Sign in with Facebook
BlackOxford's Reviews > Stories of Your Life and Others
Stories of Your Life and Others
by
by
Loving Imperfections
If arithmetic were consistent, love could not exist. That is to say, if arithmetic were undeniably logical in its foundations, logic would rule the worild and love would be eliminated as the irrational thing it is. This is how I read the moral of Chiang‘s marvellous story.
Mathematicians tend to view numbers as the natural constituents of the universe, existing independently in a Platonic realm of perfection. Such a universe is orderly, reliable and comprehensible even if it is more than occasionally painful.
But the existence of love is overwhelming evidence that the universe is not constructed according to entirely consistent principles. Love appears to have no principles. It arrives randomly and dissipates the same way. Love contradicts itself by denying its own self-interest and inherent irrationality.
The existence of love, therefore, brings into question the fundamentals of mathematics, even the most basic idea that 1+1=2. Love demonstrates that one number can be equivalent to any other number one wishes. Love exists, in short, because arithmetic is inconsistent.
If arithmetic were consistent, love could not exist. That is to say, if arithmetic were undeniably logical in its foundations, logic would rule the worild and love would be eliminated as the irrational thing it is. This is how I read the moral of Chiang‘s marvellous story.
Mathematicians tend to view numbers as the natural constituents of the universe, existing independently in a Platonic realm of perfection. Such a universe is orderly, reliable and comprehensible even if it is more than occasionally painful.
But the existence of love is overwhelming evidence that the universe is not constructed according to entirely consistent principles. Love appears to have no principles. It arrives randomly and dissipates the same way. Love contradicts itself by denying its own self-interest and inherent irrationality.
The existence of love, therefore, brings into question the fundamentals of mathematics, even the most basic idea that 1+1=2. Love demonstrates that one number can be equivalent to any other number one wishes. Love exists, in short, because arithmetic is inconsistent.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Stories of Your Life and Others.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
December 3, 2017
– Shelved
(Audible Audio Edition)
February 10, 2019
– Shelved
February 10, 2019
– Shelved as:
american
February 10, 2019
– Shelved as:
mathematics
February 10, 2019
– Shelved as:
sci-fi
Started Reading
February 11, 2019
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-18 of 18 (18 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Seemita
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Feb 10, 2019 04:05AM
What a wow review is this! Keeping this on my radar.
reply
|
flag
Seemita wrote: "What a wow review is this! Keeping this on my radar."Chiang is amazing. Give him a try. You won’t regret it.
Shouldn’t it be “loving perfections”? And then, when we see the perfection part doesn’t exist, we cross the first term as well?
Ioana wrote: "Shouldn’t it be “loving perfections”? And then, when we see the perfection part doesn’t exist, we cross the first term as well?"Ah, but the phrase is meant to be ambiguous. ‘Loving’ can be either a gerund or a participle so it can either modify imperfections as an adjective or have its object as the imperfections. It doesn’t work so well with perfections.
I feel like your last paragraph was constructed as a syllogism...Anyway, sorry for sucking the joy out of your methaphor - as with humor, there’s not as much left once explained. And thank you for making me revisit the story again - I grossly missed some of the points the first time around (not to say I missed them completely, which I did). I feel like I have to chip away to find the next layer.
Ioana wrote: "I feel like your last paragraph was constructed as a syllogism...Anyway, sorry for sucking the joy out of your methaphor - as with humor, there’s not as much left once explained. And thank you for ..."🎯🤓
Hm, interesting conclusion. After your review I don't know what to make of the seemingly unambiguous statement: "I love you, you are the number one for me."
Shoti wrote: "Hm, interesting conclusion. After your review I don't know what to make of the seemingly unambiguous statement: "I love you, you are the number one for me.""Well, in line with a discussion with another GR reader on another thread, since 1 in neither a prime number nor not a prime number, it might mean “You don’t exist at all.” 🤷♂️
I think you're right. Since 0 is the only other number that's neither prime nor composite this must be a sugar-coated way of saying "You mean nil / zero / nothing to me."
Shoti wrote: "I think you're right. Since 0 is the only other number that's neither prime nor composite this must be a sugar-coated way of saying "You mean nil / zero / nothing to me.""Excellent interpretation!
"Love exists, in short, because arithmetic is inconsistent."Obviously, BO, you want us to ponder this; so I will give it a bit more time to percolate.
HBalikov wrote: ""Love exists, in short, because arithmetic is inconsistent."Obviously, BO, you want us to ponder this; so I will give it a bit more time to percolate."
You’re right. It’s the kind of persistence that Chiang’s writing has. 🕸
C'mon. Is that really what this author argues?
Brad wrote: "C'mon. Is that really what this author argues?"You doubt my interpretation? You think I could make this up out of thin air? You believe I am that autonomously creative? How very dare you! As they used to say on some comedy programme whose name escapes (as many other things).
Actually you reminded me of one of the examiners at my doctoral dissertation who said: “Don’t you think someone else would have noticed that before if it were true?” A similar non-sequitur.
But to be fair: It’s fiction. Therefore there is no argument made, only a loose set of narrative observations. And these I think do get nicely explained by my little theory. Even if he would resist it, I might add. Which I don’t think he would.
Such is the latitude of criticism. One can be entirely irresponsible without consequence. Or to put it in the terms of the great Wilde: yes, I contradict myself; I am manifold.
BlackOxford wrote: "Brad wrote: "C'mon. Is that really what this author argues?"You doubt my interpretation? You think I could make this up out of thin air? You believe I am that autonomously creative? How very dare..."
Indeed, you are manifold and...we are delighted.
Paola wrote: "Ha! Both the review and the discussion make this book utterly irresistible for me :-)"You won’t regret it, Paola.
This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read, thank you
Mr. Oxford, respectfully and out of curiosity, is your review only referring to the one short story, Division by Zero? I was excited to see you had reviewed this book, but then was surprised by not seeing any talk of linguistics, cognition/meta-cognition, and religion.
