Fictional Facts

[firefly]

Someone in 'History and Myths' said that that fictional facts, or what are seen to be fictional facts, cannot be regarded as true facts. Could you make up an answer to a question regarding fictional details and still be correct?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Surely - this is what Star Wars nerds are doing when they debate how a light sabre works, surely? Many great works of fiction - literature and cinema give rise to such discussions. Always good fun when bladdered!

[allen ives]

Still goes on. If you've got cable TV, watch an 'historical' programme on the Discovery channel. The other day, I was watching 'The Fall of the British Empire', when the commentator said something on the lines of.... "and the British gave up much of their overseas possessions in the 1950s and 60s, because they didn't want to rule where they were not wanted." Unbelievable! Not a word about the historic struggle of the people of Kenya, Cyprus, India, Ireland, or wherever - just the British giving up and flouncing off because they weren't going to stay where they weren't appreciated. Amazing.

Moral. Believe part of what you see, but very little of what you hear.

[firefly]

Allen Ives has got the wrong end of the stick-he's talking about opinions, which are different from just making stuff up-an opinion usually says more about you and is usually to do with your values.

[allen ives]

Nonsense. You make things up on the basis of your opinions, particularly in relation to historical 'facts'.

[incitatus]

You arent going to sort this one out easily: it goes back to the difference between Noumenon and phenomenon. All facts are tainted by opinion as there is no perfect impartial observer. Within the terms of a fictional piece one can discern rules and facts. So one can answer fictional facts: If asked if Oliver Twist listend to the sex pistols the answer would have to be no, for example. Allen Ives: the people you listed struggled for independence, yes. Bravely, and with right on their side. But they didnt win it. We gave the countries back. Given time they would probably have been able to kick us out, but they did not do so. India was largely peaceful until the nightmare of partition (ie after independence). The maumau were horrific, but they did not defeat us in battle. The home rule act was passed BEFORE the Irish civil war and we succesfully putdown the easter rising. We did give the empire away. OK sooner or latr they may have kicked us out, but the didnt. Live with it. In defence of that program contrast our behaviour with that of the French: they fought every step of the way, kicked off several very nasty wars, (they did start Vietnam, fter all) and eventually got chucked out on their ears.

[firefly]

Inciatitus and allen ives are wrong in saying all facts are just opinions said differently. Is one plus one equals two opinion? Is homo sapiens being the same as humans. Ok, we have made up such things as 'one' and 'two' and so on-but we've able to give them some concrete form surely?

[incitatus]

No you arent. How do you know that what you percieve as two is the same as what I percieve. Reality is fundamentally affected by peception. This is the essence of much of modern physics. But also in philosophy there is a difference between the percieved object and the reality. These are noumenon and phenomenon, the phenomenon is percieved, the noumenon is the unknowable original cause. There is no reality without perception, there is no perfect observer who does not interpret what he sees. Reality is merely a convention.

[firefly]

I'm confused by your belief system, incitiatus. You don't seem to believe in reality, but you believe in cause and effect. You have the concept of 'time' which also doesn't exist if there's no reality. I think the question has gone off the original point-that our myths seem to matter as much as our history.

[incitatus]

Thats because history IS myth, written by the winners. Define reality. At its smallest level reality is affected by whether it is observed or not. This is the basis of the famous Schrodingers Cat thought experiment, and appears to be true. Essentially no event can be said to have happened until it is observed, and by observing we change reality. Its known as Observer Participation and is a fundamental of Quantum Mechanics, at least according to the copenhagen interpretation, which is the most popular. The thing about reality is that we have no idea what it looks like. We percieve the world through our senses filtered by our consciousness. At no point can we be said to be objectively observing, we are always participating in what we observe. Cause and effect is a notional tool that is part of a convention. I apply cause and effect to analyse data (part of my job, in fact) but if someone came along tomorrow and told me it was an obsolete paradigm I wouldnt weep over it. All of our interactions with the real world are applications of working models, which change over time. I know that on the microscale cause and effect does not happen. On the macro scale it does. Or it seems to. It doesnt bother me, both are working models. Time is only a constant in a localised environment too....see varied rants on relativity in banks passim. I try to avoid belief systems. If you get too attached to a belief you find it too hard to give it up when it is proved obsolete. (Tempted to say see christianity, but this might get me in trouble.....)