Kevin Spacey.
Guy Gardener said:
They should really have an actual Seldon ghost hanging around.
It would be... spooktacular!
Just remember, don't cross the streams.
"Guys, you're scaring the straights."
Sony Pictures Has bought "Foundation"
- Thread starter Admiral_Young
- Start date
Kevin Spacey.
They should really have an actual Seldon ghost hanging around.
It would be... spooktacular!
Just remember, don't cross the streams.
"Guys, you're scaring the straights."
I can't speak for engineering, but there's nothing reasonable about psychohistory from a historical perspective. History isn't anywhere near as tidy as physics, there's dozens wildly inconsistent and meticulously researched positions on the origins of the English Civil War that posit it as either an inevitable economic clash that had built steams for decades or easily avoidable mere years prior to the conflagration. History can be generalized, ex post facto, into broad sweeping movements or other tidy premises but it's not something that can be used with any kind of pretend precision as a prognisticating vision into the future.
Or to put it another way: Imagine Hari Seldon invented psychopoetry, a science which would allow his recordings every few hundred years to produce on cue the 'best poetry of the generation' which creates the best possible poem in the eyes of contemporary listeners. It makes about as much sense.
The analogy with physics is based on the ideal gas law, which deals with numbers of molecules on the order of 10^23. The smaller the number of particles in an ensemble, the more likely that random variation will result in deviation from such large scale aggregate relations.
IIRC, the number of people in the Foundation galaxy is measured in the quadrillions, which is 10^15. Today there are 7*10^9 people. We would need to increase the number of worlds by over 100,000 from ours, with as many people on each, to get to that fictional galactic population. The number of people alive today is a tiny, tiny fraction of that postulated in the Foundation galaxy.
If to get aggregate relations to hold we need a number of people approaching 10^23, then we would need over 2000 times as many people alive today for every person alive today.
I'm not arguing that psychohistory is plausible, so please understand that.
I'm simply saying that the failure of aggregate relations to likely hold for the populations that we have data on is actually consistent with the idea that such relations might be likely to hold for much larger populations (such as those on the order of magnitude required for aggregate relations to likely hold in physics). The assumption that such relations are plausible may not be the simplest order of things, but what we see is still perfectly in line with what one would expect if it were so.
A much deeper analysis into the problem is needed to really establish whether the idea is plausible or implausible.
For example, rather than try to construct a theory with 100% predictive power, a more modest question worth pursuing is whether larger and larger groups of people are more likely to obey aggregate relations, even if the increase in that likelihood is minor as the population increases. If the answer to that question is surely "they aren't", then I would agree that would cast doubt on the plausibility of something like psychohistory. On the other hand if the answer is surely "they are", then that would indicate the plausibility of something like it pretty directly, at least in some limited form.
IIRC, the number of people in the Foundation galaxy is measured in the quadrillions, which is 10^15. Today there are 7*10^9 people. We would need to increase the number of worlds by over 100,000 from ours, with as many people on each, to get to that fictional galactic population. The number of people alive today is a tiny, tiny fraction of that postulated in the Foundation galaxy.
If to get aggregate relations to hold we need a number of people approaching 10^23, then we would need over 2000 times as many people alive today for every person alive today.
I'm not arguing that psychohistory is plausible, so please understand that.
I'm simply saying that the failure of aggregate relations to likely hold for the populations that we have data on is actually consistent with the idea that such relations might be likely to hold for much larger populations (such as those on the order of magnitude required for aggregate relations to likely hold in physics). The assumption that such relations are plausible may not be the simplest order of things, but what we see is still perfectly in line with what one would expect if it were so.
A much deeper analysis into the problem is needed to really establish whether the idea is plausible or implausible.
For example, rather than try to construct a theory with 100% predictive power, a more modest question worth pursuing is whether larger and larger groups of people are more likely to obey aggregate relations, even if the increase in that likelihood is minor as the population increases. If the answer to that question is surely "they aren't", then I would agree that would cast doubt on the plausibility of something like psychohistory. On the other hand if the answer is surely "they are", then that would indicate the plausibility of something like it pretty directly, at least in some limited form.
Fair enough. However:
It's not. I may not have been clear in my post above, but my point was that if the study of history does show anything, is that it is not - and cannot be - a kind of rigorous 'if X then Y' science in the manner physics is. Even with an abundance of data the interpretations drawn from this data are going to be wildly varying, and unlike Physics, this would not simply be because one of them is somehow wrong. A nation is a few million people, all with their own opinions, actions, inactions, there are changes of temperature, weather, acts of random chance which can obviously (or less obviously) be enormously important, or perhaps not at all. We know enough to know that our understanding of human interrelationships does not work this way, period.
It doesn't sound like you even considered what I wrote about a question worth considering, but rather dismissed it out of hand because your belief about the way physics operates is incompatible with your understanding of history. In aggregate relations such as the ideal gas law there is quite a bit more going on than simply "if X then Y"; indeed the exact underlying state of the gas is presumed to be unknown, even in classical models. Furthermore, modern (i.e., contemporary) physics reads more like "if X then the probability of Y is Z", again denying any (locally causal) certainty in what exactly is occurring below the microscopic level. The generally accepted belief in contemporary physics is that only in great ensembles does behavior acquire certainty of the kind "if X then Y", and then only very probably so.
I don't want to get into a debate here, and I respect your opinion. I'm just speaking my piece.
In the original trilogy, psychohistory does not make the kind of predictions Kegg criticizes.
"Predicting" that Bel Riose cannot complete the conquest of the Foundation because Cleon II cannot tolerate such a general with such power simply has nothing to do with the mechanistic picture he draws. Presetting the clock for the recorded Seldon appearances is much closer, but, since Seldon basically speaks platitudes, clearly having no real idea of the details, it speaks against such an interpretation. Plus, of course, the existence of the Second Foundation is predicated on the need to refine the plan.
Obviously even this much is highly, highly improbable, to say the least. As a device psychohistory is rather more like superpowers in a comic book, an outsize, colorful figuration of possible increase in knowledge of how society works. Like the flamboyant wish fulfillment in superheroes, the reality would be much more mundane. But also like superheroes, we really don't know what might happen and it may well be something wonderful.
The real question is why anyone would trouble to gag at the gnat of psychohistory compared to the dirty, hairy, high-mileage camel of telepathic powers that is the Second Foundation? It is the prevailing ethos in the culture, especially the literary types, that society is not intelligible in terms of social forces. Instead, basically, shit happens, because that is the eternal human condition. This article of faith is necessary because in the face of such invincible ignorance of the wellsprings of all that is (socially speaking, anyhow,) the only social institution that can properly deal with it is...you guessed it, the free market!
"Predicting" that Bel Riose cannot complete the conquest of the Foundation because Cleon II cannot tolerate such a general with such power simply has nothing to do with the mechanistic picture he draws. Presetting the clock for the recorded Seldon appearances is much closer, but, since Seldon basically speaks platitudes, clearly having no real idea of the details, it speaks against such an interpretation. Plus, of course, the existence of the Second Foundation is predicated on the need to refine the plan.
Obviously even this much is highly, highly improbable, to say the least. As a device psychohistory is rather more like superpowers in a comic book, an outsize, colorful figuration of possible increase in knowledge of how society works. Like the flamboyant wish fulfillment in superheroes, the reality would be much more mundane. But also like superheroes, we really don't know what might happen and it may well be something wonderful.
The real question is why anyone would trouble to gag at the gnat of psychohistory compared to the dirty, hairy, high-mileage camel of telepathic powers that is the Second Foundation? It is the prevailing ethos in the culture, especially the literary types, that society is not intelligible in terms of social forces. Instead, basically, shit happens, because that is the eternal human condition. This article of faith is necessary because in the face of such invincible ignorance of the wellsprings of all that is (socially speaking, anyhow,) the only social institution that can properly deal with it is...you guessed it, the free market!
Young children can't remember their times tables, but they can work out multiplication by adding the same number to itself over and over again.
The Fondationists explaining how everything turns out their way after the fact because of psychohistory is the same.
The Fondationists explaining how everything turns out their way after the fact because of psychohistory is the same.
I'm pretty sure an Asimov movie would bore me to tears. Maybe they could film Nemesis.
It didn't seem to me that you were addressing my point at all, beyond the two parts I quoted. I assumed that's because I didn't elucidate it clearly, so I tried to clarify what I meant. The actual processes you detailed are very interesting and meticulous and have no bearing at all on history.
It does. Up until the Mule, Hari Seldon can reliably postulate what is going on in the universe, centuries into the future. This isn't something any variety of history not involving, say, the ability to actually see into the future, could do.
It's not. I was simply pointing out that psychohistory isn't a hard sci-fi idea. I don't think anyone argued telepathy was.
I just vomited a little when I realized that Liam Nielson would audition for the part of Harry Seldon.
A fine actor for sure, but then he exposed himself too much.
Although I'd like a pickled Larry Hagman for the part before the cancer gets him. Hell, Fuck it, the cancers bad enough that he's scaling back his involvement in the new Dallas, so imagine if they engineered the release of the movie, "trilogy", to not come out till after his death in 2013? Of course if the selfish bugger held on to life too long till perhaps 2015 or 2016 it could utterly bankrupt the project.
If you think, it would be "How I met your Mother" in reverse, since they filmed all the stuff with the kids set in the distant far off land of 2030 back when they were putting together the first season.
Doesn't that make how I met Your Mother Science Fiction just because it's set in the future?
That son of a bitch TV & media forum stole How I met your Mother from us!
Those assholes!
Of course, you know, this means war.
A fine actor for sure, but then he exposed himself too much.
Although I'd like a pickled Larry Hagman for the part before the cancer gets him. Hell, Fuck it, the cancers bad enough that he's scaling back his involvement in the new Dallas, so imagine if they engineered the release of the movie, "trilogy", to not come out till after his death in 2013? Of course if the selfish bugger held on to life too long till perhaps 2015 or 2016 it could utterly bankrupt the project.
If you think, it would be "How I met your Mother" in reverse, since they filmed all the stuff with the kids set in the distant far off land of 2030 back when they were putting together the first season.
Doesn't that make how I met Your Mother Science Fiction just because it's set in the future?
That son of a bitch TV & media forum stole How I met your Mother from us!
Those assholes!
Of course, you know, this means war.
But who says a FOUNDATION movie needs to be held to the standards of hard sf? Or that general audiences would balk at the concept because it's a little farfetched?
Heck, THE MATRIX stipulated that we were all human batteries powering a virtual reality simulation that could be manipulated to give certain individuals super-powers.
I can't see "psychohistory" as being any harder to swallow for the average moviegoer.
Not me. It's a galactic space opera, after all, I don't think the book series is trying to seriously suggest it's some kind of hard sci-fi prognostication into a plausible future.
But I will argue with those who want to suggest that psychohistory isn't a bit of fluff. Take the batteries of the Matrix, per your example - would anyone insist that's a really plausible idea?
I thought I did address your points, by accepting them as given. Your points can't be challenged, because I agree with them. Maybe I wasn't clear enough on that point.
However, I was pointing out that the failure of observed historic events to fit any predictive model is consistent with the idea that predictive models are only possible with much, much larger populations. I went on to sketch the nature of a test, conceivably within our capabilities to apply, that, depending on the results, could either support or cast doubt on the premise that populations much, much larger than those in existence would exhibit predictable behavior.
Exactly, Greg. There's a lot of sci-fi out there that simply isn't plausible, but that doesn't stop us from making them. It's all about using imagination to go places.
If you're talking about an adaptation of Foundation and bitch about the psychohistory instead of the telepathy, you've made a fundamental misjudgment about what's the softheaded part of the story. Everything we know about history shows we can't predict details but trends are something else. This is particularly important since the details aren't probably not really important in the larger perspective. In particular, random events will not change trends, precisely because they are random. Telepathy on the other hand is as sensible as astrology.
In the story, Seldon doesn't just predict, he manipulates, not least by creating the Foundation. And by the time we get to the end, every Seldon appearance could be an hallucination imposed by the Second Foundation!
In the real world, of course people will still insist the future is wholly unpredictable. If it were predictable, then someone might be held responsible, say, for ruining an entire nation's economy. If shit just happens, then all you can do is suffer, preferably in silence.
That said, there is one aspect that will prevent social science from ever being powerfully predictive, which oddly enough a science fiction writer either overlooked or chose to ignore: scientific and technological progress. It is not because the human factor is too divinely ineffable to quantify. Scientific and technical progress depend partly upon what nature is really like, and no social science could be expected to predict unknown physics, chemistry, etc.
If you want to do away with the psychohistory, all you have left is a comic book story about telepaths, minus the pictures. Presumably the movie is to supply them, but it will still be just a comic book movie.
In the story, Seldon doesn't just predict, he manipulates, not least by creating the Foundation. And by the time we get to the end, every Seldon appearance could be an hallucination imposed by the Second Foundation!
In the real world, of course people will still insist the future is wholly unpredictable. If it were predictable, then someone might be held responsible, say, for ruining an entire nation's economy. If shit just happens, then all you can do is suffer, preferably in silence.
That said, there is one aspect that will prevent social science from ever being powerfully predictive, which oddly enough a science fiction writer either overlooked or chose to ignore: scientific and technological progress. It is not because the human factor is too divinely ineffable to quantify. Scientific and technical progress depend partly upon what nature is really like, and no social science could be expected to predict unknown physics, chemistry, etc.
If you want to do away with the psychohistory, all you have left is a comic book story about telepaths, minus the pictures. Presumably the movie is to supply them, but it will still be just a comic book movie.
Well said, stj
The point about telepathy being extremely implausible is a good one.
However, I disagree with the point about "scientific and technological progress" that I highlighted. Asimov didn't ignore this point at all. The innovation brought about by the First Foundation didn't have any impact on galactic society until after the Fall, after the point at which psychohistory was no longer being used as a predictive tool. IIRC part of the premise of why the Empire fell was that it had ceased being innovative.
If we are going to consider what things might be like in the real world, the situation is very debatable. We have hardly any historical data with which to even guess what the rate of technological innovation might look like in an industrial society that has been operating for 10,000 years.
Based on what we know, it is entirely plausible that the space between milestones in innovation that might radically upset society could be very far indeed by then. One argument in favor of this notion is the idea that all of the low hanging fruit will have been picked, and also all of the lowest hanging fruit among that which remains will have been picked, and so on for many iterations, leaving only very hard to reach fruit representing radical breakthroughs.
Once a level of technology has been achieved where everyone's needs will be met for the foreseeable future, what pressure will there be to reach for the very hard to reach? Little, if any, right?
Isn't the nature of free will what the Foundation Trilogy is ultimately about? Humans in countless trillions are ultimately constrained by (psycho)historical forces beyond their control, and, if not by those forces, by the Mule and by the secret cabal of the Second Foundation who have (psycho)magical powers to overrule their internal brain states without their knowledge. Whereas a film such as The Adjustment Bureau (loosely based on P K Dick's "Adjustment Team") tackled a similar theme quite well, I'm not sure that it would be buried in a galaxy-spanning space opera that's loaded with gee-whiz, presumably 3D, CGI eye candy.
