• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Deleting/Completely Rewriting the Reality-Fiction Interactions page

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dread said:
Should be reworded to “contents of book”, then. Book is media, not written media.
Click to expand...
it says written media and then put books and stories in bracket to signify an example of how they are conveyed.
Contents of book sounds weird.
written media and then books in bracket kind of covers it
 
Pain_to12 said:
it says written media and then put books and stories in bracket to signify an example of how they are conveyed.
Contents of book sounds weird.
written media and then books in bracket kind of covers it
Click to expand...
Inside the brackets are the examples/instances of “written media”. Book is not written media, however it is “content of books”. And it is not weird, new visitors may take book r>f as ontological difference, and we should avoid the misunderstanding.

Also, I understood what you mean, but then it should be written as “Stories ⊂ Books” and not “books and stories”.
 
Dread said:
Inside the brackets are the examples/instances of “written media”. Book is not written media, however it is “content of books”. And it is not weird, new visitors may take book r>f as ontological difference, and we should avoid the misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
Media writing is the process of writing content for mass publication through particular media outlets. This may include newspapers, magazines, popular websites, blogs, social media and other publications
Click to expand...
so book is a written media.
and viewing a cosmology as a book in any fiction will be considered ontological difference.
because it is not the book that is fiction, the book is real, the contents in it(cosmology) is fiction.
I mean the written contents in the book is fiction, which is where written media comes from and the example "book"
 
Pain_to12 said:
so book is a written media.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between “written media” and “Media writing”… Change it to “Media writing” and it is still wrong, as stories is a well-grounded one.
Pain_to12 said:
and viewing a cosmology as a book in any fiction will be considered ontological difference.
Click to expand...
Not as far as I tell. Since books are just 3-dimensional as we are. Therefore, “contents of book” are 2-D and reliable usage for ontological difference.

Don't change the subject right now. We know both that books should not be there or should be reworded.
 
Dread said:
There is a difference between “written media” and “Media writing”… Change it to “Media writing” and it is still wrong, as stories is a well-grounded one.
Click to expand...
written media and media writing, what do oyu think the difference is? absolutely nothing.
like just use the search engine you have already


books are written media, how is this an argument?
Like saying what are clothes and examples of clothes
Dread said:
Not as far as I tell. Since books are just 3-dimensional as we are. Therefore, “contents of book” are 2-D and reliable usage for ontological difference.
Click to expand...
well, look around wiki pages you will see just as many verses like this. again when they say books, it means the content not the book.
e.g. fate (BB sees the world as pages in a book), that is ontological difference.
Dread said:
Don't change the subject right now. We know both that books should not be there or should be reworded.
Click to expand...
No we don't, books there is just fine, like i said when they said books, it means the content, and he uses it as an example of written media.
And there is no subject change. it is simple, books are written media, and seeing a cosmology as a book is ontological difference.
 
Pain_to12 said:
books are written media, how is this an argument?
Like saying what are clothes and examples of clothes
Click to expand...
Oh, my-
Pain_to12 said:
well, look around wiki pages you will see just as many verses like this. again when they say books, it means the content not the book.
e.g. fate (BB sees the world as pages in a book), that is ontological difference.
Click to expand...
The majority does not equate the validity.
Pain_to12 said:
No we don't, books there is just fine, like i said when they said books, it means the content, and he uses it as an example of written media.
And there is no subject change. it is simple, books are written media, and seeing a cosmology as a book is ontological difference.
Click to expand...
I will quote one thing that may disprove you:
All of the above would be considered less 'real' than the person who views the cosmology as such, and can directly imply qualitative superiority.
Click to expand...
How is “book” unreal for me?
 
Dread said:
Oh, my-

The majority does not equate the validity.

I will quote one thing that may disprove you:

How is “book” unreal for me?
Click to expand...
again "written media (examples: books)"
covers all, and you did not even address my arguments and this is needless nitpicking.
Anyway, if DT does not reply in 48hrs, we can just apply his blog directly
 
Which arguments you have? Let's say, it is written media for you is books, stories are not written media in literal sense. So there is error either way.
Talking about nitpicking, I was nowhere nitpicking your arguments, as I actually responded to every argument you presented.

You failed to prove me that stories are media writing (unless you are seriously talking about stories as book which is invalid in our case) neither proved that books generally should not be taken as ontological difference.

I don't see how viewing cosmology as a book qualifies by any means. Sure, if they are viewed as content of books, then it qualifies and shows dimensional difference, not versa vica.

If you want to give an exception to this, I don't mind. But we also need to give exception to many others, such as “chessboard, shogi game” and many others.
 
Your argument was books are not written media. Which would be wrong
But if your arguments are stories should not be part as they are told with word of the mouth or written down in books in the end hence it is redundant to have both, then you are correct on that aspect
 
Pain_to12 said:
Your argument was books are not written media. Which would be wrong
Click to expand...
Sure on this, but then you involved the traditional writing of authors, therefore you added a new “argument” and I simply responded to it. But no problems
Pain_to12 said:
But if your arguments are stories should not be part as they are told with word of the mouth or written down in books in the end hence it is redundant to have both, then you are correct on that aspect
Click to expand...
Nps.
 
Pain_to12 said:
Well I dont know how we can clarify it and how we should treat such cases, of a character transcending the humans and space(3-D) but not the entire space-time continuum, I can provide a few examples if need be
Click to expand...
As Jinsye said, you would be one level of infinity above 3D then.
ImmortalDread said:
Should be reworded to “contents of book”, then. Book is media, not written media.
Click to expand...
Then we would need to also put "contents of paintings" instead of "paintings", "content of movies" instead of "movies" etc. I think doing that would make it harder to understand, rather than more clear.
And, I mean, we are talking the medium through which the fiction is seen in this passage, so book should be fine IMO.
 
So should we apply what DontTalk has decided here then, or is there anything left to do here?
 
DontTalkDT said:
Then we would need to also put "contents of paintings" instead of "paintings", "content of movies" instead of "movies" etc. I think doing that would make it harder to understand, rather than more clear.
And, I mean, we are talking the medium through which the fiction is seen in this passage, so book should be fine IMO.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, a note is needed before people nitpick it and think it qualifies.
 
Note that the medium is usually a representation or container for the fiction on a higher plane and not necessarily the fiction in itself.
Click to expand...
Alright, this is fine, then. This will clear out confusion, and perhaps abuse in the system if someone was using it as an argument
 
Thank you. I think that your draft seems good enough to apply.
 
I have nothing to say, the note is added. I guess this is seems fine to apply as well.
 
Yes, unfortunately you will have to do it all over again now. My apologies.
 
DontTalkDT said:
It can be superpowers for sure. E.g. Vandalieu has a skill that lets him draw pictures which are specifically composed in a way that they have a psychological effect. That is a superpower of his. At the same time I see no reason why someone viewing his world as actual fiction, who looks at such a picture, should not be effected by the psychological effect.

If this were an attack with mental energy or something I could see the reason. But hypnotism through pictures doesn't change based on which level of reality you look at the pictures from IMO.

So yeah, I think there are valid cases where I would say they have superpowers able to effect reality even if they are fictional.
Click to expand...
Well, when talking about how a fictional character can mentally still be of consequence via powers like subliminal messages, I imagined fiction like what we have in the real world somehow having superpowers, so I wanted that clarified. No issue with fiction created to have powers having powers.

Although people's gonna attribute powers fiction has to their creators rather than it simply being the fiction having on its own has powers, it will be easy for people to conclude that (in a bad way) because it leads to Low 1-C (and etc higher). That can be prevented easily by simply writing something on the lines of "Don't assume fiction has power on the real world due to their creators (even if superpowered) having granted them so unless established. It isn't implied if this simply happens for no reason, the latter shows that fiction has power in reality for no reason, unlike fiction in the Real World, thus disqualifying as R/F transcendence."
DontTalkDT said:
I think it's specific as we can get, when the variety of fiction is taken into mind. Fiction can have literally everything, including non-logical things, so considering every power separately or something is impossible.
Click to expand...
Ok
DontTalkDT said:
Well, as said, I think there are cases where non-natural superpower side-effects can take effect too. So that appears too exclusive.
Click to expand...
Well, I propose it's the other way. Non-natural superpower side-effects can take effect due to the creators or anything having granted them that is an exception, so we can say "In order to qualify they must view the world as a some actual form of 'fiction', i.e. to them what happens in the fiction is not real and of no consequence to their being in either a physical, non-physical or metaphysical way. Exceptions to this are natural, reasonable side effects that may come from consuming a work of fiction, or if it's established that anything from reality granted the fiction the ability to affect reality."
DontTalkDT said:
That is an assertion you make and I see no reason to agree with it.

In fact, I believe there is good reason to inherently reject the notion, as "real" sentience is a highly debatable concept in real-life philosophy. It's like making a criteria based on the existence of free will, when the question of whether that even is a thing (or, if it is, what it is exactly) is notoriously unsettled.

Some philosophical branches argue sentience is nothing more but a complex pattern of physical processes in the brain. Adherents of that branch might argue that the only relevant difference between the programming of a regular video game NPC and true sentience is the complexity of patterns.

In that case, your argument would be equivalent to the assertion that a sufficiently complex fictional pattern becomes real. That could hardly be the case, right?

And even if we had an actual conclusive idea on what sentience is, we still couldn't assume that any fraction of authors abide it.

So yeah, I'm inherently opposed to any argument based on sentience, as what it is is entirely unsettled.
Click to expand...
As I think I said before, this is good to hear as I can work with it (This will be long, so please have me patience):

First of all, it being a hard issue doesn't mean that one should just be opposed to it, it should mean that we should openly express how & why this is a hard issue in our standards and work on whatever standards for it we find to be reasonable.

And even if we had an actual conclusive idea on what sentience is, we still couldn't assume that any fraction of authors abide it.
Click to expand...

It's correct that we wouldn't know how authors abide it, but we can absolutely measure whatever we agree it's the most reasonable and create the standard to work off that, unless something else is proven in each case. If we didnt do that, the Tiering System would end at 3-A, "if we didnt do that" going as in this being the perfectly rational thing to do.

I can get behind sentience being nothing too special, but there is a logic tangle on that. Let's make sure we're not using R/F t. in a way that follows presumptions of how it should be, and it makes perfect sense on its own, as we make its rules; What is fiction in R/F t.? Any fictional character has fictional sentience, I'm talking about real sentience in fiction, this is nothing that we should have unbeatable issues differentiating one another in their portrayal. What happens if real sentience can be in fiction no different than in real life and if real A.I. have sentience? Then they have sentience. That's still a real quality, destroy something with that real quality=/=destroy something that doesn't exist/isn't real/is fiction. So it doesn't qualify as R/F t;

We need to visualize how R/T t. would hypothetically work in real life and, hear me out, make an equivalent to how verses have it; In real life you may dream and wake up, the dream being no more, the "dream" here being the idea of that dream you had rather than anything to do with your brain functions, and the dream will still have immensely limited people & places in it, rather than it being a whole universe. Meanwhile in fiction with R/T t. it's the same, minus that the dream can be a whole, fictional universe. So far so good, no issues with R/F t. there. And as we know, applying anything real to that fiction will thus quality it. So, sentience, if we agree it's real, it's real, whatever standards that might have been used there, by that point this would absolutely be something that you in the real world can't dream, or put in TV, comic, drawing; You can put it on a game, you can program it; in part because it's real. Could someone act like verses can have fiction with sentience & still apply for R/F t.? Correct, likewise they can easily act like verses can have fiction that can affect its reality for no reason & still apply for R/T t., or easily do Vs Debates w/o R/F t. because they don't believe in it. That's why I rhetorically asked what is fiction in R/F t. above and said to make an equivalent, we need to make this based on reality as we are otherwise making things up, which means we need to put the work on knowing when any kind of sentience is too much, regardless of how unsettled the topic is, otherwise it's just giving up.
DontTalkDT said:
That's a philosophical opinion of yours. One not universally shared nor accepted.
Click to expand...
AI are objectively not fiction. AI follow pre-made / constantly updated programming that while vast, has a limited amount of results for the AI to work with, until they become as sentient as a human. Humans too may have a limited amount of results to work with (As infinity is big). If you want to play with/interpret the limited results of things an AI can come up with as a game, with games being fiction, then cool but that's on you, you're still using a real thing to do so. The big thing on this is interpretation, you can say that AI are real & not fiction, and you can mean to say they're fiction in certain context, the latter take doesn't remove the former, meanwhile you have no way to interpret the fictional part of a dream, TV show, thought, comic, etc. because you are already referring to the fictional take on those, not brain functions, actors & settings, pages of a book, the premise is already set that you mean fiction / nothing real / something that does not exist.
DontTalkDT said:
Theather is already excluded by the qualifiers given. (and, arguably, actors are real and just the story is fictional. Although that, too, is philosophical discourse.)
Click to expand...
The last thing I said covers this, it's not philosophical stuff but what we objectively mean by fiction.
DontTalkDT said:
I barely understand what you're arguing here. I believe you agree that a dream character can have sentience in some case? But then not true sentience?

Idk, but it in any case plays again into your idea what true sentience is and that it is somehow tied to being real or fictional, which I, as said, consider unfounded and not generally accepted in real-world discourse on the topic. You may be convinced you're right, but with such philosophical topics you will have to accept people to have different opinions on those matters and, as a page that evaluates fictions written by lots of different people, we can't be so inflexible as to choose one philosophical branch.
Click to expand...
The short version is that the scenario proposed by that philosophical perspective is redundant to how reality is w/o that philosophical perspective, so even if recognized it's meaningless (Not that we can recognize it as it's not backed up by facts). It's not that "a dream character can have (real) sentience", it's that if they realistically did, the dream wouldn't be a regular, realistic dream, but a supernatural dream with a superpower that allows that to happen.

That's mostly covered before. I do accept people to have different philosophical opinions, that doesn't remove the fact that what some philosophers believe needs to be dismissed when we work on what's the most objective & factual. We are the ones that give rules and uses on fiction, thus to even know what we're talking about we need to set the stage on what fiction is and not be stopped in related topics because of different philosophical opinions, and to not acknowledge real sentience as a related topic is due to those different philosophical opinions.
DontTalkDT said:
Yeah, again, gonna disagree because I don't agree with the qualifier of real sentience even meaningfully existing. Nor would I agree that knowing a character has real sentience makes them real.

Especially not in any sense that is relevant to the power scaling debate at hand. Like, that's something you have to consider to. Even if you assert they are real in some definition of the term, if they are not real in the way of not having the power gap their "realness" if of no interest to us at all. We may as well put them into the fictional category then, for our purposes.
Click to expand...
Mostly covered above.

Also, in the completely unreal scenario that people in comicbooks did start talking to people of the world after having somehow gained real sentience (which we knew for a fact was real sentience), everyone who doesn't acknowledge them as real would literally be supremacists. It again goes back to interpretation, can they be seen as fiction? Due to being inside comics, yes. Can they be seen as real? Yes, absolutely. They exist, therefore they are, super basic standard, anyone who disagrees can have their opinion rightfully dismissed as wrong regardless of the amount of people believing that, because objectivity exists. This paragraph is "I would watch a movie with this plot" levels of casual, but it is correct.
DontTalkDT said:
I know counterexamples, of verses where there is one dreamer of the dream of reality that explicitly gives sentience to lots of different characters. You could imagine it as dreaming from multiple perspectives at once, if you want.

So I can't agree with this.
Click to expand...
Similar to stuff before, this would be exceptions as it has an explanation.
DontTalkDT said:
I don't really understand what you want to say with this. Sorry.
Click to expand...
It goes back to the other stuff.
DontTalkDT said:
Yeah, in principle you could do that in a movie, is you had the ability to control it like that. In verses with time manipulation powers you can also do that with reality, which doesn't mean they have no proper time or that two universes can't have the same time.
Click to expand...
Yes but time powers are supernatural, how one can overlook a movie / book / comic like that is a natual thing that can be done, if needing resources at worst.
DontTalkDT said:
It means that time flow should have no relevance to the debate IMO. Some can have it, others don't. So you can't separate the fiction from non-fiction by this criteria.


I still don't agree with the notion that any media definitely shouldn't have a flow of time. Take Umineko, a verse where the reality-fiction difference is so blatantly explained that they even bring up dimensional tiering and differences of infinity explicitly. There fictions are magical crystals or books, for example. Or text on a page of paper that is written as the story advances. There time can go along with the time on the meta-layers. Or it can also not do so, but it can, in principle, do that. Yeah, that means the books are magical books, but that changes nothing on the contents being fiction. As long as it keeps contained to the book I think such things can still perfectly qualify as fictional.
Click to expand...
By "If it shouldn't have a flow of time like its "real world", and it's proven that it does" I meant for example a verse where real characters are baffled by the fiction having a flow of time like reality, the implication being that this isn't supposed to be, for fiction. If it already checks out for a verse or further lore will recontextualize/clarify things then there is no issue there. Context & portrayal are very important, if in verse A a character teleports himself and a friend into a battlefield in TV, says that they'll be fine as it's fiction and then weapons fail to harm them at all then that's one thing, and if in verse 2 a character teleports himself and a friend into a battlefield in TV, says that they'll be fine as it's fiction but then weapons blows them away then that's something else.
DontTalkDT said:
Sure, if it's a pocket space it doesn't qualify. And fiction can of course call everything whatever it wants.

I, for example, also know a fiction that calls solar system-sized pocket space "Universe". But I wouldn't put a note about that on the pocket reality page, as that is a "don't assume that until the fiction indicates it"-situation IMO.

I'm not going to assume that something that meets all the qualifiers is a pocket dimension unless it's indicated in any way.
Click to expand...
Great. Can we clarify that if the fiction (called fiction in-universe) is proven to be a literal space bigger in the inside than how it is from the outside (taking space in reality) then it doesn't qualify?
 
Well, either I forgot to close it or Eficiente considered it important to open it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
On the Many, Many Incoherences of the Tiering System
12 13 14
Replies
530
Views
155K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Firestorm808
Acceptable Narrative Examples of "Uncountably Infinite" Addition to the Tiering System Explanation Page
Replies
24
Views
5K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Jozaysmith?
  • Locked
Regarding Beyond-Dimensional Existence current standards
Replies
4
Views
1K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Some questions about Reality-Fiction Transcendence
Replies
10
Views
4K
Iamunanimousinthat
Iamunanimousinthat
PrinceofPein
  • Locked
A Small Change to the Reality-Fiction Interaction Page
Replies
37
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top