Erik's Reviews > Permutation City

Permutation City by Greg Egan
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
1639329
's review

it was amazing
bookshelves: top-shelf, detailed-review, scififantasy

How do you define 'science fiction'?

From a quote from an interview with sci-fi author Ted Chiang:

“Sometimes, people who read my work tell me, ‘I like it, but it’s not really science fiction, is it?’” he says. “And I always feel like, no, actually, my work is exactly science fiction.” After Star Wars forever made the genre synonymous with what Chiang calls “adventure stories dressed up with lasers,” people forgot that science fiction includes the word “science” for a reason: It is supposed to be largely about exploring the boundaries of knowledge, he says. “All the things I do in my work — engaging in thought experiments, investigating philosophical questions — those are all things that science fiction does.”

Here’s one from an interview with Ray Bradbury:

Science fiction is the fiction of ideas. Ideas excite me, and as soon as I get excited, the adrenaline gets going and the next thing I know I’m borrowing energy from the ideas themselves. Science fiction is any idea that occurs in the head and doesn’t exist yet, but soon will, and will change everything for everybody, and nothing will ever be the same again. As soon as you have an idea that changes some small part of the world you are writing science fiction. It is always the art of the possible, never the impossible.

Using these as my definition of science fiction, I can say without qualification that Greg Egan is the greatest science fiction author I’ve ever read. I consider that an objective assessment. The ideas about which he writes are outstandingly imaginative, yet never seem impossible. That differential is why I consider him objectively the greatest. Because, sure, I've read science fiction with more outlandish ideas, and I've read science fiction that did a better job of convincing me of the possibility of its plot and setting. But I've never read (and I doubt such exists) science fiction with SUCH outlandish ideas that nevertheless still seemed possible. I'm tempted to say, "It's pure magic." But, well, it's not magic. It's science fiction.

Alas, as I wrote in Diaspora, Greg Egan is not for everyone. To truly appreciate what he’s accomplished in his writing, you need to be familiar with some physics and metaphysics. This is because Egan's books look at some theory or idea in physics and ask, "What does it mean?" His books attempt to pull back the Wizard's curtain and see what's there.

Here’s an example from classical physics: Newton’s law of gravitation is expressed with the equation F = G*m1*m2 / r^2 while Coulomb’s law (of electrostatics) is F = k*c1*c2 / r^2. Two fundamental forces (gravity and electromagnetism) that are otherwise quite different have such similar equations!

When I encountered this in my first physics class, it blew my mind. Surely such a coincidence suggests some underlying unity to the universe? If we think of physics as “the music of the celestial spheres” then such commonalities suggest there’s some invisible celestial composer, God or otherwise, giving it order. This explains in part why physicists are so hell-bent on creating a ‘unified theory of everything.’ Unity *feels* like truth.

However, the most interesting ideas – the ones that Greg Egan explores – arise from more modern physics, such as quantum mechanics and relativity. So let's talk about a theory that assuredly influenced Egan's writing of Permutation City: Quantum Electrodynamic's 'Sum-over-possibilities' approach.



Suppose I want to know whether some particle which starts at A will end up at point B and what path it will take. In classical physics, I can say yes or no depending on some relatively simple maths. But in quantum mechanics, at best I can tell you the probability of it happening. One of the ways I can calculate this probability is to look at ALL the possible ways A can get from B. There are infinite ways to do so, yeah? Mr. Electron can go straight from A to B. Or he can take make a pit-stop at the ice-cream-photon stand at point C to eat some mint chocolate chip photon-cream. Or he can take a little vacation 2.5 million light years away in Andromeda before going to point B. Now obviously that latter one is VERY out of the way, so it’s very unlikely so it doesn’t contribute much to my answer. BUT I DO NEED IT. Now with calculus (the math of infinities), we can do this calculation. Since particles (and even larger molecules) behave as waves, these various possible paths interfere with each other and parts of them cancel out. What remains is the actual path the particle ends up taking.

Which is just, wow, kinda awesome, yeah? Paths the particle COULD have taken – but didn’t – interfere with other such paths not-taken to arrive at the actual path??? WTF? For reals? Apparently.

When you realize this, when you realize these bizarre mathematical abstractions end up accurately predicting real world physical phenomenon, it doesn’t seem so outlandish to say, well, maybe there really are INFINITE other physical universes for all these other paths, including the one where our particle Mr. Electron really does travel to Andromeda, and maybe all these infinite universes influence each other in some way. Could there then be some meta-universe or at least some metaphysical rules that must be obeyed in these inter-universe interactions? What might this meta-universe be like then? What might those metaphysical rules be?

This is what Greg Egan does. He takes these metaphysical ideas and asks, “Okay suppose this were true. Suppose there really were infinite universes. How would people discover the truth? And what effect would that discovery have on them? And how do I write this so it sounds actually plausible?” That is a Greg Egan novel, in a nutshell.

And I can give you Permutation City in a nutshell too: it’s primarily about a man named Paul, who traps a Copy of himself in the virtual world in order to undertake some consciousness experiments. It asks the question, "Suppose every possible logically coherent permutation of reality actually did exist. How would someone find this out? And, finding it out, what would they do with this knowledge?" What follows is a compelling exploration of consciousness, religion, posthumanism, immortality, and, yes, the science and math behind some of these ideas.

That’s where we encounter a second problem in reading Greg Egan. The first problem, to summarize, is that if you don't know any higher-level physics or mathematics, you probably haven't done any of these metaphysical thought experiments yourself, so you're not gonna geek out as much that someone actually bothered to turn them into a story. The second is this: Greg Egan writes hard science fiction.

This isn't without reason. To people like myself and Egan, ideas aren’t compelling if they don’t have some basis in reality. Without such a basis, he might as well just write, “Yeah okay inside every electron, there’s a micro-universe in which talking unicorns poop rainbows at each other in an epic battle to reign as the supreme unicorn of the micro-universe, but it turns out these rainbows are actually the origin of conscious thought inside our brains. So really consciousness is the result of unicorns defecating rainbows.” Not really satisfying, huh? The math and science Greg Egan invokes in his writing are necessary language to communicate his ideas in a compelling manner. They are as necessary as the rules of English. If I write, “ef9uafojfk appleapple app le;;;; BANANA!” I’m not really communicating anything worthwhile am I?

But, again, that’s the genius of Greg Egan. He communicates ideas that could easily seem as outlandish and stupid and nonsensical as “appleapple app le;;;; BANANA!” but by bothering to give them a foundation in science & mathematics, he grants them an elegant verisimilitude. His stories seem real. And that which is real is usually more beautiful than that which is not.

All of this is not to suggest that Egan’s books are totally impenetrable without a PhD in Quantum Physics. While Egan is certainly unapologetic in his invocation of hard science & math, he ultimately keeps his focus on the humanity of his ideas. For example, in the world in Permutation City, there exist virtual ‘copies’ of sometimes dead (and sometimes still living) human beings. He shows the legal issues involved. Does a Copy have the same rights as an organic human being? There's several poignant interactions between one of the main characters and her mother, who is resistant to the idea of becoming an immortal Copy even when faced with her death. So, the humanity isn't lost in a swarm of technical details, as sometimes happens with science fiction.

In conclusion, if it isn’t clear, I think EVERY serious book-reader, especially every sci-fi reader, should at least attempt an Egan novel. If it turns out you can’t handle the hard science aspects, fine. Either go educate yourself on them (as I did when required in both Permutation City & Diaspora) or don’t and at least say you give it a fair shake.
25 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Permutation City.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Started Reading
October 13, 2017 – Finished Reading
October 27, 2017 – Shelved
October 27, 2017 – Shelved as: top-shelf
October 27, 2017 – Shelved as: detailed-review
October 27, 2017 – Shelved as: scififantasy

Comments Showing 1-5 of 5 (5 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Richard Great review.

Not so much because I agree — that's complicated — but because you showed us what you were passionate about here, and why. I think that's probably the best aspect of Goodreads, that we can explain to others what we like and dislike, and go into rants and ecstasies. I don't have a single in-living-flesh friend who appreciates all of my reading idiosyncrasies, but we can self-select for this kind of thing on the interwebs.

When I think about what I liked about the book, the breaking point was the paragraph where you mention it isn't necessary to have a PhD in Mathematics.

Before that, your enthusiasm was about how Egan takes the mind-bending ambiguities of physics and creates a story that is faithful to those mysteries. After that, your focus shifts to how those deep questions can show up.

In my review I said he should have won the Philip K. Dick Award (it was nominated; the winner was the now-forgotten Headcrash). My first experience of PKD was, of course, Blade Runner. Ridley Scott made the movie much more accessible than the book, but the kernel that ties them together is the ethical question of what makes a being a human, which has been an increasingly salient question in the decades since.

Ever since, I've applauded books that manage that trick: embed a deep philosophical question into the context of their story. (I now realize I should have been keeping explicit track of yet another variable via the Goodreads shelving system.)

That's the part of Egan's book that I really enjoyed. But the physics/mathematics behind it? Not so much. I have intense respect for the knowledge and effort, but for me, that was the detriment. If PKD had spent time time within his story explaining to me that the material substrate doesn't have to be the same to impose the same ethical considerations, I think that would have been a distraction. For me — for others, a clever argument on that may have been transformative.

I think this really comes down to a style preference.

I prefer to learn things by example, but with the theory kept separate from the examples. For example, I'll read something like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on The Problem of Dirty Hands, and then be able to better enjoy stories that implicitly invoke that paradox, and even reflect how some stories may have been even better if the author had studied and pondered the issue.

But I don't want a story that tries to educate me. That would be akin to extended world building, which is almost never done well. The best stories — for me — are the ones that invoke, clearly, a Big Question without the lesson. Those who already understood that question will appreciate the clarity, and those who don't will just get a good story. One which may change how they understand the world, or it may not. I suspect Roy Batty's anger and gentle death has profoundly changed the plausibility of non-humans being accorded human rights, even though few of us can explain how it relates to the Chinese Room thought experiment.

Thanks for the provocative essay!


Erik Thanks for the (provocative) comments, Richard.

First, I have long been fascinated by the dichotomy between "in-living-flesh" and interwebs, or what I call 'meatspace' and 'inkspace.' I remember in the early days of internet, how often I encountered this idea that "you don't really know someone until you meet them IN THE FLESH." Ostentatiously, this was to caution about internet predators and anonymity. More deeply, it was at least partially a simple reactionary conservative fear of new things. Regardless, the idea fascinated me and stuck with me.

When I started dating my girlfriend about a year and a half ago, we had a long conversation about this idea, and I realized I now believe you don't really know someone until you know them IN THE FLESH *and* IN THE INK. I think the inkspace part is required because that is where people have the time to 'self-select' the exact communities they belong to, the people they interact with, and most importantly exactly how they present themselves. So people's inkspace personae represent not just who the people currently are but who they would like to be, if they had full control over themselves (their genetics, their subconscious, their environment, etc).

[Sidebar: I'm particularly fascinated about the conflicts that have arisen because of this. We have people who say, "I may be born human but I'm dragonkin." or "I was born male, but really I'm trigender: male, female, and neutral." And it's easy to see how meat/inkspace differences might contribute to this. Young people are used to having a very high degree control over their identity in inkspace. It seems they want the same in meatspace too.]

But anyway, I completely agree about Goodreads and in particular, I really like those reviews and interactions where people reveal their opinions in a way that showcases their humanity.

As for our different responses to Egan's works, I'd say that it's because - for me - the technical details aren't distractions. I'd enlist the help of Richard Feynman on this one.

So I'd say that Egan's explorations of the technical details only adds, it doesn't subtract. It'd be one thing if I thought he was getting the humanity wrong (like Heinlein often did), but I don't think he does. So with Egan, I feel I'm getting not just the human beauty, but also the math and the physics beauty.

Alas, it's been my experience that a tiny fraction of people seem able to 'feel' scientific beauty. When I look at, say, a cup of tea with a swirl of steam rising from its depths, I appreciate not just the macroscopic details, but also the mystique and beauty of the hidden quantum interactions. Which are in EVERYTHING. So living, for me, is like a constant flight through a sea of infinity. Egan's works pull those feelings out of my subconscious and makes them real, something no other author has ever done for me, a feat he could never have accomplished without the technical details.


Richard I like your point about both irl and "inkspace". I'd throw a slightly different light onto it, alluding to Daniel Kahneman. One makes it easier to know the person when they're "in" System One thinking, the other shows you what they're like when System Two thinking is possible.

Since Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow isn't on your "read" shelf, I'll elaborate. When you're talking to someone in person, chances are good that most folks will seldom carefully consider your question, the context, the history of the relationship, etc., and then answer with confidence that they've answered it as rationally as they can. So they're "thinking fast", which tends to rely on a complex set of heuristics, which started out as instinctive and emotional, but which don't have to remain the way they started out.

But in a time-delayed conversation (email, web forums, etc.) they at least have the chance to sit back and think. Maybe write a draft and then throw it out and start again. Maybe check their sources before making an assertion. That would be System Two, "slow" thinking, wherein we can bring learned habits to bear.

Yeah, I can see how getting exposure to both of those would be very revealing.

Erik wrote: "I'd enlist the help of Richard Feynman on this one." I like that anecdote, but I don't think it helps you. The flower doesn't have diagrams illustrating the symmetry of its petals or the arch of the stem, or annotations showing which organic molecules are present. It isn't necessary; those are already present in Feynman's brain, and enrich his experience. His annoying acquaintance thinks he's somehow only seeing those imaginary diagrams and annotations and missing out on the "real" experience, when Feynman is actually enjoying both.

So I think it's more akin to my explanation of why I like books that use Good Science (or Interesting Philosophy, etc.) as the backbone and subtext of the story, because I really do enjoy and respect it when they've got it right at that level, but also have a good story.

I'm not trying to dis Egan's book. I'm more suspicious it's in that slightly different category, where the thrill (for you) is that he's not leaving any doubt about how the diagrams and annotations are what actually creates the beautiful part of the story. That far fewer of us can "get it" doesn't mean the craftmanship was easier, or that your enjoyment isn't valuable; it just means you're a rare and precious flower :-D


Ruth I just want to say that I love your reviews. And I love Greg Egan.


Erik Thanks for saying so, Ruth.

I'm (obviously) a huge fan of Egan too. I've even managed to get a copy of his very first novel, which has long been out of print, and I'm tremendously excited to read it.


back to top