Board Thread:False Info and Speculative Discussion/@comment-24732895-20140910035928/@comment-11533671-20140921055616

No citation is needed...just an understanding of the differences in Pavel's theory and Fiction theory. Your citation, the ones I provided, etc. all carry the same information.

Fiction theory (FT) is derived from PW (possible world) theories but incorporates a more rigid structure. FT is not equal to PW theory but takes certain concepts and incorporates them for its own theory. FT, as a whole, does not allow for PW's to exist as the center of our model of understanding, as Pavel argues in favor of.

Instead, the AW (actual world) is set at the center. The concept of "minimal departure" from AW is considered to be a fundamental "rule" for all of FT. Yes, it can be used for some literature like if Al Gore had been President but it falters with concepts that have a greater disparity to AW.

This is where it gets dicey. A world of shapeshifters, banshees, Nemetons, fast reintegration into society by former feral werecoyote children,etc., is no longer one or two PW's from AW, but is much further out and therefore not beholden to FT's rigid structure since we no longer have a definitive base that is relatable to our AW. It does, however, fit Pavel's argument using PW theory (or PPW).

This is exactly the reasoning behind Pavel's challenge/argument. PW's in his theory CAN be at the center of our understanding. In other words...instead of basing our understanding of TW from our world...Pavel says you base it on the TW world as we know it.