TheRPGSite

This thread is a spinoff of a discussion about Tekumel being the first sci-fi RPG setting. The conversation drifted into science fiction vs. fantasy and I think that's worth its own thread.

For me, I consider any "soft sci-fi" to be sci-fantasy. To me, as soon as cinematics, rule of cool, hand wavium become major elements of the setting, you're in fantasy land.

Where do you draw the line? Why?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101928Ah, I don't know, I struggle to see any definition of soft scifi that encompasses worlds in which "protection from evil" spell magic exists (http://thoulsparadise.blogspot.com/2013/12/characters-in-empire-of-petal-throne.html).

Any advanced enough technology is magic?

Is the "magic" actually psionics? Psionics is popular in soft scifi. Even "hard scifi" Traveller has psionics.

Of course, you and I probably have different definitions of "soft scifi"!!

So everybody, what is the YOUR definition of "soft scifi vs. fantasy"???

Soft Sci-Fi still relies on some degree of science to create/solve its problems; Star Trek is very soft sci-fi.

Science Fantasy is a setting where the only point of the technology is to look cool while fantastic stories that could, with a little palette swapping, would work identically in a fantasy setting. Star Wars is Science Fantasy.

The First and Second Iron Man were Soft Sci-Fi (much of the drama centered around Tony's inventions and who got to use them); Thor 1-3 and both Guardians of the Galaxy films were science fantasy (the sci-fi elements existed only for visual dynamics, not as thing central to the actual narrative).

Quote from: Spinachcat;1101933This thread is a spinoff of a discussion about Tekumel being the first sci-fi RPG setting. The conversation drifted into science fiction vs. fantasy and I think that's worth its own thread.

For me, I consider any "soft sci-fi" to be sci-fantasy. To me, as soon as cinematics, rule of cool, hand wavium become major elements of the setting, you're in fantasy land.

Where do you draw the line? Why?




Any advanced enough technology is magic?

Is the "magic" actually psionics? Psionics is popular in soft scifi. Even "hard scifi" Traveller has psionics.

Of course, you and I probably have different definitions of "soft scifi"!!

So everybody, what is the YOUR definition of "soft scifi vs. fantasy"???

Lets see, any technology sufficiently advanced will look like magic to the outsider, doesn't mean that a species with FTL travel thinks their tech is magic.

Psionics can easily step into fantasy land when you go overboard and (speaking of TTRPGs) just convert the magic spells into psionics. Doesn't mean that all psionics is magic.

Hard Sci-Fi is usually more rooted on science, with as little as possible handwavium or Unobtanium. While soft Sci-Fi has little to no use for hard science, but even Star Trek falls somewhere in the soft Sci-Fi realm. But as a general rule the less handwavium or Unobtanium (zero if possible) the better for any hard Sci-Fi.

Magic means what you already know it means, elfs, and trolls, witches and wizards, dragons and magic wands, warding from evil, etc.

Funny enough there was a movie (can't remember the title sorry) about a "vampire" species whose space ship traveled in the Halley's comet tail and wrecked havoc on earth once every 75 years. This weren't blood sucking vampires but life energy vampires and sure enough their victims also became vampires. Pretty cool and with a veneer of scientific explanation for their shit.

So we're talking more of a gradient than a real hard separation, but this might interest you The Scale of Hardness in Science Fiction (https://futurism.media/the-scale-of-hardness-in-science-fiction)

Sci fiction tends to be occasionally fantastical. But still overall scientifically explainable, even if its some weird application. Psi is the big one. It is still quantifiable and explainable in most settings with it.

Sci fantasy tends to be a mix. There may be real magic which is unexplainable, or gods, or other supernatural elements that defy science within the setting.

And sometimes something that looks Sci Fantasy may not be.

But then you get into the same damn problem with people who broaden the terms to mean practically "everything on earth!" With Science Fantasy being applied willy nilly to anything some moron disapproves of to the point it DOES mean everything on earth.

Its got psionics? Fantasy!
Its got artificial gravity? Fantasy!
Its got FTL? Fantasy!
Its got aliens? Fantasy!
Its got laser guns? Fantasy!
Its got space ships? Fantasy!
Its got vehicles going faster than 60mph? Fantasy!

ad nausium

I would agree with Omega, vehicles traveling faster then 60mph definitely fantasy.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1101939Magic means what you already know it means, elfs, and trolls, witches and wizards, dragons and magic wands, warding from evil, etc.

Funny enough there was a movie (can't remember the title sorry) about a "vampire" species whose space ship traveled in the Halley's comet tail and wrecked havoc on earth once every 75 years. This weren't blood sucking vampires but life energy vampires and sure enough their victims also became vampires. Pretty cool and with a veneer of scientific explanation for their shit.

Lifeforce, based on the novel The Space Vampires by Colin Wilson

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1101939Funny enough there was a movie (can't remember the title sorry) about a "vampire" species whose space ship traveled in the Halley's comet tail and wrecked havoc on earth once every 75 years. This weren't blood sucking vampires but life energy vampires and sure enough their victims also became vampires. Pretty cool and with a veneer of scientific explanation for their shit.

Life Force

(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/913id0tbail_sl1500.jpg)

Edit: Ninja'd while finding poster on Google damnit! :D

Quote from: JeremyR;1101946Lifeforce, based on the novel The Space Vampires by Colin Wilson

Thanks, now to hunt it down to re watch it, to see if it still holds up

Quote from: Spinachcat;1101933Where do you draw the line? Why?

To me "Sci Fi" or even Science Fiction tends to be a setting that makes an honest attempt to be plausible and realistic.
In my mind that covers "Star Trek" (mostly), the 'TRAVELLER' setting when traveling between jump point and planets is handled with an attempt at real physics.
Many of the GURPS settings use real science.

"Science-Fantasy" is where space is the setting and spaceships are used by characters - but it is so over the top at the times for the sake of swashbuckling that you have to grin or laugh.
That would be these game settings: 'Star Wars', "STARFINDER", the Doctor Who universe, and some versions of "Gamma World". Oh, and of course most comic book /Superhero universes.

- Ed C.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1101948Thanks, now to hunt it down to re watch it, to see if it still holds up

I rewatched it about 2 years ago. The lead female space vampire spends about half the movie walking around completely naked, just like I remembered from seeing it in the theater back in the 80s.

In other words, it still holds up.:D

More seriously, nudity aside Lifeforce is actually pretty batshit crazy. Maybe Tobe Hooper was still on the same coke binge he was supposedly on while making Poltergeist.

Quote from: Dimitrios;1101950I rewatched it about 2 years ago. The lead female space vampire spends about half the movie walking around completely naked, just like I remembered from seeing it in the theater back in the 80s.

In other words, it still holds up.:D

Damn! I first saw it on the open tv, so no nude walking!

"Hard sci-fi relies on actual science" .... I have long felt something was wrong with statements like that, and i'm pretty sure why nowadays:
It seems, in that case, as if ALL sci-fi i've ever read and/or watched, was "soft sci-fi" or even space fantasy, but when i grew up, it was seen as science fiction, nothing else.
Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov, Robert A Heinlein?
All ranging from very soft sci-fi to Space Fantasy.
Yes, ESPECIALLY Asimovs Foundation Saga and Robot timeline.
Essentially, this whole thing is just nonsense!

No, i make my distinction between Sci Fi and Fantasy based on the amount of visible hi-tech and Space faring in hi-tech space ships vs low-tech or magic(and that magic may be hi-tech, but unexplainable to others) and how planet-bound the setting is.

John Carter or Flash Gordon is "Science-Fantasy" to me.
Star Wars, Star Trek, Andromeda, Babylon 5, and Transformers when they are on Cybertron is clear Sci-fi to me.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1101933So everybody, what is the YOUR definition of "soft scifi vs. fantasy"???

Soft sci-fi: Stuff is just yours. No economy. No space helmets.
Sci-fantasy: Stuff is just yours. No economy. No space helmets. A much higher tech level than soft sci-fi.

I don't draw a line. Instead, I do absolutely everything I can to blur it and revel in it. I'm totally fine with calling it all fantasy. Personally I prefer to refer to all of it - hard, soft, unfettered imagination - as capital r Romance. What varies along that spectrum is the amount of Romanticism in play.

Psionics gets to be soft Sci-fi. It's key in most Space Opera and offers an alternative to transhumanism as a means of human advancement. One fun soft Sci-fi theory, is that the nonsense that will allow for FTL will cause the development of Psychic powers.

It's soft Sci-fi because in leans on extradimensional truths that we know exist, but can't even begin to guess at. We know that there is physics that exist outside of space-time. We don't know how it works. This willingness to guess at how the universe works with no scientific basis is soft Sci-fi.

It becomes science fantasy once you give up entirely. The Force in Star Wars is just magic even the technobable explanation in the Prequels doesn't really begin to make the Force Sci-fi, that only made it closer to hard-magic.

I've been giving the sci-if/sci-fantasy divide a lot of thought of late. I run lots of Stars Without Number games, some Traveller. I've read all the Expanse novels and watched the show, which has seriously informed my GMing and world building. That's s just off the top of my head, but this issue has really been on my mind because it directly impacts my gaming.

I think fundamentally the difference between science fiction and science fantasy is one of axioms. In science fiction, the technology that makes the environment that humans interact with is defined axiomatically, and part of the game/setting/story is how these new realities shake out.  For example, Traveller is pretty soft science fiction, but one of its big setting defining axioms is that nothing moves faster than Jump speed. There is no instant interstellar communication.  Part of the game is dealing with this technological reality and its impact.  

Science fantasy doesn't do this. If anything, it works the opposite way: whatever is fun and evocative in the setting/story/game dictates the kinds of technology and reality.  Star Wars is all about this.  I'd even say that Star Trek is also science fantasy, but Star Trek does cross over into science fiction though when episodes deal with the implications of a specific technological development.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1101933So everybody, what is the YOUR definition of "soft scifi vs. fantasy"???

I draw the line at Magic. Space Fantasy has magic, sci-fi does not. By magic, I mean the power to break (or bend) the Laws of Normality, as people in the setting understand them, that can never be fully understood.

Star Trek is soft sci-fi. There are things that seem to break the Laws of Normal, but they are either Very Powerful Aliens (Q) or Techno-scams (Arda and her Fek'lar routine). Clarke's Law is irrelevant. To us a Star Trek transporter may seem like magic, but to Transporter Chief Miles O'Brien it's a machine. Most of the inhabitants of Star Trek verse believe that even if science can't explain something now, eventually it will.

Psionics are probably the big sticking point. I think they can exist in a sci-fi setting, if the notion is that Psi will be "science someday." If it's clear that Psi will never be understood and it will always be mystical in nature, then Space Fantasy.

Traveller is sci-fi, even with Psi.

Babylon 5 is (probably) sci-fi. Part of the show's genius is Nothing is Ever What it Seems, but I can't recall ever seeing true magic in the show. There is Psi, but it's being science-ized as the show goes on. And the Techomages are really just Nano-engineers.

Fading Suns is the best example of Space Fantasy I can think of. D&D wizards and clerics in space. Love it.

Star Wars is (probably) Space Fantasy. The Force definitely seems like it meets all three criteria of magic, and the Jedi are definitely mystics and not scientists. The entire Star Wars universe seems like one devoid of science, as if scientific inquiry stopped hundreds or thousands of years ago. No one ever invents anything new (and please don't bother telling me about some crappy EU novel.) Through the entire 10 movies (Episode 1-8 + Rogue + Solo) there are only two new things invented (I think...) But.. the Midichlorians. Ugh. What was Lucas thinking? It seemed like he was trying to inject some science into the Force. But every sane person agrees that the Midichlorians and the Xmas Special never existed, and that Jar Jar was the Real Phantom Menace.

Dune is an interesting case. I'm going to say sci-fi. The powers are Human Next. No one in Dune thinks the Mentats, the Bene Gesserit, or the Swordmasters are doing magic, rather they have mastered disciplines that enable the human form to reach it's full potential. These are understandable and predictable, even if very few can do either. But the prescience powers of the Kwizatz Haderach may indeed be magical, I don't know what happens after book 1.

Well, one distinction line might involve drawing on Rod Serling:
(https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-fantasy-is-the-impossible-made-probable-science-fiction-is-the-improbable-made-possible-rod-serling-67-56-36.jpg)

If we want to delineate Sci-Fi from Fantasy that way, we need to find out where the line is beyond which "improbable" becomes so improbable that it is sufficiently close to "impossible".
However, that approach leaves open the question of Psi, which has to be considered pretty much impossible by now, yet is a common thing in plenty of pieces of fiction called Sci-Fi. Perhaps the idea was originally grounded in scientific research.

So a different take would merely look at common tropes and/or setting elements. Whereas magic, especially such spells as Protection from Evil, is heavily associated with Fantasy, certain mental powers, like Telekinesis, have come to be associated with Sci-Fi as well, perhaps even primarily so.


But ultimately, for distinguishing Sci-Fantasy from Soft Sci-Fi, what has been written in this blogpost here (http://www.knightsoftheblacklily.com/2018/05/rpg-theory-with-rigor-part-2/) applies to this discussion as well: we'll never establish a universally accepted categorization, there will always be fringe cases. It's enough to be able to roughly communicate our ideas but then we'll have to spell out details explicitly whenever fringe cases are involved, for the sake of clarity in communication.

Quote from: Catelf;1101956"Hard sci-fi relies on actual science" .... I have long felt something was wrong with statements like that, and i'm pretty sure why nowadays:
It seems, in that case, as if ALL sci-fi i've ever read and/or watched, was "soft sci-fi" or even space fantasy, but when i grew up, it was seen as science fiction, nothing else.
Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov, Robert A Heinlein?
All ranging from very soft sci-fi to Space Fantasy.
Yes, ESPECIALLY Asimovs Foundation Saga and Robot timeline.
Essentially, this whole thing is just nonsense!

Hard Sci Fi = strictest definition is a plausible extrapolation of (then) known science, perhaps with ONE additional element. Arthur C Clarke wrote a lot of hard sf. HG Wells wrote some very hard SF for his day, eg 'The War in the Air' which features then-unknown tech like battle tanks and aerial warfare. Even 'The War of the Worlds' is Hard SF, it doesn't break any physical laws, and the resolution is based on then-new science. I absolutely love the battle scenes, which Wells based on 19th century Colonial warfare - with the British as the unfortunate Natives experiencing an 'out of context' event. The Martians don't have energy shields or other soft SF handwavium that you see in later adaptations, and they do take casualties, which disconcert them very much as modern Western armies fighting in Afghanistan often get disconcerted by the loss of a single soldier.
My son was set to read it over the summer and we had some interesting talks about Martian heat ray tech and Specific Heat Capacity of steel vs water. :)
If you allow the 'one more element' bit then that brings in authors like Vernor Vinge, and some Asimov at the soft end of Hard SF.

Differences between SF and Fantasy are often more about the attitude of the characters. If it's an unknowable universe, and/or one where Belief Creates Reality*, then it's probably Fantasy. So Star Wars minus Midichlorians.

If the characters believe in a knowable universe, and the authors appear to back this up, then it's Science Fiction. So Star Trek, no matter how Soft SF it gets.

*So the Humanities departments of our great Universities live in a Fantasy world. :D Hopefully the Science departments don't all join them, but it's not looking good. :(

Quote from: S'mon;1102006Hard Sci Fi = strictest definition is a plausible extrapolation of (then) known science, perhaps with ONE additional element. Arthur C Clarke wrote a lot of hard sf. HG Wells wrote some very hard SF for his day, eg 'The War in the Air' which features then-unknown tech like battle tanks and aerial warfare. Even 'The War of the Worlds' is Hard SF, it doesn't break any physical laws, and the resolution is based on then-new science. I absolutely love the battle scenes, which Wells based on 19th century Colonial warfare - with the British as the unfortunate Natives experiencing an 'out of context' event. The Martians don't have energy shields or other soft SF handwavium that you see in later adaptations, and they do take casualties, which disconcert them very much as modern Western armies fighting in Afghanistan often get disconcerted by the loss of a single soldier.
My son was set to read it over the summer and we had some interesting talks about Martian heat ray tech and Specific Heat Capacity of steel vs water. :)
If you allow the 'one more element' bit then that brings in authors like Vernor Vinge, and some Asimov at the soft end of Hard SF.

Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle postulated that Dante's Divine Comedy was the first science fiction story in that the locations were created with strict adherance to what was considered science at the time.

I'm very tired from working a double shift and will pontificate on this topic when I wake up. One point that I would like to make before bed, though.

Quote from: Arthur C. ClarkeAny sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Even though sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, does not mean that it is magic. It is technology and thus must adhere to the physical laws of the universe. We may not be able to understand the working principles behind the technology but that does not mean that we never will or that those working principles are unfathomable or beyond physical laws. To do so will cause situations like in the 80's when people who did not understand physics were claiming that quantum mechanics meant that magic existed.

And with that, good night gentlefolk.

I like how some folks have started to use Speculative Fiction to cover the whole spectrum between Science Fiction (or SF, NEVER SCI FI... at least that's what they used to say at Boskone...) and Fantasy. The truth is the line has always been fuzzy and the spectrum has always been shelved together at just about every bookstore I've ever shopped at.

Frank

Science fiction, ships, pew-pew guns, politics.

Science fantasy, murdering Martians with a sword from the back of my giant Venusian salamander (also a hot and slightly confused-looking blonde hoisted over my shoulder).

Possibly somewhere in-between. I'll know it when I see it...

I saw Yor a while back, and thought, "This is just a D&D campaign".

I am sure there are literary differences, but in the realm of RPGs, I don't think you're getting away from sci-fi elements in fantasy games unless you're really strict about what you allow (like BtB MERP). They seem to just merge at some point, even if it's just old forgotten technology like Tekumel.

Honestly, having all that stuff makes the game more fun; the main C&C campaign I run (on hiatus this semester) basically has a crashed spaceship currently used as a wizard's tower. There's also a robo-lich thing, and all sorts of sci-fi crap. I only obliquely reference it, but the players have figured it out. Way more fun than just some cookie-cutter fantasy game.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1101933This thread is a spinoff of a discussion about Tekumel being the first sci-fi RPG setting. The conversation drifted into science fiction vs. fantasy and I think that's worth its own thread.

For me, I consider any "soft sci-fi" to be sci-fantasy. To me, as soon as cinematics, rule of cool, hand wavium become major elements of the setting, you're in fantasy land.

Where do you draw the line? Why?




Any advanced enough technology is magic?

Is the "magic" actually psionics? Psionics is popular in soft scifi. Even "hard scifi" Traveller has psionics.

Of course, you and I probably have different definitions of "soft scifi"!!

So everybody, what is the YOUR definition of "soft scifi vs. fantasy"???

OK, so where do I draw the line and why.

It depends on what kind of Players I want at my game table because each game and even each edition of each game attracts different basic types of people.

d6 Star Wars attracts people who are interested in cinematic action science fantasy generally. Traveller/Cepheus Engine attracts people who are generally more interested in soft-hard fairly gritty literary style of science fiction with puzzles and mysteries. Mekton (II or Zeta) typically attracts Players who are anime/manga soft sci-fi fans that like giant robots. Cyberpunk usually attracts science fiction fans of gritty film noir style hard sci-fi. Star Trek attracts Players interested in heavy-handed morality lessons who believe that socialism is a viable economic system (definitely science fantasy). Now these same general Player types often overlap because you can enjoy the spectrum of science fantasy to hard science fiction and have particular itches that you want to scratch. Likewise, GMs may have particular itches that they want to scratch and may prefer to run the stormtrooper blasting wild and wooly game of Star Wars instead of the ethically challenged merchant of Traveller/Cepheus Engine trying to stay one step ahead of the bank with their ship's mortgage, although either system can cover the general genre emulation of the other but definitely with its own unique spin.

A continuum, not a definition with strict categories that is something like this.

   Star Wars < Star Trek < Babylon 5 < Traveller < The Expanse < the ship and orbital station in 2001

Gygax had space ships in Greyhawk. It doesn't make D&D Sci-Fi. Tekumel is fantasy from the perspective of the characters, may be Sci-Fi from the perspective of the players, and is arguably Sci-Fi (about at the level of Star Trek) from the perspective of the GM.

Quote from: Bren;1102070A continuum, not a definition with strict categories that is something like this.

   Star Wars < Star Trek < Babylon 5 < Traveller < The Expanse < the ship and orbital station in 2001

That makes sense to me. But my question is... have you really been playing Star Wars D6 all these years? Because that's gotta be one epic campaign by now.

Quote from: Aglondir;1102174That makes sense to me. But my question is... have you really been playing Star Wars D6 all these years? Because that's gotta be one epic campaign by now.

Not quite that long, but pretty epic. I cycle back and forth through what I GM and play. I didn't actually start running Star Wars D6 until 1994.

• Star Wars D6 original campaigns ran from 1994 - 2005 and 2010-2012. During the gap years, it was Call of Cthulhu.
  
• Then I ran Honor+Intrigue 2012-2017.
• Then back to Star Wars D6 with a new campaign and new characters (2017-present)

I think the line is essentially arbitrary. Even so, I do have aesthetic concerns.

In a setting like Dragonstar or Starfinder, standard scifi tech is tacked on to a fantasy universe. I personally prefer a magitech approach, like Aethera's "aethertech," Aether & Flux's "flux culler," Voidspanners's "voidships," etc.

I really wish somebody would release revised rules for aether and flux. I just found those concepts so fascinating.

Quote from: Bren;1102070A continuum, not a definition with strict categories that is something like this.

   Star Wars < Star Trek < Babylon 5 < Traveller < The Expanse < the ship and orbital station in 2001

   I might quibble about the placement of Star Trek and B5, if only because B5 has reliable precognition and soul-trapping, which I don't think we get in Trek.

Is "Science" the in-universe explanation for the fantastic elements? If yes, then sci-fi.

Is "Magic" (or the Force, the Gods, the Unknown, etc.) the in-universe explanation for the fantastic elements? If yes, then fantasy.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1102323I might quibble about the placement of Star Trek and B5, if only because B5 has reliable precognition and soul-trapping, which I don't think we get in Trek.

In fairness, Straczynski was usually pretty careful when writing B5 to leave open the possibility that any given in-character interpretation of certain events could be incomplete or even flatly wrong.  We don't know, for example, that the Minbari are actually discovering Minbari souls in human bodies (to drop one minor spoiler), or that the Soul Hunters are actually trapping a dying person's actual soul rather than just making an extremely convincing simulacrum of it; we only know that that's what those people think they're finding/doing, based on their own philosophy and technology.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1102323I might quibble about the placement of Star Trek and B5, if only because B5 has reliable precognition and soul-trapping, which I don't think we get in Trek.

Certainly there is room for argument. We see consciousness trapping in those glowing balls in Return to Tomorrow. I'm not sure how one would prove that what Sargon and his people did was any different than what the Soul Hunters did. And  Star Trek has the Q, the Organians, those wormhole dwelling Bajorran prophets, and several other aliens with scientifically unexplained, godlike powers that seem more like magic than anything else. One reason I placed the two series as I did was that B5 has human tech still using rotation to simulate gravity vs. Star Trek's readily and easily available to everyone artificial gravity.

Quote from: Bren;1102489One reason I placed the two series as I did was that B5 has human tech still using rotation to simulate gravity vs. Star Trek's readily and easily available to everyone artificial gravity.

If there is artificial gravity, but just humans aren't using it yet, is that really changing the category?

I have a hard time seeing even the spectrum view as anything other than just arbitrary territory marking. I think genre labels are rough markers at best, and any subtle distinctions aren't really important. Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Doctor Who are all science fiction, because that's how they're generally shelved. Science fantasy would be something like Starfinder or Tekumel. Mostly based on casual look and feel of the covers.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1102053Science fiction, ships, pew-pew guns, politics.

Science fantasy, murdering Martians with a sword from the back of my giant Venusian salamander (also a hot and slightly confused-looking blonde hoisted over my shoulder).

Possibly somewhere in-between. I'll know it when I see it...

I agree with the attitude - though I think John Carter is still most likely classified as science fiction. And really, it's more scientifically plausible than plenty of pew-pew spaceship films/books. I think to most people, the term "science fantasy" evokes a picture of stuff like Starfinder or Shadowrun -- mixing magic wands and rayguns.

Quote from: jhkim;1102497If there is artificial gravity, but just humans aren't using it yet, is that really changing the category?

I have a hard time seeing even the spectrum view as anything other than just arbitrary territory marking. I think genre labels are rough markers at best, and any subtle distinctions aren't really important. Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Doctor Who are all science fiction, because that's how they're generally shelved. Science fantasy would be something like Starfinder or Tekumel. Mostly based on casual look and feel of the covers.


I agree with the attitude - though I think John Carter is still most likely classified as science fiction. And really, it's more scientifically plausible than plenty of pew-pew spaceship films/books. I think to most people, the term "science fantasy" evokes a picture of stuff like Starfinder or Shadowrun -- mixing magic wands and rayguns.

Hm, there may have been some evolution of terms, if Science Fantasy now means "Science Fiction + Fantasy Mashup" as in Shadowrun & Starfinder. It used to be used for pulp space opera fantasies like Star Wars, and Planetary Romance like John Carter.

Quote from: jhkim;1102497If there is artificial gravity, but just humans aren't using it yet, is that really changing the category?

I have a hard time seeing even the spectrum view as anything other than just arbitrary territory marking. I think genre labels are rough markers at best, and any subtle distinctions aren't really important. Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Doctor Who are all science fiction, because that's how they're generally shelved. Science fantasy would be something like Starfinder or Tekumel. Mostly based on casual look and feel of the covers.

Yea, there's a lot of territory marking. Folk dismiss things as "not science fiction" because of some aspect that they find offensive to the idea of "science fiction", while there are fewer on the other side, I think there are folks who dismiss things as "fantasy" because they have some kind of "modern" or "future" tech in them. Personally, I think the bookstores have had it right for as long as I've been perusing (since the mid 70s) the "science fiction" section in the bookstore which also includes fantasy. Since then, I have heard the term "speculative fiction" and I like that. There's some common element to most everything that's shelved in that section in the bookstore. Of course the authors in that section follow a chain of influence back to the pulps, though some genres have definitely split off (I know horror was intermixed with the "sf" of the pulps, how much crossover with westerns? Burroughs of course also wrote Tarzan which I don't think I've ever seen shelved in the SF section of the bookstore). I think some of the acceptance that speculative fiction really is as single genre has come from the understanding that faster than light travel is pretty much pure fantasy, and considering the amount of SF that leans on FTL travel, how can you be dismissive of some other "fantasy" in your science fiction if you accept FTL travel in your science fiction?

Yet, I still lump RPGs into either science fiction or fantasy (with "historical" like Westerns or Spy games being in the middle). We would actually be better off settling on some less expansive labels, but it's easy to make the broad lumpings that then make some games really hard to categorize.

And hey, considering the statement that caused this thread to start, is Metamorphosis Alpha any less science fantasy and opposed to "harder" science fiction than Empire of the Petal Throne?

Frank

Quote from: jhkim;1102497I agree with the attitude - though I think John Carter is still most likely classified as science fiction. And really, it's more scientifically plausible than plenty of pew-pew spaceship films/books. I think to most people, the term "science fantasy" evokes a picture of stuff like Starfinder or Shadowrun -- mixing magic wands and rayguns.

Yeah, I suppose I could see that at least with the average RPG player. I'm of the opinion that, outside of literal textbook definitions, the dividing line pretty much just comes down to how you view and interpret certain aesthetics. And I can think of multiple ways to draw such a line, more-or-less anyplace between either extreme... take any post in this thread, for instance! :p

I gave up trying to draw the lines along time of go.  What works for me in game:  If the engineers, biologists, and other such people in your game consider it close enough, it's sci/fi.  How "soft" that is depends on what their reactions are, and how many areas cause a "it's fantasy" reaction.  An otherwise hard-ish sci/fi game with 1-3 very clearly delineated departures into fantasy for "what if" can get such players happily extrapolating what that means.  It's when the truly fantastical or fairy tale logic enters into it that they've got to completely switch mental gears or remain very unsatisfied.  

But I'm not enough of an enthusiast for hard sci/fi to make such players happy for very long, unless they can so switch gears.  Hell, even some super hero logic leaves me cold after awhile.

Quote from: S'mon;1102508Hm, there may have been some evolution of terms, if Science Fantasy now means "Science Fiction + Fantasy Mashup" as in Shadowrun & Starfinder. It used to be used for pulp space opera fantasies like Star Wars, and Planetary Romance like John Carter.

The label "science fantasy" has never been commonly used in my experience. Certainly Star Wars has always been classified as "science fiction" in every outlet and mainstream discussion that I've seen. There are some purists who say that it's really science fantasy rather than science fiction, but they're a small minority.

According to Wikipedia, "The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction points out that as a genre, science fantasy "has never been clearly defined", and was most commonly used in the period 1950–1966."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasy

Even during that period, it apparently was often used to refer to works that mixed fantasy tropes like spells and spirits with scientific explanations - such as works like Heinlein's "Magic, Inc." (1940) or the Harold Shea stories (1940-1954).

Quote from: jhkim;1102594Even during that period, it apparently was often used to refer to works that mixed fantasy tropes like spells and spirits with scientific explanations - such as works like Heinlein's "Magic, Inc." (1940) or the Harold Shea stories (1940-1954).

If science fantasy is a thing, then Warhammer 40K is its posterchild.

Quote from: jhkim;1102497If there is artificial gravity, but just humans aren't using it yet, is that really changing the category?

It's a spectrum, not a category.

QuoteI have a hard time seeing even the spectrum view as anything other than just arbitrary territory marking.

When I read sci-fi by Isaac Asimov or Larry Niven I'm expecting a significantly different reading experience than when I pick up a Lensman (E.E. "Doc" Smith) or Star Wars novel. I see that as placing the former two and the latter two in some distance apart on a spectrum. Those experiential reading experiences don't seem like "arbitrary" differences to me, though of course the reading experience is subjective.

QuoteI think genre labels are rough markers at best, and any subtle distinctions aren't really important. Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, and Doctor Who are all science fiction, because that's how they're generally shelved.

So you aren't drawing a line; you're using the line someone else drew.

Quote from: Bren;1102650It's a spectrum, not a category.

It's a cluster. There are data points that are near the center of the cluster and other data points which are at the border to a neighboring cluster. That's why definition wars are pointless; there are no clearly defined boundaries but there are typical elements and core entries.

Quote from: Bren;1102650So you aren't drawing a line; you're using the line someone else drew.

I could be wrong but it seems me that he's saying that the aforementioned pieces of fiction are data points that all but certainly belong to the cluster we call "Sci-Fi"

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1102711It's a cluster. There are data points that are near the center of the cluster and other data points which are at the border to a neighboring cluster. That's why definition wars are pointless; there are no clearly defined boundaries but there are typical elements and core entries.

There is no discrete boundary that forms a category, hence it is a spectrum not a category or bucket.

The discussion is about whether something is sci-fi or fantasy. That is one dimension of measurement. So your cluster maps to a single dimension, i.e. a line. Points may cluster in one spot or another on the line, but they are still on the line.

Quote from: jhkimI have a hard time seeing even the spectrum view as anything other than just arbitrary territory marking.

Quote from: Bren;1102650It's a spectrum, not a category.

When I read sci-fi by Isaac Asimov or Larry Niven I'm expecting a significantly different reading experience than when I pick up a Lensman (E.E. "Doc" Smith) or Star Wars novel. I see that as placing the former two and the latter two in some distance apart on a spectrum. Those experiential reading experiences don't seem like "arbitrary" differences to me, though of course the reading experience is subjective.

OK, I may have been going too far there. Yes, there are many real distinctions between sci-fi works that can be described by a spectrum like this.

Mostly, I'm just put off by attempted redefinition of commonly-used terms -- like saying "Star Wars isn't science fiction". It seems to me that this clearly doesn't improve communication.

Quote from: jhkim;1102738OK, I may have been going too far there.

On an RPG forum? That never happens to any of us. :)

QuoteMostly, I'm just put off by attempted redefinition of commonly-used terms -- like saying "Star Wars isn't science fiction". It seems to me that this clearly doesn't improve communication.

I don't think I was redefining terms, but maybe it came across that way. Star Wars novels sit in the Fantasy and Science Fiction section of my local libraries and bookstores. I'm fine with that. But I don't expect Star Wars to adhere to any kind of scientific standard. It gets classed as science fiction because it has space ships and the action happens in space and on different planets not because the author or audience is interested in extrapolations about technology. But in the vacuum of space, TIE fighter engines whine and blasters go Pew! Pew! because that's fun for kids and the kid in all of us. There's not a lot of science Star Wars and it's not intended to be thought provoking or insightful. It's an updated version of a 1930s Saturday matinee serial like Flash Gordon. So while it sits on the same section, I see it as different from a lot of other sci-fi. Not different in a black and white, it isn't real sci-fi, kind of way. But nonetheless it is different.

Quote from: Bren;1102748On an RPG forum? That never happens to any of us. :)

I don't think I was redefining terms, but maybe it came across that way. Star Wars novels sit in the Fantasy and Science Fiction section of my local libraries and bookstores. I'm fine with that. But I don't expect Star Wars to adhere to any kind of scientific standard. It gets classed as science fiction because it has space ships and the action happens in space and on different planets not because the author or audience is interested in extrapolations about technology. But in the vacuum of space, TIE fighter engines whine and blasters go Pew! Pew! because that's fun for kids and the kid in all of us. There's not a lot of science Star Wars and it's not intended to be thought provoking or insightful. It's an updated version of a 1930s Saturday matinee serial like Flash Gordon. So while it sits on the same section, I see it as different from a lot of other sci-fi. Not different in a black and white, it isn't real sci-fi, kind of way. But nonetheless it is different.

I smile a bit about the "it isn't real sci-fi"... Back in my Boskone days, Star Wars was "sci-fi" "real" science fiction was just Science Fiction or SF... "sci-fi" was the term uneducated folks use and thus delegated to the "trash" (even good and fun "trash")...

Frank

Quote from: Spinachcat;1101933This thread is a spinoff of a discussion about Tekumel being the first sci-fi RPG setting. The conversation drifted into science fiction vs. fantasy and I think that's worth its own thread.

For me, I consider any "soft sci-fi" to be sci-fantasy. To me, as soon as cinematics, rule of cool, hand wavium become major elements of the setting, you're in fantasy land.

Where do you draw the line? Why?

I don't. It's a waste of time and gets into wrangling over whether angels defecate. Besides, if a setting is any good, it shouldn't be easy to pigeonhole it.

Quote from: Bren;1102728There is no discrete boundary that forms a category, hence it is a spectrum not a category or bucket.

You can treat the elements that are at the core of a cluster as if belonging to a category. For example, D&D is for all intents and purposes an RPG, no matter what John Wick says. When talking about D&D, it doesn't matter that there are RPGs that are only borderline role-playing games. Or, put differently: it doesn't make sense to call these core games .9 or .95 or .99 or .87 RPGs.

Quote from: Bren;1102728The discussion is about whether something is sci-fi or fantasy. That is one dimension of measurement. So your cluster maps to a single dimension, i.e. a line. Points may cluster in one spot or another on the line, but they are still on the line.

If we have two clusters on that line, both at some distance to each other, and something that looks like a small cluster equidistant to the two, what are we going to do with it? Keep two clusters and split the small one right down the middle OR create a third cluster and give it a name that alludes to it being a mix of the other two clusters? You decide!

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1102761If we have two clusters on that line, both at some distance to each other, and something that looks like a small cluster equidistant to the two, what are we going to do with it? Keep two clusters and split the small one right down the middle OR create a third cluster and give it a name that alludes to it being a mix of the other two clusters? You decide!

Before there was any need for me to decide anything, you would first have to demonstrate that there are clusters of actual novels, films, or settings as you've indicated. I'm uninterested in discussing hypothetical categorizations or clusters of hypothetical members of hypothetical sets of objects. If I wanted to do that, I'd have done PhD in Pure Mathematics.

The distinction between scifi and fantasy seems to be essentially arbitrary. While you can distinguish between hard and soft science fiction by how closely it adheres to real scientific knowledge, fantasy doesn't have that. You can have rational magic systems, but that's not the same.

With science fantasy in particular, you get increased scrutiny on the divide between science and magic. There is a large trend to distinguish the two, or even place them at odds. I find this arbitrary and in some cases nonsensical. By far my favorite science fantasy settings are those which don't arbitrarily distinguish between science and magic. These are most commonly pulp stories and 80s cartoons as far as I could determine, however. But these are making a resurgence in recent years due to nostalgia marketing, and so is science fantasy magitech.

The most recent science fantasy story I watched was Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance on Netflix. In addition to generally solid if underexplored world building, it doesn't distinguish between magic and science. All of the technology shown in the series is essentially magitech. At one point a character even alludes to thermodynamics.

Quote from: ffilz;1102051I like how some folks have started to use Speculative Fiction to cover the whole spectrum between Science Fiction (or SF, NEVER SCI FI... at least that's what they used to say at Boskone...) and Fantasy. The truth is the line has always been fuzzy and the spectrum has always been shelved together at just about every bookstore I've ever shopped at.

Frank

I like "Speculative Fiction" myself (well, as an umbrella concept. The name itself could possibly be improved). And I've always heard it to include Horror as well.

I also like the name "Space Opera" much better than "Science Fantasy", much more dramatic.

Quote from: Zalman;1103120I also like the name "Space Opera" much better than "Science Fantasy", much more dramatic.

Space Opera's are not necessarily Science Fantasy or even normally Science Fantasy.

They do tend to have psionics...

Quote from: Rhedyn;1103126They do tend to have psionics...

Back in the 40s and 50s, the idea of humans being able to "unlock the full potential of the human mind" seemed a natural progression of science. Now it's pure fantasy.

The problem, as I see it, is that science fiction isn't really what it claims to be. Authors don't ponder the universe and then speculate on how a particular technology will affect the future. Rather, they imagine a possible future and then reverse engineer the science to end up at the place they wanted to write about.  Cyberpunk is a good example of this.

In RPG terms, Traveller is a game where the authors wanted the playable game "world" be be a small region of space; the sub-sector. This small space was necessary for a GM to effectively run the game. The technology of the game had to then have very short jump ranges in order to limit how many possible locations the party could jump to. So they simply invented tech that would allow for that game's world to exists. Had they made the jump ranges longer, then the party would have thousands of possible jump destinations, making it impossible for a GM to actually prep for the game. So, the science serves the story.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1103142Back in the 40s and 50s, the idea of humans being able to "unlock the full potential of the human mind" seemed a natural progression of science. Now it's pure fantasy.

The problem, as I see it, is that science fiction isn't really what it claims to be. Authors don't ponder the universe and then speculate on how a particular technology will affect the future. Rather, they imagine a possible future and then reverse engineer the science to end up at the place they wanted to write about.  Cyberpunk is a good example of this.

In RPG terms, Traveller is a game where the authors wanted the playable game "world" be be a small region of space; the sub-sector. This small space was necessary for a GM to effectively run the game. The technology of the game had to then have very short jump ranges in order to limit how many possible locations the party could jump to. So they simply invented tech that would allow for that game's world to exists. Had they made the jump ranges longer, then the party would have thousands of possible jump destinations, making it impossible for a GM to actually prep for the game. So, the science serves the story.

This is my new favorite example of Gross Conceptual Error by a poster.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1103142Back in the 40s and 50s, the idea of humans being able to "unlock the full potential of the human mind" seemed a natural progression of science. Now it's pure fantasy.

Pfff most Sci-fi has metadimensional FTL influences on the brain cause Psionics. Which isn't fantasy, it's soft sci-fi that speculates on natural phenomenon that we know exists (things outside of space-time) but have no way to know or even reliably guess at.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1103150Pfff most Sci-fi has metadimensional FTL influences on the brain cause Psionics. Which isn't fantasy, it's soft sci-fi that speculates on natural phenomenon that we know exists (things outside of space-time) but have no way to know or even reliably guess at.

I suppose you can argue that, if only to obscure the fact that it is still essentially fantasy magic transplanted into a scifi setting.

Mass Effect introduces psionics or "biotics" as the result of people having their nervous systems contaminated with the unobtainium or "element zero" used for antigravity and FTL. This explains the telekinesis... but not the telepathy, running through solid objects and other assorted applications. Generally, Mass Effect relies on technobabble  (http://www.stardestroyer.net/wiki/index.php?title=Mass_effect_technology)that briefly mentions real scientific concepts but otherwise ignores the implications of real science.

The description of a mass accelerator (http://www.stardestroyer.net/wiki/index.php?title=Mass_accelerator) has an error which causes it to produce energy from nowhere in violation of thermodynamics. It describes a gun as shearing a filing from a metal block, then decreasing the mass to shoot it faster, yet the projectile doesn't lose velocity after exiting the gun and returning to normal mass. This could have been easily rectified by changing the explanation: the projectile's mass is increased, so after it exits the gun and returns to normal mass, that mass is converted into acceleration and gives the projectile greater piercing power. Or something like that.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1103255I suppose you can argue that, if only to obscure the fact that it is still essentially fantasy magic transplanted into a scifi setting.

Mass Effect introduces psionics or "biotics" as the result of people having their nervous systems contaminated with the unobtainium or "element zero" used for antigravity and FTL. This explains the telekinesis... but not the telepathy, running through solid objects and other assorted applications. Generally, Mass Effect relies on technobabble  (http://www.stardestroyer.net/wiki/index.php?title=Mass_effect_technology)that briefly mentions real scientific concepts but otherwise ignores the implications of real science.

The description of a mass accelerator (http://www.stardestroyer.net/wiki/index.php?title=Mass_accelerator) has an error which causes it to produce energy from nowhere in violation of thermodynamics. It describes a gun as shearing a filing from a metal block, then decreasing the mass to shoot it faster, yet the projectile doesn't lose velocity after exiting the gun and returning to normal mass. This could have been easily rectified by changing the explanation: the projectile's mass is increased, so after it exits the gun and returns to normal mass, that mass is converted into acceleration and gives the projectile greater piercing power. Or something like that.

Technobable is common in both Soft Sci-fi and Hard magic systems.

You would be surprised how many people argue that hard magic is just science in that universe.

Quote from: Bren;1102938Before there was any need for me to decide anything, you would first have to demonstrate that there are clusters of actual novels, films, or settings as you've indicated. I'm uninterested in discussing hypothetical categorizations or clusters of hypothetical members of hypothetical sets of objects. If I wanted to do that, I'd have done PhD in Pure Mathematics.

We do have two recognized clusters, labeled as Fantasy and Sci-Fi respectively, as separate phenomenons already.

My delineation is simple. In science fiction, the story turns on the science or technology. Whatever the problem, there is a scientific or technological solution that carries the day, according to the defined science of the setting.

As for the rest, whatever label you put on it, the story turns on the people and their heroic or villainous motivations and characteristics. They interact with the science and technology of their setting, but it is their personal characteristics, physical and personality, that drive the resolution of the conflict.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1103264We do have two recognized clusters, labeled as Fantasy and Sci-Fi respectively, as separate phenomenons already.

In your previous post there were 3 clusters. Now there are two. :confused:

My point is that rather than 2 or 3 categories (or clusters if you insist on using a different word just to be different) stories and settings lie on a continuum or spectrum. You can think of this spectrum as a number line. We can label the left side "purely hard sci-fi" and label the right side "purely fantasy" and every story or setting will fall somewhere along that line.

I know longer know that you are arguing against about that, nor what you are arguing for. Please feel free to clarify.

Quote from: RandyB;1103265My delineation is simple. In science fiction, the story turns on the science or technology. Whatever the problem, there is a scientific or technological solution that carries the day, according to the defined science of the setting.

As for the rest, whatever label you put on it, the story turns on the people and their heroic or villainous motivations and characteristics. They interact with the science and technology of their setting, but it is their personal characteristics, physical and personality, that drive the resolution of the conflict.

I think that was Campbell's definition. It still seems inadequate.

Quote from: Bren;1103276I think that was Campbell's definition. It still seems inadequate.

It is, because it throws most good sci-fi (even hard sci-fi) into not "not sci-fi". For example, the Expanse stops being a sci-fi series because it is well written.

That is the kind of distinction people who despise sci-fi tend to use.

Quote from: Bren;1103276I think that was Campbell's definition. It still seems inadequate.

Yes, that's Campbell, and it was adequate for his purposes. I still use it, because I don't think that there is a useful or relevant alternative. As long as neither label is applied perjoratively, what difference does it make?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1103150Pfff most Sci-fi has metadimensional FTL influences on the brain cause Psionics.

Most? Could you name one sci-fi story from the 50s or earlier that works that way. Dune is a bit later, and it did the reverse, psionics was what allowed FTL travel in the first place.

Anyway, my point, which I did a terrible job at presenting, was that often, what is considered hard science at one time will become fantasy later on.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1103261You would be surprised how many people argue that hard magic is just science in that universe.

There was a novel from the late 80s called Wizardry Compiled where a computer programmer got transported into a generic magical world. There he used his computer science skills, such as functions, libraries, and recursion, to become the most powerful magician in the world.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1103474There was a novel from the late 80s called Wizardry Compiled where a computer programmer got transported into a generic magical world. There he used his computer science skills, such as functions, libraries, and recursion, to become the most powerful magician in the world.

This kind of thing happens a lot in modern isekai manga/light novels.

I would argue it's still magic even if scientific enlightenment makes you better at it.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1103291It is, because it throws most good sci-fi (even hard sci-fi) into not "not sci-fi". For example, the Expanse stops being a sci-fi series because it is well written.

That is the kind of distinction people who despise sci-fi tend to use.

Does this even occur? Who are these people?

Quote from: RandyB;1103297Yes, that's Campbell, and it was adequate for his purposes. I still use it, because I don't think that there is a useful or relevant alternative. As long as neither label is applied perjoratively, what difference does it make?

It's too narrow a definition that is focused solely on gadgets. It was too narrow when Campbell used it. It's even less relevant now.

All I know is...

Once upon a time, my 10th level Fighter, Toobold "the Furious" Stoutskull, took an expedition to the Barrier Peaks. I walked out of there with Torque Grenades from Gamma World, a belt of Healing Cannisters, Vials of Cyanide, Black Ray pistols, and an X-ray Gatling rifle that might have been from GURPS or Traveller... My GM was nuts.

And it was good.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1103261Technobable is common in both Soft Sci-fi and Hard magic systems.

You would be surprised how many people argue that hard magic is just science in that universe.

What is wrong with that last argument? A recurrent pet peeve I have is fantasy which treats magic as separate from nature (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/antiscience.html), rather than the applied knowledge of manipulating nature. I despise the conceit of fiction which makes a distinction between magic and science. If an fictional universe runs by alien physics that make possible what we in reality call "magic," then how is that not said fictional universe's equivalent of science?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1104401What is wrong with that last argument? A recurrent pet peeve I have is fantasy which treats magic as separate from nature (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/antiscience.html), rather than the applied knowledge of manipulating nature. I despise the conceit of fiction which makes a distinction between magic and science. If an fictional universe runs by alien physics that make possible what we in reality call "magic," then how is that not said fictional universe's equivalent of science?

Magic leans on irrationality.

Lets say you have a hard magic system where Humans absorb sunlight and convert that energy into thermodynamic/engineering systems to cause effects.

It's still magic because both the Sunlight absorption and how Humans manipulate Sunlight energy into those systems is irrational. With time you can explain away Sunlight absorption in technical terms if Humans are limited by the amount of energy they absorb through their skin, but the latter portion of setting up complex systems from-Free is basically magic even if you keep adding hard-magic limiters to how the systems form or metaphysical truths to explain the manipulation. Magic cheats in ways rational Science does not get away with. When you set up a reality with Hard-magic, the truths of that reality can lean heavily on irrationality. For example, if in your fantasy world every creature is given mana and mana can be manipulated with thought to create various effects, this mana energy is irrational and comes from no-where.  

To better frame this problem. In math you can set up math systems. Basic addition, multiplication, etc is part of a math system that we use by default because it is useful. You can set up math to work differently but you have to test certain operations in your system against rules and if it violates any of those or produces odd results, then you made an irrational system (and I am having a terrible time googling this information because it is buried in solving linear systems guides). If the physics of your world is irrational then magic is still irrational even if it rationally interacts with irrational physics.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1104401What is wrong with that last argument? A recurrent pet peeve I have is fantasy which treats magic as separate from nature (http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/magic/antiscience.html), rather than the applied knowledge of manipulating nature. I despise the conceit of fiction which makes a distinction between magic and science. If an fictional universe runs by alien physics that make possible what we in reality call "magic," then how is that not said fictional universe's equivalent of science?

Magic leans on irrationality.

Lets say you have a hard magic system where Humans absorb sunlight and convert that energy into thermodynamic/engineering systems to cause effects.

It's still magic because both the Sunlight absorption and how Humans manipulate Sunlight energy into those systems is irrational. With time you can explain away Sunlight absorption in technical terms if Humans are limited by the amount of energy they absorb through their skin, but the latter portion of setting up complex systems for-Free is basically magic even if you keep adding hard-magic limiters to how the systems form or metaphysical truths to explain the manipulation. Magic cheats in ways rational Science does not get away with. When you set up a reality with Hard-magic, the truths of that reality can lean heavily on irrationality. For example, if in your fantasy world every creature is given mana and mana can be manipulated with thought to create various effects, this mana energy is irrational and comes from no-where.

To better frame this problem. In math you can set up math systems. Basic addition, multiplication, etc is part of a math system that we use by default because it is useful. You can set up math to work differently but you have to test certain operations in your system against rules and if it violates any of those or produces odd results, then you made an irrational system (and I am having a terrible time googling this information because it is buried in solving linear systems guides). If the physics of your world is irrational then magic is still irrational even if it rationally interacts with irrational physics.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104410Magic leans on irrationality.

Lets say you have a hard magic system where Humans absorb sunlight and convert that energy into thermodynamic/engineering systems to cause effects.

It's still magic because both the Sunlight absorption and how Humans manipulate Sunlight energy into those systems is irrational. With time you can explain away Sunlight absorption in technical terms if Humans are limited by the amount of energy they absorb through their skin, but the latter portion of setting up complex systems for-Free is basically magic even if you keep adding hard-magic limiters to how the systems form or metaphysical truths to explain the manipulation. Magic cheats in ways rational Science does not get away with. When you set up a reality with Hard-magic, the truths of that reality can lean heavily on irrationality. For example, if in your fantasy world every creature is given mana and mana can be manipulated with thought to create various effects, this mana energy is irrational and comes from no-where.

To better frame this problem. In math you can set up math systems. Basic addition, multiplication, etc is part of a math system that we use by default because it is useful. You can set up math to work differently but you have to test certain operations in your system against rules and if it violates any of those or produces odd results, then you made an irrational system (and I am having a terrible time googling this information because it is buried in solving linear systems guides). If the physics of your world is irrational then magic is still irrational even if it rationally interacts with irrational physics.

Whether a universe is rational or irrational is irrelevant to my criticisms. My criticism is specifically with settings that assume the world works according to the way modern science claims and then crudely tacks on magic to let characters cheat physics when convenient. As opposed to the setting being intended as inherently fantastical when progressing from first principles.

It's the difference between D&D having separate magical and non-magical things and Glorantha having gravity powered by the Earth's love.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1104411Whether a universe is rational or irrational is irrelevant to my criticisms. My criticism is specifically with settings that assume the world works according to the way modern science claims and then crudely tacks on magic to let characters cheat physics when convenient. As opposed to the setting being intended as inherently fantastical when progressing from first principles.

It's the difference between D&D having separate magical and non-magical things and Glorantha having gravity powered by the Earth's love.

I thought you were arguing that hard-magic is basically science in that universe, which I disagree with.

A setting with magic does not require magic physics. That's kind of the point of magic. It's irrationally justified somewhere. You are arguing that the irrationality should start at the bedrock rules of reality to rationally justify magic (maybe not what you thought you meant but it is basically what you are saying). Magic's irrationality can rationally be placed anywhere in the process.

I personally prefer magic in settings where actual physics is the norm and magic just lets you cheat. Magic-physics settings tend to veer into soft-magic rather fiercely and I do not care for Soft-magic as any-sort of important plot point.

You have defined magic to necessarily include irrationality, but you've yet to explain why irrationality actually is a requirement for magic to exist. Also regarding mathematical systems and their supposed lack of irrationality, you are aware that the mathematics that we all learned in school includes irrational numbers, right?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104410Magic cheats in ways rational Science does not get away with. When you set up a reality with Hard-magic, the truths of that reality can lean heavily on irrationality. For example, if in your fantasy world every creature is given mana and mana can be manipulated with thought to create various effects, this mana energy is irrational and comes from no-where.

Coming from nowhere doesn't make it irrational. As long as there are consistent rules for when and where mana appears, it can still rational. Empirically, conservation of energy does appear to be a rule in our universe -- but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be a universe where it wasn't true. Many of the rules of real-world physics are far more strange than energy coming from nowhere.

I'll go out on a limb here...

Science-Fiction presumes materialist methodology to create effects by working known (if occluded) laws (or in the case of fiction - conceits) of the setting that correspond to what we know or theorize to be possible in the real world. Systematization rules the day. The assumptions are that objective reality is closer to what we understand and project via our rational understanding of science as the primary conceit.

Gray Area - That point where the conceit of the setting presumes materialistic methodologies to affect change through theories that are unproven, or in some cases completely non-sequiter through the logic we currently understand. So Phlogiston is not real, but it purports to explain, rationally, certain material conditions through a false premise, through the use of fantastical devices that work off that false premise in a logical order. Psionics falls into this category. Mysticism as well.

Fantasy - Where the attempts to change reality require no materialist methodology, or any other methodology other than internal logic that corresponds to cultural mores and beliefs to describe their respective cosmology. As an example - cultures that embraced logic and mathematics gravitated towards more and more systemic approaches of viewing their own cultures beliefs - eventually supplanting them. Cultures that generally did not - created their own internal systems completely free of mathematical and in some cases material context. Which in the case of fantasy CAN and OFTEN IS more true as a conceit than what we call standard "science".

Often they can co-exist in Fantasy settings in varying degrees.

Quote from: jhkim;1104423Coming from nowhere doesn't make it irrational. As long as there are consistent rules for when and where mana appears, it can still rational. Empirically, conservation of energy does appear to be a rule in our universe -- but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be a universe where it wasn't true. Many of the rules of real-world physics are far more strange than energy coming from nowhere.

Actually coming from no-where does make something irrational from a purely philosophical perspective when people dig into metaphysics and what "is". There are many debates about the details, but "suddenly existing" is a nonsense term. What is "is" and what "is" is not "is not".

Quote from: Bren;1104421You have defined magic to necessarily include irrationality, but you've yet to explain why irrationality actually is a requirement for magic to exist.

You are correct. We are arguing about word definitions. I am defining Magic as something different from Science or Technology, which is what hard-magic falls into. As soon as it leans on no irrationality what-so-ever it is no longer a hard magic system. For example, Dr. Stone is shonen anime/manga where the power system is science, that is not a hard-magic system.

Quote from: Bren;1104421Also regarding mathematical systems and their supposed lack of irrationality, you are aware that the mathematics that we all learned in school includes irrational numbers, right?

Non Sequitur

All I know is my fantasy world's magic runs off a worldwide self-replicating nanomachine cloud called the Arcane Web. Spells are written out in a machine code language called Arcanos using exotic compounds that link the code to the Arcane Web. The spells also include "hotkeys" a set of words and gestures that when properly performed with a few variable phrases (generally direction and distance related) causes the Arcane Web to reference the linked spell code and produce the coded effect at the designated location.

Some people form pacts with non-corporeal intelligent entities who will access and run programs from the Arcane Web for them. These beings are generally referred to as 'gods' and reside in another realm that may actually be inside the Arcane Web.

No one, not even the wizards, really understands how it actually works or its true origins as it appears to predate the current civilization's recorded history. Thus to them it is magic... but it might really just be a very sophisticated nanotech system where wizards learn enough programming language to cobble programs together while others rely on petitioning glitchy millennia old AI's left running in the system to handle certain user requests on a priority basis.

And yes, Siri is the goddess of knowledge. She is very patient but also generally useless at actually finding the information you're really looking for and repeats herself a lot (which is why when you really need to know something you go to a wizard).

The point? What qualifies as "magic" is very much in the eyes of the beholder (or viewpoint characters as the case might be).

Quote from: jhkimComing from nowhere doesn't make it irrational. As long as there are consistent rules for when and where mana appears, it can still rational. Empirically, conservation of energy does appear to be a rule in our universe -- but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be a universe where it wasn't true. Many of the rules of real-world physics are far more strange than energy coming from nowhere.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104439Actually coming from no-where does make something irrational from a purely philosophical perspective when people dig into metaphysics and what "is". There are many debates about the details, but "suddenly existing" is a nonsense term. What is "is" and what "is" is not "is not".

Metaphysics!?!?!?! That's way more fucking irrational than any RPG magic. :D

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104417I thought you were arguing that hard-magic is basically science in that universe, which I disagree with.

A setting with magic does not require magic physics. That's kind of the point of magic. It's irrationally justified somewhere. You are arguing that the irrationality should start at the bedrock rules of reality to rationally justify magic (maybe not what you thought you meant but it is basically what you are saying). Magic's irrationality can rationally be placed anywhere in the process.

I personally prefer magic in settings where actual physics is the norm and magic just lets you cheat. Magic-physics settings tend to veer into soft-magic rather fiercely and I do not care for Soft-magic as any-sort of important plot point.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104439Actually coming from no-where does make something irrational from a purely philosophical perspective when people dig into metaphysics and what "is". There are many debates about the details, but "suddenly existing" is a nonsense term. What is "is" and what "is" is not "is not".

 You are correct. We are arguing about word definitions. I am defining Magic as something different from Science or Technology, which is what hard-magic falls into. As soon as it leans on no irrationality what-so-ever it is no longer a hard magic system. For example, Dr. Stone is shonen anime/manga where the power system is science, that is not a hard-magic system.

Non Sequitur

I have no idea how your argument works and I do not think I have any disagreements.

My point is that I prefer settings where things impossible in reality are possible within the physics of that setting, what we the audience would perceive as "magic" but is entirely natural to the fictional setting. I do not like the standard D&D magic system where magic is a power source you can turn on and off like a light bulb.

I suppose the closest equivalent in reality is the obsolete scientific theories that came to the fore during the occult revival. When supposed scientists believed in psychic powers, spiritualism, ether, etc. I prefer a setting where those theories were true, or at least something like them that we the audience would perceive as fantasy magic.

Or the way magic is depicted in Cthulhu mythos stories. Not as something apart from nature, but as the truth of reality, the esoteric science that human minds cannot handle.

Quote from: Chris24601;1104442All I know is my fantasy world's magic runs off a worldwide self-replicating nanomachine cloud called the Arcane Web. Spells are written out in a machine code language called Arcanos using exotic compounds that link the code to the Arcane Web. The spells also include "hotkeys" a set of words and gestures that when properly performed with a few variable phrases (generally direction and distance related) causes the Arcane Web to reference the linked spell code and produce the coded effect at the designated location.

Some people form pacts with non-corporeal intelligent entities who will access and run programs from the Arcane Web for them. These beings are generally referred to as 'gods' and reside in another realm that may actually be inside the Arcane Web.

No one, not even the wizards, really understands how it actually works or its true origins as it appears to predate the current civilization's recorded history. Thus to them it is magic... but it might really just be a very sophisticated nanotech system where wizards learn enough programming language to cobble programs together while others rely on petitioning glitchy millennia old AI's left running in the system to handle certain user requests on a priority basis.

And yes, Siri is the goddess of knowledge. She is very patient but also generally useless at actually finding the information you're really looking for and repeats herself a lot (which is why when you really need to know something you go to a wizard).

The point? What qualifies as "magic" is very much in the eyes of the beholder (or viewpoint characters as the case might be).

I would argue that your setting is hard sci-fi (some debate on whether nano-technology bots count as soft or hard sci-fi. Soft in Numenera, Hard in Nova Praxis).

I like the idea of setting up an ancient world where advance science has popped up from time-to-time but something like a lack of fossil fuels has prevented a wide-spread enlightenment period. So the "magic" system would just be science but everything is presented and understood like one would explain a hard-magic system. I like the idea because it sounds like challenge, can you make regular science feel like magic to a person that grew up around modern science. That is perceived magic which I distinguish from actual magic.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1104455I have no idea how your argument works and I do not think I have any disagreements.

My point is that I prefer settings where things impossible in reality are possible within the physics of that setting, what we the audience would perceive as "magic" but is entirely natural to the fictional setting. I do not like the standard D&D magic system where magic is a power source you can turn on and off like a light bulb.

I suppose the closest equivalent in reality is the obsolete scientific theories that came to the fore during the occult revival. When supposed scientists believed in psychic powers, spiritualism, ether, etc. I prefer a setting where those theories were true, or at least something like them that we the audience would perceive as fantasy magic.

Or the way magic is depicted in Cthulhu mythos stories. Not as something apart from nature, but as the truth of reality, the esoteric science that human minds cannot handle.

Eldritch Skies lore works a lot like that. It is a soft sci-fi setting where all the mysticism of ages past is looked at as the results of a "scientific" phenomenon.

"'For this is what your folk would call magic. I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem also to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy."--Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings.

I prefer subdividing it into miracle, superpowers, quasi-science, and sorcery/diabolism. :)

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104457I would argue that your setting is hard sci-fi (some debate on whether nano-technology bots count as soft or hard sci-fi. Soft in Numenera, Hard in Nova Praxis).

All hard sci-fi means is that space helmets are needed. That's it.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1104472All hard sci-fi means is that space helmets are needed. That's it.

That's certainly a definition.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104439You are correct. We are arguing about word definitions. I am defining Magic as something different from Science or Technology, which is what hard-magic falls into. As soon as it leans on no irrationality what-so-ever it is no longer a hard magic system.

You don't define things by saying what they are different than. So far as I can tell your argument consists of

• A. Magic is, by definition, irrational.
• B. Therefore magic cannot be scientific since the scientific method is necessarily rationale.
• A follows from B, if A is true. But for A. to be true we have to accept accept the premise that magic is by definition irrational.

But you haven't provided good reasons to believe the premise. In fact your premise is actually what is at issue.

If you want to prove your point, you need to first establish some definitions. Maybe start with what you think irrational means.

QuoteFor example, Dr. Stone is shonen anime/manga where the power system is science, that is not a hard-magic system.

This means nothing to me.

Quote from: Bren;1104557If you want to prove your point, you need to first establish some definitions.

I did.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104457I would argue that your setting is hard sci-fi (some debate on whether nano-technology bots count as soft or hard sci-fi. Soft in Numenera, Hard in Nova Praxis).

Except everyone in setting calls it magic. I don't even discuss that this is what magic really is. At most there are hints based on certain turns of phrase or little bits of "Arcanos" I've included on player handouts "lda KE 03m out 125,30,16 KE."

Magic doesn't have to mean irrational. It just means its something not fully understood that appears to violate what we think we know... hence modern day performances by illusionists are commonly called magic because what we're seeing shouldn't be possible, but to our eyes is actually happening. The same for the phrase "movie magic" where they create the appearance of things that aren't real.

Its basically just the Clarke truism that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic or the MCU's presentation that magic is branches of science that man doesn't fully understand, but can make use of -or- in the case of the Asgard, where magic and science are one and the same thing to them.

And that is a perfectly valid definition for magic in any setting. It can, in a setting, be entirely rational, but in a way that contradicts what we think we know of how things work from our current understanding of science.

Quote from: Chris24601;1104581Except everyone in setting calls it magic. I don't even discuss that this is what magic really is. At most there are hints based on certain turns of phrase or little bits of "Arcanos" I've included on player handouts "lda KE 03m out 125,30,16 KE."

Magic doesn't have to mean irrational. It just means its something not fully understood that appears to violate what we think we know... hence modern day performances by illusionists are commonly called magic because what we're seeing shouldn't be possible, but to our eyes is actually happening. The same for the phrase "movie magic" where they create the appearance of things that aren't real.

Its basically just the Clarke truism that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic or the MCU's presentation that magic is branches of science that man doesn't fully understand, but can make use of -or- in the case of the Asgard, where magic and science are one and the same thing to them.

And that is a perfectly valid definition for magic in any setting. It can, in a setting, be entirely rational, but in a way that contradicts what we think we know of how things work from our current understanding of science.

I disagree that mundane illusions or misunderstood technology should be considered True Magic. In our "assumed to be rational" world. Those things are all magic is or can be. In fiction, true magic is possible so a distinction is important.

Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun series presents soft Sci-fi as magic and gets put into Science Fantasy. When your magic system is just science, you get pulled out of Fantasy and placed in the Science Fantasy genre. Fantasy tends to rely on true magic (if any magic).

Saga of the Goblin Horde does this as well (it's a free download), as far as the players are concerned it's a fantasy setting, eventually they may learn that it is actually a soft Sci-fi setting. It's up to the GM if that element is true.

When arguing about word definitions, you aren't arguing about the "true" definition, you are arguing about what the useful definition is. I'm not going to argue that advance technology or sleight of hand can't be perceived as magic. I'm saying it is confusing to lump that into the same category as True Magic as seen in fantasy and making that distinction is useful in discussion. (Which this whole thread is about word definitions)

Science fiction is when I burn my Delta-V. Science fantasy is when you fall into a closed time loop and die.

You seem hung up on this notion of "True" magic (which immediately makes me think of Mage The Ascension) vs. what people in the setting actually call forces they can't explain.

To put it another way, if the movie "Doctor Strange" a fantasy or soft science fiction because it posits that magic is a part of the rational world but not understandable by current human science? Its got spells, its got magic items, its got demon gods from other realms.

The argument that that's not fantasy because it posits a rational explanation basically renders the entire word "magic" meaningless.

I mean, right now in the real world there are events labeled miracles that, even after investigation, defy scientific explanation, but according to the Catholic Church there is a completely rational explanation for them; God is real and interceded. There is nothing any more irrational in that theory than "sometimes stuff happens we can't explain" is... but the former is labeled magic.

So if a story where all the events of Revelations were to play out, complete with God Himself coming down out of Heaven and proving He is real and responsible for all the miracles over the course millennia... that He is the rational explanation for them all... that this story should be labeled science fiction and not fantasy?

I think your definition is near worthless in a practical sense because it's too focused on there being some objective truth of reality that crosses all stories throughout time instead of focusing on the concepts as presented in the fictional story itself.

Quote from: Chris24601;1104600You seem hung up on this notion of "True" magic (which immediately makes me think of Mage The Ascension) vs. what people in the setting actually call forces they can't explain.

To put it another way, if the movie "Doctor Strange" a fantasy or soft science fiction because it posits that magic is a part of the rational world but not understandable by current human science? Its got spells, its got magic items, its got demon gods from other realms.

The argument that that's not fantasy because it posits a rational explanation basically renders the entire word "magic" meaningless.

I mean, right now in the real world there are events labeled miracles that, even after investigation, defy scientific explanation, but according to the Catholic Church there is a completely rational explanation for them; God is real and interceded. There is nothing any more irrational in that theory than "sometimes stuff happens we can't explain" is... but the former is labeled magic.

So if a story where all the events of Revelations were to play out, complete with God Himself coming down out of Heaven and proving He is real and responsible for all the miracles over the course millennia... that He is the rational explanation for them all... that this story should be labeled science fiction and not fantasy?

I think your definition is near worthless in a practical sense because it's too focused on there being some objective truth of reality that crosses all stories throughout time instead of focusing on the concepts as presented in the fictional story itself.

Great explanation, thank you.

I use that sort of religious approach for my own world building. What we the audience consider magic exists in the fantasy world because the gods created it that way when they invented the rules governing the world. It is entirely natural to the world and cannot be disengaged from everything else any more than we can disengage the fundamental forces in reality.

I still maintain a distinction between miracles and non-miracles. Miracles cannot be explained even by those who perform them because they are literal divine intervention, whereas non-miracles require those creating them to understand how. Healing "magic" would be an example: a miracle worker wouldn't know the first thing about medicine while healing the sick by laying hands, whereas a healer mage would have the equivalent of a real medical education but be able to perform operations impossible in reality because the fantasy world has different underlying physics.

It is difficult for me to explain simply because it is so foreign to the sensibilities of modern Western fantasy. Victorian pseudo-science or the cultivation of qi and alchemy in Eastern fantasy is probably a better example of what I mean.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1104604Great explanation, thank you.

I use that sort of religious approach for my own world building. What we the audience consider magic exists in the fantasy world because the gods created it that way when they invented the rules governing the world. It is entirely natural to the world and cannot be disengaged from everything else any more than we can disengage the fundamental forces in reality.

I still maintain a distinction between miracles and non-miracles. Miracles cannot be explained even by those who perform them because they are literal divine intervention, whereas non-miracles require those creating them to understand how.

"A miracle properly so called is when something is done outside the order of nature. But it is not enough for a miracle if something is done outside the order of any particular nature; for otherwise anyone would perform a miracle by throwing a stone upwards, as such a thing is outside the order of the stone's nature. So for a miracle is required that it be against the order of the whole created nature. But God alone can do this, because, whatever an angel or any other creature does by its own power, is according to the order of created nature; and thus it is not a miracle. Hence God alone can work miracles.

"... Properly speaking, as said above, miracles are those things which are done outside the order of the whole created nature. But as we do not know all the power of created nature, it follows that when anything is done outside the order of created nature by a power unknown to us, it is called a miracle as regards ourselves. So when the demons do anything of their own natural power, these things are called "miracles" not in an absolute sense, but in reference to ourselves. In this way the magicians work miracles through the demons; and these are said to be done by "private contracts," forasmuch as every power of the creature, in the universe, may be compared to the power of a private person in a city. Hence when a magician does anything by compact with the devil, this is done as it were by private contract. On the other hand, the Divine justice is in the whole universe as the public law is in the city. Therefore good Christians, so far as they work miracles by Divine justice, are said to work miracles by "public justice": but bad Christians by the "signs of public justice," as by invoking the name of Christ, or by making use of other sacred signs."

 --St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, Question 110, Article 4, "Whether angels can work miracles."

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1104608--St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, Question 110, Article 4, "Whether angels can work miracles."

Nice quotes and does pretty well sum it up. We call "miracle" (or "magic" in this case) what we ourselves cannot explain. For an angel, healing the sick* is no more a miracle than us taking a step... its just a natural thing we can do.

So too in most settings, magic, particularly what D&D terms Arcane Magic is, by definition, working inside the natural order of the created universe they inhabit. They may not know precisely how it works, but they, by definition in D&D, are NOT calling on divine powers to bring about supernatural effects, they are employing esoteric knowledge (hence the term arcane being applied to it) of the cosmos that the right words, gestures and material components can bring these effects about as readily and repeatedly as striking an iron rod while aligned with a magnetic field will render it magnetic.

What most settings call magic, particularly when it is a force distinct from divine intervention, is just "insufficiently understood science" by Rhedyn's standards. Hell, the entirety of Lord of the Rings operates by the existence of known superhuman powers acting in accord with their natures in the world, but lumping it and all of those other works into the heading of science fiction renders the entire term meaningless and the fantasy heading all but devoid of entries.

* provided healing the sick is something an angel is actually capable of of course.

Quote from: Chris24601;1104600You seem hung up on this notion of "True" magic (which immediately makes me think of Mage The Ascension) vs. what people in the setting actually call forces they can't explain.

To put it another way, if the movie "Doctor Strange" a fantasy or soft science fiction because it posits that magic is a part of the rational world but not understandable by current human science? Its got spells, its got magic items, its got demon gods from other realms.

The argument that that's not fantasy because it posits a rational explanation basically renders the entire word "magic" meaningless.

I mean, right now in the real world there are events labeled miracles that, even after investigation, defy scientific explanation, but according to the Catholic Church there is a completely rational explanation for them; God is real and interceded. There is nothing any more irrational in that theory than "sometimes stuff happens we can't explain" is... but the former is labeled magic.

So if a story where all the events of Revelations were to play out, complete with God Himself coming down out of Heaven and proving He is real and responsible for all the miracles over the course millennia... that He is the rational explanation for them all... that this story should be labeled science fiction and not fantasy?

I think your definition is near worthless in a practical sense because it's too focused on there being some objective truth of reality that crosses all stories throughout time instead of focusing on the concepts as presented in the fictional story itself.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3846[/ATTACH]

Tsoukalos has been saying this very thing for YEARS!

Quote from: Chris24601;1104600You seem hung up on this notion of "True" magic (which immediately makes me think of Mage The Ascension) vs. what people in the setting actually call forces they can't explain.

To put it another way, if the movie "Doctor Strange" a fantasy or soft science fiction because it posits that magic is a part of the rational world but not understandable by current human science? Its got spells, its got magic items, its got demon gods from other realms.

The argument that that's not fantasy because it posits a rational explanation basically renders the entire word "magic" meaningless.

I mean, right now in the real world there are events labeled miracles that, even after investigation, defy scientific explanation, but according to the Catholic Church there is a completely rational explanation for them; God is real and interceded. There is nothing any more irrational in that theory than "sometimes stuff happens we can't explain" is... but the former is labeled magic.

So if a story where all the events of Revelations were to play out, complete with God Himself coming down out of Heaven and proving He is real and responsible for all the miracles over the course millennia... that He is the rational explanation for them all... that this story should be labeled science fiction and not fantasy?

I think your definition is near worthless in a practical sense because it's too focused on there being some objective truth of reality that crosses all stories throughout time instead of focusing on the concepts as presented in the fictional story itself.

Doctor Strange is either Fantasy or Science Fantasy (like when he is in a space ship) because he uses true magic. Either his magical powers are irrational or they depend on physical laws in that universe that are irrational.

I am religious, but when God does magic that violates the assumption that "our world is rational". Him actually doing things though is not Fantasy when it actually happens because that would not be fiction. "Our world is rational" is the basic premise of Science. That's why evolutionary science is fun, "well assuming that a space wizard didn't just spontaneously create life, we have determined that the placenta was the result of an infectious disease." (no really look that up)
I personally do not limit how much God decided to do things rationally in the world because of religious assumptions. Just because I assume a passage meant "God did magic" that does not mean my faith is suddenly shaken if a scientific explanation is later found.

Your argument hinge on an assumption of how I would answer your first question about Doctor Strange and then spiraled out of control from there.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104580I did.

Other than your tautology, no your haven't. And your tautology is worthless. You also seem fuzzy on what irrational means.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104664Doctor Strange is either Fantasy or Science Fantasy (like when he is in a space ship) because he uses true magic. Either his magical powers are irrational or they depend on physical laws in that universe that are irrational.

  How can a physical law be irrational?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1104763How can a physical law be irrational?

It would have to not make sense or be illogical.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104769It would have to not make sense or be illogical.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

  I think I'm starting to wrap my head around this; the best example I can think of for an 'irrational physical law' that also meets most definition of magic would be 'effect exceeds causes,' or something along those lines, without any handwaving.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1104763How can a physical law be irrational?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104769It would have to not make sense or be illogical.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

The square root of negative one.

Quote from: jeff37923;1104893The square root of negative one.

Math isn't logic. We use math to model some things in the real world. Neither numbers or irrational numbers exist, but an argument* can be made that the ability to count a thing means it does exist. Of course that rabbit whole goes deeper because you then have to explain how people can count things that don't exist and then your metaphysics professor Reeeees at you and says if it does not exist then it isn't a thing.

*I do not wholly endorse this argument.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1104891I think I'm starting to wrap my head around this; the best example I can think of for an 'irrational physical law' that also meets most definition of magic would be 'effect exceeds causes,' or something along those lines, without any handwaving.

I would generally agree with that. I have fun pointing out the "effect exceeding causes" in a hard magic system. Like Allomancers ability to burn metal and convert the investiguer into effects. They "burn metal" with thought and magical talent a lone.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104905I would generally agree with that. I have fun pointing out the "effect exceeding causes" in a hard magic system. Like Allomancers ability to burn metal and convert the investiguer into effects. They "burn metal" with thought and magical talent a lone.

OK, this is from Mistborn, right? I'm not familiar with the series, but how is this irrational? It sounds like it follows consistent, reproducible rules. Effects like telekinesis or other psionic powers don't fit with real-world science. But they could exist in a rational universe.

I would picture it like this. Suppose there was a perfect virtual reality computer simulation. Inside that computer simulation, simulated people can do things like use telekinesis - where effect exceeds cause. The computer simulation can be programmed to allow telekinesis to work. If that's true, then I would say it's rational. If it could be run as a virtual reality, then it doesn't have to *be* a virtual reality. There could be an alternate universe where those are the actual laws.

An irrational issue might be something like Looney Tunes or surrealism, where the world itself isn't internally consistent.

Quote from: jhkim;1104919OK, this is from Mistborn, right? I'm not familiar with the series, but how is this irrational? It sounds like it follows consistent, reproducible rules. Effects like telekinesis or other psionic powers don't fit with real-world science. But they could exist in a rational universe.

I would picture it like this. Suppose there was a perfect virtual reality computer simulation. Inside that computer simulation, simulated people can do things like use telekinesis - where effect exceeds cause. The computer simulation can be programmed to allow telekinesis to work. If that's true, then I would say it's rational. If it could be run as a virtual reality, then it doesn't have to *be* a virtual reality. There could be an alternate universe where those are the actual laws.

An irrational issue might be something like Looney Tunes or surrealism, where the world itself isn't internally consistent.

What you describe is valid logic, but not sound logical.

Your system has an irrational premise. You can act logically in that universe, you can work with the rules logically, but the universe is irrational.

In our universe, we assume it to be Scientific. That is why the definitions of science tie so close to reality. It's possible that reality has to be the way it is to be fully rationale. We don't know that yet because we do not fully understand how things work. But in Science and in sound logic, something does not come from nothing. That's why Creationism will never be a part of Science. It can be true, but violates the basic premise of Science that the world is rational. The other way it could fit into Science is to figure out where the something came from to suddenly be here.

That's part of the problem with "effects exceeding causes". You've created something from nothing because even kinetic energy is a thing.

*tangent: There is an argument that simulated realities aren't real, thus don't exist, and cannot rationally be more than a mental construct. That of course assumes that our reality is real and not a mental construct.

Quote from: jhkim;1104919OK, this is from Mistborn, right? I'm not familiar with the series, but how is this irrational? It sounds like it follows consistent, reproducible rules. Effects like telekinesis or other psionic powers don't fit with real-world science. But they could exist in a rational universe.

I would picture it like this. Suppose there was a perfect virtual reality computer simulation. Inside that computer simulation, simulated people can do things like use telekinesis - where effect exceeds cause. The computer simulation can be programmed to allow telekinesis to work. If that's true, then I would say it's rational. If it could be run as a virtual reality, then it doesn't have to *be* a virtual reality. There could be an alternate universe where those are the actual laws.

An irrational issue might be something like Looney Tunes or surrealism, where the world itself isn't internally consistent.

What you describe is valid logic, but not sound logic.

Your system has an irrational premise. You can act logically in that universe, you can work with the rules logically, but the universe is irrational.

In our universe, we assume it to be Scientific. That is why the definitions of science tie so close to reality. It's possible that reality has to be the way it is to be fully rational. We don't know that yet because we do not fully understand how things work. But in Science, and in sound logic, something does not come from nothing. That's why Creationism will never be a part of Science. It can be true, but violates the basic premise of Science that the world is rational. The other way it could fit into Science is to figure out where the something came from to suddenly be here.

That's part of the problem with "effects exceeding causes". You've created something from nothing because even kinetic energy is a thing.

*tangent: There is an argument that simulated realities aren't real, thus don't exist, and are rationally a mental construct not a rational thing. That of course assumes that our reality is real and not a mental construct.

And that's why I posted... "Science" itself is a perspective of limited objectivity seeking, greater objectivity - limited by the subjective scope of the person engaging in it.

Quote from: tenbones;1104426I'll go out on a limb here...

Science-Fiction presumes materialist methodology to create effects by working known (if occluded) laws (or in the case of fiction - conceits) of the setting that correspond to what we know or theorize to be possible in the real world. Systematization rules the day. The assumptions are that objective reality is closer to what we understand and project via our rational understanding of science as the primary conceit.

Gray Area - That point where the conceit of the setting presumes materialistic methodologies to affect change through theories that are unproven, or in some cases completely non-sequiter through the logic we currently understand. So Phlogiston is not real, but it purports to explain, rationally, certain material conditions through a false premise, through the use of fantastical devices that work off that false premise in a logical order. Psionics falls into this category. Mysticism as well.

Fantasy - Where the attempts to change reality require no materialist methodology, or any other methodology other than internal logic that corresponds to cultural mores and beliefs to describe their respective cosmology. As an example - cultures that embraced logic and mathematics gravitated towards more and more systemic approaches of viewing their own cultures beliefs - eventually supplanting them. Cultures that generally did not - created their own internal systems completely free of mathematical and in some cases material context. Which in the case of fantasy CAN and OFTEN IS more true as a conceit than what we call standard "science".

Often they can co-exist in Fantasy settings in varying degrees.

TL/DR

Science-Fiction - presumes in-setting logic that entirely operates from established real-world principles applied to create effects which MAY exceed what we consider currently possible.

Fantasy - presumes in-setting systems of logic that established IN-SETTING that do not require any real-world principles as we understand them to be objectively operative. The Force is part of the Star Wars setting. Purely subjective in description of function. Lucas tries to slide it closer into the gray-area (which only created a dumb narrative filter that explained nothing about the Force itself) by introducing Midi... I can't even finish typing it... But you get the idea. There is no evolutionary explanation needed to explain Dragons in most fantasy settings... but there are sci-fantasy settings that do exactly that: Prince of Nothing's Wracu are "dragons". They're created through genetic engineering as beasts of super-destruction by alien badguys. The denizens of the world call them 'dragons'.

There's gray area in-between where writers want to lean heavier on one or the other by explanation of the internal logic of these systems. With varying degrees of success - but that's not really the point.

Quote from: jhkimI would picture it like this. Suppose there was a perfect virtual reality computer simulation. Inside that computer simulation, simulated people can do things like use telekinesis - where effect exceeds cause. The computer simulation can be programmed to allow telekinesis to work. If that's true, then I would say it's rational. If it could be run as a virtual reality, then it doesn't have to *be* a virtual reality. There could be an alternate universe where those are the actual laws.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104924What you describe is valid logic, but not sound logic.

Your system has an irrational premise. You can act logically in that universe, you can work with the rules logically, but the universe is irrational.

In our universe, we assume it to be Scientific. That is why the definitions of science tie so close to reality.

Science isn't an assumption. It's a methodology. We use the Scientific Method to determine how the universe functions. The reason why science ties closely to reality is because we can and do revise our assumptions to fit with what we discover empirically. Notably, many things were previously considered irrational that are now accepted parts of science -- like action-at-a-distance, non-Euclidean space, relativity, and quantum mechanics. If the universe worked differently and telekinesis were possible, then we could still apply the Scientific Method to it, and we would come up with different laws of science to describe how it works.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104924But in Science, and in sound logic, something does not come from nothing. That's why Creationism will never be a part of Science. It can be true, but violates the basic premise of Science that the world is rational. The other way it could fit into Science is to figure out where the something came from to suddenly be here.

That's part of the problem with "effects exceeding causes". You've created something from nothing because even kinetic energy is a thing.

Kinetic energy is a mathematical description. The reason we call it a thing is because it fits the empirical data. If I drop a pencil, then I have created kinetic energy. Where did the energy come from? We describe the pencil as having previously had gravitational potential energy, but that's also just a mathematical description. If telekinesis were really possible, then most likely scientists would describe a telekinetic as having "psionic potential energy". There would be various rules that describe the limits of psionic potential energy, how it is transferred, and so forth. We would formulate laws around what we observe.

Quote from: jeff37923;1104893The square root of negative one.

That's imaginary not irrational. The square root of 2 and Pi are irrational.

Quote from: Bren;1104944That's imaginary not irrational. The square root of 2 and Pi are irrational.

You are right and I was wrong. Mea culpa.

(Do I owe you a beer now? :D)

Quote from: jhkim;1104940If I drop a pencil, then I have created kinetic energy. Where did the energy come from? We describe the pencil as having previously had gravitational potential energy, but that's also just a mathematical description.

No it is not merely a mathematical description. The conversion from Potential energy to Kinetic energy is all real and happens without a mathematical model. All the energy came from somewhere (as far as we know) no energy was suddenly created.

Psionics in Soft Sci-fi presumes that interaction with meta-dimensional energies via Faster than Light travel will cause something like psychic powers. It establishes the energy coming from outside know reality via a method that we have no way of knowing to be true or false yet. With no basis in current Science, it's not hard sci-fi, but it doesn't abandon rationality. Your example set up the premise of "effects exceeding causes" as long as that holds, your world is a Fantasy one or Science Fantasy at best.

Quote from: jeff37923;1104953You are right and I was wrong. Mea culpa.

(Do I owe you a beer now? :D)

But of course. :D

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104979Psionics in Soft Sci-fi presumes that interaction with meta-dimensional energies via Faster than Light travel will cause something like psychic powers.

I've seen tons of Sci-Fi with some version of psionics. I can't think of a single one that used FTL as the cause. What fiction uses this rationale?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1104891I think I'm starting to wrap my head around this; the best example I can think of for an 'irrational physical law' that also meets most definition of magic would be 'effect exceeds causes,' or something along those lines, without any handwaving.

Suppose magic could overcome our basic laws of nature, create exceptions, but in spite of extensive research we fail to understand how and why magic works at all. It'd be like dark matter - our basic equations are fine, except for this x-factor which eludes us.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104904Math isn't logic.

But it uses logic as its method.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104904We use math to model some things in the real world. Neither numbers or irrational numbers exist, but an argument* can be made that the ability to count a thing means it does exist. Of course that rabbit whole goes deeper because you then have to explain how people can count things that don't exist and then your metaphysics professor Reeeees at you and says if it does not exist then it isn't a thing.

*I do not wholly endorse this argument.

Numbers are concepts and they exist as such. i exists as a "calculatory number", which is yet another concept - in this case a concept which does not readily apply to any observable real-world phenomenons.

Quote from: Bren;1104944That's imaginary not irrational. The square root of 2 and Pi are irrational.

All imaginary numbers are irrational; it's a strict subset. Any number that is not a rational (aka fractions) is by definition irrational.
(So drink that beer quickly before it gets taken back. ;) )

Quote from: Bren;1105033I've seen tons of Sci-Fi with some version of psionics. I can't think of a single one that used FTL as the cause. What fiction uses this rationale?

Oh? Go through and check. In Mass Effect, the same energy that allows for FTL powers psionics. In Eldritch Skies FTL increases your meta dimensional exposure and allows for psionics. I personally keep referencing the explanation in Stars Without Number because it's the most thorough.

Check though in which Sci-fi you have seen where psionics were discovered both before FTL and have nothing to do with FTL. I think Flash Gordon would be the closest I know, but pulp Sci-fi is understood as Science Fantasy by a lot of people.

There are also cases where in Sci-fi, FTL was used before Psionics came about like in Star Trek or Babylon 5. That's fuzzier ground to stand on, but I would normally agree that unexplained psionics is just magic, so forgive me if I backfill a logical explanation onto Sci-fi that left it up in the air (though this explanation for Psionics started with HP Lovecraft whose works Eldritch Skies is derived from and Lovecraft predates most of the Sci-fi we are talking about. I guess over at TBP that would make Psionics racist.)

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1105065Numbers are concepts and they exist as such. i exists as a "calculatory number", which is yet another concept - in this case a concept which does not readily apply to any observable real-world phenomenons.

There is not different kinds of being. Something either is or is not.

Talking about different kinds of existence is a short-hand we use in common speech, but is not correct when we talk about metaphysical concepts.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1105076There is not different kinds of being. Something either is or is not.

Talking about different kinds of existence is a short-hand we use in common speech, but is not correct when we talk about metaphysical concepts.

This issue is controversial.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics) (And is related to medieval controversy about universals.)

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1105102This issue is controversial.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics) (And is related to medieval controversy about universals.)

Relevant theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems)

Saying there is one kind of being does not contradict with Universals. There is a lot of problems with universals, but they aren't disproven. (I'm of the personal opinion that there is one universal and all things participate in it in different ways and amounts, but I am not convinced that we actually exist in the strictest definition of the term, but my theories are not academic)

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1105065

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104904Math isn't logic.

But it uses logic as its method.

Logic is a branch of mathematics. It might also be taught in a philosophy class, but it's still math.

 

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1105065All imaginary numbers are irrational; it's a strict subset. Any number that is not a rational (aka fractions) is by definition irrational.

BZZZZT!! Wrong! Back to high school for you.
Imaginary numbers are complex numbers, i.e a real number by the imaginary unit i (i = the square root of -1). Some are rational (those that can be expressed as a real number fraction x i) the others are irrational.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1105076Oh? Go through and check. In Mass Effect, the same energy that allows for FTL powers psionics. In Eldritch Skies FTL increases your meta dimensional exposure and allows for psionics. I personally keep referencing the explanation in Stars Without Number because it's the most thorough.

My mistake I thought you were talking about literary Science Fiction (or possibly movies or TV shows), not games. I don't really give a shit what fiction some game designer chooses to use to justify their psi abilities. I was thinking of works written by people like E.E. Smith, Andre Norton, Frank Herbert, David Weber, and many others. I suppose we could also include TV shows like Star Trek and Babylon 5, but generally the more popular the media the less thought out the setting details.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1105076That's fuzzier ground to stand on, but I would normally agree that unexplained psionics is just magic…

Agree with who? I didn't agree to that.

Quote…so forgive me if I backfill a logical explanation onto Sci-fi that left it up in the air (though this explanation for Psionics started with HP Lovecraft whose works Eldritch Skies is derived from and Lovecraft predates most of the Sci-fi we are talking about.

You just said a lot to disagree with in a short space. Let me take it point by point, but in reverse order.

1. Lovecraft doesn't predate sci-fi with psychic abilities, his writing is contemporary with it. Lovecraft died in 1937, Smith wrote the The Skylark of Space in 1920 and Triplanetary (the first novel in the Lensman series) was serialized in 1934.

2. I don't recall H.P. Lovecraft ever saying FTL was the cause of psychic abilities. That seems utterly contrary to his oeuvre. Neither "The Call of Cthulhu" nor the tales in "Dream Quest of unknown Kadath" reference FTL as a cause of extrasensory powers or experiences. In Lovecraft psychic abilities, like other non-Euclidean dimensions and extra-dimensional beings, are part horrible truth underlying this façade we call reality. I'd agree that in his works magic is irrational, because in his works the real world actually is irrational. Lovecraft has elements of science fiction in his works, but his aim was to write horror not science fiction.

3. When you backfill your explanation onto Sci-fi and then use your explanation as justification for other claims, that, right here, is the issue. It's also why a lot of your argument fails to make sense. Also, I don't find your explanation either satisfying or reasonable.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1105076Something either is or is not.

And in fantasy, magic is.

I've never understood all the various camps of SciFi and why people are so rigidly protective of them.

For me, it's just sciFi, in the same way that Fantasy is all just Fantasy.

So, I'll happily use Psionics in any SciFi game, in the same way that I'll use Bionics, Nanotech, Teleporters, Faster Than Light Drives, HyperSpace and so on.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1105065All imaginary numbers are irrational; it's a strict subset. Any number that is not a rational (aka fractions) is by definition irrational.

No, Imaginary Numbers are of the form x + iy, where x and y are real numbers and i is the square root of -1. Real Numbers are a subset of Imaginary Numbers, i.e. those where y = 0.

Rational number are, as you say, fractions, including integers that are themselves divided by 1.

Irrational Numbers are those Real Numbers that are not Rational Numbers. There are lots of different types of Irrational Numbers.

So, in terms of subsets, Imaginary > Real > Irrational > Rational > Integers.

The beauty of maths is that between each pair of Rational Numbers is an Irrational Number and between each pair of Irrational Numbers is a Rational Number, but there are "more" Irrational Numbers than Rational Numbers, as Rational Numbers are Countable whereas Irrational Numbers aren't Countable.

Don't get me started ...

Taking it back to SciFi, a lot of people use the Sciences as the basis for storylines or plot devices, depending on what is the flavour of the day. So, it used to be Black Holes, then White Holes, then Wormholes, then Nanotech, Chaos Theory, Catastrophe Theory, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and so on. However, the Mathematics behind these theories is not really understood and very rarely used. I can't think of many examples where Maths is used in SciFi games/stories, except as a means to an end.

I read a short story, might have been by Asimov, where someone managed to manifest the Imaginary part of numbers in the real world, needless to say it didn't go as planned.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1104979Psionics in Soft Sci-fi presumes that interaction with meta-dimensional energies via Faster than Light travel will cause something like psychic powers. It establishes the energy coming from outside know reality via a method that we have no way of knowing to be true or false yet. With no basis in current Science, it's not hard sci-fi, but it doesn't abandon rationality. Your example set up the premise of "effects exceeding causes" as long as that holds, your world is a Fantasy one or Science Fantasy at best.

It depends on the setting. Psionic abilities are sometimes said to have a genetic/hereditary basis and have been around for a very long time.

From a personal point of view, discussing Psionics can be difficult as I have had personal experience with it throughout my life. nothing provable, nothing scientific, usually acknowledged after the fact, but very real to me. So, for me, Psionic Abilities exist and should be part of SciFi.

Quote from: soltakss;1105277So, in terms of subsets, Imaginary > Real > Irrational > Rational > Integers.

You're right! It's been a while since I learned this and irrational numbers usually didn't get more than being mentioned in passing (other than extending rational numbers in algebra).

Quote from: soltakss;1105274I've never understood all the various camps of SciFi and why people are so rigidly protective of them.

I imagine it starts out as a need for categorization so people can talk about the kinds of SciFi they like or don't like. But people are involved so we soon get a lot of "mystuff good, your stuff bad."

Quote from: soltakss;1105277No, Imaginary Numbers are of the form x + iy, where...
...So, in terms of subsets, Imaginary > Real > Irrational > Rational > Integers.
...Rational Numbers are Countable whereas Irrational Numbers aren't Countable.

Glad to see somebody gets it.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1105281It's been a while since I learned this and irrational numbers usually didn't get more than being mentioned in passing (other than extending rational numbers in algebra).

You aren't quite getting it.

• Complex numbers were presented to you in school as an extension of the real numbers, not of the rational numbers.
  
• Imaginary numbers are introduced by talking about what we mean by the square root of -1.
• But to talk about powers and inverse powers like square roots you have to talk about the irrational numbers like the square root of 2.
• So you don't extend the rational numbers to complex numbers, you first extend the rational numbers to include the irrational numbers, then you extend that to include complex numbers.

How delightful to see so much discussion of mathematics!

One can develop the number systems starting with the natural numbers (the logician's definition, which includes zero; each is the number of natural numbers less than it; there are misguided people who use "natural numbers" to mean the positive integers).

Integers extend the natural numbers to a group with operator addition, by introducing additive inverses of each number other than 0 which is its own inverse already.

Rationals extend the integers to a field with addition and multiplication operators, by introducing multiplicative inverses of non-zero elements and filling in the products of various numbers (or by introducing ratios, but with the added complexity in that case of identifying equivalent fractions: 2/4 being the same as 1/2 and so forth). You can do this with, say, polynomials over a variable x (which are like integers a ring - additive inverses exist, but while closed under multiplication most elements do not have multiplicative inverses).

Irrational numbers are of two types: algebraic numbers that are the roots of polynomials with integer coefficients (so, the square root of 2 and other roots) and transcendental numbers (like pi and e) - the algebraic numbers are still countable. The rationals and irrationals together give us the real numbers, which are limits of convergent sequences of rational numbers (so for pi this might be 3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.141, etc).

And then you can extend real numbers to complex numbers by introducing a root i for the polynomial x^2+1 and completing the number system under the operations of addition and multiplication. Some results in calculus with real numbers make more sense in complex analysis; for example, the radius of convergence for the power series for 1/(x^2+1) at 0 is 1, but this is obvious in complex analysis because the function is undefined at +i and -i which are at distance 1 from the origin in the complex plane.

But number systems can be extended in other ways; for example, adding hyperfinite numbers N which satisfy the formula N > i for each natural number i. The prime model of the natural numbers does not include such numbers, but any finite subset of the axioms for N are supported by some large standard natural number, so the entire theory is consistent and has models - and extending these nonstandard natural numbers lead to infinitesmals (e.g., the reciprocal of N) which support the intuitive development of calculus that Newton and Leibniz used.

Set theory continues past the finite natural numbers to include ordinal and cardinal numbers; the first infinite one is typically called omega (or aleph-0). Which have already been alluded to in distinguishing countable sets of numbers (with that cardinality) from uncountable sets of numbers (with a larger cardinality). But the class of ordinals or cardinals cannot be a set or you run into Russell's paradox (unless you instead throw out some other axioms of sets).

Turing solved one of Hilbert's problems by proposing the Turing machine as a model that would cover any possible machine for solving math problems, and then showed (by the same diagonalization argument by which Cantor showed that the real numbers are not countable) that there is a problem which none of these machines could solve (the halting problem). A machine with some added functionality which could solve the halting problem for unaugmented Turing machines would itself have a halting problem, and so there's a hierarchy of complexity among the functions that such machines could compute.

And then there's the Godel Incompleteness Theorem; and that's where we start to find the magic.

---

[/HR]
TL/DR: rawma is apparently more interested in mathematics than anyone else here, and probably more tolerable when discussing politics.

It's like it's 1989 all over again. I can just hear the B-52s playing "Love Shack."

Quote from: Bren;1105329You aren't quite getting it.

The irony here is quite delicious. I was talking about galois theory and field extensions, quite obviously so to anyone who has ever studied algebra (and, no, I wasn't referencing linear algebra). In layman's terms, you're investigating fields that are extension fields of Q and subfields of R.
[It's been decades though, so my memory on the subject is a little fuzzy.]

Quote from: rawma;1105360TL/DR: rawma is apparently more interested in mathematics than anyone else here, and probably more tolerable when discussing politics.

Don't be too sure about that. ;) Although, as mentioned, it's been a while and my rusty memory apparently doesn't serve me to well. Mathematical memory tends to fade faster than normal memories due to the highly abstract nature of the beast, in my experience.

But then again we're being off-topic here.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1105403The irony here is quite delicious. I was talking about galois theory and field extensions, quite obviously so to anyone who has ever studied algebra

Irony? Like mathematics, your grasp of irony is limited. One certainly doesn't need to take a college level abstract algebra course covering Galois theory to remember the rational, irrational, and complex numbers, since they are covered in high school mathematics. And if you had taken more advanced mathematics you would have seen multiple presentations in multiple courses covering the different number sets, how they are constructed, and how they relate to each other. It's such a fundamental part of mathematics that it's difficult to believe someone would so completely misunderstand and forget it. And it's not like looking up info on number sets on the internet is difficult or time consuming. In any case, here's a link (https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imaginary-numbers.html) so you can learn or relearn about the complex numbers.

And how this relates to this or any other RPG thread? Well it's another example of someone talking about some rule that they could easily look up, but they don't bother and then they get the rule completely backwards.

Edit. If you really want to discuss Galois theory, you can start a different thread in the proper subforum and I'll dust off my copy of Herstein. It has to be in one of those boxes in the basement.

Quote from: Bren;1105328Glad to see somebody gets it.

Glad to see that my thirty-odd year-old Pure Mathematics degree was worth getting. I so very rarely, get to use any of it these days.

Quote from: Bren;1105470And how this relates to this or any other RPG thread? Well it's another example of someone talking about some rule that they could easily look up, but they don't bother and then they get the rule completely backwards.

It does relate to this thread, in particular.

People who like "Hard " SciFi will refer to the laws of Physics as something that cannot be broken, if they are broken then it isn't Hard SciFi.

However, they often don't have a grasp of the Maths behind those laws. It's almost a case of handwaving the Maths but keeping the Laws.

Quote from: soltakss;1105483Glad to see that my thirty-odd year-old Pure Mathematics degree was worth getting. I so very rarely, get to use any of it these days.

Likewise.

Quote from: Bren;1105470If you really want to discuss Galois theory, you can start a different thread in the proper subforum and I'll dust off my copy of Herstein. It has to be in one of those boxes in the basement.

But what is the proper subforum? I'll need to know before I start looking through any boxes in my basement.

Quote from: soltakss;1105278It depends on the setting. Psionic abilities are sometimes said to have a genetic/hereditary basis and have been around for a very long time.

From a personal point of view, discussing Psionics can be difficult as I have had personal experience with it throughout my life. nothing provable, nothing scientific, usually acknowledged after the fact, but very real to me. So, for me, Psionic Abilities exist and should be part of SciFi.

I find it very odd seeing 'psionic' used in a real world context to mean 'psychic'! 'Psionic' is such an SF word, AIR it originally meant technological augmentation of psychic powers.

Quote from: S'mon;1105498I find it very odd seeing 'psionic' used in a real world context to mean 'psychic'! 'Psionic' is such an SF word, AIR it originally meant technological augmentation of psychic powers.

Huh; apparently a combination of psi with -onics from electronics. A rather weird word to use in a supplement called "Eldritch Wizardry", but Gygax liked weird words; having never encountered it before that, I never never thought of it as science fiction associated.

Quote from: rawma;1105493But what is the proper subforum? I'll need to know before I start looking through any boxes in my basement.

Fair point. If we were discussing using it for a new mechanic it could go in "Design, Development, and Gameplay." Absent that? I got nothing.

Quote from: Bren;1105470Irony? Like mathematics, your grasp of irony is limited.

Nothing in your post has convinced me to the contrary.

Quote from: Bren;1105470One certainly doesn't need to take a college level abstract algebra course covering Galois theory to remember the rational, irrational, and complex numbers, since they are covered in high school mathematics.

LOL, and college graduates, or even professors, never make simple mistakes in mathematics? Much less people that are out of the field for decades? You're being preposterous.
[EDIT: if it even was an error to begin with, see links below.]

Quote from: Bren;1105470In any case, here's a link (https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/imaginary-numbers.html) so you can learn or relearn about the complex numbers.

LOL, you're very kind but I think you're more in need of a dose of this: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/823970/is-i-irrational (https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/823970/is-i-irrational)

Or this:
https://www.quora.com/Can-irrational-numbers-be-complex-numbers (https://www.quora.com/Can-irrational-numbers-be-complex-numbers)

Quote from: Bren;1105470And how this relates to this or any other RPG thread? Well it's another example of someone talking about some rule that they could easily look up, but they don't bother and then they get the rule completely backwards.

Yeah, it's a big deal. Right. Thanks for pointing it out, now I can see that it's totally not off-topic.

Well, I would not call i an irrational number; no, it's not the ratio of two integers, but neither is anybody posting here, so everybody in this forum is irrational (except if there's a chatbot encoded as the ratio of two integers). Everybody.

The parts of math that are most useful with respect to RPG discussion are probability (for dice mechanics) and geometry (for maps); maybe game theory. I agree with Bren that the Design, Development, and Gameplay forum is the best place for (on-topic) math related posts.

Final post on the subject from me: I vaguely seem to remember that "irrational numbers" was not commonly used during my studies because it's not unambiguous. C/Q or R/Q are precise in the information they convey.