The Last Question by Isaac Asimov; A Digital Comic I Found Online

Hey y'all, "The Last Question" is one of my all time favorite sci-fi short stories by Isaac Asimov - I found a comic version (credits to 'Ryul') while browsing online and I figured this blog would be a relevant place to share it.

tl;dr the story is a super trippy take on just the universe in general - it's about a super computer whose asked if there's any way to reverse entropy (basically, to stop the universe from ending).

I recommend clicking on the link and browsing the story in imgur, which is the site where I found the comic; you'll be able to scroll down as you read instead of having to constantly flip pages and scroll back to the top.

The Last Question - Isaac Asimov

Science vs. Science Fiction

What exactly is the difference between science and science fiction? In class, we discussed the idea of speculative fiction - that science fiction is really an amalgamation of various aspects of human knowledge (culture, history, technology, etc.).

Per some vacation reading, I stumbled upon an allusion to science fiction in Adam Rutherford's "The Origin of Life'' and " The Future of Life". The book itself is incredibly interesting - the two parts begin on opposite ends and arrive at the same conclusion in the middle of the book. It's a scientific exploration of just evolutionary biology, but reads super easily (5 star review, highly recommend to everyone). Anyhow, the excerpt that caught my attention was as follows:

"There is a branch of speculation that proposes the rather futuristically named 'Shadow Biosphere'. This is the idea that there is a second (or more) undetected tree of life on Earth, with hallmarks different from the ones on the only tree of life on Earth, with hallmarks different from the ones on the only tree of life we know of. But as it is, every life form so far examined is based on cells, DNA and Darwin. Discovery of a second tree of life here on Earth would give much-needed credence to the search for life on the other planets, as it would double the number the number of known successful origin of life events. It would show that we are not a fluke. However, science is based on observable evidence. Therefore the Shadow Biosphere, whilst sounding quite thrilling, is resolutely science fiction."

What intrigued me most was that Rutherford seemed to be blurring the lines between reality and the fictional or speculative aspect of science fiction - according to him, the existence of the Shadow Biosphere is hardly inconceivable, only hidden from us by the boundaries of our own observational abilities. In fact, all of "The Future of Life", an entire half of the book, speculates the future of biological evolution and corresponding scientific developments - the topics of bioengineering and genetic modification are eerily reminiscent of what we may have considered science fiction. In fact, upon further reflection, in Star Trek, a now considered old canon of sci-fi, weren't portable communication devices relying on radio transmission once considered science fiction? Hello cellphones.

There is almost something beautifully universal about knowledge - is it inconceivable that in the same way all organisms share the same basic genetic code, there is some central dogma that guides the collective human conscious? Our understanding of the world is limited by our powers of observation - there are certain natural phenomena that we cannot explain except by saying something along the lines of "that's just the way it is". Theoretical physics is all about exploring the underlying mechanics of our universe that humans, due to our physical limitations, cannot understand. For example - our sight is limited to three dimensions, but we've been able to visualize a four-dimensional cube (Easter egg - such a cube is called a TESSERACT, the same name given to the all powerful cube in the marvel universe, which contains both immeasurable power and the ability to warp the space-time continuum; argue all you want for Marvel and DC universes not being science fiction, they definitely incorporate strong elements of it).  Super tangential, I know.

The point that I'm trying to get at is that often, we distinguish science fiction from reality, when in fact, as Rutherford hints at, science fiction or speculative fiction or however you'd like to think of it is often an exploration of knowledge at the boundaries of human understanding.

"If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." - Isaac Newton; On Infinity

Grand Unified Theory refers to a 'theory of everything', an equation which can describe our entire universe. It sounds like a lot of fancy maths but it's surprisingly intuitive - anyone whose taken a physics course should be able to understand at the very least what it hints at; imagine a basic equation of displacement, which describes distance traveled as the rate or speed of motion multiplied by the length of time traveled. It's pretty straightforward way of relating three factors (rate, speed, and displacement). Off of that single equation, we can explore other laws of motion - the rate at which velocity changes is described as acceleration, the acceleration of an object can be related to the force that it carries and that force can be related to some amount of energy. Our world is governed by these equations, physical laws that form the 'rules' of our universe. Grand Unified Theory is simply a super big equation that encompasses everything, two sides of an '=' sign that explain everything from inertia, to subatomic forces, to electric and magnetic fields, to black holes and string theory. It's pretty cool when you think about it.

'Infinity' explores the same idea, at least on a thematic level. Throughout the entire novel, Abdul Karim studies the world around him through mathematics, but not through the math that we tend to think of. His world of mathematics is much more than just interactions between numbers, but a theoretical plane of natural laws and logic; his idea of infinity, a transcendental, omniscient concept that exists at all levels of reality - both physical and theoretical - is a medium through which he reconciles these two worlds.

"He learns that the distribution of energy level spacings of excited uranium nuclei seem to match the distribution of spacings between prime numbers."

Our world is rife with examples of these mysterious 'coincidences'; the fibonacci sequence is a more commonly understood one. In essence, 'Infinity' presents mathematics and mathematical logic as an emergent property of our physical world - in other words, everything can be explained through the equations and concepts that he explores (this is where Grand Unified Theory comes in). It's an interesting lens which almost has a reductive function - if everything can be explained through mathematical concepts, then what of the idea of humanity, or more precisely, of human nature? Our cultures, emotions, and ideas, can they all be explained by something as mundane as a physics equation? A squiggly side ways '8' figure? Deep stuff.

Anyhow, you'll notice that this blog post doesn't explore the story as a literary piece as much a science-y one - this is intentional, and I think it speaks to the 'science fiction' aspect of this class; 'Infinity' spoke to me much more as an exploration of theoretical physics and maths than it did a literary piece, which was awesome!

Snowpiercer: Good and Bad Asians

"Pictures & Photos of Steve Park." Pinterest. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

A quick google image search of 'asians snowpiercer' turns up various actions and portrait shots of Yona and her father. Throughout our class discussion, there was another Asian character that was never even mentioned. Probably because he didn't seem all that important - it's only after a good fifteen seconds of scrolling down the results page that our unacknowledged man appears - the Asian conductor, dressed in his dapper blue uniform, examining the passing landscape through a pair of binoculars.

Okay - why is this guy important? What does his character say about the role of Asians in the movie?

Initially, it seems like the answer is remarkably little. After all, the Asian conductor doesn't do much; he follows Mason around and carries our her orders (but not the fighting or action related ones, because those are reserved for the two big buff white dudes), and fades into the background when he's not needed (in the scene we studied in class, in which Mason delivers her speech to the train dwellers, her two large pit bull retainers face the audience directly, whereas our Asian friend stands sideways, behind several of his peers, against a shadowy wall of the train.

If we consider the train a system centered around the Divine Engine, with Wilfred and Curtis and Gilliam and all the other characters as elements within it, the conductor doesn't even seem to fit in. Is he against the tail dwellers? It doesn't seem so, at least not directly - he never fights them or confronts them, he just follows his orders. Is he just a fanatic, brainwashed, pawn? That doesn't seem quite right either - his character isn't as colorful as the pretty blonde teacher with the cute blouse who smiled creepily as she attacked Curtis' companions with a sub-machine gun. Our conductor seems to do very little, aside from his job. He dials phones, makes announcements, and, when the plot so demands, dies. His actions are more akin to those of a mindless automaton, some other intrinsic mechanical part of the train, than of a human being.

No wonder we ignored him! He's freaking boring.

But as an Asian character, he holds a huge stake (exactly 1/3). So what does it say about the movie that of the three Asian character's portrayed, two are incredibly important (thank you, gate-opening man and fortune-telling girl!) and the other does almost nothing? What are the similarities and differences between these three characters? Are they completely separate? Or do they each speak to something about different archetypes of Asians within the movie (and society? *Ooo*)?

Quite a lot to think about, I imagine, but I'm already way over the word limit. Oops.

P.S note the intentionally ambiguous, open-ended ending that engages with your own opinion of the film. To those who are desperately hunting for a post to respond to - you're welcome.