Zone of Fire in Curym?

[Oerjan]

Hello,

According to the Verdurian Drilldown:

"The equatorial regions of Almea are unnaturally torrid, a zone of approximately 250 km on either side of the equator being unsuitable for human habitation. In continental areas, there is a band of exposed rock some 30 km wide at the equator, devoid of vegetation or other shade. As a result neither humans nor animals can cross, and most plant species are unable to propagate their seeds across such the gap. Only the largest and strongest of birds, flying far above, can cross the Zone."

Now, this is clearly true on Erel?e and probably across the land bridge between Arc?l and Curym too, but in southern Curym proper - just west of the word "Kereminth" on the planet map - there are two rivers crossing the equator, and thus probably crossing the Zone as well. Would it be possible for Uesti to cross the Zone by following these rivers (where they'd have fresh water both to drink and to bathe in)?

***
Also, are Almea's rotational period and axial tilt known?

Later,

Oerjan

[Rory]

Would it be possible for Uesti to cross the Zone by following these rivers (where they'd have fresh water both to drink and to bathe in)?

My limited Almean knowledge says "possibly". However, would they want to? For them, it'd be like sailing off the edge of the world for all they know. Althought I imagine it'd be done eventually.

[Aurora Rossa]

I always thought that was the least realistic aspect of the conworld. Other than that, it's a pretty well made conworld.

[Warmaster]

I always thought that was the least realistic aspect of the conworld. Other than that, it's a pretty well made conworld.

I'd like to see you do better. 25 years experience against what i doubt is more than a year or two

[So Haleza Grise]

I always thought that was the least realistic aspect of the conworld. Other than that, it's a pretty well made conworld.

Thanks, Eddy. We were wondering what you thought about it.

[Salmoneus]

Now now, warmaster, lets not be too critical of Eddy.

Firstly, he was on the whole complementary, just pointing out what he felt was the worst bit - he didn't even say that the worst bit was all that bad, let alone that the rest of the world was bad!

Secondly, he never said he could do better, so there's no point denying that he could.

Thirdly, whether he could do better has nothing to do with how good the original is - as Johnson said, you don't need to be a master carpenter to know when the chair you're being sold has a wobbly leg. I can criticise many things without having to be able to do better (though if i can that's an asset, as it shows I know what i;m talking about - but Eddy's criticism wasn't a technical one that required conworlding knowledge, it was one made as a reader. So in fact, the less conworlding knowledge, the mor valid the comment, as it more accurately reflects the "ordinary" person).

I think that because Eddy so frequently makes arrogant, egocentric and condescending posts, we assume that everyone he posts is. But its not - this was perfectly polite and a fair comment.




In fact, I agree with him - I think the Zone of Fire is the least convincing bit of the conworld that I've read. You know how it is... in almost every conworld there are bits where you sort of get jolted out of the world, and start thinking "hmmm. mm^mh? whmm." instead, and the Zone of Fire was te bit that got me about Verduria.
Not that that's much of a criticism - the rest of the world that I've read (which is little compared to others here, but much compared to by concentration span) is very well constructed. And I wouldn't presume to suggest that the Zone of Fire be removed or replaced - sometimes the shakey foundation is made solid by the weight of the building on it, and removing the foundation would tear down the building.
It just didn't quite flow through my mind; it jarred.

[Rory]

I agree with you Salmoneus - but I've always viewed Almea as a fantasy world, which it is, so it doesn't bother me.

[Nuntar]

Well said, Salmoneus. I agree with everything you've just posted. Although I think I remember something that said the Zone of Fire might be of artificial origin, which would make it not so much unrealistic as strange?

[Rory]

Reality is unrealistic.
So said Franz Kafka, or words to that effect. There are many things in reality that pass as "strange", that in an artificial setting would pass as "unrealistic".

[Nuntar]

Nice, but not very original of Kafka. "Truth is often stranger than fiction" - Shakespeare.

[Rory]

*digs up some Plato quotes*

[Salmoneus]

And I really think we should have a better word than "unrealistic". It doesn't convey the meaning at all. I read fantasy - most things there are, I'll admit, unrealistic, but I don't admit that they are... are... are... [struggles for a non-existent word. suspects that the word should be German.]

[Nuntar]

When we read fantasy (or any fiction, for that matter) we have to "suspend disbelief". The word you're looking for must be one that means "impossible to suspend disbelief about". Anyone have sufficient Latin to construct the word?

[Rory]

Unlikely?
Not plausible?
Silly?
Not befitting the rest of the stuff?

[Salmoneus]

I've never got that stuff about "suspending disbelief". Why do I have to suspend disbelief anymore if I read that the dragon ate the knight than if I read that George Bush is the president of America? The former does not in anyway contradict any evidence that I have had presented to me about dragons or knights.

Also I dislike the phrase "willing suspension of disbelief." It implies far too much benevolence on the part of the reader.


I don't quite mean that. Its more difficult than impossible, for a start.

And I'm afraid Rory that none of those quite fit. A dragon eating a knight is unlikely, but its not _______.

[Nuntar]

"The dragon ate the knight" may not contradict any evidence that you've seen regarding dragons or knights, but it contradicts your belief that dragons don't exist. If we read fiction, we usually know that we are reading fiction, so we have a belief that all information regarding the particulars of the fiction is untrue.

I agree that "suspension of disbelief" is something of a cant phrase, but it seems to me to be based on a useful truth: that if we constantly held in the front of our consciousness our belief that the fiction is untrue, it would not have the same effect on us that it does. And some occurrences in fiction are unbelievable enough to break down that barrier and spoil the effect.

[Salmoneus]

I don't have a belief that dragons don't exist. That would be a silly belief to have, for which there is no possible evidence.
I deny that the events in fiction are false. They just may not happen to reflect observable external (if there is such a thing) sense stimuli in the current world. They almost always reflect events in other possible worlds, though, and even if they don't it doesn't matter: it is true that dragons have scales even if in no possible world is the a "physical" reaction corresponding to a dragon having scales - dragons (and knights, and scales, and all other objects) exist, and can have properties, solely in the mind - objects are constructs designed to represent what we can observe.

[Nuntar]

Wow, I guess I just wasn't prepared for such a radical metphysics as yours.

So you really believe nothing without sufficient evidence? And I say "sufficient" because there is certainly some evidence for the non-existence of dragons: the lack of reliably attested dragon sightings.

What I meant when I said that statements in fiction are false is that they do not match the reality of this world, even though of course most are true in some possible world. Maybe I shouldn't have said it quite like that. But regardless of whether "Jack walked down the street" is true when it occurs as the first line of a story, the fact remains that the context carries an unstated assumption that Jack is a real person in this world, and this assumption is false.

[Guest]

So you really believe nothing without sufficient evidence? And I say "sufficient" because there is certainly some evidence for the non-existence of dragons: the lack of reliably attested dragon sightings.

That's not evidence for the non-existance of dragons! That's evidence for the not-existence of dragons!
*looks at those last two sentences*
hmm.
A better way to say it would be:
The lack of dragon-sightings is evidence that the theory that dragons exist is not true.
It isn't evidence that the theory that dragons do not exist is true. Well, I suppose the first line is evidence for the second, so in a way, it is evidence, but only second-hand evidence.
Ok, so you're right, and I'm wrong. In THIS CASE. But sometimes the two aren't the same.

I try not to believe anything without sufficient evidence, certainly. Sometimes my criteria for "sufficient" and "evidence" are wider than I think desirable, and sometimes I find myself believing things without any evidence - generally things that I've believed for a long time, so that the belief predates any cohesive belief-acceptance criteria.
I believe lots and lots of things without proof, of course. But I like to have evidence.

I disagree about the implicit statements - in fact, I think the opposite. If I pick up tolkien, I don't assume that Bilbo lives in this world - I assume he lives in Tolkien-world.

In fact, anything that is written in fiction must be true, because the objects in fiction exist only in fiction - the only properties they have are those ascribed to them in that fiction, so the properties as described and their properties as are the case are the same - ie the descriptions are true.

[Nuntar]

I would reply if I didn't have an essay due tomorrow that I must get back to. I'll reply in detail when I have time, though.

[Aurora Rossa]

An interesting viewpoint, Guest.

[Salmoneus]

Essays? Essays? What is this talk of "essays"? Look at me! Its 1:13 in the morning, and I've got 7 maths/economics questions, a politics essay (already a day late) and some hideous Logic questions about Harry Potter that actually require thought and understanding (rather than just tableau) to do by tomorrow!
Well, actually we;ve managed to work it so that its not due until the end of tomorrow, so technically I've still got 23 hours to go...

How many essay do you have to do a week, may I ask?

[Shinali Sishi]

Ok, let's start with a stated truth.
(Regardless of whether this can be proven or not is irrelevant, the point is it is stated as a truth and therefore is true)
"Tinsel cannot sing."

Now if I write a story and say "As he entered the room he heard a strange singing coming from a pile of tinsel. Upon further inspection the tinsel was in fact singing."
Now we have to suspend our disbelief that tinsel can sing in order to not just scoff at the story and walk away. You will also note tat the tinsel singing in the story is false because we have stated that tinsel cannot sing.

Now I can take that a step farther...
"I do not believe that dragons exist."
Now, if our story then continues with "...and the tinsel's song summoned a great dragon wearing a Santa hat..." this goes against my belief that dragons do not exist, so I must suspend my disbelief to enjoy the story. Here it is harder to say if the story is true or false just based on the dragon's existence, but I can definitely say "This story is contrary to my belief" and "I believe this story is false."

Now if I am waching a commercial and a penguin uses the telephone I know quite well that a)penguins do not speak English, and that b)They cannot hold a telephone with their wings. Given those two beliefs/facts I know the commercial is not true.

In all these cases I know or belief the story is false, but I accept that the story is not meant to be true and therefore I suspend my disbelief in order to accept this work of fiction as fiction rather than just a lie or misconception.

The point is, if you believe dragons exist it is no different than believing in Santa because when you read a story featuring them, you choose to believe it or not per your beliefs on the subject. Even if you do not believe it, you let the accepting child in your mind out to play for a little bit and sit back and enjoy the story, regardless of whether or not the dragon on your porch is real.

If you want I can get into logic and the validity of an argument. :evilgrin:

(no, I can't explain my use of Christmas references)

[-]

Wow. Quite the metaphysical discussion that's spun out of that original question.

First, re: that original question -- I've actually never thought to look at the rivers in Curym in that light before. Judging by what Mark says about the Zone of Fire, I'd expect them to simply be dry riverbeds at the equator -- but maybe they have too much volume to be evaporated when they hit the Zone, or originate at a high enough altitude that they're not affected by the 250km swath of the Zone. If they are water crossing the equator, then just to speculate... I wouldn't expect them to be much more hospitable that hot geothermal lakes -- and one wouldn't expect to survive a long journey in such an environment, I'd think.

Second, re: the word Salmoneus is looking for: people usually look for fantasy worlds to be internally consistent. They don't have to play by the rules of our world per se, but they do have to play by their own rules. The word you're looking for is, therefore, probably inconsistent or, if you prefer, incongruous (as in "A dragon eating a knight is unlikely, but not incongruous").

Of course Greek-based neologisms are more fun, if you really want a neologism. Maybe we could get away with the Greek sumphonesis ---> asumphonetic? Urgggghhh.

Third, re: the metaphysical quagmire -- what you're trying to say is that it's not possible to prove a negative. What Ahribar is saying is that you don't need to absolutely [EDIT: prove] a negative; for most of us on a daily practical basis, the absence of positive evidence for a thing is enough to discount its actual existence. (Of course, we suspend that disbelief when we want to be entertained, such as with fantasy literature.)

[Salmoneus]

Its not quite consistancy, though consistency is part of it. The Zone of Fire isn't inconsistent.
Incongruous I think is closer - it sounds less absolute.

No, Ils, I'm not trying to say that you can't disprove a negative. I'm taking that for granted. I'm talking about the level of evidence in favour of a negative (and, in non-existential case, such as the tinsel, about the non-equivalence of demonstrably negated hypotheses and demonstratably non-negated hypothetical negations. Even if I am sure that it is not the case that tinsel does sing, I cannot be sure that it is the case that tinsel does no sing. For instance, it is true that it is not true that the King of France has hair, but it is not true that the king of France does not have hair).

Now, Dazi. Two objetions. One, your stated facts are not things that I believe - the things that stories seem to be getting you to suspend disbelief on are things that you should probably have suspended disbelief on anyway.
[By-question: in what way is the story "false"? In what way CAN a story be considered "false"?]
Secondly, and more importantly, even if I were to accept that tinsel does not sing, having a story where tinsel is singing does not violate that belief: my beliefs are about tinsel-in-w, while the story is talking about tinsel-in-s. The characteristics of the two are likely not to be the same. If I want to be really arrogant, I could assert the supremacy of the characteristics of tinsel-in-w by claiming that tinsel-in-w shared the characteristics of tinsel-in-itself, and that a non-conformist tinsel-in-s was thus not in fact a reflection of tinsel-in-itself but pseudo-tinsel. But I see little evidence for doing that, especially as I'm not totally sure that tinsel-in-itself exists.

What if you say "Dazi is a woman"? If I then write a story where the first line is "Dazi walked in the room. He was cold" does that require you to suspend your disbelief? Well, it might if you thought it was REALLY about you. But if you didn't know I knew about you, would you have to suspend your disbelief. I don't think you would - you would accept that the story is talking about a different Dazi. It is about Dazi-in-s, not Dazi-in-w, and the two need have no more connection than the same name. So what's different about writing a story about Santa-in-s, or dragon-in-s? Just because the X-in-w equivalents do not exist does not mean that the X-in-s entities do not.

If the story says that the tinsel is singing, it must be correct, because the tinsel it is talking about (tinsel-in-s) only exists in that story, and only has the characteristics attributed to it in that story. Falsehood is the divergence between an attribution and a quality - as the qualities of tinsel-in-s are the qualities that are attributed to it by the story, any claim in the story about tinsel must be correct.

You could go into the logic and the validity of arguments, yes.
*sits on bed, back to wall*
*looks left; sees Logic textbook*
*looks right; sees the Faculty's Logic study notes, next to Logic homework*
I don't think that it'll be necessary.

Unless you can shed any light on this **** Harry Potter stuff.