D&D 5E 4E Cosmology

[Yaarel]

Which is exactly the problem I'm talking about. There are only three possibilities:

1. Only one specific group is actually correct about the structures of reality.
2. No specific group is actually correct about the structures of reality, but it's possible for someone to learn what is correct.
3. All groups are equally correct, no matter how contradictory their experiences may be.

In the Astral Plane, the answer is 3. All groups are equally correct.

The aster is a collective mindscape. Something is "nearby" because it is similar and associates semantically. It reminds one of it. Something is "far" because it is different and doesnt relate semantically. It doesnt come to mind.

The floating islands in the Astral Sea can be larger on the inside, even infinitely so, because, like a dream, there are no actual material distances. The feeling of distance is itself a subjective symbol associating with some idea, or some memory.

This is why the Spelljammer Helmet is necessary magic item to "navigate" the mindscape. It creates an illusory sense of sensorial persistence. Otherwise it would be bewildering to travel the mindscape, and only certain "regions" of the mindscape would be familiar enough to interact with meaningfully.

In the Astral World, actual "objective" matter is nonexistent.

Pedantic's example above, of things conditioned on/by a particular person's hopes/dreams/fears/etc., still permits facts so long as either (a) at least one person can see past the superficial appearance conditioned by those hopes/dreams/fears/etc. and down to whatever fundamental stuff is acting upon those things (meaning universe #1), or (b) currently nobody can, but it's at least possible someone could do that (meaning universe #2).

In the Astral Plane, most of it is "possibilities", the infinite open universe of the mind, the Astral Sea. Cultures form floating islands, dominions ordered meaningfully by cultural assumptions and values. Cultures can be vast ethnicities sharing a language, or perhaps as few as ten persons forming a culture together. The hopes, fears, dreams of a culture are as real as a mountain is in the Material Plane.

If two people can look at the exact same sources of information, and both correctly claim that what they observe is real, even though both of them see incompatible things, then facts do not exist anymore. The person who wrote such a cosmology has ensured that truth has no meaning inside that cosmology. There is no problem in having something that rearranges itself to suit any particular observer's beliefs, so long as there are still things that are inherently true about that thing prior to any such rearrangement--that's reality deceiving you into thinking it is X way when it's really not.

The Astral Dominions are cultures − semantic structures, symbols. They arent "personally" subjective. They are "culturally" subjective. Each language and each collective conversation is an objective fact. So it is possible to enter the Astral Plane and experience the dominion of Neverwinter, or enter the Astral Plane and experience the dominion of Menzoberranzan. Fellow Astral travelers may or may not think to travel with each other.

These regions of the Astral Plane dont occupy physical "space", just like dreams dont take up physical space. Entire universes fit inside ones own skull. What determines the experience is what system of language, culture, symbols, and structuring paradigms come to mind.

Further, there is no problem if, working off your answer, each "region" of the Astral Plane is isolated from others, and thus someone in one region would be speaking only about that region and not about the absolute, complete totality of the Astral Plane. E.g., the World Tree could be correct for one Astral Plane region, while the World Axis could be true of PoLand's region, and the Great Wheel true of Toril's astral region, and likewise Athas and Eberron would each have their own particularly isolated Astral Plane regions.

Traveling to a different plane within the Astral Sea is via one aspect of plane that reminds one of something similar in the other plane. These mental similarities are "whirlpools" and "portals", like a dream shifting from one scene to a different but cognitively associated scene.

So, the arrangement of planes within the Astral Plane can appear in any configuration, whatever sorting code one chooses to organize the thoughts. This is what a Spelljammer Helm does, offers a persistent way to organize thoughts. Organizing the planes ethically, by alignment, is a common way. As Good differs from Evil, Evil is far, far, away. But Good that is slightly Chaotic and individualistic is nearby often sharing the same rooms.

But you cannot have it be the case that the Great Wheel is true for those who perceive it, and also the World Axis is true for those who perceive it, and also the World Tree is true for those who perceive it, all at the same time, in the same "region" of the Astral Plane, all of them looking at exactly the same information, because these three models all make mutually-contradictory claims that can be observed.

All of the configurations are equally true, the Wheel, the 4e Axis, the FR Tree. Whatever sorting code works, to access this kind of informational data.

Okay. Whether it's conditioned by the perceptions of an entire culture in aggregate or a single person makes no difference.

The Astral dominion is a cultural fact. It is more than one person. It matters that it is beyond a single person, because it objectively exists, and persons from other unrelated cultures can visit it.

There can only be three options: either exactly zero cultures correctly understand the structure and behavior of the planes; or exactly one does and all others are incorrect insofar as their perceptions conflict with the one correct perception; or multiple cultures (any number 2 or greater) all "correctly" understand the structure and behavior of the planes, and thus "facts" about the planes are nonexistent, only (cultural) perceptions thereof. A "fact" could be completely true for one culture and completely false for another, and both perspectives are correct. Due to the principle of explosion, this now means you can "prove" literally anything is true--and thus "truth" ceases to have any meaning.

The error here is the error of Nietzsche, assuming that reality is selfish.

There is more than one person that comprises a reality. Those other persons EXIST. Those other persons are inescapable facts of reality. Reality is something that is inherently shared.

Reality is a language, an ongoing conversation about what is meaningful with each other.

 

[TwoSix]

A "fact" could be completely true for one culture and completely false for another, and both perspectives are correct. Due to the principle of explosion, this now means you can "prove" literally anything is true--and thus "truth" ceases to have any meaning.

Not sure why this is a "problem".

 

[the Jester]

Which is exactly the problem I'm talking about. There are only three possibilities:

1. Only one specific group is actually correct about the structures of reality.
2. No specific group is actually correct about the structures of reality, but it's possible for someone to learn what is correct.
3. All groups are equally correct, no matter how contradictory their experiences may be.

How about:

4. All models of the cosmology are merely different ways of looking at it through the limited understanding of mortals, and no one can be sure what is actually going on because it requires senses and understanding well beyond what mortals are capable of?

 

[SkidAce]

We are all blind...

Blind Men and the Elephant

 

[dave2008]

How about:

4. All models of the cosmology are merely different ways of looking at it through the limited understanding of mortals, and no one can be sure what is actually going on because it requires senses and understanding well beyond what mortals are capable of?

Yes, that is how I understand it (or don't as i am a mere mortal myself) in my games.

 

[pemerton]

A "fact" could be completely true for one culture and completely false for another, and both perspectives are correct. Due to the principle of explosion, this now means you can "prove" literally anything is true--and thus "truth" ceases to have any meaning.

I think there is an error here.

If P is true (relative to A) and false (relative to B), there is no sense in which either P or not-P is objectively correct. And in this sort of relativistic framework, proof and entailment (like truth and falsity) will be relative to a perspective, and so the derivation that you are positing, of any arbitrary Q, will not be possible.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Not sure why this is a "problem".

Because it means there isn't anything!

You have annihilated existence itself!

How much plainer do I have to make it?

Person A looks at location X and says, "That place is blue."

Person B looks at location X and says, "That place is not blue."

Both of these people are correct, and thus there cannot BE facts.

That is not acceptable worldbuilding to me. Either there are facts about the structure of reality, or there are not.

Local domains where statement P is true in one domain and false in another? That's probably fine. Spaces defined by cultural beliefs? Sure, you can have those. But the two places those cultures speak about, the places they say mutually incompatible things about, cannot be one and exactly the same place.

It is possible for the World Axis and the Great Wheel to both be correct only if they are talking about two totally different "regions" with little to no overlap. It is not possible for two people to both look at exactly the same place, with the same knowledge, at the same time, in the same manner, etc., etc., as nauseam, and yet (1) actually observe mutually contradictory things, and (2) both be completely, 100% correct.

Either at least one of them is mistaken for each aspect they disagree on, or both of them are mistaken, or facts don't exist whatsoever. You can prove ANY statement from a contradiction.

 

[Pedantic]

Pedantic's example above, of things conditioned on/by a particular person's hopes/dreams/fears/etc., still permits facts so long as either (a) at least one person can see past the superficial appearance conditioned by those hopes/dreams/fears/etc. and down to whatever fundamental stuff is acting upon those things (meaning universe #1), or (b) currently nobody can, but it's at least possible someone could do that (meaning universe #2).

I think you may have mixed me and @pemerton up. I haven't had anything to say about this topic before.

 

[cbwjm]

Considering the sheer size of the planes, I wouldn't be surprised if the world axis and the great wheel are just theories of their structure, it doesn't matter which is true or if neither is true, just pick one for your world beliefs. I mean, how many people can even look at all of creation to give a definitive "Yes, that's the way it is".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think there is an error here.

If P is true (relative to A) and false (relative to B), there is no sense in which either P or not-P is objectively correct. And in this sort of relativistic framework, proof and entailment (like truth and falsity) will be relative to a perspective, and so the derivation that you are positing, of any arbitrary Q, will not be possible.

Yes....which means facts don't exist. As I said.

I think you may have mixed me and @pemerton up. I haven't had anything to say about this topic before.

That's correct. My apologies to both you and @pemerton.