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, 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, 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, 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?