the nature of the temporal problem instead of just dismissing it as ‘not a problem.’ And ‘it just happened’.
Hello Faeryty. Your timeline doctorate sounds good to me and I would love to have a read after it is done thousands of words or not. I’m genuinely interested in reading a philosophical work of this nature (and if you have any early philosophical ideas on time travel).. Tell me when it’s done. I chose the note as it is the simplest example that came to the top of my head. However, assuming that Amy did eventually get around to writing the note and placing it in the window, where does the information come from. By that I mean ‘when’ are they generated; where do to words ‘Go to 73B..’ come from? Is there an accepted scientific and/or philosophical solution to this?
The science fantasy definition would cover some of the things like the Culture novels, most Star Trek and Star Wars and some other ‘space opera’. Because of the very varied ‘science’ content of Dr Who (some of it just plain silly) and the inconsistency in what happens and how it is explained I’d still be putting that in the fantasy category. It doesn’t really make many of the events in it plausible. Some of them; yes, many of them no.
Oh, my disbelief is always suspended when needed; how else could I enjoy works of fantasy and science fiction.
Now. I fear that this conversation is no longer closely related to Doctor Who and there is little point in attempting to persuade me that Doctor Who is science-fiction. In what way can we move forward? There are many other topics to speculate about and I have given my first (and final) opinion on Rory. If Moffat gives a different idea I’ll go with him. Jack Chilli 18:57, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
I am going to make a hopefull attempt at changing the subject, or as it were, getting back on subject. I have come to accept the fact that Rory really is dead, but am I alone in wishing that by some amazing event, Rory will come back, to life and into the series?? I feel like Amy was a nicer person when she was with Rory, and I don't like to think what she'd be like with him gone, forever, and her knowing it this time...--UnicornandtheWasp 19:48, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
1. I don't want to waste my time either, you just don't acknowledge what people says and disregard the flow of the discussion. There's no point in discussing something that refuse to acknowledge. Star Trek and Star Wars are inconsistently placed as Sci-fi and/or fantasy as you wish throughout, and you originally said "Doctor Who is fantasy; not science fiction. Don't try to explain things rationally; accept that there will be a miracle and all things will work out in the end", was this sentence directed to yourself...how is this not imposing your label on others? Is it because Doctor Who is a fantasy to you that I have to accept that there will be miracles?
2. Inconsistency and continuity has nothing to do with Sci-fi...it has to do with the story itself...I see people pointing out continuity errors in TV shows like Glee...Are you suggesting that certain people think Glee is Sci-fi? I have seen shows with no continuity errors that people have found yet, are they good sci-fi despite that they have little scientific elements and are marketed as comedy...Oh no, the Catherine Tate Show is sci-fi...so is Little Britain...the horror...this argument is just completely illogical and has no basis...
3. "I do not accept time travel as science fiction; I accept certain time travel novels as science fiction." Does time travel novels contain time travel?
4. "The origin of the Doctor is linked the fantasy nature of the source." But you just said you don't know the origin of the Doctor...please don't group things you don't know into fantasy....that is what primitive cultures do. Fantasy usually have characters with mystical origins...not keeping it vague...I guess your fantasy is very different too...
5. "If something is not explained then we may explain it in any way we see fit. You may be happy with your explanation and I am with mine. I do not believe that yours is in any way more scientific than mine and I know mine is purest fantasy." What is your point?
6. "The machines in Permutation city are plausible extrapolations of current computing machines. They do not require anything more than increased processing power," and how do we increase processing power? Processing power is a technology you know, every major leap in processing power requires new materials that has properties over the old ones...which is basically a complete new minisystem. For processing power like Matrix' computers, we don't have theories for these technologies...even nanotechnology can't process that much information...our current technology doesn't even allow our most advanced super computer to store the complete information of a single brain....The point is, there is no such thing as "reasonable" when dealing with technology that doesn't exist, and there is pretty much no way to come up with an impossible extrapolation if it were an extrapolation to begin with....The definitions have no practical basis....
7. "If you have no idea how the TARDIS works then assume it works by magic as it most defiantly does not work by science. Science does not work by assuming that all things are possible and accepting everything until it is proven wrong." But it does...well, except the magic part, which for 5th time, I said I disagree with and less so of accepting, but more like leaving it there...Science doesn't prove; science rejects...
8. "This is not the scientific method at all." It is exactly the scientific method...You don't reject ideas because you don't know them...So that's why this conversation is going nowhere...because you don't even know what Science is...Science is about disproving, it's never about proving...Since this is what my 11 year-old nephew is now learning..so I suggest you pick up a textbook for children and relearn this...maybe your education is outdated....I afraid....
9. "Do you accept elves and magic rings as science fiction? What scientific law rules them out? Can’t Sauron be battling them in an alternate timeline in a parallel universe where the laws of physics are very different than ours? Where’s that science that says that this is not possible? It’s not there because such suggestions are not scientific suggestions in the first place." If it specifically says that suggesting a different set of laws of physics, then most people would actually agree that it's sci-fi...but I would agree it's a very odd and distasteful one...
10. "I would have assumed that one element of a scientific college graduation would cover the history, theory and philosophy of science. Have I assumed wrongly?" Yes, you have assumed wrongly. You can graduate with most Science degrees without covering both the history and theory in depth, and even many grad students even have very little idea on the history of its field. My year 1 Physics professor who was really more or less an Einstein person said he doesn't know a thing about Newton and he thinks Newtonian physics is just absurd.
11. "Emergent properties and behaviour are not the same as ‘psychic links’. ‘Psychic links’ are not real and have no grounding in modern scientific theory. They are plot devices in fantasy novels. This is of course an opinion. You may find some well regarded professors that can show me how this ‘psychic link’ works and I will listen politely while they change my mind." Okay, what is a 'psychic link' since you understand what it is. For all I care, I don't know how it works; I just see there are stuffs in the real world that can do it; the result exists in real world, there're no evidence to disprove it so I can't reject it.
12. "If you did not know that there was an important legal definition of what is a scientific theory and what is not then I suggest that you look into it." I can't find it and I am not an American...I just searched through the laws in my country, there's no legal definition to "a scientific theory" as you said. It's certainly very easy to find a legal definition if you search through the database, please find it for me to enlighten me...Thank you very much.
13. "It’s quite important; you may see why a legal definition was produced in the US while it was not required in the UK. Again you ridiculously mischaracterise me!" I cannot see why...please explain...I am not characterizing you in any way...I just put your contradicting arguments together...
14. "I have chosen to use a definition of what is and what is not science!" You've chosen a wrong one, unless you decide to start your own school of science...or rather...a whole system of science
15. "I can work without it quite easily. You will find that many scientists, in particular those concerned with the scientific process and the philosophical aspects of science are interested in exactly what is and what is not ‘science’. I am not bound by it; it is not forced on me. I use it because it is an agreeable and succinct definition of what is and what is not a scientific theory. I’m just surprised that you didn’t know it existed when you gave you explanation of why I might categorise the work of scientists as fiction." Now that you read what Science is, do you find your own words ridiculous...
16. "You said I denied the existence of secondary timelines. I’m a “timeline denier”! Don’t worry I’m not insulted at all by this. I might even change my user name to it. It has a lovely ring to it for a villain; both menacing and science." You said the cracks are "timeline denier"...Please don't use 1 single term to encompass a wide range of irrelevant ideas....It must awfully confusing in your mind...
17. "It’s a by-product. I can ask you to explain and I did. So what does ‘You can't ask someone to explain the point of something that is a by-product’ mean." It's obviously not literal, but do you find it pointless to ask. It's like you accidentally stabbed a random pedestrian and he dies and then you ask the police what is the point of him dying. Do find me the point...your way of thinking is 'interesting'...
18. "Why is Rory (or a simulation of him) there. If this is the best explanation you have then that’s OK by me. I like my miracle explanation just fine." Good, you prefer miracle over logical, I'm okay with it...but I just don't want people to imposing a stupid idea of "if the Alliance is not omniscient and their plan does not go perfectly and have no side-effects it is illogical"...because it's just stupid when it goes against what we know about the Alliance and simple logic
19. "I don’t think that trap requires Rory’s memories! Quite the opposite! That’s the point I made at the start. There is no need for them at all. They are redundant; pointless; not required in the least; more of a hindrance than a boon, not wanted etc. They are there for purposes of plot and their existence is a ‘genuine miracle’. I could give a plausible explanation (read PC) but it is in no way needed. I want the miracle not to be explicable. Miracles need no explanation; they have no explanation; they are miracles." Since you said the Doctor is very interested in the Pandorica, and your vision of the Alliance comes up with perfect plans...then in your world, shouldn't Amy, Riversong, and all the Auton Roman and most of the Alliance members appear miraculously or die off or not to exist at all as they are just there for purposes of plot...and anything that the plan can do without is somehow illogical in nature and applying logic to their existence is redundant and an miraculous explanation is preferred....do you see how weird it sounds now?
20. "I never said good fiction needs to have everything resolved. Where was that? Are you attacking a straw man now? I only expect the ‘story’ to be resolved to my satisfaction. If it isn’t they I would not class it as good fiction at all." This is again, extremely subjective ideas, if good fiction is defined that way...and everyone is satisfied by a different amount of revelation....then the world has no good fiction/bad fiction...and the fact that you are mentioning it is pointless because the idea cannot be communicated in your case...as the "good fiction" is more in par with "a fiction I like"...you can pretty much keep that to your diary...
21. "The test of reasonableness is mine, and yours to make. Your criteria are not reasonable to me and mine are not reasonable to you. I do not care that this is the case because I understand that people have different criteria as explained earlier. I have given you my criteria for what is an what is not science fiction; what more do you want?" To stop saying "Doctor Who is fantasy; not science fiction. Don't try to explain things rationally; accept that there will be a miracle and all things will work out in the end"
22. "For point 21 I can apply logic to science fiction. I do not apply it to fantasy." Just read, I said "Onto your perspective of Amy remembering the clerics or whatever they are...Can you apply the same logic to things you classify as sci-fi without subjectivity?" How does "apply the same logic to things you classify as sci-fi" somehow translates to you applying "it to fantasy"?
23. "The matrix works very well as science fiction up to the point where humans are ‘batteries’. This is a terrible idea and conflicts with very basic scientific knowledge of thermodynamics. I would put is as flawed science fiction as it only really has one really obviously dodgy point." So is flawed science fiction a science fiction? You've been saying that Doctor Who is not sci-fi, it's fantasy, you suggested the polarity in the definitions and then suddenly say something is "flawed sci-fi" just because you want to classify it as sci-fi but it contradicts what you said? How are any non-sci-fi's not "flawed sci-fi"s then...
24. "Ideally they could have come up with a more plausible reason for the human captives. A simple suggestion could have been using the processing power of the brains as their computing engines; this could possibly be made into a more ‘scientific’ idea. Do not think this means that I think that you can actually use human brains in this way; it just means that I thing a good writer could make a plausible scientific plot around it." How is this "plausible" in your perspective, because it just contradicts everything you established...using human brains as storage device/processing machines which we have no theories on and we don't even know how the brain works is considered more "plausible", in your point of view, then time travel that theories from decades in the past have suggested and countless calculations done...
25. "For point 23. I is _totally acceptable_ to use literary and plot devices to create tension. I have already said that it is the story that is paramount. I enjoy this moments just as much as anybody else. I cannot see where I might have given the impression otherwise. I am not here because I do not enjoy Doctor Who; quite the contrary. So much so I have watch some on iplayer as demonstrated by this image before the end titles of TPO. Here you can clearly see the Earth remaining after all has vanished in the Universe. Oh; sorry it’s not there after all. If faded away somehow! I apologise for the sarcasm there; not a reasonable thing to do in a discussion but to suggest that I made the Earth fading and vanish up without checking is not nice.
" That was a fade blank in the end, screenplays end in a blank, the earth is isolated before the fade blank and not gone with the stars and the "To Be Continued" comes up immediately on the blank screen...and read this <<[[1]]>>("River Song has been blown up in the Tardis, which has been blown up and destroyed every sun in the universe."), are you going to say you are entitled to your interpretation and what Moffat said is irrelevant to you too? Is the Rolling Credit a part of the Universe now...You said specifically that the Universe collapsed at one instance; I said it collapsed in a gradual progressive manner...In the end, when all the stars have vanished, the Earth remains, which contradicts what you proposed...All elements of the Universe must be gone in the same instance according to your vision...If you think the delay is a figurative display, then how about this, I will bet you anything, absolutely anything, that the Big Bang will show in some way that at least an isolated element in the Universe does not collapse at the same time as the rest of the Universe...Unless the Big Bang is just a 55 mins blank screen, the Universe cannot collapse all in 1 instance...
I just don't get how you could not get the idea that the erasing takes place in an order in the perspective of the character...it is shown on screen..it's a part of the story and is crucial in the plot...If you think all elements in the show that doesn't fit in with your description as a unique figurative rendition then you are certainly seeing things in a very strange light...and it's quite pointless for you to go on a discussion forum....
26. "I don’t think that you will find a literary tradition about paradoxes, time loops, and time travel extending back to 1600’s. I would be most interested in reading this work and the earliest work I have is from the 1890’s. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted this “As for Amy's note, I don't quite see your point because the idea is simple; the Doctor asked Amy to write the note in the end of the episode. There's nothing wrong with it, and nothing interesting to discuss, it just happened.” Wouldn’t it have been simpler to describe the nature of the temporal problem instead of just dismissing it as ‘not a problem.’ And ‘it just happened’." Robert Fludd proposed quite a few perpetual systems...There is no problem with Amy's note...how do I point out the problem when I think there is no problem? There's no contradiction in it, what am I suppose to say, type out the whole scenario/script? You are proposing that when someone sees something as correct and you can't see it that way, someone needs to somehow figure out how you can't see it. Is this logical, you must think that everything must have some contradiction or otherwise you are "dismissing it as not a problem"...
God...please do not go on if you have no new point, repeating stuffs that's been rejected endlessly and disregarding other people's comment is not called a discussion...
27. To Faeryty, your point 13 got cropped off, I do want to see your complete point...but for point 24, well firstly, we don't know if Amy didn't write it...It's just not shown...even the show showed everything we still can't deny that she may write it in the future until we are certain that she dies and stay dead and it's pointless for anyone to write it for her203.168.176.42 21:22, June 24, 2010 (UTC)
This conversation grows ever more distant from the topic in hand. To the key points.
If you think that all it takes for a theory to be scientific is that you can prove it wrong (the term you may be reaching for is ‘to falsify’) then may I politely suggest that you expand you reading list to include some further works on the history, nature and philosophy of science. Popper is not the only author/debater/philosopher on this subject and reducing his work to a statement along the lines of ‘all things are scientifically possible until they are proven wrong’ does him a great disservice. There is a lot more to understanding science than you seem to know. Your nephew, and his teacher, may like to invest a little time in this study before teaching ‘science’. I would not teach history without at least learning the basics about the history of history; that would be ironically stupid.
If you need any help with why a legal definition of what is a scientific theory was devised in the US and not required here then Google scholar doesn’t seem to be all that it’s cracked up to be. Surely the idea has been in the news numerous times over the last decade! I read about the debate even here even with my very limited reading list. If you need a clue then think about your constitution! (A lovely read by the way; such craftsmanship to the language and so well thought out for the time.)
Of course, this is not the only definition; feel free to use any other including ones that have ‘psychic links’ that cross ‘timelines’ and use ‘psychic residue’ as valid scientific theory despite there being no grounding in current accepted scientific knowledge and not even an applicable method of falsifyability. Pray tell me how you can falsify these ‘scientific’ theories. Don’t expect me to accept your definition. I have taken the time to look into the ideas behind what science is; perhaps you should too. If you look into the debate about what science is (and is not) then that would be a fine outcome to our discussion.
“Now that you read what Science is, do you find your own words ridiculous...” No; nor would a range of scientific philosophers if you would care to read their work.
If you are unable to extrapolate science and technology is a reasonable way then so be it. Even Moore could do it. I can do so quite easily and so can many science fiction authors. Do not impose imaginary limitations on my capabilities. It would not suggest that you have limitations without ample evidence.
I define good fiction in the way I want to. I am fully capable of making up my own mind. Aren’t you?
I never suggested that the Alliance plan is flawless; quite the contrary. This is not the first time you have totally misunderstood a simple position. The plan is ‘rubbish’. How does that sound like flawless? There is no logical reason that you can provide as to why a simulation (or real copy) of Roy’s memories are present except for the ‘logic’ of ‘it just happened by accident’.
Flawed science fiction is flawed science fiction.
If you can’t make a more plausible case for human minds being used as processing devices than human bodies being used a batteries then that is a limitation you have. I have no such limitation. Have you read no work on theories of mind and consciousness?
You didn’t really need to repeat a picture of blackness. The Earth faded away slowly. The music stopped. There was a pause where there was nothing left. Silence had fallen (literally and metaphorically). After this there were the end titles. This doesn’t match your description of the Earth still being there did it? I merely pointed out that what I said was immediately apparent to anybody that looked; not imagined in, you poorly dismissive term and tiresome, ‘my country’. Next time you might like to check before suggesting that I did not look. Did the other episodes fade out in this way?
I have already said that that in fantasy that places ‘outside’ time and space (including such timeless places as ‘before’ the Big Bang) are allowed and story can happen there. Doctor Who even has ‘beings’ that exist in these places already as you must already be aware of.
Robert Fludd dealt with perpetual motion machines (I don’t have any of his work on time travel; perhaps it is available somewhere; I would love to add this to my limited collection). Do you think that Amy’s note is some kind of perpetual motion machine? I what way is it an equivalent system? How do perpetual motion machines produce the effect? I am starting to this that when you saw nothing wrong with it that you really did not see what _it_ was at all.
May I suggest (again), one of the few works I have read, “The Technicolor Time Machine”. A most enjoyable, funny, and fairly short read that uses this none problem as a central part of its time travel story. I loved the simple diagrammatical explanations. It’s been a while, perhaps a re-read is in order; shouldn’t be too hard to find in my small pile of books; now where was it; in the science fiction, science fantasy or fantasy section? I jest of course; the two or three books I have are obviously in alphabetical order!
Finally. I’m really not of a mind to reclassify Doctor Who as science fiction (or even ‘sci-fi’). It’s fantasy. Please don’t think me closed minded but I can’t see a need to change something that works well. And in your language ‘I just don’t get why you have a problem with the word fantasy’. Why does it seem to upset you that I use it? It’s not an offensive or even dismissive word is it? Your nearly all encompassing definition now seems to accept works such as works normally stacked on the fantasy shelf including Lord of The Rings; Thomas Covenant, and so on as ‘sci fi’. Is this the case?
Jack "I am in ur crack in da skin of teh Uinivarse deniying ur secondary timline" Chilli
Nuh uh cuz this is first post. That's why it's at the bottom. Can't believe I'm bothering to weigh in here, but I am.
Science fiction or speculative fiction takes a part of a problem and speculates a rational solution. Need to fly FTL? Push space away from your ship in a way that kinda makes sense. Want real live dinosaurs at a theme park? Fund a huge dig and genetics project. They're small leaps enabled by specific speculations in a world that otherwise makes perfect sense.
Science fantasy doesn't try to be so serious about how it gets from reality to fiction. Need a time-traveling refugee demigod? Have him be from a race with billions of years of history who've woven time like thread around the skin of a black hole and give him a living computer that go Vworp Vworp and arrive at destination.
The difference: Time Lords are no less possible than warp drives, but warp drives require a ton less speculation. It's a small bit of speculation that fits into modern Earth reality. Gallifrey represents billions of years of continuous speculation - infinite speculation allowing for literally any story to just come from whole cloth. "Timelords did it" is no different from "a wizard did it" which squarely puts Doctor Who in the Science Fantasy department.
I hope it can be read as understood that I like science fantasy a lot, given how much time I spend here at Tardis. Moreover I hope this flamewar is going away, and if it's not going away, here's a humble recommendation: You guys have personal Talk pages. I'm nobody, just a newbie here, but I bet nobody wants to see this flame war. Agonaga 16:06, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
Jack, I can see why you have chosen not to answer with the numbering now...can you really tell the difference between your last response and the response before that when my questions are clearly different and new questions were raised? Can you please just answer them in the numbering or even answer them beneath my questions if you hate typing...because you've answered nothing in the last two responses and your arguments are based on ideas that have been rejected in earlier discussion...Since you raised more questions in your last response, I would assume that you want me to response....:
1. I clearly told you many times that the problem has nothing to do with you using the word 'fantasy', but it's the fact that you are imposing your idea that it's a fantasy on us and force us to interpret it as a fantasy and abandon logic when we were discussing a logical way for things to have happened. You should note that you did not say "it may" or other suggestive terms, but whether you said specifically, "Doctor Who is fantasy; not science fiction. Don't try to explain things rationally; accept that there will be a miracle and all things will work out in the end." Your logic even go so far to say if we don't accept this personal opinion that you impose on us, we would be imposing our opinion on you and we are all having problems with the word "fantasy" by rejecting your subjective, ambiguous, and contradicting definitions.
2. The debate about the genre got going simply because your logic is full of flaws and more and more flaws came up as you responded. I am merely pointing out the flaws. I have always tried to term my response as "why is it not a sci-fi" instead of "it is a sci-fi". How is that discriminating fantasy?
3. How does Lord of the Rings fit in with the descriptions I said? I said specifically in my last few responses that if the work itself points out that "a different set of laws of physics" is in place and we can't contradict it with current knowledge, and in my responses earlier, the work uses science as a theme/plot device, then I would consider it sci-fi...I have yet to find that in Lord of the Rings...again, please kindly point it out to me...
4. I haven't read Thomas Covenant, so I don't know...but do point out where it's mentioned that the Universe employs "a different set of laws of physics" and the story uses science as the theme/plot device...
5. I have always consider Lord of the Rings fantasy due to the reason given in 3 and I have consistently find Lord of the Rings in the Fantasy section. Your argument is weak in that you yourself has said (albeit inconsistently) that Star Trek, Star Wars, and Doctor Who are Fantasy, but you understand that they would not normally be stacked on the fantasy shelf, can you please explain your stance?
6. Is the Matrix in its own "Flawed Sci-fi" stack in your DVD store? As you mention "flawed sci-fi" is "flawed sci-fi", it mustn't belong to neither group unless it's a subsection of one/both.
7. You mentioned science fiction containing an element that you believe is impossible or inconsistent with modern science does not make it a fantasy, it only makes it "flawed science fiction", which you seem to suggest to be a category of its own. You also mentioned that you realize "science fiction" may not be realizable, and unfeasible technology does not undermine a science fiction's placement as a "science fiction". In addition, you suggested how "plausible" is the technology described is also a personal judgement, are you suggesting a highly personal subjective nature to genres despite that we invented genres to specifically group and describe works?
8. If so, what is the function of genre? Is genre not something that we can use to communicate and able to find a book in a library, a film in a DVD store, discussions/papers on a database? More specifically, in the case you suggested: you said you would label Star Trek, Star Wars and Doctor Who as fantasy and find them in bookstore or DVD Store in either a "sci-fi/fantasy section" or you would be smart enough to know where to find them (which in my country, is always in the sci-fi section); if a Fantasy book is listed in the sci-fi section, then what is the point of its genre?
9. Perpetual motion system theories deal with same problem as ontological paradoxes, they are all theories of how effects and causes can be interrelated; it's just a simple matter of finding a variable that we can substitute with a formula involving the variable time -- they're essentially the same equation. Amy's note is a perpetual motion machine in the sense that we know a part of the equation involves t; the only difference is just that it's an abstract information instead of an object. I don't know which field you study, but you must have tried, at some point, plugging a formula involving time to an equation -- like simple displacement vs velocity. Please tell me what is the problem?
10. "How do perpetual motion machines produce the effect?" They are theoretical, theories range from zero-friction material-system in vacuum to tapping in unproven energy sources and properties of theoretically proposed particles. New theories of them keep popping up all the time...
11. "I am starting to this that when you saw nothing wrong with it that you really did not see what _it_ was at all." Exactly, I asked you twice to tell me what the problem was, as the "it" you are referring to is the problem, so your statement is actually tautological...If you believe there is a problem with cause and effect being interrelated, then it's either you have a problem with the statement you said, as it is essentially, "I am starting to [think] that when you saw [no problem] that you really did not see what [the problem] was at all", which support the fact that 'I cannot see the problem' with 'I cannot see the problem'. If your "_it_" is not the problem then what is "_it_"? Or in your point of view, is the relationship of the events not the problem, then I probably missed something? Please kindly clarify for me.
12. "I have already said that that in fantasy that places ‘outside’ time and space (including such timeless places as ‘before’ the Big Bang) are allowed and story can happen there. Doctor Who even has ‘beings’ that exist in these places already as you must already be aware of." That sounds actually very scientific, I have yet to come across a fantasy story that states that it takes place "'before' the Big Bang", but I've only read very few fantasy works I guess. How is such thing fantasy though? Hawking would definitely agree that given if there were a place before the Big Bang then it would be timeless as you stated.
13. Regarding the "'outside' of time and space" you refer to, which "time" and "space" do you mean? If you mean it in a literal sense as in all forms of 'time' and all forms of 'space', then where have you found such work...I can't even imagine something not involving 'time and space' except vacuum...I am very interested in reading these books. How do you communicate it in language? Please suggests these interesting readings, lot of physicists would be very interested in these visions too.
14. I do not aware of Doctor Who having 'beings' existing outside of time and space, I am aware that Doctor who has beings living in alternate time and space who label themselves as living outside of time and space in the sense that they are in hypertime and hyperspace (theoretically supported to exist, but suggested to be impossible to perceive and yet to have ways of modeling) or alternate-time and alternate-space, which is also theoretically possible. People are conducting academic investigations/discussions in these fields, can you please kindly provide your calculations/evidence of rejecting such possibities to them so they can stop wasting time? You will enlighten mankind if you could.
15. "If you can’t make a more plausible case for human minds being used as processing devices than human bodies being used a batteries then that is a limitation you have."
Actually, now that I read your statement, assuming you mean the mind and bodies operating as actual parts of a machine and the machine is involved in the translation/conversion which is not what we are doing right now by operating machinery, it sounds more and more peculiar, because it is scientifically possible to use the human body as a direct energy source to operate machines; it's just extremely inefficient; according to Stefan-Boltzman Law, our bodies, as matters, must radiates some form of energy...but collecting the radiated energy for conversion is impractical in the sense that it is slow to gather sufficient practical amount...breaking down the human body slowly is another possible way to generate energy, and this method has been applied since the beginning of life on earth, it's just inhumane to experiment and expand in this field of study despite that we can, because nature has done it...even by burning human fat, we can use it to generate thermal energy...on the other hand, do we have any clue on how to use the human brain as an agent? Can we implant information into the brain and get processed output?
16. "You didn’t really need to repeat a picture of blackness. The Earth faded away slowly. The music stopped. There was a pause where there was nothing left. Silence had fallen (literally and metaphorically). After this there were the end titles. This doesn’t match your description of the Earth still being there did it? I merely pointed out that what I said was immediately apparent to anybody that looked; not imagined in, you poorly dismissive term and tiresome, ‘my country’. Next time you might like to check before suggesting that I did not look. Did the other episodes fade out in this way?"
First of all, please remember you now acknowledge that Earth was alone in the Universe. So while the rest of the Universe is erased, Earth hasn't been erased yet at that frame, can you please explain how does this fit in with your model of the whole timeline being removed in one instance?
17. And yes, most episodes fade blank or cut blank in the end except for dramatic effects, and this doesn't apply only to Doctor Who. If you read any TV script or screenplay at all, then you will realize that the last line is always FADE BLANK or CUT BLANK or CUT TO BLANK, except for dramatic effects, this is actually a part of the format. In the interview I included in my last response, Moffat specifically said that the end of Pandorica Opens is that "River Song has been blown up in the Tardis, which has been blown up and destroyed every sun in the universe." He specifically avoided saying that all of time is erased when this is said to be the result of the explosion. How is it possible to interpret it into your scenario?
18. "I never suggested that the Alliance plan is flawless; quite the contrary. This is not the first time you have totally misunderstood a simple position. The plan is ‘rubbish’. How does that sound like flawless?"
No one said anything about you suggesting the Alliance's plan as flawless and I am quite glad you acknowledge that it is not flawless, but in order for your expectation of the result to hold true -- i.e. all the elements that are not essential to the Alliance's plan should not be present, there must be an assumption that the Alliance Plan must be perfect. For some odd reason, you are suggesting that if it is not a fantasy, then the Alliance would miraculously make perfect judgements. My question is essentially "why can't Rory be there" and "why would Rory being there make it illogical and making Doctor Who a fantasy?"
19. "There is no logical reason that you can provide as to why a simulation (or real copy) of Roy’s memories are present except for the ‘logic’ of ‘it just happened by accident’."
The trap has a point, it is a hope that what fascinates Amy may lure in the Doctor, and the Alliance's intention was to set a trap, not to create an Auton Rory. Auton Rory is a by-product of the trap. First of all, you need to understand that "accident" and "by-products" are two radically different things, i.e., would you say that you breathe out carbon dioxide by accident all the time?
20. Let's clarify, the idea is that it's "memories of Rory" as in "memories about Rory" rather than in the sense of "Rory's memories". I have said many times that the Alliance raided Amy's house and uses whatever memories and special fondness that Amy has as a trap and Auton Rory is a by-product of it...How is being the by-product of a process not a logical reason? Is breathing out carbon dioxide illogical?
21. Again you still haven't answered what leads to the assumption that the Nestene is selective in the plan, or even have ability to select elements over another? Do we know if the Nestene learned everything about Amy and Rory and knew that what aspects of Amy's memory would make a successful plan? The episode has never suggested that...I only saw a raided room, and the Alliance created whatever they can based on the things they saw and I would like to think that Amy was also present based on Auton Rory's knowledge of the adventures. Moreover, it would be an assumption to suggest that Nestene would even understand the memories about Rory, let alone assuming perfect planning.
22. Under your assumption that 'if there is no purpose of Rory being there, then the work is a fantasy and illogical', how can you reach this conclusion without assuming that the Alliance fully understands all consequences of a possible action? Wouldn't this assumption that is required to deny the logic contradicts the established information?
23. How does the quality of the Alliance plan undermine Doctor Who's status as a 'sci-fi'? After answering 16-20, is there a part that suggests the Alliance's plan is flawed to the extent that they are completely irrational without assuming an omniscient/omnipotent Alliance/Nestene?
24. "I define good fiction in the way I want to. I am fully capable of making up my own mind. Aren’t you?"
Again, the problem is not how you make up your mind, but instead, why are you imposing your definition on the society? You said specifically that "In all likelihood it is a requirement of an element of ‘story’; the relationship between Rory and Amy needs to be resolved is a satisfactory way to create good fiction." "Requirement" is not subjective; "need" is not subjective; you are not stating your opinion; you are stating a rule -- while your last response acknowledge that that this definition of "good fiction" is you own opinion, but yet you are stating in the response before that that it's not subjective and it's a "requirement". How can you ask me "if I were able to make up my mind" if you premise is that "you made it up for me" and it is not subjective?
25. "If you are unable to extrapolate science and technology is a reasonable way then so be it. Even Moore could do it. I can do so quite easily and so can many science fiction authors. Do not impose imaginary limitations on my capabilities. It would not suggest that you have limitations without ample evidence."
If the "you" in the last phrase is you, then the questions I asked above are what lead to my assumptions, as the extrapolations you believe in are unreasonable and implausible...and those that are more probable are rejected by you (like the mind/body example and hyperspace example you proposed), and moreover, you have yet to provide any practicality to your definition of "science fiction" -- how does having a subjective definition of a genre that is different to everyone helps in a way that can offset the benefits of having an objective one, which allow us to search and index works and communicate?
26. "“Now that you read what Science is, do you find your own words ridiculous...” No; nor would a range of scientific philosophers if you would care to read their work."
You are right, but were you not talking about modern science? Science usually refers to Modern Science that employs the Scientific Method, which rejects what contradicts, and that's it...Scientific method is 1 single method...If you are talking about epistemology, then I can see your point, but you have always seem to be revolving on the the topic of modern science and the scientific method before you throw in the the comment about "scientific philosophers". You make references to the scientific method throughout, if you are not viewing the topic in a modern science viewpoint, then why would the scientific method be relevant?
27. Moreover, by expanding the definition of Science to outside the realm of modern science, then how do you differentiate fantasy from science? Is alchemy science? What about all of Newton's works? I am afraid if you expand science beyond modern science, you are not making the definition stricter and putting more things into fantasy, but rather, quite the opposite, you would need to incorporate much more works into "science fiction" than what the society would...How does this support your claim of Star Trek/Star War/Doctor Who being fantasy?
28. Does your "science" involves "proofs/proven facts", if so, then what knowledge can you use to determine a genre of a work? Are you using primitive empirical knowledge or alternative science systems? We have not proven anything and has only been rejecting ideas since Classical Era in mainstream science, I am very interested to know how is it possible to operate your definition.
29. "Of course, this is not the only definition; feel free to use any other including ones that have ‘psychic links’ that cross ‘timelines’ and use ‘psychic residue’ as valid scientific theory despite there being no grounding in current accepted scientific knowledge and not even an applicable method of falsifyability. Pray tell me how you can falsify these ‘scientific’ theories. Don’t expect me to accept your definition. I have taken the time to look into the ideas behind what science is; perhaps you should too. If you look into the debate about what science is (and is not) then that would be a fine outcome to our discussion."
Your assumption that we should reject what we cannot falsify at any current moment would throw human knowledge back a lot, from our existence to references you have made like "the Big Bang", gravity, forces, and basically all of mainstream science will be rejected...we never had proofs for pretty much anything, these are all assumptions supported by an initial assumption, we are only believing them because we can't reject them...I am very interested in knowing how to define Science Fiction with a way of knowing that's different from Modern Science and scientific method.
30. "If you need any help with why a legal definition of what is a scientific theory was devised in the US and not required here then Google scholar doesn’t seem to be all that it’s cracked up to be. Surely the idea has been in the news numerous times over the last decade! I read about the debate even here even with my very limited reading list. If you need a clue then think about your constitution! (A lovely read by the way; such craftsmanship to the language and so well thought out for the time.)"
I did search Google Scholar, and still can't find a legal definition of "the Scientific Method" as you have initially stated, please find it for me.
31. I just did a brief search on several Constitutions of different countries, and I can't find any idea remotely related to this, can you please find me the US Law that defines "the Scientific Method"?
32. May I please request again that you clarify why is such law required in US but not in the UK as you have stated? I asked last time, but you just ignored me...must be the cultural difference, it's not obvious in my culture as you have suggested.
33. How is the legal definition you just gave me relevant when you think the scientific method is not a valid way of knowing?
34. "If you think that all it takes for a theory to be scientific is that you can prove it wrong (the term you may be reaching for is ‘to falsify’) then may I politely suggest that you expand you reading list to include some further works on the history, nature and philosophy of science."
I do not think that proving that the theory is wrong would make it scientific, quite the contrary, what is rejected is not scientific in modern science's perspective. This has always been what science was working toward since the dawn of philosophy before it reaches the stage of Modern Science. If you are choosing an unconventional method of Science, then can you please tell us what it is so we wouldn't be confused you to be talking about Modern Science as we all would easily assumed? In addition, can you also avoid using terms like "the scientific method" if you disagree with the scientific method, it is confusing if you are referring to other methods of knowing that's different from the Scientific Method Modern Science uses. I just found out we were never on the same page as you were not referencing Modern Science, but rather, an alternative belief or some form of Pre-Classical Era philosophy...and how is it justified to use a method of knowing that is not Modern Science to define the Science aspect of "science fiction" when most of these books rely on knowledge of modern science?
35. "Popper is not the only author/debater/philosopher on this subject and reducing his work to a statement along the lines of ‘all things are scientifically possible until they are proven wrong’ does him a great disservice. There is a lot more to understanding science than you seem to know. Your nephew, and his teacher, may like to invest a little time in this study before teaching ‘science’. I would not teach history without at least learning the basics about the history of history; that would be ironically stupid."
I think you are referring to my former physics professor...and you may have it mixed up...you originally said "I would have assumed that one element of a scientific college graduation would cover the history, theory and philosophy of science. Have I assumed wrongly?", depending on your definition of "basics", I'm sure my prof would at least know some very brief trivia on history of Physics, but definitely only extremely few people would graduate with a degree that covers both the theory and history aspects as formal academic studies, and fewer graduate grad school with such. Regarding on your comment about your criticism to Modern Science: the very unfortunate thing is across US, UK, and most areas of the world, Modern Science is the mainstream Science, many other areas of studies also use systems that can only reject contradicting ideas due to the system's philosophical origin in logic. You will need to revolutionize pretty much the entire world if you find this method insufficient...and this method has pretty much been our best method of knowing things for a long time...do enlighten us mankind with your better way of knowing...all of us humans are very eager to learn...203.168.176.42 16:21, June 25, 2010 (UTC)
For goodness’s sake will you stop repeating the blatant lie that I am attempting to impose anything to do with how you file books (though you only seem to mention DVD's) on society or you in particular. I have not asked you to accept my definition of any genre and I most certainly have not asked anybody else to accept it. What mechanism do I have to achieve this some form of ‘psychic hypnotism’?
Good lord! Now you think that I don’t like or understand ‘Modern Science’ and somehow I reject it! Is there no end to you ability to mischaracterise an argument or person! Please do not invent such patent nonsense. How on Earth do you come to the conclusion that I was not talking about Modern Science (as you capitalise it)? All I said was “If you think that all it takes for a theory to be scientific is that you can prove it wrong (the term you may be reaching for is ‘to falsify’) then may I politely suggest that you expand you reading list to include some further works on the history, nature and philosophy of science.” What part of the modern scientific method does this contradict!
In what way do my comments criticise Modern Science! I am a stalwart. I criticise your inaccurate description of it when simply I pointed out that modern science is more that falsifying. From this you make up a random diatribe assuming that I am talking about some ‘other’ science. What ‘unconventional science’ do you think I believe in? Where are your examples of my unconventional science? Am I a ‘science denier’ now because I do not accept your argument that ‘psychic residue’ is scientific and the TARDIS is scientifically possible ‘in theory’? ‘Beings’ existing before the Big bang is fantasy gibberish of the highest order and yet it ‘sounds actually very scientific’. Do you think physicists are going to learn anything about science from Doctor who books! Mercy me! Such nonsensical reasoning is the realm of creationists and the insidious ‘scientific’ theory of ‘intelligent design’. Perhaps in this area you will finally realise why a definition of what constitutes science had to be made in your country and thank the lord it was [irony intended]. You go too far sir in your corruption of science. You render it a useless process permitting anything you can imagine hinged on the sole criteria of falsifyability. And yet you go _further_; deferring falsification indefinitely to allow your flights of fancy to be possible, to be ‘science’. You throw away the only scientific tool you have mentioned to accommodate the most ridiculous of propositions. Sir, that is NOT modern science.
I have not expanded the definition of science you gave to allow it to encompass nonsensical pseudoscientific ideas as you foolishly suggest; I have _tightened_ it . I looked only at one point; the nature of a ‘scientific theory’. MORE than simple falsification is required for a theory to be scientific. That is why this ridiculous ‘theory’ is NOT a scientific one despite being relatively easy to falsify: “There is an alien called BOB living in a white spaceship in a cavern behind my house. He will wait there until you go and visit him and give you a bar of gold.” You can falsify it (on a trivial level) by quickly going to have a look. The theory is not scientific until it is falsified; it is just not scientific at all. Any yet, even if you kept your only tool you would accept it as valid science? There are other criteria that are required to make a theory scientific. So, what would these other criteria be used for a theory to be regarded as a scientific one? Some areas to consider include: What level of contrary evidence is required for a theory to be falsified (taking into account error)? To what extent are Auxiliary Hypotheses allowed to extend the theory? To what extent must a theory have predictive power? How general or specific must the theory be to be considered scientific? Consider the commonly accepted theory of evolution. Most biologists will consider it to be a scientific theory but to what extent can it be falsified? What predictive power does it have? Is the theory too board or ill defined? Can it be described as a theory or a set of theories? If it is a set then how closely are they connected; if one is falsifies is the whole rendered false. And so on. Do I really have to resort the oft repeated ‘pink unicorn’ type discussion from sci.skeptic and multiple other forums?
Do I now have to describe the mechanisms and/or methodology of modern scientific exploration of the theory? I will not waste my time; they are not difficult. Now as you _really_ think that I do not know what the commonly accepted interpretation of ‘modern scientific method’ is then we have insufficient grounds to continue. I will not throw essential parts of it away to suit my needs; I respect my colleagues too much. Your ‘science’ is a ridiculous nonsense; a child’s toy version of ‘science’. You rejection of all checks and definitions on what is ‘scientific’; even the simple tenet of falsification, has produced a deformed, unrecognisable, bastardisation of some of the finest work of human minds; broken to allow the fantasy of Star Wars and Star Trek and Doctor Who to be possible, to be ‘scientific’. Shame. Shame! Science is not fiction and your description does not stand.
With due respect sir, this discussion is done.
[Excessive hyperbole ends] Jack Chilli
First of all, since you asked questions in your last response, I do not see how you intend to end the discussion. I asked you to kindly answer with the numbering so we could get somewhere and you could address the points but you have failed to do so and selectively answered only a few of the questions in a very distorted view...so please, do answer at some point, in a rational way. I will continue the numbering system, if there're anything I've raised that you haven't answered, then please tell me.
36. I have explicitly said in my last response (No 34) that I DISAGREE with the statement "If you think that all it takes for a theory to be scientific is that you can prove it wrong (the term you may be reaching for is ‘to falsify’) then may I politely suggest that you expand you reading list to include some further works on the history, nature and philosophy of science."
I have always been taking the stance that what is rejected or what contradicts is not scientific, but somehow, you discussion is based on the assumption that I agree with "all it takes for a theory to be scientific is that you can prove it wrong" when I have explicitly said that I disagreed in 34. Who are you discussing with? Why does throwing out arguments against a point I rejected undermine my argument? You've failed to link what you said to my argument at all; you are arguing something, but it's not something we raised in the discussion.
37. You've chosen to based the defensive arguments on the assumption I pointed out in 36, how does arguing something that was not bought up by me and I disagreed with supports any of your statement? (I will raise up the point of supports, since all your statements are actually supported, please bear with me and keep on reading) Moreover, you have failed to produce a simple description of how your 'science' work or what it is as I asked last time, but instead, you have chosen to attack a point you raised and I said was invalid. How does your argument work?
1 (b). "For goodness’s sake will you stop repeating the blatant lie that I am attempting to impose anything to do with how you file books (though you only seem to mention DVD's) on society or you in particular. I have not asked you to accept my definition of any genre and I most certainly have not asked anybody else to accept it. What mechanism do I have to achieve this some form of ‘psychic hypnotism’?"
This is the third time I asked you clarify "Doctor Who is fantasy; not science fiction. Don't try to explain things rationally; accept that there will be a miracle and all things will work out in the end." Who does the statement address to? Who are you asking to accept? Were you requesting yourself to accept that there will be a miracle?
38. "Good lord! Now you think that I don’t like or understand ‘Modern Science’ and somehow I reject it! Is there no end to you ability to mischaracterise an argument or person! Please do not invent such patent nonsense. How on Earth do you come to the conclusion that I was not talking about Modern Science (as you capitalise it)? All I said was “If you think that all it takes for a theory to be scientific is that you can prove it wrong (the term you may be reaching for is ‘to falsify’) then may I politely suggest that you expand you reading list to include some further works on the history, nature and philosophy of science.” What part of the modern scientific method does this contradict!"
Since you have failed to provide any description of your 'science', I will repeat again, which is repetitive, that modern science is about using the scientific method to investigate. The Scientific Method is about rejecting ideas that contradict, and only about that. The whole body of knowledge that we have right now is based on that and we usually call knowledge that we didn't derived using this method beliefs. As you stated that you believe "a different form of science" that is not only about rejecting knowledge that contradicts, this is not the scientific method that modern science is based on; since you suggested that this form of 'science' has its root in the history/nature/philosophy of Science, I was led to believe that you were referring to some form of 'alternative science' (Belief/Religion) that happened during the path of the development of Science such as Alchemy, Witchcraft or other things that we have abandoned in modern science due to the fact that they do not base only rejecting contradictions. Was I misled in someway?
39. "In what way do my comments criticise Modern Science! I am a stalwart. I criticise your inaccurate description of it when simply I pointed out that modern science is more that falsifying. From this you make up a random diatribe assuming that I am talking about some ‘other’ science. What ‘unconventional science’ do you think I believe in? Where are your examples of my unconventional science? Am I a ‘science denier’ now because I do not accept your argument that ‘psychic residue’ is scientific and the TARDIS is scientifically possible ‘in theory’? ‘Beings’ existing before the Big bang is fantasy gibberish of the highest order and yet it ‘sounds actually very scientific’. Do you think physicists are going to learn anything about science from Doctor who books!"
Other than what I said in 38, your idea that we can reject what doesn't contradict but what we merely think is unreasonable suggests a religion rather than science. Please correct that you think I misunderstood you for, because your argument is about thinking that subjectivity makes science...I'll use 'science' to stand for your belief:
-Your 'science' suggests that we can reject what we think is unreasonable. -At least some of these 'unreasonable ideas/things' are subject to personal opinions. -At least some of these 'unreasonable ideas/things' are ideas/things that, at current stage, we have no way of denying based on the knowledge we know. -Denying what is uncertain, which is a concept that holds no objectivity, is 'scientific' in your system of belief.
Can you give me an example of something that you are absolutely certain about as an example of a piece of knowledge in your science?
All knowledge is based on assumptions that we have found no ways of contradicting yet, so how does your example work?
40. "Mercy me! Such nonsensical reasoning is the realm of creationists and the insidious ‘scientific’ theory of ‘intelligent design’"
How does a system based only on rejecting contradictions ties in with systems based on the acceptances of ideas? I fail to see any relation, please point it out to me.
41. "Perhaps in this area you will finally realise why a definition of what constitutes science had to be made in your country and thank the lord it was [irony intended]."
You have still failed to provide me with a legal US definition of "the Scientific Method" and I've asked many times already. I did try to search for it, and I can't find anything that leads to a legal definition of the term.
42. "You go too far sir in your corruption of science. You render it a useless process permitting anything you can imagine hinged on the sole criteria of falsifyability. And yet you go _further_; deferring falsification indefinitely to allow your flights of fancy to be possible, to be ‘science’. You throw away the only scientific tool you have mentioned to accommodate the most ridiculous of propositions. Sir, that is NOT modern science."
You have still yet to provide how you could accumulate knowledge in your system of belief. Again, like your fantasy statement, you are essentially saying "No, X is NOT Y" without providing any support at all.
Moreover, what falsifications were you referring to when you said I deferred "falsification indefinitely", I have yet to find you providing any falsification in the entire discussion. I have yet to learn of any possible ways to deny certain knowledge, so when you "tell" me that that specific knowledge is wrong I have to miraculously suddenly learn and state the counter-arguments about my own idea and reject it and accept yours? Is there any rationality to your statement?
43. "I have not expanded the definition of science you gave to allow it to encompass nonsensical pseudoscientific ideas as you foolishly suggest; I have _tightened_ it . I looked only at one point; the nature of a ‘scientific theory’. MORE than simple falsification is required for a theory to be scientific. That is why this ridiculous ‘theory’ is NOT a scientific one despite being relatively easy to falsify: “There is an alien called BOB living in a white spaceship in a cavern behind my house. He will wait there until you go and visit him and give you a bar of gold.” You can falsify it (on a trivial level) by quickly going to have a look. The theory is not scientific until it is falsified; it is just not scientific at all."
Do you realize your problem, if it was not scientific even before you falsified it, you stopped at a hypothesis and never investigated...you are essentially stating that your hypothesis must be the conclusion because it is otherwise ridiculous...the whole point of modern science is to avoid the subjectivity you proposed...do you readily reject anything you deem ridiculous? Is this your science...
Since you did mention experiments at some point, how do you experiment if you conclude that you hypothesis is correct without the need to investigate?
44. "Any yet, even if you kept your only tool you would accept it as valid science? There are other criteria that are required to make a theory scientific. So, what would these other criteria be used for a theory to be regarded as a scientific one? Some areas to consider include: What level of contrary evidence is required for a theory to be falsified (taking into account error)? To what extent are Auxiliary Hypotheses allowed to extend the theory? To what extent must a theory have predictive power? How general or specific must the theory be to be considered scientific? Consider the commonly accepted theory of evolution. Most biologists will consider it to be a scientific theory but to what extent can it be falsified?"
I afraid you are arguing against your own argument...all these statements are, on different levels, ways of ensuring the falsification is valid and to make sure you do not reject things that are not falsified. They are supporting my argument, so your point being?
Moreover, theory of evolution is a great example, it is here because we can't falsified it yet...so how does that work with your argument? This supports my argument rather than yours...did you forget what you were arguing?
45. "What predictive power does it have?"
Again, predictive power is an indication of whether the theory contradicts with real world data...
46. "Is the theory too board or ill defined? Can it be described as a theory or a set of theories?"
These are irrelevant, as these deal with wordings and labeling of the theories, they do not undermine or enhance a theory...unless you can point it out to us mankind somehow
47. "If it is a set then how closely are they connected; if one is falsifies is the whole rendered false. And so on. Do I really have to resort the oft repeated ‘pink unicorn’ type discussion from sci.skeptic and multiple other forums?"
Again, you are talking about the limit of falsification, the extent to which we should reject, you are supporting my theory...you have yet to propose anything that suggests a knowledge not achieved through rejecting contradictions....and you just listed a list of questions that suggest otherwise....
48. "Do I now have to describe the mechanisms and/or methodology of modern scientific exploration of the theory? I will not waste my time; they are not difficult."
I wasted a lot of my time repetitively explaining the principle of modern science to you, and all you have said is your belief is not difficult, but when asked to explain it, you said you will not waste your time...
49. "Now as you _really_ think that I do not know what the commonly accepted interpretation of ‘modern scientific method’ is then we have insufficient grounds to continue. I will not throw essential parts of it away to suit my needs; I respect my colleagues too much. Your ‘science’ is a ridiculous nonsense; a child’s toy version of ‘science’. You rejection of all checks and definitions on what is ‘scientific’; even the simple tenet of falsification, has produced a deformed, unrecognisable, bastardisation of some of the finest work of human minds; broken to allow the fantasy of Star Wars and Star Trek and Doctor Who to be possible, to be ‘scientific’."
I would not like to think that, but you misquoted references and used a system that is foreign to Science throughout, I merely pointed out the Science system that we recognize and that's saying you are ignorant?
Unfortunately, all scientific works that we recognize are based on the modern science I proposed...what make Einstein's theories not ridiculous, it deals with extremely abstract concepts and there were completely no supports when they were formed...I am sure that many people thought they were ridiculous and outrageous...and Science would have to reject them at that point without investigations according to what you said... If you think all scientific we recognize are unrecognisable, bastardisation of your belief, then you are just being extremely offensive to our society and how much works we have put in to develop this scientific system and body of knowledge. And yes, you should go back to your colleagues if you show such discrimination against human knowledge.
50. "Shame. Shame! Science is not fiction and your description does not stand." You were the one that proposed the fiction is not Science Ficition because it's not 'Science' enough (with 'Science' referring to your belief that is not the mainstream Science in place), and now you are saying "science is not fiction", so are suggesting that Science Fiction cannot exist? There is a trilemma: "Science Fiction A is not Science enough"; "Science is not Fiction"; and "there are Science Fictions" cannot be true at the same time, please justify your arguments.
Please answer my 50 questions with the numbering or even type them beneath my questions as I have requested last time. I do not want to see the next generation of children going around thinking it's alright to propose unsupported hypothesis as the conclusion just because it seems ridiculous otherwise. This is against everything that we have worked so hard for...
Oh and do address the Rory issues that I stated in my last response which you have completely ignored in your last response, as that is the whole point of the discussion...How do you breathe out carbon dioxide by accident and how does it undermine the rationality of your existence? 222.166.181.104 06:43, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
I've come back to play. Although, I really have to support the idea of moving it to someone's talk page, because this is so tenuously related to Rory being dead that it's a bit silly.
Firstly, to finish my earlier comment that for some reason got chopped off (probably because I fail at copying and pasting from the plain text file that I had written it in...) :
13. Timelines. Now this is something meaty I could write tens of thousands of words on (and indeed am doing so in my doctorate, although from a philosphical rather than a scientific point of view). I shan't, unless people are interested. But basically, problems start occurring (even within physics) when you posit a primordial objective time, as opposed to time as 'lived' in the duration of spatio-temporal objects. ('lived' being used here to also cover the unconscious existence of objects through time, as well as self-conscious human experience). Furthermore, spatialising time - allowing it's measurement, section and placing object 'in' rather than 'through', and positing it as a succession of infinitesimal moments (the tick of the universe, as it were) - is only useful for some problems. It creates so many more problems than it answers.
I just have some random points, which for sake of clarity, I shall number with roman numerals.
I) Regarding things (even beings) existing out of space and or time. Firstly, the kind of Cartesian Dualism that is compatible with commonsense and what most people would implicitly believe (regardless of whether it is right or not, and I make no stipulations to this. I'm a phenomenologist myself, I bypass these questions somewhat) would place human consciousness outside of space. Human faculties of reason and personal identity and unextended. There are of course faculties of the mind which are extended, various sensory perceptions and so on, but people are fain to say 'its all in your head' in earnest.
II) Similarly, existing before the Big Bang. Are you familiar with the 'Bang and Crunch' theory? If not, basically it hypothesizes that the universe is in an 'eternal' cycle of big bangs from singularities, expansions, big crunches, contractions back into singularities at which point the cycle begins again. And since physics pretty much goes out the window at a singularity (as I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong...), when the whole universe is a singularity, the next universe could have radically different physics. To exist before the big bang could just mean "to exist before the 'most recent' big bang".
III) The unique big bang theory is generally preferred among laymen due to human's dogmatic belief that everything must have a cause, and beginning. These actually are NOT compatible. For the universe to have a cause one has to have something prior to the universe, and there becomes an infinite regress. You can either have the un-moved mover (the un-caused cause) and a definite beginning, or everything causally linked properly or eternity.
You can look at Amy's note in the same way (and the videotape in Blink) - eternal loops with no beginning that have always been in place.
IV) When one accepts Popper's definition of the scientific method, it is fairly meaningless to talk about a scientific theory. In fact, using the words strictly, you cannot. Scientific hypothesis, and scientific model are fine - but a theory needs proof and the scientific method is incapable of that kind of ontological claim, the best someone can hope for is an indefinitely prolonged period of vindication. Popper himself says a scientific hypothesis cannot be verified. On the other hand though, Popper's scientific method has been proven (by Miller, using some very complex modal logic that I don't claim to be able to understand) to be flawed in that this process of falsification does not necessarily result in 'more true' theories (I'm a postmodernist too. I can admit various levels of truth) as the process goes on.
When taking a scientific theory like that of an Alien called Bob living in the garden, out of the context of a method, you don't just have a statement. The method has not been tested and vindicated (i.e. not proven false). Yes the scientific method may have more to it than falsifiability - such as tests capable of being replicated by another investigator and so on - but falsifiability is _necessary_ for a theory to be scientific. Necessity and sufficiency are not the same thing. If your theory about an Alien called Bob living in the garden was based on repeat trials where you went in the garden and found a creature calling itself bob that was silicon based instead of carbon based, for example, and has some kind of other facts that lead to believe its claim to come from another planet, it _would_ be scientific. If your theory had that latter condition held true, but also stated that you were the only person that could see, touch, here or smell him, it would not be scientific despite however much empirical testing you had done because it was not falsifiable.
V) The definition I assume Jack Chili is referring to comes from the case law when a plaintiff took a school to court for teaching intelligent design in science classes as an alternative to evolution. | Here's wikipedia's page on the case. Faeryty 11:05, June 26, 2010 (UTC)
Since Jack will not answer the questions -- not that he can now that the whole finale is based on a secondary timeline, the Earth which has never been completely gone at any point in the finale, and Rory's memories being the by-product of Amy's exposure to the crack...I love Moffat...Moffat's awesome...though I half-hate the episode...
Anyhow, thank you very much Faeryty for finding the court case, but Jack, there is still no legal definition to "the Scientific Method" quoted in the case....
I am quite interested in your (II) though, because the end of Universe scenarios....the Big Crunch is certainly one of the prominent theories...but the idea that fascinates me more is the theory regarding what happens to time during the Big Crunch if it does happen...Time is affected by gravity and at some point in Big Crunch, gravity will amount to an extent that we don't know if it will lead to negative time. Hawking's early theories assumed that 'the Big Crunch' will result in a reversal of time...essentially leading to not just a reverse of the Big Bang in terms of the movement of astronomical bodies but time and thus everything...creating an eternal loop...I heard that Hawking's newer theories now say otherwise...but there really aren't any data to support either theoretical concepts...anyhow...it was just interesting to imagine "existing outside of space/time" that Jack referred to was meant to mean something that doesn't and cannot incorporate time and space into the equation of its existence...I am quite interested in hearing your thoughts though...
I actually agree with IV in the sense that Science is not true, it's just doing what we could to make what we believe more reliable...I was just disgusted with a certain someone's idea that if something is unreasonable in his personal viewpoint (which just so happened to be really limited in scoop) that we can readily reject anything without supports and also his attitude of ignoring observations and the things put forward by just saying "it's absurd" without even the slightest idea of what something is...
Maybe we should move this thread somewhere else...not only is it a good way to constantly remind everyone what an ________ Jack is...but also the discussion is interesting and Doctor-who related but not so much "Rory is dead'-related....Since I think the original topic needs to be revived as there are now 3 Rories.....203.168.176.42 13:57, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
- 203, I hope you think you're awesome, because SOMEBODY needs to be foolish enough to forget that you're the one anonymously starting shit and being a tedious wag. You've gone on for probably tens of thousands of words, and anybody who's read a single one of those words, gave you far more than you're worth. How about balls-up and reg, or smeg off? Naw, how about smeg off. Agonaga 14:34, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
