What do you think about the story’s portrayal of humanity’s relationship with computers over vast stretches of time? How does it compare to our own evolving relationship with technology today?
I am quite partial to Stanislaw Lem, showing us the folly of the idea that any for m of life can be free of foibles, emotions and weaknesses. The arrogance of the faith that something can be conceptually better than us. Life is life. I will expand on this theme in the coming weeks, starting with my next post. 😉
I started reading Asimov in eighth grade, everything I could get my hands on. He and the other greats of that time (and many since) have shaped me. I haven’t touched this story in so many years but in rereading it, everything it had originally ignited in me came rushing back. Great stories, when revisited, make you young again!
Given the current theory that we may be living in a simulation, Asimov’s idea seems somewhat plausible. Maybe WE have created the simulation we’re living in. I wonder whether he experienced any blowback from religious groups, who might’ve been upset at the idea that God was manmade.
And I’m also intrigued by his mention of “molecular valves”. It’s too bad he didn’t write a book explaining in more technical detail the ideas he dangled in front of us. Sort of a Simarillian of Sci-Fi.
But thank you for writing about this. I’m now going to pull all his books out and have a grand read!
Asimov was a biochemist, and eventually he certainly knew that such a concept does exist in nature. The question is, were they discovered in 1956? My instinct is no (can't be bothered to go deep into Web of Science now), and Asimov was actually a kind of a prophet here.
I have two and a half thoughts after reading "The Last Question" (by the way, thank you, haven't read it before!).
1. After reading, I immediately thought about one of my favorite authors, Robert Sheckley, and his short story "Ask a Foolish Question". That seemed to be a type of answer to Asimov's story. In it, there is a cosmic mechanism, "The Answerer", which knew everything and every answer to every question. In this story, there are several expeditions to The Answerer, each asking deep, philosophical questions about each of their worlds or even the Universe in general. And in each case the Answerer couldn't help them: each of his answers was not helpful to the answer seekers because their questions were too simplistic and narrow-minded. Each query ended in disappointment. In the end, the Answerer thinks to himself that to formulate a correct question, one must already know the most part of the answer. On the surface, it seems like Sheckley's slightly on the nose answer to Asimov's story. But it is actually reverse: "The Last Question" was published in 1956, but "Ask a Foolish Question"—in 1953! So then, we see here two fairly different worldviews on the nature of questions and answers: a cynical and realistic (Sheckley's) and a romantic and pondering (Asimov's). I would love to see a rap battle between those two with Douglas Adams refereeing.
2. If we go to a slightly deeper level, Asimov touches upon a relationship between matter and information (which, in turn, reminds me of one of Stanislav Lem's stories about Prof. Donda, but that's too off-topic, maybe next time). In "The Last Question", information supercedes matter and gets a life of its own. Asimov is basically calling information 'God', which is the last (and the first) answer. It might have seen far-fetched and even mind-bending in 1956, but in 2024 it should be much more accceptable. I don't even necessarily mean AI, just the internet itself, which is (for now) bigger than AI, and operates and regulates our lives more than we could ever wish for. What Asimov could not predict—being, again, a product of a more romantic time—is that the internet is full of stupidity, anger, and fear, and there is a distinct possibility that God might actually be a dick.
2.5. Half a thought, or a rose-tinted-glasses interpretation of the story. What was the Last Question? "How to stop/reverse entropy?" What did it mean to Asimov as a human being and not as a writer or a biochemist? How to stop death, of course. What was his in-story solution? You cannot stop the physical death of the universe, but you certainly can preserve information and thus create a new universe. What is the meaning of this in real life? You cannot become physically immortal, but you can achieve immortality in information, i.e., by your writing. "The Last Question" is literally the answer to the last question.
You were right, you side-burned old fox, you.
P.S. I petition to have any of Robert Shekeley's stories on the Short Story Club.
What do you think about the story’s portrayal of humanity’s relationship with computers over vast stretches of time? How does it compare to our own evolving relationship with technology today?
I am quite partial to Stanislaw Lem, showing us the folly of the idea that any for m of life can be free of foibles, emotions and weaknesses. The arrogance of the faith that something can be conceptually better than us. Life is life. I will expand on this theme in the coming weeks, starting with my next post. 😉
I started reading Asimov in eighth grade, everything I could get my hands on. He and the other greats of that time (and many since) have shaped me. I haven’t touched this story in so many years but in rereading it, everything it had originally ignited in me came rushing back. Great stories, when revisited, make you young again!
Given the current theory that we may be living in a simulation, Asimov’s idea seems somewhat plausible. Maybe WE have created the simulation we’re living in. I wonder whether he experienced any blowback from religious groups, who might’ve been upset at the idea that God was manmade.
And I’m also intrigued by his mention of “molecular valves”. It’s too bad he didn’t write a book explaining in more technical detail the ideas he dangled in front of us. Sort of a Simarillian of Sci-Fi.
But thank you for writing about this. I’m now going to pull all his books out and have a grand read!
Re: molecular valves.
Asimov was a biochemist, and eventually he certainly knew that such a concept does exist in nature. The question is, were they discovered in 1956? My instinct is no (can't be bothered to go deep into Web of Science now), and Asimov was actually a kind of a prophet here.
And if you haven’t read “Jokester”, I highly recommend it.
It is a difficult thing to name any 'big' whatever numbers....
Hitting both categories, science fiction and short stories, we could easily put there Stanislaw Lem and Ray Bradbury
I have two and a half thoughts after reading "The Last Question" (by the way, thank you, haven't read it before!).
1. After reading, I immediately thought about one of my favorite authors, Robert Sheckley, and his short story "Ask a Foolish Question". That seemed to be a type of answer to Asimov's story. In it, there is a cosmic mechanism, "The Answerer", which knew everything and every answer to every question. In this story, there are several expeditions to The Answerer, each asking deep, philosophical questions about each of their worlds or even the Universe in general. And in each case the Answerer couldn't help them: each of his answers was not helpful to the answer seekers because their questions were too simplistic and narrow-minded. Each query ended in disappointment. In the end, the Answerer thinks to himself that to formulate a correct question, one must already know the most part of the answer. On the surface, it seems like Sheckley's slightly on the nose answer to Asimov's story. But it is actually reverse: "The Last Question" was published in 1956, but "Ask a Foolish Question"—in 1953! So then, we see here two fairly different worldviews on the nature of questions and answers: a cynical and realistic (Sheckley's) and a romantic and pondering (Asimov's). I would love to see a rap battle between those two with Douglas Adams refereeing.
2. If we go to a slightly deeper level, Asimov touches upon a relationship between matter and information (which, in turn, reminds me of one of Stanislav Lem's stories about Prof. Donda, but that's too off-topic, maybe next time). In "The Last Question", information supercedes matter and gets a life of its own. Asimov is basically calling information 'God', which is the last (and the first) answer. It might have seen far-fetched and even mind-bending in 1956, but in 2024 it should be much more accceptable. I don't even necessarily mean AI, just the internet itself, which is (for now) bigger than AI, and operates and regulates our lives more than we could ever wish for. What Asimov could not predict—being, again, a product of a more romantic time—is that the internet is full of stupidity, anger, and fear, and there is a distinct possibility that God might actually be a dick.
2.5. Half a thought, or a rose-tinted-glasses interpretation of the story. What was the Last Question? "How to stop/reverse entropy?" What did it mean to Asimov as a human being and not as a writer or a biochemist? How to stop death, of course. What was his in-story solution? You cannot stop the physical death of the universe, but you certainly can preserve information and thus create a new universe. What is the meaning of this in real life? You cannot become physically immortal, but you can achieve immortality in information, i.e., by your writing. "The Last Question" is literally the answer to the last question.
You were right, you side-burned old fox, you.
P.S. I petition to have any of Robert Shekeley's stories on the Short Story Club.