Yeah. And how convoluted can you make them, or how deep do you go with them.
Example: Isaac Asimov describes worlds that could be some iteration of ours. So it’s not hard sf.
In my mind, hard sci fi deals with completely other worlds. The authorbis tasked with creating and shouldering it, and then for giving you a reason for having created it.
I read a really good one once that changed me. It’s mind playfield at its greatest. Like fantasy but without the burden of tradition.
2 Likes
Yes, it takes a lot more imagination to realise something truly alien, something that others haven’t thought of before, a possibility that sounds plausible.
You inevitably end up somewhere in unexplored id.
Maybe that’s why it hit so hard. I can’t even remember the plot, but I had dreams with it.
Strip away reality, your idea of it, strip away anything known, and you find yourself in a deeper reality.
A reality of possibilities instead of restrictions.
The restrictions are there, but implicitly by de-fining (finite, delimit, cut out, pick out), rather than explicitly by prescribing.
The diference between finding and deciding.
1 Like
Yeah, Asimov did manage to build an interesting world around psychohistory and it’s own version of the 4 generation cycle.
The foundation is such a classic in example.
Yeah but all his worlds are somewhat compatible with this one. They are in some way or another adaptations or possible futures.
For to call it hard sf, I have to see something incompatibly different.
Where did you broadcast it?
On a philosophy forum.
What? How many have seen it?
Um about 40, I think. Including me.
You are fucking useless, you do know that?
Yeah, it’s how i stay sane.
So this is the best we could hope for?
Probably.
FFS.
Ah. Well there’s your problem right there.
Philosophy breaks you down to almost nuthin before you really see what the problem is and how to solve it.
You knew that, tho’.
Yeah, I guess so. Long live the philosphers.
Ach only kidding.