Deleting/Completely Rewriting the Reality-Fiction Interactions page

[ImmortalDread]

The reasoning of your example seems vague. Explain better why it is vague.

 

[StrymULTRA]

The reasoning of your example seems vague. Explain better why it is vague.

We do not know enough about this entity, we just know waaay too little about its nature.

This is why lol.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Seems unnecessary example addition. The note already covered this.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Seems unnecessary example addition. The note already covered this.

I want to add it only to make it sure that vague characters like the Player won't get unnecessary CRTs.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is not the place for that. This is for discussion rules.

 

[Tarang123]

R>F don't grant tiers
It is N+1D, not a certain tier

R>F grants Tier 1

 

[PrinceofPein]

R>F grants Tier 1

You know context is very very important
"R>F don't grant tiers
It is N+1D, not a certain tier"
meaning, The tier for R>F is not certain, it depends on what you are viewing as fiction. so if you view 1D as fiction it becomes N(1) + 1D = 2D.
viewing High 1-A as fiction means High 1A, if you view 3D as fiction, means 4D. so it is not a certain tier, but depends on the fiction part.
Again you see what you want so idk

Edit: Skimmed a bit through the thread since I left since page 1, I think it is done now

 

[Antvasima]

So what is currently left to do here? Should I call for DontTalkDT to help out again?

 

[StrymULTRA]

So what is currently left to do here? Should I call for DontTalkDT to help out again?

I want to add the UT Player as example as I said. Other examples cover ways to not grant R>F, and I want excessive vagueness to be covered as actual profile as well.

 

[Antvasima]

What do you think, @PrinceofPein ?

 

[PrinceofPein]

What do you think, @PrinceofPein ?

Disagree with Undertale been added as an example
I will say we should close the thread since it is done, but I think Efficiente has some concerns and wants DT to address them, but I think they are both staffs and either can reopen the thread

 

[StrymULTRA]

Disagree with Undertale been added as an example

Nice argument.

Your (nonexistent) reasoning is very convincing.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Nice argument.

Your (nonexistent) reasoning is very convincing.

You want Undertale to be added to examples, so there can be no CRT in the future that will try and upgrade, that is not a wiki problem but rather a problem you want to avoid personally.
If you want a discussion rule for Undertale, make a CRT solely for that, this is not the thread for it.
And do not get me wrong I obvioulsy believe Undertale do not qualify I even argued for it in the thread, but I do not see a reason to add it to the examples

 

[Antvasima]

It is true that an addition to our Discussion Rules page seems preferable.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Tbh my reason is just to cover another way to discredit this stuff.

Anti feats are talked about in the page, and we got example of characters with anti feats.

If Vagueness is talked about, then it should have an example too.

Not to mention that adding an example more won't hurt anyone.

 

[Antvasima]

Look, we usually add these types of entries as verse-specific discussion rules, and it seems too specific and out of place in our reality-fiction interactions page.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

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."

Ok

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."

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.



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.

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.

The last thing I said covers this, it's not philosophical stuff but what we objectively mean by fiction.

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.

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.

Similar to stuff before, this would be exceptions as it has an explanation.

It goes back to the other stuff.

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.

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.

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?

Setting the derailing aside, DontTalkDT hasn't responded to Eficiente, and this thread needs to be resolved instead of lingering while I bump it every few weeks.

 

[Antvasima]

Setting the derailing aside, DontTalkDT hasn't responded to Eficiente, and this thread needs to be resolved instead of lingering while I bump it every few weeks.

@DontTalkDT

Can you help us out with finishing this thread please?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump. Can you get DontTalkDT's attention another way?

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don't think he is interested in discussing with it.

 

[Eficiente]

Other staff here saw our outdated discussion and said that DontTalkDT made more sense, maybe they can see the updated discussion and comment what they think of it?

 

[DontTalkDT]

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."

My example isn't specifically about a creator granting it that power. Vandalieu could be in a comic (not it's creator) and it should still have that effect. We could add a note that when fictional character affects the real world that needs to be case-by-case analyzed (smurfs sometimes exist; more complex mechanics etc.), but then I feel like the "of no physical consequence to their being and also otherwise is of no greater consequence to their being than an actual fictional character could reasonably be to a real life human."-rule we already have adequately covers how we evaluate this.

It's just easier to ask yourself "does that make sense for a fiction" than to try to accurately navigate the complex topic on what makes sense for a fiction in a verse with different layers of reality.

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."

First saying that fiction should have no effect whatsoever, but then giving an exception that nearly always is the case (fiction always emotionally is of consequence to the reader and hence in a non-physical / metaphysical way) is unnecessarily roundabout. Additionally, reasonable side effects or things specifically granted from reality is too restrictive, as it fails to acknowledge other scenarios where smurfs exist for good reason.

For short, the current formulation is just better IMO.

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.

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.

I maintain that you can't make a sentience based criteria for fiction. Fiction could have as much sentience as reality. Or maybe not, but that isn't for us to decide. Maybe neither has true sentience. I personally believe one could program true sentience and as such put it in fiction even in reality. I won't engage you in philosophical debates, because they are like religious debates: Pointless, because it's based on belief, not fact, and in the end, people are just pissed. You could just as well debate how strong the christian god is. Heck, your idea that dreams in reality are limited like that for instance could be contended for those with certain religious beliefs.

There is also no need for verses to have R/F equivalent to real life or anything else. Authors can do what they want and often do so. When it comes to dream hierarchy they just do it how it can be portrayed well.

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.

No, an AI can be a virtual thing and can functionally be no different from a dream. As far as I am concerned the brain could just be an AI setup and a dream is just a result of that. And similar to how we can have R/F between a real world with a computer and a video game running on it, we can have R/F between an AI and another AI running in a virtual environment in it. Those scenarios are perfectly equivalent in some philosophical viewpoints. And in others, a dream can be brain functions.

Again, you are trying to make others default to your philosophical views. Both regarding sentience and philosophical view of fiction. I believe that to be quite inappropriate.

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.

That's again your opinion on what we should consider fiction. Additionally, it's not relevant to our R/F transcendence, as the transcendence would be there regardless. If they were fictional before, adding sentience doesn't make them infinitely stronger.

My opinion on this differs, but again, I won't have subjective philosophical debates with you, because they are practically religious and I consider it inherently wrong to decide that for our members and fictional authors. We shouldn't have expectations that they view it a certain way until specified otherwise for things like this.

Similar to stuff before, this would be exceptions as it has an explanation.

However, you want to rule that everyone has to follow the assumptions you make on it until stated otherwise. Problem is: You can't just declare all the counterexamples exceptions if you have no universally agreed basis to stand on. This isn't like physics or math, which everyone would universally use as basis in their works unless they specifically wish to make a change.

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.

Time powers being supernatural has no bearing on this, as we are talking about verses where supernatural things are real anyway. Your expectation that any author would portray fiction as time not existing is just completely contrary to how we see any of this work. R/F almost always works on the principle "from outside it's fiction, from inside reality", regardless of implementation. And that's no issue those not being proper fiction, but because an author in the book saying time exists means time exists in the book.

And if a book magically writes itself? That's still not a problem to its contents being fictional.

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.

You're basically asking for the devils proof in terms of counter-examples here, as any clearly cut counterexample you will just put of with "yeah then that's an exception". You can defend any rule, no matter how wrong, by just declaring all cases against it an exception.

The real-world characters are surprised the comic book has time? Then it might be a magical comic book. However, just because it's a magical comic book doesn't mean we have no R>F. It's not even in any way directly connected to the infinite gap or to if the comic book characters could in any way influence fiction which is the basis for the gap. In other words, you're missing the point. The question you need to ask isn't whether it conforms to what you think fiction should be, but whether it impacts our reasoning to give fiction higher tiers. And that it just doesn't.

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?

If the clarifier mentions that the space is definitely real (or part of reality), then would it say something beyond that a space not being fictional excludes it from being fiction?

I could add something like that. However, I would only add it to make you happy. It sounds kinda tautological to me.

 

[Eficiente]

My example isn't specifically about a creator granting it that power. Vandalieu could be in a comic (not it's creator) and it should still have that effect. We could add a note that when fictional character affects the real world that needs to be case-by-case analyzed (smurfs sometimes exist; more complex mechanics etc.), but then I feel like the "of no physical consequence to their being and also otherwise is of no greater consequence to their being than an actual fictional character could reasonably be to a real life human."-rule we already have adequately covers how we evaluate this.

It's just easier to ask yourself "does that make sense for a fiction" than to try to accurately navigate the complex topic on what makes sense for a fiction in a verse with different layers of reality.

Ok.

Of course it's easier to ask yourself that, but anyone can believe either take on one same context to evaluate, putting a standard is to tell people what to do in that situation, otherwise it's asking them to choose based on how they feel about it. For example, other people made MCU's KEVIN Low 1-C, and something that calls my attention from that profile is this line; "Fixed an error on the platform that allowed She-Hulk to break into the "real world"", if I were to ask myself "does that make sense for [the] fiction" [She-Hulk, or anyone in the MCU], I would think that there is no R/T t. here as the fiction can be as real as the real world when in the same reality, which they can reach by an error of the "real world", making the powers over the fiction KEVIN has simply powers, but apparently other people think otherwise, and would most likely answer the contrary if they ask themselves "does that make sense for a fiction"? Why wouldn't they?

First saying that fiction should have no effect whatsoever, but then giving an exception that nearly always is the case (fiction always emotionally is of consequence to the reader and hence in a non-physical / metaphysical way) is unnecessarily roundabout. Additionally, reasonable side effects or things specifically granted from reality is too restrictive, as it fails to acknowledge other scenarios where smurfs exist for good reason.

For short, the current formulation is just better IMO.

• The first part can be adapted into the wording before it says "exceptions"; "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. Natural, reasonable side effects that may come from consuming a work of fiction obviously do not count (Like emotional responses). Exceptions to this can happen if it's established that anything from reality granted the fiction the ability to affect reality."
• You point out a "metaphysical way" as part of something that is nearly always is the case too, which is not the case.
• On the last sentence of the 1º paragraph; I try to be more clear. "Smurfs" can be incorporated late into the description rather than the more clarity being rejected because of how it doesn't include smurfs. Smurfs are pretty exceptional, the rules need to be understood first, and then Smurfs, otherwise people would think characters are Smurfs when they simply don't qualify, so a description can start by feeling like it fails to acknowledge them.

I maintain that you can't make a sentience based criteria for fiction. Fiction could have as much sentience as reality. Or maybe not, but that isn't for us to decide. Maybe neither has true sentience. I personally believe one could program true sentience and as such put it in fiction even in reality. I won't engage you in philosophical debates, because they are like religious debates: Pointless, because it's based on belief, not fact, and in the end, people are just pissed. You could just as well debate how strong the christian god is. Heck, your idea that dreams in reality are limited like that for instance could be contended for those with certain religious beliefs.

There is also no need for verses to have R/F equivalent to real life or anything else. Authors can do what they want and often do so. When it comes to dream hierarchy they just do it how it can be portrayed well.

I get why you think that you take the best approach by deciding that, but it is, quite objectively, not neutral and simple as it may seem. You do take a stance on the matter by saying that standards can't be made for real sentience, and you refuse that stance to be challenged on the premise that it isn't for others to decide while failing to see how that's based on you deciding on the same matter, as if your take that standards can't be made for real sentience was set on stone by philosophical & religious debates as a starting point everyone agrees on but anything else wasn't. It's not at all the rational take to go by, it would even be correct to call it slightly fanatical; Please read again my comment, it ends with "otherwise it's just giving up." and that sums up pretty well hearing "Fiction could have as much sentience as reality. Or maybe not". Fiction objectively, factually doesn't have as much sentience as reality unless we refer to forms of fiction that do have it, and anything in between can be debated to be ruled minimums and maximums standards; This is for anyone, let alone a community, to decide, you gave no valid reasons to deny that ability to decide. Sure, we won't get it 100% right at first and it will change over time, but that would be we acting at our best.

I didn't say verses need to have R/F equivalent to real life, I pointed out we making an equivalent to better apply "R/F, this term we as a wiki made up", but it's pointless if the term is made from factors we can't define, it just becomes some made up BS to make characters unreachably more powerful.

No, an AI can be a virtual thing and can functionally be no different from a dream. As far as I am concerned the brain could just be an AI setup and a dream is just a result of that. And similar to how we can have R/F between a real world with a computer and a video game running on it, we can have R/F between an AI and another AI running in a virtual environment in it. Those scenarios are perfectly equivalent in some philosophical viewpoints. And in others, a dream can be brain functions.

Again, you are trying to make others default to your philosophical views. Both regarding sentience and philosophical view of fiction. I believe that to be quite inappropriate.

Because of what I say of interpretation, I can agree with that it can functionally be no different from a dream, while I'm still also correct on how AI are objectively not fiction.

Again you can't label breaking down a concept that we use, R/F t., as inappropriate, it's inappropriate based on what? I don't even believe I gave any philosophical views there, just facts, and I didn't have those argued back. By your logic if there was a leading philosophy on the world that claimed the universe to be galaxy-sized regardless of science & logic stating otherwise, it would be inappropriate to grossly ignore that philosophy because of its popularity, regardless of it being on the wrong, not caring to let people crack up how it is that it's on the wrong by their own efforts of what they evaluate.

However, you want to rule that everyone has to follow the assumptions you make on it until stated otherwise. Problem is: You can't just declare all the counterexamples exceptions if you have no universally agreed basis to stand on. This isn't like physics or math, which everyone would universally use as basis in their works unless they specifically wish to make a change.

Nothing wrong in aiming to do so if deemed the most reasonable, if rejected by reasons that are likewise found to be reasonable then so be it, nothing wrong in having tried to evaluate on itself.

Time powers being supernatural has no bearing on this, as we are talking about verses where supernatural things are real anyway. Your expectation that any author would portray fiction as time not existing is just completely contrary to how we see any of this work. R/F almost always works on the principle "from outside it's fiction, from inside reality", regardless of implementation. And that's no issue those not being proper fiction, but because an author in the book saying time exists means time exists in the book.

• That first bit is not correct. "Time powers being supernatural" and "verses having supernatural things being real" are not related unless everyone in an X verse has the same time powers to use on the fiction, all to the same scale, when the point was that everyone would be able of the same time-based things while lacking time powers to the scale of the "real" world, because their approach to fiction would be the same as our is to our fiction. ...unless they do have time powers special to each character, but at that point that would be a superpower, not because of their R/F t.
• I didn't say any author would portray fiction as time not existing.

And if a book magically writes itself? That's still not a problem to its contents being fictional.

I agree. Distinguishing the magic of the book from its contents as your worded it.

You're basically asking for the devils proof in terms of counter-examples here, as any clearly cut counterexample you will just put of with "yeah then that's an exception". You can defend any rule, no matter how wrong, by just declaring all cases against it an exception.

The real-world characters are surprised the comic book has time? Then it might be a magical comic book. However, just because it's a magical comic book doesn't mean we have no R>F. It's not even in any way directly connected to the infinite gap or to if the comic book characters could in any way influence fiction which is the basis for the gap. In other words, you're missing the point. The question you need to ask isn't whether it conforms to what you think fiction should be, but whether it impacts our reasoning to give fiction higher tiers. And that it just doesn't.

I don't know why you conclude that, please deconstruct that.

Within reason, if the real-world characters are surprised the comic book has time, it might be a magical comic book, it might be another dimension, or might be fiction with no R/F t., my point is that there is no reason to still assume R/F t. from that info alone, as in fact the presence of that real element in what was otherwise believed to be not-real indicates there is not R/F t., simple as that. If further info implies otherwise then that's on them.

If the clarifier mentions that the space is definitely real (or part of reality), then would it say something beyond that a space not being fictional excludes it from being fiction?

I could add something like that. However, I would only add it to make you happy. It sounds kinda tautological to me.

It lowers my moral to hear that but yes, please add that. I do believe clarifications like that will make a world of difference in the future to random people reading or give them tools to argue back other people doing things wrong.

 

[Antvasima]

As usual, I strongly trust DontTalk's sense of judgement.

 

[ImmortalDread]

As usual, I strongly trust DontTalk's sense of judgement.

This seems to be back and forth arguments with actually no real conclusion. Any solution? Because it seems only two of them are actually discussing on this and not any single of us is really interested or bothered of this.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

This seems to be back and forth arguments with actually no real conclusion. Any solution? Because it seems only two of them are actually discussing on this and not any single of us is really interested or bothered of this.

I will ask him to help conclude this thread and any connected revisions.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I will ask him to help conclude this thread and any connected revisions.

No issues! Thanks for your assistance once again

 

[Antvasima]

No problem.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

What is currently left to do here?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

What is currently left to do here?

Anyone?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Anyone?

It's probably best to wait until the Low 1-A thread finishes, as I don't expect DT to try tackling two different major discussions at once.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose so, yes.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Okay, let's return to this. I want it to be finished before I start drafting a writeup for https://vsbattles.com/threads/reality-equalization-a-compromise-of-arbitrarity.152476/ to stop the changes from clashing with each other.
@DontTalkDT Would you please address Eficiente's last post?

Ok.

Of course it's easier to ask yourself that, but anyone can believe either take on one same context to evaluate, putting a standard is to tell people what to do in that situation, otherwise it's asking them to choose based on how they feel about it. For example, other people made MCU's KEVIN Low 1-C, and something that calls my attention from that profile is this line; "Fixed an error on the platform that allowed She-Hulk to break into the "real world"", if I were to ask myself "does that make sense for [the] fiction" [She-Hulk, or anyone in the MCU], I would think that there is no R/T t. here as the fiction can be as real as the real world when in the same reality, which they can reach by an error of the "real world", making the powers over the fiction KEVIN has simply powers, but apparently other people think otherwise, and would most likely answer the contrary if they ask themselves "does that make sense for a fiction"? Why wouldn't they?

• The first part can be adapted into the wording before it says "exceptions"; "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. Natural, reasonable side effects that may come from consuming a work of fiction obviously do not count (Like emotional responses). Exceptions to this can happen if it's established that anything from reality granted the fiction the ability to affect reality."
• You point out a "metaphysical way" as part of something that is nearly always is the case too, which is not the case.
• On the last sentence of the 1º paragraph; I try to be more clear. "Smurfs" can be incorporated late into the description rather than the more clarity being rejected because of how it doesn't include smurfs. Smurfs are pretty exceptional, the rules need to be understood first, and then Smurfs, otherwise people would think characters are Smurfs when they simply don't qualify, so a description can start by feeling like it fails to acknowledge them.

I get why you think that you take the best approach by deciding that, but it is, quite objectively, not neutral and simple as it may seem. You do take a stance on the matter by saying that standards can't be made for real sentience, and you refuse that stance to be challenged on the premise that it isn't for others to decide while failing to see how that's based on you deciding on the same matter, as if your take that standards can't be made for real sentience was set on stone by philosophical & religious debates as a starting point everyone agrees on but anything else wasn't. It's not at all the rational take to go by, it would even be correct to call it slightly fanatical; Please read again my comment, it ends with "otherwise it's just giving up." and that sums up pretty well hearing "Fiction could have as much sentience as reality. Or maybe not". Fiction objectively, factually doesn't have as much sentience as reality unless we refer to forms of fiction that do have it, and anything in between can be debated to be ruled minimums and maximums standards; This is for anyone, let alone a community, to decide, you gave no valid reasons to deny that ability to decide. Sure, we won't get it 100% right at first and it will change over time, but that would be we acting at our best.

I didn't say verses need to have R/F equivalent to real life, I pointed out we making an equivalent to better apply "R/F, this term we as a wiki made up", but it's pointless if the term is made from factors we can't define, it just becomes some made up BS to make characters unreachably more powerful.

Because of what I say of interpretation, I can agree with that it can functionally be no different from a dream, while I'm still also correct on how AI are objectively not fiction.

Again you can't label breaking down a concept that we use, R/F t., as inappropriate, it's inappropriate based on what? I don't even believe I gave any philosophical views there, just facts, and I didn't have those argued back. By your logic if there was a leading philosophy on the world that claimed the universe to be galaxy-sized regardless of science & logic stating otherwise, it would be inappropriate to grossly ignore that philosophy because of its popularity, regardless of it being on the wrong, not caring to let people crack up how it is that it's on the wrong by their own efforts of what they evaluate.

Nothing wrong in aiming to do so if deemed the most reasonable, if rejected by reasons that are likewise found to be reasonable then so be it, nothing wrong in having tried to evaluate on itself.

• That first bit is not correct. "Time powers being supernatural" and "verses having supernatural things being real" are not related unless everyone in an X verse has the same time powers to use on the fiction, all to the same scale, when the point was that everyone would be able of the same time-based things while lacking time powers to the scale of the "real" world, because their approach to fiction would be the same as our is to our fiction. ...unless they do have time powers special to each character, but at that point that would be a superpower, not because of their R/F t.
• I didn't say any author would portray fiction as time not existing.

I agree. Distinguishing the magic of the book from its contents as your worded it.

I don't know why you conclude that, please deconstruct that.

Within reason, if the real-world characters are surprised the comic book has time, it might be a magical comic book, it might be another dimension, or might be fiction with no R/F t., my point is that there is no reason to still assume R/F t. from that info alone, as in fact the presence of that real element in what was otherwise believed to be not-real indicates there is not R/F t., simple as that. If further info implies otherwise then that's on them.

It lowers my moral to hear that but yes, please add that. I do believe clarifications like that will make a world of difference in the future to random people reading or give them tools to argue back other people doing things wrong.

 

[Antvasima]

I will remind DontTalk about this.

 

[Eficiente]

I wonder if DontTalkDT has seen the cases of R/F t. that happened in between where we left off and now, and if maybe this helps to make him see the importance of being clear as water on what our standards are regardless of being redundant to someone who may get them right away.

Either way, something that seriously stuck to me from this thread was the

I maintain that you can't make a sentience based criteria for fiction. Fiction could have as much sentience as reality. Or maybe not, but that isn't for us to decide.

mindset. Not that written bit but the argument as a whole, it's contradictory and oppressive to argue that we can't decide on something while actually leaving as a standard a decided take on the manner.

 

[Antvasima]

I have reminded DontTalk about this.