digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

"The Last Question" by Isaac Asimov

filer.case.edu — Probably my favorite short story. I'll bet if you read it, that it will stay with you forever.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • LarianLeQuella, on 11/06/2007, -11/+106Oh how deliciously blasphemous. :)
    • Phyltre, on 11/06/2007, -6/+32Want something really blasphemous? Look at how long ago it was that this story first front-paged.
    • Mewchu11, on 11/06/2007, -2/+19The kicker here isn't that religion and science have melded sensibly. It's that even with our limited understanding today of how the universe works we can see that there is no real reason that this couldn't come about given enough time. We simply have to create a machine that has enough know how to create anther machine slightly better than itself, and the rest will do itself in a shockingly short amount of time considering. It could happen, and if Nick Bostrom had it right it has happened, probably more than once.
      • ToadLeg, on 11/06/2007, -19/+3Statistically, there is a 0% chance of what happens in that story happening in reality. Does anybody here know what 0 means in calculus?
        • Ludnix, on 11/06/2007, -1/+110=1
        • Anthracene, on 11/06/2007, -1/+40^0=1
        • shinynew, on 11/06/2007, -0/+40/0=1
          also how is there 'statistically' a 0% chance of that happening?
          You could argue that a mind can not exist without matter, you could argue that minds cant meld, you could argue that intergalactic travel is impossible. You could argue that hyperspace isnt real. You could argue that something in hyperspace couldnt create an entire universe by uttering some words.
          But i dont see how you could argue that statistically, there is a 0% chance of happening.
        • AzraelRose, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3"Does anybody here know what 0 means in calculus?"
          More to the point, do you?
          Also, why do you care? It's a story. You know, like the Bible.
    • Cranq, on 11/06/2007, -14/+4It's not blasphemous at all, it's a more believable form of Intelligent Design.
      • ToadLeg, on 11/06/2007, -0/+10That's not Intelligent Design.
        • julianrod, on 11/06/2007, -0/+9Quite the opposite, the computer is made by men.
        • Talena, on 11/06/2007, -1/+1Maybe, but you could also say that the computer made man in the first place
        • shinynew, on 11/06/2007, -0/+3@julianrod
          10 i = 0
          20 PRINT no that computer was made by another computer
          30 i++
          40 IF i < n
          50 THEN GOTO 20
          60 ELSE PRINT and that computer was made by man
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 11/06/2007, -16/+2Yeah right. This thing has more holes in it than swiss cheese. If this is your idea of religion, you're no better off the Christians and Muslims.
        • HairyFotr, on 11/06/2007, -0/+8No, this is our idea of fiction... I hope you were joking.
        • roodammy44, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Hey, if you're gonna believe in anything you might as well believe in something that lasts for billions of years
    • Fairly, on 11/06/2007, -9/+24Blasphemous? What's wrong with you wankers in the US anyway?
    • rhinopig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13If you thought that was blasphemous, read "The Last Answer" also by Asimov. http://destructionoverdrive.blogspot.com/2005/06/last-answer-by-isaac-asimov.html
    • Trax91, on 11/06/2007, -2/+8Commenting on the delicious blasphemous part,
      Homer: I know I shouldn't eat thee, but -- [bites] Mmm, sacrilicious.
  • theshizzler, on 11/06/2007, -6/+179I see what he did there.
    • purrp, on 11/06/2007, -12/+5I was curious what kind of comments diggers will come up with to this short story.

      You didn't disappoint me.
  • RunawayElf, on 10/10/2007, -4/+44I have found a new religion.
    • crushfan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20BOKONONISM FOR THE SALVATION!
      • whoaohh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3pfft.. Bokononism is a lie...
      • Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And admitting that makes it the most honest religion in the world! Where's the cat? Where's the cradle?
      • TheBrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wonderful reference, thank you. The quote below seems appropriate and an accurate reflection of what I anticipated for most of the comments on this topic. Sadly, I wasn't disappointed.

        "What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing."
        ~The Fourteenth Book of Bokonon, Kurt Vonnegut.
    • saifatlast, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20Is it Christianity? 'Cause if so, I've got some bad news for you.
    • Fairly, on 10/10/2007, -17/+2Only someone in the US would say that.
      • subman697, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12
        Only someone not in the U.S. would say THAT. See how that worked? Quit wasting people's time with your tripe.
        • revenge7, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Only someone in the U.S. Would say THAT.
        • revenge7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Only someone in the U.S. Would say THAT.
        • AzraelRose, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Oh indeed, the US government passed Federal Laws retaining exclusive use of the word "that" as a sarcastic rejoinder to its own citizens in the late eighties. Surprisingly, many other nations have in fact ratified this in principle, disallowing their own citizens the use of the word "that" in a sarcastic context.
          Oddly enough, no-one seems to have noticed the difference.
    • scrag10, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Robot-ology
    • psbpv3o, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1All hail AC!!!
    • psbpv3o, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1All hail AC!!!
    • mishabear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3who says it's new? maybe it's very old. VERY VERY old.
    • MrHappyMan, on 06/29/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularitarianism

      We await the singularity!
  • Billiam627, on 10/10/2007, -3/+96By far my favorite Asimov short, and thats saying something because he has around 36,000 short stories...
    • Civil44, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18This is also my favorite story by him. Very good ending..
    • bauxzaux, on 11/06/2007, -10/+3You read all those story's, wow.
      • estvir, on 11/06/2007, -2/+30You spelt "stories" as "story's" - Wow.
    • CrackIsWack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15You're not alone: it has been voted the #1 Science Fiction short story of all time, and it is also the #1 Asimov fan favorite. I think I read somewhere that Asimov himself liked it best out of all his other shorts, too.
      • psilanthropist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7yes. he says so in the intro to Robot Visions that the last question is his favorite work of all time
      • mediaphile, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Yeah, it says right there at the beginning of the article that it was his favorite. Way to RTFA.
    • TheJeffer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Asimov had loads of incredible short stories, and they still hold up surprisingly well today. If you want to read some more, I'd highly recommend the collections of his short stories. I've read through both of them way too many times, and I still love them. And yeah, I've got to admit, this is by far my favorite one of the bunch. Great ending.

      http://www.amazon.com/Isaac-Asimov-Complete-Stories-Vol/dp/038541627X
      http://www.amazon.com/Isaac-Asimov-Complete-Stories-2/dp/0385420781
      • Vincent21212, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2If its the Complete Stories, how come theres two volumes?
        ...I shall ask Toshiba-AC
    • iamnot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12Thanks for the links, but am I wrong for wanting to find them online for free? 49 years ago Asimov penned this wonderful tale and still today it is held captive by those who feel they deserve for me to pay for their supper to enjoy it.

      Perhaps I am. But only the internet knows, and it replies... Insufficient data for a meaningful answer.
      • fondlerr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0that was simply a great comment. dugg up fo sho!
    • withears, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1And you read them all?
    • flygirl62, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I have loved this story since I was about 6 years old. It has also been done as a Planetarium show (more like a radio show with some planetary animation) many times. I have been trying for years to find the audio from the planetarium show or find somewhere where it is being shown again.

      It played several different runs at the Fels Planetarium in the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia and the voices for the "radio show" were quite enjoyable --- at least to me, as a little girl of about 10. I always wondered if it would be as enjoyable now... But I'd love the chance to find out.
  • Zaetha, on 10/10/2007, -4/+99
    One of the greatest stories of our time. Science and religion united and explained, making sense.
    • Akaji, on 10/10/2007, -24/+6Still doesn't answer what started the universe that Cosmic AC was created in. So no, doesn't really make sense, unfortunately...
      • esotericguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21it repeats, which means that the universe mach1 was made,lived,and died then MultiVac recreated itself/universe

        *duh

        • wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12And followed to the beginning there would have to be a universe existing that was not created by multivac. It had to have been created, or it would not have died. Therefore the question remains: what was it created by?

          Still doesn't answer that unanswerable question.
          • miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+21There is yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.
          • frazw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Thats a very linear way of thinking. Do all things have to be created just because that has been our perception? Perhaps more appropriate a question is do we truly understand time and does our current understanding prevent us from answering such a question
          • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Actually, there are two logical flaws to your reasoning.

            1) You assume that the universe was deliberately created.

            2) You assume that time is unidirectional and linear.

            There is no rational reason to assume the former, and the latter has already been brought into question experimentally. Even if time is unidirectional, it could curve in upon itself, Ourobos-like.

            Tere are theories consistent with our current understanding of physics that allow for the universe to be its own natural antecedent.
          • shinynew, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Who says that it is linear, Time needs matter, so therefore time doesnt exist before the universe does, so why couldnt it have been created in a few hours by some guy dreaming it up?
      • jamima69z, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18you should stick with less challenging authors my friend.
      • xTRUMANx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Sad to see your dugg down akaji. I guess my saying it doesn't really make any sense it makes the atheists feel the same way one feel when they bash their religion.
        • kilooneniner, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11I'm an atheist and I sort of see where akaji is coming from. It still doesn't tell us why the universe existed in the first place. It reminds me of the First Cause argument. What caused the first cause? What caused that? On back forever. Hey it's turtles all the way down.
      • KlayBorg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2How are Universe came to existence cannot be sufficiently explained by modern science, nor has any attempted explanation from non-scientific sources been logically sound, as it suffers from the same infinite regress as was explained.
        • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Infinite regress is an assumption, based on other assumptions - that time is unidirectional and linear or open-ended.

          Your statement also contains an outright fallacy - there is no rational reason to assume that science "cannot" sufficiently explain how the Universe came into existence.

          First of all, science is not a fixed set of knowledge, it is a process for discovering meaning. So far, science's track record in explaining all things that used to be attributed to supernatural forces is impressive; there is no rational reason to assume this process will not continue indefinitely, building upon the growing understanding that scientific tools provide. There is no evidence of any boundary beyond which lies a magical realm inherently outside of the explanatory power of scientific methodology.

          Second, the human mind itself is not inherently bounded; even if the current assembly of neurons and synapses in human's current craniums lacks the processing capacity to reason beyond a certain point, humans have already proven capable of expanding our sensory, storage and processing capacities into other substrates.

          Ultimately, what you state using raitonal-sounding terminology is actually an utterly irrational leap of faith.
      • Inverno, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Take a strip of paper. Twist it half way around, then tape/glue it together. You can now begin to understand the shape of time. Good luck :D
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4I agree with Akaji. He didn't answer how to do it. Just left us with a conundrum and action. Not how to make it happen. And plus, did the refurnishing of light have to be done by compressing all that the cosmic ac was back into a single source to explode back into energy? And does the process begin anew without that collected information for the next race of potentially sentient creature? And after a trillion years of collected data, and the ability to process oneself into pure - nothingness - and transmute oneself into the said hyperspace, why couldn't they retransmit themselves back? Why does Asimov assume that the Universe stops there? Why not transmute the humans into the remaining dimensional planes? Why not add in the inevitable meeting of different, more powerful alien species,bent on the survivability of their own peoples? What about the humans that want to stay in the universe they know? Where is the cosmic battle ensuing of survival of the fittest? What about the breaking out of the bubble of matter/space/time/consciousness we call a universe into the other cells comprising another super entity that is the all encompassing *"?"* What about the micro and macro physical ability of consciousness to create its own reality? as found in physics after breaking the atom down to quarks and muons? What about the infinitely increasing potential of technology to create in man his own godliness? Why couldn't after a trillion infinitely expanding years couldnt man create his own protocols for matter creation?

      Cosmic AC "GOOD QUESTION!"
      • Inverno, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Energy entropy would occur on every dimension... unless you're talking about hopping into an alternate reality, although I'm pretty sure Schroedinger hadn't thought of that by the time Asimov wrote this. They couldn't transport themselves back because there was no energy/matter remaining in the universe (absolute zero) for them to be transported into. There's also the possibility that the collective conscious would be more pleasurable than a life bound by "classic" physics. The modern notion of alien life existing is actually pretty recent, for the longest time we thought water was too rare and life too delicate to exist anywhere but here.

        Remember Asimov wasn't armed with all the science we have today when he was writing. One of the best parts of reading his work is how much he managed to correctly guess, even if his time table was a bit skewed.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Remember, there are theories abounding about the possibility about the existence of about 12 different alternate universes, or separate dimensions. In reality, the number of dimensions and planes of existence drifts off into infinity. And as I said, we're finding out through the world of physics that what we think becomes reality down on the micro particle level. That begins to explain the law of attraction, that whatever you desire, shall come to you. That essentially is the basis for human invention. If you want it, or need it, the answer shall come to you if you are clear enough of mind. I think that proves that entropy is a design of faulty universal law, when you have the power to create, you are essentially a God, yourself, and you can reverse or destroy entropy.

          I guess I should just accept a good story though.
        • shinynew, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@Frnnkdlxx
          how does anything explain the 'law of attraction' you have no proof for that.
          but what about the thing about energy cant be created or destroyed, just converted? Is that no longer true?
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In a sense, if you want it to be true. Then yes. If I don't want it to be true. No. I can invent my way around all obsticles, because i'm not inventing, I'm pulling from the universe the cosmic probability for my desire to exist. Get it? Read the book, the Science of becoming rich.
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Dude, it's a story, not an instruction manual.
      • booshack, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0The computer SIMULATES the new universe. It was implied, read it again.
    • Fairly, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2That's the most pathetic comment I have ever read. What a bunch of losers you are. Collectively you have an IQ of about 20. And I'm basing that on your population of about 300 million.
    • Stevethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2A tightly knit story around the ultimate question of Asimov's era (and ours perhaps). The question hadn't no answer cause -in fact- people in Asimov's era had no answer, Asimov can't escape from the era-centric writing, his sci-fis are ultimately the projection of mid-late 20th century to a world of better gadgets (but the same core logic).

      What I'm trying to say is that we may ask the wrong question and that maybe is a lot more closer to reality than trying to answer it. Even if we have managed to answer it, it would most possibly hold no importance eventually. String theorists already propose that our bing bang was one of some billion trillion occurances on a multiverse, I'm not saying they're right I'm just saying the nature of reality may be even grander than we could ever imagine. That said, it's pretty irresponsible to apply -ruthlessly- the second law of thermodynamics to about everything, especially to our universe. Entropy is a bitch, but not in an open system and as far as we know our universe may very well be as such. It's the same thing as supplying a computer simulation with more and more information, in which one day -theoretically- the system would break down or unable to comply since it would not be able to process more than some definite bytes of information. But that's exactly the point, we don't know how finite (or infinite) our verse is, just because we have evolved in a finite environment, it doesn't mean that our universe should be finite. In fact it gives us every right to believe that it is grossly larger than we ever though and every time we find a new calculable frontier of size for our verse we seem to overcome it eventually to an even grander scheme.

      To sum it up, I don't assert that Asimov's a lousy writer (quite the opposite), but that his writings are more of a trick than a realistic approach to the future. They are a trick because they give the readers of his era a feeling that he actually knows what would happen in the future, while in fact he only fed the cold-world era thinking to a technologically advanced future. To clear things up, my position is that technology changes our understanding for the world but most importantly it changes us and that's the main point overlooked by any fiction writer or futurologists. And -to connect with this particular writing of Asimov- as a result this is not a satisfactory answer to the question "when -and if- our world would end", just an elaborate trick
      • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1To sum it up for myself, I personally think you're an idiot. But back to your points. Asimov wrote a great story and weaved it wonderfully. The incorrect action would be to think that he was not intelligent enough to think of the underlying factors or possibilities in the realm of science fiction and human futurism. But regardless, its still just a story and with his story he gets to make his own endings. tough ***** i guess
      • Stevethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm far from an idiot because I based my arguments somewhere. You try to pass as an intelligent person, by lowering my intelligence, but you're not a making a valid argument. You override the rules of dialog and that makes you a cheater.

        If I'm an idiot you had to prove me as such, but to my lengthy explanation you only wrote 3 lines of which half was an insult, another commenting that Asimov wrote stories (yeah I know this brainiac), and the other 1 line and a half was defending Asimov as a person. You clearly do not know the value of dialogue, you only think it's only about opinion impositioning and as such I have to discard your opinion as unworthy and problematic. Good day to you, sir.
        • knowyourrights, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You just summed up what it means to be a an average digger. That's how we roll. When school starts again, the average comment quality could increase a bit. I do feel sorry for those textbooks/paperweights.
  • Rikushix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+44Good old Asimov.
  • Okari, on 10/10/2007, -80/+4It would be fantastic, if it was a lot shorter.
    • PhantomBantam, on 10/10/2007, -2/+45How short an attention span do you have?
    • rollem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16My one regret is that I can bury you only once.
  • Demq, on 10/10/2007, -20/+4nice script for a sci-fi movie! those days sci-fi sux..
    • Inverno, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6I'm going to digg you up for the tense confusion, even if it was unintentional.
  • esotericguy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+36HUZZAH FOR ONE OF THE GREATEST SCI-FI WRITERS EVAH!
  • notjamt9000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+90http://personales.ya.com/casitasoler/james/insufficientdata.jpg
  • blogdigger1, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I remember reading this about 20 years ago (it was the last story in one of his short story novels' and being blown away by it.... also interesting because of the article last wek about how we may all be living in a simulation.
    • llynix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I'm pretty sure I read the same short story novel. There were a lot dealing with Multi-Vac. But what really got me was a story about a kid growing up in a society where everyone was programmed to do certain jobs. This kid tried his best to join the group but for some reason he didn't make the cut. As a result he is sent to a kind of stupid school where they learn things the old fashioned way. After awhile he goes stir crazy and 'escapes' (although he's really not held captive). He watches a competition which one of his own peers is in and because this peer is 'programmed' he was unable to think outside the box and win it. The kid tries to tell his friend that it's really easy to do, but because his friend wasn't programmed for this particular task he's unable to comprehend.

      Turns out this kid isn't stupid.. he's actually smarter then the rest of the world.. there are only certain types of people that can think outside the box and actually come up with something new.

      I'm not even sure it was Asimov but I remember reading this short story along with the one in the article. Anyone have the title of it?
      • rotundo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I believe the story is called "Profession" -- it's part of the colletion Nine Tomorrows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Tomorrows
        • llynix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Thank you.. that was by far my favorite with Last Question being my second. I'll have to see if I can't buy that book.
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I read that story too, many years back, but mine was from some Best of Asimov (or something like that) collection. He was crazy about the idea of Multivac. He had some other nice ideas too, remember spaceships powered by steam?
  • MisterSam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+120Anyone liking this should also read his story "The Last Answer"

    It's here: http://destructionoverdrive.blogspot.com/2005/06/last-answer-by-isaac-asimov.html
    • jamima69z, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11thanks,that was a really great short story!
    • stevenb486, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Great read!! Got any others along those lines?
    • Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Interesting. In my consideration of (artificial) intelligence whilst in a CS graduate program, it occurred to me that the function of intelligence is to deduce the future so that it may be altered, a skill surely valuable for survival. However, intelligence cannot determine its own purpose, it must always be motivated by external causes outside its own reasoning. A finite chain of reasoning (necessarily finite given the correlation of information processing, entropy, and the mediation of relativistic limitations) must always begin with premises that are themselves ineffable (axioms, such as those of the natural world, for instance), and end with a conclusion. Choosing that conclusion cannot be intelligent in itself. If you apparently choose a goal intelligently, then you have to consider that you have chosen based upon some criteria. What Asimov has done is basically followed this chain of rationale back to Descartes postulate *cogito ergo sum* and terminated the chain there with the goal of creating a negation. The logical problem seems to be that it creates a self-contradictory chain of reasoning (and therefore presumably invalid) where you postulate "I am" but your goal is "I am not".

      Bleah, I dunno wtf I'm talking about, which is why I'm no longer a grad student. Or maybe that's a good qualification for a grad student...
      • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4In the vain hope that something resembling a coherent conversation could ever sustain itself in this half-assed commenting system, can you explain the reasoning behind the following statement?

        "Choosing that conclusion cannot be intelligent in itself. If you apparently choose a goal intelligently, then you have to consider that you have chosen based upon some criteria."

        Why cannot the criteria for choosing among axioms be intelligent? Surely observation gives us a basis to determine that

        1) some assumptions are more probable than others (e.g., not likely that every time someone utters an obscenity, an angel loses its wings) and some ruled out entirely by contrary evidence (such as the assumption that planets we have not yet visited are constructed of green cheese), and/or

        2) some assumptions are irrelevant (e.g., whether we live in a perfect simulation of a consistent Universe, or the Universe itself, our exploration of it's laws can proceed either way).
    • BlackOp, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Thanks. That was a lot better than the submitted story, which I didn't like that much because of the predictable and quite cheesy ending.
  • NicksVideo, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20The has made the front page several times. Great story.
  • xioner, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31Been on Digg before, but worth digging up again!
  • Sornos, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21I read this last time it was on Digg. Great story.
  • micro506, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16More on the subject of an omnipotent machine:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
    • thisissami, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4has anybody here read The Night's Dawn trilogy by Peter F. Hamilton? really interesting (albeit 4000 pages) read.
  • crushfan, on 10/10/2007, -45/+2TOO MANY WORDS.
    • omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+29Not like it said "pic" in the title.
    • m1tch37, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18Get off digg please. Go laugh at cats somewhere else
      • crushfan, on 10/10/2007, -17/+1Don't tell me what to do, fascist.
        • Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11A fascist would just shoot you for not doing what you are told. Now I will tell you to go play in your sandbox and let the adults talk.
    • Xinephzero, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9There's a difference between too many words and not enough brain cells.
    • crushfan, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3DAMN, I was joking. Stop flaming. And it was a reference as I said before. Google "too many notes"

      Now I'm relaxed.
      • shealer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Hold on, hold on, you're telling us to stop flaming?
        "Is your father, your mother's brother? OK. Continue labelling [sic] people."
        "Don't tell me what to do, fascist."
        Yep, perfect sense.
    • outsid3rNo17, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1I agree with crushfan: too many words. Since I know that I'll get dugg down anyway, instead of starting an explanation I wish you all a happy day.
  • omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Let's get this over with:
    77 diggs and down, wahhhhhh! (even though it's not really down, it's just slow)

    duggmirror got it, use it if you feel the need.
  • mtrip, on 10/10/2007, -4/+58When I was a kid I looked up to Asimov a great deal. I was a devout little believer when I came across some of his writing dismissing religious belief and the cognitive dissonance between my own reverence of religion and admiration for this man laid the seed for my future de-conversion. Hell, I thought, if Asimov is an atheist it can't be all that bad. He basically legitimized doubt for me as a kid, which I'm grateful to him for doing, even more so than all the great stories.
    • esotericguy, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Oh ye of little faith.
      • CharlesSaint007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Good
      • LarianLeQuella, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think that's the idea!
      • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"Oh ye of little faith, for ye have learned critical thinking, and We art *****."
    • atticus8, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10I wish faith had to be legitimized, rather than doubt. Faith seems like the one with a screaming need for a legitimizing experience. Doubt, as simply a good habit, seems pretty logical when you don't know much, and we (as in all people) don't know much about the spiritual world. And by "much", I mean nothing.
    • LiveAPC420, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0I can use big words too...supercalifragilisticexpialidocious :P
  • hpfilter, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4Wasnt it posted on Digg a few months back ??
    • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The last question was asked for the first time, half in jest, on digg several months back...
  • specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Oh I so love Isaac Asimov! That was one of the first stories I read from him. This comes from a guy that don't usually reads.

    I also loved "What If".
    • Ap31r0n, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10AMG grammer NAZI time.


      But seriously why the ***** wouldn't you read often? knowledge is power or some *****...
      • specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Short attention span I guess. I'm a hell of a multitasker (thanks God for ctrl+tab and alt+tab), that's why I love Wikipedia, I can go from one article to another, and I learn a lot from that.

        But it really takes a lot of effort to sit and read a book for me, I do it, but no quite often. I know I'm missing the most beautiful form of entertainment.
        • Boreras, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Actually, the more you read the more interesting it will get.
          Because of your remark on multitasking, I think the problem of your attention span can be overcome quite easily. You probably read (too) slow, and as a result your reading speed and mind are too much out of sync. Your mind is too "good" to actually be interested all the time in the minimum of information it gets from the text, your thoughts waver, and as a result you read slower, or you think "hey, what have I read? I don't remember it." and you will have to reread large parts of the texts, increasing dullness and boredom, and the downward spiral is obvious.

          Continue reading a lot (on wikipedia for example), but also try to read faster. There are a lot of methods to improve the speed of your reading, try searching them (there are a lot of self-help books on "speed reading", buy them or download them using torrents).
          A killer tip is to read multiple words at the same time. Another good tip is never to reread.

          Personally I'm not employing many of the techniques available, but now that my reading speed is sufficient, I find literature fascinating to read. Whereas before I liked books, but it wasn't worth the time. As a result of enjoying reading, my reading speed will improve naturally.
          I am of course not in any way in a position to advise you this, but, hey, the possible result is probably worth the minimal effort.

          This is of course based on the assumption that you read too slow. Also note that your reading speed on wikipedia is very different from the reading speed of books, so you should definitely try to read some printed text for improvement.

          Hope it helps :)
          • specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You actually nailed it. I happen to read slowly and then wonder "what the hell did I just read", or "read" while actually thinking of something completely different (hehe).

            I'll try your tip, thanks!
          • bariswheel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Hey, I found me a new friend. Hoping to see more comments on Digg like yours. There is still hope.
        • shinynew, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I generally bounce around alot, but alot of the time people with short attention spans can end up hyper focusing on one thing, you just have to get into it.
    • specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1*cough*doesn't*cough
  • JQP123, on 10/10/2007, -5/+129"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived by man." --- Isaac Asimov
  • DavidtheDuke, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Considering how crappy life is, the SUPERAWESOME AC must've had a few corrupted DLLs.
    • specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17I don't think Windows could have handled the universe. Hell, it can't even handle its own WGA server.
    • moocow1452, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It just reversed entropy, it was never asked or influenced to make any changes to the universe.
    • iamnot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Life is perfect. The entire universe is perfect. Anytime you think otherwise you could pause and reflect on what desire you are experiencing that is incongruous with reality. That desire is the source of your discontent.
      • rationalist, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sentence 1 - unfounded assumption + uses undefined criteria. What is "perfect?" In relation to what?

        Sentence 2 - unfounded assumption + uses undefined criteria. See 1, above.

        Sentence 3 - unwarranted presumption. Don't tell people what they should do, who the ***** are you?

        Sentence 4 - unwarranted AND unhelpful assumption. Telling people not to want anything they don't have serves stasis, not progress; reinforces the current power structure and acts to inhibit sentient human's innate desire to understand, learn, grow and improve.

        It also, rather incongruously and absurdly, equates thinking about life and the universe, and/or how they might be improved upon, with a) being unrealistic and b) causing discontent.

        In general, yours is the philosophy of the sheep, not the shepherd.
        • mysteri0usdrx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0if i hear that goddamn sheeple metaphor one more time....
        • shinynew, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I would say that what he is saying is pretty much saying that you should achieve nirvana, which is usally seeked because they assume that liveing is pain.
          I believe that living is living, and nothing more, people are not created equal, they are created with small random changes, we are a product of what came before us, nothing more nothing less, once you die you cease to exist, what better reason to live it up now?
  • Cranq, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Great story. Here is a more concise story in the same general area by another great old time author, Frederic Brown:

    http://www-zeus.roma1.infn.it/anzel/answer.html
    • dimension, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That is a great story. Someone once pointed out the similarities of the cybernetic machine with google. Scary thought.
      • shinynew, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And that someone did reilize that one is a search engine on steroids and the other is still a couple years away.
        That being said Google is working on an AI, and the only acchivement we need is to create an AI that can in turn create a better AI/computer.
  • m1tch37, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I read this last time it was on digg. Love it!
  • mkyanksfan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+13Here's a link to "Nightfall" by Asimov, which I would rate as the second-best Asimov short-story, with number one being "The Last Question" of course.
    http://doctord.dyndns.org:8000/Stories/Nightfall.htm
    • thecatisdead, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Not a very short story. Looks pretty good anyway - thanks.
    • specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That was actually, the first story I read from Isaac Asimov.
    • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That story was in a collection that also had the one mentioned in the title. I remember reading it, and then feeling this awe at how clever it was. Love the guy's writing.
    • umilmi81, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nightfall was the first Sci-Fi story I ever read, and I still consider it the best.
    • DeadRooster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nightfall has always been my favorite short story. In my opinion, better than The Last Question.
  • TwistedRonin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19My father told us this story a couple years back. He said when he first heard it, it was in a planetarium (I think that's the right word) and at the very end, they cranked up the speaker volume and turned on all the lights.
    • flygirl62, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I saw that as well... many times. In my case it was at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia. But, as I understand it, it has been at at least 5 different planetariums including the one in Boston. Oh, how I would love to get a copy of the audio from those shows.
    • lewikee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It would have been great if the reading had started in full brightness and had steadily dimmed as the story progressed only to be fully lit again at the end (maybe for the next audience)
  • Ap31r0n, on 10/10/2007, -4/+65I'm glad to see more then the usual bush is a NAZI, Iphone, top ten, hawt chick, NAU, [PICs] garbage appear on the front page.


    Keep it up.
  • MEGAMERICAN, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Asimov is also a great non-fiction writer. I can't recall any other writer who is as insightful when it comes to history than him.
  • warhawk08, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26wikipedia is my ac
    • jadenguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+39then your universe will endstart with: "Let there be light [citation needed]"
  • maiku00, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13THE GOGGLES
    THEY DO NOTHING
    • DeadRooster, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Where's Fallout Boy?
      • mysteri0usdrx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1whoever is digging him down, hes not referring to the ***** band...
  • Ev3nt372, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"The Last Answer" is also insanely awesome
  • macinjosh, on 10/10/2007, -25/+2That was cute, but give me a break.
  • colinwilson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8This reminds me of Douglas Adams and The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series.
  • xTRUMANx, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2First time I read the story. The end was a bit predictable since the beginning of the story such a fuss was made of the ending as I read along, I knew there would be religion infused with this story.
    • BlackOp, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2What idiots are burying him? He's right. You could see what was coming a mile off.
      • mysteri0usdrx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it is not the destination but the journey. and whatnot
  • willb285, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9I have seen this on digg many times, and it is indeed my favourite Asimov story. One must remember though, that energy is never destroyed, entropy is real, but on the scale Asimov is presenting, we will have easily found ways to re-capture the used energy to recycle it, it is not a question of size and forever using, but just how to reuse on that scale, it's not like the energy just disappears when we use it, just converted to something that we will need to learn to use. I realize that sounds like Asimov's point, but it's not, and again, all energy no matter what form is useable, and no energy is ever created or destroyed, only converted.
    • happytron, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Often when people say energy, its understood that they mean free energy. Of course, saying that we face a "free energy crisis" or calling it the "Department of Free Energy" is bound to confuse people.
    • stgeorge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I think the point of the story was that by asking the supercomputer how to reverse entropy, it began working on that problem over a hundred trillion years... by getting rid of man and starting all over. And the cycle would begin again...
    • daunte, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You have to realise when you make these statements, that it all depends on the nature of the Universe. Go look it up. I believe it's also known as heat death [of the universe].
    • biggrz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It occurs to me that all the energy at the end point would have been reserved for the AC itself in order to answer the question, hence it's ability to release that energy back into the universe as light...
  • shinigamichelo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Great story, I'll start replacing chapters in my bible with Asimov stories
    • KingGorilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3even better! replace chapters in other people's bible with Asimov stories!
  • jwwbear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+101"Probably my favorite short story. I'll bet if you read it, that it will stay with you forever."
    Not forever. Till the sun runs down.
    • shinigamichelo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Maybe longer if we manage to move to a new sun, and onto a new galaxy...
      • stgeorge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4We'll run out of suns and galaxies though... maybe there's a way to reverse that? Let's ask Digg.
    • MrObjectional, on 10/10/2007, -1/+29I see what you did there.
      • cryonix, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9wow that one little comment made reading all of the comments worth it.
  • infra172, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4Has anyone looked at fertility rates recently? Ask yourself how many families do you know with more than two children? Population growth worldwide had decelerated dramatically and, within a few decades, world population will begin to decline. Japan's population is already declining.

    For most of history, human existence has been extremely precarious. Every disease and natural disaster threatened to wipe us out. It wasn't until the English tackled infant mortality that the population boomed and people began to take life for granted. Now, uninterested in procreating, we're killing ourselves faster than any plague could.

    The only populations still increasing are the ones with religious rules forbidding birth control or abortion. But even the United States is only replacing its population. When the world wakes up, what will get the blame for this decline? Misuse of technology? Lack of social planning? Unlikely. The only people left will be the religious fanatics who'll place the blame on the demons of their respective religions.

    The human race is slowly committing suicide and there's not a damn thing anybody can do about it.

    The stars have nothing to worry about.
    • S201, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6The worldwide birth rate is still substantially higher than the death rate. With more advanced medical technology the average life span will increase and more people will live instead of dying at a young age due to a disease. I don't see a day that worldwide Human population will become an issue. And honestly, it would do Earth some good if there were a few less Humans running around.
    • KingGorilla, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2not a damn thing anybody can do about it? I can make me some babies!
    • latpack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Sounds like the Children of Men theory.

      I like Bill Hick's take on it: "we're nothing but a goddamn virus with shoes, ok?!"
    • rcxdude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0This is a good thing. If our population were to continue to increase exponentially, we would kill ourselves with our own waste much more quickly and spectacularly.Obviously we want balance here, but we have already exceeded optimum.
  • Jack9, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Only 6th time it's been on digg.
    • fondlerr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3you act like NEW PEOPLE DONT SIGN UP TO DIGG

      ***** moron
  • chuckpenzone, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2Probably my favorite short story that has been on dig 6 times.
    • loconet, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Judging by the previous comments, If you had said that it was still worth the read, you may have gotten a couple of diggs on your comment.
  • str3ama, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3It was a little long-winded, but it's a beautiful story in that man becomes his own creator.
  • ButterBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -23/+2 "And there was light......" what an ending
    • specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12*****
    • outsid3rNo17, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3If you guys don't want a comment to be read, digg it down to about -3. Once it goes past -10 people get very curious and expand it anyway.
  • diggmaddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6This is the first time I read it. Was doing that as my bed time read and was so amazed, I returned to digg just to digg this story. Absolutely mind boggling.

    Dugg forever (pun intended).
  • Monkeybrains, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7My first experience with this story was when I was about 12 years old. It was during a grade school trip to a plane-erium. They did a whole light show bit with the reading of the story. I still remember it. It probably set me on the path to being the geek I am today.

    So, dugg.
    • Vash265, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8So I take it your kids use digg?

      "My father told us this story a couple years back. He said when he first heard it, it was in a planetarium (I think that's the right word) and at the very end, they cranked up the speaker volume and turned on all the lights."

      Very, very cool story. Dugg for sure.
    • flygirl62, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, by any chance?
  • happytron, on 10/10/2007, -23/+3Very predictable ending.
    • outsid3rNo17, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Actually the ending was unpredictably stupid.
  • archath, on 10/10/2007, -4/+47talk about a deus ex machina...
    • adrianmonk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I have no idea how that could have been at 0 diggs after I have gave it one. That implies it would've been negative. But surely diggers wouldn't digg down such a comment unless they understood what the words 'deus' and 'machina' mean and how that's relevant to the Asimov story...
      • michaelje0, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4Well, in all fairness, he is using the term incorrectly. If you look at the individual words, this seems like an appropriate term, but it isn't at all. "Deus Ex Machina" is a story-telling device, dating back as far as the ancient Greeks, and probably further. At that time, the conflict in the story would come to an unsolvable crossroads, at which point, an angel-type personage would arrive, and set everything straight for the human characters, and end the story. Today, writers still do this, but in many different forms. One of the easier examples to locate is in the movie "O Brother, Where Art Thou" [Spoiler, but really, you should have seen this already], where they are to be hanged at the end, and the water comes pouring over the hill and saves them. Anyone paying attention will have known from the beginning that the flooding was to happen, but the timing itself gave it a aura of heaven-sent benevolence. This was a well-crafted 'Deus Ex Machina.'
      • realyst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6But it does not negate the pun that is presented. Deux ex Machina is literally "God out of Machine". Though the usage of the machine term has varied over the years and the "deus ex machina" term is used in language just as you speak, it fails to negate the humor-through-literal-mindedness the parent's quip sought.
      • sansjason, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0You guys have read too much Asimov for one day.
    • ShAd0wS, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1hahaha that is the exact same thing i thought after finishing it...
  • flipmeat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2With apologies to Asimov and his many fans, of which I am one, all this eternity business is entirely too la-de-da for me. As counterpoint, I offer Terry Bisson's 'They're Made Out of Meat'. http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html
    "You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
    There's a film version on Youtube as well.
  • gangeKilla, on 10/10/2007, -14/+0This story is too long. NO DIGG!!!!!
    • gangeKilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0the length of this story is just right. DIGG
  • hippykiller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Can you imagine the frame rates on a machine like that. HOLY *****!
    • stgeorge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'd say the frame rate is pretty close to "real time". Could be better with an upgrade though...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.