Fact is fiction and fiction is fiction. It is all about pragmatism and degrees of fiction and where the truths within the fictions are. – Kenneth Udut 11/18/2015 [need a new title]
We understand the stories told.
How do we understand them if they did not happen?
Our understanding of things is ultimately fictional. This does not mean lies. This does not mean untrue.
But it means that facts and objective truths are “working descriptions” of reality that only correspond to reality as much as as we humans NEED or want it to, and no more.
We have tolerances. Allowances. “Fudge factors”. All a regular and necessary part of every science, every court system, every evidentiary system.
The best we can hope for is accuracy and precision together, as neither alone is enough.
But accuracy and precision of what? Our goals and targets, whatever they may be.
Yet for as accurate and precise as we get, there is always a level further in or a level further out, or a different perspective we have yet to consider.
We don’t have the whole picture of anything. But what we *do have* is a working description of things.
It’s pragmatic. It gets things done. It’s correct _enough for our purposes_.
We consider this “correct enough for our purposes” = hard fact. Hard evidence.
Such is the nature of fact. It’s “true enough for our needs”.
But, it’s ultimately still a fiction, just a very true fiction.
It would be ridiculous to call it fiction normally, because we have some things that are FAR MORE fictional than facts and that is the arena we call fiction.
Now, in things like thought experiments based upon movies or parables, you are utilizing a fictional Universe as an overlay to our Universe.
Yet, are there really two Universe? One fictional? One fact?
There’s just this Universe.
Our describatory powers must ultimately be fictional in nature. No two apples even exist if one wants to get tenacious about it. There’s “two apples” for our convenience based upon the limitations of our cognition. We’re unable to see thing in their uniqueness, and we’re generally trapped at our “zoom level” of reality.
So we categorize. We utilize the cognitive systems we have which have a built-in tendency to discover “patterns” – similarities, and pull them together “as if one” – allowing us to have such things as “two” of “this” or that.
Our brains can’t possibly contain all the uniqueness of the Universe. We must use patterns – we have no choice. Or we build thought systems that use patterns. Or we build devices which use patterns, which we base upon our own patterns in some fashion.
Now, going to the “fictional Universe”, how is it that we understand it at all?
Our brains interpret the fictional stories as truth while we are viewing them.
We place ourselves in those situations. They are real to us.
So is this Universe that we are in.
The difference is the degrees of fiction.
We comprehend stories using different names, different dates, different “markers” than we would use in a history book or a science text very easily because these stories they tell are no different than the stories we hear about reality.
This concept of “continuum of fiction” might sound off the wall – it’s just something I’ve been thinking about for a long time but i do so carefully because there *is* a real Universe that we can objectively apprehend.
We can do so only to the best of our abilities, either natural or artificially -but the artificial is still due to the machines that are also created by these same limited cognitive faculties.
Does that mean we cannot truly “know the Universe”?
Well, no, I believe we *can* fully know the Universe _to the best of our abilities_.
There is no beyond-that us. If we cannot put it into a metaphor or an analogy to some pre-existing ‘something’ we already comprehend, it’s just not there. In short, the map is the territory and the territory is the map – they co-evolve. We utilize multiple mappings simultaneously to create our knowledge of the territories thanks to our mental compressions and connections… and some maps are better suited than others for different situations in assisting us navigate the territories we’re in.
The cinematic Universe helps us navigate relationship territories; how we relate to the non-movie-screen reality we’re also in. It functions as a marvelous map-of-understanding our territories.
That’s why they work so well in thought experiments.
You can tell me that is a bunch of babble and ridiculous and I’m ok with that. I’ve been running it through it for a long time and hardly sit down and write it out. Definitely needs refinement and criticism.