I ask because I've been working on a few stories lately that rely heavily on abstract concepts like infinity and nothingness. At the risk of digressing into philosophical debate or (God forbid) espousing religious differences, I have often asserted (and am apparently willing to foolishly do so again) that the attempt to express the inexpressible is at the core of all our noblest pursuits: art, science, philosophy, religion. I'm just curious if anyone has any feelings on this subject, and if anyone has any advice on writing things of this nature. I'd also love to hear your suggestions on authors/books that deal with these abstracts well or poorly. (Probably best to keep these related to literature/story-telling, as we could could easily loose the thread in a discussion about art in general.) One of my favorite authors, Frank Herbert, IMO does a brilliant job of showing the effects of an infinite universe on its inhabitants. But, I always thought he could've gone farther without compromising the integrity of his stories. (Although I cannot say that about "Destination Void" and the sequels it spawned.)

The obvious and logical response to some of these questions I'm asking is, just write clearly and show the effects of what you're talking about in the real, tangible world, and then let the reader decide. But I guess what I'm really trying to find out is, at what point do you think abstract, difficult/impossible to describe concepts fall out of the mainstream and diverge into the avant-garde, or just off into the lunatic fringe?

quote:

---

What is the limit of the numbers we can truly understand? In once sense, we can understand very large numbers; impossibly large numbers. For example, a googol is 10 to the power of 100, which means a 1 followed by 100 zeros. In fact, I'll write it out:
10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

That's a googol. Easy enough to understand. Now, on to the googolplex, which is 10 to the power of a googol. It's merely a 1 followed by a googol zeros. A simple concept. You understood that, right?

You understand the concept, but you do not understand the number.

If you used every particle in the entire universe to represent a zero, you still could not write out a googolplex, because there are not a googol particles. (Isn't it amazing that we can think of something so big that the universe can't contain it?)

---

You can read the whole thing here: http://www.ericjamesstone.com/blog/index.php/2004/01/02/worlds_without_number

(Edited to break the googol into multiple lines so it didn't stretch the page.)

This is not just nit-picky pedantry; this is how I start to discuss things that are very hard to discuss: finding the limits, stating the obvious.

Godel's theorem shows that sufficiently complex mathematical systems (formal logic is an example) contain theorems that cannot be proven true or false. Ever. Seems related.

Turing's analysis of computer programs shows that there are things which are undecidable, that is, you can't verify them in finite time.

Zen Buddhism tries to deal with things that are inexpressible. It doesn't express them, but tries to convey them. If you get it, you have "enlightenment" (_satori_).

Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid talks about lots of this, and is lots of fun.

I would say that one could very well have a concept of the difference between, say, 1000000000000 and 100. However, the concept of the first number is indistinguishable from the concept of 1000000000, for example. Can you conceive of a difference? I would venture to say that the only difference that you might be able to come up with is "oh, one is larger than the other".

You most definitely understand the numbers; you understand what their relative placements are when counting, what each is larger or smaller than, etc. However, there is no concept attached to either, other than that of "a really big number".

Thanks to HSO for keying-in on the REAL reason I started this off. Dirty dog. This did start with that kind of response to a SS I wrote. I got: "it was all very clear, [some of the usual plot/logic etc. nitpicks...] and then I had no idea what the ending meant." I understood perfectly what THEY meant, and that the problem was on my end. But, it started some conversations that digressed, to say the least, from getting the story ready to go. And so....

Short explanation for the story (and this goes toward answering your questions ELAN): Earth receives a mysterious communication (ala Contact) with plans for constructing a FTL device, and precise instructions to send only one person. We build it and start sending ambassadors off. Each "arrives" in a "place" that is just infinite, empty space, and then just sits there and goes mad from fear. When they finally die, the ship makes the final transition on its own, records an alien system and proof of alien life, fails to establish contact, and then returns to Homespace. Now, we're taking one last shot before giving up. Earth sends my protag, who experiences the same fear, along with the latest version of the ship's AI. He intuits/deduces that the fear is his own, and it is somehow incited by this "place." He sets up all these rituals to cope, somehow knowing the answer lies in this direction. At the end of his rope, he decides to confront this "thing" on more intimate terms by doing an EVA. He discovers the infinite emptiness is somehow sentient, and then the story comes to a climax, and all the readers go, "...What?" Anyone who wants to have the same experience can consider this a shameless plug.

JERALIEY! Thank you for wafting in as a lovely crimson mist. HSO highly recommends your work and I look forward to reading some. I'll leave you now to that little thing with Eric. It looks like the kind of discussion that could stray very close to some of things I'm trying to learn more about.

ERIC...keep your left up and keep moving, and yes that is very close to what I was getting at. It fascinates me that we humans are always trying to develope these systems and symbols to deal with difficult/impossible to express concepts. But I can't help feeling that English is less well-suited to infinite possibilities and abstracts. Examples from other languages that seem better-suited: French--je ne sais quoi (that certain something, I don't know what); Japanese--arinomama (suchness, or thusness). Math comes to mind, as well. But since I don't speak any of those well--coping...coping....

WBRIGGS, your post was eloquently constructed. I'm not sure yet whether to bow and then go contemplate in silence, or prepare a rebuttal and then join you on the platform you seemed to be providing. And that might just be perfect.

I bought a copy of ...Golden Braid a couple of years ago, but before I could read it a friend borrowed it. I haven't seen either since. I'm sure my other friends are right and he just moved. I'm relatively certain nothing paranormal or metaphysical happened.

Anyway, I'd still love to hear anyone's suggestions for more mainstream author's/books that deal with these "big ideas."

Thanks again, Everyone,
Joe

[This message has been edited by onepktjoe (edited March 27, 2005).]

What if there really were infinite and innumerable worlds? This universe may have only a finite number, but perhaps there are an infinite number of universes to consider? We may never know with any certainty what lies beyond with our limited human perspective. But it occurs to me that a true omniscient/omnipotent being would have the ability to create not one universe but limitless and infinite universes -- you know, just to ensure that boredom never occurred.

The point is that, very often, the best way to express an "inexpressable" concept is by using a concept that is expressable but still mindblowing, like a discrete, bounded space a few light seconds across. As EJS points out, once the concept is too big, we only relate to the symbolic representation, not to the thing it represents.

There is a song that I love (and yes, it has girly lyrics, but I'm man enough to admit that I like them). It goes like so.

How can you capture the wind on the water?
How can you count all the stars in the sky?
How can you measure the love of a mother?
Or how can you write down a baby's first cry?

In these simple questions about things that almost all of us have experienced is contained everything I know about eternity. And keep in mind, I'm holding a crying baby as I type this (yeah, that's girly too, so what of it?).

By the way, that typo wasn't her fault.

In that book, Achilles was offered a wish by a djinn. He said, "I wish that my wish would not be granted!"

The djinn had to consult G.O.D. (which stands for G.O.D. Over Djinn), which had to consult meta-G.O.D. (G.O.D Over Djinn, Over Djinn), which had to consult meta-meta-G.O.D., and it kept going until the stack overflowed and the system crashed! Be careful about expressing the inexpressible -- you may cause an inconsistency in reality which can't be -- uh, oh, I think I just

quote:

---

Achilles: I wish my wish would not be granted!

(At that moment an event -- or is "event" the word for it? -- takes place which cannot be described, and hence no attempt will be made to describe it.)

---