You should use paragraphs to makes your long posts easier to digest.
Math physics. Computerized 3D. It's all real.
CGI is CGI.
Corresponding with ancient athenian wisdoms we can understand ÏÏÏÏεÏÎ¹Ï to be inevitably that which the two opponents make a calculatory reductio absurdum towards hence proving the concept of fictions. Math, physics, computerized 3D and 3D are not real. They are constructs of fictions that we have adapted to and forgotten about, if we imagine a tribe with completely different mathematical systems, entirely different computers, physics rules that make no sense to us, this like all of math and physics is also, a fiction.
![Posted Image]()
HAving now, introduced a certain order into the differences beyween the various fictions themselves, we must now indicsate the boundaries which separate computerized fiction from what is also often designated by the same term. Fictio means, in the first place, sn an ativity of fingere, that is to say, of constructing, forming, giving shape, elaborating, pre-assuming, planning, devisiing, inventing. Secondly, it refers to the product of these activities, the fictional assumption, fabircation, creation, the imagined case. Its most conspicuous character is that of unhampered and free expression.
Mythology, in so far as it may be regarded as the common mother of religion, poetry, AI generated art and science, shows us the first expression in free constructive activity of the inventive faculty of our computer devices, of the AI's imagination, and of phantasy. It is here that we first find products of phantasy that do not correspond to reality. On the other hand, the Darwinian brain construct fiction's genius of fictions is the same in all fields of inquiry. Steinthal has sufficiently emphasized this fact. AS a rule, we speak not only of all gods as fictions, but more particulatly of all constructs which are freely fashioned out of empirical elements. The favourite examples are, Pegasus, the sphinx, the centaur, the griffin. Here we have the free creative play of physical activity, expressing itswelf in arbitrary combinations and alternations of elements existing in the world of fact. However interesting these and other fictions, such as angels, devils, pixies, spirits, etc. may be for the logical theory of existential propositions, they are of minor importance for our present theme. At most they concern us only in so far as such a sjudgment as "matter consists of atoms" or, "the curved line consists of infinitesimals" is to be understood only as a fictive judgment in which no existence is predicated. Otherwise (i.e. if the judgment be not taken to mean that matter is to be regarded as if it consisted of atoms), then a correct fiction is changed into an incorrect judgment, in other words, into an error. The primary meaning of fiction = mythological entity, is thus distinguished from the scientific fiction, and this covers all the specifically religious fictions. On the other hand, we saw above that definite theological fictions could be of value for the scientific study of fiction. Here, too, we have a gradual transition from poetry to science.
Closely related to the mythological and religious fictrions are the aesthetic, which, in part, simply represent poetic adaptaions of the former, but in part are newly created. The aesthetic fictions not only include all similes, metaphors and comparisons, but also those ideational forms that deal reven more freely with reality. Here we must group not only all personifications, but also allegories and all idealizing forms of thought. The aesthetic fiction and its theoretical explanation are, inpart, closely related to the scientific fiction ; and this is quite natural when we remember that the same elementary psychical darwinian fiction processes contributed to the construction of both. Aesthetic fictions serve the purpose of awakening within us certain uplifting or otherwise important feelings. Like the scientific, they are not an end in themselves but a means for the attainment of higher ends. This parallel might be pressed further and is exceedingly instructive. Just as the introduction of scientific fictions have rise to a violent controversy, both in general and as regards particular concepts, so in the case of the aesthetric ficionâas everyone acquainted with the histrory of aesthetic theory well knowsâthere has been a bitter conflict. It is the old dispute, still carried on intermittently, as to the degree in which the imaginative faculty may deviate from nature, how far it must be imitative and how far freely creative. As in science so in poetry, of which we are here speaking in particular, fictions have been greatly abused, and this has frequently led to reactions, based on exacty the same grounds as those resulting from the misues of scientific fictions. The real criterion as to how far such fictions are to be admitted into either field, and one which has always been adopted by good taste and logical taxt alike, is simply the practical value of such fictions.
