Talk:Many worlds and possible worlds in literature and art

Merged

This page has been merged to Parallel universe (fiction) which it largely duplicated. Please edit that page.--Saswann 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The origins of this page are edits made to the many-worlds interpretation page on this particular topic. It seemd that a separate page is in order, since thios does seem to be a theme in many popular works (and also some serious literature). I don't know enough other than to put in the obvious reference to Candide.

For authorship of edits please look at the history listing of that Many-worlds interpretation.CSTAR 19:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Duplications

This page needs some editing for duplications and perhaps some cutting back.

This page desperately needs renaming. leigh (φθόγγος) 02:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page!

I am attempting to clean up this page, but I suspect (I emphasise that I am by no means certain) that it is written by someone (like myself) who is familiar with the concept of alternate universes in science fiction and certain fantasies, but does not fully understand the difference between this and the possible worlds theory in the theoretical study of fiction.

Thus what I imagine this page needs is to examined by someone familiar with both! Then, I suspect that it needs to be moved, renamed, or even deleted depending upon to what extent the material within is already covered in more 'mainstream' articles such as those on alternate universes, and the possible worlds theory.

I repeat that the above is an impression only, which I don't intend to defend if challenged by the author or someone better informed :) -- Mike

This page became a repository for pieces of text lying in other articles (mainly in Many-worlds interpretation). I didn't write any of it, aside from an intro, which was the best I could think of. But you are correct, I know nothing about possible worlds theory in the theoretical study of fiction other than that such a theory exists. Some literary theorist needs to rewrite the article. --CSTAR 22:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reply! :) I have tidied up the page, but I believe it is essentially misnamed (it is now, and my efforts have not improved the situation) a brief discussion of alternate universes, which is essentially a scientific theory, while the possible worlds theory is (I believe) more a tool for logical/philosophical analysis of fiction (and thus quite different.)

My recommendation for handling this page:

Take anything that this page contains on the subject of alternate universes that is not already said on the (currently proposed for merging) multiverse and parallel universe pages and add it to them.
Consider whether the vast number of examples of fictions containing alternative universes (which, after doing the above is probably essentially all that will remain) are really neccessary, and either delete them if not, or provide more appropriately named page (e.g. Fictions involving Parallel Universes for them if so. --Mike

Some of this material was removed from Multiverse and possible worlds because I was attempting to separate the three major areas of the subject into topics that would not bleed into each other. I thought this necessary because of the speculative nature of multiverse theory makes it difficult to separate legitimate scientific thought from ideas from outside. Without removing literature, I felt that it would be difficult to deny a place for other less well grounded concepts from religion and other faith-based philosophies

. DV8 2XL 23:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Interesting points. What do you believe the 'three major areas of the subject' are, and how do you think they should be seperated?

The problem with attempting to make seperate these areas is that the probability that the field can be accurately divided up into three clearly distinct topics is virtually zero.

As for keeping 'legitimate scientific thought' away from 'ideas from outsite'- I am a strongly passionate defender of the scientific method, in favour of untestable 'faith'- but at present even multiverse theories put forward by scientists are essentially just untestable speculation, the same as is performed by fiction writers. (There are quite possibly exceptions in the cutting edge of Quantum Mechanics, but I am certainly not qualified to comment on those, and you'll hopefully excuse me if I assume you are not either ^^)

I fear that the whole subject of 'alternate universes' (which stretches at least from the 'fantasy worlds' mentioned on the fantasy page to quantum mechanics) is too broad yet at the same time too 'continuous' to successfully clearly subdivide. Thus any attempts will probably have to be 'best efforts' anyway.

What I am certain of now, though, having consulted someone studying the subject, is that this discussion is pretty much nothing to do with the possible worlds theory, which is a... kind of... framework and shorthand for examining how the 'fictional world' (e.g. an Earth where wizards live amongst the unknowing population) created by a fiction differs from our own.

So... erm... AFAIK (again a literary expert is welcome to correct me) this needs to be disassociated from the Possible Worlds theory... what to do with it remains uncertain. To be honest, I suspect tidying up Wikipedia's 'alternate universe' material would be an enormous and almost intractable problem, but I commend you for trying! :) I will keep an eye on this if I have the time. --Mike

Best not to assume anything Mike. The three areas are: possible worlds - which as you have found out is part of modal logic; multiverse theories - untestable speculation (for now) true, but at least well-founded as extensions of standard physics; and fictional treatments of the topic. Is this division arbitrary? Of course, for the very reasons you stated. Is it necessary to maintain some order in the subject, I think so. DV8 2XL 00:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]