Talk:Contact (novel)

A Mathematical Proof

This is really nerdy and arguably irrelevant, but I feel like the following statement can be proven false:

"The string's length is the product of 11 prime numbers. The 1s and 0s when organized as a square of specific dimensions form a rasterized circle."

The product of an odd number of prime numbers (e.g. 11) cannot be a square number.

Proof:

If X is square, then X = Y*Y.

Y is the product of N prime factors.

Thus, X is the product of 2N prime factors.

There is no integer N such that 2N is odd.

QED

There is no way that a sequence of this type can form a perfect square.Hypatient (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't mean a mathematical square, but a geometrical square: "a square of specific dimensions", i.e. 3x3, or 4x4. It goes without saying the grammar was unclear, at best—the original prose is as follows: "The program reassembled the digits into a square raster, an equal number across and down."

. . . The universe was made on purpose, the circle said. In whatever galaxy you happen to find yourself, you take the circumference of a circle, divide it by its diameter, measure closely enough, and uncover a miracle—another circle, drawn kilometers downstream of the decimal point. There would be richer messages farther in . . .

Furthermore, the characterization used in this article of the pattern discovered by Ellie at the end of the book is erroneously conflated with the mysterious message alluded to by the Stationmasters. At least according to the epilogue, the circle is merely a precursor, a marker for the mathematician that they are on the right path. The article says Ellie's program uncovers a string, "The string's length is the product of 11 prime numbers", this is incorrect, nor stated in the epilogue (also, it is not expressed how far beyond the decimal the Argus found this pattern: certainly not 10²⁰). The string of binary digits being the product of 11 primes was characteristic of the Stationmasters' unsolved message, not the circle-within-a-circle: Ellie even mused upon this fact that it was unlikely her program had already stumbled across their mystery. The article continues: "The extraterrestrials suggest that this is a signature incorporated into the Universe itself. Yet the extraterrestrials are just as ignorant to its meaning as Ellie, as it could be still some sort of a statistical anomaly." Again, this is incorrect: someone mistook the circle at the end of the book and the Stationmasters' unsolved binary message to be the same thing. The narrator alludes the circle to a signature; the Stationmasters referred to a full, as-of-yet-decrypted message.

At no point in the epilogue does it state the circle and the unsolved binary message to be the same thing; in fact an entire paragraph was devoted to Ellie musing the possibility of "easier" and "harder" messages, this one likely a mark of encouragement.

Anyway, just sharing. Watemon (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Date of Marriage

The date of marriage between Carl Sagan and his wife is stated as 1979 in this article, yet on her wikipedia page it says 1981. Which one is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange.County.Steve (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Message in PI prediction

The transcendental number PI actually does contain deep within its digits a pattern of 1's and 0's representing a rasterized circle, precisely as described by Carl Sagan. As German mathematician Jörg Arndt explains, "Somewhere in PI, everything that is finite is surely to be found, including, when coded in numeric form, every text in the world, the shortest, the longest, the cleverest. Naturally that includes this text, and also of course the Bible, in every language, and every piece of music." From this we can extrapolate that PI also contains somewhere the full text of the novel Contact. See "Pi unleashed", page 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbnelson (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is no such thing as a perfect circle...

Or perfect anything, how do we know the numbers of pi are accurate.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.114.38 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say the the a perfect circle exists abstractly, and we can calculate the ratio of this abstract circumference to diameter using abstract tools (i.e. math). When numerically evaluating the equations which calculate successive digits of pi, the standard method is to use an equation which approached pi but is always slightly smaller, then simultaneously calculate pi using an equation that is always slightly larger than pi.

Thus for a given digit, if the two equations give the same number, then error in each is smaller than the decimal place you are calculating. As you move to more and more digits, as long as both equations agree, you can be sure that the answer is correct 192.31.106.35 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit Conclusion

To my mind the Conclusion section of this article reads like a subjective review and arguement against Intelligent Design. The following section should stay, but I think the rest should go:

"Intelligent design proponents often cite the ending of Contact as proof that Sagan believed that, using the tools of science, it was possible to discover if there was a creator of the universe. This position is in direct conflict with the vast body of Sagan's views as represented in his work and writings, which are best described as dismissive of claims of supernatural origins of the cosmos and favoring explanations of a naturalistic origin."

Even this I find a little subjective, it would be better to provide quotations that state Sagan's view explicitly, there appear to be many available.

The section on Pi, Averroes, Feynman etc. appears to be a critique/personnel analysis it's interesting but I don't really think it has any place in this entry.

I agree that there are problems. Please make the needed changes. --JWSchmidt 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

proof of god

This phrase is illogical: "much like the proof of God by testaments of the biblical times which are not accepted by modern science as evidence." Testaments of biblical times are not considered "proof of God". They are stories about God. To read them requires a priori that God exists. They in no way serve as evidence that God exists. Never has a Biblical scholar, theologian, nor any other academia, nor the Bible itself, made the claim that the testaments of the Bible serve as proof of God. If the Bible ever made that claim, then it would contradict itself when it speaks of the importance of faith.Bryanpeterson 21:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Esarhaddon

Random question: is it known at all why Sagan named a character after Esarhaddon, an Assyrian king? Is there something to that historical figure's life story that adds some kind of meaning or depth to the character? It seems like an odd choice for a cheap joke (if it's just for kicks, why not some old colleague/foe of Sagan's?) but I can't figure out what else it could be. Or is it merely coincidence (I doubt it, but I suppose it's possible)? Jwrosenzweig 22:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read the novel, but I seem to recall that one of the reasons that S.R. Haddon had so many enemies was because he had built "pleasure palaces", or something like that. Perhaps this recalls Esarhaddon's "rebuilding of Babylon"? In any case, Jwrosenzweig, an interesting observation. func(talk) 17:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I think it's a mistake to characterize this book as being "about the idea that our universe may have been created". This is really a minor point from the very end of the book and is not even conveyed in the movie. Not only is it a spoiler, it's not even a correct analysis of the story.

—--- —

I may have figured this one out- when Esarhaddon became King, he rebuilt the destroyed Babylonian temple and brought the statues of the Babylonian gods back to the city. So right away you have a similarity with his consistent role in the story as reviving what had been destroyed/lost (bringing funding back in to Ellie's research after she's been dropped by her previous backers, bringing in the primer when no cryptologist on Earth was seeing a way to solve this thing, and of course with being the corporate sponsor of the construction of the second machine.)
Another angle- So as not to appear biased in the bitter divide between Babylonians and Assyrians (each having their own faith/religion) Esarhaddon also rebuilt the Assyrian temple. So one might say that he gave both opposing camps (i.e. science and faith....) something to believe in again.
Either way, Sagan goes above and beyond to suggest Hadden as a symbolically god-like figure- I mean he literally lives in the sky and within the context of the story more or less knows all.
From a story-telling/screenwriting perspective, the meaning of the name is hugely significant and kind of the difference between the story being well-made or not. Hadden's position in the story structure and unfolding of information is technically very problematic- he serves as a deus ex machina (tisk, tisk) not once but three times. Were someone as knowingly sophisticated as Sagan not behind the storytelling, critics would be dragging this aspect of the plot relentlessly and reading it to filth. (Yea, it's real easy to solve your mystery when someone randomly sends you a fax and is like "I got it, here it is.") However, it's Sagan, so there's got to be more there.
God/man in the sky references aside, we know one thing about Hadden: he has unlimited wealth and unlimited resources. And within our society- relative to, say, a public bus driver- those people have almost god-like power and control. The amount of time in the story spent on the arduous process of procuring funding for research shows that Sagan's not just interested in the big ideas here, he's also very grounded in the logistics. It's not just that religion requires faith in the unproven and science requires that curious scientists have faith in the unproven (from which they'll derive the motivation to prove them.) Things don't get proven without research. Research doesn't happen without money. The scientific advancement of humankind demands that new unproven things continuously be proven, and Sagan is constantly reminding the viewer/reader that that process will almost certainly involve a curious scientist asking someone for money, and in doing so, they're asking the bearer of the *money* to have faith.
So the only way that I- as a screenwriter- can justify Hadden's use throughout the story, justify the fact that the only reason any of this happened in this crazy story where humanity entered a new paradigm, the very difference between it happening and not happening, is S.R. Hadden and his belief in Ellie- is that Sagan is trying to put loads of emphasis on the fact that not only was Ellie was able to get people to have faith in her, she was able to get someone *with a ton of money* to have faith. The advancement of science depends not only on curious scientists having faith in the unproven, but in their ability to get people with *a ton of money* to share in their faith. After all- the big reveal of the 18 hours of static isn't just about getting Ellie vindication in the court of public opinion. It's about whether or not she'll get awarded A GOVERNMENT GRANT. (Cut to Ellie showing the kids all her fancy new satellites.)
One thing I'm still not sure of (and this couldn't be fully Contact-related unless there were remaining things to be unsure of) is what exactly Esarhaddon's motivations were for rebuilding the temples, aside from improving public opinion of him. Either way, what was likely a small decision for a King impacted the spiritual lives of an entire civilization.
But in short- the one of them rebuilt the big temple, and the other one rebuilt the big space machine.
Over and out.148.75.51.107 (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Description of significance of circle

I have reverted the following from the plot summary:

"Is this an unmistakably intelligent artifact, the artist's signature, or could it just be the true and statistical expression of an infinite number?"

Sagan clearly states what the pattern means (underlines added for emphasis):

The universe was made on purpose, the circle said. ... [Take] the circumference of a circle, divide by its diameter, measure closely enough, and uncover a miracle—another circle... There would be richer messages further in... In the fabric of space and in the nature of matter, as in a great work of art, there is, written small, the artist's signature. Standing over humans, gods, and demons...there is an intelligence that antedates the universe... She found what she had been searching for. (pp. 430-431.)

Any other interpretation misrepresents the novel.--Johnstone 02:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why some readers of Sagan's fiction feel the need to try to "sanitize" descriptions of "Contact". Yes, it is a story about first contact, but it explores deeper issues such as the idea that the universe might have been created. I agree that the movie gave superficial treatment to much of what is important in the book, but that is a limitation of Hollywood and is not a useful guide to what Sagan was trying to accomplish in his novel. If you read Sagan's non-fiction (such as "The Demon-Haunted World") you learn that Sagan was interested in ideas that are normally thought of as "religious", such as the possibility that there might be some kind of life after death. Sagan explored these "philosophical" issues in his fiction by providing examples of how science might be able to answer questions of a "religious" nature, for example by finding objective evidence that the universe had been created. Sagan was not saying that he believed in life after death or that the universe was created by an intelligence. He was showing the kinds of evidence that a scientist would need in order to believe in a created universe. It is absurd to call this a minor part of the story. Sagan clearly devoted huge sections of "Contact" to discussions of the difference between traditional religious approaches to topics like creation and scientific study of origins. A typical science fiction novel about first contact would not have done this. Sagan's choice of the circle as the method by which scientists could read "the signature of the creator" was a plot device. I doubt if Sagan thought that there is a way that an intelligent designer can alter the value of Pi. He just needed an example of "an obvious place" where any human-like species would be sure to look and be able to find a "signature" of creation. Similarly, Sagan did not believe that faster than light travel is possible, he just made use of it as a plot device to move the story along to interesting places. --JWSchmidt 15:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. In the current state of the article, it reads like a veiled promotion for intelligent design and specified complexity. Indeed, the book and movie is viewed as a touchstone by the leading proponents of intelligent design movement, as William Dembski's published mis-quotes of the film show. I'll be editing the article for NPOV, removing any untoward oblique pro-ID POV. FeloniousMonk 19:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"It is left for the reader to decide if this is an unmistakably intelligent artifact, the artist's signature, or could it just be the true and statistical expression of an infinite number." No it is not. The entire novel was constructed so as to use the "message" inside Pi as a hypothetical example of how scientific investigation of the universe might be able to find evidence that the universe had been created. Even if you believe that every possible sequence of numbers existes in Pi, that such a clearly unusual and long sub-sequence as depicted in the story would be so easy to find in Pi is very low probability. Sagan created this as an example of the kind of evidence that a scientist would not be able to ignore. It is not ABSOLUTE proof that the universe had been created; that is not the point --JWSchmidt 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"The entire novel was constructed so as to use the "message" inside Pi as a hypothetical example of how scientific investigation of the universe might be able to find evidence that the universe had been created." is an opinion of what Sagan intended, not fact. And it's a highly debatable opinion at that, considering that Sagan was a dedicated atheist, skeptic and adherent to the tenets of naturalism and the scientific method. What is of very low probability is that such a person would write a book about how scientific investigation of the universe would find evidence that the universe had been created. I've read Contact, in fact I've been reading Sagan since the 70's, and not one of his works that I've read ever even hinted that he was a closet creationist. Having just re-read the last chapter of the book, I see your what you're saying. I reword the sentence in question. FeloniousMonk 23:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sagan wrote a novel that explores (among other things) the kinds of objective evidence a scientist might take as supporting the idea that the universe was created. This does not mean that he was a "closet creationist". Nor does it mean that he thought such objective evidence could be found or even that he hoped it could be found. It means that he wanted to acknowledge that it is natural for people to wonder about origins but also give people a depiction of how science might be able to deal with questions that are often thought of as being outside of the domain of science. Another issue that Sagan was concerned about (and wrote about in his non-fiction) was the possibility of life after death. The movie "Contact" was very good at showing the idea that people are ready to believe in life after death, but that our own memories can fool us into thinking we have had an experience of being with someone who is dead. Sagan, as a scientist, was not afraid to discuss such issues. It is clear that he had learned to ignore the views of other scientists who are afraid to question politicians (the source of $$$$), afraid to create new science (such as SETI) and afraid to talk about "religious" topics. There are other scientists besides Sagan who have dared to speculate about the possibility that our universe might have been created, and done so without suggesting that this means there is some "god" to be worshipped. That Sagan was compelled to explore such topics should come as no surprise, it is perfectly in line with his willingness to question everything, respect the natural human sense of wonder, and produce speculative hypotheses that other more narrow-minded scientists cannot even imagine. There is no need to pretend that Sagan was not interested in issues like the origin of the universe. I agree that it is regrettable that some Sagan observers have suggested that Sagan had "closet" religious convictions. This is easy to refute without having to deny the wide range of Sagan's true interests. --JWSchmidt 01:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That the universe may have been created by something other than a supernatural deity is a paradox; a logical impossibility. But it's a common argument made by the ID crowd to dodge being lumped together with other creationists. And this is why Contact appeals to them, and why they try to claim Sagan as one of their own, or was a deist, or a closet theist, etc. The fact remains that the corpus of his work places religious dogma and deistic assertions somewhere south of mere opinion, barely north of nonsense. Any speculation about Sagan favoring the design argument based on the last chapter of this one book would need to overcome the large body of evidence to the contrary to be credible, and that is my concern here.

As a plot device, the use of a pattern within a string is logically and methodologically flawed. The circle found by Arroway's computer program no more proves that it's an "unmistakably intelligent artifact" or is proof of "an intelligence that antedates the universe" than pervasive fractals or the fine structure constant are evidence of universe being design in reality. That Sagan states it does in a piece of fiction in no way should be taken as a validation of the scientific merit of the argument. There are many examples of apparent patterns in nature that have shown to be of random, natural origin. A graphic representation of a circle found within munged data in and of itself proves nothing. Current data munging can find all sorts of interesting patterns, graphic or mathematical, from nearly any string; it's no more proof of creation than say, the teleological argument. Hence my original passage that is was up to the reader to decide if this was proof of creation. FeloniousMonk 17:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"That the universe may have been 'created' by something other than a supernatural deity is a paradox; a logical impossibility. "

reply to F. Monk. Why make dogmatic statements about what is and is not possible? Lord Kelvin claimed that Darwin was wrong about the ancient age of the Earth because no possible power source could keep the sun burning for billions of years. Kelvin was wrong: physicists soon discovered nuclear energy and Darwin's estimate of the great age of the Earth was eventually vindicated.

There are some scientists who are willing to talk about the speculative possibility that it might be possible, using advanced high-energy technologies, to create new universes. Sagan's novel even hints that advanced species in our universe might be involved in trying to develop such high-energy technologies. If our universe was created, why can't we in turn create new "daughter universes" for our universe?

"The circle found by Arroway's computer program no more proves that it's an 'unmistakably intelligent artifact' or is proof of 'an intelligence that antedates the universe' than pervasive fractals or the fine structure constant are evidence of universe being design in reality. That Sagan states it does in a piece of fiction in no way should be taken as a validation of the scientific merit of the argument."

"Proof" is just an argument that other people accept. All you are saying is that for you, such a discovery would not be proof that the universe was created. Sagan's point was that such a discovery is a fictional example of the type of discovery that would provide objective evidence that could be interpreted as support for the idea of a designed universe. The artificial nature of the "message" in Pi is such that it suggests that the designer of the universe wanted us to know that the universe had been designed.

Why even ask the artificial question of if Sagan managed to create an imaginary discovery that readers would find believable as evidence for a created universe? The point Sagan was making was that it is conceivable that if the universe was created and if the creator had wanted the inhabitants of the universe to know that it had been created, then the tools of science might allow us to detect evidence of the creator, evidence that is part of the structure of the universe. Sagan's point was, that there is no reason to avoid the need for objective evidence when we explore wonder-inducing issues like the origin of the universe. Sagan did not say that there is evidence of such a designer or that he thought it likely that such evidence can be found or even that he thought it likely that such evidence could exist. Sagan's point was that we have to use the objective methods of science to evaluate any evidence that might be taken as support for the idea that the universe was created. That Sagan wrote a novel dealing with these issues in no way "gives support" to intelligent design advocates. Intelligent design advocates can try to claim that it does, but such claims are easy to refute without denying what Sagan accomplished in his book. --JWSchmidt 19:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not dogmatic at all to insist that logical arguments use valid logic. And using valid logic, if the universe were actually created, it only follows that whatever created it would be outside of it. And what Sagan accomplished in this book is always going to be a matter of personal opinion, that was my original point.

I think Sagan's point was that such a example could (not would) provide evidence that could be interpreted as support for the idea of a designed universe and it's up to the observer to be objective. You claim it was Sagan's intent that the "message" in Pi was indeed artificial. That may be clear to you and Arroway in the book, but that's not how I read it all. I read it as Arroway chooses to see it that way because that's what she's looking for now: "She had found what she had been looking for." That sentence, the last sentence of the book mind you, makes my point, she's no longer an objective observer, but is looking for a particular answer. This is what I mean when I say it's up to the reader to decide; some see the conclusion as proof of creation, others see it as a person completing a spiritual journey. Others see it as ambiguous. Let's let the reader decide.

As Sagan said, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. The artificial nature of the message in Pi is not a given. In real life such a "message" would have a tougher time of it than it does in the book, as I've said complex patterns are pervasive in nature and prove nothing in and of themselves. FeloniousMonk 20:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

when i first watched this film i was doing my hsc for english, i think this is a great film, the characters are great and the director knows what he's on about, you rock!!!!!!!!!! my yr loved your film and it was a great experience watching it, and to all those people out there that dont like this movie, use have no taste in films,

                                                             bye mwah

The pi controversy

I've edited this from the perspective of a mathematician. In particular, I wanted to point out that not only does π not depend on the geometry of the physical universe, it does not require geometry for its definition at all. Sagan himself mentions in Contact that

${\frac {\pi }{4}}=1-{\frac {1}{3}}+{\frac {1}{5}}-\cdots$

which clearly shows pi depends only on the properties of the natural numbers and number systems constructed from them, namely the rational numbers and the real numbers. It is not embedded in the fabric of space, but in grade-school arithmetic. Gene Ward Smith 04:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; I think this section is highly biased. Perhaps worse, it's philosophical, speculating about universes that do not exist. By definition, the universe is the container of everything that is, known or unknown; it is impossible to assert anything about what is not as though it were or must be. Even if you shift your focus to the known universe and postulate alternate universes, nothing is known about them -- by definition. It is simply an article of faith than in such an unknown universe, such-and-such laws would hold; no more rational or verifiable than the color of the pillowcases in Heaven.

It is true that mathematicians, especially pure mathematicians, believe absolutely that they possess Absolute Truth. But then, so do so many others....

Mathematical constants are inviolate, physical constants are flimsy? Perhaps God could not have created the universe any other way; perhaps he could; perhaps he will; perhaps he did. It's entirely possible than nothing we perceive is real; time and space may be illusions. But this kind of far-out speculation is just that: fantasy. It's beneath us to attack fantasy for not being science fact.

Were it not for WP:POINT, I think I'd have to go around to expose the blatant scientific absurdities in The Lord of the Rings. Really, though, this stuff must go. John Reid 15:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it argued that the nature of pi is irrelevant to this controversy because even if pi could not be changed by an omnipotent deity, language could, so English (or whatever language) could have developed such that an English message would one day be found in pi. Can this objection be added to the article? (I attempted to add it earlier but it was removed -- without comment so far as I can see.) Thanks! Cancilla 02:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Gene Ward Smith. The value of pi is a mathematical thing, not a property of spacetime.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. The talk pages are intended for the improvement of the article.  Xihr  00:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Information in Feymann's letter

Actually, one could encode information in this way. What fraction one uses and where one stops could encode data.

What is ammusing about the pattern?

Nothing, really. That was just the editor's point of view.

editorial

This article contains a large, entertaining editorial. Maybe the contributor should have it published in the campus newspaper? It certainly is not fit for an encyclopedia.

Salvia Divinorum?

I'd watched the movie Contact a few years ago and read a bit of the book, and when I was doing some research on dissociative drugs, it seemed to me that Contact seems less like the dream of an astronomer but more like a Salvia trip. Take a look at the Salvia divinorum wiki. My hypothesis is this: This book was inspired by a salvia trip. Now I know many of you might be offended that your favorite astronomer might use mind-altering drugs, but I want to make it clear that I mean no offense and that I'm not trying to slander Carl Sagan. Jolb 17:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though you have had Many years of using mind altering drugs yourself since the alst time you've seen the movie or actgualyl read the book. The book is a detailed analyss of the belief in God, extraterrestial life, the search method used and the current plictical system. the actual encounter is a small part of the whole deal, and the hallucination an accusation made from political gain.

My point is that your suggestion is stupid, pointless and is Totally irrelevant for a fictional book. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 22:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are unnecessary, Diza. Anyway it seems that I didn't explain some of the more subtle details of this hypothesis. I think that the movie is an analogy to someone discovering Salvia, preparing to take it, taking it, experiencing its effects, reaching an epiphany while under its influence, and attempting to share that experience with others. I don't want to go into it right here, but read the site more thoroughly. Time distortion, space travel, extraterrestrial life forms, spiritual and logical epiphanies, and the urge to disseminate ones experience are all common effects of salvia, and the parallels are undeniable. I don't mean offense to anyone, and I'm just throwing the idea out there for people willing to take it with a sense of humor and for people willing to be open-minded and read into the two subjects (wherein there are many obvious parallels) without going into an emotional rage. Jolb 06:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're way off base here. First off, the thoughts and such espoused in Sagan's only novel are pretty much in line with his essays. Carl was deeply attached to the notion of contact, and the subjects he delved into in Contact are the very same issues that he discussed in his essays and his public speaking. Second, Sagan was not an astronomer so much as a cosmologist. His work far outpaces anything else. Finally, it seems that you are in some kind of a delusion where the only great things can be explained by drugs. I'm sorry you have a substance abuse issue, but please be aware that this novel was the summation of Sagan's life. It wasn't something obtained over a "trip", and it certainly is not discussing anything as stupid as recreational drug trips. This is about as well as I can say this without resorting to ad hominem. I advise you to seek some psychological help if you are to the point where anything fantastical or incredible has to be explained with a hidden meaning of the creator being on some drug. You're not Carl Sagan, sir, and you never will be. His motivations reached far beyond some simple druggie. Redcard 13:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's funny to see how emotional people can get. Sagan would dismiss the above suggestion with a passing smile. I don't believe he would feel offended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.196.163 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

From the Wikipedia Article about Carl Sagan:

"Sagan was a user of marijuana. Under the pseudonym "Mr. X", he wrote an essay concerning cannabis smoking in the 1971 book Marihuana Reconsidered, written by Sagan's close friend Lester Grinspoon.[35][36] In his essay, Sagan wrote how marijuana use had helped to inspire some of his works and enhance sensual and intellectual experiences. After Sagan's death, Grinspoon disclosed this to Sagan's biographer, Keay Davidson. The publishing of the biography, Carl Sagan: A Life, in 1999, brought much media attention about this.[37]"

So he had the experience. From a scientific viewpoint it is possible that he used this in his book to describe experieces that cannot be rationally explained. --TeakHoken193.187.211.118 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"Creationism edit"

Revert from my appropriate revisions on June 3. Of which Diza said "comment is obviously mandatory to anyone who have read the book..!!"

What comment were you referring too?

The most obvious mistake I fixed was claiming Dawkins was a "well-known" atheist. Well-known by who? Just because a bunch of atheist websites quote him because they like some of the things he said doesn't make him an atheist. I gave evidence; I quoted his own words denying that he was an atheist: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God" and the credible source from the Washington Post.

The second thing I fixed was the claim "touchstone by the leading proponents of the [[intelligent design movement". There is not citation. And an exhaustive google search I was unable to find one intelligent design proponent use anything by Sagan. Of course this doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And a coverage of the possible controversy may be warranted in this article but to claim the controversy extends to the extent that it is a "touchstone" is flagrantly false.

Besides those things I have no ideal what you mean by "comment is obviously mandatory to anyone who [has] read the book." I made no correction or deletion of anything about the book. Everything is still their, I just rearranged a few things to maintain fluidity because I deleted undocumented claims.

Bryanpeterson 15:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Demon Haunted World vs. Science as a Candle

The section, Intelligent Design(misinterpretation) uses The Demon-Haunted World and Science as a Candle in the Dark as if they were the titles of two books. To the best of my knowledge, they are both part of the title of the same book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark as stated in The_Demon-Haunted_World

 Starmax777 14:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

mathematical question

Does this part:

In a kind of postscript, Ellie, acting upon a suggestion by the senders of the Message, works on a program which computes the digits of π to record lengths and in different bases. Very, very far from the decimal point (10^20) and in base 11, it finds that a special pattern does exist when the numbers stop varying randomly and start producing 1's and 0's in a very long string. The string's length is the product of 11 prime numbers. The 1's and 0's when organized as a square of specific dimensions form a perfect circle.

...make sense? Is it possible for any number that is the product of 11 primes to be a square number? Ospinad 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this comment, but no, it's not possible. The proof is posted under "Mathematical Proof" on this page.Hypatient (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Contact Sagan.jpg

Image:Contact Sagan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A for Andromeda

I've added A for Andromeda, because "Contact" rang so many bells to me. It's only listed as a film, so far with no book page, (and Contact(film) doesn't have a See Also section) but I have to start somewhere. Swanny18 (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary: "In one scene, Ellie is shown interacting with ..."

This might describe a FILM, not a NOVEL. Could this be written by someone who didn't read the book? Please fix this. Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, this line is in the article: "Ellie, a lifelong religious skeptic, finds herself asking the world to take a leap of faith and believe what she and the others say happened to them. She finds only one person willing to take that leap: Palmer Joss, a minister introduced early in the book."

In the novel, she is compelled to silence by Kitz and there is no announcement as to what occurred in the Machine. It is only in the movie where she asks "the world to take a leap of faith..."

72.177.232.201 (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Inspired by a true story?

I once attended a discussion at UC Davis in the late 1990's in which one of the featured scifi authors said that Sagan was visiting an observatory when a transmission was received from the Vega region. I wish I still had my notes. Apparently it got very exciting for a short period of time. The transmission was later confirmed to simply have been an earlier Earth transmission that had reflected back to Earth. Furthermore, the characters Ellie Arroway and Kent Clark are said to be based on real scientists involved in this discovery. Kent Clark is said to based on Kent Cullers though I can't find a reputable source to back up the claim.

Unfortunately, I don't have the name of my source nor proof that the event actually happened; just someone's else's claim. Worth stating in the discussion to encourage someone with knowledge of the event to step forward. Cputrdoc (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

About Kent Clark:

Isn't it interesting that Sagan gave that character a name which is the reverse of Clark Kent, as in Superman? Tesseract12 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Indication of notability

This article really needs some indications of the novel's notability: at present it consists of little more than a plot summary. Some indications of its reception and influence would be good here. Icalanise (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

how about the fact that thousands of people write about it? how about it was made into a movie? how about it's very novel content regarding "contact"? seek and you shall find..:) --Namaste@^? 00:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So why isn't any of that in the article? Icalanise (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a stupid comment. the film adaptation is there in the third line of the article(!) it's wiki edits speak for them selves(one click), the google check takes 1 second. don't confuse ignorance with boredom.

How about you read what I wrote before calling it stupid, or you risk coming across as stupid yourself. I am not saying this is a non-notable subject. I am not saying that no indication of notability exists. I am saying that this article provides precious little evidence for the influence of this novel. Sure there is material about the film adaptation at the film adaptation's page, but it is the lack of such evidence in this article that is the problem. Icalanise (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}}.  Xihr  04:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't say I really know enough about the novel to do that, or I would have tried to do it myself rather than posting on the talk page. It's not like I'm a Wikipedia newbie. Well, I put a nice helpful template at the top of the article indicating the issue, so I guess that is a first step to getting it fixed. Have a nice day. Icalanise (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to fix it up. I have GOOGLED away but it's hard finding evidence of notablity. I have strong positive opinions about the novel, but am resisting giving my point of view. GroveGuy (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thirteen year later and the article still lacks any sort of Reception section featuring reviews of the actual novel and its influence besides the fact that a movie was made decades later. That is, what did book reviewers think of it at the time? Is the novel considered for sf fans, or a general audience, or is it a discussion of the philosophy of science wrapped up in a plot? These are all useful things to know. I have been unable to find good reviews however. Ashmoo (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

save Similiar Books information

-- Similar books --

• His Master's Voice
• Danny Dunn and the Voice from Space
• The Listeners
• The Hercules Text
• A for Andromeda
• The Cassiopeia Affair by Chloe Zerwick and Harrison Brown

GroveGuy (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence for Francis Ford Coppola as co-author?

"It was based on a screenplay co-authored with Francis Ford Coppola" - an article in Variety is linked to in support of this, however the judge in the case is quoted agreeing that "Sagan had violated some terms of the contract" but it doesn't specify what those terms were and (IMHO) doesn't support the assertion that Coppola co-authored a screenplay that was the basis for Contact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.125.58 (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Third message?

The article says "A third message is discovered" but what was the second message? Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Differences with the film

A hidden comment at the top of this section states that this is not original research. Actually, yes, it is. To be more specific, it is synthesis: combining material from two sources to say something that neither source directly says. This section calls for interpretation of which differences are significant, which are minor and how to quantify the differences. Comments before I remove the section? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, how about cutting us a little slack here, SummerPhD. A few people really love this novel and film and find it interesting to note how the movie people simplified what Sagan had in the book in order to make the movie. How about leaving it in? GroveGuy (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I happen to be one of those people who loves the film. There are lots of things I love that simply don't belong on Wikipedia. You can certainly copy the info to a blog or look for a Stephen King wiki out there somewhere to copy it to. Here, it's cruft. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Father

Is the "fathers" name Ted Arroway or Theodore Arroway?101.98.175.68 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Some similarities to Asimov's 1940 short story "Trends"

The ideas of a violent religious objection to scientific advancements in "Contact" are quite similar to those in presented in Isaac Asimov's 1940 short story "Trends". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snapdragon630 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Contact (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719215112/http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~unsworth/courses/bestsellers/search.cgi?title=Contact to http://www3.isrl.illinois.edu/~unsworth/courses/bestsellers/search.cgi?title=Contact

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hard science fiction ?

I find it hard to accept the novel in the "hard science fiction" category because of a way too generous licence, unexpected for a scientific writer. It is relevant in the story that the extraterrestrial signal is claimed to be fake, generated by a satellite - something impossible in 1985 when it was published, impossible thirty-two years later, and impossible in another thirty-two years at least.Ignacio.Agulló (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the conclusion of the story (a proof of the existence of God being discovered in the digits of Pi) does not qualify as hard science fiction by any stretch of the imagination. 130.217.217.15 (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Ellie in Paris

In one chapter of the novel, Ellie is in Paris for some kind of a scientific conference.

One of her experiences there (which I assume must be actually an experience of Sagan during a visit to Paris) is that she sees ubiquitous signs advertising the Banque Nationale de Paris. She keeps imagining that if the middle letter of the BNP on those ads were reversed into a mirror image, it would be "the English word 'beer' spelled out in Russian letters". She keeps thinking that it looks like an ad for Russian beer.

The trouble is that Sagan was wrong.

In Russian, the English capital B is the letter for the sound V. If you reverse the middle letter in that French acronym, you have a word that in Russian would have to be pronounced "vir" (coincidentally a Latin word for "man").

Maybe this point is not important, but I wonder if other people who had read the novel noticed it. Tesseract12 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)