Transcribe
Translate
Fan-Atic, v. 2, issue 1, whole no. 4, July 1941
Page 12
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
FAN-ATIC 12 INTERFERENCE by Doc Lowndes This is more or less a commentary upon an article read recently in FMZ, reprinted from SCIENCE FICTION FAN (and condensed in the process). Since I haven't received that copy of the FAN referred to, as yet, we'll have to assume that the job of condensation was competent. That is, that the condenser didn't cut out any matter denying, contradicting, or disproving statements retained. "Entropy," says Conway, "is a process based upon the second law of thermodynamics and operates through the gradual dissipation of heat and energy throughout the universe to a common level of low temperature heat. The popular conception of the end of this entropy process is amply delineated in stf stories such as Schachner's 'Entropy', Kaletsky's 'End of the Universe', and on a more elaborate, detailed, and sensitive scale, in Stapledon's 'Star Maker'. He then goes on to state that the dynamic concept of the universe (in fact, of the entire sum of infinity) antequates such static concepts of which the entropy theory is a child, replacing them with a developing theory "which arises from, and influences the, forces replaced by the ever conflicting, ever changing phases of the Cosmos." Just how does this dynamic concept operate? Does it discard as obsolete all theories, concepts, etc. up to its time? Obviously not; the table of scientific discovery cannot, at will, be cleared in one fell swoop while the leaders of a new concept say to each other: "It is to be assumed we know nothing except this, our fundamental concept: the all that is constantly in a state of flux, the new arising even as the old relapses and wanes away, the new arising, in a limited sense, out of the old." No, this clearly cannot be done. Nor does this dynamic concert discard laws of matter, energy, motion, light, heat, etc. from which the laws of thermodynamics arise. It examines carefully. But, if a principle is correct today; if, for example, the entropy principle seems to be working now, the dynamic concept does not assume that it will be grinding away, unchanged, to the end of time. Nor, contrariwise, does it automatically assume that it was always in effect. The old (we call it old, yet current should be the term, perhaps; for it still holds sway), static, concept saw laws of the universe, of matter, energy, light, etc as eternal verities. Fixed, immutable. While, under the old concepts, theories might be discarded as research brought up new facts pointing to a new underlying theory, the thought still remained that, whatever the fundamental law behind a thing was, this concept was fixed forever and ever. Permanent. Absolute. Dynamism postulated nothing of the sort. Let us take the matter of entropy. Assume that all facts and evidence indicate entropy to be and to operate as indicated above, dynamism does not assume that it will always operate in the same fashion, or that nothing can alter the process. Dynamism always considers the question of interference, because of the one factor which the static theoreticians seemed to overlook: the matter of life. For life is the interference fact in our universe at the present time, queers this entire game. Homo sapiens has already modified a number of "immutable" laws, and homo sap is barely out of the pre dawn period. Let us take that venerable law which states that an object will fall toward the earth (up to a certain distance from the earth) at a definite rate of acceleration. Homo sap has already added amendments on to that. The law still reads as before but "unless modified by parachutes, gliders, airplanes, balloons, etc. has been tacked on. And the stf reader can further amend by saying "gravital counteragents." (Next page.) JOIN THE NFFF
Saving...
prev
next
FAN-ATIC 12 INTERFERENCE by Doc Lowndes This is more or less a commentary upon an article read recently in FMZ, reprinted from SCIENCE FICTION FAN (and condensed in the process). Since I haven't received that copy of the FAN referred to, as yet, we'll have to assume that the job of condensation was competent. That is, that the condenser didn't cut out any matter denying, contradicting, or disproving statements retained. "Entropy," says Conway, "is a process based upon the second law of thermodynamics and operates through the gradual dissipation of heat and energy throughout the universe to a common level of low temperature heat. The popular conception of the end of this entropy process is amply delineated in stf stories such as Schachner's 'Entropy', Kaletsky's 'End of the Universe', and on a more elaborate, detailed, and sensitive scale, in Stapledon's 'Star Maker'. He then goes on to state that the dynamic concept of the universe (in fact, of the entire sum of infinity) antequates such static concepts of which the entropy theory is a child, replacing them with a developing theory "which arises from, and influences the, forces replaced by the ever conflicting, ever changing phases of the Cosmos." Just how does this dynamic concept operate? Does it discard as obsolete all theories, concepts, etc. up to its time? Obviously not; the table of scientific discovery cannot, at will, be cleared in one fell swoop while the leaders of a new concept say to each other: "It is to be assumed we know nothing except this, our fundamental concept: the all that is constantly in a state of flux, the new arising even as the old relapses and wanes away, the new arising, in a limited sense, out of the old." No, this clearly cannot be done. Nor does this dynamic concert discard laws of matter, energy, motion, light, heat, etc. from which the laws of thermodynamics arise. It examines carefully. But, if a principle is correct today; if, for example, the entropy principle seems to be working now, the dynamic concept does not assume that it will be grinding away, unchanged, to the end of time. Nor, contrariwise, does it automatically assume that it was always in effect. The old (we call it old, yet current should be the term, perhaps; for it still holds sway), static, concept saw laws of the universe, of matter, energy, light, etc as eternal verities. Fixed, immutable. While, under the old concepts, theories might be discarded as research brought up new facts pointing to a new underlying theory, the thought still remained that, whatever the fundamental law behind a thing was, this concept was fixed forever and ever. Permanent. Absolute. Dynamism postulated nothing of the sort. Let us take the matter of entropy. Assume that all facts and evidence indicate entropy to be and to operate as indicated above, dynamism does not assume that it will always operate in the same fashion, or that nothing can alter the process. Dynamism always considers the question of interference, because of the one factor which the static theoreticians seemed to overlook: the matter of life. For life is the interference fact in our universe at the present time, queers this entire game. Homo sapiens has already modified a number of "immutable" laws, and homo sap is barely out of the pre dawn period. Let us take that venerable law which states that an object will fall toward the earth (up to a certain distance from the earth) at a definite rate of acceleration. Homo sap has already added amendments on to that. The law still reads as before but "unless modified by parachutes, gliders, airplanes, balloons, etc. has been tacked on. And the stf reader can further amend by saying "gravital counteragents." (Next page.) JOIN THE NFFF
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
