I understand the argument in the following way: - Fictional worlds have are shallow compared to reality. They have to be, because an author or a collective of

I understand the argument in the following way: - Fictional worlds have are shallow compared to reality. They have to be, because an author or a collective of authors can never get to a depth comparable to reality. - The only world with a deep "worldbuilding" is the real one we inhabit – Earth. - Once we colonize space and let millenia of history go by, we will be able to take a look back and read about many complex "deep" worlds - because all of them will be real. --- I think the argument is already falling apart today thanks to AI writing, that could perhaps generate the blanks to make any fictional world feel arbitrarily deep. We might also eventually simulate entire complex fictional worlds. --- As for whether it's even worthwhile: > I wouldn't want to read an encyclopedia listing millions of fictional people and what they do in their life. I believe the author is not talking about writing a fiction book with millions of boring pages that you would read in parallel. It is more about having access to Wikipedia on deep, complex and internally consistent alternative history/fictional world. I think it sounds fun. It's also fun to read about the actual world history, after all.