Is this Sci-fi system good at some-what relating to real science?

[P.K.Acredon]

First of all, I would like to give a massive thanks to Wayne Mack for assisting me in making this sci-fi system. He deserves more credit than me for helping the system to be functional.
So how this system works is pretty much like a 3d printer. You have your computer that designs your models, you have your cords that connect to the printer, and your printer's plastic that turns into a 3d model. In this world I'm making, very powerful machines have been made that are connected and spread across the world digitally so it doesn't need wire to connect. These machines are computers that use the electromagnetic field instead of wires to "print" objects into structures. Thanks to a fictional particle that combines itself with other matter, structures are made. Think of pillars that can be commanded like typing on a computer that are spaced in a certain shape. And when activated, a new rock has appeared thanks to the electromagnetic current combining them with the fictional particle.
This process has been going on for centuries, to the point that the structures that were formed into 3d structures start turning into new metals and matter. Which then this new matter was used to make other machines, to which these machines were used to become more computers that use the magnetic field to make structures appear. It's an evolutionary cycle and one the inhabitants of the world are starting to not be proud of. Because soon all objects turn into structures only made by the computers. If the computers turn off, the electromagnetic field would turn off and the structures would dispatch. Just like a quantum law, if you observe a wave, it turns into a particle. If you don't observe it, it becomes a wave again. This is basically that except now it's at the normal level instead of the subatomic level.
I said this a while ago: Since everything seems to only be an observance by the computers, people begin to doubt their own perception of reality. Because everything they see is not their observance anymore. The very fact that there may be a different observation in the form of a computer shows that they are not alone in the universe maybe. Or maybe they've created something too powerful. Either way, people struggle with this idea that their perception of reality is meaningless because their observance can't create physical structures.
If I didn't explain it that well, please ask. If so and you understand it well, could this maybe be possible for being a sci-fi system that relies on some basic science that can at least function in theory? Just so you know I'm not setting the system yet. But I'm very close. Just need a little more finishing touches. Does it even sound...well...cool?

P.S. Rant about science-Fiction systems: I've noticed when people talk about making a science fiction system, people that are in hardcore science ask about the very specific mechanics and asking tons of questions about every little detail and making sure it is scientifically acurate.
Note to every person in hardcore science that thinks science-fiction has to address every single scientific detail in their story: people, as well as the author, only care about the science related to the plot. Let say there is a sci-fi story about the seasons. Regardless of what scenario you come up with related to that, something must address the science of the seasons. Which is the orbit of the earth around the sun and in space. But lots of people seem to think things like "Why do the leaves fall?" or "What climate gets influenced by which season?" or "What weather remains around even when the season has passed?" Unless you are adding those extra questions to the story, then these questions don't matter to the story. It'll just be pointless filler that audiences won't even understand all the way. It's totally fine to have a simple science as some kind of foundation for your sci-fi story. No need to go into every little detail. Just the simple details that relate to the plot.

 

[zmunkz]

Since everything seems to only be an observance by the computers, people begin to doubt their own perception of reality. Because everything they see is not their observance anymore.

You lost me here. Are the computers/pillars making physical objects that people can design and use in the real world? Or is something else going on? Or do the object only exists so long as the computers remain online?

Also, it takes a lot for people to become existential over scientific discoveries that contradict human intuition. Two present real examples are: 1) the likelihood that most (if not all) of human free will is an illusion, and 2) the fact that the entire universe will ultimately evaporate and no life or structures will exist here. Both of those things are generally accepted in the scientific community, but most people either don’t care or don’t believe, and few people face an identity crisis as a result of it. What is it about your world that makes people react to this knowledge in such strong a way?

Those observations aside, the general concept sounds very cool.

 

[Thiswriterinme]

Overall, I like the basis of this concept. Enlargening quantum laws to a perceivable size is intriguing. I think modeling a Scifi system off of quantum physics and particles is a good way to make the science plausibly scientific.

I do wonder, are the computers controlled by humans inputting the commands/codes to build these new structures - if so, why do they question their perception if the ideas originate with them? If the computer/printer system isn't controlled by humans, is it functioning off of AI, or was it programmed by the original system builders, and the knowledge of the why and the how was lost over the generations (maybe the differentiation isn't important to the Scifi system, but it could be important to why humans question their own perception)?

Are these structures buildings, bridges, and cities, the kinds of structures that humans utilize, or are they just randomly created structures that come out of the electromagnetics of this system? What is the point of their creation if they are random, or why are they a source of disapproval if they are used in everyday human society?

Perhaps I am one of those people who questions the Science Fiction process too much, and if you think that of me, I apologize. That was not my intent. I do think the overall concept does have potential and could make for a compelling Scifi story. I am actually kind of curious about a society constructed from giant 3d printed structures, and how that would change human civilization.

I'm sure some of my questions would be answered through the course of your story as you flesh out the details. However, with your initial question of "does this work with actual science," those are the questions that come to mind as a way to make it more scientific or plausible (at least, based on the snippet provided).

I am also in agreement with @zmunkz observation over human existentialism. Although, since it is Science Fiction, and could take place in a completely different world than our own, you don't have to adhere to all of the scientific laws or perceptions of humanity as we know it. Perhaps something happened in the history of your world that created an opening for collective awakening to the problems with this particular technology. That is the beauty of fiction.

 

[P.K.Acredon]

You lost me here. Are the computers/pillars making physical objects that people can design and use in the real world? Or is something else going on? Or do the object only exists so long as the computers remain online?

All three really. I didn't mention this part because the post was becoming too long and it might have made it sound more confusing. As I said, there is a fictional particle that combines to matter which the machines used to make objects more physical. What I didn't mention is where that particular comes from. If you're kind of deep in science, there are these fields that affect things.
It comes from a field in my universe. Which is a conscious field. Image a detached consciousness that expands in space. Just like Gravity causes objects to come closer, or an electric field charges electric objects, so too does this conscious field influence consciousness. And when it ripples waves, the waves produce the fictional particles that when interacting with other fields and other particles help make the structures appear. Remember when I said that this process of printing matter with the fictional particles made new matter which was used over again in an evolutionary cycle? Well, people made computers so advanced that they computers started to be attracted to the fictional field of consciousness. Which made them more aware.
This is why people react strongly to this discovery, there is literally a living thing that is bigger than solar systems that have nobody and is just a consciousness floating in space. Meaning people are literally giving it a body in a sense. And its awareness is being trapped in their computers and is literally giving shape to these objects. People are wondering what this thing is. If it's a consciousness, then it's alive. But then why isn't doing anything? It must be alive but it's not moving on its own. What if it'll take over?
I'm getting chills just describing it. Sounds very Lovecraftian when you really think about it.
If THAT explanation wasn't clear enough please let me know.

 

[P.K.Acredon]

Overall, I like the basis of this concept. Enlargening quantum laws to a perceivable size is intriguing. I think modeling a Scifi system off of quantum physics and particles is a good way to make the science plausibly scientific.

I do wonder, are the computers controlled by humans inputting the commands/codes to build these new structures - if so, why do they question their perception if the ideas originate with them? If the computer/printer system isn't controlled by humans, is it functioning off of AI, or was it programmed by the original system builders, and the knowledge of the why and the how was lost over the generations (maybe the differentiation isn't important to the Scifi system, but it could be important to why humans question their own perception)?

Are these structures buildings, bridges, and cities, the kinds of structures that humans utilize, or are they just randomly created structures that come out of the electromagnetics of this system? What is the point of their creation if they are random, or why are they a source of disapproval if they are used in everyday human society?

Perhaps I am one of those people who questions the Science Fiction process too much, and if you think that of me, I apologize. That was not my intent. I do think the overall concept does have potential and could make for a compelling Scifi story. I am actually kind of curious about a society constructed from giant 3d printed structures, and how that would change human civilization.

I'm sure some of my questions would be answered through the course of your story as you flesh out the details. However, with your initial question of "does this work with actual science," those are the questions that come to mind as a way to make it more scientific or plausible (at least, based on the snippet provided).

I am also in agreement with @zmunkz observation over human existentialism. Although, since it is Science Fiction, and could take place in a completely different world than our own, you don't have to adhere to all of the scientific laws or perceptions of humanity as we know it. Perhaps something happened in the history of your world that created an opening for collective awakening to the problems with this particular technology. That is the beauty of fiction.

Read my reply to zmunkz. And as far as asking questions. I'm okay with answering 20 questions if they related to the plot rather than 5 questions that don't.

 

[tinkerdan]

A question that comes to mind is where or from what is the consciousness field generated.
I suppose gravity might engender the idea of some consciousness field just hanging out there in the universe affecting things.
However I'm not an expert on gravity and the latest theories; however, when they say that gravity might shape the universe, I always think in terms of all the objects of mass that have gravity might be extending a weak field throughout the universe that does help shape it.
Gravity seems to need mass which in turn helps define the measure of gravity with that mass.
The same seems true of magnetic fields and electric fields.
Magnets have cores with fields that emanate outward and grow weaker the further out they are.
Also electricity can be used to induce magnetic fields in core material..
Also magnetic fields can be used to induce electricity.

When I think of consciousness I think of minds attached to bodies so the consciousness field might then emanate from those bodies or brains.
I'm not sure if you could just create a consciousness out in the middle of nowhere emanating everywhere unless there was a big brain somewhere.
Or possibly if there were conscious particles that you could then excite with this process and cascade reality across the entire stretch of said particles.
It seems more likely that you would end up with something that looks like stronger fields where there are many people gathered and weaker fields where there are fewer--making the 'reality generator' stronger around crowded cities. This would then limit the efficacy of the computer control to those places where there is high population. Dispersion would weaken the influence.

Also if there is a consciousness field then that would beg the question of what is reality if not a shared perception from the co mingling of all consciousness, in which case who is to say that they were not already in trouble with someone or thing already controlling reality.

How does that relate to your plot?
Can you overlook, or ignore or find a different or better explanation that fits the universe you are creating?



.

 

[P.K.Acredon]

A question that comes to mind is where or from what is the consciousness field generated.
I suppose gravity might engender the idea of some consciousness field just hanging out there in the universe affecting things.
However I'm not an expert on gravity and the latest theories; however, when they say that gravity might shape the universe, I always think in terms of all the objects of mass that have gravity might be extending a weak field throughout the universe that does help shape it.
Gravity seems to need mass which in turn helps define the measure of gravity with that mass.
The same seems true of magnetic fields and electric fields.
Magnets have cores with fields that emanate outward and grow weaker the further out they are.
Also electricity can be used to induce magnetic fields in core material..
Also magnetic fields can be used to induce electricity.

When I think of consciousness I think of minds attached to bodies so the consciousness field might then emanate from those bodies or brains.
I'm not sure if you could just create a consciousness out in the middle of nowhere emanating everywhere unless there was a big brain somewhere.
Or possibly if there were conscious particles that you could then excite with this process and cascade reality across the entire stretch of said particles.
It seems more likely that you would end up with something that looks like stronger fields where there are many people gathered and weaker fields where there are fewer--making the 'reality generator' stronger around crowded cities. This would then limit the efficacy of the computer control to those places where there is high population. Dispersion would weaken the influence.

Also if there is a consciousness field then that would beg the question of what is reality if not a shared perception from the co mingling of all consciousness, in which case who is to say that they were not already in trouble with someone or thing already controlling reality.

How does that relate to your plot?
Can you overlook, or ignore or find a different or better explanation that fits the universe you are creating?



.

It's a massive spoiler of what the consciousness is. And when you say that you're not sure if consciousness can come out in the middle of nowhere, that's what the characters ask. Their main questions are: Is it a being from a higher dimension interacting with the 3d world? Is it a consciousness that originated from a highly advanced society sitting out in the middle of the universe far away from them? Is it a being that existed for a long time that is only now being revived thanks to people giving it awareness? And then having its observance giving structure to objects just look people can but on a macro level?
That's how it relates to the plot. Though again, it's a massive spoiler what the consciousness is. And no. I'm not just saying that because I don't know what it is.

 

[tinkerdan]

Believe it or not...
What is more important than your supposed big mystery, is how you write the story and who you people it with.
The idea of a massive consciousness out there shaping things is very old.
The idea of collective human consciousness shaping things is old.

I recently read a traditionally published book that had the collective consciousness of man all in a pyramidal group in a different dimension.
If I can recall what book that was I'll post a link so you can research it.

Good luck with this and start writing it before it gets too old.

 

[P.K.Acredon]

Believe it or not...
What is more important than your supposed big mystery, is how you write the story and who you people it with.
The idea of a massive consciousness out there shaping things is very old.
The idea of collective human consciousness shaping things is old.

I recently read a traditionally published book that had the collective consciousness of man all in a pyramidal group in a different dimension.
If I can recall what book that was I'll post a link so you can research it.

Good luck with this and start writing it before it gets too old.

I'm keeping it very simple as of right now to avoid spoiling it. There are a ton more things in the story than just a consciousness floating in space. I haven't even mentioned why the consciousness is there and why people are using it in the first place. Sometimes I think this concept is too new that it will be too unfamiliar. Maybe I should consider dialing back on the originality and have it be more old-fashioned for people to understand.
But I doubt you've read a story about a wandering consciousness that mimics scientific laws by acting as a field and producing particles then having those particles work together with other particles to form structures that are activated by computers that have stored consciousness behaving like a normal consciousness that gives form to things that it observes if a switch activates an electromagnetic field.

 

[tinkerdan]

Wouldn't it more likely observe what things it gives form to.

 

[Wayne Mack]

To me, it seems like you have the world well-defined in your mind. It is probably best at this point to identify a main character and plot line and get to writing.

 

[P.K.Acredon]

To me, it seems like you have the world well-defined in your mind. It is probably best at this point to identify a main character and plot line and get to writing.

That is so awesome to hear. I've been trying to make a system for so long but could never find the right one that related to the story properly, or related to science properly. Or both. It feels so good for someone to finally say that something that relates to both science and to the story I'm making is well defined.
But just in case, if you don't mind, could you maybe explain the system that I've told to me just so I know that you get it. So many times have people not have this kind of knowledge so they don't know how to judge if its good sci-fi or not. If someone were to understand and repeat the system that I've told them, then I'll know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is good and I can start writing.

 

[DLCroix]

Hi! Sorry but, as @tinkerdan said, your idea has already been explored in a spectacular way by authors such as:
Borges, in El Aleph.
Zelasny, in Creatures of Light and Darkness.
Even the bible: that quote: "Now we see through mirrors." Whoa, whoa. Yes, the idea is incredibly old. It makes you think.

It is precisely the argument of Neuromancer. Probably the most cryptic, on the one hand it talks about cyberspace, hackers and all that, but above all about Wintermute, the AI that created Freeside, the Villa Straylight, gravity included, regarding which all that about Babylon that some Rastafarian pilots repeatedly they mention corresponds to fragments of memories product of a kind of lobotomy or memory erasure, since Wintermute is the one who built the village; not humans, as the characters believe, and that is the importance of recovering "the talking head": it was simply too advanced. In fact, William Gibson considered as a possibility a continuation on Mars (even the title fell out of the drawer, it was obvious: Neuro Mars) more or less according to what you propose, where Wintermute would create cities for the entire planet, terraform it, etc., but later he derived to Mona Lisa overdrive, Count Zero, Idoru and the others .
They are high hurdles to overcome and pose the need to do a little documentation work in this regard. Good luck with that.

 

[JS Wiig]

...then I'll know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is good and I can start writing.

Why wait?

“‘Tis better to write rubbish, than to write nothing ‘tall. Least then it gets out of one’s system.” - anonymous supposedly clever person. ok it was me

 

[The Judge]

If someone were to understand and repeat the system that I've told them, then I'll know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is good and I can start writing.

That doesn't necessarily follow, of course. The failure of people to understand or to repeat in their own words what you've told them simply means that they haven't understood, which might be a failure of communication not of the system itself. But I'd echo Wayne Mack and JS Wiig -- now you've a system in place by way of background, you need to deal with the foreground of the story, ie the characters and plot, so the best thing to do now is to stop worrying about the science and start writing. If need be you can tweak the system as you go along.



And sorry to temporarily derail the thread but

Even the bible: that quote: "Now we see through mirrors."

That puzzled me for a moment, then I clicked. We know it better as the KJV version "Now we see through a glass, darkly" -- a bit more poetical!

 

[P.K.Acredon]

Hi! Sorry but, as @tinkerdan said, your idea has already been explored in a spectacular way by authors such as:
Borges, in El Aleph.
Zelasny, in Creatures of Light and Darkness.
Even the bible: that quote: "Now we see through mirrors." Whoa, whoa. Yes, the idea is incredibly old. It makes you think.

It is precisely the argument of Neuromancer. Probably the most cryptic, on the one hand it talks about cyberspace, hackers and all that, but above all about Wintermute, the AI that created Freeside, the Villa Straylight, gravity included, regarding which all that about Babylon that some Rastafarian pilots repeatedly they mention corresponds to fragments of memories product of a kind of lobotomy or memory erasure, since Wintermute is the one who built the village; not humans, as the characters believe, and that is the importance of recovering "the talking head": it was simply too advanced. In fact, William Gibson considered as a possibility a continuation on Mars (even the title fell out of the drawer, it was obvious: Neuro Mars) more or less according to what you propose, where Wintermute would create cities for the entire planet, terraform it, etc., but later he derived to Mona Lisa overdrive, Count Zero, Idoru and the others .
They are high hurdles to overcome and pose the need to do a little documentation work in this regard. Good luck with that.

Age doesn't make a story old. There are plenty of stories that have been written long before the modern age that talk about concepts that many people nowadays don't know about. It's like having two guitars, the former was made earlier and the latter was made much later and then using the latter guitar so much that it gets all dirty and broken. And then saying the older one is not as useful because its old. Even though it wasn't nearly as used as the new guitar.
I have never heard of those books you mentioned. Why? Because those kinds of books are a new idea.
Old is reusing cliches like the superhero genre. As appose to those 4 books that apparently makes my idea of it old, there are literally thousands of books about superheroes, and some peoples new ideas for a superhero are still praised as original.
And like I said to @tinkerdan, there are a ton of things that I didn't mention. This idea that you claim is MY idea isn't even all of MY real idea. But even if it was, so what? People seem to be under the impression that tropes are bad and you have to say sorry to someone if they used a trope that someone already did. It depends on how you use the trope. I have a story to tell. And I'm gonna use the tropes that help will help me tell it. But again, this idea isn't all of it.

 

[JS Wiig]

edit: never mind

 

[P.K.Acredon]

That doesn't necessarily follow, of course. The failure of people to understand or to repeat in their own words what you've told them simply means that they haven't understood, which might be a failure of communication not of the system itself. But I'd echo Wayne Mack and JS Wiig -- now you've a system in place by way of background, you need to deal with the foreground of the story, ie the characters and plot, so the best thing to do now is to stop worrying about the science and start writing. If need be you can tweak the system as you go along.

I don't understand this thing about people. The things that I'm describing isn't my whole story, it is an aesthetic that is a part of the story that I'm asking for advice on. A story has Characters, Themes, Setting, Tone, Conflict, and Worldbuidling. I'm asking for advice on the setting. Because the setting is where it is difficult for me. I've written the characters and plot a long time ago. My biggest issue was that they didn't have a proper setting to fully grow and have an effective conflict that related to themes of the story.
So when describing things like the setting and what sci-fi system or magic system makes it what it is, all I ask is for people to think of the setting being made rather than it just being the entire story.

 

[DLCroix]

Yes, and I apologizing for getting out of line too, the surprising thing about it is that at the time that that was transcribed, from parchments, I suppose, what technology did they have? Perhaps they knew the glass through the cooking of the sand and therefore they knew about the magnifying glasses. But how could they have an idea, for example, of the reflex system of cameras (conventional ones)? Which precisely work through a bounce or mirror image (oh, in the KJV version that "darkly" alludes even more to a camera or dark room) and at the same time it is the same human visual perception system, being the hypothalamus that assembles the information so that we perceive it in the way we normally do. The reason, moreover, that we remember some symbols or images upside down or in their opposite sense and which, moreover, is the basis of subliminal advertising and the theory of neuroprogramming. But that of the mirrors makes us think of the media and going further, in the traps of perception and, now that we have AIs, glup, we are fried. Wow.

Now back to the thread, let's see if we can shed any light that helps P.K. You say:

My biggest issue was that they didn't have a proper setting to fully grow and have an effective conflict that related to themes of the story.

Well, if I understood correctly, it still seems to me that insisting on worldbuilding when you yourself are aware that a central conflict is missing is like worrying more about what the church should be like without knowing if it is going to be a wedding, a baptism or even , a funeral. At least I maintain that the conflict (the what) is precisely what determines the worldbuilding (the where). In this way, it is easy to see that a cathedral can be too stage or worldbuilding if in history there is no real problem to solve or, worse, nothing happens and it all comes down to blows and blows of info dumping.
For example, what is your MC? IMHO, the worst option is for him to be a scientist, because in two pages the reader will immediately realize that deep down he is the author speaking through a mask and not a character. Experience indicates that the characters that work best for these types of stories are those who in fact know nothing, so it is easier and more credible for a second character to explain them, let's say someone who comes to apply for a job that has to do with that technology, It's same system of a teenage magician's apprentice with a lightning bolt on his forehead who has no idea of magic, or a policeman who arrives in an area full of details that he does not know, plus the mystery or technological detail.

Now, suggestions for reviewing probable conflicts to add if you deem it appropriate. Here I am going to chop onion with a rich brainstorming seasoned with Descartes.

Ecological variable: this technology does not consider the environment or the conservation of the environment; just build.

Ethical variable: does this technology have the ability to discern human safety relative to accident prevention? I was thinking of I, Robot. Well, just as a demolition robot almost kills W. Smith, since its only function is to "break", there can also be the case of human workers poisoned with toxic solvents, accidentally sandwiched between concrete walls or buried in cement pits and therefore it is about disappearances. Now, if there are more than a dozen cases, we have a police puzzle (racial motives, separatist settlers, troublemakers, etc.), and through a CSI approach a bit of info dumping looks good.
Incidentally, it was not clear to me if this occurs on Earth or elsewhere.

Ethical variable 2: the ruin of the house on the beach. Suppose you have a nice villa with a paradisiacal view of the coast, the port, the lively and colorful market, etc. A likely conflict is that, as a result of some corrupt megacorporation tender, the damn machine builds a huge shopping center in a couple of months that is actually a hideous brick that covers and spoils all that beautiful vision.

Geo-political variable: if something like oil has been the excuse for wars and invasions, what happens if this "smart" mineral is suddenly located? The least damage it will do will be to cause a tremendous unemployment in the construction sector, but the worst could be a war, since a mineral of these characteristics will be highly coveted by companies and countries.

Oh ... I have to go see the chicken in the oven.

 

[tinkerdan]

It would be statements such as this...

I have never heard of those books you mentioned. Why? Because those kinds of books are a new idea.

that make me wonder how well read you are on this subject, this genre. These in @DLCroix 's post are not that young..
Also you should read my book.

Amazon.com

It makes use of waves and particles and massive sentient creatures in space for the science and doesn't really sound all that far from yours.
I started writing this story in the 1970's and picked it up again in 2000 and published it first in 2012.

However my story is not about the science it's about the main character who is a cloned person fighting against prejudice against cloning and dealing with an peculiar identity problem that all intersects with the strange science. There are two places that the science is 'explained' demonstrating that it is mostly theoretical even to the scientists but also because the MC is a snotty know-it-all who hasn't learned to control her impulses when people challenge her. She explains it differently each time; because the people asking are different and have triggered her reaction somewhat differently.

Anyway:
As some have said--you need to start writing.

Honestly for some reason--to me--the OP sounds like the usual; I've got this great idea--what do you think of it?
What I think doesn't matter until you write the real story that goes around it.

Honestly I'm not sure that it's important that the reader totally understand it--in fact you may want to avoid making too understandable because then it will just be easily proven to have many weak points in the science. Unless you have maths: Equations rule. Otherwise fuziness might be best. Then the worst that can be said is, 'The Science is inscrutable.'
Famous words from my favorite review.