PoodleLovinPessimist

No, I think it's the opposite; if you cannot prove, within an obviously fictional universe, that the universe actually is fictional, then there is no reason to suppose that our own universe might not be fictional.

I think, though, that the argument fails because of the following points.

It is trivially easy for a fictional universe to express universal belief in a creator; the writer merely needs to have the characters say that.

If a universe is actually fictional, the characters do not have any actual beliefs. They say things, from which we adduce beliefs, but we are really fooled; they don't actually have these or any other beliefs. One cannot detect the fictionality of a universe "from the inside" not because of any features of the universe, but because there is no "inside" to a fictional universe.

Merely the fact that we ourselves do look at the universe around us is sufficient evidence that our universe is not fictional (in the sense of being authored). Of course, it's no evidence that the universe is not created.

Wisdom's Child

I can't find the reference at the moment, but the mention of quantum physics triggered a memory of something concerning Stephen Hawkings and Blach Holes...
It had to do with Matter and Energy being refered to as an "exchange of Information"?

If Information can concevably be transmitted through a Black Hole and be used to "Reassemble" something on the other side, then in some remote corner of all possibilities the Star wars universe must exist as we have recieved information about it.

If man is made in the same Image and Likeness, then we too should posess the same creative ability as a facimile of our Creator.

Wisdom's Child

My thoughts go to Young Luke Skywalker staring off into the Binary Sunset...

Ojuice5001

The way I formulate the analogy, the point is that the gods' relationship to the universe is in some ways similar to the author's relationship to his fictional universe. Normally, every fictional event has a cause within the fictional universe. But it's also true that these events happened because the author wanted them to happen; the author makes events happen the way he chooses. For instance, George didn't want Luke Skwyalker to get shot in the attack on the Death Star, so it didn't happen. But if he had wanted it to happen, it could have, and without any change whatever in the physical laws of the Star Wars universe.

And the analogy makes another point, which is more directly apologetic. Since events have causes within the universe they're a part of (a fictional universe, or the one we live in), this means that the cause-and-effect system of a fictional universe doesn't contain events whose causation gives away the fact that it is fictional. In the same way, even if the world is ruled by gods or a god, it still wouldn't show up in our system of cause and effect. That's how that analogy is relevant, in my view.

PoodleLovinPessimist

The point is, though, Luke Skywalker has no experience of looking into the Binary Sunset. There is no person, no intelligence, no being to be having the experience.

The fact that we see the actor Mark Hammill off into what appears to us to be a Binary Sunset fools us into inferring that there is some real person, Luke Skywalker, who is actually experiencing a real Binary Sunset. But this is an illusion only; we are being tricked.

PoodleLovinPessimist

Indeed. I'm arguing, though, that that similarity is unfounded.

Quite the contrary. Normally a fictional author describes events with causal relationships. That doesn't mean, though, that there are actual causes which cause actual events; there are only descriptions of causes. A fictional universe cannot be experienced, we can only read (or watch) descriptions of experience. Ordinary naive realistic intuition is what supplies the illusion that there are actual people, actual causes, actual evens, but naive realism is obviously false in this case.

But the events don't happen. We think they happened because the author has described events. But there are no actual events, only imagined ones.

But my point is there are no events at all in a fictional world. No causes, no effects, no laws of physics, no systems. There are only descriptions which superficially fool us, the readers, into thinking there are actually such things.

Wisdom's Child

Dare I ask?

How exactly do you make the determination between real and fiction?
How much faith must you posess in what is presented before you on a daily basis in print media and video to accept it as fact? Obviously you cannot personally attend every media event, nor can you have witnessed all of history.