When an author decides to write a book and create fictional entities like Harry Potter, or Homer from The Illiad, where do these fictional entities exist? In what substrate or form do they exist in? — Wallows

If a philosopher decides to classify such fictional entities in categories, is he not in the same situation as the author? In what sense and where do the ontological categories of the philosopher exist? How does ontology exist? What is the 'form' of the 'form' itself? Can the form be mental? But the mental is itself a form. The form or the meaning-charged sign or the concept is maybe what avoids the what-is-it of philosophy while making it possible.

Popper talked of 'World 3,' some kind of space that humans share. Your question reminds me of the question of what it is like to have or be 'in' a language (which means being with others at least in some virtual way as far as I can make out.) BTW, I think Popper at the very least sees the issue. I don't accept or reject any particular part of his theory. I just respect his response to our naked situation with something other than denial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popper%27s_three_worlds

If a philosopher decides to classify such fictional entities in categories, is he not in the same situation as the author? In what sense and where do the ontological categories of the philosopher exist? How does ontology exist? What is the 'form' of the 'form' itself? Can the form be mental? But the mental is itself a form. The form or the meaning-charged sign or the concept is maybe what avoids the what-is-it of philosophy while making it possible. — sign

Yes, all good questions or a roundabout way of saying the same. What else do you think?

I just got told on a physics forums to go see a psychiatrist for posting the OP.

Here's the dialogue:

Hi Q-1,

In regards to your thread/post: How do you explain this process?
Q-1 said:
When an author decides to write a book and create fictional entities like Harry Potter, or Homer from The Illiad, where do these fictional entities exist? In what substrate or form do they exist in?

Does this point towards some form of idealism on the part of the imaginative process of writing a fictional work or even if you want to take a Platonist view "operations on syntactical and grammatical rules of numbers and logic"?

Yes, I mean to imply, that we don't have to send out probes near even horizons to establish particle velocity of matter in that area. This can be done through the laws of physics and mathematics.
Seriously? I can't tell if you're just trolling or honestly believe what you wrote above. Do you really have so little understanding of the process that writers go through when they create fiction?

Your thread is locked, as it serves no legitimate purpose at this site.

Please view our forum rules guidelines for more information.

Thanks for your understanding and participation at Physics Forums!

Mark44
Mark44, 20 minutes ago ReportReply
18 minutes ago
Q-1
Q-1
18 / 1
Mark44 said: ↑
Seriously? I can't tell if you're just trolling or honestly believe what you wrote above. Do you really have so little understanding of the process that writers go through when they create fiction?

I think there's some misunderstanding. What did I do wrong here?
Q-1, 18 minutes ago ReportReply
17 minutes ago
Q-1
Q-1
18 / 1
Can my thread be moved to the Sci-Fi area?
Q-1, 17 minutes ago ReportReply
15 minutes ago
Mark44
Mark44
31,608 / 3,642
Insights Author
Staff: Mentor
Q-1 said: ↑
I think there's some misunderstanding. What did I do wrong here?
What you posted is nonsense. What do "operations on syntactical and grammatical rules of numbers and logic" have to do with how an author creates characters in a work of fiction? Not to mention event horizons and particle velocity.

Do not post such meaningless stuff at this site again.
Mark44, 15 minutes ago ReportReply
14 minutes ago
Mark44
Mark44
31,608 / 3,642
Insights Author
Staff: Mentor
Q-1 said: ↑
Can my thread be moved to the Sci-Fi area?
No.
Mark44, 14 minutes ago ReportReply
11 minutes ago
Q-1
Q-1
18 / 1
Mark44 said: ↑
What you posted is nonsense. What do "operations on syntactical and grammatical rules of numbers and logic" have to do with how an author creates characters in a work of fiction? Not to mention event horizons and particle velocity.
Well, if we posit that Superman is the same as Clark Kent, then where do these fictional entities exist? On paper? In the mind?
Q-1, 11 minutes ago EditReportReply
8 minutes ago
Q-1
Q-1
18 / 1
Whether I want to post about this "nonsense" or not is beyond my capacity. These are merely questions that are bothering me. If you want to tell me that my thoughts are unwelcome here; please point me in the right direction where I may be better able to analyze them.

Thank you.
Q-1, 8 minutes ago EditReportReply
7 minutes ago
Mark44
Mark44
31,608 / 3,642
Insights Author
Staff: Mentor
Q-1 said: ↑
Well, if we posit that Superman is the same as Clark Kent, then where do these fictional entities exist? On paper? In the mind?
The same place that any fictional characters exist -- in the mind of the author, who subsequently puts them on paper (or a computer document).
Mark44, 7 minutes ago ReportReply
6 minutes ago
Mark44
Mark44
31,608 / 3,642
Insights Author
Staff: Mentor
Q-1 said: ↑
Whether I want to post about this "nonsense" or not is beyond my capacity. These are merely questions that are bothering me. If you want to tell me that my thoughts are unwelcome here; please point me in the right direction where I may be better able to analyze them.
Maybe a psychiatrist...
Mark44, 6 minutes ago ReportReply
4 minutes ago
Q-1
Q-1
18 / 1
Mark44 said: ↑
The same place that any fictional characters exist -- in the mind of the author, who subsequently puts them on paper (or a computer document).
OK, I understand. But, as more and more people read about Superman or Clark Kent and begin to tell each other stories about them to one another, then where do these ideas collectively reside in? A form of web of beliefs shared among people who are acquainted with what "Superman" or "Clark Kent" "denote"?
Q-1, 4 minutes ago EditReportReply
3 minutes ago
Q-1
Q-1
18 / 1
Mark44 said: ↑
Maybe a psychiatrist...
So, you're telling me that I ought to go see a psychiatrist? On what grounds are you saying this?

Wow!

I just got told on a physics forums to go see a psychiatrist for posting the OP. — Wallows

Wow. People really do hate philosophy at times. But then what happened to Socrates again?

Wow. People really do hate philosophy at times. But then what happened to Socrates again? — sign

Yeah, I don't even know what to make of his quip. Was it in good faith or what?

Had he said, "Maybe a psychologist." I would understand. But, "psychiatrist" pretty much narrows it down to him thinking I need to take something for posting what I posted.

What is this?

Yes, all good questions or a roundabout way of saying the same. What else do you think? — Wallows

Well I think we are 'in' language-with-others in a way that's hard to specify. In some ways the isolated ego is a theoretical fiction. I've been looking in Husserl lately. He's pretty awesome. As far as I can tell, he's seeing in what way Plato got something right without adopting Plato wholesale.

We can say that we construct concepts, that they are mental, but they also play by their own rules in some sense. There is a certain 'necessity' in mathematics for instance. And perhaps there is even a kind of dialectical necessity in the concept of philosophy, a 'natural' way from position to position. So maybe thinking of concepts as 'within' the subject (however true or valuable in some sense) simultaneously betrays the mundane experience of the subject living within these same concepts. The whole thing is difficult and messy. Will we ever be done saying what it is to say? Meaning what it is to mean? Probably not.

Yeah, I don't even know what to make of his quip. Was it in good faith or what? — Wallows

Good faith. I am pro-philosophy. I am a weirdo who stubbornly uses language that gets itself misunderstood. I would rather say something big awkwardly than say lots of trivialities correctly. It's better to fail at really trying something in my view.

they exist on a metaphysical plane, that is, the secundary or psychic dimension emerged from the physical one. In imagination that is, like when I had sex with Ana and then I woke up and turned out it was all in a metaphysical plane.

that is how we learn everything

By really trying something? I agree.

you have to check your sex life; if your sex life is good, you don´t need a psychiatrist. It is that simple, but people elaborate because they think too high of themselves.

As for the "it´s in the mind of the author" it´s an idle, or too practical answer in my opinion. It´s like saying: where is the videogame? in the computer. The real question is where Clark Kent and Superman (that for me are different persons) are ontologically speaking. I´d rather say they exist in a meta-physical plane. In Spain we had a philosopher, Gustavo Bueno, that studied these things deeply, and elaborated the doctrine of Philosophical Materialism. I need to read something from the guy, as he´s supposed to be one of the best philosophers in XX-XXI Europe.

you don´t have to agree, it´s very established science; we learn by doing things to solve mental or physical problems, and react to the feedback. Like A.I., that is why they call it Artificial Intelligence. In good teaching, educators provide the students with opportunities to fail; but failing in a way that they can understand so that they can get it right.

I understand that for people who know a lot more and are already prepared for bigger fails, some patience is required with members that are still doing small logic and vocabulary mistakes.

In what substrate or form do they exist in? — Wallows

The exist in any substrate they do exist in as information, but they are something else.

Though maybe they don't properly "exist" until they appear by means of a particular cognitive processing. They are irreducible to theoretical script or physical processes because appearance is necessary for being recognized and recognition requires a whole train of relatively conditioned and logistically dynamic baggage.

Is appearance necessary for being recognized and is a particular recognition necessary for "existence"?

In what capacity does the unread and therefore unthought of fictional character exist? As potential and likely recognition of what appears, as scripts yet to appear and be interpreted by biological machinery.

Or fictional characters don't "exist" period.

That's obnoxious. If you live in the US, you should see if your state has anti-bullying and/or public accommodation laws. The psychiatry comment would arguable run afoul of either (the latter for discriminating against the mentally ill). Come to think of it, since disability is a protected class, it could even constitute a hate crime.

I'm not saying you should sue, but you could point it out to this clown. Or maybe you should sue...

Yeah, no apologies and another mentor on the same forum thought I was on drugs, and basically affirmed what the other mentor thought about me. I'm going to stick to my safe abode here on these forums from now on.

But, returning to the topic. I think this all points towards a conception that Platonism might be true.

Thoughts?

It sounds like those guys could actually benefit severely from some alternative perspectives in their lives, but no one can blame you for staying away

Remember the story about paranoia: just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you! Maybe you do need to see a shrink. But then again, most of us could benefit from that - if the shrink is any good!

Haha, I agree. I have no idea what I should do. I suppose I'll stay here in this safe space.

Calling out someone as "crazy" hardly ever produced any good and just is a sign of cowardice.

Metaphysics is possibly destabilizing to one's sense of reality, possibly in similar way some drugs are.

The metaphysically adept are like deep sea cutters and welders. Their confidence and skill of logical consistency as well as their knowledge of prior arguments allow them to brave the waters of chaos to cut or fix something somewhere. What they are welding is like the structure of their own minds, which in effect restructures the world, but this is also true of everyone whether we are aware of it or not.

"He comprehended that the effort to mold the incoherent and vertiginous matter dreams are made of was the most arduous task a man could undertake, though he might penetrate all the enigmas of the upper and lower orders: much more arduous than weaving a rope of sand or coining the faceless wind." — Borges

~J.L. Borges, Circular Ruins

Metaphysics is like weaving a rope of sand or coining the faceless wind, toward what end?

There is something about a story where we want something to be true. Or what is happening.
And maybe we didn't know that was a desire before the telling.
It is hard to put the cart before the horse.
But that is another story......

Metaphysics is possibly destabilizing to one's sense of reality, possibly in similar way some drugs are.

The metaphysically adept are like deep sea cutters and welders. Their confidence and skill of logical consistency as well as their knowledge of prior arguments allow them to brave the waters of chaos to cut or fix something somewhere. What they are welding is like the structure of their own minds, which in effect restructures the world, but this is also true of everyone whether we are aware of it or not.

"He comprehended that the effort to mold the incoherent and vertiginous matter dreams are made of was the most arduous task a man could undertake, though he might penetrate all the enigmas of the upper and lower orders: much more arduous than weaving a rope of sand or coining the faceless wind."
— Borges

~J.L. Borges, Circular Ruins

Metaphysics is like weaving a rope of sand or coining the faceless wind, toward what end? — Nils Loc

I just wanted to say that I loved this post.