Welcome to Gaia! ::

But even in the realms of science there's also a theorem that states that something is both existing and not existing until decided by the person doing the considering. That theory is stated through Schrödinger's cat, upon which a cat is placed in a box with a flask containing a lethal poison if shattered. There's a possibility that the cat can be both alive and dead at the same time until the person who conducted the experiment checks the cat or believes it to be alive or dead. Right there, at the same time, there are two possibilities and two different states of existence.

And I agree with you, there really isn't some sort of middle ground. My mistake *bows*. But what I stated was more towards the fact that whether or not something is reality or Fantasy is up to the individual and the choices that he or she makes. Metaphysically to a single person, yes, there is a possibility that fiction may be reality. Perhaps maybe to someone else who's more skeptical of the thought of Fantasy being even a bit close to reality, that Fantasy doesn't exist.

... by the way, I hope I wasn't interrupting the flow of this argument. ><

My thoughts on existence:

Yes, something either does or doesn't exist, but my approach to may be a bit confusing. We all exist because we are here and can do anything. Trees exist, planets exist, galaxies exist, and different dimensions exist. As far as fantasy creatures go, they too exist. Well, my reasoning is that although we might not have proof of their physical existence, they still exist within our minds. Therefore, they are not something imaginary but real in our thoughts and dreams. The only things I believe do not exist are those people, places, animals, planets, etc that have not been thought up before.

Perhaps when something is born a star is also born to symbolize the introduction of something new into the universe (while that something is created too), and when something dies or is destroyed, a star dies too. Just a thought.

If the theory's true, that whenever we think about something it is created elsewhere in the universe and on other planes and dimensions which is why the universe is infinite and always expanding, than that would help explain my own theory. Nevertheless, this is what I think and I know, perhaps, some of you will disagree.

Sorry, but I'm not the one looking through a pinhole. I can imagine things that cannot possibly exist in our world and imagine the impact they might have on a world that does not work the same way as ours. You are hemmed in by only imagining things which could exist in the real world. It's a needless limitation that I refuse to adhere to.

Regardless of what you and I can and cannot imagine, though, fiction is not the real world and it never will be. There is an uncrossable barrier between reality and unreality. And no amount of dreamy, metaphysical, "it just hasn't happened yet" argumentation is going to change that.

Nothing unreal exists.

Berz.

Once again, you just said that fiction is real and that just isn't the case. There is no in-between. It's not an opinion. It's a fact.

A myth is a myth and not real. That's why it's called a myth. It is fiction. Highly culturalized fiction, but fiction nonetheless.

If someone writes about someone who never actually existed, it is fiction and unreal. The person never existed. The things they said and did in the piece of fiction were never said or done by them because they never existed to say or do them. It is not real. Something amazingly similar may have happened, but not those exact events. And, frankly, if I were one of the people in question, I would find it a little patronizing to assume that a fictional amalgamation of circumstances would presume to stand in for me, as a person.

Supernatural is not necessarily in and of itself real or unreal. It is simple supernatural. If something supernatural happens, then it is real. If it doesn't, then it isn't.

I will say again; you cannot be both real and unreal. It is, literally, a contradiction. There is no such thing as semi-real. This is a case where black and white applies.

Berz.

This is saying that fiction is real by saying that it is not unreal. When your choices are something exists or it doesn't, what possible "grey area" can there be? None.

If something exists only inside your mind, then it is not real and it does not really exist. Plain and simple. It is fiction.

I get what you're saying, just fine. It's just that what you are saying is logically impossible.

I will grant that you imagine something in your mind. Fine. I can even grant that it is realistic. But it is not, nor will it ever be real nor does it physically exist. People get sent to the funny-farm for believing otherwise.

If it is fictional, it is not real. If it is real, it is not fictional. That's why the broadest categories of literature are "fiction" and "non-fiction" and everything else is sub-categories thereof.

Berz.

That's not a grey area. Just because it's possible for something to exist doesn't mean that it does. After all, it's currently possible for a five-mile-long space station to exist, under current technology (it would be a massive undertaking, but it could happen). But it doesn't.



Possibilities do not mean existence. If they did, all we'd have to do is think of something that is possible and it would wink into existence. Scientifically, until something is observed or proven under scientific theorems, it is speculation only and remains in the realm of fiction.



It's not really thinking outside the box, even. These are things that people have tried to argue for thousands of years and they were found to be logically or observationally problematic. Honestly, we're just rehashing a very, very old debate.

What it is is saying that our universe is not what we know it to be. We may not know everything about the universe, but we do know how logic works and that leads to a great many other conclusions about the way existence works.

Berz.

A possibility for something to exist can exist without the thing in question existing. Me, in particular, having seen it is not necessary. If anyone observes it and as long as others' observations don't contradict it, it is real because observation says it is.

The possibility of something existing is completely and entirely irrelevant as to whether or not it does exist.



No no no...

You missed the point of that entirely. Whether or not something is supernatural is completely separate from whether it exists or not. Something can be both supernatural and exist and it can be both supernatural and not exist. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not something exists.

Existence itself is an on or off sort of deal. There are two answers to the question "does it exist?" "Yes" or "no." To answer "supernatural" is a non-sequitur.

You keep changing the topic. We started out with whether or not fantasy has to adhere to something that could exist. Then, we went on to whether these things really exist. Then we moved to whether or not something existing in fiction means it exists in real life. Now we're on whether or not a possibility exists, which is completely and entirely a non-issue. Which debate do you want to have?

The core of this is and always has been that reality is separate from fiction. If it happens in fiction, it's not real. I don't care if it's possible for it to be real; it isn't real. I don't care if it's supernatural or not; it isn't real. Plain and simple. It's the separation of fiction and reality that cannot be overcome, ever, in any way, shape, or form.

Berz.