Talk:Contact (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Edit Conclusion

To my mind the Conclusion section of this article reads like a subjective review and arguement against Intelligent Design. The following section should stay, but I think the rest should go:

"Intelligent design proponents often cite the ending of Contact as proof that Sagan believed that, using the tools of science, it was possible to discover if there was a creator of the universe. This position is in direct conflict with the vast body of Sagan's views as represented in his work and writings, which are best described as dismissive of claims of supernatural origins of the cosmos and favoring explanations of a naturalistic origin."

Even this I find a little subjective, it would be better to provide quotations that state Sagan's view explicitly, there appear to be many available.

The section on Pi, Averroes, Feynman etc. appears to be a critique/personnel analysis it's interesting but I don't really think it has any place in this entry.

I agree that there are problems. Please make the needed changes. --JWSchmidt 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] proof of god

This phrase is illogical: "much like the proof of God by testaments of the biblical times which are not accepted by modern science as evidence." Testaments of biblical times are not considered "proof of God". They are stories about God. To read them requires a priori that God exists, they in no way serve as evidence that God exist. Never has a Biblical scholars, theologian, nor any other academia, nor the Bible itself, made the claim that the testaments of the Bible serves as proof of God. If the Bible ever made that claim, then it would contradict itself when it speaks of the importance of faith.Bryanpeterson 21:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esarhaddon

Random question: is it known at all why Sagan named a character after Esarhaddon, an Assyrian king? Is there something to that historical figure's life story that adds some kind of meaning or depth to the character? It seems like an odd choice for a cheap joke (if it's just for kicks, why not some old colleague/foe of Sagan's?) but I can't figure out what else it could be. Or is it merely coincidence (I doubt it, but I suppose it's possible)? Jwrosenzweig 22:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read the novel, but I seem to recall that one of the reasons that S.R. Haddon had so many enemies was because he had built "pleasure palaces", or something like that. Perhaps this recalls Esarhaddon's "rebuilding of Babylon"? In any case, Jwrosenzweig, an interesting observation. func(talk) 17:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


I think it's a mistake to characterize this book as being "about the idea that our universe may have been created". This is really a minor point from the very end of the book and is not even conveyed in the movie. Not only is it a spoiler, it's not even a correct analysis of the story.

[edit] Description of significance of circle

I have reverted the following from the plot summary:

"Is this an unmistakably intelligent artifact, the artist's signature, or could it just be the true and statistical expression of an infinite number?"

Sagan clearly states what the pattern means (underlines added for emphasis):

The universe was made on purpose, the circle said. ... [Take] the circumference of a circle, divide by its diameter, measure closely enough, and uncover a miracle—another circle... There would be richer messages further in... In the fabric of space and in the nature of matter, as in a great work of art, there is, written small, the artist's signature. Standing over humans, gods, and demons...there is an intelligence that antedates the universe... She found what she had been searching for. (pp. 430-431.)

Any other interpretation misrepresents the novel.--Johnstone 02:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why some readers of Sagan's fiction feel the need to try to "sanitize" descriptions of "Contact". Yes, it is a story about first contact, but it explores deeper issues such as the idea that the universe might have been created. I agree that the movie gave superficial treatment to much of what is important in the book, but that is a limitation of Hollywood and is not a useful guide to what Sagan was trying to accomplish in his novel. If you read Sagan's non-fiction (such as "The Demon-Haunted World") you learn that Sagan was interested in ideas that are normally thought of as "religious", such as the possibility that there might be some kind of life after death. Sagan explored these "philosophical" issues in his fiction by providing examples of how science might be able to answer questions of a "religious" nature, for example by finding objective evidence that the universe had been created. Sagan was not saying that he believed in life after death or that the universe was created by an intelligence. He was showing the kinds of evidence that a scientist would need in order to believe in a created universe. It is absurd to call this a minor part of the story. Sagan clearly devoted huge sections of "Contact" to discussions of the difference between traditional religious approaches to topics like creation and scientific study of origins. A typical science fiction novel about first contact would not have done this. Sagan's choice of the circle as the method by which scientists could read "the signature of the creator" was a plot device. I doubt if Sagan thought that there is a way that an intelligent designer can alter the value of Pi. He just needed an example of "an obvious place" where any human-like species would be sure to look and be able to find a "signature" of creation. Similarly, Sagan did not believe that faster than light travel is possible, he just made use of it as a plot device to move the story along to interesting places. --JWSchmidt 15:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. In the current state of the article, it reads like a veiled promotion for intelligent design and specified complexity. Indeed, the book and movie is viewed as a touchstone by the leading proponents of intelligent design movement, as William Dembski's published mis-quotes of the film show. I'll be editing the article for NPOV, removing any untoward oblique pro-ID POV. FeloniousMonk 19:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"It is left for the reader to decide if this is an unmistakably intelligent artifact, the artist's signature, or could it just be the true and statistical expression of an infinite number." No it is not. The entire novel was constructed so as to use the "message" inside Pi as a hypothetical example of how scientific investigation of the universe might be able to find evidence that the universe had been created. Even if you believe that every possible sequence of numbers existes in Pi, that such a clearly unusual and long sub-sequence as depicted in the story would be so easy to find in Pi is very low probability. Sagan created this as an example of the kind of evidence that a scientist would not be able to ignore. It is not ABSOLUTE proof that the universe had been created; that is not the point --JWSchmidt 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"The entire novel was constructed so as to use the "message" inside Pi as a hypothetical example of how scientific investigation of the universe might be able to find evidence that the universe had been created." is an opinion of what Sagan intended, not fact. And it's a highly debatable opinion at that, considering that Sagan was a dedicated atheist, skeptic and adherent to the tenets of naturalism and the scientific method. What is of very low probability is that such a person would write a book about how scientific investigation of the universe would find evidence that the universe had been created. I've read Contact, in fact I've been reading Sagan since the 70's, and not one of his works that I've read ever even hinted that he was a closet creationist. Having just re-read the last chapter of the book, I see your what you're saying. I reword the sentence in question. FeloniousMonk 23:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Sagan wrote a novel that explores (among other things) the kinds of objective evidence a scientist might take as supporting the idea that the universe was created. This does not mean that he was a "closet creationist". Nor does it mean that he thought such objective evidence could be found or even that he hoped it could be found. It means that he wanted to acknowledge that it is natural for people to wonder about origins but also give people a depiction of how science might be able to deal with questions that are often thought of as being outside of the domain of science. Another issue that Sagan was concerned about (and wrote about in his non-fiction) was the possibility of life after death. The movie "Contact" was very good at showing the idea that people are ready to believe in life after death, but that our own memories can fool us into thinking we have had an experience of being with someone who is dead. Sagan, as a scientist, was not afraid to discuss such issues. It is clear that he had learned to ignore the views of other scientists who are afraid to question politicians (the source of $$$$), afraid to create new science (such as SETI) and afraid to talk about "religious" topics. There are other scientists besides Sagan who have dared to speculate about the possibility that our universe might have been created, and done so without suggesting that this means there is some "god" to be worshipped. That Sagan was compelled to explore such topics should come as no surprise, it is perfectly in line with his willingness to question everything, respect the natural human sense of wonder, and produce speculative hypotheses that other more narrow-minded scientists cannot even imagine. There is no need to pretend that Sagan was not interested in issues like the origin of the universe. I agree that it is regrettable that some Sagan observers have suggested that Sagan had "closet" religious convictions. This is easy to refute without having to deny the wide range of Sagan's true interests. --JWSchmidt 01:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
That the universe may have been created by something other than a supernatural deity is a paradox; a logical impossibility. But it's a common argument made by the ID crowd to dodge being lumped together with other creationists. And this is why Contact appeals to them, and why they try to claim Sagan as one of their own, or was a deist, or a closet theist, etc. The fact remains that the corpus of his work places religious dogma and deistic assertions somewhere south of mere opinion, barely north of nonsense. Any speculation about Sagan favoring the design argument based on the last chapter of this one book would need to overcome the large body of evidence to the contrary to be credible, and that is my concern here.
As a plot device, the use of a pattern within a string is logically and methodologically flawed. The circle found by Arroway's computer program no more proves that it's an "unmistakably intelligent artifact" or is proof of "an intelligence that antedates the universe" than pervasive fractals or the fine structure constant are evidence of universe being design in reality. That Sagan states it does in a piece of fiction in no way should be taken as a validation of the scientific merit of the argument. There are many examples of apparent patterns in nature that have shown to be of random, natural origin. A graphic representation of a circle found within munged data in and of itself proves nothing. Current data munging can find all sorts of interesting patterns, graphic or mathematical, from nearly any string; it's no more proof of creation than say, the teleological argument. Hence my original passage that is was up to the reader to decide if this was proof of creation. FeloniousMonk 17:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"That the universe may have been 'created' by something other than a supernatural deity is a paradox; a logical impossibility. "

reply to F. Monk. Why make dogmatic statements about what is and is not possible? Lord Kelvin claimed that Darwin was wrong about the ancient age of the Earth because no possible power source could keep the sun burning for billions of years. Kelvin was wrong: physicists soon discovered nuclear energy and Darwin's estimate of the great age of the Earth was eventually vindicated.

There are some scientists who are willing to talk about the speculative possibility that it might be possible, using advanced high-energy technologies, to create new universes. Sagan's novel even hints that advanced species in our universe might be involved in trying to develop such high-energy technologies. If our universe was created, why can't we in turn create new "daughter universes" for our universe?

"The circle found by Arroway's computer program no more proves that it's an 'unmistakably intelligent artifact' or is proof of 'an intelligence that antedates the universe' than pervasive fractals or the fine structure constant are evidence of universe being design in reality. That Sagan states it does in a piece of fiction in no way should be taken as a validation of the scientific merit of the argument."

"Proof" is just an argument that other people accept. All you are saying is that for you, such a discovery would not be proof that the universe was created. Sagan's point was that such a discovery is a fictional example of the type of discovery that would provide objective evidence that could be interpreted as support for the idea of a designed universe. The artificial nature of the "message" in Pi is such that it suggests that the designer of the universe wanted us to know that the universe had been designed.

Why even ask the artificial question of if Sagan managed to create an imaginary discovery that readers would find believable as evidence for a created universe? The point Sagan was making was that it is conceivable that if the universe was created and if the creator had wanted the inhabitants of the universe to know that it had been created, then the tools of science might allow us to detect evidence of the creator, evidence that is part of the structure of the universe. Sagan's point was, that there is no reason to avoid the need for objective evidence when we explore wonder-inducing issues like the origin of the universe. Sagan did not say that there is evidence of such a designer or that he thought it likely that such evidence can be found or even that he thought it likely that such evidence could exist. Sagan's point was that we have to use the objective methods of science to evaluate any evidence that might be taken as support for the idea that the universe was created. That Sagan wrote a novel dealing with these issues in no way "gives support" to intelligent design advocates. Intelligent design advocates can try to claim that it does, but such claims are easy to refute without denying what Sagan accomplished in his book. --JWSchmidt 19:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not dogmatic at all to insist that logical arguments use valid logic. And using valid logic, if the universe were actually created, it only follows that whatever created it would be outside of it. And what Sagan accomplished in this book is always going to be a matter of personal opinion, that was my original point.
I think Sagan's point was that such a example could (not would) provide evidence that could be interpreted as support for the idea of a designed universe and it's up to the observer to be objective. You claim it was Sagan's intent that the "message" in Pi was indeed artificial. That may be clear to you and Arroway in the book, but that's not how I read it all. I read it as Arroway chooses to see it that way because that's what she's looking for now: "She had found what she had been looking for." That sentence, the last sentence of the book mind you, makes my point, she's no longer an objective observer, but is looking for a particular answer. This is what I mean when I say it's up to the reader to decide; some see the conclusion as proof of creation, others see it as a person completing a spiritual journey. Others see it as ambiguous. Let's let the reader decide.
As Sagan said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The artificial nature of the message in Pi is not a given. In real life such a "message" would have a tougher time of it than it does in the book, as I've said complex patterns are pervasive in nature and prove nothing in and of themselves. FeloniousMonk 20:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

when i first watched this film i was doing my hsc for english, i think this is a great film, the characters are great and the director knows what he's on about, you rock!!!!!!!!!! my yr loved your film and it was a great experience watching it, and to all those people out there that dont like this movie, use have no taste in films,

                                                             bye mwah

[edit] The pi controversy

I've edited this from the perspective of a mathematician. In particular, I wanted to point out that not only does π not depend on the geometry of the physical universe, it does not require geometry for its definition at all. Sagan himself mentions in Contact that

\frac{\pi}{4} = 1 - \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{5} - \cdots

which clearly shows pi depends only on the properties of the natural numbers and number systems constructed from them, namely the rational numbers and the real numbers. It is not embedded in the fabric of space, but in grade-school arithmetic. Gene Ward Smith 04:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; I think this section is highly biased. Perhaps worse, it's philosophical, speculating about universes that do not exist. By definition, the universe is the container of everything that is, known or unknown; it is impossible to assert anything about what is not as though it were or must be. Even if you shift your focus to the known universe and postulate alternate universes, nothing is known about them -- by definition. It is simply an article of faith than in such an unknown universe, such-and-such laws would hold; no more rational or verifiable than the color of the pillowcases in Heaven.
It is true that mathematicians, especially pure mathematicians, believe absolutely that they possess Absolute Truth. But then, so do so many others....
Mathematical constants are inviolate, physical constants are flimsy? Perhaps God could not have created the universe any other way; perhaps he could; perhaps he will; perhaps he did. It's entirely possible than nothing we perceive is real; time and space may be illusions. But this kind of far-out speculation is just that: fantasy. It's beneath us to attack fantasy for not being science fact.
Were it not for WP:POINT, I think I'd have to go around to expose the blatant scientific absurdities in The Lord of the Rings. Really, though, this stuff must go. John Reid 15:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've heard it argued that the nature of pi is irrelevant to this controversy because even if pi could not be changed by an omnipotent deity, language could, so English (or whatever language) could have developed such that an English message would one day be found in pi. Can this objection be added to the article? (I attempted to add it earlier but it was removed -- without comment so far as I can see.) Thanks! Cancilla 02:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information in Feymann's letter

Actually, one could encode information in this way. What fraction one uses and where one stops could encode data.


What is ammusing about the pattern?

Nothing, really. That was just the editor's point of view.

[edit] editorial

This article contains a large, entertaining editorial. Maybe the contributor should have it published in the campus newspaper? It certainly is not fit for an encyclopedia.

[edit] Salvia Divinorum?

I'd watched the movie Contact a few years ago and read a bit of the book, and when I was doing some research on dissociative drugs, it seemed to me that Contact seems less like the dream of an astronomer but more like a Salvia trip. Take a look at the Salvia divinorum wiki. My hypothesis is this: This book was inspired by a salvia trip. Now I know many of you might be offended that your favorite astronomer might use mind-altering drugs, but I want to make it clear that I mean no offense and that I'm not trying to slander Carl Sagan. Jolb 17:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though you have had Many years of using mind altering drugs yourself since the alst time you've seen the movie or actgualyl read the book. The book is a detailed analyss of the belief in God, extraterrestial life, the search method used and the current plictical system. the actual encounter is a small part of the whole deal, and the hallucination an accusation made from political gain.
My point is that your suggestion is stupid, pointless and is Totally irrelevant for a fictional book. --Procrastinating@talk2me 22:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Ad hominem attacks are unnecessary, Diza. Anyway it seems that I didn't explain some of the more subtle details of this hypothesis. I think that the movie is an analogy to someone discovering Salvia, preparing to take it, taking it, experiencing its effects, reaching an epiphany while under its influence, and attempting to share that experience with others. I don't want to go into it right here, but read the site more thoroughly. Time distortion, space travel, extraterrestrial life forms, spiritual and logical epiphanies, and the urge to disseminate ones experience are all common effects of salvia, and the parallels are undeniable. I don't mean offense to anyone, and I'm just throwing the idea out there for people willing to take it with a sense of humor and for people willing to be open-minded and read into the two subjects (wherein there are many obvious parallels) without going into an emotional rage. Jolb 06:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you're way off base here. First off, the thoughts and such espoused in Sagan's only novel are pretty much in line with his essays. Carl was deeply attached to the notion of contact, and the subjects he delved into in Contact are the very same issues that he discussed in his essays and his public speaking. Second, Sagan was not an astronomer so much as a cosmologist. His work far outpaces anything else. Finally, it seems that you are in some kind of a delusion where the only great things can be explained by drugs. I'm sorry you have a substance abuse issue, but please be aware that this novel was the summation of Sagan's life. It wasn't something obtained over a "trip", and it certainly is not discussing anything as stupid as recreational drug trips. This is about as well as I can say this without resorting to ad hominem. I advise you to seek some psychological help if you are to the point where anything fantastical or incredible has to be explained with a hidden meaning of the creator being on some drug. You're not Carl Sagan, sir, and you never will be. His motivations reached far beyond some simple druggie. Redcard 13:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It's funny to see how emotional people can get. Sagan would dismiss the above suggestion with a passing smile. I don't believe he would feel offended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.196.163 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "Creationism edit"

Revert from my appropriate revisions on June 3. Of which Diza said "comment is obviously mandatory to anyone who have read the book..!!"

What comment were you referring too?

The most obvious mistake I fixed was claiming Dawkins was a "well-known" atheist. Well-known by who? Just because a bunch of atheist websites quote him because they like some of the things he said doesn't make him an atheist. I gave evidence; I quoted his own words denying that he was an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God" and the credible source from the Washington Post.

The second thing I fixed was the claim "touchstone by the leading proponents of the [[intelligent design movement". There is not citation. And an exhaustive google search I was unable to find one intelligent design proponent use anything by Sagan. Of course this doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And a coverage of the possible controversy may be warranted in this article but to claim the controversy extends to the extent that it is a "touchstone" is flagrantly false.

Besides those things I have no ideal what you mean by "comment is obviously mandatory to anyone who [has] read the book." I made no correction or deletion of anything about the book. Everything is still their, I just rearranged a few things to maintain fluidity because I deleted undocumented claims.

Bryanpeterson 15:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Demon Haunted World vs. Science as a Candle

The section, Intelligent Design(misinterpretation) uses The Demon-Haunted World and Science as a Candle in the Dark as if they were the titles of two books. To the best of my knowledge, they are both part of the title of the same book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark as stated in The_Demon-Haunted_World

 Starmax777 14:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mathematical question

Does this part:

In a kind of postscript, Ellie, acting upon a suggestion by the senders of the Message, works on a program which computes the digits of π to record lengths and in different bases. Very, very far from the decimal point (10^20) and in base 11, it finds that a special pattern does exist when the numbers stop varying randomly and start producing 1's and 0's in a very long string. The string's length is the product of 11 prime numbers. The 1's and 0's when organized as a square of specific dimensions form a perfect circle.

...make sense? Is it possible for any number that is the product of 11 primes to be a square number? Ospinad 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Contact Sagan.jpg

Image:Contact Sagan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)