Continuing in a new thread.

It's important to note that the definition of the term "literature" is very broad in the modern humanities. Although the author makes the usual mistake of over-emphasizing the value of the written form, the author himself states that "literary fiction can be a source of knowledge in a way that depends crucially on its being fictional," which implies that his ideas are broadly applicable to all forms of literature.

In many ways his paper excoriates the novel in comparison to visual media, as the novel is relatively sparse in the narrative elements he considers educational.

You can't learn anything worthwhile from the Library of Babel because it contains all books. Aside from the problem of finding a book that isn't gibberish, you have the problem of deciding what books are full of ****.

Kind of like the internet, except here, you can check facts. Of course, for most people, the internet only functions as a confirmation bias machine.

Obviously not all information is useful, but it takes a real douchecanoe to say that all recreation is always bad or even fruitless.

DISCLAIMER I know this isnt really related

I always am somewhat tickled when I completely agree with Jon'C about something.

i kinda agree with him on things because then I donts have to look into them myselfs lol

One can learn a bit about the philosophy of Objectivism by reading Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" or even Terry Goodkind's "Sword of Truth" series (said author was heavily influenced by Ayn Rand). It's possible that one could learn as much or more about said philosophical principles using another medium (or even other sources within the same medium) but I think it's likely that the reader would take away "something" about said philosophy by reading either novel.

Well, yeah, but my point is that it'd be the only place from which you could learn 'everything,' even with the egregious drawbacks. It is preposterous and arrogant to claim that all knowable facts are written down by humans.

Ah, but does it? The fictional author cites two contradictory theories: first that the library contains only unique books, and second that the library is infinite.

It is trivial to see that these two statements are mutually exclusive.

As stated, the books all have finite and essentially equal lengths, which means that an infinite set of books must eventually contain duplicate books (this is called the pigeonhole principle; i.e. if there are n books, but only n-1 possible books, there must be at least one duplicate.) Therefore, for the library to contain only unique books, the library must be finite. If the library is significantly smaller than the number of possible books, it is quite possible that none of the books will make any sense.

If we suppose the library is infinite and contains non-unique books, it doesn't imply that the library contains every possible book. Even if we assume the books in the library do not follow any pattern it does not imply that the library contains every unique book (e.g. even though pi is a transcendental number, it does not imply that the digits of pi contain every finite sequence.) Again, it is quite possible that none of the books will make any sense.

Just in case anybody thought thought that they could learn any combinatorics from that work of fiction.

The use of fiction as a framing device for communicating knowledge is truly ancient.

For example, Socratic dialogues are fictional conversations between Socrates and his students. In this case, 'Socrates' is just a narrative device - a fictionalized representation of a real person - which is used to provide an active demonstration of the Socratic method. The authors are not trying to attribute their own opinions to the real Socrates, nor are they trying to entertain (beyond the entertainment of studying philosophy, of course.) In much the same way, today we use fictional characters named Goofus and Gallant to discuss important lifestyle choices. The fact that it is a work of fiction is largely irrelevant. (I could go on to point out that the Socratic dialogues exhort the value of the spoken word over the written word, but that's not really important.)

It's interesting that you bring up Objectivism, because Ayn Rand was never able or willing to fully-articulate the philosophy. It's rejected by modern philosophers largely on the basis that Rand never argued for Objectivism outside of the very narrow hypothetical scenarios she constructed principally for narrative purposes. You could just as easily say that Dune teaches you a lot about riding Sand Worms, but Sand Worms aren't a thing, and neither is Objectivism.

You can also learn about the futility of prophecy from dune, and that Herbert was not actually that good at storytelling.

Superficially, you can learn all about grammar, and story telling, and the power of myth, from reading fiction. And that doesn't even include what a novel is actually about. Dune isn't about riding sand worms; it's a coming of age story where the protagonist has to take the place of his father.

If you think there's nothing to be learned from fiction, you have a very shallow definition of knowledge.

None of this is unique to the novel. You seem to be missing the point here, JM... my intention is not to dismiss the value of fiction, or even reading as a technical exercise. My intention is to dispute the educational value of the fictional novel. More importantly, my intention is to point out that you, personally, are not any smarter than anybody else just because you get your cheeseball vampire stories from a paperback instead of from HBO.

And I'm right.

While we're on the subject of fiction, though,

"Once the Author is removed, the claim to decipher a text becomes quite futile. To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing."

I do think Barthes is a ****head who just wanted an excuse to keep pumping out English literature papers faster than they can make English literature, but the one point he got right is that our reading of literature is informed by our own experiences rather than authorial intent.

In the specific case of fiction, where the text openly makes no claim to truth, we can't say that we are gaining knowledge by reading it. The only real knowledge that exists in the dialogue is the knowledge we already had. To claim otherwise is to completely discount the entire body of epistemology, because every educated definition of 'knowledge' includes the condition that the proposition to be known is true (this means your definition of knowledge is shallow, FYI.)

Actually, the only cheeseball vampire stories I get are from HBO. The novels Trueblood is based on are mostly vapid romances with the occasionally spatter of 'oh, right, vampires!'

And I'm right.

Truth is deeper than the surface, Joncy. Truth is not just 'Did Eric Northman totally **** Sooki', that is the shallow part I spoke of. Obviously Eric Northman is not real, obviously you gained no real knowledge by learning the facts of the author's fantasy. What is real is the way people interact. A novel is an abstraction presented to you by an author, through which you can learn a great deal about very complex issues and emotions like duty, and honor, and regret, and motivation, in a way that's impossible in the mud of real life. You say, it's surface is a lie so it is all a lie. I say, it's heart is true, and the surface lets us see inside it.

And I'm right.

Related but less important; I never said books are superior to television or movies or even video games (though I will now : They are.), I said they were superior to football. You should consider arguing against points I've made, not ones you've imagined.

And I'm right.

And I'm making fun of you for saying 'And I'm right.' Really? Do you think saying you're right does anything to improve your argument?

Why are books better then a well crafted video game with a good story, interesting characters, and well written dialogue.
Replace video game with movie and repeat.

I wouldn't know. Do you feel intellectually challenged by books called The Southern Vampire Mysteries?

No, it's false. It's fiction. It didn't happen. The people did not really interact. The people do not have or express emotions like duty, and honor, and regret, and motivation, because those people do not exist and did not experience those emotions. The fact that it's impossible to learn about these things in the "mud of real life" is a sure sign that it isn't real.

The 'true belief' part of knowledge isn't even a ****ing debate, it's just the way it is... by the very definition it is not possible to know something that is false, you can only believe it. Your beliefs can even be justified, but if it's not true it's not knowledge. You are seriously sitting here ****ting on all of epistemology because the definition of knowledge wounds your pride.

Why would I continue to argue your opinion about football now that you've admitted what everybody has already correctly assumed?

As mentioned, the prevailing opinion of literary critics is that they are all forms of literature and are capable of the same expressive power. We've also already discussed and mostly agree on the potential educational benefits of fiction (other than whether or not those works can produce knowledge.) The burden of proof is on you to show that novels are uniquely superior.

You very obviously aren't smarter than anybody else on this forum, ipso facto I'm right. Deal with it.

One might make the argument that reading certain types of literature leads one to exercise faculties for empathy and moral judgment--in which case such practice might constitute a form of moral learning. Of course, playing football exercises mental faculties as well, though I imagine they are largely kinaesthetic and strategic in nature. (Counterargument: teamwork, sportsmanship, etc etc etc)

That is, one can plausibly say that different forms of entertainment promote different kinds of learning. Some of those varieties may better help an individual to function in society than others do. At least in principle one can imagine how such claims would be tested empirically.

No; I'm '****ting on all of epistemology' because you've chosen a definition of knowledge that is needlessly narrow, because that particular definition happens to make you correct via a technicality of language. Here is that technicality : Since the things in the novel are not facts, they can't be knowledge. I'm trying to tell you that it doesn't need to be a 'fact' to be knowledge. Emotions are knowledge too.

And, for that matter, are you really going to tell me that you can't learn about revolutionary France by reading A Tale of Two Cities?

Playing football is vastly different from watching it. The sport - all sports - have vastly more value to the people on the field than they do to the people sitting on a couch watching it.

Actually Plato is the one who probably first said that knowledge is 'true belief,' although it's very likely that the 'true' part of it predated even him. Jesus. If you're going to try to debate epistemology with me the least you could do is learn one single thing about it. This is what I'm talking about when I say you're ****ting all over it. For someone who thinks he reads a lot you sure don't know much about philosophy.

It's certainly possible, but I would have to be a fool to assume it is accurate without evidence.

Pretty much every sports fan is a huge nerd, memorizing player names and stats and running fantasy leagues and getting into crazy metagaming. It's much more involved and social than reading a novel and the knowledge they get out of it is actual knowledge that corresponds to real events and not crazy useless spirit knowledge.

Very true Jon. I have read about Borges' mathematics (fascinating, though I am not a mathematician by any stretch) but I really read the story as a writer. I always read the story as a universe containing all of the books of that peculiar universe, rather than all books possible, if you take my meaning.

But, that's why I'm not a mathematician, by any stretch. Yet...

I can go on diatribes about "old baseball" and how useless pitcher records are and other sorts of counting stats.

ok, im actually not trying to be contradictory, this time. what would you consider evidence of accuracy? does this mean you will never trust "historical" accounts that maybe only have a few sources and no physical evidence to go with it? again really not trying to just argue, im genuinely curious.

You know, Jon, you say intelligent things mostly, but because you also say things like this



you don't communicate very well.

Why is this?

Suppose the books are truly random sequences of characters. If there are an infinite number of books, how is it possible that every possible book is not necessarily found in the library? That makes zero sense to me.

That'd be like saying it's impossible for a random number generator to write, say, Romeo and Juliet. The chance is absurdly low, but it's obviously possible, and my intuition says it's impossible that it wouldn't be written given an infinite number of attempts.

Are you thinking something like.. random number generators are tailored to give every possibility equal weight, so the longer the sequence, the more likely that all the possibilities will occur with equal frequency? And since English uses a lot more E's than other characters, it really could fail to happen always? Or am I way off base there..

This is a topic I rather enjoy!

JM: You're wrong. While there is unique and worthwhile value in reading fiction, it's not really for the reasons you've given thus far.

Jon`C: You're wrong. While your responses back to JM are quite valid, you've failed to take into account the unique and worthwhile value in reading fiction.

What is the unique and worthwhile value in reading fiction versus non-fiction and over other mediums?

1) Knowledge can be gained indirectly via practicing the use of imagination, which only purely oral mediums can compete with in this regard (and only recordable ones to allow for analytical reflection). Reading fiction teaches through doing how to formulate imagined scenarios better than most other mediums, and the ability to imagine is a necessary skill to gain "real" knowledge. Simulations (which fiction works are) allow people to test ideas out (and generally follow rules enforced through suspension of disbelief, though it should be noted that it is not the goal of all entertainment to create suspension of disbelief since it is the very ability to disbelieve that gives fiction its value). In short, fiction is the hypothesis made in the search for truth, and without it, we would not have a place to begin or the ability to innovate.

2) Knowledge can be gained through reading fiction by giving the reader a perspective that non-fiction and other mediums make difficult to embrace. For instance, a reader may be highly racist and automatically dismiss non-fictional accounts involving people of another race, but reading a fictional account forces the reader to actively imagine the scenario that most other mediums allow the participant to just "accept". The requirement to interpret themselves a situation could more easily allow the reader to identify with a character of another race than with a visual or even oral medium -- the distance given to readers allows for a perspective not easily obtained in other mediums. Fiction and the written word allows for a method of metacommunication that non-fiction and other mediums do not in its ability for metaphor.

3) In parting knowledge, reading fiction offers a variety of special techniques: it allows for the perception of escape from work/"fact" like all entertainment ("sugarcoating"), it can allow for the ACTUAL escape from work (to challenge the perceived value or work/"fact" through antithesis and possibly form a new synthesis on the value of work/"fact"), it allows the reader to go at one's own pace (and ease of going back and forth to digest knowledge as fitting for them as with all written things), and it allows for a level of identification only games can rival with (to "own" the knowledge).

Note that many of these points can be made for all types of fiction and for all types of written works, but it's the combination of these points that I think makes reading fiction relatively valuable in parting and obtaining knowledge. Now, does the vast majority of written fiction fail to capitalize on this potential value? Yes, of course. This, however, does not invalidate its potential for such.

I really wish I could better organize my thoughts on the matter and delve into even more, but work has kept me too busy as of late.

Not given this much thought, but wouldn't the "number of possible books" by your usage of the term be uncountably infinite? The implication of an infinite library is that it contains a countably infinite number of books.

Feck, it comes down to that?

I've never been able to understand the difference between countably and uncountably infinite sets.

Haha, I'll admit that Objectivism is probably not the best example possible. I just recently finished the "Sword of Truth" series & couldn't help but notice throughout that Goodkind was trying to shove Objectivism down my throat. Once I finished the series, I looked the ******* up on Wikipedia, & sure enough, he was.

That's a terrible misconception of historiography. Historians today make arguments based on extremely large and disparate bodies of evidence (patterns in linguistic development, economic records, meteorological records, contemporary writings and later historical documents - which are not necessarily assumed to be accurate.) In truth I would generally trust something written by a historian, partly because I'm not well-educated enough to seriously dispute their arguments, and partly because I am at least able to look at their evidence if I want.

A novel could be very well-researched and full of knowledge, but there is no way of differentiating between the fiction and the fact based on the novel alone.

A fictional novel makes no claim to accuracy, provides no argument, and provides no evidence. This is further complicated by scope (does The Great Gatsby really capture the zeitgeist of the 1920s, or just a narrow segment of the culture?) and by unreliable narration (is Nick Carraway honest about everything he saw? Was he exaggerating?). You can't assume the accuracy of any work of fiction when authors are capable of writing works which are fictional even within their own fiction.

I do, as well.

That's untrue. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I've conceded that literary fiction has a unique and worthwhile pedagogical value (this argument is well-articulated by the paper Mentat posted. I encourage you to read it, and it's only about 23 pages so you should have the time.)

My only remaining objection is that JM insists that the written form has unique value when it ostensibly does not (beyond the technical exercise of reading.)

I completely agree that fictional works are capable of challenging the reader's beliefs, but beliefs are not knowledge.

In epistemological terms, belief is the carrier of knowledge. Belief itself is not knowledge. By the very definitions of knowledge and fiction, a fictional work is incapable of communicating knowledge.



The number of possible books by Freelancer's definition is countable. There is an easy test for this: I can come up with an algorithm which will, given 'enough' time, enumerate all of the possible books (start with an empty book, then book that says "A", then a book that says "B", and so on.) In more mathematical terms, I'm able to construct a 1:1 correspondence (an isomorphism) between the natural numbers and the set of all books (e.g. the binary representation of ASCII text.) As an isomorphism exists between the set of all possible books and a countable set, the set of all possible books is countable.

Excellent question. As shown above, a book is equivalent to a natural number. Therefore, a sequence of books is equivalent to a sequence of natural numbers.

It's easy to see, then, that there exist infinite sequences which are infinitely non-repeating but do not contain every natural number.

Here are a couple of examples:

- (0, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, ...) is such a sequence, but it does not contain the number 3.

- The digits of an irrational number are an infinitely non-repeating sequence of numbers from 0-9 (indeed, it is possible to define an irrational number this way.) We can choose any 'n' books and fill the library with an infinite non-repeating sequence using the digits of pi in base-'n'. If this value of 'n' is less than the total number of possible books, the library will not contain all of the books (pigeonhole principle.)

(Bonus content: Pi is called a computable real number, which means that given 'enough' time a computer will eventually be able to find all of the digits of pi and therefore generate a complete map of the library. A more sadistic choice would be a weakly-uncomputable real number, like sqrt(2), for which the computer would never be able to finish. Even more sadistic would be an uncomputable real number, which cannot even be approximated by an algorithm. Maximum sadism would be to use an indescribable real number, for which it cannot even be described in any language. It should be easy for the builder of the library to find one, because almost every real number is indescribable.)

I still contend that football is as strategically challenging as chess. I honestly think watching, and truly understanding the game will make you smarter.

if your taking into account the strategy that has to go into "designing/building" a play, then executing it while considering capabilities of individual players, score, what down it is, time lift in the game... i think you might be able to make a decent argument.

That's an interesting question because it hinges on the meaning of the word "educational". A novel is generally not intended or designed to convey facts or rigorously defined concepts. However, to say that the medium can convey no useful information about the world is wrong.

First, we must thoroughly discount the fashionable idea that literature and art and general has no objective meaning or interpretation. This is a despicable attempt by elitists to place art on an almost mystical plane beyond the reach of scientific thought and reasoning. We may not have the capability to effectively apply scientific reasoning to literary analysis, but that does not exempt it from the same rules that the rest of the physical universe must obey. We can say that art involves a transfer of information. However, art, like many forms of human expression, is not rigorously exact, even in the case of the written word, but is subject to significant data corruption due to the ambiguity of terms. Languages do not exhaustively define words, and natural human speech and thought does not convey or operate in terms of rigorous deductive or inductive reasoning.

For human beings to function properly, our brains sacrifice precision for speed, and much of the reasoning we do occurs at a subconscious level where we have no control over this tradeoff. We can overcome this by adhering to constructed thinking procedures, and using symbolic logic like math, but this is not the way our minds our designed to operate.

Limited in precision though it may be, fiction can convey certain ideas about things such as human interaction and society that could not otherwise be practically communicated in the more analytical styles that we use for scientific inquiry. This is simply because it is more compatible with our natural modes of thought. While the author only is only able to communicate his intent with somewhat limited probabilistic correctness, this information can still be of used to a human trying to understand the world that he/she lives in. A good author and a good reader with enough in common can imperfectly share an objective idea through a work of fiction.

Okay, but where is the guarantee there won't be a three? I'll just run my RNG one more time and hope for one. This is what I don't understand.

I think there may be some differing on what we understand the library to be.

From the story, I took it to mean that there are an infinite number of books, but the books contain a finite number of characters. (A set amount, like say 300 pages' worth.)

That means that there is a finite number of 'possible books.'

The guarantee is that that is the way it is defined.

I've shown that the library is equivalent to a sequence of natural numbers.

Any fair way of generating the library is necessarily equivalent to fairly choosing an infinite sequence of natural numbers from a list of all such sequences. By definition, (5, 5, 5, 5, 5, ...) is one of the sequences on that list. The probability of choosing that particular sequence is 0 but it is not impossible.

0 probability does not mean it is impossible. If you choose real numbers at random, the probability of ever choosing a rational number is 0, but there are infinitely many of them. So, too, are there infinitely many sequences which entirely exclude at least one book.

Edit: If you are interested, the number of possible configurations for an infinite library are uncountably infinite, even with a finite number of possible books. This can be shown by the diagonalization argument.

That's more or less what I'm saying. Football is probably the most intellectually challenging sport out there in this regard.

Unfortunately it is lost on--OH MY GOD DID YOU SEE THAT HIT!!11 BRAYLON EDWARDS DONE ****ED HIM UP GOOD!!11

Baseball is the only sport (that I know) that is objectively and scientifically researched (Society of American Baseball Research). I think other sports might be coming around to this idea. I've heard talk of a more accurate QB rating where the QB isn't penalized with INTs because he's throwing it to WRs who can't catch to save their lives.

I refuse to contend that QB rating means anything.

Now what's the pedagogical value of reading of listening to music?

God damnit, you self-important bloated *******, get over yourselves will ya. jesus christ.

I'd recommend Football Outsiders for Sabermetrics-like advanced statistical analysis of pro football.

I somewhat agree here, dalf. Hence why two sides of my humanity is satiated while watching football. My savage inner beast, who loves a good smack and face stomping; and the more strategic minded individual, running scenarios, playing odds. I've played football, my dad coaches the sport. There is a lot to think about. Its every aspect of the game that I enjoy.