Limits in Science-Fiction.

[Agayek]

This is pretty much the line i was talking about.
I'm fine with changing things we know little about.
But i don't think they can really change things we are completely certain about.

That's just it though, there isn't anything we're completely certain about.

We can be reasonably sure of many things, but there are very few things that have been conclusively proven in all circumstances. The best example of that is the force of gravity. It hasn't actually been proven in all cases, especially at the quantum level (where essentially all of known physics gets thrown out the window).

Almost all of the physical sciences are like that. We can be reasonably sure that the information we do have is accurate and valid in all cases, but that has yet to be proven, so it's not unreasonable for something to completely violate whatever physical laws you'd like.

A halfway decent example from the real world is quantum teleportation. Someone just recently managed to send a stable particle. It's not unreasonable to state "Someday, we will know how to do this on a macro scale", and if you can do that you've basically broken Newtonian physics.

 

[kane.malakos]

Really the boundary between science fiction and fantasy is very blurred. There are valid arguments that Star Wars fits both genres.

First, readers will assume that the world is like reality unless noted. That is, people behave like people in the real world, they have emotions and believable reactions. Gravity pulls you down, people breathe air, and if you get injured badly enough you will die.

Second, whenever you cross the generally-understood boundaries of reality, you need to provide some sort of explanation, even if it's just a vague handwave. "The Force gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things." Oh, OK. That's why you can sense people and move objects with your mind. Or, "Our FTL drive can transport us instantly, but if you go too far in one jump you risk destroying the ship."

What irritates the audience is when the reality of the fictional world is different from ours without any explanation, and when the fictional rules the author creates are applied inconsistently. If gravity or the sun is different, then you can explain it by saying, "The story takes place on another planet." Or if time travel exists in your world, then it needs to be consistent in how it works (88 miles per hour, 1.21 gigawatts of electricity) and the effects of it (changing your past can cause you to erase your own existence).

I was about to go on a similar rant, but you covered most of my points. Well done sir.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

It shouldn't. That's the whole point of sci-fi, that those constraints are lifted.

exactly what i was thinking, there's no limit, putting limits to science fiction is like putting an iron bar to the wheel of a bycicle !

 

[Togs]

Im currently training to be a biochemist- as my training has gone on my tolerance for bad science in media has gone.

I prefer it when they just handwave it, I loved how they did FTL travel in Firefly- there's an engine, it spins and makes you go through space- simple, elegant and with minimal stupidity or exasperating signs of a media student failing to get their head around high level physics.

 

[alandavidson]

Limits? None. But I do like to be tricked into believing that it COULD work IRL

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

I was more concerned with basic fundemental things, such as the eyes, people where also wondering wether the charcter viewed the answeres in 1st or 3rd person, well he is basically looking trough the eyes of his ancestor, and our eyes are in the front of our heads, so he seas 1st person. stuff like that i don't think can be changed.

I presume you're talking about Assassin's Creed (By "ansers", did you mean Ancestors?) Well there's a perfectly logical explanation for that. Wanna hear it? It's a doozy!

Ready: Assassin's creed would have been a pain in the ass to play from the first person. That's it. There IS no "scientific reason", and I didn't think anyone really WANTS one. Would you like AC to be "Half-Life 2's Annoying platforming section where you can't see where you're fucking standing" the game?

OT: The central tenet of Star Wars is Space Magic. But no-one gives a shit about that because A) They named it after a fundamental aspect of Physics and B) Well, even if it IS just Space Magic. So what?

 

[Trolldor]

Science fiction, basically taking massive liberties with theoretical or even certain science.
But what lines can science fiction not cross? What scientific facts just cannot be changed?

I thought of this after having a little debate with someone on the AC forums over the way Genetic inheritance works, a constant argument was that "it's science fiction, they can do what they want" But i think Sci-Fi needs some boundaries, it's the only thing stopping it from becoming utterly insane nonsense.

So where should the line between Reality and imagination be drawn?

Science Fiction does not and never will take liberties with science.

Science Fantasy can do what it wants, but the whole point of science fiction is to explore possibilities of plausabilities we just can't achieve yet.

 

[Trolldor]

It shouldn't. That's the whole point of sci-fi, that those constraints are lifted.

exactly what i was thinking, there's no limit, putting limits to science fiction is like putting an iron bar to the wheel of a bycicle !

Both of you have completely missed the point of Science Fiction.

 

[AugustFall]

If they go into detail on how it works then it can't just be bullshit. IMO anyway. If they want to say, "This cardboard box turns back time," that's fine but if they go into it and it has something to do with midichlorians then I'm putting the book down.

 

[Caliostro]

I think what's more important is that the author/creator is capable of staying within the confines of their work's internal rules and logic.

This. Essentially the only "limit" I'd apply is one of consistency and coherence. If a work remains logical in it's own universe, then it's free game.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So where should the line between Reality and imagination be drawn?

Generally speaking, it's about how you divulge from reality. Give an explanation, and it's hard science fiction, say there's an explanation and it's soft science fiction, not bother and it's science fantasy.

 

[Alexias_Sandar]

Mainly, the science in such should be INTERNALLY cohesive. It should make sense within context and not contradict itself. Same with magic in settings that have such. So long as it follows the rules set forth and laid out within the setting, I don't mind. I do mind when such doesn't happen, though.

 

[Scabadus]

Established, real science shouldn't just be ignored, but if you really need to contradict it then any half-decent writer can think of an explination that works within the setting. Need genetic inheritance to work differently? Gene regulation among humans has become commonplace to prevent diseases. Need gravity to be twice as strong? A collapsing black hole sent a shockwave through space-time that tweaked the laws of physics.

It's all about the backstory.

 

[erto101]

It's SCIENCE fiction. If it is not within the realms of possibilities it becomes a space based adventure like Star Wars. Which i find a lot more enjoyable than true science fiction

 

[Titan Buttons]

Well I disagree with you for 2 reasons
1: It is Fiction, as such it is only limited by the imagenation of te writer
2: It is Literature and to put a boundry on it is to put a boundry on a persons speech or opinion or the limits to which anyone can express themselves through words and thoughts and also the limit to which topics can be explored and the perspectives exploring them.
To limit one form of expression gives permission to limit many more.

 

[MindBullets]

There's a whole spectrum of sci-fi "hardness" that deals with this sort of issue. "Hard" sci-fi doesn't stretch the known laws of science very far so as to keep it realistic and believable, whereas "soft" sci-fi takes a lot of liberties with science to suit whatever the writer wants to happen. Mass Effect is harder sci-fi than Doctor Who, to give an example.

So, basically, it's all a matter of personal preference. Both ends of the spectrum have their appeal, so if you think a show/game/book/etc has taken something too far, it's not really a bad thing. It's just how it was written.

 

[flamingjimmy]

Star Wars killed science fiction.

Don't get me wrong, I love it. But it is not science fiction.

Pretty much no-one makes real science fiction anymore, just fantasies that include technology that might as well be magic.

 

[shadyh8er]

Breathing in space. My suspension of disbelief is immediately broken whenever I see people breathing in space. I mean come on! Goku couldn't do it, why should Simon be able to?

 

[Abengoshis]

Science FICTION should stay just that.