Going Back To The Well Again

[David Johnston]

By request, my list of authors and their recurrent ideas.

Isaac Asimov: Using mathematics to predict people and run society and
rule by technocrats and/or artificial intelligences.

Arthur C. Clarke: Guided apotheosis.

Richard Matheson: The only man of his kind in the world living in
isolation.

Robert A. Heinlein: Rejection of sexual taboos, incest especially. Use
of corporal punishment and exile instead of imprisonment as we know it.

John Norman: Slave chix. With the occasional bit of role reversal to
spice things up.

H.P. Lovecraft: Miscegenation is icky. So is inbreeding. Let's face
it, sex is icky.

Frank Herbert: Harsh environmental conditions producing supermen.

Larry Niven. Big dumb objects. Also planets where only a small part of
it is habitable.

Ray Bradbury. A future culture which renounces things of the past like
religion, "superstition" and respect for history.

Piers Anthony. Rule by an oligarchy of persons of superior abilities.
Exile or execution of people believed to be particularly inferior.

Clifford Simak. Earth largely abandoned by an extinct or departed
humanity. Religious robots.

Orson Scott Card. Keeping juveniles in ignorance of large parts of what
they are doing in the theory that this will foster creativity instead of
causing them to reinvent the wheel.

Marion Zimmer Bradley. Segregation of male and female. People with
mating seasons.

Phillip K. Dick. Confusion and conflation of hallucination and reality.

Joanna Russ. Women who have dispensed with men as unnecessary and
troublesome.

[a425couple]

Post by David Johnston
By request, my list of authors and their recurrent ideas.
Robert A. Heinlein:  Rejection of sexual taboos, incest especially. Use
of corporal punishment and exile instead of imprisonment as we know it.

I believe a very 'recurrent' idea of Heinlein is,
the necessity of being able to defend oneself, and stand
up for oneself.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by a425couple

Post by David Johnston
By request, my list of authors and their recurrent ideas.
Robert A. Heinlein:  Rejection of sexual taboos, incest especially.
Use of corporal punishment and exile instead of imprisonment as we
know it.

I believe a very 'recurrent' idea of Heinlein is,
the necessity of being able to defend oneself, and stand
up for oneself.

Perhaps another way of summing up Heinlein would be "Rejection of
conventional society in favor of individualism and alternative life styles."

[Johnny1A]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by a425couple

Post by David Johnston
By request, my list of authors and their recurrent ideas.
Robert A. Heinlein:  Rejection of sexual taboos, incest especially.
Use of corporal punishment and exile instead of imprisonment as we
know it.

I believe a very 'recurrent' idea of Heinlein is,
the necessity of being able to defend oneself, and stand
up for oneself.

Perhaps another way of summing up Heinlein would be "Rejection of
conventional society in favor of individualism and alternative life styles."
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

Except when he didn't. See _Coventry_.

You can find a RAH story extolling just about any viewpoint as if it was obvious, if you look.

[D B Davis]

<restoration>

Post by David Johnston
By request, my list of authors and their recurrent ideas.
Isaac Asimov: Using mathematics to predict people and run society and
rule by technocrats and/or artificial intelligences.
Robert A. Heinlein:\xc2\xa0 Rejection of sexual taboos, incest especially. Use
of corporal punishment and exile instead of imprisonment as we know it.

Your recent "Methuselah's Children" (RAH) motivated me to start a
re-read of the story, as serialized in the July 1941 - Sep 1941 issues
of _Astounding_ (naturally). It's been a long time, decades, since my
last read of it in _The Past Through Tomorrow_ (TPTT).
The 1941 serialization doesn't mention the "social mass-action rule"
that appears in TPTT. Instead it mentions "psychometrician" and "ten or
twelve dimensions of [psychodynamics] are not unusual. Psychology is not
an exact science."
My first thought at reading that passage for the first time, my
thalamic response, in the parlance of General Semantics, was that RAH
obviously ripped off Asimov. Right?
Wrong wrong wrong. If anything, it was the other way around. Asimov
and Campbell "borrowed" psychodynamics to concoct psychohistory.
According to Wikipeadia, Asimov first approached Campbell about
_Foundation_ on 1 August 1941. [1] Presumably Asimov and Campbell, who
was quite familiar with _Methuselah's Children_, invented sfnal
psychohistory on or after that date.
Getting back to my thalamic response, RAH was deeply influenced by
General Semantics. [2] Perhaps even more so than the perceived master,
van Vogt. Allow me to end this followup with a semi-serious question. Is there
anything from the Golden Age that RAH didn't do first?

Note.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_(Asimov_novel)
2. http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/history/GeneralSemanticsInfo.html

Thank you,

--
Don

[Butch Malahide]

[. . .]
Allow me to end this followup with a semi-serious question. Is there
anything from the Golden Age that RAH didn't do first?

The generation ship gone bad? Done first by Don Wilcox, "The Voyage that
Lasted 600 Years":

https://archive.org/stream/Amazing_Stories_v14n10_1940-10_cape1736#page/n83/mode/2up

RAH's "grokking" Martians may owe something to the Martian "grekka" in
P. Schuyler Miller's "The Cave":

https://archive.org/stream/Astounding_v30n05_1943-01_DPP#page/n81/mode/2up

[w***@gmail.com]

Post by Butch Malahide
RAH's "grokking" Martians may owe something to the Martian "grekka" in
https://archive.org/stream/Astounding_v30n05_1943-01_DPP#page/n81/mode/2up

What a great story! Thanks for introducing me to Miller's "The Cave"

wes

[David DeLaney]

Post by D B Davis
Allow me to end this followup with a semi-serious question. Is there
anything from the Golden Age that RAH didn't do first?

The Girl in the Golden Atom shrink-type stories? Could also include other
portal SF, like The Fourth-Dimension Tube et seq.

Dave

[Greg Goss]

Post by D B Davis
Allow me to end this followup with a semi-serious question. Is there
anything from the Golden Age that RAH didn't do first?

... Could also include other
portal SF, like The Fourth-Dimension Tube et seq.

By portal, do you mean parallel dimension stuff? I'm coming up
blank...

No wait, wasn't there a story with a professor and his elite students
trying some mystic thing that sent them cross-dimension?

And there's another one vaguely in my mind filed as either a Niven or
a Heinlein, where he's sitting on a riverbank "pressing the button"
and watching the bridge engineering to see if the tech level looks
familiar from each universe.

[Default User]

Post by D B Davis
Allow me to end this followup with a semi-serious question. Is

there >> anything from the Golden Age that RAH didn't do first?

... Could also include other
portal SF, like The Fourth-Dimension Tube et seq.

By portal, do you mean parallel dimension stuff? I'm coming up
blank...
No wait, wasn't there a story with a professor and his elite students
trying some mystic thing that sent them cross-dimension?

Possibly Sidewise in Time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewise_in_Time


Brian

[p***@hotmail.com]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by D B Davis
Allow me to end this followup with a semi-serious question. Is there
anything from the Golden Age that RAH didn't do first?

... Could also include other
portal SF, like The Fourth-Dimension Tube et seq.

By portal, do you mean parallel dimension stuff? I'm coming up
blank...
No wait, wasn't there a story with a professor and his elite students
trying some mystic thing that sent them cross-dimension?

This might be the Heinlein short story _Elsewhere_, which has been published
in the collection _Assignment in Eternity_.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Greg Goss]

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by Greg Goss

Post by D B Davis
Allow me to end this followup with a semi-serious question. Is there
anything from the Golden Age that RAH didn't do first?

... Could also include other
portal SF, like The Fourth-Dimension Tube et seq.

By portal, do you mean parallel dimension stuff? I'm coming up
blank...
No wait, wasn't there a story with a professor and his elite students
trying some mystic thing that sent them cross-dimension?

This might be the Heinlein short story _Elsewhere_, which has been published
in the collection _Assignment in Eternity_.

That sounds like it. Wikipedia has it as Elsewhen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsewhen

[D B Davis]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by Greg Goss

Post by D B Davis
Allow me to end this followup with a semi-serious question. Is there
anything from the Golden Age that RAH didn't do first?

... Could also include other
portal SF, like The Fourth-Dimension Tube et seq.

By portal, do you mean parallel dimension stuff? I'm coming up
blank...
No wait, wasn't there a story with a professor and his elite students
trying some mystic thing that sent them cross-dimension?

This might be the Heinlein short story _Elsewhere_, which has been published
in the collection _Assignment in Eternity_.

That sounds like it. Wikipedia has it as Elsewhen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsewhen

My earlier announced intention to try to plod through _Timescape_
(Benford) once more is a non-starter. The slog of my earlier half-way
read is still too fresh in mind. It might help if the Benford had a cat,
like _The Doorway Into Summer_ (RAH) or _Thrice Upon a Time_ (Hogan) or
a supercat like Fritz Leiber's Gummitch, with an IQ of 160.
"Elsewhere" (Saunders) appears in the Sep 1941 edition of
_Astounding_ along with the conclusive third installment of
"Methuselah's Children" (RAH). Campbell probably uses RAH's pen name
Caleb Saunders to avoid having two stories by the same author appear in
a single issue.
"Elsewhere"'s a great little story about time travel. It explores
Ouspensky's six dimensions. Nahin refers to it as "Elsewhen" under the
Multidimensional time section of _Time Machines_.
Nahin's exploration of the story is noteworthy, because Nahin
typically focuses only on time machines. "Elsewhere" uses the hypnotism
and suggestion to achieve time travel. Psychological time travel is also
used in stories such as "The Gostak and the Doshes" (Breuer),
_Time and Again_ (Finney), _Bid Time Return_ (Matheson), and its
Hollywood treatment _Somewhere In Time_.
The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
and Einstein.
In the story, Professor Arthur Frost's class in speculative
metaphysics meets for a Friday-evening seminar at the professor's home.
Student Robert Monroe says this about the question of multidimensional
time:

How can the question mean anything to human beings if we aren't
built to perceive more dimensions? It's like in mathematics -
you can invent any system of mathematics you like, on any set of
axioms, but a system isn't valid unless it can be used to describe
some sort of phenomena. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.

Thank you,

--
Don

[Carl Fink]

Post by D B Davis
The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
and Einstein.

In the sense of "chronologically before"? Wow, that's absurd. I have to
remember to fix that later.

[D B Davis]

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis
The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
and Einstein.

In the sense of "chronologically before"? Wow, that's absurd. I have to
remember to fix that later.

Here's an excerpt from the preface of "De Motu: Sive; De Motus Principio
Et Natura, Et De Causa Communicationis Motuum" (Berkeley 1721) [1]

All change of place in one body must be relative to other
bodies, among which the moving body is supposed to change
its place-our own bodies which we animate being of course
recognised among the number.

Note.

1. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39746/39746-h/39746-h.html#toc53

Thank you,

--
Don

[Carl Fink]

Post by D B Davis

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis
The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
and Einstein.

In the sense of "chronologically before"? Wow, that's absurd. I have to
remember to fix that later.

Here's an excerpt from the preface of "De Motu: Sive; De Motus Principio
Et Natura, Et De Causa Communicationis Motuum" (Berkeley 1721) [1]
All change of place in one body must be relative to other
bodies, among which the moving body is supposed to change
its place-our own bodies which we animate being of course
recognised among the number.

So he drew an analogy between his supernatural beliefs and the relativity of
Galileo (which was the actual predecessor of Mach's and Einstein's)? Doesn't
support your point.

[D B Davis]

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis
The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
and Einstein.

In the sense of "chronologically before"? Wow, that's absurd. I have to
remember to fix that later.

Here's an excerpt from the preface of "De Motu: Sive; De Motus Principio
Et Natura, Et De Causa Communicationis Motuum" (Berkeley 1721) [1]
All change of place in one body must be relative to other
bodies, among which the moving body is supposed to change
its place-our own bodies which we animate being of course
recognised among the number.

So he drew an analogy between his supernatural beliefs and the relativity of
Galileo (which was the actual predecessor of Mach's and Einstein's)? Doesn't
support your point.

My own ignorance of Latin is profound. So that left me in the
unenviable position of using an except from the English preface, words
which were probably not written by Berkeley.
Are you fluent enough in Latin to translate the Berkeley? If so,
"supernatural beliefs" is a fairly broad brush. Might you possibly
translate a tiny bit about the nature of Berkeley's supernatural
beliefs?
If you're like me and you have only a rudimentary understanding of
Latin, how did you translate Berkeley's Latin into English in order to
formulate an opinion on his essay? Although translate.bing.com is one of
Microsoft's better efforts, it lacks a Latin translator. Is there an
English translation of the Berkeley available?

Thank you,

--
Don

[Carl Fink]

Post by D B Davis

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis
The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
and Einstein.

In the sense of "chronologically before"? Wow, that's absurd. I have to
remember to fix that later.

Here's an excerpt from the preface of "De Motu: Sive; De Motus Principio
Et Natura, Et De Causa Communicationis Motuum" (Berkeley 1721) [1]
All change of place in one body must be relative to other
bodies, among which the moving body is supposed to change
its place-our own bodies which we animate being of course
recognised among the number.

So he drew an analogy between his supernatural beliefs and the relativity of
Galileo (which was the actual predecessor of Mach's and Einstein's)? Doesn't
support your point.

My own ignorance of Latin is profound. So that left me in the
unenviable position of using an except from the English preface, words
which were probably not written by Berkeley.
Are you fluent enough in Latin to translate the Berkeley? If so,
"supernatural beliefs" is a fairly broad brush. Might you possibly
translate a tiny bit about the nature of Berkeley's supernatural
beliefs?
If you're like me and you have only a rudimentary understanding of
Latin, how did you translate Berkeley's Latin into English in order to
formulate an opinion on his essay? Although translate.bing.com is one of
Microsoft's better efforts, it lacks a Latin translator. Is there an
English translation of the Berkeley available?

It doesn't matter. Galileo's relativity was both more relevant to science
and much earlier.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis
The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
and Einstein.

In the sense of "chronologically before"? Wow, that's absurd. I have to
remember to fix that later.

Here's an excerpt from the preface of "De Motu: Sive; De Motus Principio
Et Natura, Et De Causa Communicationis Motuum" (Berkeley 1721) [1]
All change of place in one body must be relative to other
bodies, among which the moving body is supposed to change
its place-our own bodies which we animate being of course
recognised among the number.

So he drew an analogy between his supernatural beliefs and the relativity of
Galileo (which was the actual predecessor of Mach's and Einstein's)? Doesn't
support your point.

My own ignorance of Latin is profound. So that left me in the
unenviable position of using an except from the English preface, words
which were probably not written by Berkeley.
Are you fluent enough in Latin to translate the Berkeley? If so,
"supernatural beliefs" is a fairly broad brush. Might you possibly
translate a tiny bit about the nature of Berkeley's supernatural
beliefs?
If you're like me and you have only a rudimentary understanding of
Latin, how did you translate Berkeley's Latin into English in order to
formulate an opinion on his essay? Although translate.bing.com is one of
Microsoft's better efforts, it lacks a Latin translator. Is there an
English translation of the Berkeley available?

It doesn't matter. Galileo's relativity was both more relevant to science
and much earlier.
--
Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!

Did Galileo let the sun move while the planets swing around it?
And let the distant stars move? I don't remember.

[Carl Fink]

Post by Robert Carnegie
Did Galileo let the sun move while the planets swing around it?
And let the distant stars move? I don't remember.

Galileo was famously the author of the "Dialogue on Two World Systems", if
that helps.

[D B Davis]

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis
The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
and Einstein.

In the sense of "chronologically before"? Wow, that's absurd. I have to
remember to fix that later.

Here's an excerpt from the preface of "De Motu: Sive; De Motus Principio
Et Natura, Et De Causa Communicationis Motuum" (Berkeley 1721) [1]
All change of place in one body must be relative to other
bodies, among which the moving body is supposed to change
its place-our own bodies which we animate being of course
recognised among the number.

So he drew an analogy between his supernatural beliefs and the relativity of
Galileo (which was the actual predecessor of Mach's and Einstein's)? Doesn't
support your point.

My own ignorance of Latin is profound. So that left me in the
unenviable position of using an except from the English preface, words
which were probably not written by Berkeley.
Are you fluent enough in Latin to translate the Berkeley? If so,
"supernatural beliefs" is a fairly broad brush. Might you possibly
translate a tiny bit about the nature of Berkeley's supernatural
beliefs?
If you're like me and you have only a rudimentary understanding of
Latin, how did you translate Berkeley's Latin into English in order to
formulate an opinion on his essay? Although translate.bing.com is one of
Microsoft's better efforts, it lacks a Latin translator. Is there an
English translation of the Berkeley available?

It doesn't matter. Galileo's relativity was both more relevant to science
and much earlier.

Whatever. My interest is Berkeley, not Galileo. This English translation
looks promising, to me.

The Works of George Berkeley Bishop of Cloyne
Edited by A A Luce and T E Jessop

Volume Four
De Motu with an English Translation
The Analyst
A Defence of Free-thinking in Mathematics
Reasons for not replying to Mr. Walton's Full Answer
Arithmetica and Miscellanea Mathematica
Of Infinites
Letters on Vesuvius, on Petrifactions, and on Earthquakes
Description of the Cave of Dunmore

https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Analyst/Analyst.html

Thank you,

--
Don

[D B Davis]

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis
The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
and Einstein.

In the sense of "chronologically before"? Wow, that's absurd. I have to
remember to fix that later.

Here's an excerpt from the preface of "De Motu: Sive; De Motus Principio
Et Natura, Et De Causa Communicationis Motuum" (Berkeley 1721) [1]
All change of place in one body must be relative to other
bodies, among which the moving body is supposed to change
its place-our own bodies which we animate being of course
recognised among the number.

So he drew an analogy between his supernatural beliefs and the relativity of
Galileo (which was the actual predecessor of Mach's and Einstein's)? Doesn't
support your point.

My own ignorance of Latin is profound. So that left me in the
unenviable position of using an except from the English preface, words
which were probably not written by Berkeley.
Are you fluent enough in Latin to translate the Berkeley? If so,
"supernatural beliefs" is a fairly broad brush. Might you possibly
translate a tiny bit about the nature of Berkeley's supernatural
beliefs?
If you're like me and you have only a rudimentary understanding of
Latin, how did you translate Berkeley's Latin into English in order to
formulate an opinion on his essay? Although translate.bing.com is one of
Microsoft's better efforts, it lacks a Latin translator. Is there an
English translation of the Berkeley available?

It doesn't matter. Galileo's relativity was both more relevant to science
and much earlier.

BEVERLY (OS)
... "Life is very long..." ... TS Eliot. Not the first person
to say it, certainly not the first person to think it. ...
But he's given credit for it because he bothered to write it
down. ... So if you say it, you have to say his name after it.
"Life is very long:" TS Eliot. [1]

Elsewhere in this thread you mention "Dialogue on Two World Systems"
(Galileo). Are you sure that you don't mean "Dialogue Concerning the
two Chief World Systems?" An English translation of /that/ essay is
available [2]. It says this about relativity:

For consider: Motion, in so far as It is and acts as motion, to
that extent exists relatively to things that lack it; and among
things which all share equally in any motion, it does not act,
and is as if it did not exist.

So, Galileo remains in the frame of mind that there's an absolute
space, a stationary, fixed, absolute reference system. Meanwhile
"De Motu" unequivocally states the essence of Einsteinian relativity:

we ought not to define the true place of the body as the part
of absolute space which the body occupies, and true or absolute
motion as the change of true or absolute place; for all place
is relative just as all motion is relative.

That's just for openers. The Berkeley goes on for a few more pages.
Anyone interested in the truth can do their own research. Although life
may be long according to TS Eliot, it's too short for me to get
"ratholed" (in the parlance of GAWollman) transcribing any more
"De Motu" into this thread.

Note.

1. https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-oj5ZlZEvqLa4-QGT/August-Osage-County_djvu.txt
2. https://archive.org/details/GalileiGalileoDialogueConcerningTheTwoChiefWorldSystemsEN155P.

Thank you,

--
Don

[D B Davis]

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis
The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
and Einstein.

In the sense of "chronologically before"? Wow, that's absurd. I have to
remember to fix that later.

Here's an excerpt from the preface of "De Motu: Sive; De Motus Principio
Et Natura, Et De Causa Communicationis Motuum" (Berkeley 1721) [1]
All change of place in one body must be relative to other
bodies, among which the moving body is supposed to change
its place-our own bodies which we animate being of course
recognised among the number.

So he drew an analogy between his supernatural beliefs and the relativity of
Galileo (which was the actual predecessor of Mach's and Einstein's)? Doesn't
support your point.

My own ignorance of Latin is profound. So that left me in the
unenviable position of using an except from the English preface, words
which were probably not written by Berkeley.
Are you fluent enough in Latin to translate the Berkeley? If so,
"supernatural beliefs" is a fairly broad brush. Might you possibly
translate a tiny bit about the nature of Berkeley's supernatural
beliefs?
If you're like me and you have only a rudimentary understanding of
Latin, how did you translate Berkeley's Latin into English in order to
formulate an opinion on his essay? Although translate.bing.com is one of
Microsoft's better efforts, it lacks a Latin translator. Is there an
English translation of the Berkeley available?

It doesn't matter. Galileo's relativity was both more relevant to science
and much earlier.

BEVERLY (OS)
... "Life is very long..." ... TS Eliot. Not the first person
to say it, certainly not the first person to think it. ...
But he's given credit for it because he bothered to write it
down. ... So if you say it, you have to say his name after it.
"Life is very long:" TS Eliot. [1]

Elsewhere in this thread you mention "Dialogue on Two World Systems"
(Galileo). Are you sure that you don't mean "Dialogue Concerning the
two Chief World Systems?" An English translation of /that/ essay is
available [2]. It says this about relativity:

For consider: Motion, in so far as It is and acts as motion, to
that extent exists relatively to things that lack it; and among
things which all share equally in any motion, it does not act,
and is as if it did not exist.

So, Galileo's remains mired in the frame of mind that there's an
absolute space, a stationary, fixed, absolute reference system.
Meanwhile "De Motu" unequivocally states the essence of Einsteinian
relativity:

we ought not to define the true place of the body as the part
of absolute space which the body occupies, and true or absolute
motion as the change of true or absolute place; for all place
is relative just as all motion is relative.

That's just for openers. The Berkeley goes on for a few more pages.
Anyone interested in the truth can do their own research. Although life
may be long according to TS Eliot, it's too short for me to get
"ratholed" (in the parlance of GAWollman) transcribing any more
"De Motu" into this thread.

Note.

1. https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-oj5ZlZEvqLa4-QGT/August-Osage-County_djvu.txt
2. https://archive.org/details/GalileiGalileoDialogueConcerningTheTwoChiefWorldSystemsEN155P.

Thank you,

--
Don

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis

Post by Carl Fink

Post by D B Davis
The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
and Einstein.

In the sense of "chronologically before"? Wow, that's absurd. I have to
remember to fix that later.

Here's an excerpt from the preface of "De Motu: Sive; De Motus Principio
Et Natura, Et De Causa Communicationis Motuum" (Berkeley 1721) [1]
All change of place in one body must be relative to other
bodies, among which the moving body is supposed to change
its place-our own bodies which we animate being of course
recognised among the number.

So he drew an analogy between his supernatural beliefs and the relativity of
Galileo (which was the actual predecessor of Mach's and Einstein's)? Doesn't
support your point.

Heck, Dante in 1300 or thereabouts said "All draw and are drawn,"
although he was talking about love, not gravity.

[Carl Fink]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Heck, Dante in 1300 or thereabouts said "All draw and are drawn,"
although he was talking about love, not gravity.

You could argue that Kepler talked about relativistic *gravity* in his
pioneering SF novel, *Sleep*. (Yes, his pioneering SF novel.)

[David DeLaney]

Post by D B Davis
In the story, Professor Arthur Frost's class in speculative
metaphysics meets for a Friday-evening seminar at the professor's home.
Student Robert Monroe says this about the question of multidimensional
How can the question mean anything to human beings if we aren't
built to perceive more dimensions? It's like in mathematics -
you can invent any system of mathematics you like, on any set of
axioms, but a system isn't valid unless it can be used to describe
some sort of phenomena. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.

... the scary thing, though, is just how MANY of those self-consistent
axiomatic systems, built in mid-air, turn out later to have some actual
physical use, or practical use/value. Physics is notorious for this; Einstein's
Special Rel. made use of a four-dimensional manifold with a hyberbolic metric,
a conformal geometry says W'pedia, while General Rel. went all the way to
differential equations and a curved space using Riemannian manifolds, for
example. Group theory is embedded deep in the heart of theoretical particle
physics, which also uses 'renormalization', a way to sift -actual infinite
numbers- out of solutions to get usable finite values.

I'm not even gonna START on string theory; that be many wack math, yo.
Meanwhile, biology has started using concepts from computer programming to
describe just what the heck DNA and RNA actually get up to... and let us not
forget Mendel's sweet-pea numbers, or Fourier transforms.

Dave, there are apparently more things in heaven and earth to describe than
can be simply listed and categorized

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 04:22:18 -0500, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney

Post by D B Davis
In the story, Professor Arthur Frost's class in speculative
metaphysics meets for a Friday-evening seminar at the professor's home.
Student Robert Monroe says this about the question of multidimensional
How can the question mean anything to human beings if we aren't
built to perceive more dimensions? It's like in mathematics -
you can invent any system of mathematics you like, on any set of
axioms, but a system isn't valid unless it can be used to describe
some sort of phenomena. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.

... the scary thing, though, is just how MANY of those self-consistent
axiomatic systems, built in mid-air, turn out later to have some actual
physical use, or practical use/value. Physics is notorious for this; Einstein's
Special Rel. made use of a four-dimensional manifold with a hyberbolic metric,
a conformal geometry says W'pedia, while General Rel. went all the way to
differential equations

"All the way to differential equations ?!?!?!?!" I'm sorry, but
junior-level classical mechanics and you're going to have differential
equations up the ying-yang. Differential equations are the bread and
butter of physics and engineering--you use them all over the place.

Post by David DeLaney
and a curved space using Riemannian manifolds, for
example

That's the one that was radical.

Post by David DeLaney
Group theory is embedded deep in the heart of theoretical particle
physics, which also uses 'renormalization', a way to sift -actual infinite
numbers- out of solutions to get usable finite values.
I'm not even gonna START on string theory; that be many wack math, yo.
Meanwhile, biology has started using concepts from computer programming to
describe just what the heck DNA and RNA actually get up to... and let us not
forget Mendel's sweet-pea numbers, or Fourier transforms.
Dave, there are apparently more things in heaven and earth to describe than
can be simply listed and categorized

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 04:22:18 -0500, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney

Post by D B Davis
In the story, Professor Arthur Frost's class in speculative
metaphysics meets for a Friday-evening seminar at the professor's home.
Student Robert Monroe says this about the question of multidimensional
How can the question mean anything to human beings if we aren't
built to perceive more dimensions? It's like in mathematics -
you can invent any system of mathematics you like, on any set of
axioms, but a system isn't valid unless it can be used to describe
some sort of phenomena. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.

... the scary thing, though, is just how MANY of those self-consistent
axiomatic systems, built in mid-air, turn out later to have some actual
physical use, or practical use/value. Physics is notorious for this; Einstein's
Special Rel. made use of a four-dimensional manifold with a hyberbolic metric,
a conformal geometry says W'pedia, while General Rel. went all the way to
differential equations

"All the way to differential equations ?!?!?!?!" I'm sorry, but
junior-level classical mechanics and you're going to have differential
equations up the ying-yang. Differential equations are the bread and
butter of physics and engineering--you use them all over the place.

Post by David DeLaney
and a curved space using Riemannian manifolds, for
example

That's the one that was radical.

Post by David DeLaney
Group theory is embedded deep in the heart of theoretical particle
physics, which also uses 'renormalization', a way to sift -actual infinite
numbers- out of solutions to get usable finite values.
I'm not even gonna START on string theory; that be many wack math, yo.
Meanwhile, biology has started using concepts from computer programming to
describe just what the heck DNA and RNA actually get up to... and let us not
forget Mendel's sweet-pea numbers, or Fourier transforms.
Dave, there are apparently more things in heaven and earth to describe than
can be simply listed and categorized

I never even took calculus, and I know that differential equations
are used in probability and statistics. I did take some stats in
college, and I was a humanities guy, not a STEM student. Stats
is useful for things like public opinion polling, which I also
studied. It might have been wiser to have taken calculus, as my high
school offered it, but nobody ever mentioned to me at the time that
it would be useful for a PoliSci major. In retrospect, I might have
made some coin if I had gone into survey research, instead of falling
into bookselling. I enjoyed selling books, but it didn't pay.

Kevin R

[David DeLaney]

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
"All the way to differential equations ?!?!?!?!" I'm sorry, but
junior-level classical mechanics and you're going to have differential
equations up the ying-yang. Differential equations are the bread and
butter of physics and engineering--you use them all over the place.

I never even took calculus, and I know that differential equations
are used in probability and statistics.

... note please that "equations that involve derivatives" are different from
"differential equations"; should I have labelled them as "partial differential
equations" to make this clear? (_Like_ derivatives, but for functions of more
than one variable. Einstein's were tensor equations as well.)

Derivatives are first semester of calculus. Partial differential equations are
mostly a math-major thing, though they're used in chemistry (for the thermo-
dynamics parts) without explaining them at ALL well, and do show up all over
higher-level physics, just not generally junior-in-college level.

Dave

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 01:07:39 -0500, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
"All the way to differential equations ?!?!?!?!" I'm sorry, but
junior-level classical mechanics and you're going to have differential
equations up the ying-yang. Differential equations are the bread and
butter of physics and engineering--you use them all over the place.

I never even took calculus, and I know that differential equations
are used in probability and statistics.

... note please that "equations that involve derivatives" are different from
"differential equations"; should I have labelled them as "partial differential
equations" to make this clear? (_Like_ derivatives, but for functions of more
than one variable. Einstein's were tensor equations as well.)
Derivatives are first semester of calculus. Partial differential equations are
mostly a math-major thing, though they're used in chemistry (for the thermo-
dynamics parts) without explaining them at ALL well, and do show up all over
higher-level physics, just not generally junior-in-college level.

You would do better if you didn't try to talk down to people who have
actually taken the courses in question.

Maybe today the curriculum is so watered down that "diff-ee-cue" (as
we pronounced the name of the course when we were taking it) is now
only offered at graduate level, but when I was in college in the '70s
you got differential equations (ordinary, partial, and if you were
lucky a bit of nonlinear) in any physics or engineering program. And
we were using them in the junior level theoretical mechanics and
electromagnetic theory courses, neither of which involved relativity.
Of course we got them in quantum mechanics as well.

Here's a solutions manual for the Theoretical Mechanics text we used
<https://archive.org/details/Theoretical-Mechanics--Bradbury-1968--Problem-Solutions>
(the text is not online anywhere).

Also note the page for the mechanics course required of all MIT
undergraduates
<https://learning-modules.mit.edu/class/index.html?uuid=/course/8/ia18/8.223#info>
and the text for the course (enough to get a flavor of it is available
in the "look inside"
link)<https://www.amazon.com/Mechanics-Third-Course-Theoretical-Physics/dp/0750628960>

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 01:07:39 -0500, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
"All the way to differential equations ?!?!?!?!" I'm sorry, but
junior-level classical mechanics and you're going to have differential
equations up the ying-yang. Differential equations are the bread and
butter of physics and engineering--you use them all over the place.

I never even took calculus, and I know that differential equations
are used in probability and statistics.

... note please that "equations that involve derivatives" are different from
"differential equations"; should I have labelled them as "partial differential
equations" to make this clear? (_Like_ derivatives, but for functions of more
than one variable. Einstein's were tensor equations as well.)
Derivatives are first semester of calculus. Partial differential equations are
mostly a math-major thing, though they're used in chemistry (for the thermo-
dynamics parts) without explaining them at ALL well, and do show up all over
higher-level physics, just not generally junior-in-college level.

and, apparently, in public opinion research:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248931038_A_differential_equation_model_for_predicting_public_opinions_and_behaviors_from_persuasive_information_Application_to_the_index_of_Consumer_Sentiment

Post by J. Clarke
You would do better if you didn't try to talk down to people who have
actually taken the courses in question.

And I specifically mentioned I _HADN'T_ taken calculus, so
if I had an incorrect impression of any of it, I wouldn't
be offended by a knowledgeable correction.

If I had aimed at an econ degree, taking calculus would have been
useful, though, when I matriculated as an undergrad in the mid-70s,
I don't think that was yet required. Calc I, at least, is commonly
required now, and if one is going on to grad school, taking more
would be expected: multivariate analysis?

Economic thinkers from the "political economy" tradition sometimes
make cracks about "physics envy."

Kevin R

[David DeLaney]

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 01:07:39 -0500, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney
... note please that "equations that involve derivatives" are different from
"differential equations"; should I have labelled them as "partial differential
equations" to make this clear? (_Like_ derivatives, but for functions of more
than one variable. Einstein's were tensor equations as well.)
Derivatives are first semester of calculus. Partial differential equations are
mostly a math-major thing, though they're used in chemistry (for the thermo-
dynamics parts) without explaining them at ALL well, and do show up all over
higher-level physics, just not generally junior-in-college level.

You would do better if you didn't try to talk down to people who have
actually taken the courses in question.

a) I'm sorry that you feel Kevrob is incapable of sticking up for himself, and
ii) You would do better if you didn't try to condescend (three syllables, I
typed it slow for you) to people who have -degrees- in math and physics.
3) Define, if you would, how much better I might do, and on what scale?

Post by J. Clarke
Maybe today the curriculum is so watered down that "diff-ee-cue" (as
we pronounced the name of the course when we were taking it) is now
only offered at graduate level, but when I was in college in the '70s
you got differential equations (ordinary, partial, and if you were
lucky a bit of nonlinear) in any physics or engineering program. And
we were using them in the junior level theoretical mechanics and
electromagnetic theory courses, neither of which involved relativity.
Of course we got them in quantum mechanics as well.

Hm. Though at that level, you wouldn't have had the theory behind them, just
"here's some tricks to try solving them with" and/or "here's some provided
solutions, you can test them to make sure they solve the equation". But okay,
they'd start showing up junior year or so. Maxwell's equations in particular
are diff-e-qs, aand they're all over thermodynamics ... and if your curriculum
was one that got to vector calculus, they're there too, but many college
students stop after 'integrals'.

Post by J. Clarke
Here's a solutions manual for the Theoretical Mechanics text we used

Dude. This is Usenet. You know better than to phrase things like that!!1!

Dave, to the right kind of thinking, they're actually extremely interesting

[J. Clarke]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 20:33:57 -0500, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 01:07:39 -0500, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney
... note please that "equations that involve derivatives" are different from
"differential equations"; should I have labelled them as "partial differential
equations" to make this clear? (_Like_ derivatives, but for functions of more
than one variable. Einstein's were tensor equations as well.)
Derivatives are first semester of calculus. Partial differential equations are
mostly a math-major thing, though they're used in chemistry (for the thermo-
dynamics parts) without explaining them at ALL well, and do show up all over
higher-level physics, just not generally junior-in-college level.

You would do better if you didn't try to talk down to people who have
actually taken the courses in question.

a) I'm sorry that you feel Kevrob is incapable of sticking up for himself, and
ii) You would do better if you didn't try to condescend (three syllables, I
typed it slow for you) to people who have -degrees- in math and physics.
3) Define, if you would, how much better I might do, and on what scale?

When you sober up reread that and tell me what, if any point you were
trying to make.

As to how you might do better, not making statements that parade your
ignorance would be a start.

Post by David DeLaney

Post by J. Clarke
Maybe today the curriculum is so watered down that "diff-ee-cue" (as
we pronounced the name of the course when we were taking it) is now
only offered at graduate level, but when I was in college in the '70s
you got differential equations (ordinary, partial, and if you were
lucky a bit of nonlinear) in any physics or engineering program. And
we were using them in the junior level theoretical mechanics and
electromagnetic theory courses, neither of which involved relativity.
Of course we got them in quantum mechanics as well.

Hm. Though at that level, you wouldn't have had the theory behind them, just
"here's some tricks to try solving them with" and/or "here's some provided
solutions, you can test them to make sure they solve the equation". But okay,
they'd start showing up junior year or so. Maxwell's equations in particular
are diff-e-qs, aand they're all over thermodynamics ... and if your curriculum
was one that got to vector calculus, they're there too, but many college
students stop after 'integrals'.

They're all over everything in physics and quite a lot of engineering.

Post by David DeLaney

Post by J. Clarke
Here's a solutions manual for the Theoretical Mechanics text we used

Dude. This is Usenet. You know better than to phrase things like that!!1!

Dude, this is Usenet, you know better than to try to cover the egg on
your face with bluster.

And I note that you completely ignored the MIT link, which told what
text _they_ use, and the link to said text.

Post by David DeLaney
Dave, to the right kind of thinking, they're actually extremely interesting

[D B Davis]

Kevrob <***@my-deja.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Kevrob
I never even took calculus, and I know that differential equations
are used in probability and statistics. I did take some stats in
college, and I was a humanities guy, not a STEM student. Stats
is useful for things like public opinion polling, which I also
studied. It might have been wiser to have taken calculus, as my high
school offered it, but nobody ever mentioned to me at the time that
it would be useful for a PoliSci major. In retrospect, I might have
made some coin if I had gone into survey research, instead of falling
into bookselling. I enjoyed selling books, but it didn't pay.

_Quick Calculus, A Self-Teaching Guide _ (Kleppner and Ramsey) walks
you through everything you need to know in 262 pages. Don't let The
Calculus baffle-gab you. You're bright enough to master the Kleppner in
a few weeks, if you put your mind to it.
That was my ploy back in college. "Autodidact" (so to speak) the
nearest text then test out of The Calculus and move on to more
interesting things.
More interesting things, such as "De Motu" (Berkeley) [1]. The only
rub is that Berkeley wrote it in Latin. There's a high priced Jesseph
translation (the "element 79" standard of translations) and a far
cheaper Ayers translation available. The Ayers is now on its way to me,
naturally.
At first blush it seemed like Dartmouth's math department hosted a
"De Motu" translation [2], but that proves to be a false lead. Even
though it's a false lead, it /does/ offer up a measure of entertainment,
at least to me. YMMV.

6 And yet in the calculus differentialis, which method serves
to all the same intents and ends with that of fluxions, our
modern analysts are not content to consider only the differences
of finite quantities: they also consider the differences of those
differences, and the differences of the differences of the first
differences. And so on ad infinitum. That is, they consider
quantities infinitely less than the least discernible quantity;
and others infinitely less than those infinitely small ones; and
still others infinitely less than the preceding infinitesimals,
and so on without end or limit. Insomuch that we are to admit an
infinite succession of infinitesimals, each infinitely less than
the foregoing, and infinitely greater than the following. As
there are first, second, third, fourth, fifth, &c. fluxions, so
there are differences, first, second, third, fourth, &c., in an
infinite progression towards nothing, which you still approach
and never arrive at. And (which is most strange) although you
should take a million of millions of these infinitesimals, each
whereof is supposed infinitely greater than some other real
magnitude, and add them to the least given quantity, it shall
never be the bigger. For this is one of the modest postulata of
our modern mathematicians, and is a corner-stone or ground-work
of their speculations.

7 All these points, I say, are supposed and believed by certain
rigorous exactors of evidence in religion, men who pretend to
believe no further than they can see. That men who have been
conversant only about clear points should with difficulty admit
obscure ones might not seem altogether unaccountable. But he who
can digest a second or third fluxion, a second or third
difference, need not, methinks, be squeamish about any point in
divinity. ...

ROTFLMAO.

Note.

1. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39746/39746-h/39746-h.html#toc53
2. https://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers/HowManyAngels/Analyst/Analyst.html

--
Don

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by D B Davis
_Quick Calculus, A Self-Teaching Guide _ (Kleppner and Ramsey) walks
you through everything you need to know in 262 pages. Don't let The
Calculus baffle-gab you. You're bright enough to master the Kleppner in
a few weeks, if you put your mind to it.

I once had a copy of something called, approximately, Dr. E.
McSquared Cartoon Guide to the Calculus. It was awfully cute.
It began with set theory, which I took to like duck to water.
But then the *second* chapter was on number lines, which I never
could master. That's as far as I got.

[Kevrob]

Post by D B Davis
<snip>

Post by Kevrob
I never even took calculus, and I know that differential equations
are used in probability and statistics. I did take some stats in
college, and I was a humanities guy, not a STEM student. Stats
is useful for things like public opinion polling, which I also
studied. It might have been wiser to have taken calculus, as my high
school offered it, but nobody ever mentioned to me at the time that
it would be useful for a PoliSci major. In retrospect, I might have
made some coin if I had gone into survey research, instead of falling
into bookselling. I enjoyed selling books, but it didn't pay.

_Quick Calculus, A Self-Teaching Guide _ (Kleppner and Ramsey) walks
you through everything you need to know in 262 pages. Don't let The
Calculus baffle-gab you. You're bright enough to master the Kleppner in
a few weeks, if you put your mind to it.
That was my ploy back in college. "Autodidact" (so to speak) the
nearest text then test out of The Calculus and move on to more
interesting things.

I scored 650 out of 800 on my SAT math section, 45 years ago, and
got As in my 4 years of high school math. I just didn't want to work
as hard in my senior year as some of my classmates. I took advanced
Bio instead of Physics in Junior Year, and "Physics for Poets" in college
to make up the lack of the H.S. course

I was in a group of ~ 30 students who were 1-year ahead in science,
having "tested out" of the Freshman year science survey course.
I could have done Bio/Chem/Physics and the either Advanced Bio or
an AP Chem or Physics independent study. That's what our valedictorian
did, along w/AP Calc. I couldn't get any teacher to sign on to what
I wanted to do: AP History or Politics. I understand that is common
today, but we weren't set up for just any AP courses. As we were
the last graduating class, anything new would have been a one-off.

Our #1 GPA guy went to Johns Hopkins, planning on becoming a doctor.
I thought I wanted to be a lawyer, and to get into politics later.
I could do Math and Science. I scored 780 out of 800 on the College
Board Chemistry achievement test. History, politics and philosophy
were just more compelling for me.

I basically spent my senior year of high school on autopilot,
taking social science electives and concentrating on extracurricular
activities: had parts in the school musical, and a non-musical
comedy, went to speech and debate tourneys, was an officer of our
Key Club (Kiwanis affiliate group) and even went to the prom.
One math course was enough: advanced algebra. Two would have
made me break a sweat.

Kevin R

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by J. Clarke
"All the way to differential equations ?!?!?!?!" I'm sorry, but
junior-level classical mechanics and you're going to have differential
equations up the ying-yang.

Does that require medical attention?

[Carl Fink]

Post by David DeLaney
... the scary thing, though, is just how MANY of those self-consistent
axiomatic systems, built in mid-air, turn out later to have some actual
physical use, or practical use/value ...
... I'm not even gonna START on string theory; that be many wack math, yo.

Good, because string theory has yet to have physical or practical uses or
value. it is mathematically beautiful and does not seem to have any
actual utility (unless you want academic tenure).

[D B Davis]

Post by David DeLaney

Post by D B Davis
In the story, Professor Arthur Frost's class in speculative
metaphysics meets for a Friday-evening seminar at the professor's home.
Student Robert Monroe says this about the question of multidimensional
How can the question mean anything to human beings if we aren't
built to perceive more dimensions? It's like in mathematics -
you can invent any system of mathematics you like, on any set of
axioms, but a system isn't valid unless it can be used to describe
some sort of phenomena. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.

... the scary thing, though, is just how MANY of those self-consistent
axiomatic systems, built in mid-air, turn out later to have some actual
physical use, or practical use/value. Physics is notorious for this; Einstein's
Special Rel. made use of a four-dimensional manifold with a hyberbolic metric,
a conformal geometry says W'pedia, while General Rel. went all the way to
differential equations and a curved space using Riemannian manifolds, for
example. Group theory is embedded deep in the heart of theoretical particle
physics, which also uses 'renormalization', a way to sift -actual infinite
numbers- out of solutions to get usable finite values.
I'm not even gonna START on string theory; that be many wack math, yo.
Meanwhile, biology has started using concepts from computer programming to
describe just what the heck DNA and RNA actually get up to... and let us not
forget Mendel's sweet-pea numbers, or Fourier transforms.
Dave, there are apparently more things in heaven and earth to describe than
can be simply listed and categorized

Euler's three dimensional wave equation may not count as an event where
the axioms came before the application. But imaginary numbers certainly
do, even if it took millennia for the application to appear. ;0)

Thank you,

--
Don

[J. Clarke]

Post by D B Davis

Post by Greg Goss

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by Greg Goss

Post by D B Davis
Allow me to end this followup with a semi-serious question. Is there
anything from the Golden Age that RAH didn't do first?

... Could also include other
portal SF, like The Fourth-Dimension Tube et seq.

By portal, do you mean parallel dimension stuff? I'm coming up
blank...
No wait, wasn't there a story with a professor and his elite students
trying some mystic thing that sent them cross-dimension?

This might be the Heinlein short story _Elsewhere_, which has been published
in the collection _Assignment in Eternity_.

That sounds like it. Wikipedia has it as Elsewhen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsewhen

My earlier announced intention to try to plod through _Timescape_
(Benford) once more is a non-starter. The slog of my earlier half-way
read is still too fresh in mind. It might help if the Benford had a cat,
like _The Doorway Into Summer_ (RAH) or _Thrice Upon a Time_ (Hogan) or
a supercat like Fritz Leiber's Gummitch, with an IQ of 160.
"Elsewhere" (Saunders) appears in the Sep 1941 edition of
_Astounding_ along with the conclusive third installment of
"Methuselah's Children" (RAH). Campbell probably uses RAH's pen name
Caleb Saunders to avoid having two stories by the same author appear in
a single issue.
"Elsewhere"'s a great little story about time travel. It explores
Ouspensky's six dimensions. Nahin refers to it as "Elsewhen" under the
Multidimensional time section of _Time Machines_.
Nahin's exploration of the story is noteworthy, because Nahin
typically focuses only on time machines. "Elsewhere" uses the hypnotism
and suggestion to achieve time travel. Psychological time travel is also
used in stories such as "The Gostak and the Doshes" (Breuer),
_Time and Again_ (Finney), _Bid Time Return_ (Matheson), and its
Hollywood treatment _Somewhere In Time_.
The story introduces me to George Berkeley, the California city's
namesake. Wikipedia says that Berkeley's views were a precursor to Mach
and Einstein.
In the story, Professor Arthur Frost's class in speculative
metaphysics meets for a Friday-evening seminar at the professor's home.
Student Robert Monroe says this about the question of multidimensional
How can the question mean anything to human beings if we aren't
built to perceive more dimensions? It's like in mathematics -
you can invent any system of mathematics you like, on any set of
axioms, but a system isn't valid unless it can be used to describe
some sort of phenomena. Otherwise it's just so much hot air.

A mathematician would disagree with that statement. Mathematics is
valid if it is done by the rules of mathematics. It may not be
_useful_ but it is _valid_.

It seems to annoy mathematicians that every time they come up with a
beautiful totally useless system, those pesky physicists go and find a
use for it.

[Greg Goss]

Post by Greg Goss
By portal, do you mean parallel dimension stuff? I'm coming up
blank...
And there's another one vaguely in my mind filed as either a Niven or
a Heinlein, where he's sitting on a riverbank "pressing the button"
and watching the bridge engineering to see if the tech level looks
familiar from each universe.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Post by Greg Goss

Post by D B Davis
Allow me to end this followup with a semi-serious question. Is there
anything from the Golden Age that RAH didn't do first?

... Could also include other
portal SF, like The Fourth-Dimension Tube et seq.

By portal, do you mean parallel dimension stuff? I'm coming up
blank...
No wait, wasn't there a story with a professor and his elite students
trying some mystic thing that sent them cross-dimension?

Elsewhen, I think it was called.

[Titus G]

Post by David Johnston
By request, my list of authors and their recurrent ideas.

Thank you. Interesting.
snip

Post by David Johnston
Phillip K. Dick.  Confusion and conflation of hallucination and reality.

Did you type that whilst not wearing a colander?
Shouldn't it read: Rational and logical interpretation of human
communication and interaction?

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by David Johnston
By request, my list of authors and their recurrent ideas.
Isaac Asimov: Using mathematics to predict people and run society and
rule by technocrats and/or artificial intelligences.
Arthur C. Clarke: Guided apotheosis.
Richard Matheson: The only man of his kind in the world living in
isolation.
Robert A. Heinlein: Rejection of sexual taboos, incest especially. Use
of corporal punishment and exile instead of imprisonment as we know it.
John Norman: Slave chix. With the occasional bit of role reversal to
spice things up.
H.P. Lovecraft: Miscegenation is icky. So is inbreeding. Let's face
it, sex is icky.
Frank Herbert: Harsh environmental conditions producing supermen.
Larry Niven. Big dumb objects. Also planets where only a small part of
it is habitable.
Ray Bradbury. A future culture which renounces things of the past like
religion, "superstition" and respect for history.
Piers Anthony. Rule by an oligarchy of persons of superior abilities.
Exile or execution of people believed to be particularly inferior.
Clifford Simak. Earth largely abandoned by an extinct or departed
humanity. Religious robots.
Orson Scott Card. Keeping juveniles in ignorance of large parts of what
they are doing in the theory that this will foster creativity instead of
causing them to reinvent the wheel.
Marion Zimmer Bradley. Segregation of male and female. People with
mating seasons.
Phillip K. Dick. Confusion and conflation of hallucination and reality.
Joanna Russ. Women who have dispensed with men as unnecessary and
troublesome.

Thanks!

Hmm..

Probably wouldn't be hard to do Chalker, Vance & Howard..

[Johnny1A]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Hmm..
Probably wouldn't be hard to do Chalker, Vance & Howard..
--

Chalker, anyway, is more complicated than he looks.

At first glance, his 'thing' appears to be transformations, physical and mental. He himself freely admitted that, I remember reading an essay he wrote in which he said, paraphrasing, "Yes, I'm fascinated by transformation, and here's why you should be too.' Then he gave a good explanation for this premise.

But Chalker also liked to take a familiar storylne or concept of SF and use it to address some question apparently unrelated to it.

For example, his "Ring of the Master" series is a Chalker-esque, transformation-heavy story based on the old 'Collossus story', the AI supercomputer in control of the nuclear arsenal that takes over the world 'in our own interest'. The AI really means this, it really is acting in what it conceives to be the best interest of human survival, but it does this by rather draconian means.

But one of the themes Chalker explores in the story, set centuries later, is 'How ruthless are you prepared to be to do a good, necessary thing?'

The protagonists are trying to do something good, to prevent a nasty, nasty development, but in order to do so, they end up inflicting, and enduring: brainwashing, murder, torture, rape, psychic trauma, slaughter of innocents, etc.

The 'good guys' really do _try_ to use humane means where they can, but they'll get nasty if they need to, and Chalker doesn't let them off easy. They can use such means and still be 'the good guys' because the stakes are so very high, but Chalker doesn't pretend they aren't doing what they're doing.

[David Johnston]

Post by Johnny1A

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Hmm..
Probably wouldn't be hard to do Chalker, Vance & Howard..
--

Chalker, anyway, is more complicated than he looks.
At first glance, his 'thing' appears to be transformations, physical and mental. He himself freely admitted that, I remember reading an essay he wrote in which he said, paraphrasing, "Yes, I'm fascinated by transformation, and here's why you should be too.' Then he gave a good explanation for this premise.

Also at second glance. And third.

[Johnny1A]

Post by David Johnston
By request, my list of authors and their recurrent ideas.
Isaac Asimov: Using mathematics to predict people and run society and
rule by technocrats and/or artificial intelligences.

Maybe more precisely the replacement of current-day politics by 'rational' governance. The idea is not so much that 'smart people should rule' as that 'we can rule by Reason rather than the way we're doing it, in our mutual interest...if we can just figure out how'.

Post by David Johnston
Arthur C. Clarke: Guided apotheosis.

Played for horror in _Childhood's End_, and for...well, mileage varies on how it plays...in _2001: A Space Odyssey". 2001 and CE use many of the same tropes and themes, spun somewhat differently and told from differing perspectives, but the underlying themes definitely overlap.

Post by David Johnston
Robert A. Heinlein: Rejection of sexual taboos, incest especially. Use
of corporal punishment and exile instead of imprisonment as we know it.

'Early RAH' and 'late RAH' are almost two different writers. Late RAH is along the lines you describe, early RAH seems more interested in looking at the meaning of, and application of, duty and obligation, and what 'makes a man', when it's appropriate to do your own thing, and when you must not.

Early RAH gave us _The Long Watch_, and _Requiem_, both of which play those themes in very different ways.

Post by David Johnston
H.P. Lovecraft: Miscegenation is icky. So is inbreeding. Let's face
it, sex is icky.

Also, the Universe is big, alien, dangerous, and ultimately beyond your comprehension or ability to cope. You should be afraid, and cautious, not eager to plunge into danger beyond your imagination. As a human, you're not a lion or a whale, you're a mouse or a rabbit or the like, and you'll live longer and better if you remember that you ain't at the top of the food chain.

Post by David Johnston
Frank Herbert: Harsh environmental conditions producing supermen.

Herbert is _way_ more complicated than that. He's interested in why human beings do the stuff we do, both the pretexts we give others and ourselves, and the real reasons. He's fascinated by the lies we tell ourselves, the way we limit our own perceptions.

He's also interested in the dangers of our inner tropes and archetypes, as he himself said, if there's a central message to the first 3 books of the _Dune_ series, it was "Beware of heroes."

[David Johnston]

Post by Johnny1A

Post by David Johnston
By request, my list of authors and their recurrent ideas.
Isaac Asimov: Using mathematics to predict people and run society and
rule by technocrats and/or artificial intelligences.

Maybe more precisely the replacement of current-day politics by 'rational' governance. The idea is not so much that 'smart people should rule' as that 'we can rule by Reason rather than the way we're doing it, in our mutual interest...if we can just figure out how'.

Post by David Johnston
Arthur C. Clarke: Guided apotheosis.

Played for horror in _Childhood's End_, and for...well, mileage varies on how it plays...in _2001: A Space Odyssey". 2001 and CE use many of the same tropes and themes, spun somewhat differently and told from differing perspectives, but the underlying themes definitely overlap.

I'm not sure Clarke thought Childhood's End had a horrible end, even
though many readers do.

Post by Johnny1A

Post by David Johnston
Robert A. Heinlein: Rejection of sexual taboos, incest especially. Use
of corporal punishment and exile instead of imprisonment as we know it.

'Early RAH' and 'late RAH' are almost two different writers. Late RAH is along the lines you describe, early RAH seems more interested in looking at the meaning of, and application of, duty and obligation, and what 'makes a man', when it's appropriate to do your own thing, and when you must not.
Early RAH gave us _The Long Watch_, and _Requiem_, both of which play those themes in very different ways.

Post by David Johnston
H.P. Lovecraft: Miscegenation is icky. So is inbreeding. Let's face
it, sex is icky.

Also, the Universe is big, alien, dangerous, and ultimately beyond your comprehension or ability to cope. You should be afraid, and cautious, not eager to plunge into danger beyond your imagination. As a human, you're not a lion or a whale, you're a mouse or a rabbit or the like, and you'll live longer and better if you remember that you ain't at the top of the food chain.

Post by David Johnston
Frank Herbert: Harsh environmental conditions producing supermen.

Herbert is _way_ more complicated than that. He's interested in why human beings do the stuff we do, both the pretexts we give others and ourselves, and the real reasons. He's fascinated by the lies we tell ourselves, the way we limit our own perceptions.
He's also interested in the dangers of our inner tropes and archetypes, as he himself said, if there's a central message to the first 3 books of the _Dune_ series, it was "Beware of heroes."

I'm not encapsulating an author's entire oeuvre. I'm just looking for
plot elements they used more than once. In fact the original point of
the list was that I wanted to created a science fiction roleplaying game
setting in which each planet had a gimmick inspired by a certain science
fiction author

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <p9ckk8$kb4$***@gioia.aioe.org>, ***@yahoo.com
says...

Post by David Johnston

Post by Johnny1A

Post by David Johnston
By request, my list of authors and their recurrent ideas.
Frank Herbert: Harsh environmental conditions producing supermen.

Herbert is _way_ more complicated than that. He's interested in why human beings do the stuff we do, both the pretexts we give others and ourselves, and the real reasons. He's fascinated by the lies we tell ourselves, the way we limit our own perceptions.
He's also interested in the dangers of our inner tropes and archetypes, as he himself said, if there's a central message to the first 3 books of the _Dune_ series, it was "Beware of heroes."

I'm not encapsulating an author's entire oeuvre. I'm just looking for
plot elements they used more than once. In fact the original point of
the list was that I wanted to created a science fiction roleplaying game
setting in which each planet had a gimmick inspired by a certain science
fiction author

I'd suggest shared consciousness, genetic memory, hive minds, or other
variations on the theme of collective unconscious. Those show up more
often than the one you listed.

[David Johnston]

Post by Juho Julkunen
says...

Post by David Johnston

Post by Johnny1A

Post by David Johnston
By request, my list of authors and their recurrent ideas.
Frank Herbert: Harsh environmental conditions producing supermen.

Herbert is _way_ more complicated than that. He's interested in why human beings do the stuff we do, both the pretexts we give others and ourselves, and the real reasons. He's fascinated by the lies we tell ourselves, the way we limit our own perceptions.
He's also interested in the dangers of our inner tropes and archetypes, as he himself said, if there's a central message to the first 3 books of the _Dune_ series, it was "Beware of heroes."

I'm not encapsulating an author's entire oeuvre. I'm just looking for
plot elements they used more than once. In fact the original point of
the list was that I wanted to created a science fiction roleplaying game
setting in which each planet had a gimmick inspired by a certain science
fiction author

I'd suggest shared consciousness, genetic memory, hive minds, or other
variations on the theme of collective unconscious. Those show up more
often than the one you listed.

Ah, good one thank you.

[David DeLaney]

Post by David Johnston
I'm not encapsulating an author's entire oeuvre. I'm just looking for
plot elements they used more than once. In fact the original point of
the list was that I wanted to created a science fiction roleplaying game
setting in which each planet had a gimmick inspired by a certain science
fiction author

Gene Roddenberry. Entire planets each inhabited by people with a single
strange society, containing beautiful women Kirk can fall in love with, and
which society has a flaw that the team can fix in under 30 minutes using the
Power Of Overacting.

:P

Dave, search your heart, you know it to be true

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 03:44:33 -0500, David DeLaney

Post by David DeLaney

Post by David Johnston
I'm not encapsulating an author's entire oeuvre. I'm just looking for
plot elements they used more than once. In fact the original point of
the list was that I wanted to created a science fiction roleplaying game
setting in which each planet had a gimmick inspired by a certain science
fiction author

Gene Roddenberry. Entire planets each inhabited by people with a single
strange society, containing beautiful women Kirk can fall in love with, and
which society has a flaw that the team can fix in under 30 minutes using the
Power Of Overacting.
:P
Dave, search your heart, you know it to be true

You would need a lot of planets.

Cue the power of overplaneting?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Johnny1A]

Post by David DeLaney

Post by David Johnston
I'm not encapsulating an author's entire oeuvre. I'm just looking for
plot elements they used more than once. In fact the original point of
the list was that I wanted to created a science fiction roleplaying game
setting in which each planet had a gimmick inspired by a certain science
fiction author

Gene Roddenberry. Entire planets each inhabited by people with a single
strange society, containing beautiful women Kirk can fall in love with, and
which society has a flaw that the team can fix in under 30 minutes using the
Power Of Overacting.
:P
Dave, search your heart, you know it to be true

That's less Roddenberry than TV.

[Quadibloc]

I tend to associate "Let's face it, sex is icky" with George Lucas. H. P.
Lovecraft certainly dealt with a lot of icky stuff in his works, but sex
hardly even makes an appearance.

[David Johnston]

Post by Quadibloc
I tend to associate "Let's face it, sex is icky" with George Lucas. H. P.
Lovecraft certainly dealt with a lot of icky stuff in his works, but sex
hardly even makes an appearance.

Perhaps I should have said "reproduction is icky".

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by David Johnston

Post by Quadibloc
I tend to associate "Let's face it, sex is icky" with George Lucas. H. P.
Lovecraft certainly dealt with a lot of icky stuff in his works, but sex
hardly even makes an appearance.

Perhaps I should have said "reproduction is icky".

Well, it can lead to your having offspring who come back to kill
you.

Hildebrand, e.g.

[William Hyde]

Post by David Johnston
By request, my list of authors and their recurrent ideas.
Isaac Asimov: Using mathematics to predict people and run society and
rule by technocrats and/or artificial intelligences.
Arthur C. Clarke: Guided apotheosis.

More important for me are his distant, elegiac, futures as in "The City and the Stars", "The Road to the Sea" and so on. Written mostly in the first half of his career.

Post by David Johnston
H.P. Lovecraft: Miscegenation is icky. So is inbreeding. Let's face
it, sex is icky.

"As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport. "

is a far, far more important theme in Lovecraft. Only worse, these gods may kill us without even thinking about it.

William Hyde

[David DeLaney]

Post by David Johnston
Piers Anthony. Rule by an oligarchy of persons of superior abilities.
Exile or execution of people believed to be particularly inferior.

And, alas, gradually creepier examination of adolescent and pre-adolescent
sexuality.

Post by David Johnston
Marion Zimmer Bradley. Segregation of male and female. People with
mating seasons.

Interaction with alien races. Including at times different separated portions
of humanity.

Jack Chalker. Physical transformation, often into a helpless or seemingly-so
form, usually female. What to do when your wishes might come true with the
help of aliens.

Dave, Keith Laumer. Ordinary people evolving into godlike-powered beings.
Beaucracy causing most of a department to be carrying the Idiot Ball at once.

[Steve Coltrin]

CJ Cherryh. Negotiating crises in the presence of beings whose
psychology is impossible (because of biology, culture, or both) for
you to grok.

[a***@yahoo.com]

Post by David Johnston
Clifford Simak. Earth largely abandoned by an extinct or departed
humanity. Religious robots.

Ordinary people dealing with aliens and what not. "Steinbeckian" SF.

[a***@yahoo.com]

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 2:33:45 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
Bruce Sterling. Religion is a toy. In fact, everything is a toy. Nifty!