Part Two of Incident Zero is up.
Incident Zero - Part 2 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» Incident Zero - Part 2
This is the discussion related to the wiki page Incident Zero - Part 2.
Where Schroedinger's famous cat was once alive and dead simultaneously, there will now be two cats, one alive one dead, both coexisting. This obviously cannot be possible, so both cats will be mutually annihilated
You know, in our world, live cats and dead cats exist together just fine. This is less of an impossibility than the original Schrodinger paradox.
On a whole, I can't get into this. Much of this tale, by volume, is sudden pseudoscience exposition, and it's stuff that feels like it either could have been explained more organically in some other story or feels just sort of… contrived to make this story work, as pseudoscience is often in danger of feeling.
Also, the bizarrely often-used "he was just retroactively erased from existence, but we can recognize that he was retroactively erased from existence even though logically that should not work" trope makes an appearance. Can't we figure out a more clever way to realize what's going on in these situations than "they just realize it, okay?"
Another issue is that this takes place in the past, so… any instances of "we have a few hours to save the world!" fall on deaf ears by definition.
The net result of these factors, and others, is that I can't get invested in this story at all. It's a perfect storm that makes it very difficult to care about any of this plot.
-1
Agreed on all points.
As an actual physicist (tm), I have a special loathing for Schrödinger's cat. The original thought experiment was an attempt to prove the absurdity of the Copenhagen interpretstion, but was based off a flawed understanding of said interpretation. The whole thing is just an exercise in wasted words.
But this particular depiction goes beyond Schrödinger's own ignorance and mistakes, and manages to one-up him in that regard.
-1 for pseudoscience, maybe do some research into the words you're tossing around so whimsically next time.
This feedback is fine, but there are a couple points I want to argue with.
contrived to make this story work
This story works, or doesn't work, independent of the technobabble, which is essentially there for fluff and to give the reader an idea of what's going on. If it's nonsense, it is probably my fault, given that I edited this — I am not a physicist and I found the technobabble entertaining enough. Sorry. ahaha :( Perhaps Clef will fix it up now that I am not giving him bad advice in that regard.
Can't we figure out a more clever way to realize what's going on in these situations than "they just realize it, okay?"
Suggestion, then? I wasn't aware this was necessary, I suppose, given that… SCPs constantly and flagrantly violate the laws of physics without explanation. It's true that we do have many people who are not fans of horror and would prefer hardcore Science, and this isn't necessarily bad, but … I'm not sure what the issue with this trope is.
Another issue is that this takes place in the past, so… any instances of "we have a few hours to save the world!" fall on deaf ears by definition.
That simply isn't true. The fact is, that sort of trope always strongly telegraphs how things will work out (and typically subversions have almost never worked, and in any case only come at the end of the story; additionally, you don't know the world has been saved because we're writing in a universe where the world has ended many times).
It's the execution that interests the reader or doesn't interest the reader. There certainly could be issues here, but they would be in the execution. Tropes you don't like are not by definition unworkable.
(This comment is so long because "I personally dislike this trope" is by far the most common Resurrection critique ._. which is a shame, because there are definitely real issues that we are trying to improve. It's super easy to derail into technicalities and tropes. I've done this too, mind you, and a lot! :( )
I'm afraid I may not have worded my critique well enough to communicate the points I was trying to, so I'll try to clear that up as a response to your points.
This story works, or doesn't work, independent of the technobabble, which is essentially there for fluff and to give the reader an idea of what's going on.
The thing about technobabble, to me, is that it's highly dependent on execution. When technobabble is well executed, it allows you to convincingly believe that, even if this isn't how physics works in our world, this is how it works in this world. The alternative, if the execution is less good, is that the technobabble feels like it's only there to allow the author to tell this specific story. Like a Chekhov's gun, it may feel like it's only there so that it can be brought up later to solve the problem.
To summarize, well-executed technobabble feels like the story is naturally occurring within the world, not that the world was built to allow the story. When I say it feels "contrived", I'm talking about how it falls in the latter case. It's not necessarily the physics, it's the way it's discussed and brought up all at once and dumped on us that makes it feel like it only exists to allow this story to go the way that it does, and not that this story is simply happening within this world. This is, by nature, a very subjective judgement.
Suggestion, then? I wasn't aware this was necessary, I suppose, given that… SCPs constantly and flagrantly violate the laws of physics without explanation.
I think you may have misinterpreted what I was saying here. I wasn't saying that I personally dislike the trope, I was saying that the trope doesn't make logical sense and appears infuriatingly often on this site.
If an object erases something fully from history, you wouldn't be able to recognize that it's been removed from history, because it never existed for you to remember it. This is a common issue in stories with history-altering, retroactive, and antimemetic effects. And it's not an inherent plot hole to this kind of plot, as qntm's Antimemetics series in particular manages to avoid the issue to spectacular effect. Having Adrian just recognize that the guy is gone because… he does, I guess, is something that just really grates on me.
That simply isn't true. The fact is, that sort of trope always strongly telegraphs how things will work out
You're correct, my wording here makes my statement patently false. What I should've said is not that setting a story in the past makes me unable to care by definition, but that setting a story in the past and then not having the execution create reasonable stakes makes it very hard for me to care, which is what I felt happened here. I believe I mentioned this on Part 1's discussion page, but I'm finding it hard to care about these characters or indeed many of the other characters in Resurrection.
You are 100% correct in that it isn't really about how weird your pseudoscience is, or when your story's set, or what tropes you use, but about execution. My original critique wasn't that the science was bad, but that it felt inorganic and contrived. My only points specifically referring to things not making sense from a science perspective were about the "remembering erased stuff" and the Schrodinger's cat example, because those don't make sense in-universe or out.
It's not that I dislike the tropes, or am too hung up on the technicalities, it's that the tropes either don't make sense or aren't executed well enough for me to engage in them, and then when most of the story is built around these tropes, or on characters I can't sympathize with, I can't get into the story. Hopefully I've made my critique a bit clearer and more helpful.
This does clear up some things, yeah.
If an object erases something fully from history, you wouldn't be able to recognize that it's been removed from history, because it never existed for you to remember it.
This isn't an issue when you specifically build in equally fictional things to protect certain people from forgetting. It may not be your preference, but both parts are fictional.
It's true this doesn't apply to Adrian, but considering that reality is being rewritten through fictional means, means which are apparently imperfect and borderline magical, what's the issue here?
Of course, if it's a peeve for you, it's a peeve for you, and that's legitimate. And if it falls under the other objections you had in terms of execution, that's also legitimate, whether or not I disagree.
Regarding the rest of your critique — while I may personally disagree with it, yes, it's much clearer and makes sense, at least to me. It's appreciated.
For the retroactive erasure from existance, you could do something a la wildbow's Pact:
At a certain point in the story, the protagonists go up against a demon that can erase it's victims so thoroughly that no one can remember them. During the fight, the protagonist is showered in blood and limbs from fallen allies, but doesn't know to whom these belong, because he thinks he went into this fight alone.
So, you could do something like, the communication with his friend cuts off and Andrews yells something like "God damnit, no one is responding!" because he forgot the guy? Hope it helps. Also sorry for any mistakes, english is not my native language and I'm wtiting on my phone
(account deleted)I know nothing about physics and so have no problem suspending the hell out of my disbelief for this. The thing about being erased was odd, but I feel that it was carried out in a solid enough fashion (yay, fourth wall painting) to make it interesting.
I rather enjoyed this and appreciate it when stuff happens in Resurrection. Unfortunately, it wasn't until I had finished the tale that I realized that the background characters were the ones from All This Wandering. Weird. But whatever, +1
You know, in our world, live cats and dead cats exist together just fine. This is less of an impossibility than the original Schrodinger paradox.
Two catches: Schrodinger's Cat is not a true impossible paradox, but a metaphor for a very real state of existence happening all around us all the time at the atomic scale called quantum superposition. For instance, the bonds in a benzene ring measurably exist in a state where each bond contains 1.5 electrons, rather than alternating double and single bonds. This is "impossible", and a measurable scientific fact.
According to a lot of experimental evidence, the universe apparently is just fine with ambiguity and fudged details. What it doesn't like is being proven wrong. When a quantum superposition is "forced to pick" a state of existence, the other state, in theory, never existed. A given cat can be alive, dead, or dead/alive. What you cannot have is two of the same cat; that would be a violation of Conservation of Total Mass and Energy. And as previously stated, the universe does not like to be proven wrong. Things like naked singularities happen when the universe is proven wrong.
As a physics nerd I had no issues with suspending my disbelief for this story. There are two different ways to look at it. One is the way a few readers seem to've done: the pseudoscience described is the absolute truth in the story itself.
The other way is to realize that if the person being related this information could understand the intricacies of it, they'd probably already be read in. Since they aren't, and time is of the essence, you just kinda throw them an explanation they can understand that relates somewhat to the situation. This is why suspension of disbelief is so important. Because you're dealing with readers and more importantly characters who won't know the difference.
This is less complicated than it sounds because it's how I tend to approach reading stories.
TL;DR: I love science, and I love hard science fiction. And I had no trouble upvoting this. +1.
For what it is, I liked it. The technobabble was a little confusing, but that just made it seem more like the SCP. They deal with things that can't exist, and that dont make sense for a living, its the whole reason they exist, so suspending a bit of disbelief should be easy at this point. Thats just my random, super late two cents no one will care about,
+1 for emotions and interesting set ups
The Foundation's solution to the super volcano was to relocate the Bloom rather than just prevent the volcano from erupting? I like this tale, but that seems like a rather roundabout way to deal with that issue. Surely they would be able to find some way to nullify the volcano.
Do…you realize how hard that would be?
Volcanic eruptions involve tectonic movement which is super far beyond the scale of forces humans are equipped to deal with.
I would argue that both wrestling with a planet and with a Sci-Fi version of Yggdrasil would be extremely difficult and beyond humanity. But if we look at it from another perspective, if we tried to neutralize the volcano with magic/paratech/etc, there's no guarantee that the super-stability of the Bloom won't prevent the tech from affecting the volcano—and there's no guarantee about the complication of the tech and the Bloom.
Besides, the eruption of Yellowstone is an Extinction Event. If you want a device that could remake human civs after Extinction Event, you'd sure as hell don't want it atop potential trigger of one. The way I see it, the whole moving/replicating the Bloom have more to do with 2000 than the Bloom itself, as the Bloom won't protect 2000 from the totally non-anomalous event of Yellowstone eruption.
A better way would have been to place it in another site specifically made for the containment of SCP-2000.
It would have been easier and safer in many ways.
/forum/t-1689638/incident-zero-part-2#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
