The power words in the OP are:
All point to pure fiction.
There’s no simply about it. I can imagine breathing without oxygen successfully. Equally fictional.
Maybe something closer to reality I can answer.
Something not hypothetical, plausible, thought experiment, hypothetically.
I see this in the news all of the time. “Everything we believe about reality may be wrong, say scientists in ground breaking new study”.
All the rest of it is fluff. The word “may” is the important word in that sentence.
No. You just moved me further back into the entrance of the logic maze. The OP starts off a few rooms into maze. You backed me out to the entrance.
“Accept A. Once A is accepted, here is B. But if B is also true, then you must consider C.” and it goes deeper in until there’s an irrevocable conclusion that’s “undeniable”.
Documentaries use this technique all of the time. I went to a college that had a strong film school: hampshire college in amherst ma in 1990. I didn’t go to the film school but my friends did. They taught me all about these techniques to make convincing documentaries for an intelligent academic audience.
It all depends on where the end of the logic maze leads to. There’s a lot of factors you can use to determine the potential end points.
Here is another common example using inference logic. You see it in the sciences frequently in the publsh+perish environment. [I love the sciences but they suffer from social problem like any other human community]:
Great science in the middle. [equivalent to “great deductive chain”] but crappy hypothesis tied to a crappy conclusion.
Bias brought in by experience. Observing people patterns over time. Noticing subculture. Viewing humanity with acceptance and skepticism alike. Getting conned into losing $100 $20 at a time doing basketball throws in NYC on a street corner by fast talking con men. You learn.
Might also be 27 years of being online and talking to thousands of people of every personality type about every possible subject matter anybody MIGHT ever discuss. tongue emoticon
So, if someone wants me to consider a thought experiment that’s divorced from reality, I can do so but only when it’s honestly framed as such: “Can you imagine an impossible Utopia where….” ok, then maybe I’ll play. But not when it’s mixed up where “hypothetical” and “plausible” suddenly become “undeniable”. Naw.
Nice question for the kiddies. Funny thing is: I’ll play along if it’s framed properly. I’ll discuss any question at all framed properly. But like this one? Naw, it’s a mess.