Top Gear shouldn't be included

[Meryl]

It's not fictional, and I don't think any show referencing it is implying it is.

[jamiepinheiro]

Would you consider this not to be a valid reference?

I do see some bad references which I'll clear up, but I'm wondering if you're claiming all references should be removed?

[darkshoxx]

I have to agree with @Meryl. If I understand the project correctly, it is about references to shows that are fictional within their own universe. Top Gear is not fictional within our universe to begin with. In the example https://github.com/jamiepinheiro/cyclic_tv_reference_paradox_finder/issues/3#issuecomment-1146869919 someone from the Vampire Diaries is auditioning for the show Top Gear. But still, even here, Top Gear is a show about cars in the Vampire Diaries universe. Therefore Top Gear is not fictional in Vampire Diaries.

Let's entertain the following thought experiment. Let's assume that there is a reference from Top Gear to Vampire Diaries. That's not unreasonable, as they reference pop culture quite frequently.

An argument can be made that the chain VD -> TG -> VD is still paradoxical, but the chain TG -> VD -> TG is not. It's not cyclical in the sense in the way the website introduces the tool.

[Meryl]

Would you consider this not to be a valid reference?

I do see some bad references which I'll clear up, but I'm wondering if you're claiming all references should be removed?

It's a valid reference, but it doesn't actually cause a paradox. Specifically, the paradox requires a show to reference another show and acknowledge it as fiction. Top Gear isn't fiction, so the reference in Vampire Diaries doesn't acknowledge it as such.

Edit: I have to agree with @darkshoxx on the paradox still existing in a sense when you consider VD as the start. That said, it's at that point hard to call it a paradox but I don't know what else you would call it.

[jamiepinheiro]

@darkshoxx @Meryl thanks for the comments, I think I understand where y'all are coming from.

I was on the fence about keeping Top-gear like shows in originally, here's my rationale for why I left em. Let's consider this hypothetical cycle.

Top Gear: "Can't wait to watch the Simpsons" ⬇️ ⬆️ The Simpsons: "Gonna watch some Top Gear"

I'd consider this still to be a since there's a dependency cycle still formed. Imagine a Simpson's character watching that particular episode of Top Gear and hearing the reference to The Simpsons - a paradox.

[Meryl]

Interesting. I think this falls under what I consider in my edit, as what I think isn't exactly paradoxical but I'm lacking a different name for.

But if we consider such a reference as valid, shouldn't other non-fiction TV programs also be included? Specifically, what led you to include Top Gear but not include other non fiction programs?

[jamiepinheiro]

Honestly it was more just happened based on which TV shows came up as popular and had non generic names. You can see "American Idol" is also included.

I do agree maybe a more precise definition of what exactly these paradoxes are, am leaning to removing Top Gear based on your comments. Will keep this issue open for now incase anyone else wants to chime in, thanks!

[jamiepinheiro]

A redditor brought up a good point, maybe the definition could be adjusted to include that at least one show must be fictional for the cycle to be a paradox.

[Meryl]

At this point, I'm wondering if the definition of "paradox" is the thing that's at issue here. Exactly what is the paradox? The way I understood it, is that the paradox exists if all shows acknowledge the other shows as fictional. As soon as one of the shows is non-fiction, the other shows reference it as such and the paradox is invalidated. That means the "rule" would be almost the opposite of what that redditor stated, namely "if any one show in the chain is non-fictional, the cycle isn't paradoxical in nature".

This is to say, when a show (which I'll call A) refers to any other fictional tv show (which I'll call B) as such, that reference is paradoxical if by virtue of transference show B is also calling show A fictional (by referring to it as a fictional show). If at any point in that chain a non-fictional show is referenced, the fictional property doesn't transfer over and the chain isn't paradoxical in nature.

Edit: Ahh, but as soon as a chain refers back to A as fictional from any other show, then from the perspective of show A it's still being called fictional while it's trying to rely on its own perceived non-fiction to give itself the required authority to make that claim. This still leads, at least from the characters of show A, to the dissonant situation in which they're called fictional even though they consider themselves to be real.

It isn't a logical paradox, I think, but I totally see how from the perspective of the characters of the fictional show it would be perceived as such.

Edit2: All else aside, I do think the statement of the other redditor holds in the sense that I think we can all agree that if no fictional show is involved, it certainly can't be considered a paradox.

[darkshoxx]

As a reply to this: https://github.com/jamiepinheiro/cyclic_tv_reference_paradox_finder/issues/3#issuecomment-1146874108 This is exactly what I meant with the TG/VD Example here https://github.com/jamiepinheiro/cyclic_tv_reference_paradox_finder/issues/3#issuecomment-1146872599 . Going back to your example, The simpsons character seeing the top-gear episode mentioning the simpsons is a paradox. However Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear seeing the Simpsons episode referencing Top gear is not a paradox. The chain S->TG->S is a paradox, the chain TG->S->TG is not. Therefore it's not a cyclical paradox by the definitions set by you. Edit: To clarify, for full cylicity, BOTH shows need to be fictional. Otherwise you'd only get it one way round, not both.

[sirxemic]

So at the end of day, what are we looking for? Is this project about how a show can contradict its own existence? Like, if you assumed a show's universe actually existed, are you gonna end up with a contradiction, basically proving that it cannot possibly exist? That's how I see it.

If we include Top Gear, you don't even have to assume The Simpsons is real, since we've already established that Top Gear is real and in the Top Gear universe The Simpsons is not:

Fact: In the Top Gear universe, The Simpsons is fiction. Fact: we live in the same universe as Top Gear Conclusion: The Simpsons is fictional - No paradox

Even if you start with "Assume The Simpsons is a real universe", then you still conclude the same because the facts would contradict the assumption.

In case of a cycle such as A -> B -> C -> A of all fictional shows, it gets more interesting:

Assume A is a real universe. Fact: In A, B is fiction Fact: In B, C is fiction Fact: In C, A is fiction Conclusion: A cannot possibly real, since now A is both real and fiction at the same time. The same logic can be used to conclude that B and C cannot possibly be real. I guess you could call this a paradox?

And to complete it all, in case of a chain (not a cycle!) A -> B -> C

Assume A is a real universe. Fact: in A, B is fiction Fact: In B, C is fiction Conclusion: A could be a real universe. No paradox, obviously.