njc wrote:To the degree that the known impossible is impossible because of human nature, it's stepping outside the requirements that the stories put human-like beings in a different frame. As to physical impossibilities, well, we're still learning. See the EM thruster which provides support for a new theory of inertia that links QM and GR, and simultaneously explains the discrepencies recorded in the speeds of satellites propelled by planetary fly-bys. (Is the theory right? We don't know, but it seems likely that whatever theory does emerge will look like it in some way.)
I'm afraid we've run quite far and long from the topic of this thread.
But not quite far enough to answer your question to me (under 'Amazon not a publisher') You don't like SF/Fantasy? Explaining magical plot leaps through SF by QM or GR or AI makes it not SF, and explaining anything in fantasy makes it not fantasy.
When we see such a qualification on theory as "inertia under very small accelerations" we note the many failures of classical physics, as indeed for all theories, are attributable to rationalism without contextual epistemology, and the generalizations of known impossibilities by classical theory are 'wrong' because we fail to consider human nature. Be that as it may, LeGuin's effective dreams in The Lathe of Heaven has no theory, observation, or any connection to reality and thus is a perfect example of fantasy so rarely published today, and yet here it was -- considered SF and receiving SF publishing awards.
