Talk:The Last Question

Untitled

The ending is usually interpreted as the AC rebooting the universe, but i prefer the idea that it created a simulation within itself of the universe, a nested virtual reality for life to replay itself in. Mike Schiraldi 06:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That is my interpretation too. In the story the Cosmic AC prepares a "program" with all the data it gathered. To me, this is an Universe Simulation, and the AC then becomes God by running this program. Stanislaw Lem also wrote a story that explicitly involved an "Universe Simulation", in this case by a mad computer that thought it was God (unfortunately I don't remember the title). In more recent works, this "Godlike Computer" and "Universe Simulation" themes have appeared for example in the "Matrix" trilogy and in the Manga/Anime "Ah! My Goddess". The Synthetic God seems to be a product of this technological age...

No way is it just a simulation that AC created. A simulation would not have effected the massive decrease in entropy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marainlaw (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is not supposed to be a simulation based on when this story was original published. I don't think that would have occurred to Dr. Asimov, though I admit that doesn't necessarily matter. - Denimadept (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I gotta say this is a very fine story and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Any reccommendations should be posted on my talk page. --TIB 04:40, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Another example of a God Computer would be When HARLIE Was One by David Gerrold. At one point, HARLIE proposes creating a computer, the Graphic Omniscient Device, to run a simulation of the universe in order to provide the answer to any questions regarding the universe. The twist is, due to the sheer scale of the computer, speed-of-light lag means that it would take longer to complete a prediction than it would take for events to actually play out.--Enigmatick 05:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

I'm placing a spoiler warning on this article as the Synopsis section gives away too much of the plot. Counterfriction 07:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation? (Linking to online mirrors)

I'm pretty sure that the text mirrors to which this article links are copyright violations, and the second one is broken anyway. Consequently, I'm moving the text here until someone convinces me otherwise.

Well that depends, how long does copyright last for where you are? Longer than 50 years? Sri Theo 22:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Usually copyright is life plus 70 years. Asimov died in 1992, so I think it's safe to say that the story will remain protected for a while yet. --Bonalaw 12:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In 1956, when the story was published, works were under copyright for 28 years with an optional renewal for a period of another 28 years. In 1978, the renewal period was extended to 47 years. The story in question would have come up for renewal in 1984, and was apparently renewed on January 5, 1984. In 1998, copyrights were extended another 20 years, which would put it under copyright until 2051. Gnosticdogma 19:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would suggest that it would be wise not to link to any online versions of The Last Question until the copyright expires, so if anyone does ill delete it and place the link here -- KaiAdin 01:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that copyright law should allow you to link to any content. Referring to a work that violates copyright should not be illegal. A link is just a pointer. Copyright should also allow ALL works to be hosted for non-profit academic work like an encyclopedia. Not only do I think linking the story is OK, I think mirroring it would be perfectly ethical. Moreover, the author of this story is long dead. Copyright should not continue to "protect" a work when the person it is supposedly "protecting" the work for no longer exists! If the law says otherwise, than the law opposes free speech. Delirium of disorder 05:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly.... who gives a shit.

We wouldn't want a lawsuit filed against Wikipedia, now, would we?

If wikipedia were sued for something like this, it would be trivial to take down. In fact whoever is threatening the suit could take remove the link themselves rather than paying some lawyer big bucks to threaten us! The content should at the very least remain until an actual suit is filed or the copyright holder makes their wishes known in some more amicable manner. If wikipedia is really getting threatened for LINKING to copyrighted content without permission, and judges are taking these threats seriously, then I recommend that wikipedia quit the non-profit incorporated in the USA and move the servers and staff to some other nation, one that has a basic level of respect for free speech. Delirium of disorder 21:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia's policy to not link to copyright violations. Our mission isn't to violate the law or help others do so. Wikipedia's mission is to create a body of educational content which will be legally free forever no matter if copyright gets fixed or not, which is a mission that people on all sides of the copyright discussion should be able to support. But that mission won't be helped if we encourage people to confuse Wikipedia with people whom are ignoring society's rules. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ELNEVER. This link is of a kind which is banned on Wikipedia "without exception". I'm not a fan of how long copyright currently is, but that's the law...and the WP policy reflects that. Kufat (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible plot flaw?

Kinda funny... I haven't read the story, although i do love Asimov, but if the Cosmic AC exists in hyperspace, then how can there be "nobody to report it to?" -- postglock 16:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

how? everyone in the universe would have been killed by heat deathJoeyjojo 00:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I just meant that if the Cosmic AC exists in hyperspace, out of time, then the concept of there being "nobody to report it to" becomes obsolete. He could simply report the answer back to us (or our descendants) at a point in time when we existed. -postglock 06:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

well maybe the comic AC was not out side of some sort of "hyperspace time" or didn't want to (or chouldn't) upset causality? but i don't know, like you i haven't read it.

Yeah, I suppose there could be implied or explicit laws to do with existing in hyperspace as far as this story is concerned. I suppose I just assumed that existing out of normal time suggests not being bound by the linear flow of it, but (as suggested) perhaps he is merely tied to some sort of meta-time from which he cannot escape... Hmmm... -postglock 05:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

could be, it make you think but.. i'll see it i can find a copy -Joeyjojo 04:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if the Cosmic AC can't do that, then he isn't really much of a god, is he? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.244.148 (talk • contribs)

True... but then this is opening up a whole other kettle of fish... :-) -postglock 08:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that this short asimov story is known on the Web, although it's my favourite asimov's writing. But there's a huge problem in his story, that breaked my heart when i discovered it '-_- . Why don't WE know how to reverse entropy, multivac should've told us.

Humanity "dies" when the last person fuses with the cosmic ac when there is only the single star left. All the bodies are dead, all the minds have fused with cosmic ac. Some time after that, the Cosmic AC figures out the answer, and performs it. Macktheknifeau 23:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I finally got around to reading the story, and I think the spoilers confused me. While computing the answer, the Cosmic AC is not exactly in "hyperspace," as this implies a "normal" space and time, to which it is outside ("hyper"). I've rewritten sections of the spoiler now... -postglock 04:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should hyperspace be outside of time? It's just another dimension, still linked to our universe - and time.--Cyberman TM (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#FORUM. - Denimadept (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, y'all are taking this much too seriously. Asimov wrote this all in one sitting. It's supposed to be entertaining. (And, at that, it succeeds.) Chill! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marainlaw (talk • contribs) 23:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Heat death vs. Cold death?

In the story, the last consciousness of Man fuses with the AC when the last star dies, ten trillion years from the beginning. Toward the end of the story, reference is made to most stars being fading white dwarfs, and that all the stars and galaxies 'snuffed out.' This sounds more to me like a cold death--a scenario where all the stars have turned into black dwarfs, the Universe has expanded so far that any free energy is dissipated, and there is no longer any hydrogen available to create new stars. The heat death scenario in any case would take far longer than 10 trillion years. Jsc1973 14:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Heat is a measurement of the transfer of energy. Cold is an adjective describing relative temperature. Heat death is used because when the temperature of the universe is completely homogenized, there will be no temperature differences to motivate the exchange of energy, and thus the "heat" of the universe (or any subsystem therein) is zero. This lack of energy in transit would be strictly prohibitive of life as we know it. Counterfriction 07:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with Counterfriction, heat death is a term for the eventually balance of heat throughout the universe, and so it is not meant as death by heat but as death of heat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.82.82 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The Cosmic AC merged with Man

I added this bit in, as it is very important to the story IMO. Cheezmeister 03:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be switched around; Man merged with the Cosmic AC The Conundrumer^T_C 05:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

(spoiler removed)

Ok, revealing the final in the plot summary is just wrong. I first read about this short story right here in Wikipedia, and read it using the link in this page. If had read the (spoiler removed) bit it will have spoiled the story. I don't know too much about wikipedia standars in plot summary (I'm just an avid reader of wikipedia, just editing some mistyping and vandalism) but the final twist shouln't be there, so I edited back that bit to the way I read it some time ago. If there's some kind of police about this, change it back, but please, try not to spoil this great short story. Kind Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.128.161 (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so I've removed the major spoiler from your comment. Have a nice day. :-D - Denimadept (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have some guidelines on this, at WP: Spoiler. I tend to agree with the reasoning presented. I'm sorry anyone feels the presence of a spoiler was "just wrong", but the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, and spoilers are specifically noted in WP:Content_disclaimer. I'm placing the final paragraph back in.128.113.145.163 (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

US Centric

Um no offense but "Overall, it is considered to be one of the greatest science fiction short stories ever written." This is a US centric viewpoint. It might be nice to find out what the rest of the world thinks, but I don't think we would agree (I'm British, I live in Asia). Azimov writes with a very 50s era American optimism, and it gets old very quick. Compare Azimov to Philip K Dick, and you'll see that Azimov's optimism seems so very old fashioned whereas Dick's Pessimism is right on the money, and at least his work reads as fresh today as it was then. Dick, Clarke, Silverberg are more representative of the rest of the world's view of good sci-fi. I'm sure if you bothered to check outside the US you would be surprised to get a different answer for the best short story ever written. I think more research is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.101.225 (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's not so much "US-centric" as (more likely) just paraphrased from some review without citing the source. Possibly this one. --V2Blast (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead Links

The first two of the three "External links" in the article are dead (so tagged). The "Possibly this one" just above is also dead and, quite possibly, for the same reason as number 1 from "External links". If V2Blast was right then we have lost the "by whom?" reference (unless someone wants to query the Wayback Machine). --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

AC Definition

What does the "AC" acronym stand for? My googling has proved completely fruitless, only getting a line stating that it is indeed the name of the computer. Does anyone know what it actually stands for? 74.128.56.194 (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It stands for "Analog Computer." it's in the short story, at least in my edition. 118.139.6.190 (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. - Denimadept (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit late for this, but it actually stands for Automatic Computer according to the text
Someone had once told Jerrodd that the "ac" at the end of "Microvac" stood for automatic computer" in ancient English, but he was on the edge of forgetting even that. SpunkyLM (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpunkyLM (talk • contribs)

Planetarium

I know this story, narrated by Leonard Nimoy, was presented in the 1970s at the Boston Museum of Science, because I saw it there. I do not know the year, but I would guess 77-79. I wish I had better references to this, but I don't. Coincidentally, the museum is within a couple of blocks of where Nimoy grew up. Bobkeyes (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

On 9 August 2015 this article was changed from "the Hayden Planetarium in the Boston Museum of Science" to "the Hayden Planetarium in New York City". As no citation was provided, I have changed it back. Does anyone have any reference to this show appearing at either planetarium? Lee Choquette (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of any reference, let's just kill it instead of guessing. If it's not noted anywhere, Wikipedia should not be the first place to note it. TJRC (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not quite a guess, as Bobkeyes above personally remembers it showing at the one in Boston. I don't know if that's sufficient for Wikipedia. (I personally saw it at Hansen Planetarium in 1980, but I was also able to find a reference before adding that.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Choquette (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point, and my apologies to Bobkeyes. In any event, personal memories aren't citable. (I have a great quote from Grace Hopper I would add to her article, otherwise!). WP:RS requires a published source. TJRC (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Is this book anyway related to Douglas Adams' series?
They have quite a few common items.
Supercomputer calculating answer to ultimate question is most significat one.

Frederic Brown's "Answer" is much more closely paid homage in the completion of Deep Thought. "The Last Question" is, however, the basis for an xkcd comic. - Dravecky (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

==Wiki Education assignment: English 465 Post-Apocalyptic Science Fiction== This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GabrielleLohse (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Chainthasher, Mariamoo333.

Original publication ending

It isn’t the one in this article. It’s “THE BEGINNING”. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@82.36.70.45: Do you have a citation for that? - Denimadept (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I have the story itself: https://archive.org/details/Science_Fiction_Quarterly_New_Series_v04n05_1956-11_slpn/page/n13/mode/2up 82.36.70.45 (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

That's as opposed to "The End". - Denimadept (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Names

Has anyone else noted "Multivac" vs. Multics, and "Microvac" vs. Microvax.... 71.163.253.240 (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that's intentional. - Denimadept (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)