Time Travel Query

[DBT]

The idea of human stasis is problematic - how do we prevent cell deterioration? Even if an object is essentially lifeless (and thus not aging in the sense of living things), there is still aging going on. A chair that is 300 years old is far more fragile than one which is new. I suppose we could build a huge lead-lined underground chamber or something, but entropy is a bitch.

I think I prefer the portable black hole, as posited in the classic film Yellow Submarine.

Even if you can overcome this there's another problem:

Spend 500 years in some form of suspended animation and you'll wake up to die. You'll have gotten a lethal radiation dose from your own body. (The normal repair mechanisms won't work while you're out of it, it will be like the dose hit all at once rather than spread over 500 years.)

There may be ways around the problem, nanobots repairing cell damage, DNA, etc. You wake up after 500 years feeling like a Spring Chicken.

 

[Underseer]

Even if you can overcome this there's another problem:

Spend 500 years in some form of suspended animation and you'll wake up to die. You'll have gotten a lethal radiation dose from your own body. (The normal repair mechanisms won't work while you're out of it, it will be like the dose hit all at once rather than spread over 500 years.)

There may be ways around the problem, nanobots repairing cell damage, DNA, etc. You wake up after 500 years feeling like a Spring Chicken.

Nanobots? Oh, you mean magic!

Yes, magic would help you survive 500 years of suspended animation.

 

[DBT]

There may be ways around the problem, nanobots repairing cell damage, DNA, etc. You wake up after 500 years feeling like a Spring Chicken.

Nanobots? Oh, you mean magic!

Yes, magic would help you survive 500 years of suspended animation.

''Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'' - Clarke's First Law.

 

[bigfield]

Nanobots? Oh, you mean magic!

Yes, magic would help you survive 500 years of suspended animation.

''Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'' - Clarke's First Law.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a completely ad-hoc plot device"
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinum

"Nanotechnology has become an all-purpose magic substitute for soft science fiction and sci-fi-flavored fantasy. Nano is the latest Sci Fi Name Buzzword; it is the new pseudo-Greek for phlebotinum. Nanotech supplies a myriad of exciting powers with a satisfying patina of plausibility."
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Nanomachines

 

[dystopian]

''Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'' - Clarke's First Law.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a completely ad-hoc plot device"
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinum

"Nanotechnology has become an all-purpose magic substitute for soft science fiction and sci-fi-flavored fantasy. Nano is the latest Sci Fi Name Buzzword; it is the new pseudo-Greek for phlebotinum. Nanotech supplies a myriad of exciting powers with a satisfying patina of plausibility."
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Nanomachines

One shouldn't throw out nanotechnology as a plot device just because some hack writers can't help but turn it into a deus ex machina. Nanobots are hardly magic; they exist in a limited fashion even today and there's no scientific reason why we couldn't eventually develop them into the kind that can repair cellular damage and greatly extend human life in the process. Using it responsibly as a realistic plotdevice just requires you to not make it all-powerful in what it can do.

 

[DBT]

''Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.'' - Clarke's First Law.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a completely ad-hoc plot device"
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinum

"Nanotechnology has become an all-purpose magic substitute for soft science fiction and sci-fi-flavored fantasy. Nano is the latest Sci Fi Name Buzzword; it is the new pseudo-Greek for phlebotinum. Nanotech supplies a myriad of exciting powers with a satisfying patina of plausibility."
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Nanomachines

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will be
obtainable."
-- Albert Einstein, 1932

"heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" - Lord Kelvin.


"Landing and moving about on the moon offers so many serious problems for
human beings that it may take science another 200 years to lick them."
-- Science Digest, 1948



"Television won't matter in your lifetime or mine."
-- R.S. Lambert, Canadian Broadcaster, 1936


"Flight by machines heavier than air is impractical and insignificant, if
not utterly impossible."
-- Simon Newcomb, Director, U.S. Naval Observatory, 1902

 

[bigfield]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a completely ad-hoc plot device"
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinum

"Nanotechnology has become an all-purpose magic substitute for soft science fiction and sci-fi-flavored fantasy. Nano is the latest Sci Fi Name Buzzword; it is the new pseudo-Greek for phlebotinum. Nanotech supplies a myriad of exciting powers with a satisfying patina of plausibility."
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Nanomachines

One shouldn't throw out nanotechnology as a plot device just because some hack writers can't help but turn it into a deus ex machina. Nanobots are hardly magic; they exist in a limited fashion even today and there's no scientific reason why we couldn't eventually develop them into the kind that can repair cellular damage and greatly extend human life in the process. Using it responsibly as a realistic plotdevice just requires you to not make it all-powerful in what it can do.

I agree.

But introducing nanobots into the in-universe technology in order to solve the limitations of cryostasis makes it a deus ex machina, especially if the wider societal and technological ramifications of having nanotechnology that sophisticated are just ignored.

 

[dystopian]

I agree.

But introducing nanobots into the in-universe technology in order to solve the limitations of cryostasis makes it a deus ex machina, especially if the wider societal and technological ramifications of having nanotechnology that sophisticated are just ignored.

I don't think so. A deus ex machina is a plot device that resolves a story arc by the sudden and contrived introduction of a new plot element. Using nanobots in order to 'solve' the issue of how someone could survive stasis for 500 years (an issue that most readers wouldn't even recognize is a problem to begin with) would only be a deus ex machina if you wrote a whole story preceding it in which it's emphasized that one can't survive stasis for 500 years (which for some plot related reason the protoganist needs to be), only for nanobots to suddenly make it possible in the final stretch. However, in this hypothetical story the stasis would be the central conceit which gets the plot *started*; in which case it can't be a deus ex machina because it doesn't resolve anything in a sudden, unexpected and contrived manner.

 

[bigfield]

I agree.

But introducing nanobots into the in-universe technology in order to solve the limitations of cryostasis makes it a deus ex machina, especially if the wider societal and technological ramifications of having nanotechnology that sophisticated are just ignored.

I don't think so. A deus ex machina is a plot device that resolves a story arc by the sudden and contrived introduction of a new plot element. Using nanobots in order to 'solve' the issue of how someone could survive stasis for 500 years (an issue that most readers wouldn't even recognize is a problem to begin with) would only be a deus ex machina if you wrote a whole story preceding it in which it's emphasized that one can't survive stasis for 500 years (which for some plot related reason the protoganist needs to be), only for nanobots to suddenly make it possible in the final stretch. However, in this hypothetical story the stasis would be the central conceit which gets the plot *started*; in which case it can't be a deus ex machina because it doesn't resolve anything in a sudden, unexpected and contrived manner.

Correction accepted. It is simply a case of Applied Phlebotinum, where the nanotechnology solves whatever technological problem the author needs it to.

 

[dystopian]

Correction accepted. It is simply a case of Applied Phlebotinum, where the nanotechnology solves whatever technological problem the author needs it to.

I really wouldn't call it that either. Applied Phlebotinum is a term I'd apply to something that defies rational explanation and plausibility in order to make the plot happen; nanotechnology that repairs damaged cells is well within the realm of plausibility and something that science is actively working towards achieving. It's also pretty easy to explain to an audience; unlike say explaining how all it takes is nanites and then the antagonist becomes a godlike entity capable of devouring entire planets in mere seconds and now the heroes and their quest for the mythical anti-nanites hidden by the progenitors long ago is all that stands between us and galactic destruction. The latter use of nanotechnology is just plain nonsense and a case of applied phlebotinum, the former is a case of extrapolating current technology and research within reasonable limits and building a story based on what it allows. In you ever want to write sci-fi, you're going to have to accept that it's going to entail a lot of speculation as to how our technology will progress in the coming decades and centuries.

Generally, sci-fi authors that try to keep their stories grounded in plausibility seem to severely underestimate technological change and the possibilities it brings, though this trend often reverses if their stories are set in the proverbial timeframe of 'a year from now'. Personally, if I were writing a sci-fi story; I'd rather what I imagine exceeds the possibilities of the timeframe I'm talking about when it finally comes around: for example, it's hard to enjoy a sci-fi story written 50 years ago set ten years from now seriously when there's say a plot element about two people not being able to communicate vital plot information with each other because neither of them is near a payphone and the author didn't imagine cellphones. Whereas if he'd imagined that we'd all be telepathic in 10 years time and could always communicate that way across vast distances, then that still speaks to the imagination the way sci-fi is supposed to. Better to overestimate future tech than underestimate, I think.

 

[bigfield]

Correction accepted. It is simply a case of Applied Phlebotinum, where the nanotechnology solves whatever technological problem the author needs it to.

I really wouldn't call it that either. Applied Phlebotinum is a term I'd apply to something that defies rational explanation and plausibility in order to make the plot happen; nanotechnology that repairs damaged cells is well within the realm of plausibility and something that science is actively working towards achieving. It's also pretty easy to explain to an audience; unlike say explaining how all it takes is nanites and then the antagonist becomes a godlike entity capable of devouring entire planets in mere seconds and now the heroes and their quest for the mythical anti-nanites hidden by the progenitors long ago is all that stands between us and galactic destruction. The latter use of nanotechnology is just plain nonsense and a case of applied phlebotinum, the former is a case of extrapolating current technology and research within reasonable limits and building a story based on what it allows. In you ever want to write sci-fi, you're going to have to accept that it's going to entail a lot of speculation as to how our technology will progress in the coming decades and centuries.

Generally, sci-fi authors that try to keep their stories grounded in plausibility seem to severely underestimate technological change and the possibilities it brings, though this trend often reverses if their stories are set in the proverbial timeframe of 'a year from now'. Personally, if I were writing a sci-fi story; I'd rather what I imagine exceeds the possibilities of the timeframe I'm talking about when it finally comes around: for example, it's hard to enjoy a sci-fi story written 50 years ago set ten years from now seriously when there's say a plot element about two people not being able to communicate vital plot information with each other because neither of them is near a payphone and the author didn't imagine cellphones. Whereas if he'd imagined that we'd all be telepathic in 10 years time and could always communicate that way across vast distances, then that still speaks to the imagination the way sci-fi is supposed to. Better to overestimate future tech than underestimate, I think.

Applied Phlebotinum need not defy explanation - the author merely needs to fail to provide an explanation. Nanotechnology could be explained by the author, but often isn't because it's purpose is merely to produce whatever effect the author needs at that point.

Turns out there is a TVTropes page for exactly my complaint with nanotechnology:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MisappliedPhlebotinum

If nanotechnology can be programmed to perform cell repair, then it follows that transhumanism will be widespread, at least among the privileged few who can afford it/access it. It also has consequences for the way we build and maintain devices, buildings, weapons etc. The author has to either ignore these consequences, make them part of the story's universe as well, or find some explanation as to why the technology only has very narrow applications. I've read at least a couple of authors (Richard Morgan, John Scalzi) who simply ignored the wider consequences of the nanotechnology that exists in their stories, and it came off as lazy.

If an author does choose to introduce nanotechnology into a story, they should at least try to address the wider consequences of that technology.

 

[dystopian]

Applied Phlebotinum need not defy explanation - the author merely needs to fail to provide an explanation. Nanotechnology could be explained by the author, but often isn't because it's purpose is merely to produce whatever effect the author needs at that point.

I don't necessarily think that failing to provide an explanation automatically qualifies something as applied phlebotinum. The best way to incorporate advanced technology in a story without opening oneself up to contradictions and impossibilities is to avoid explaining the technology in great detail. While TV tropes might define that as applied phlebotinum in any and all cases, I think that does it injustice. We don't have any issues with an author failing to explain the science behind airplanes when they feature heavily in his story; because even if readers don't understand that science themselves they know planes work. Extrapolating from that into a sci-fi story where planes are far more advanced but essentially still planes; the author doesn't have to explain the science behind that either, because those advanced planes can be understood as a progression of what we already have. Medical nanotechnology falls in this category.

To me, Applied Phlebotinum is applied to something that isn't a simple extrapolation of our current technology and research but rather something that is *not* a plausible extrapolation of those things and stands apart from it. Something like an unexpected technological breakthrough that allows backwards timetravel would be applied phlebotinum.

If nanotechnology can be programmed to perform cell repair, then it follows that transhumanism will be widespread, at least among the privileged few who can afford it/access it. It also has consequences for the way we build and maintain devices, buildings, weapons etc. The author has to either ignore these consequences, make them part of the story's universe as well, or find some explanation as to why the technology only has very narrow applications. I've read at least a couple of authors (Richard Morgan, John Scalzi) who simply ignored the wider consequences of the nanotechnology that exists in their stories, and it came off as lazy.

If an author does choose to introduce nanotechnology into a story, they should at least try to address the wider consequences of that technology.

Well, I fully agree with this assessment (although I haven't read those authors); when you introduce such a thing there will be widespread consequences that need to be addressed. However, in the context of the idea of having a protagonist go into stasis and wake up x amount of time later, there could be many reasons for why the technology doesn't have any such consequences. For instance, the protagonist could be an astronaut whose mission went wrong when his ship had an encounter with an alien civilization, and it's their stasis technology that he's using, for example.

My point is that the most important thing is the central story seed. If someone wants to write a story about waking up in the future without having gotten older, there's a lot of ways to go about it, some more plausible than others; but the interesting thing about the story (or any story) generally isn't going to be whether or not the author got the science right. The science isn't the point of the story, after all.

 

[bigfield]

I don't necessarily think that failing to provide an explanation automatically qualifies something as applied phlebotinum. The best way to incorporate advanced technology in a story without opening oneself up to contradictions and impossibilities is to avoid explaining the technology in great detail. While TV tropes might define that as applied phlebotinum in any and all cases, I think that does it injustice. We don't have any issues with an author failing to explain the science behind airplanes when they feature heavily in his story; because even if readers don't understand that science themselves they know planes work. Extrapolating from that into a sci-fi story where planes are far more advanced but essentially still planes; the author doesn't have to explain the science behind that either, because those advanced planes can be understood as a progression of what we already have. Medical nanotechnology falls in this category.

Planes in sci-fi have their own problems, such as anti-grav.

To me, Applied Phlebotinum is applied to something that isn't a simple extrapolation of our current technology and research but rather something that is *not* a plausible extrapolation of those things and stands apart from it. Something like an unexpected technological breakthrough that allows backwards timetravel would be applied phlebotinum.

I would extend that to include things that are inconsistent with the rest of the technology within the story's universe. It doesn't make sense to have a society that has advanced in one field--such as medical nanotechnology--far more than it has in any other, unless there is some important reason why. The author needs to give at least some consideration to the progression from present day technology to the technology of the story setting.

If nanotechnology can be programmed to perform cell repair, then it follows that transhumanism will be widespread, at least among the privileged few who can afford it/access it. It also has consequences for the way we build and maintain devices, buildings, weapons etc. The author has to either ignore these consequences, make them part of the story's universe as well, or find some explanation as to why the technology only has very narrow applications. I've read at least a couple of authors (Richard Morgan, John Scalzi) who simply ignored the wider consequences of the nanotechnology that exists in their stories, and it came off as lazy.

If an author does choose to introduce nanotechnology into a story, they should at least try to address the wider consequences of that technology.

Well, I fully agree with this assessment (although I haven't read those authors); when you introduce such a thing there will be widespread consequences that need to be addressed. However, in the context of the idea of having a protagonist go into stasis and wake up x amount of time later, there could be many reasons for why the technology doesn't have any such consequences. For instance, the protagonist could be an astronaut whose mission went wrong when his ship had an encounter with an alien civilization, and it's their stasis technology that he's using, for example.

There could be many reasons, but the setting and plot of the story will limit which of those can be used. One probably can't write aliens into the story solely to solve the stasis problem and then not mention the aliens beyond that.

My point is that the most important thing is the central story seed. If someone wants to write a story about waking up in the future without having gotten older, there's a lot of ways to go about it, some more plausible than others; but the interesting thing about the story (or any story) generally isn't going to be whether or not the author got the science right. The science isn't the point of the story, after all.

Sometimes the science is the point of the story. Or rather, speculation about the application of the science is the point of the story, and is what makes the story interesting.

Not every sci-fi story has to be hard sci-fi, but nonetheless the sci-fi hardness of the story will influence whom the work appeals to.

 

[Bomb#20]

I agree.

But introducing nanobots into the in-universe technology in order to solve the limitations of cryostasis makes it a deus ex machina, especially if the wider societal and technological ramifications of having nanotechnology that sophisticated are just ignored.

That sounds like a good excuse for a plug. Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age is all about the wider societal and technological ramifications.

 

[fromderinside]

So TOE got lost when strings were connected into loops?

 

[dystopian]

Planes in sci-fi have their own problems, such as anti-grav.

Those aren't planes, and only a fraction of sci-fi planes work through anti-grav. I wasn't talking about sci-fi planes in the sense of 'look, anti-grav planes!', but rather planes as in the 'wow, sub-orbital plane-travel is commonplace!' kind of fashion.

I would extend that to include things that are inconsistent with the rest of the technology within the story's universe. It doesn't make sense to have a society that has advanced in one field--such as medical nanotechnology--far more than it has in any other, unless there is some important reason why. The author needs to give at least some consideration to the progression from present day technology to the technology of the story setting.

This makes the flawed assumption that we in real life have a roughly equal level of development across all fields, which is most certainly not the case; it just looks to us when we change the distribution around for a story because the distribution of technological progress that we have in reality seems 'normal'. In reality, the distribution of technological progress is far from equal across fields. Furthermore, the way in which we actually use all our technological progress is far from uniform as well: consider the fact that we live in a world covered in a digital communications network that allows for instant communication across the planet; a world in which brain-machine interfaces already exist, and in which multiple nationstates are currently racing to see who can build the first artificial human brain and break the exaflop scale in supercomputer; a world in which we've landed probes on comets; a world in which we can print organs and create lithium-ion batteries the size of a grain of sand; yet somehow the sight of someone using a pencil doesn't strike us as hopelessly anachronistic.

Like William Gibson said; the future is already here, it just isn't very evenly distributed.

None of this is to say that you aren't right to say that the author shouldn't give some thought to why future society x is way more advanced in some fields than others, but it's not quite so remarkable a thing as to always demand an explanation. Maybe if all other technology stood still.

There could be many reasons, but the setting and plot of the story will limit which of those can be used. One probably can't write aliens into the story solely to solve the stasis problem and then not mention the aliens beyond that.

I don't see why one couldn't, actually. Plenty of good stories have done exactly that; so long as you write a good character driven story, it doesn't matter if the seemingly massive plot element that kickstarted it all isn't resolved. In fact, it's often better if it's deliberately left unresolved.

Sometimes the science is the point of the story. Or rather, speculation about the application of the science is the point of the story, and is what makes the story interesting.

Most sci-fi authors would probably disagree. All good science-fiction stories are character driven. The future tech/science is almost always just the means to an end; the way to set up the story rather than the point itself. As you said, the point isn't really the science itself, but the application of said science. Even that, I would say isn't really the point; but rather it's an excuse to explore facets of humanity and philosophy given form by placing characters in a world different from out own, no matter how important the science is in a story, it's still ultimately up to the characters to give it meaning and context. This is true even in most hard sci-fi; the science may take more of a central role in the story, but ultimately the story still stands or falls with its characters. You can have good science-fiction without well written science; but not without well written characters. The best sci-fi of course, mixes well-written characters with intriguing scientific ideas.

 

[ryan]

Davka, every popular and successful sci-fi novel or movie had to make some technological leaps, so why not just go with the usual ideas?

Or are you trying to actually figure out a way to do this?

 

[bilby]

...
"Television won't matter in your lifetime or mine."
-- R.S. Lambert, Canadian Broadcaster, 1936
...

Well, he certainly got that one right.

 

[DBT]

...
"Television won't matter in your lifetime or mine."
-- R.S. Lambert, Canadian Broadcaster, 1936
...

Well, he certainly got that one right.

Sadly, he did indeed.

 

[bigfield]

Those aren't planes, and only a fraction of sci-fi planes work through anti-grav. I wasn't talking about sci-fi planes in the sense of 'look, anti-grav planes!', but rather planes as in the 'wow, sub-orbital plane-travel is commonplace!' kind of fashion.

OK I see what you mean, now.

I would extend that to include things that are inconsistent with the rest of the technology within the story's universe. It doesn't make sense to have a society that has advanced in one field--such as medical nanotechnology--far more than it has in any other, unless there is some important reason why. The author needs to give at least some consideration to the progression from present day technology to the technology of the story setting.

This makes the flawed assumption that we in real life have a roughly equal level of development across all fields, which is most certainly not the case; it just looks to us when we change the distribution around for a story because the distribution of technological progress that we have in reality seems 'normal'. In reality, the distribution of technological progress is far from equal across fields. Furthermore, the way in which we actually use all our technological progress is far from uniform as well: consider the fact that we live in a world covered in a digital communications network that allows for instant communication across the planet; a world in which brain-machine interfaces already exist, and in which multiple nationstates are currently racing to see who can build the first artificial human brain and break the exaflop scale in supercomputer; a world in which we've landed probes on comets; a world in which we can print organs and create lithium-ion batteries the size of a grain of sand; yet somehow the sight of someone using a pencil doesn't strike us as hopelessly anachronistic.

Like William Gibson said; the future is already here, it just isn't very evenly distributed.

None of this is to say that you aren't right to say that the author shouldn't give some thought to why future society x is way more advanced in some fields than others, but it's not quite so remarkable a thing as to always demand an explanation. Maybe if all other technology stood still.

Good points about technology in the real world. I have a problem with inconsistency within a field or research. For example, an author who introduces nanomachines but only applies them in a specific way, or worse, ignores applications that would alter the story.

There could be many reasons, but the setting and plot of the story will limit which of those can be used. One probably can't write aliens into the story solely to solve the stasis problem and then not mention the aliens beyond that.

I don't see why one couldn't, actually. Plenty of good stories have done exactly that; so long as you write a good character driven story, it doesn't matter if the seemingly massive plot element that kickstarted it all isn't resolved. In fact, it's often better if it's deliberately left unresolved.

Depends on what genre you are writing to. Sometimes a sci-fi story is good despite its short cuts and fantastical elements.

Sometimes the science is the point of the story. Or rather, speculation about the application of the science is the point of the story, and is what makes the story interesting.

Most sci-fi authors would probably disagree. All good science-fiction stories are character driven. The future tech/science is almost always just the means to an end; the way to set up the story rather than the point itself. As you said, the point isn't really the science itself, but the application of said science. Even that, I would say isn't really the point; but rather it's an excuse to explore facets of humanity and philosophy given form by placing characters in a world different from out own, no matter how important the science is in a story, it's still ultimately up to the characters to give it meaning and context. This is true even in most hard sci-fi; the science may take more of a central role in the story, but ultimately the story still stands or falls with its characters. You can have good science-fiction without well written science; but not without well written characters. The best sci-fi of course, mixes well-written characters with intriguing scientific ideas.

Sure, the characters always have a important part to play, but in a lot of sci-fi, the technology is integral to the conflict and determines what the characters can and can't hypothetically do.

My criticisms apply more to the harder end of the sci-fi scale than the softer sci-fi in name only.