Re:Science Fiction vs. Science Fantasy
by throwaway60707 on Saturday August 05, 2023 @11:32AM
(#37013022)
Deepness in the Sky is good too, avoid Children of the Sky
Love that book, but it's fantasy. It's a cool idea that is impossible to rule out without literally going to every part of the universe and doing experiments there. But that's impossible, so it's unfalsifiable. In fact, you could make the same claim about Earth. We aren't going to do every experiment at every place on and in Earth.
Re:Science Fiction vs. Science Fantasy
by slowmovintarget on Saturday August 05, 2023 @12:40PM
(#37013782)
First, falsifiability does not a theory make (that's Popper's view, and the ability to test doesn't always include the possibility of falsification). Second, science fiction stories aren't theories, and aren't actually science. They don't have to pose a testable theory.
Re:Science Fiction vs. Science Fantasy
by philwelch on Saturday August 05, 2023 @02:28PM
(#37014998)
I don't have anywhere near the physics chops to debate this in detail, but the usual contention WRT FTL is that our understanding of physics actively precludes the possibility of FTL. Winchell Chung's Atomic Rockets website gives a good account of the basic argument here: https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/fasterlight.ph...
Re:Science Fiction vs. Science Fantasy
by quectophoton on Saturday August 05, 2023 @03:08PM
(#37015320)
> Most scifi I've read with FTL usually has some explanation that isn't pure fantasy.
My favourites are from Futurama:
1. Scientists increased the speed of light in the year 2208.
2. "The [Dark Matter Engines] don't move the ship at all. The ship stays where it is and the engines move the universe around it."
Sure, FTL travel is never grounded in our understanding of physics and the universe, but do you really think our understanding is anywhere near complete?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep